Evolving Darwinism

Off Topic
41

From The Onion

Study: Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1

CHICAGO-In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation’s uneducated are breeding twice as fast and twice as often as its educated. “The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional,” study leader Kenneth Stalls said. “America’s intellectual elite, as a result, are badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates.” Added Stalls: “At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like.” High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, “All I know is, we’re in love.”

42

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
From The Onion

Study: Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1

CHICAGO-In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation’s uneducated are breeding twice as fast and twice as often as its educated. “The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional,” study leader Kenneth Stalls said. “America’s intellectual elite, as a result, are badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates.” Added Stalls: “At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like.” High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, “All I know is, we’re in love.”[/quote]

So fucking scary…the best case for birth control I’ve ever seen. Too bad the wrong people are being responsible and taking it.

43

[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Is Ghengis Khan retarded or a serial rapist?
[/quote]

Ghengis Khan is dead but you can still find his genes in some absurd percentage of the population in Asia and elsewhere. In fact, it’s so absurd that I can only imagine it to be the handiwork of a mildly retarded serial rapist.

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Kreal7 wrote:
There is a misconception about what genetic fitness means. It is measured by the number of offspring you have.

If you mean viable, then that can be a standard of measure.

I wasn’t actually discussing evolution with a focus on “best suited” or even, in your measure of “assured future progeny”, but more of should we make a conscious effort now to influence the valuation of physicality or intelligence?

and again, not that it would have to be exclusive.

more of a social evolution which might lead to physical or mental adaptation.[/quote]

Social evolution?

I think one kind of social evolution to which you are referring to is already well under way. And the evolutionary period we are currently in really had its start back in the Industrial Revolution and, more specifically, with the invention of the Spinning Jenny.

If you want to talk about “the valuation of physicality or intelligence” I believe the Industrial Revolution is the point when the discussion really began in ernest, in a manner of speaking.

In case you haven’t read it, Thomas Pynchon wrote an essay about it:

http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html

He tends to ramble on in his own way, but there are many insightful passages and points made, especially considering that it was written in '84… I missed many gems upon my first and second reads, subtle as they may be.

44

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Qthulhu wrote:
Kreal7 wrote:
There is a misconception about what genetic fitness means. It is measured by the number of offspring you have.

More technically, it’s the number of offspring who then survive long enough to successfully reproduce themselves.

and in regards to that, when viable offspring are produced with artificial assistance or in instances where no offspring were likely to happen, is this a good or bad thing?

our intellect has made it possible for those not physically able to procreate on their own, or even to be attractive to the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation, to now procreate.

so… if faced with a decision for the betterment of mankind do you continue with the methods of “whatever tools/drugs/accessories are needed and can be used, use” or do you decide, “if you are individually capable”.

[/quote]

You are focusing on a very miniscule part of the problem.

This may make me sound like an elitist asshole, but a much bigger issue is that the presence of the welfare state encourages less intelligent people to breed at a higher rate. The scary thing about this is that the longer that this continues to happen, the less chance there will be of reversing these socialist style policies under a democratic system.

I can’t really speak for other countries, but in the case of Australia, I honestly believe that unless we start using some form of genetic manipulation, over the next few hundred years the average level of intelligence will go down significantly.

45

I’m a bit tired for philosophy but here it goes:

You have to consider that there are plenty of “natural” urges - primitive, even - that, through civility have been suppressed for the sake of ethical and moral values.

Someone pisses you off on the road. Do you follow them and ram your car right into them? That is what a caveman with a driver’s license would do. We know this is not the proper way to respond to such a situation.

You see someone dying on the street. You have the option of saving them. Do you ignore the situation and let “evolution” run its course?

The counter argument here is that, since primitive times, there are PLENTY of dangers and illnesses that man has created (like white zinfandel and pancakes), i.e. unnatural, the dangers of which, in my opinion, should be countered BY man since he was the one to create them.

If nature doesn’t conquer man, time will. That’s enough of an evolution-uphill battle if you ask me.

There was a great article I read a while ago on the effects the ozone layer of ancient times had on life expectancy. Essentially, like a sort of ebb and flow, this phenomenon existed at several (I think) points in history, and I forget the theorized mechanism of action of but people lived VERY long lives, even longer than today. I will try to find the article.

Wish I could remember the name of it.

46

Fun at parties? Baby, I AM the party.

You know, if by “party” you meant “mind-blowing sex.”

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
so… if faced with a decision for the betterment of mankind do you continue with the methods of “whatever tools/drugs/accessories are needed and can be used, use” or do you decide, “if you are individually capable”.

[/quote]

I think we’ve already crossed the point when this question should have been raised. The object now is to salvage our genetic stability (relative lack of mutation [such as an actual “fat gene” ], general consistency in skeletal design, distribution of basic intellectual capacity, etc) and establish within the culture the habits of constant and consistent physical labor (gym-setting and NEPA) and a more natural diet.

SO, I think we’re boned.

47

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I’m a bit tired for philosophy but here it goes:

You have to consider that there are plenty of “natural” urges - primitive, even - that, through civility have been suppressed for the sake of ethical and moral values.

Someone pisses you off on the road. Do you follow them and ram your car right into them? That is what a caveman with a driver’s license would do. We know this is not the proper way to respond to such a situation.

You see someone dying on the street. You have the option of saving them. Do you ignore the situation and let “evolution” run its course?

The counter argument here is that, since primitive times, there are PLENTY of dangers and illnesses that man has created (like white zinfandel and pancakes), i.e. unnatural, the dangers of which, in my opinion, should be countered BY man since he was the one to create them.

If nature doesn’t conquer man, time will. That’s enough of an evolution-uphill battle if you ask me.

There was a great article I read a while ago on the effects the ozone layer of ancient times had on life expectancy. Essentially, like a sort of ebb and flow, this phenomenon existed at several (I think) points in history, and I forget the theorized mechanism of action of but people lived VERY long lives, even longer than today. I will try to find the article.

Wish I could remember the name of it.[/quote]

There is a book titled “The Gift of Fear” about the sublimation of our natural instincts, mostly the instinct for preservation. One scenario is a woman walking down the street, alone, late at night in a not so good part of town. She is walking towards a couple of men hanging out at the corner. Her fear tells her not to go down the street or to at least cross the street, but that would be rude and insulting to those men, so she endangers herself by continuing her walk.

Maybe our instincts are supposed to change to suit the environment we live in, but you can see where civility could endanger your life.

Is it too much of a stretch to say acceptance and enabling of physical defects and/or limitations, may not endanger a person’s life, but it might be endangering the health of the future generations?

48

[quote]Qthulhu wrote:
Nope. Retards can be genetically successful. So can serial rapists. Genghis Khan? In terms of genetics, the man won, okay? And he wasn’t the least bit worried about “integrating” his offspring into society.[/quote]

That’s why the Mongolian empire rules the world. But yeah, his genes are still around today. I suppose that is a win technically.

Crap.

49

I can’t remember the figure Maka, but it’s something like 50% of people in Asia have a gene traced back to Genghis.

50

To elaborate on my last post, I still think genetic “victory” should entail making sure your offspring can live “the high life”.

Genetic success should not be restricted to simply making babies. The smart people will either kill you or leave if you waste too much space.

Mars, here we come!

51

Unless the smart people get overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

52

[quote]DaveyD wrote:
Unless the smart people get overwhelmed by sheer numbers.[/quote]

Quit trying to scare me, god dammit!

53

It scares me too, that’s why I lift. I figure I can take like 3 dumb people(they are fat so they’re hard to take down).

54

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Split wrote:
i agree

That very long post was a bit of a mess wasn’t it?

I was meaning to ask, have we helped or hurt evolution with too much civility?

and… regarding evolution, will it be best to potentiate physicality or intelligence, not that they need be mutually exclusive.

will too much humanity bring about a devolution of the optimum physical being with all the new modern marvels that of course were created by those with mental gifts.

yep… another rambling post

no more coffee for me

[/quote]

Evolution really has nothing to do with the species or an individual. It’s all about the gene. Genes that are good at surviving get passed on. Those that aren’t do not. It just so happens that some species with the “good” genes survive to reproduce, because of those genes acting in concert with other genes.

Also, there is no desired end product for evolution. No optimal human, optimal sloth, or optimal sea urchin. Certain genes, and certain combinations of genes, just get more efficient at replicating themselves. At least that’s how I understand it. :smiley:

55

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
You see someone dying on the street. You have the option of saving them. Do you ignore the situation and let “evolution” run its course?[/quote]

An individual perishing is not evolution, but natural selection.

To address OG’s original question (my opinion, of course): We are not inhibiting humanity’s evolutionary journey through helping those who would not normally survive on their own (I see compassion as a good thing), nor would we be accelerating it by practicing eugenics in order to develop a so-called “better” human. Evolution is simply a process, and it will continue forward with no goal or purpose, with only one potential deal-breaker: extinction.

I would love to see (or maybe not) what we’ll turn out to be like in another ten thousand years. Or one-hundred thousand. If we haven’t either nuked ourselves into ash or succumbed to some super virus, that is. :wink:

56

[quote]RhunDraco wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Split wrote:
i agree

That very long post was a bit of a mess wasn’t it?

I was meaning to ask, have we helped or hurt evolution with too much civility?

and… regarding evolution, will it be best to potentiate physicality or intelligence, not that they need be mutually exclusive.

will too much humanity bring about a devolution of the optimum physical being with all the new modern marvels that of course were created by those with mental gifts.

yep… another rambling post

no more coffee for me

Evolution really has nothing to do with the species or an individual. It’s all about the gene. Genes that are good at surviving get passed on. Those that aren’t do not. It just so happens that some species with the “good” genes survive to reproduce, because of those genes acting in concert with other genes.

Also, there is no desired end product for evolution. No optimal human, optimal sloth, or optimal sea urchin. Certain genes, and certain combinations of genes, just get more efficient at replicating themselves. At least that’s how I understand it. :D[/quote]

That is a good summary of genetic evolution!

But I’m not sure you got what my question was and there can be an optimum as that is subjective. Also due to modern technologies folks who might not previously have offspring can now artificially procreate and pass along all kinds of things.

I do understand evolution in the strict sense, my pondering had more to do with which way are things going to go, mental or physical and which is better.

I know… there are so many ways in which we can actually evolve, I just was thinking of how it might be if it goes in the direction of more physical or more mental.

It wasn’t actually a question about the science behind evolution, just the ramification of how we might evolve if I limited the focus to just mental or physical.

and also the whole social evolution thing. How a cultures preference changes, societies mores change, even laws changing, influence what we find attractive in a mate.

It was a too much caffeine day at work and folks wondering if they would survive a catastrophy and whether keeping people alive through artificial means is actually a kindness, and whether artificial insemination and fertility drugs were skewing things.

But maybe you were just summarizing genetic evolution!

57

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
RhunDraco wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Split wrote:
i agree

That very long post was a bit of a mess wasn’t it?

I was meaning to ask, have we helped or hurt evolution with too much civility?

and… regarding evolution, will it be best to potentiate physicality or intelligence, not that they need be mutually exclusive.

will too much humanity bring about a devolution of the optimum physical being with all the new modern marvels that of course were created by those with mental gifts.

yep… another rambling post

no more coffee for me

Evolution really has nothing to do with the species or an individual. It’s all about the gene. Genes that are good at surviving get passed on. Those that aren’t do not. It just so happens that some species with the “good” genes survive to reproduce, because of those genes acting in concert with other genes.

Also, there is no desired end product for evolution. No optimal human, optimal sloth, or optimal sea urchin. Certain genes, and certain combinations of genes, just get more efficient at replicating themselves. At least that’s how I understand it. :smiley:

That is a good summary of genetic evolution!

But I’m not sure you got what my question was and there can be an optimum as that is subjective. Also due to modern technologies folks who might not previously have offspring can now artificially procreate and pass along all kinds of things.

I do understand evolution in the strict sense, my pondering had more to do with which way are things going to go, mental or physical and which is better.

I know… there are so many ways in which we can actually evolve, I just was thinking of how it might be if it goes in the direction of more physical or more mental.

It wasn’t actually a question about the science behind evolution, just the ramification of how we might evolve if I limited the focus to just mental or physical.

and also the whole social evolution thing. How a cultures preference changes, societies mores change, even laws changing, influence what we find attractive in a mate.

It was a too much caffeine day at work and folks wondering if they would survive a catastrophy and whether keeping people alive through artificial means is actually a kindness, and whether artificial insemination and fertility drugs were skewing things.

But maybe you were just summarizing genetic evolution!

[/quote]

Too much caffeine for you, too little sleep for me. :slight_smile: I knew I was missing something.

Hmm. Individuals that wouldn’t normally have survived, and I’m not talking about people with propensity for cancer or diabetes and stuff like that, but things serious deleterious mutations, wouldn’t be passing on those genes, as I just can’t see them reproducing with “normal, healthy” members of the population.

“have we helped or hurt evolution with too much civility”

I guess my answer is: We haven’t hurt or helped human evolution. We only affect what we see as a potential outcome, as seen through the lens of our current cultural and social subjectivity. You noted that what is optimal is subjective, and I think that’s incorrect; eye of the beholder and all that. Living things just get better at surviving. It’s a never-ending arms race.

“regarding evolution, will it be best to potentiate physicality or intelligence”

Try as we might to make future generations fit into a mold of what we think is right or better, they’re going to do what they want, possibly even wiping themselves out.

Brave New World, indeed.

I think I need more caffeine this morning. Arg, I had better get to work!