Unnatural selection

Scioch

We all know the role evolution by natural selection has played in getting humans to this point. Best people suited to the environment thrived while those who weren't didnt and we evolved to become the most adaptive creature on the planet.

Now though we live in a rigged environment where we dont have to adapt or even do much to survive. So there are no people who are ill suited that are failing and allowing the better ones to enhance the gene pool and push the species forward. No matter how lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured you are you can reproduce. Which means we are stagnating as a species and adapting to live in a rigged environment where nothing but social skills are needed.

I have two points in relation to that.

1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society. Do we have to stop these people reproducing if we want to ever achieve our goal of an equal society ? Because as long as those traits remain we will forever be fighting them. If you dont remove them they will forever be there passed own from generation to generation, possibly becoming more prominent as a lot of densely populated areas suit these types of people very well and the planet will become a lot more densely populated.

2. Will this be our downfall as a species ? Millions of years becoming the most adaptive thing on the planet, then thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousand even millions) slowly undoing that by living in an environment where humans essentially live in controlled conditions. Not allowed to fail or fall behind and basically living on life support as a species. With natural disasters that life support might be switched off. Returning us to conditions we would not only no longer be built for but the complete opposite of what we are built for.

TL;DR: Should we try to control our own evolution to suit our new environment or continue to go with the flow and hope it all works out ? Or are we fcuked either way given that we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for ?

Please read the thread before accusing me of trying to start concentration camps. I'm not, in terms of those I refer to as "not suited to this society" I am talking about violent criminals and who cannot exist peacefully alongside other members in society. I am not talking about people with disabilities, I am not trying to perfect the human being and I am not talking about ending any lives. Just trying to improve society in a way that will benefit decent people who just want to live in peace and contribute by reducing the chance of people being born and raised as violent thugs.

Ush1

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

Hande hoche!

Eugenics?

Duggy747

While reading Point 1, I instantly thought of the future in Demolition Man

*You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute*

Ghandee

OP, a lot of us humans have evolved into fine lookin specimens.

I would.....



Beauty.jpg

Hande hoche!

Ghandee wrote: »

OP, a lot of us humans have evolved into fine lookin specimens.

I would.....



Beauty.jpg

You marvellous creature. I laughed heartily.

Diapason

Who do you trust enough to make the controlling decisions?

Apart from me, obviously.

Captain Darling

Soylent green.

Chuck Stone

So you want to gas disabled people is it LordSmeg?

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

Scioch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you want to gas disabled people is it LordSmeg?

No just neuter violent lunatics.

Channel Zero

Is that you Charles?

AnonoBoy

LordSmeg wrote: »

Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution.

Given that ugly and attractive are subjective terms I don't see how a clear line can ever be drawn. Also you seem to think more attractive people will somehow benefit the species. Why and how do you think this will happen?

Being more attractive doesn't neccessarily equal being healthier.

pickarooney

You could argue that evolution is ongoing on a societal level rather than an individual level and/or that by cross-pollinating and reproducing in ever increasing numbers the human race is maximising its chances of producing an inherently better specimen somewhere along the line.

seamus

The beauty about the process of evolution is that it can't be interfered with. Whatever the outcome for humans, however we decide to direct our path, it's the result of the process of evolution.

If "ugly" people are now more succesful than they were previously, that's evolution. It's a natural progression, and all outcomes, whether we consciously try to control it or consciously choose to let it run, all outcomes are the result of evolution. People with previously fatal genetic diseases surviving is not a distortion of evolution, it's simply evolution in another guise.

That is, if we decide as a society to "exclude" certain people from the gene pool, that's the result of the evolution of our brains to the point where we're capable of making those decisions. In that case, we're not "controlling" evolution, we're simply continuing it.

If we decide to just let it go where it takes us, then that too is evolution.

Evolution as concept isn't solely biological - it applies to societies and mental constructs too. The concept of the "meme" demonstrates this kind of non-biological evolution, where those ideas which are favourable to the society survive and expand. Those ideas which are not, die.

The problem is that evolution is painted as a process with an end-goal; to produce the most perfect specimen. That's completely incorrect. The process of evolution simple causes favourable things to be selected because they naturally are better at surviving. There is no "end goal".

Scioch

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Given that ugly and attractive are subjective terms I don't see how a clear line can ever be drawn. Also you seem to think more attractive people will somehow benefit the species. Why and how do you think this will happen?

Being more attractive doesn't neccessarily equal being healthier.

Well if all the people I see as ugly didnt reproduce and all the people I think are attractive did then in my view the will likely be more attractive people. Im just pointing out something that has an impact is all. I'm not saying thats beneficial to the species I was just using it as an example of something that is a factor in reproducing (have to attract a mate).

I was just using it as an example to set up my point about whether or not society should actively try to control people who negatively affect it reproducing as would happen in nature. If your no good for the group the group wont want you, cant find a mate and you dont reproduce. The group then loses the genes of those who are likely to be that way resulting in offspring more likely to be beneficial to the group.

Scioch

pickarooney wrote: »

You could argue that evolution is ongoing on a societal level rather than an individual level and/or that by cross-pollinating and reproducing in ever increasing numbers the human race is maximising its chances of producing an inherently better specimen somewhere along the line.

Given the population will continue to increase and that more manipulative and aggressive people thrive in densely populated areas perhaps this better specimen is what we would currently call a thug ? Great for the species a thug who takes what he wants but bad for creating an ideal society which is what we should be trying to achieve.

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Scanlas The 2nd

LordSmeg wrote: »

Ush1 wrote: »

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

People will always be ugly. No matter how good looking by today's standards we evolve, our perception of looks will also evolve, so someone who would be perceived as good looking today wouldn't may not make the grade down the line if evolution were to increase the standards of looks. There will always be those who are on the lower end of the bell curve in terms of looks, no matter how good looking we evolve and they will be the ugly ones.

Diapason

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though? If you took a person from "good" genes and put them in a "down-and-out" situation, would they turn into violent criminals themselves?

Tell you what, you should arrange for a futures trader to swap lives with a bum, and I bet you $1 the trader will start acting like a bum himself. We just need to be a bit careful that we don't lose our business and wealth on the FCOJ market.

pickarooney

LordSmeg wrote: »

Given the population will continue to increase and that more manipulative and aggressive people thrive in densely populated areas perhaps this better specimen is what we would currently call a thug ? Great for the species a thug who takes what he wants but bad for creating an ideal society which is what we should be trying to achieve.

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Thugs, politicians or business moguls - manipulation and aggression have always been key to dominating your peers. It's a testament to society that artists and the disabled can survive and thrive.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Which society, whose morals, who makes the decisions???

Scioch

seamus wrote: »

The beauty about the process of evolution is that it can't be interfered with. Whatever the outcome for humans, however we decide to direct our path, it's the result of the process of evolution.

If "ugly" people are now more succesful than they were previously, that's evolution. It's a natural progression, and all outcomes, whether we consciously try to control it or consciously choose to let it run, all outcomes are the result of evolution. People with previously fatal genetic diseases surviving is not a distortion of evolution, it's simply evolution in another guise.

That is, if we decide as a society to "exclude" certain people from the gene pool, that's the result of the evolution of our brains to the point where we're capable of making those decisions. In that case, we're not "controlling" evolution, we're simply continuing it.

If we decide to just let it go where it takes us, then that too is evolution.

Evolution as concept isn't solely biological - it applies to societies and mental constructs too. The concept of the "meme" demonstrates this kind of non-biological evolution, where those ideas which are favourable to the society survive and expand. Those ideas which are not, die.

The problem is that evolution is painted as a process with an end-goal; to produce the most perfect specimen. That's completely incorrect. The process of evolution simple causes favourable things to be selected because they naturally are better at surviving. There is no "end goal".

Evolution has no end goal but humans do. So to phrase it better, maybe we should be more actively engaging in trying to achieve that through manipulating the gene pool to create individuals more suited to that end goal rather than trying to achieve it despite the the gene pool producing individuals not suited to it.

Whats favourable depends on the people that gravitate towards it which itself can be changed by changing what the people are prone to gravitate towards. Reducing the amount of violent people reproducing may result in less people gravitating towards more violent methods of doing something.

Scioch

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People will always be ugly. No matter how good looking by today's standards we evolve, our perception of looks will also evolve, so someone who would be perceived as good looking today wouldn't may not make the grade down the line if evolution were to increase the standards of looks. There will always be those who are on the lower end of the bell curve in terms of looks, no matter how good looking we evolve and they will be the ugly ones.

Well I dont want to focus on attractiveness. I just meant that it would have an impact on the evolution of the species.

Scioch

Diapason wrote: »

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though? If you took a person from "good" genes and put them in a "down-and-out" situation, would they turn into violent criminals themselves?

Tell you what, you should arrange for a futures trader to swap lives with a bum, and I bet you $1 the trader will start acting like a bum himself. We just need to be a bit careful that we don't lose our business and wealth on the FCOJ market.

Its probably all interlinked. Take the domestication of dogs. Started as wolves who were aggressive, only the tamest ones were bred and eventually you get an animal pre disposed to be non aggressive. Although still capable of it its less likely to be that way.

Same with humans, scumbag doesnt have a kid thats one less likely scumbag. Whether its because of the upbringing or what they are pre disposed to or a mixture it still results in the same thing. Someone non beneficial to society not given the chance to reproduce and increase the chance of there being more people non beneficial to society.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

LordSmeg wrote: »

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

There is always selection pressures and the resources on this planet are finite so there will forever be a struggle for them.

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

LordSmeg wrote: »

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

LordSmeg wrote: »

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

But they do survive, and that's all that's needed.

Scioch

pickarooney wrote: »

Thugs, politicians or business moguls - manipulation and aggression have always been key to dominating your peers. It's a testament to society that artists and the disabled can survive and thrive.

It always seems to be in conflict with society though doesnt it ? If your a thug you get on grand yet your going against whats expected of you by the rest of society. Something that should result in them losing not thriving.

I think thats the line between the old and the new in terms of society. We know what we want and we are trying to achieve it yet individuals still remain that contradict that and they can so easily thrive in doing it.

seamus

LordSmeg wrote: »

Evolution has no end goal but humans do. So to phrase it better, maybe we should be more actively engaging in trying to achieve that through manipulating the gene pool to create individuals more suited to that end goal rather than trying to achieve it despite the the gene pool producing individuals not suited to it.

Whats favourable depends on the people that gravitate towards it which itself can be changed by changing what the people are prone to gravitate towards. Reducing the amount of violent people reproducing may result in less people gravitating towards more violent methods of doing something.

But that's not guiding or interfering with evolution. If society deems that violence is unfavourable and weeds them out, then that's evolution in action. Nothing more, nothing less.
Likewise if violent people thrive and reduce society to cinders, then that's evolution too.

Ignoring evolution for a second, you have a rather large ethical issue to overcome first - how do you know that people are genetically predisposed to violence? Sure it runs in families and lines, but that then raises the possibility that this is equally likely down to upbringing factors. In that case then, it would be impossible to genetically eradicate violence and we should be looking for other ways to improve these people.

Donnielighto

Diapason wrote: »

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though?

Both society affects the development of a person, genetics affects the inherent disposition. With regard to the argument against the influence of genetics how else do people explained trends in behaviour among breeds of dogs? (We are all animals so don't use that line)

Ush1

Natural selection is not the A honours student, it's the D pass just good enough one who doesn't hope to be any better than that.

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

But thats where we differ from slugs, we can have an end goal, our evolution is not solely dependent on chance. We can control what we are as a species based on what we want to be as a species. By progress I mean changing as a species to best suit our environment. In terms of living in a modern equal society the best individuals suited to that are non violent people who respect others, who do not harm or exploit others. Getting closer to achieving that is the progress we should be after.

There is always selection pressures and the resources on this planet are finite so there will forever be a struggle for them.

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

I disagree I think there is a struggle for a comfortable life not survival or selection. There are monetary pressures yes but they dont affect selection, yes people die every day but many many more thrive and live longer and reproduce more because of medical advancement.

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

I'm not saying it stops I'm saying we are evolving to suit our environment. An environment which doesnt have the struggles and pressures present in the natural world. The struggle by and large in the modern word is a struggle to live comfortably not to survive and reproduce.

But they do survive, and that's all that's needed.

I know thats all thats needed but the point was they struggle to survive while those in conditions closer to the modern world dont. They only struggle to live comfortably. And we are not far into the modern age. The structures of modern society creates an environment that doesnt involves a struggle for survival.

Donnielighto

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

Think he meant it in terms of change btw. Also going by your statement we are as evolved as the original single celled species, no more. I find that incongruous with evolution which is progression from simpler to more complex forms through development and diversifying.

Ush1 wrote: »

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

The waiting list for operations is a bit questionable, people can still have kids especially since they are supported by the rest of society to do so (financially). A wide spread of people having a low number of children and relatively very little to separate people between life and death up to child bearing age as was in the past.

Ush1 wrote: »

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

Thats nuts If that were evolution wouldn't it mean that those women would for want of a better word have come from sex worker "stock" otherwise it would be an inherent chance among humans and these are the ones who havent died otherwise the population proportions would be the same ie not evolution, yet anyway?