Humanities Natural Selection (or Lack Of)
Realmer
Join Date: 2004-03-12 Member: 27296Members
Join Date: 2004-03-12 Member: 27296Members
in Discussions
If you are easily offended, do not continue reading this post, as it will only destroy this post's purpose, which is to spark more thought of the future of mankind. I am not racist or in any way prejudice, what I write is only my thoughts of what will happen. I have absolutely no plans on pushing for what must happen to fix the problem recogonized here to happen.
natural selection
n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Please, try and view this from a completely mature and scientific stand point.
Prediction
I have come to the conclusion that man kind is in real trouble.
Hypothesis
We no longer are under the pressure of natural selection, and therefore its usual, natural outcome simply does not apply to us. If you haven't gotten the point yet of what I'm pushing for, then I'll just say, this problem may end mankind. Natural selection is an extremely vital part of our continuation as a species. In nature, only the smartest and strongest survive, so only the smartest and strongest can go on to breed and then continue to breed stronger and smarter offspring. Humanity is in a phase in which the dumb and the weak are allowed to continue to live and to breed. We are stopping evolution to go in the good way it should go, which is to have smarter and stronger people, but now we have dumb/strong smart/weak smart/strong, and let me not forget, the dumb/weak people. We have started the deformation and retardation of our species, but I could be wrong as we may actually just be in a phase in which evolution is frozen (I find this just as bad as man kind rotting away). I am not a scientist, or atleast an extremely inexperienced one, and I cannot say how long it will be before the more obvious effects take place. It could be thousand or even millions of years, assuming that we are still arround then, until we can start seeing the effects of the lack of the natural course. Actually, we really are seeing it now, but it has become so normal to us it doesnt matter. It has gradually seeped in and really is already hurting us. Like I said in our current example earlier of intelligence/strength, there should be much fewer of the dumb/weak side as we have today. The dumb and the weak are everywhere, and it is definately not a problem that will go away by itself. All the ideas to the solution I have in mind are extremely sickening, but may actually be necessary, though I consider myself in the midlevel intelligent/strong area, I could never myself push for what I would consider a solution because of the fact I have a good, working consience.
Solution
All the solutions I can think of involve systems no one wants to use, including myself, but may in the end help mankind. They are based exactly on the natural systems which would be governing us instead of our society. Basicly, we need to emulate evolution and natural selection.
About the tests that will be mentioned, they would only recieve on test per years required, and would recieve them in a building designed specifically for doing this, in which no cheating could take place at all. The tests would be designed so that basic intellegence could be examined, and not how much one has actaully learned.
#1 We need to, as an entire world, perform tests on every child. Good years in my mind would be 5, 7, 10,12, and 14 to perform the physical/mental evaluations to see if they can pass the bar which is set for them. The tests would have to ofcourse be extremely well developed and the bar in which would need to be passed would be chosen by leading world scientists to decide the requirement of inteligence/strength. Its very simply, anyone who does not average the requirement after the age of 14 would be exterminated, but there are always more options...
#2 The tests would be the same, but instead of exterminating the children another year of testing would be added at the age of say 17. If they do not pass all the years with decent required results, they would be neutered so they would not participate in pushing humanity down the drain any further.
Emulation of evolution.
/end
If you wish to add a comment to this, please do not flame or make anything that could be considered offensive, but actually add to the ideas. I will repeat, I am not prejudice, as far as I'm concerned, everyone has a right to live how they want to without getting pushed arround. Im just laying down thoughts. I want to hear other solutions or hypothesises to continue thought on this subject. This, generally, is not a debate, more like an observation. I would have posted this in a philosophy forum if one was available.
natural selection
n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Please, try and view this from a completely mature and scientific stand point.
Prediction
I have come to the conclusion that man kind is in real trouble.
Hypothesis
We no longer are under the pressure of natural selection, and therefore its usual, natural outcome simply does not apply to us. If you haven't gotten the point yet of what I'm pushing for, then I'll just say, this problem may end mankind. Natural selection is an extremely vital part of our continuation as a species. In nature, only the smartest and strongest survive, so only the smartest and strongest can go on to breed and then continue to breed stronger and smarter offspring. Humanity is in a phase in which the dumb and the weak are allowed to continue to live and to breed. We are stopping evolution to go in the good way it should go, which is to have smarter and stronger people, but now we have dumb/strong smart/weak smart/strong, and let me not forget, the dumb/weak people. We have started the deformation and retardation of our species, but I could be wrong as we may actually just be in a phase in which evolution is frozen (I find this just as bad as man kind rotting away). I am not a scientist, or atleast an extremely inexperienced one, and I cannot say how long it will be before the more obvious effects take place. It could be thousand or even millions of years, assuming that we are still arround then, until we can start seeing the effects of the lack of the natural course. Actually, we really are seeing it now, but it has become so normal to us it doesnt matter. It has gradually seeped in and really is already hurting us. Like I said in our current example earlier of intelligence/strength, there should be much fewer of the dumb/weak side as we have today. The dumb and the weak are everywhere, and it is definately not a problem that will go away by itself. All the ideas to the solution I have in mind are extremely sickening, but may actually be necessary, though I consider myself in the midlevel intelligent/strong area, I could never myself push for what I would consider a solution because of the fact I have a good, working consience.
Solution
All the solutions I can think of involve systems no one wants to use, including myself, but may in the end help mankind. They are based exactly on the natural systems which would be governing us instead of our society. Basicly, we need to emulate evolution and natural selection.
About the tests that will be mentioned, they would only recieve on test per years required, and would recieve them in a building designed specifically for doing this, in which no cheating could take place at all. The tests would be designed so that basic intellegence could be examined, and not how much one has actaully learned.
#1 We need to, as an entire world, perform tests on every child. Good years in my mind would be 5, 7, 10,12, and 14 to perform the physical/mental evaluations to see if they can pass the bar which is set for them. The tests would have to ofcourse be extremely well developed and the bar in which would need to be passed would be chosen by leading world scientists to decide the requirement of inteligence/strength. Its very simply, anyone who does not average the requirement after the age of 14 would be exterminated, but there are always more options...
#2 The tests would be the same, but instead of exterminating the children another year of testing would be added at the age of say 17. If they do not pass all the years with decent required results, they would be neutered so they would not participate in pushing humanity down the drain any further.
Emulation of evolution.
/end
If you wish to add a comment to this, please do not flame or make anything that could be considered offensive, but actually add to the ideas. I will repeat, I am not prejudice, as far as I'm concerned, everyone has a right to live how they want to without getting pushed arround. Im just laying down thoughts. I want to hear other solutions or hypothesises to continue thought on this subject. This, generally, is not a debate, more like an observation. I would have posted this in a philosophy forum if one was available.
Comments
When we did this in the past with horses and dogs using inbreeding we caused more harm than good in many cases.
Why would you consider intelligence and strength to be the only desirable traits? I'm sure someone can come up with a scenario in which they would be detrimental. Doing this would force mankind to miss out on other traits that these people lack, whether it be creativity, ingenuity, natural resistances to disease, etc., etc.
We should be happy to have such a varied gene pool. When some great pressure is put upon us, then there will be a greater chance of people having the right combination of traits to survive and excel. We don't know what the right combo is, so we must hedge our bets and be as varied as possible.
Anyway, your assessment limps from this point onwards:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Natural selection is an extremely vital part of our continuation as a species. In nature, only the smartest and strongest survive, so only the smartest and strongest can go on to breed and then continue to breed stronger and smarter offspring.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural Selection does <i>not</i> favor the strongest or most cunning or otherwise 'best', it favors the <i>fittest</i>, the ones the most adapted to the current situation. It is, in so far, a highly inefficient process. Imagine, for example, an ice age, and the connected shortage of foodstuff. A big number of the 'strongest' species of that time, those with highly muscular bodies that require much nutrition, will be in severe disadvantage compared to those of high efficiency, but little strength. In a situation of surplus, the image is reversed. Natural Selection will never favor all possible 'good' traits of evolution, but only those fitting into the time.
Also, genetics have shown that the heritage of favorable and infavorable traits is no black-white issue. An example: The most brilliant mathematical minds share a highly significant gene with many autists. In other words, depending on other circumstances, this gene creates either Einsteins, or people with literally no contact to the real world. Now imagine Natural Selection weeding autism out.
It is true that a part of humanity has reached a point in which the individuals survival is no longer in reliance of its relative fittness. This is however not a disadvantage in my opinion, for two reasons:
First, the comparably high efficiency of resource allocation all human societies share compared to a natural system means that we can <i>afford</i> keeping the currently less fit in our genepool, which is invaluable because it will a) mean that we'll have those fit for different conditions among our ranks once these conditions occur, and b) mean that even unlikely favorable genetical combinations will have a chance at occuring.
Second, we should not underestimate our ability to conciously shape our individual evolutionary pathway. This option was existant since people were able to conciously choose who to reproduce with - imagine a woman at the dawn of mankind who has grown smart enough not to look for purely physical, but also psychical attraction in her bedmate - but will be heavily augmented with the introduction of more intrusive biotech. Once we are able to conciously alter our hertitage, we will be absolutely independent from the traditional ramifications of evolution; our mind - its maturity and responsibility - will literally be the only limit of our evolution.
In so far, yes, we've grown independent from Natural Selection. So what?
The way I see it it's all part of our evolution, we don't rely on our bodies as much as we used to, we rely much more heavily on our brains. This has been humanities key card and it's only chance of survival. Not allowing the mentally disabled to breed makes perfect sense. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weak" and "dumb"? Stephen Hawking would certainly fall under anyone’s qualification of weak, but I don't think anyone would want to off him.
Albert Einstein wasn't obviously intelligent at the age of 14, would he have made the cut?
As stated above our diverse gene pool is an asset to us, not a hindrance.
Besides IMO half the worlds population is dumb, but I'm not about to suggest they be killed. Now or in the future
Did you know him? Im sure his average IQ would be superiour to any other 14 year old guy. IQ levels doesnt "kick in" suddenly at a grown up age... It evolves, hopefully, to a higher grade than it was at birth throughout your life. If Einstein was to go through this sort of "Test", he would probably have ranked higher than most other subjects, therefor "made the cut".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As stated above our diverse gene pool is an asset to us, not a hindrance.
Besides IMO half the worlds population is dumb, but I'm not about to suggest they be killed. Now or in the future<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just have one thought. This statement would be groundless if the scenarios suggested was put to life. As there would never be a 1/2 of the world being dumb, there would be 1/1 of the worlds population being smart.
Saying <i>dumb/weak </i>could have any advantage to <b>smart/strong </b>person is just foolish. Basicly cuz, a person being smart/strong would still possess any other positive, mind you, traits.
That'd be my 2 cents, anyways... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Saying <i>dumb/weak </i>could have any advantage to <b>smart/strong </b>person is just foolish. Basicly cuz, a person being smart/strong would still possess any other positive, mind you, traits.
That'd be my 2 cents, anyways... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then show us the gene that switches 'smart' on or off. Because in <i>any</i> case more complex, and I can assure you that reality is one hugely so, this is a balant oversimplification.
Mentally retarted people (and you all know that I do not use that word lightly) often display amazing artistic or musical abilities.
Autists are often amazingly mathematically gifted.
Some of the greatest strategists of all times (most notably Jeanne 'd Arc) were schizophrenics.
The most popular living physicist suffers from a severely crippling genetic illness.
I ask you - tell me how to differentiate between those who are genetically condemned to benefit our species and those who are not. And I've not even started about mementics and social intelligence.
Saying <i>dumb/weak </i>could have any advantage to <b>smart/strong </b>person is just foolish. Basicly cuz, a person being smart/strong would still possess any other positive, mind you, traits.
That'd be my 2 cents, anyways... <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then show us the gene that switches 'smart' on or off. Because in <i>any</i> case more complex, and I can assure you that reality is one hugely so, this is a balant oversimplification.
Mentally retarted people (and you all know that I do not use that word lightly) often display amazing artistic or musical abilities.
Autists are often amazingly mathematically gifted.
Some of the greatest strategists of all times (most notably Jeanne 'd Arc) were schizophrenics.
The most popular living physicist suffers from a severely crippling genetic illness.
I ask you - tell me how to differentiate between those who are genetically condemned to benefit our species and those who are not. And I've not even started about mementics and social intelligence. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would just have "non mentally retarded people" displaying the same amazing abilities.
You would just have amazingly mathematical gifted "non autists"
You would just have another Jeanne 'd Arc (startegists) not being schizophrenic.
You would, believe me or not, have other living physicist, being just as popular, NOT having this crippling genetic illness.
Arguments like that are a null-void (if thats even an english term)
You will <b>allways</b> have people displaying just as amazing traits, without the mental/physical retardness.
I'm aware I simplify matters, as taking all possible twists & turns into consideration, is more than I, for one, would be capable of handling.
INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A GENETIC TRAIT.
There are some genetic conditions in which parts of the brain are crippled and other parts work overtime to make up the difference (autism etc). People in this situation can either be cursed or blessed depending on how they wind up.
By the way, Einstein probably wouldnt have made the 14 year test, at that age he was widely regarded by his proffesors as an annoyance and was even told he'd be better off if he left school (and he did).
Intelligence is more a factor of nurture rather then nature. I will give a personal example.
My father grew up in the fifties, he lived on a small island in the mediterranean sea called Malta. Since Malta was still rebuilding from the flak it copped from WW2, my grandfather was quite poor, and couldnt afford to educate his many many children (my father amongst them).
Because of this, my father grew up illiterate (or near enough so, he can barely read a paragraph without struggling). If he were to go for a test at the age of 14 he probably would have failed miserably and been offed.
However, my father did grow up. He emigrated to Australia in the 70's and fathered 3 children. My brother is learning programming, C++ and the like, he knows cars like the back of his hand and can probably fix anything you give to him. My sister is an accountant with a university level education. I'm also learning programmming and computer systems, I'm due to start my second semester in a few days.
All this from a man who can barely read in his fifties. Had he been offed on the 14 year test, 3 intelligent children could never have come to be and thus the system screws itself in the long run.
Intelligence is more a factor of environment then anything else. I love learning, I adored my science classes and though I hated maths I could never stop myself from enjoying the process of solving those damned calculus equations and trigonometry. There were others that struggled with the subject matter and others still that refused to learn the subject matter at all.
I dont believe for a second that a genetic, inheritable trait, can dictate whether a person can do a calculus equation. Eugenics mustn't be allowed to dictate how we breed and with whom for the sake of increased intelligence.
I think I rambled a bit up there, apologies if parts contradict/dont make a lick of sense.
Excellent job on making me laugh for 5 minutes on and off, Nem! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On topic though, im sure that we humans will figure out a way to introduce a "fix" for everything our "bad gene pool" can throw at us, as long as there's enough smart people to make that happen. And hey, if we dont have any smart people, we're back to natural selection deciding for us, so it ain't <i>so</i> bad... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Either way, nature will fix us, one way or the *snip*
[Nem's buggered my post by being so funny... I'd write longer, but my chest is starting to hurt.]
INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A GENETIC TRAIT.
There are some genetic conditions in which parts of the brain are crippled and other parts work overtime to make up the difference (autism etc). People in this situation can either be cursed or blessed depending on how they wind up.
By the way, Einstein probably wouldnt have made the 14 year test, at that age he was widely regarded by his proffesors as an annoyance and was even told he'd be better off if he left school (and he did).
Intelligence is more a factor of nurture rather then nature. I will give a personal example.
My father grew up in the fifties, he lived on a small island in the mediterranean sea called Malta. Since Malta was still rebuilding from the flak it copped from WW2, my grandfather was quite poor, and couldnt afford to educate his many many children (my father amongst them).
Because of this, my father grew up illiterate (or near enough so, he can barely read a paragraph without struggling). If he were to go for a test at the age of 14 he probably would have failed miserably and been offed.
However, my father did grow up. He emigrated to Australia in the 70's and fathered 3 children. My brother is learning programming, C++ and the like, he knows cars like the back of his hand and can probably fix anything you give to him. My sister is an accountant with a university level education. I'm also learning programmming and computer systems, I'm due to start my second semester in a few days.
All this from a man who can barely read in his fifties. Had he been offed on the 14 year test, 3 intelligent children could never have come to be and thus the system screws itself in the long run.
Intelligence is more a factor of environment then anything else. I love learning, I adored my science classes and though I hated maths I could never stop myself from enjoying the process of solving those damned calculus equations and trigonometry. There were others that struggled with the subject matter and others still that refused to learn the subject matter at all.
I dont believe for a second that a genetic, inheritable trait, can dictate whether a person can do a calculus equation. Eugenics mustn't be allowed to dictate how we breed and with whom for the sake of increased intelligence.
I think I rambled a bit up there, apologies if parts contradict/dont make a lick of sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree intelligence has nothing to do with genetics. My next project: training my cat to write in cursive and make ns models for me.
Intelligence among <b>humans</b> is not genetic, but is instead based on how you are raised and how well you developed when you were conceived... But i will admit that there is certainly a chance of it being genetic. The majority of people out there can be <i>really</i> intelligent, but they usually can't afford it.
There are many birght kids from inner-city areas who would be just as intelligent as suburbian children if given the same opportunities (and if learning and reading weren't frowned upon by their peers as is unfotunately the case for many).
Humans change the situation to fit themselves.
Does that mean no natural selection?
No. We've only really just left caves and tree's behind, our environment is totally different and yet that is environment we evolved for, I very much doubt that fingers were designed specifically for keyboards (don't get hung up on that sentence, its to illustrate the point, I know we designed keyboards for fingers so shhh)
My point is we will always have a goal to evolve too, we will have to become healthier and cleverer than we are now.
Secondly, eugenics is bad! It seems to make sense in theory but we shouldn't be shrinking our gene pool on purpose, it will be bad enough when we start fiddling around with DNA (which is the big worry, evolution is slow but it works, we could end up doing something extreme and completely wrecking ourselves... which reminds me of this great book and... hold on, lets end these brackets otherwise they'll be stupidly long)
So as I was saying, there's this great book by Geoff Ryman called "[<a href='http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006510884/wwwlink-software-21/026-1449194-5138853' target='_blank'>The Child Garden</a> in which humans unravelled the secrets of DNA (or thought they had) and A) gave us all the ability to photosynthesise so we save loads on food (which is cool) and B)cured cancer... which it turns out, cuts our life expectancy massively and we all die in our early twenties. So as we can't fix it we create viruses which educate us so at the age of 3 or 4 everyone can speak perfectly and have a background in the sciences, humanities, the arts etc By 8 or 9 they are earning a living and getting married etc
I won't go on but basically everything goes extremely wrong and finally gets fixed by some girl who is seen as a retard and a freak as the viruses can't infect her... oh and she has an affair with a female human/polar bear hybrid.
So to summarise, books are cool, eugenics is not. Oh and
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You would just have "non mentally retarded people" displaying the same amazing abilities.
You would just have amazingly mathematical gifted "non autists"
You would just have another Jeanne 'd Arc (startegists) not being schizophrenic.
You would, believe me or not, have other living physicist, being just as popular, NOT having this crippling genetic illness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NO! The whole point is many of these good things are the flipside of the negative traits, the two go hand in hand together, don't be a pillock! Yes, you could argue that Hawkings would be just as clever if he could walk but we he have used his full potential? Maybe we need people that are wheel chair bound so explore worlds in their heads in the same way we need idiots that are basically designed for pushing brooms around factory's, after all, someone has to do it.
Plus Einstein was actually pretty renowned for being dumb, he was a car mechanic or petrol attendent or something and had a very average IQ if I remember correctly. It was a way of thinking, not the speed he did it.
Natural Selection is an incredibly slow process, spanning thousands or even millions of years depending on scope. The first humans have been traced back at least three million years, if not further. By contrast, science is developing and "evolving" at blinding speeds. Even with current techniques, we can already modify genes, the driving force behind natural selection, to a certain extent. Where we'll be in ten, twenty, even two-hundred years (an instant in the slow process of natural selection) is anyone's guess. We may no longer be subject to natural selection, but we control our own fates.
My guess is that we'll have full control and understanding of the human genepool long before the lack of natural selection has degenerated us too much. While mother nature's system is very functional and stable, it's also very inefficient and slow. "Mother nature" is only a fictional entity after all, nature and the process of natural selection is entirely mindless. I bet we can do better. Heck, I always wanted that third arm.
Edit: Just noticed: Nem skirted what I said as well. I think I was a little more elaborate though, so I'll leave this. Also, I refuse to have my arguments stolen by him again! *shakes fist*