Natural Selection - Trim the herd!

Sharza-

Ok, up until a few months ago, I would have been one of the most idealistic people you would have ever met. Very liberal minded, very politicaly correct and above all else very much the equalitarian.

However, a short stay in the real world (moved out of parents home) has taught me that the world, is so far from anything logical, that idealism is a waste of time.

I now consider myself more of a realist, and very much non-politically correct. For example, a few months ago I used to debate endlessly about the lies and deception of the Iraq war. Now I have to admit, I a) Partially don't give a monkeys and b) well maybe is this an evolved form of Natural Selection, Iraq is a threat to America and therefore will have to be removed.

Homosexuality for example. I have a friend who is gay, and I used to participate in protests and other things for equal rights and gay marriage rights. However now I have to "evil" view that really, homosexual people can't achieve the fundamental aim of the human race which is to breed.

Feminism and female rights also, I have to admit firstly that despite advocating it in the past I never actually helped the cause, more of the "armchair warrior" posistion. Now however I find it hard to believe in our country that women are discrimated anywhere. And I fear to say this, but actually believe women are best suited to the housewife role. Still I do not class myself as a Male Chauvinist because although these are my beliefs I would never force or even try to convert anyone to them, mainly because I don't care enough.

Anyway, yesterday I got into a joke conversation with a friend, and even though it was a joke I taught it was actually an interesting idea anyway. Some may find it disturbing and "Hitler" like, and I suppose it is.

We said it was time to "trim the herd" get rid of the kind that nature would have gotten rid of if it wasn't for our technological advances and political protection.

God, you guys are gonna shoot me for this :P

We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

One of the girls in the house heard us talking about this, and albeit a joke conversation, she got understandbly mad. But we managed to convince her that although it sounds cruel, it is infact *probably* what nature would do to us given the chance.

Some of you may find my thinking disturbing, or quite a common mind-set. If you do find it offensive, hate me if you want, but understand, that these are simply my toughts and I would never for a second consider forcing them on anyone.

Anyway, bleh anyone kind of thinking the same thing?

Sharza-

Oops sorry something I forgot to add.

The whole non-violent approach we have these days. If someone annoys you its an almost instant urge to hit them and we have to supress it. However its commonly overlooked with regard to man-v-man. Why though is it worse to strike a woman? Because generally they are genetically weaker? So are alot of males..

pwd

homosexuals can reproduce.
lack of genetic variation is very bad for a gene pool. The natural bias toward physiclally attractive people is dated. What we are attracted to is based on what is positive for survival and evolution in an entirely different environment to the one we are now living in.
Your focus on physical attributes alone regarding who does and does not deserve to reproduce is bizarre. Physical weakness and unhealthiness are not such huge disadvantages in modern society either.
Regardless of the attributes selected, however, there is no way that someone can say what is ok and what is not ok. Why not eliminate freckled people because they are more susceptible to skin cancer? etc tec
I notice you do not suggest eliminating stupid people: Obviously you would not wish to remove your own right to reproduce.

You shouldn't hit a man who is too weak to defend himself either. Women shouldn't hit men also. Men compete with each other, and what they are competing for is women, whether directly or indirectly. A fight is an extreme example of that competition.

Iraq was never powerful enough to pose a threat to america. America wants a strong presence in the middle east in order to control oil supplies form there.

Women are not suited to housewife role. Women in housewife roles get very unhappy because they are generally highly social and gregarious and housewives get isolated and bored. Generall, in comparison to men, women are highly suited to jobs that reuqire social delicacy, perception etc. That ecompasses powerful positions such as doctors, managers, lawyers etc. Natural abilities of men and women complement each other and most roles would be best filled by a mix of both.

I think your thinking is quite immature, and based on trying to be shocking and different for its own sake, rather than coming up with anything original or intelligent to say.
I do, however, agree, that people shouldn't be totally free to reproduce. I do think that everyone should be allowed to reproduce, bt that there should be some incentives or restritcions to force people to wait until they are secure enough emotionally, physically, financially etc to give their children the support they require. Moral people impose this requirement upon themselves, so it is only fair and intelligent to force it upon ammoral people also.

Humblebee

OP: Um, so are there going to be beautiful, hyperintelligent, well-adjusted people scrubbing our toilets, collecting our rubbish, and digging our ditches? Who are we going to lord it over?

Since you seem to pretty good at sussing out the value of people based on a few pretty clearcut criteria, perhaps you should mastermind a slave race. You'd be a great slavedriver...so long as none of those slaves hold any surprises.

Sharza-

Humblebee wrote:

OP: Um, so are there going to be beautiful, hyperintelligent, well-adjusted people scrubbing our toilets, collecting our rubbish, and digging our ditches? Who are we going to lord it over?

Since you seem to pretty good at sussing out the value of people based on a few pretty clearcut criteria, perhaps you should mastermind a slave race. You'd be a great slavedriver...so long as none of those slaves hold any surprises.

Hehe, I sense anger. Well we wouldnt be using toilets or creating rubbish, we would be hunters ect. You know back to being cavemen types.

And no to a slave race, since nature simply weeds out the weaker individuals not make them slaves.

Sysiphus

My friend, I think you are quite young (somewhere in the 20 - 24 bracket) and have yet to learn the cruel truth's of the world. Mainly, to keep your mouth / mind shut (in public) as the truth hurts (those listening).

Many (about 2 years ago) a journalist was castigated for her comments about the participents in the special olympics, recently Kevin Myers was villified for his opinion on a certain element in society.

While I neither agree nor disagree (see, even I abdicate) with either view, the fact that we live in a democratic societyu where freedom of speech is not only a right but a fundamental neccesity, all the (ahem) jouranists (that dean r. - marrion finnucane and joe duffy etc.) were not looking at what was said only what milage they could get in trying to get and appology, without saying why on was needed, when thje participant wasn't allowed to represent themselves. Reminds me of the standard bully tactic in school - "If your so smart then think yourself out of"....punch "haw haw haw.,..."


Go do a straw pole, aske the following

1) did hitler have any benifit for germany?
2) is nuclear power inherently safe?
3) are christianity and hypocrisy mutualy coexistive?
4) Why is it wrong to slap a child if misb behaving?
5) Do you find it strange that you follow (genneraly) both the same religion and political party as your parent if your free thinking?
6) are you racist?

I think you will find stock answers that are expected to ach of these bar 5, which will throw most people that don't engage in debate regularly.

Now to yours, idealim and realism don't mix. Thats not to say shouldn'tfully accept Darwinism / Miltonian view of the wordld "nature, red in tooth and claw" and follow the direct survival of the fitest principle, but all though this is the case in the "natural" world, we are governbed by more than basic impulses. We are led by guilt, that guilt is created by media, which in turn is led by vested interests, which try to portray (in general) white, mid to middle age hetrosexual average build males as the cause of all ills in the world, we hold other back, create the glass ceiliing, generate homophobia and stereotype women in magazines etc......


So get used to being the only segment of society who can't claim discrimination, or that you've been offended, or are the victim of bullying / abuse or assault without being looked at like your the perp or just pathetic.

As for your views on eugenics, in a society that can afford to keep politicicians in clover, why not spend a few more bob and keeep the disabled (sarcasm, in case) in clover too.

Seriously, the whole sick (by what standard??) and disabled canard is futile, who is to say whether a person has a contribution to make. With modern tech it can be seen that even the most dibilitated can function and perform in society, look at liam lawlors preformace in the tribunal and tell me that the lie-o-matic2000 isn't a boon to society!

You will continue to get grief from the female pop if you keep telling them they are inadequate, they can do that for themselves, with the help of the mags!!

"We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.

Hmm, check your genetics, many Thalidomide people had perfectly healthy kids, not all diabetics or astmathics have children afflicted with the same issues.

Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.

Define weak? Einstein, Feynman (physicaly) Stalone, Brosnan (Mentaly), Blair (ethicly)????

Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..

Generaly goodlooks based upon proxcimity to the golden triangle which is a geometric division of the face (distance between eyes, nose etc), however it has been shown that males generally use hip size and bust size as more of an inate guage than anything else.

Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

Not always true, many procreate then follow proclivities, or nowadays donate, so there is no issue (no pun) with gay people having kids (as long as they arn't teachers!!!!! sarcasm again)

Humblebee

Sharza- wrote:

Hehe, I sense anger. Well we wouldnt be using toilets or creating rubbish, we would be hunters ect. You know back to being cavemen types.

And no to a slave race, since nature simply weeds out the weaker individuals not make them slaves.

No anger. Just amazed that you'd be so illogical. Humans are social creatures which means we are tolerant of the weak (at least to a point) because they serve a purpose...and also because 'compassion' as a trait is useful in general.

It would make more sense if you had suggested that we somehow try to curb the breeding habits of those with antisocial behaviors...like murderers, child molesters, rapists, stock brokers, high-level politicians, etc. I guess that would mean eliminating a lot of males, though...

All in all, though, you will always have people who choose to be stupid, ugly (to a degree, this is a choice, as diet, lifestyle, and personality effect looks), and/or $hitheads. You gotta live your own life to its fullest and try to be a 'good' person...cuz that's all you have control of...and then you die.

Wibbs

Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all

Not everybody has to breed for a species to thrive. In many pack animals (Eg. wolf) some members of the group never breed but their input increases the chances of the groups gene survival. anyhoo, if gayness was so bad for the gene-pool chances are it would have been "bred" out by natural selection b4 now. A recent study found that the gene some researchers think responsible for homosexuality carried down the female line and that female line tend to produce more children to adulthood than those women who don't possess the gene. that's an advantage right there.

'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool

Good looks in men and women have so many co factors to take into account. Men look for women with high oestrogen features. The hip/waist ratio small jaw, large forehead, big eyes all of which denote high oestrogen in females. Women tend to look for men with high testosterone features, large jaw , muscles (the oul' bum muscles seem particularly high on the list ), broad shoulders etc. Women tend to temper this with a man's social skills, sense of humour etc. as a very high testosterone male would likely be a less fit partner and parent. Culture also plays a big part in what is thought of as attractive.

Darwin and the Incomplete understanding of Darwinism has a lot to answer for when it comes to humanity. The countries that value the disabled, the gay and the "weak" are among the richest and safest countries in the world. if you want to see survival of the fittest in action. look at some countries in the 3rd world where the social fabric of society has broken down. A very Darwinian environment. They're well round the U bend by comparison

Leonardo Da Vinci was a left handed, probably gay dyslexic. Seemed useful enough to society. Beethoven was deaf, came from a non ideal family background and to be fair to the bloke was pretty handy with a tune.

Define weak? Einstein, Feynman (physicaly) Stalone, Brosnan (Mentaly), Blair (ethicly)????

Einstein was quite a strong stocky chap when younger. Stallone and Brosnan didn't get to where they are and stay there for such a long time by being mentally weak.

Hmm, check your genetics, many Thalidomide people had perfectly healthy kids, not all diabetics or astmathics have children afflicted with the same issues.

Thalidomide was a drug and thus the effects were not genetically transmissible.
Depends on the type of diabetes. Asthma is likely an environmental issue as much as a genetic one.

1) did Hitler have any benifit for germany?

At the start yes, by the end no

2) is nuclear power inherently safe?

Safer and more practical than 90% of the alternatives

3) are christianity and hypocrisy mutualy coexistive?

Insert all religion here

4) Why is it wrong to slap a child if misb behaving?

It doesn't serve as a deterrent and they might slap you back when they're older

5) Do you find it strange that you follow (generally) both the same religion and political party as your parent if your free thinking?

No, because you're not free thinking. No man is an island.

6) are you racist?

Probably. Most people, if they're truly honest with themselves would agree. It's tribalism. Race is just a lazy way to discriminate.

Jeez, I'm worse than a child. I just had to answer them.

Zombrex

Sharza- wrote:

Ok, up until a few months ago, I would have been one of the most idealistic people you would have ever met. Very liberal minded, very politicaly correct and above all else very much the equalitarian.

However, a short stay in the real world (moved out of parents home) has taught me that the world, is so far from anything logical, that idealism is a waste of time.

You live in a social western democracy, build around a very large number of political and social ideals (freedom or movement, freedom of religion, right to protection, right to life, right to self government, right to employment, right property, right to health etc)

To be perfectly honest these silly survival of the fittest threads piss me off. There have been a few in the last few months. If we really lived in a "natural selection" society you would be dead by now. Someone stronger probably would have killed you when you were a child. The only reason you are able to sit at your little computer and write about how dog eat dog you believe the "real world" really is is because of the hundreds of idealist people who came before us and actually build a structure of society that you are free to do that, because you don't have anything else to worry about, such as getting eaten, shot or dying of from a cut on your leg or the water.

Fysh

Sharza- wrote:

we would be hunters ect. You know back to being cavemen types.

2 points :

1) What exactly are the advantages to the species of reverting to cavemen types, in terms of humanity's aim being to reproduce? (not something I agree with, btw - unless you're talking on a purely genetic level, that is, which precludes any intelligent discussion on the matter since we wouldn't be able to influence it) I mean, we'd lose all our advanced medicine and research into disease immunity, meaning something like a simple fall or minor tumour would wipe out otherwise serviceable individuals. Of course, people proposing this kind of thing seem to assume they won't be the ones culled....

2) Has anyone else noted the irony of advocating what appears to be the renunciation of technology and a return to primitive ways on the interweb?

Victor

Herds reject anti-social types and kill them. I propose we kill Sharza-.

Of course under Darwinism, the system kills the weak. You don't create a system to kill the weak.

ykt0di9url7bc3

well If *I* was going to set an order for natural selection I wouldnt tell the herd...

"Please board the Train, Your new lives start at the...*cough*...Processing Facility!"

How can one acheive anything if one has no obstalces to overcome...
Einstein, Feynman, Stalone, Brosnan, Hawking, Ray Charles, Bethoven

joseph brand

To 'Trim the Herd', only works in the society of animals with little or no intelligence.

Everybody is different and this includes levels of intelligence and beauty, (luckily I rank about a 10 out of 9 on these three scales).

These traits make people and the world an infinitely interesting world full of endless possibilities and ideas.

Wether you like people or not, we should never think we have the right to tell others how to live, aside from travellers who eat their own faeces and townies from inner city Dublin who stab people.

I like cake!!

simu

Sharza- wrote:

However, a short stay in the real world (moved out of parents home) has taught me that the world, is so far from anything logical, that idealism is a waste of time.

What happened exactly to change your mind? Give examples. Did you decide women are best suited to being housewives because Mammy wasn't there to do your laundry for you anymore? (The horror!!!one!!!). Did all the nasty stupid people whom you believe don't deserve to live manage to take the jobs and apartments you were applying for?

Is this the most radical set of ideas you could come up with? As others have said, they're not very original.

Fysh wrote:

2) Has anyone else noted the irony of advocating what appears to be the renunciation of technology and a return to primitive ways on the interweb?

/me hunts large boar with meh spear

the_syco

Sharza- wrote:

Hehe, I sense anger. Well we wouldnt be using toilets or creating rubbish, we would be hunters ect. You know back to being cavemen types.

And no to a slave race, since nature simply weeds out the weaker individuals not make them slaves.

And you'll sty in the cave, while us geeky types will make guns and bombs, and wipe you off the face of the earth. You may be stronger and better looking, but a simple squeeze of the trigger on a M60 would pretty much destroy those features.

=-=

Do you know any straight males who do a good job in designing clothes?

=-=

Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beuty is also in the eye of the beholder.

=-=

Me presses the button to launch a few nukes. Natural Selection? Sure, cos "naturaly" I didn't like them

ionapaul

joseph brand wrote:

To 'Trim the Herd', only works in the society of animals with little or no intelligence.

Rubbish. If you take 'Trim the Herd' to mean being unable to reproduce or reproduce less successfully, throughout human history (and we are the most intelligent of animals, are we not) the rich, smart and attractive have had more surviving children than the poor, stupid and ugly. It is only in the last 100 years that in Western society, the poor have started having more children than the rich.

As others have stated, homosexuals and other non-reproducing individuals (women past child-bearing age) contribute to the social group's reproductive success in different supportive ways. If related to the children in the group, they share much of the same genetic coding and so it is not surprising that they are driven to help out - DNA works through all of us to ensure its reproduction, not our reproduction!

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

Rubbish. If you take 'Trim the Herd' to mean being unable to reproduce or reproduce less successfully,

It actually mean the weaker (slow, ill, over weight etc) animals get eaten by preditors ... and joseph says that doesn't work when you are intelligent and your preditor isn't, you just build a gun and shoot the lion.

The principle still works in humans on an illness level, to some extent, the AIDS crisis in Africa is an example of nature "trimming the herd", but of course if we take that to the natural conclusion the human race would be trimmed down to a small handful of HIV resistant people who then rebuild the race. And that wouldn't be very nice for all concerned.

ionapaul

10% of Europeans are (supposedly) resistant to HIV - just saw that during the week. OT but facinating

HarryD

Sharza- wrote:

Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

I'd have to agree with you on most things.
The process of natural selection would indeed trim the herd.
I'm friendly with a family who I reckon are a weak breed.
The mother is v.clumsy, always sick, and not very intelligent.
The daughters have a ghostly look about them, and are regularily
sick, with various genetic problems..etc
While this family is one of the nicest I know, I think they would
not have survived in the stone age.
"Weak breed" is commonly used by Farmers to describe for example
a calf this is regularily sick. (or as they say in Carlow: Wake Brayd)
Likewise homosexuals.

Not so sure about people that are considered ugly.
This may be a product of todays f00ked up society.
If a woman is fertile, natural urges/scents will result in her
copulating regardless of how she looks.

simu

HarryD wrote:

I'd have to agree with you on most things.
The process of natural selection would indeed trim the herd.
I'm friendly with a family who I reckon are a weak breed.
The mother is v.clumsy, always sick, and not very intelligent.
The daughters have a ghostly look about them, and are regularily
sick, with various genetic problems..etc
While this family is one of the nicest I know, I think they would
not have survived in the stone age.

Except that we're living in the information/high-tech/whatever it's called Age. Why do you define Stone Age society as natural and this society as unnatural? At what point do you think humans moved from a "natural" to an "unnatural" state? Besides, that family might well have survived in the Stone Age. Humans always lived in groups where the stronger members protected weaker ones from threats.

HarryD

simu wrote:

Except that we're living in the information/high-tech/whatever it's called Age. Why do you define Stone Age society as natural and this society as unnatural? At what point do you think humans moved from a "natural" to an "unnatural" state?

We've devoloped into a complex society due to our large brains.
Other species have a relatively primitive society,
where natural selection can be observed.
Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.
I don't think todays society is un-natural, but I do think we are
misguided, in many ways.
like systematically devoloping weapons of mass destruction with the
sole purpose of destroying 1000s of our fellow Humans.
No other species destorys it's own in such numbers.

simu wrote:

Besides, that family might well have survived in the Stone Age. Humans always lived in groups where the stronger members protected weaker ones from threats.

Possibly, depending on what age/society they lived in.
But they would have a smaller chance of survival than a strong breed.

simu

HarryD wrote:

We've devoloped into a complex society due to our large brains.
Other species have a relatively primitive society,
where natural selection can be observed.
Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.

No, natural selection is always happening - you can't escape it.

HarryD

HarryD wrote:

Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.

simu wrote:

No, natural selection is always happening - you can't escape it.

Where did I say it's stopped happening ?

Zombrex

simu wrote:

No, natural selection is always happening - you can't escape it.

Natural selection isn't really a "thing" .. it is not a single process, like genetic mutation, or the tides, or humming bird migration

Natural selection is more a general term put to a large number of independent processes that all share the common characteristic of killing large numbers of animals, so that only a few strong miniority survive.

A meteor shower is natural selection, so is HIV, so is climate change, so is nuclear war. Anything that kills life forms is natural selection. If we completely wipe out all life on earth bar a handful of bateria, that is natural selection.

The process of disease "triming the hurd" is not happening as much as it used to effect the human race. Likewise we in the western world have managed to control our food production to the point where famine "triming the hurd" does nto effect us as much. We have also got to a stage where no large animal hunts us to the point that it would cause natural selection

So technically you can't (as even i myself have made the mistake of doing) say that natural selection is or is not happening anymore, because natural selection is not a process in of itself.

simu

OK so, processes that may be classified under the name of natural selection are happening all the time.

Where did I say it's stopped happening ?

Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.

There - well, you didn't say it had stopped but you seemed to be suggesting we were escaping processes of natural selection whereas to me it seems one process ("trimming the herd") has less impact due to the way our society is set up but that other processes are at work as well.

Victor

Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.

It does. It's just a different type of natural selection. Back then you had to fight for survival, not you fight for personal advancement.

In one way, natural selection is very subjective. The tools it uses are the tools of the time. Communicable diseases weren't a huge problem 10,000 years ago, simply because societies weren't big enough for disease to spread far. Now, while we have planes to tranport us over thousands of km to save us from an arduous and sometimes physically dangerous journey by foot, those same planes spread SARS rapidly.

joseph brand

Quote from Sharza-

Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

mmmmm, get rid of homosexuals to trim the herd, are they not trimming the herd already by themselves by not procreating???

I think gays are great. More women per bloke, unless there are as many gay women as men, I hope not.

Ah sure I could always try and worm my way to a three-way

Zaphod

HarryD wrote:

I'd have to agree with you on most things.
The process of natural selection would indeed trim the herd.
I'm friendly with a family who I reckon are a weak breed.
The mother is v.clumsy, always sick, and not very intelligent.
The daughters have a ghostly look about them, and are regularily
sick, with various genetic problems..etc
While this family is one of the nicest I know, I think they would
not have survived in the stone age.

Can we squash one canard from the outset - natural selection does not mean that it is the physically strongest who survive and thrive. What it does say is that those who have the genetic makeup which allows them to cope best with the environmental conditions at a given point in time are the ones which are most likely to survive, reproduce and increase in number.

At the last great extinction, it was the massively powerful dinosaurs who disappeared, while the lowly mammals lived on and eventually flourished.


If we take a similarly hypothetical situation to the stoneage one where a new virus sweeps across the globe, who's to say that that family may not possess a genetic mutation which allows them withstand it where others might perish? Natural selection under those conditions would see them as being the 'fittest' (best fitted to their enviroment if you will).

BTW how do you know their sickness is genetic and not environmental, or even a genetic predisposition to an illness which is triggered by outside environmental factors?

As to the mother being "not very intelligent" surely this again has far more to do with environment and upbringing (schooling etc) than genetics?

HarryD wrote:

"Weak breed" is commonly used by Farmers to describe for example
a calf this is regularily sick. (or as they say in Carlow: Wake Brayd)

You can ask the same farmers who have been breeding cattle to obtain higher and higher milk yields about the sort of problems they encounter when they decide to cull the "wake brayds" out and create for themselves an ever smaller gene pool (e.g. higher incidence of mastitis, increased need for Caesarian delivery of calves etc). In more today's more enlightened times, breeders have cottoned on to the fact that breeds that were thought of as being of little or no value in the past, are surprisingly useful after all (disease resistance, higher milk quality etc.)

This notion that if you take a 'perfect' male and female and mate them, that their offspring would be equal or even superior genetically is the sort of eugenical nonsense worthy of a 19th century Victorian. Science has moved quite a bit in the last hundred years or so.

HarryD wrote:

Likewise homosexuals.

Likewise how exactly?

HarryD wrote:

We've devoloped into a complex society due to our large brains.
Other species have a relatively primitive society,
where natural selection can be observed.
Back in the stone age humans were affected natural selection,
to a much greater extent than nowadays.
I don't think todays society is un-natural, but I do think we are
misguided, in many ways.
like systematically devoloping weapons of mass destruction with the
sole purpose of destroying 1000s of our fellow Humans.
No other species destorys it's own in such numbers.

And it was via natural selection that we evolved from much physically stronger and resiliant ancestors (such as Homo erectus) into modern Homo sapiens because our large brains gave us an edge over them under the environmental conditions at that time. Natural selection favoured larger brains over greater brawn.

So if natural selection got us into this mess, what makes you think it will get us out of it?

simu

Anyway, the great flaw of the argument that started this thread is that it's meaningless to claim that certain people would not exist if "natural selection had its way" because, well, they do exist. It's a bit like saying you shouldn't tidy your room because it goes against the principle of entropy, no?

amp

Ok, this thread could blow up at any stage. I will not tolerate anything that isn't a well thought out argument. Anybody who is going to reply should read the charter first.

Besides, this whole thread is built on the foundation that nature (or God/Allah/A giant space goat) has a purpose for us and that's to breed. The problem with that is that we've been living outside of nature for quite some time now. We can control some of it and even leave the planet.

I prefer to believe that our purpose is to find out as much as we can about the uninverse before it dissapates (collapses/get's eaten by a giant space goat/whatever)

CIVIL LANGUAGE! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! INTELLECTUAL POSTS OR BANNING!

Humblebee

amp wrote:

Besides, this whole thread is built on the foundation that nature (or God/Allah/A giant space goat) has a purpose for us and that's to breed. The problem with that is that we've been living outside of nature for quite some time now. We can control some of it and even leave the planet.

I prefer to believe that our purpose is to find out as much as we can about the uninverse before it dissapates (collapses/get's eaten by a giant space goat/whatever)

Actually, unless you believe in a god (or spacegoat), it's clear that we don't have a purpose. It's nice to think that we should pursue lofty, intellectuals goals, but really this is probably just us making some sort of subconscious effort to better our species' chance of survival.

Not saying that we are merely driven by those little dna strands (as some purport), but I think the only way to live a satisfying life is to acknowledge our place in the natural world. We don't 'live outside of nature', and leaving the planet doesn't mean we living outside of nature. If anything we have to be hyper-aware of nature in space. (Living in space would be great! Maybe.)

Cake is good.

Redleslie2

Sharza- wrote:

Homosexuality for example. I have a friend who is gay, and I used to participate in protests and other things for equal rights and gay marriage rights. However now I have to "evil" view that really, homosexual people can't achieve the fundamental aim of the human race which is to breed.

Feminism and female rights also, I have to admit firstly that despite advocating it in the past I never actually helped the cause, more of the "armchair warrior" posistion. Now however I find it hard to believe in our country that women are discrimated anywhere. And I fear to say this, but actually believe women are best suited to the housewife role. Still I do not class myself as a Male Chauvinist because although these are my beliefs I would never force or even try to convert anyone to them, mainly because I don't care enough.

If you "don't care" don't post your rubbish.

We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

The nazi cult had the same silly pseudo scientific ideas and look what happened them. They got trimmed from the herd more or less.

Some of you may find my thinking disturbing, or quite a common mind-set.

I think you have some issues to deal with and you should read some psychology. Homophobia and crude sexism may result from one being unable to accept one's own latent homosexuality.

Neuro

Sharza- wrote:

I now consider myself more of a realist, and very much non-politically correct. For example, a few months ago I used to debate endlessly about the lies and deception of the Iraq war. Now I have to admit, I a) Partially don't give a monkeys and b) well maybe is this an evolved form of Natural Selection, Iraq is a threat to America and therefore will have to be removed.

What you're espousing here is a form of Social Darwinism that was common in the early 20th century. It's the belief that natural selection favours groups within a species and therefore it's beneficial for society to rid itself of inferior groups for its own benefit.

This belief arises out of a fundamental misapplication of the theory of natural selection. Natural selection only selects the individuals that are fittest in a particular environment; it does not operate at a group level.
In other words, at a purely biological level, only individuals compete with each other to pass on their genes, groups do not.

You may want to read the following books to get a more up-to-date account of how evolution and natural selection actually work:

The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary Psychology, David M. Buss

HarryD

Zaphod wrote:

Can we squash one canard from the outset - natural selection does not mean that it is the physically strongest who survive and thrive. What it does say is that those who have the genetic makeup which allows them to cope best with the environmental conditions at a given point in time are the ones which are most likely to survive, reproduce and increase in number.

and often this means the strongest. But not always as you say.

Zaphod wrote:

BTW how do you know their sickness is genetic and not environmental, or even a genetic predisposition to an illness which is triggered by outside environmental factors?

I don't. I'm just pointing out that I don't think they would have as high a chance of survival in the stone age, regardless of how their sickness is caused.

Zaphod wrote:

As to the mother being "not very intelligent" surely this again has far more to do with environment and upbringing (schooling etc) than genetics?

Intelligence has nothing to do with education.

Zaphod wrote:

This notion that if you take a 'perfect' male and female and mate them, that their offspring would be equal or even superior genetically is the sort of eugenical nonsense worthy of a 19th century Victorian. Science has moved quite a bit in the last hundred years or so.

Not superior to any other being. Just have a higher chance of survival.

Zaphod wrote:

Likewise how exactly?

? Homosexuals would not have procreated in the stone age.

Zaphod wrote:

So if natural selection got us into this mess, what makes you think it will get us out of it?

What mess ?

F Fiesta

I think you have some issues to deal with and you should read some psychology. Homophobia and crude sexism may result from one being unable to accept one's own latent homosexuality

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.


And it's no surprise that his username begins with 'Red'.

Sharza-

Sorry havent replied or anything, first off to those attacking me, remeber that thing Im sure you preach, "freedom of speach" n all, yeah thanks for that, now go, shoo!

simu wrote:

What happened exactly to change your mind? Give examples. Did you decide women are best suited to being housewives because Mammy wasn't there to do your laundry for you anymore? (The horror!!!one!!!). Did all the nasty stupid people whom you believe don't deserve to live manage to take the jobs and apartments you were applying for?

Heh, well thanks for assuming the worst anyway.

Anyway, I suppose you are a bit right, most of these feelings originally stemmed from being bitter towards (from my perspective) unfairly getting the sh!t end of the stick in the big bad world. However that is not how I finally came to this way of thinking. Let me example you as you asked. Funny thing (funny now cause I know better) but I took things and stuff from TV for granted, women for example(now hold up dont throw me on the internet-woman-hater bandwagon, im not blaming women, read on), I had this idea that women went for "nice, honest, sensitive guys" so I tried to be this and as a result stopped being true to who I am, I started appologising for being male almost, when I later learned what was being broadcast in my face the whole freakin time, was that women went for the "popular bloke" (or now as I would say, the High status male). So I became bitter thinking things like, "shallow fools", then I started thinking, well Im kinda shalow too honestly, I only go for looks, (personality would matter if looking for a long-term thing, simply to prevent insanity, or perhaps enjoy the company). I also started realising how even more shallow I was. Despite sometimes being with a girl I was really attracted to, I would catch a glimpse of other women who were also attractive, maybe even less so than my girlfriend, and have this massive urge to shag em :P.

Then I realised this:

Me going for looks.
Me having sexual desire for all attractive females I see.
Women going for high status males.

Its not shallow, its natural. All these at first seemingly superficial things have very powerfull biological reasoning. I feel there is very much the animal part in all of us begging for attention. And began to love these things.

For example:
Sometimes Im sitting here at the pc or watching tv, or just going about daily life and I have this massive urge to just start running, and expending all my energy, even for no obvious goal, it doesnt havent to be purposful at all.

Or guys in nightclubs who get all thick when someone is chatting to their girlfriend, I like others used to think "that guy has major inseucirties", yeah maybe, or maybe its just the natural impulse I allways felt in the same situation to as it were "protect my herd".

But my favourite of all, was a girl I knew who one day when asked by a friend what she looked for in a man, and she said hes gotta be tall or atleast able to handle himself, I said why for curiositys sake and she said to feel safe. In my head I was like "pff, what you need to feel safe from these days?" and then it hit me, just because she doesnt need it these days means nothing, its one of those hidden animal in us all, she would look for a mate able to protect her.

I find this stuff cool, and I feel much happier accepting these things instead of getting on the moral fabric wagon.

Tommy tiernan put it brilliantly in one of his dvds, i forget which one, where he said something along the lines of:

"Its very hard to capture this feeling as an adult, its that feeling you had as a kid when you were running down a hill that was too steep for you" or something like that.

Now whats so inherently great about running down a hill, nothing really but its still great fun, why? Dunno, but its that same as when you pull the lead out and your dog has a hissy fit because he gets to go outside, even though he spends most of his time there anyway.

simu wrote:

Is this the most radical set of ideas you could come up with? As others have said, they're not very original.

What did you want? Renaissance material? Pfff


Anyway(i say that alot), Im a terrible ranter, and I dunno where I started, but I assume its not the same place I finished

HarryD

F Fiesta wrote:

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.

I have to agree..
Shallow minded muppets.

MorningStar

All quite amazing.

Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep.

Sexual attraction is obviously going to have an animal element as it is a basic animal desire. As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in. Don't mix up what you heard in the media and the rights of people in society.

No explanation why woman are suited to home life. You could have made valid point about multi-tasking and how woman or better, the 9 month bonding with the child and maybe breast feeding. Worth a debate but in our culture an equally of the roles is seen as important. There is a settling in period that has had bad results such as increased male suicide, increase in single parent families and increased childcare raising.

Just because somebody isn't going to breed doesn't mean the forfeit their rights.

Animal social structures are about survival of the fittest. Animals constantly compensate for injured memembers and even take in animals of different types in. Haven't you heard of Tarzan?

I have to guess you are the person who rings up phone surveys to say you are undecided. I don't particualry mean to insult you but the way your arguement has been put accross leaves little choice as it is just opinion with no reason or logic on some points.

There could be some logic about weak genes and fertility assistance. By assisting people who can't naturally have children are we interferring with nature's way of sustaining an order? Debateable and I must admitt I am unsure. Anybody know how they make sure sperm donation doesn't cause half brothers and sisters from meeting and have children?

BuffyBot

remeber that thing Im sure you preach, "freedom of speach" n all, yeah thanks for that, now go, shoo!

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

bonkey

Sharza wrote:

it is infact *probably* what nature would do to us given the chance.

The use of the term "given the chance" is simply a way of saying "if we were different to what we are now".

You can carefully choose your time along the timeline of our evolution and say "look - if we were at this point....I'm more-or-less correct". Of course...if we move slightly higher or lower on the evolutionary scale, then your premises don't hold true. So...whats so magic about the point you've chosen? Why is it the defining point in our evolutionary scale?

Because if there's no reason to say that its a defining point, there's no reason to argue that this is what nature would do "given the chance", but rather, what would happen if we were at a particular and different point on our evolutionary scale. But we're not....so its as relevant and meaningful a question as musing what would happen if Pangea had never split up, or if one of the extinction events had wiped out more species.

If one were to believe in a defining point in the evolutionary scale, of course, then surely one should not avail of any of the advancements that we have made (sociologically and scientifically) since then before taking the moral high-ground to suggest that others shouldn't also reap those benefits.

i.e. Anyone who actually believed those people you list should be put to death despite the fact that the traits mentioned are not purely inherited because nature would "take care" of them if we were at our defining evolutionary point should first show themselves willing to embrace that evolutionary point before suggesting others should be forced to. Anything less would by hypocritical surely?

GuanYin

Just a quick note that this whole thread is based on a completely erroneous view on what natural selection is and how it works.

So basically the whole discussion is, scientifically, a nonsense.

Just as an aside, regarding "ugly females" - what we view now as attractive and ugly, is not the same as what other cultures view as attractive and ugly. Furthermore, what we NOW view as ugly, is not what we would have viewed as ugly 30-40 years ago.

Society largely dictates what we find attractive (familiarity is another, although several instinctive reflexes can come into play too) and although now we see rake thin uncurved females as attractive, as recently as the 60's a sinze 10-12 was the shape of a sex symbol. One modelling agency said a few years ago that had Cindy Crawford been discovered today, she'd have been asked to lose half a stone.

Sharza-

MorningStar wrote:

All quite amazing.

Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep.

Sexual attraction is obviously going to have an animal element as it is a basic animal desire. As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in. Don't mix up what you heard in the media and the rights of people in society.

No explanation why woman are suited to home life. You could have made valid point about multi-tasking and how woman or better, the 9 month bonding with the child and maybe breast feeding. Worth a debate but in our culture an equally of the roles is seen as important. There is a settling in period that has had bad results such as increased male suicide, increase in single parent families and increased childcare raising.

Just because somebody isn't going to breed doesn't mean the forfeit their rights.

Animal social structures are about survival of the fittest. Animals constantly compensate for injured memembers and even take in animals of different types in. Haven't you heard of Tarzan?

I have to guess you are the person who rings up phone surveys to say you are undecided. I don't particualry mean to insult you but the way your arguement has been put accross leaves little choice as it is just opinion with no reason or logic on some points.

There could be some logic about weak genes and fertility assistance. By assisting people who can't naturally have children are we interferring with nature's way of sustaining an order? Debateable and I must admitt I am unsure. Anybody know how they make sure sperm donation doesn't cause half brothers and sisters from meeting and have children?

Have to say, again with the me bashing. Seriously what an amazing judge of character you are, really from two posts you have solved all my issues, and they stem from my childhood and lack of personality. You muppet.

Seriously I am annoyed now, flaw my theory like the rest are doing fine. But what the feck are you flaming me for?

"Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep."

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

"As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in."

What the hell does everyone do in their teens? Put on facades and try to fit it. And I said I used to do it.

Part of me is wanting to slag the hell out of you now, but I wont, because I cant be arsed.

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

LOL ... yes I always love it when people come up with the Fox News definition of freedom of speech (we have the right to say what ever we want, and you have the right to shut up about it!).

To OP, no one is stopping you from saying what you like. We are just pointing out that it is a rather silly and ill formed argument

HarryD

psi wrote:

Just as an aside, regarding "ugly females" - what we view now as attractive and ugly, is not the same as what other cultures view as attractive and ugly. Furthermore, what we NOW view as ugly, is not what we would have viewed as ugly 30-40 years ago

Have you read the thread ?
This point has already been made.
The_syco wrote: "Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder."

psi wrote:

So basically the whole discussion is, scientifically, a nonsense.

Perhaps you should read it first ?

simu

Sharza- wrote:

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

Great revelation coming up:

There are these things, they're called newspapers and they like, tell you about stuff like that...

MorningStar

Sharza- wrote:

Have to say, again with the me bashing. Seriously what an amazing judge of character you are, really from two posts you have solved all my issues, and they stem from my childhood and lack of personality. You muppet.

Seriously I am annoyed now, flaw my theory like the rest are doing fine. But what the feck are you flaming me for?

"Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep."

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

"As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in."

What the hell does everyone do in their teens? Put on facades and try to fit it. And I said I used to do it.

Part of me is wanting to slag the hell out of you now, but I wont, because I cant be arsed.

As I said I didn't want to insult you but you stated opinion without reason or logic. You have done so again, landlord provide a service that is required WHAT makes them a rip off? Insurance is a rip off WHY? THey make too much profit ?
At 18 I was aware of how insurance was calculated what a landlord provides. The fact you didn't suggests your family either never discussed current events or you paid no attention to news and you were in a vacum. As you couldn't empathised with the situation before maybe if you worked in the insurance industry or become a landlord you could make a balanced arguement. You could just decide to completely swing your opinion again.

Learn to debate your points and keep to the ones you originally made. WHY are woman better suited to be housewifes than working according to you? No reason given by you yet people asked for your reasoning. Your a big boy now stand your ground and explain.

When I was a teen I was trying to figure out who I was not how do I blend into the herd.

Victor

Sharza- wrote:

I wont, because I cant be arsed.

Obviously the sign of a weak person ......

Humblebee

MorningStar wrote:

Learn to debate your points and keep to the ones you originally made. WHY are woman better suited to be housewifes than working according to you? No reason given by you yet people asked for your reasoning. Your a big boy now stand your ground and explain.

Morningstar, the OP obviously came to this very logical conclusion when he moved out of his parents' house and had to do his own laundry. He wasn't able to handle this chore, even though his mother made it all look so easy. Therefore, he came to the very reasonable conclusion that women have a natural talent for housework. They can't be good at EVERYTHING (that would make them better than men), so they must be ONLY suited to domestic duties.

Yes, life sure is hard in Dublin for the young, white, middleclass male. :rolleyes:

Redleslie2

F Fiesta wrote:

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.


And it's no surprise that his username begins with 'Red'.

I was making a reference to Freud, the daddy of psychoanalysis. The nazis didn't like him, or Wilhelm Reich, you know. All that stuff about sex made them queasy you see. Your response is a fairly predictable conservative, repressed and ultimately useless one, a total unwillingness to explore or discuss the subject at all. A product of our society I suppose.

I suspect a pretty clear case of displaced aggression here, frustrated person attacking or fantasising about attacking someone or something that's not the original source of frustration. Everyone's prone to it, human nature and all that. What's this guy's real problem wonders I?

Redleslie2

Sharza- wrote:

Tommy tiernan

GuanYin

HarryD wrote:

Have you read the thread ?
This point has already been made.
The_syco wrote: "Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps you should read it first ?

I don't thinkhe made exactly the same point, but I did read it thanks.

Perhaps leave the moderating to moderators?

And the thread is still, scientifically, a nonsense.