Next Stage of Human Evolution

The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Next Stage of Human Evolution

Yes I am a theist, but I believe that evolution is the most consistent with the facts (except I disagree with the very beginning in which life started obviously but I won't get into that).

What does everyone believe will be the next stage in human evolution? I've heard a lot of talk about altering our own genetic code to become smarter, faster, stronger, etc. or physically altering our body after we are born (kind of like what we do now with things like laser eye surgery). Also what are the implications of these things? Will they further divide the rich and the poor, with the rich giving their kids advantages over poor kids before they are even born? What does everyone think?

By the way, I know I've been posting a lot of threads without responding enough to other threads, so I won't post anymore for a while (I was told this on another board).


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'd imagine preventing

I'd imagine preventing genetic disorders would be a high priority. If the pharmaceutical industry is an indicator, this will be in parallel with helping old men with their erections.


Scotch
Scotch's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
The next stages of our

The next stages of our evolution will not be "natural". I believe, in the future, we will choose what to change in our genetic code. Anyway, we won't be around to find out since evolution takes it's time... One thing to take into consideration: has anyone noticed that people are getting taller? I've heard of medieval statues (made in proportion) that are much smaller than the current average. I'd say we'll keep getting taller for a while.

http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I believe mankind will

I believe mankind will become more stupid, fat, lazy and generally a weak and worthless species as we continue to protect the weak and stupid from killing themselves while allowing them (and even encouraging them) to have more babies and forcing the inteligent, fit and strong to pay for the stupid, fat, lazy babies.

Who has more kids?

A. Scientists, innovators, athletes, the rich and powerful

or

B. Redneck, fat, lazy people on welfare who can't figure out how to use birth control.

For evolution to improve a species more in group A need to have kids and group B shouldn't but thanks to our nice socialist societies today we celebrate giving more to group B so that they can continue to breed more while group A is too busy working to have more than 1 or 2 kids if any at all.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Have you seen Idiocracy?

Have you seen Idiocracy?


Scotch
Scotch's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I agreed until this

I agreed until this sentence:

Beyond Saving wrote:
but thanks to our nice socialist societies today we celebrate giving more to group B so that they can continue to breed more while group A is too busy working to have more than 1 or 2 kids if any at all.  

The objective of socialist societies is to turn group B into group A. Not to make group B rule or whatever it is you think. Please don't make statements about things you don't know about.

http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't agree that wealth

I don't agree that wealth denotes merit. For a pure meritocracy to be established, children would have to be completely isolated from the benefits of their family's finances and social standing. We would have to be brought up anonymously, and given equal footing: which can mean giving everyone opportunities to find their affinity, or no help at all, but it must be equal.

 We haven't had a program called welfare in the US since the Clinton administration. There are people mooching, but there are also people working multiple low-wage jobs with no potential for advancement, that are still beneath the poverty line.

 *Is building a time machine so he can abort Ayn Rand.* 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
scotch wrote: The objective

scotch wrote:
The objective of socialist societies is to turn group B into group A. Not to make group B rule or whatever it is you think. Please don't make statements about things you don't know about.

#1 I don't care about their objective I care about the actual result.

#2 I don't think group B will rule per se. Only that group B will have more babies and therefore there will be more of group B than group A because babies from group B are offered little to no encouragement to become members of group A. They are told from birth that they are stuck in group B and our governments are trying to make it easier for people to stay in group B rather than work and make it into group A. 

#3 I know hell of a lot about the subject having studied it my entire life then traveling to various countries to study their governments and working on the inside of the American political system as a political campaign manager. And now I work in a city that is in economic decline and work on a personal financial level with people in group B. Note: I have chosen not to participate in the economic decline. 

I have witnessed first hand so called conservative politicians who claim they want to cut back government intrusion on the economic system bribe each other (literally bribe) by negotiating how much money is going to be thrown at their constituents.

Politicians use government money to buy votes through handouts and are always worried about appearing insensitive to the poor. The handouts translate to encouragement for group B to remain group B. Why work hard if you get what you want handed to you?

If you give a man a fish he will eat for the day. If you force a man to learn to fish for himself he will eat forever. If you buy some fish from the man he will figure out how to catch more. 

P.S. If you want to learn some more on the subject I would suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Hambydammit you have probably read this already but if you haven't you would love it.) , The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Architecture of Democray by Andrew Reynolds, and my favorite, Collapse by Dr. Jared Diamond. After that you can come and tell me I shouldn't talk about things I don't know about and I'll give you another dozen books on the subject.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I don't

magilum wrote:
I don't agree that wealth denotes merit.

Granted, it doesn't in all cases. Even lack of wealth is not always an indication of no merit. Many a person has failed in capitalism who had plenty of merit....they picked themselves up and tried again.

magilum wrote:
We haven't had a program called welfare in the US since the Clinton administration.

I use the term welfare loosely to describe all government benefit programs not THE program called welfare. I would include food stamps, disability, social security, government grants, government education loans, healthcare etc. as welfare both individual and corporate. And technically several states do have programs called "Welfare" but who cares. The "Port Security Bill" outlawed internet gambling. Titles mean shit in politics.

magilum wrote:
but there are also people working multiple low-wage jobs with no potential for advancement, that are still beneath the poverty line.

This is where I have a fundamental disagreement with you.

#1 The poverty line doesn't mean shit on a shingle. The poorest people in America are wealthy compared to people in Cuba, Central America, Mexico and I'm sure Africa, China, Korea etc. (Although I haven't been to the last three so I can't speak out of experience) The "poor" in America tend to have TV's Cars and working plumbing.

#2 Even at a minimum wage job you can survive in America, i.e. you won't starve to death. Although, it is quite challenging to find a job that pays minimum wage, in most areas the wages are much higher.

#3 I strongly disagree that there is any job with "no potential for advancement". Every field has people who make boatloads of cash. No matter how low on the totem poll you are you have opportunities to attract attention and advance. I worked in a telemarketing center for many years. When I was 17 I was given a management position, why? Because I was the only one that applied. 50+ people worked in this center all of them older than me and complaining that there was "no potential for advancement". I made more money than them and for some reason decided to turn down my next promotion and took a serious pay cut to go into the military. The only way you have no potential for advancement is if you are lazy. Even if your current company will never advance you feel free to go to the help wanted ads and look for a new job. Show me one person that is working 50-60 hours a week, has no room to advance in the company they work for and is actively seeking a new job (actually sending out resumes and making phone calls and interviews) and can't advance in a few years. [/rant] for now.

 

Quote:
Is building a time machine so he can abort Ayn Rand

Keep your hands off Ayn.

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I can't speak for south or

I can't speak for south or central America. I hope you're right about the job climate, I really do.

I do know people who work multiple jobs, don't get to see their kids enough (they're all TV-addicts), and are still struggling to scrape by. And to amplify what you said, lack of wealth is absolutely not a sign of lack of merit. Some of the sharpest people I know are struggling; some have ended up homeless or have declared bankruptcy multiple times, even though they have/had enormous amounts of creativity, intellect and drive. They failed, by chance or circumstances, to find a niche. I know people who are doing well also, but they convinced me further that wealth is definitely not distributed according to merit. The wealthiest people I know are exploiters, middle men, brokers.

The problem I have with Ayn Rand, aside from her writing style, is her philosophy in common practice. Every Rand fan I've run into (please be the exception) imagines that we're in a meritocracy: that the wealthy people are so because they're innovators and superior human beings (which doesn't take into account inheritance, or exploitation). They fancy this idea because they don't see themselves as the looters and parasites; they're flattered by the idea that they're the innovators, that they'll rise above the rabble of humanity.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I do know

magilum wrote:
I do know people who work multiple jobs, don't get to see their kids enough (they're all TV-addicts), and are still struggling to scrape by.

Much of how well you are getting by depends on how you use your money. In my job I discuss peoples financial situation on a very personal level. I have walked into houses where people are "barely" making it and find out they make almost six figures and turn around to someone who appears quite well off and has never made more than 30-40k a year.

Back to the main point driving this thread, in modern civilization evolution is unlikely to have the effect of improving humans. We attempt to protect those that are unable to provide for themselves and allow ourselves as a species in general to get fat, sloughful and stupid. Do you think even half of Americans could survive if they were forced to live on their own outside of society?

Evolution improves a species when the weak are dying and the strong "exploit" (to use your word) the weak to survive. In modern society we have more or less decided that it is our responsibility to keep the weak alive. In most modern countries we don't let people starve to death. They might live in uncomfortable conditions, but they live generally long enough to have several kids.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/06facts/fatherhood.htm

This website has a pdf report that illustrates how birth rate is related to education level. The more education a person has the fewer kids they have. Assuming that in general the people who go to college and then go on to do graduate work are generally more intelligent than high-school drop outs, the less intelligent are having more kids than the intelligent.

If evolution is true, I don't see how we can be doing anything but weakening our species by continuing to protect the weak and in many ways making their lives easier.

magilum wrote:
The wealthiest people I know are exploiters, middle men, brokers.

Exploiters, middle men and brokers (the ones who are successful) tend to be aggressive, cunning and intelligent. Basically you are saying sales people are the wealthiest people you know. Which makes sense because without a middle man or a broker, whatever the factory worker is making would never be sold and therefore without that person everyone would starve. Commission sales is that last real bastion of meritocracy in America. Go try it for a year and watch the competition drop like flies.  

magilum wrote:
The problem I have with Ayn Rand, aside from her writing style, is her philosophy in common practice. Every Rand fan I've run into (please be the exception) imagines that we're in a meritocracy: that the wealthy people are so because they're innovators and superior human beings (which doesn't take into account inheritance, or exploitation). They fancy this idea because they don't see themselves as the looters and parasites; they're flattered by the idea that they're the innovators, that they'll rise above the rabble of humanity

My whole point from the beginning is that we don't live in a meritocracy. We need to become much more radical capitalist for that to happen. Anyone who has read Ayn Rand should understand we don't live in a meritocracy because the whole point of most of her writing was that America was moving away from a meritocracy towards socialism. If we did live in a true meritocracy we wouldn't have to worry about evolution as much.

Many wealthy people are superior human beings, but I get your point. Many who inherit vast sums of wealth become the epidemy of the welfare recipient. I won't mention any names but many of them decided to become politicians.

As for rising above the rabble...um yes I have been doing that all my life, I think I shall continue to do so. It isn't particularly hard when most of the rabble has the attitude that they can't get anywhere because they are being exploited by the Man. A myth almost as bad as religion. It is pretty easy to run a race when most of your competition isn't even running.

PS A note about exploiters, many of the largest exploiters in history are responsible for a lot of good things in our society. I think people tend to ignore exactly how difficult large scale "exploitation" is. I.E. The Vanderbilts (go to a college campus, not to mention they were responsible for creating the bulk of America's trade network pre car days), Bill Gates (without him it would have been several more years before you would have seen a PC), Sam Walton (tell me you never shopped at Walmart), Henry Ford (exploiter in chief but he only innovated a minor thing call the car)

If we had more men like that, I believe it would be a good thing.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually speaking in

I'm actually speaking in terms of brokers of "knowledge work" -- design, programming, and other jobs they subcontract. I had the misfortune of watching, and at other points, experiencing, their "contributions" to the trade. They make impossible promises to a client, then ride their subcontractors to meet the insane arbitrary deadlines, while skimming the lion's share of the profits. They're able to bullshit so well because they know nothing about what they're selling. They're the reason I, and a lot of people I've worked with in the past, have gone totally freelance, and taken to promoting ourselves. Their contribution was not necessary, was overvalued, and they were self-indulgent, willfully ignorant, double-dealing boors. And, even though they came from money, and drove luxury cars, I find it amusing to note they routinely ate a good deal of our work time crying about how bad they have it (finding a diplomatic way to get them back on track, then out of your hair is not easy).

I've never shopped at a Wal-Mart. My local community fought the building of a huge chain store in the area because of the negative impact we felt it would have. I won't go into details just now though.

I'd heard Bill Gates's mom and an IBM board member belonged to the same country club; conspiracy theories say that's how the connection was made. I mention that rumor because one has to wonder how this mediocre programmer, and professional bullshitter, ever got a deal with IBM. He didn't even have an operating system when the arrogant, mainframe-humping dinosaurs agreed to his new-fangled licensing scheme. That wasn't his only trick -- ever heard of the "Microsoft Tax?" The product Gates sold IBM on was a crappy bastardization of a product put out by (I)DR, which later shipped a version of DOS many people considered superior to Microsoft's offering. When Microsoft developed Windows, they added a bit of code that would detect whether it was running on their DOS or DR's, and issue a scary-sounding warning that implied it might not work correctly (it would have). That's a popular Microsoft trick: Fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD). History is riddled with more of the same in their dealings with competitors and licensees. Was Gates aggressive? Yes. But I would argue that it's to society's detriment because we were saddled with an afterthought abortion of a product, peddled by a ruthless crook. IBM was courting other vendors -- people who actually had a product -- and it's not certain why they chose Microsoft, but I have zero doubt the industry would have gotten along fine had Bill Gates never existed. You could argue that it would have been another exploitative relationship, but that's the framework of the system. Gates is a success at playing the capitalist game, not making widgets or innovating.

I think there's an important distinction between the good of society, and those who've figured out the game our economic model presents. 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'm

magilum wrote:

I'm actually speaking in terms of brokers of "knowledge work" -- design, programming, and other jobs they subcontract. I had the misfortune of watching, and at other points, experiencing, their "contributions" to the trade. They make impossible promises to a client, then ride their subcontractors to meet the insane arbitrary deadlines, while skimming the lion's share of the profits. They're able to bullshit so well because they know nothing about what they're selling. They're the reason I, and a lot of people I've worked with in the past, have gone totally freelance, and taken to promoting ourselves. Their contribution was not necessary, was overvalued, and they were self-indulgent, willfully ignorant, double-dealing boors. And, even though they came from money, and drove luxury cars, I find it amusing to note they routinely ate a good deal of our work time crying about how bad they have it (finding a diplomatic way to get them back on track, then out of your hair is not easy).

I can't really speak with personal experience about that particular field, but if you have successfully gone freelance and now promote yourself what is the problem? I never claimed our economic system is perfect. Actually I began the whole conversation with the claim that it isn't capitalist enough and we have too many freeloaders. Many companies have become bureaucratic in that they have a number of paper pushers who don't actively produce nor really sell. They just find paperwork and reports to fill out which doesn't require intelligence, strength or other positive traits therefore increasing the likelihood that humanity will fail to genetically improve.

If your only point is that some wealthy people are also contributing to the downfall of our genetics I'm not disagreeing with you. If we were less politically correct, took away some power from lawyers, ditched some government regulation and became a true dog eat dog meritocracy we could get rid of a lot of those paper pushers. If we allowed those who failed to make a living to die evolution would improve the human species. The fact is we never will just let people die. I'm not saying it is a bad thing but I believe it has serious consequences for our evolution.

Let me lay out my particular argument in this thread a little more clearly because I could debate economics with you all day.

Evolution states that animals with genes that increase their ability to survive will breed more passing their positive genes to the next generation. Animals with genes that decrease their ability to survive will not breed as often as the strong because they will die younger/be unable to breed. The result is that negative genes will slowly be phased out and positive genes will become more common in any give species.

In America and other modern societies very few people die because they have weak/bad genes. Even in cases of diseases caused by genetics we try to find ways to cure them. Far more people survive long enough to have kids who thousands of years ago would have perished because of their bad genes.

There is a general trend that the most intelligent have fewer kids than the least intelligent. In fact I would argue that in general, those with positive genetic traits have fewer children than those with negative genetic traits.

Therefore, in a few thousand years there will be a gradual decrease positive genetic traits and an increase in negative genetic traits.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I understood the first

Yes, I understood the first time. You've described the premise of Idiocracy.

  Do you agree we're stuck with either passive (knowingly leaving people to die) or active (deliberately disallowing people to breed) eugenics or a huge advance in genetic engineering to combat the supposed mediocrity of the species? Maybe I'm a fuddy duddy, but I find the first two options rather sickening. I'm not even sure there's a problem. I understand in theory how this is supposed to work (I posed the same question a while back), but I've also heard our society is trending away from ignorance, away from violence, away from illiteracy, compared to former generations. Problems with education, for instance, I think are largely political -- I don't think creationists are incapable of understanding evolution, they've just been inoculated against wanting to. I mean, art deco poses are nice and all, but evolution's really only about adequacy, not supremacy.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I forgot the third option:

I forgot the third option: Forcing smart people to fuck.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Do you agree

magilum wrote:
Do you agree we're stuck with either passive (knowingly leaving people to die) or active (deliberately disallowing people to breed) eugenics or a huge advance in genetic engineering to combat the supposed mediocrity of the species? Maybe I'm a fuddy duddy, but I find the first two options rather sickening. I'm not even sure there's a problem. I understand in theory how this is supposed to work (I posed the same question a while back), but I've also heard our society is trending away from ignorance, away from violence, away from illiteracy, compared to former generations. Problems with education, for instance, I think are largely political -- I don't think creationists are incapable of understanding evolution, they've just been inoculated against wanting to. I mean, art deco poses are nice and all, but evolution's really only about adequacy, not supremacy.

Honestly, if I cared about people a million years from now I would have to say yes to your question. Since I don't really care because I won't be around I don't think we should start practicing either. However, I don't think it would be a bad thing to promote responsible breeding. Don't have a kid unless you can take care of it without handouts.

As for society trending away from ignorance, violence and illiteracy I see that more as proof that we have education available to more people. It doesn't take a genius to learn how to read and when you have the information tools we have today it is far more difficult to be ignorant than even 100 years ago. I don't think it is tied directly to the intelligence level of the human race.

Although I will concede that we may continue to improve over the short term, keep in mind that homo sapiens are quite young in terms of evolution. Our ideas of protecting the weak are relatively new. It will take thousands if not tens of thousands of years for any real noticable difference to occur. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:   I

magilum wrote:

 I forgot the third option:

I forgot the third option: Forcing smart people to fuck.

Yes but forcing them to fuck is not enough, you need them to fuck without birthcontrol. Most smart people can figure out how to not have kids.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Haha, umm... weren't we

Haha, umm... weren't we talking about evolution, not whether or not rich people are better or if we should be more conservative? But I mean the randomness of the debate amuses me.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Haha, umm... weren't we

Haha, umm... weren't we talking about evolution, not whether or not rich people are better or if we should be more conservative? But I mean the randomness of the debate amuses me.


We were talking about evolution. I got a little sidetracked but brought it back. When talking about evolution who is better and how many kids they have is an important consideration. Read the whole thing. Four out of my six posts directly mentioned the OP subject, the other two indirectly attempted to make my overall point.

Let me break it down into simple words for you

P1 Rich people tend to have superior genetic characteristics. (Better looks, more athletic, smarter etc.)

P2 Poor people tend to have worse genetics. (Not as physically attractive, not as athletic, not as smart and if it actually is genetic a propensity towards alcoholism and addiction)

p3 Poor people have more kids than rich people.

C1 Therefore genetic traits that lead people to poverty will become more prevalent in humanity where genetic traits that lead to success will become more rare.

So feel free to contribute something useful to the debate. You did post the OP but I have yet to see any opinion from you.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Back on the original topic,

Back on the original topic, I was reading about some recent studies done on obesity that suggest it's primarily genetic.  They took some obese people and stuck them in a controlled environment and limited their calorie intake to "normal" human levels.  Subjects lost weight, but they also had all the physiological symptoms of starvation.  They're not sure whether the results indicate that the subjects' basline set-points had been reset by eating behavior, or if perhaps the set points were inherited.  Everybody had always assumed that the reason why overweight parents have overweight children was behavioral, but there's starting to be some question about whether behavior is the main culprit here.

 But if it pans out that obesity is mainly hereditary, then the fact that obesity is on the rise in industrialized countries suggests that maybe it's being selected for in that environment.  Somehow obese people are having more reproductive success than skinnies, and the future of humanity means more heavier people.

Idiocracy is a great movie, by the way. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I heard that on the news

I heard that on the news here too, Textom, a sad state of affairs I guess.  It is pretty relevant to the derailed portion of this thread too.

 Evolution doesn't select for 'good' traits really, only what is most suitable for the environment 'good' traits can become 'bad' traits as the environment changes.  As mentioned, recent studies seem to indicate that people are still showing the evolutionary behaviour that kept our ancestors alive when food was difficult to come by.  The environment that we have created and are creating for ourselves has come along extremely quickly in evolutionary timescales.  The people who are eating healthily and with restraint now, and spending all their time at the gym running on the spot would have died out very quickly back in our early days.

As far as the uneducated, poor, etc people reproducing more is concerned, it reminds me of something I think I read somewhere in this Evolution forum.  There were some crickets somewhere that had evolved different shaped wings so they would stop making the mating call, because the mating call was also drawing in some kind of parasitic predator.  Most of the males ended up hanging around another male that still had the "old fashioned" wings, and would remain hidden until a mate turned up and then would try to steal them.

In our case, smart productive people have all these poor, uneducated people hanging around living off of their work and breeding more.  Not a great deal for the old fashioned cricket or for the smart productive people, but in both situations they still need the productive individuals.  Who knows, maybe this is one way to start a speciation!

 As far as the next stage of human evolution is concerned, I would say it's very very very difficult to predict, if we're talking about evolution by natural selection.  However, if we're talking about genetic manipulation then I guess the reduction of genetic diseases is likely to be the first goal.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Quote:

Haha, umm... weren't we

Haha, umm... weren't we talking about evolution, not whether or not rich people are better or if we should be more conservative? But I mean the randomness of the debate amuses me.


We were talking about evolution. I got a little sidetracked but brought it back. When talking about evolution who is better and how many kids they have is an important consideration. Read the whole thing. Four out of my six posts directly mentioned the OP subject, the other two indirectly attempted to make my overall point.

Let me break it down into simple words for you

P1 Rich people tend to have superior genetic characteristics. (Better looks, more athletic, smarter etc.)

P2 Poor people tend to have worse genetics. (Not as physically attractive, not as athletic, not as smart and if it actually is genetic a propensity towards alcoholism and addiction)

p3 Poor people have more kids than rich people.

C1 Therefore genetic traits that lead people to poverty will become more prevalent in humanity where genetic traits that lead to success will become more rare.

So feel free to contribute something useful to the debate. You did post the OP but I have yet to see any opinion from you.

It's quite interesting that you bring these things up, because I just read a book this week that directly refers to these things. I'm taking a history of science class, and heredity was a major field of interest to scientists in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It manifested in an attempt to limit the breeding of "inferior people," such as "mentally ill, paupers (poor), sexual deviants, criminals, addicts and the feeble-minded" which is a broad term for mental retardation or low IQ. The very broad title of this was eugenics. When many people think of eugenics they think of extreme measures such the Nazi attempt at "race purification" or more bluntly genocide. In reality at the time it was the sterilization of people usually by choice (somewhat pressured albeit), but sometimes by force, especially later in the sterilization program (see the Supreme Court case Buck vs. Bell in which the government was allowed to forcefully sterilize). The book is called "Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present." It is very interesting and I suggest checking it out at a library next time you happen to be in one if you're into the subject. 

The point I'm trying to make here is that what you're talking about it exactly what some of the most respected scientists of their time talked about during the early 20th century. Things aren't as simple as they thought though. Perhaps the biggest problem with looking at genetic traits as passing on visible or apparent traits directly to the offspring is that often there are recessive traits, and that the genes that determine whether one is intelligent, good looking, addiction prone, athletic or whatever are very complex in their relationship and sometimes interact with the other parent's genes in bizarre ways. Sometimes tall parents have short kids and it is really impossible to predict what parents kids will be like based on their visible traits (phenotypes).

So it is not as simple as smart parent + smart parent = smart child, I would say the child develops these traits through a combination of nature and nurture. Also saying that good looking, athletic people, smart, and non-addicts are more likely to be succesful is true, but it is an over simplification to say that they have less children. Don't forget, a lot of addicts, unattractive, obese, mentally disabled etc. do not get married and end up with no kids. 100 years ago they thought that society would be overrun with "undesirables." Even with eugenics banned, we have, if anything a smarter population than we did before (higher literacy, more university grads, IQ scores raising, etc.).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The point I'm

Quote:

The point I'm trying to make here is that what you're talking about it exactly what some of the most respected scientists of their time talked about during the early 20th century. Things aren't as simple as they thought though. Perhaps the biggest problem with looking at genetic traits as passing on visible or apparent traits directly to the offspring is that often there are recessive traits, and that the genes that determine whether one is intelligent, good looking, addiction prone, athletic or whatever are very complex in their relationship and sometimes interact with the other parent's genes in bizarre ways. Sometimes tall parents have short kids and it is really impossible to predict what parents kids will be like based on their visible traits (phenotypes).

So it is not as simple as smart parent + smart parent = smart child, I would say the child develops these traits through a combination of nature and nurture. Also saying that good looking, athletic people, smart, and non-addicts are more likely to be succesful is true, but it is an over simplification to say that they have less children. Don't forget, a lot of addicts, unattractive, obese, mentally disabled etc. do not get married and end up with no kids. 100 years ago they thought that society would be overrun with "undesirables." Even with eugenics banned, we have, if anything a smarter population than we did before (higher literacy, more university grads, IQ scores raising, etc.).

Recessive traits are the whole reason that evolution takes thousands of years. Even if it was possible to completely control who can breed (which it isn't) it would take those practices to be in force for thousands of years before there would be a noticable difference. 100 years is nothing in evolution, your only talking about three maybe four generations of people, not enough to get rid of any recessive genes or really have any effect at all on the overall gene pool.

Although that doesn't change the fact that if you were God for exampe and completely omnipotent you could control breeding in such a way that virtually everyone was born with brown eyes. It would take thousands of years but could be done.

Furthermore, it is well documented that the more education a person has the fewer kids they have at least in recent decades. (See the link I posted above, if you do a google search you can look at records over the last several decades) Granted I am making a small simplification in that I assume people who get more education tend to have more of the "positive" gene traits, I do know several incredibly dumb people who made it through college. But even if dumb people are responsible for 55% of breeding, they will become more common over thousands of years.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Well lookee here, we seem

Well lookee here, we seem to have a conservative eugenics-endorsing bastard on the forums.

 Could it be, perhaps, that poorer people have less education simply because they are poor? Is it possible, perhaps, that it is not purely genetics, but socioeconomics, which can cause someone to be poor and uneducated?

 Social Darwinism is dead. It was a racist, eugenicist, scapegoating, idiotic ideal espoused in the 19th century by bigoted, uneducated pricks, for justifying their current opressive social order.

 I am not saying that it is not pluasible that less educated people produce less offspring, and that some of their lack of education is genetic. In fact I find it quite likely that any selection pressure in that area would produce a dumber populace, even if that measure is 1 IQ point.

 But I disagree entirely with your cruel eugenicist sentiments. Social welfare is necessary to provide those people in poor socioeconomic conditions with resources necessary to gain further education. It is far more likely that poorer people tend to be "less intelligent" because they simply lack access to education, and other such environmental factors, than it is to be purely a function of genetics. It is thus certain that uplifting the lower social classes with government or charity funding does far more good than harm when it comes to creating an educated populace.

 For if we did not, imagine the consequences. If your theory holds true, an unaided poor would be even more likely to produce more children, and that majority of poor that lacks education not because of genetics, but because of opportunity will suffer in the consequences of a the cruel, gilded age-style nonsense that you espouse.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

scotch wrote:
The objective of socialist societies is to turn group B into group A. Not to make group B rule or whatever it is you think. Please don't make statements about things you don't know about.

#1 I don't care about their objective I care about the actual result.

#2 I don't think group B will rule per se. Only that group B will have more babies and therefore there will be more of group B than group A because babies from group B are offered little to no encouragement to become members of group A. They are told from birth that they are stuck in group B and our governments are trying to make it easier for people to stay in group B rather than work and make it into group A.

#3 I know hell of a lot about the subject having studied it my entire life then traveling to various countries to study their governments and working on the inside of the American political system as a political campaign manager. And now I work in a city that is in economic decline and work on a personal financial level with people in group B. Note: I have chosen not to participate in the economic decline.

I have witnessed first hand so called conservative politicians who claim they want to cut back government intrusion on the economic system bribe each other (literally bribe) by negotiating how much money is going to be thrown at their constituents.

Politicians use government money to buy votes through handouts and are always worried about appearing insensitive to the poor. The handouts translate to encouragement for group B to remain group B. Why work hard if you get what you want handed to you?

If you give a man a fish he will eat for the day. If you force a man to learn to fish for himself he will eat forever. If you buy some fish from the man he will figure out how to catch more.

P.S. If you want to learn some more on the subject I would suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Hambydammit you have probably read this already but if you haven't you would love it.) , The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Architecture of Democray by Andrew Reynolds, and my favorite, Collapse by Dr. Jared Diamond. After that you can come and tell me I shouldn't talk about things I don't know about and I'll give you another dozen books on the subject.

Bullshit.

 

The poor are in a vicious cycle because they lack the opportunity to gain education and good jobs. This isn't because of welfare, this is because of the broken, pointless family system that keeps poor children as the chattel of their poor parents, and because of wider, socioeconomic patterns that prevail in the inner city and deep rural areas. It is the duty of the government to provite funds to the poor so that they can have the opportunity to pursue advanced education, get out of their debts, and find better jobs. Where the market and society fail, the government must make up the difference. 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving, I agree with

Beyond Saving,

I agree with you in many of your points.  I would advise you to avoid connection to the those who argued for Eugenics in the 20th century.  They were flawed in their application for several reasons.  First, they assumed that race had something to do with the system, and it does not.  Second, they were using the concept for political gain, which we see clearly in the antiSemetic rhetoric of Goebbels.  Third, they were not allowed to implement it completely.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. of the United States Supreme Court was an ardent supporter of eugenics.  He even starred in a film called, "Are you fit to breed?"  He reasoned that the longer that a particularly successful line was allowed to reproduce that more successful individuals would be had.  (His father was a well known philosopher, and he was a justice.)  He recognized by the end of his life that society would never allow the brutality necessary for eugenics to succeed.  There would always be the Dickensian "work houses and brothels" to support the unsuccessful.

This is a reality of our modern world.  People choose to allow Downs Syndrome children to come into the world, and society insists that while the live, they must be protected as any other individual.  However, there are responsible individuals out there.  I have had major illnesses in my life that are attached to my genetics.  I will not breed because I am not fit to do so.  It is my duty to the species.  I, however, control resources.  In a true and eugenic society, those resources would be taken from me, and I would be eliminated.  If this were applied across society, I would approve of it as well.

What I will not do is lay my resources at the feet of others who should also be eliminated.  I would rather consume them myself than see the slackjawed masses slobber over them.  Soem would suggest that it is my duty to support unfortunate children because they are shackled to their parents.  I say, "No!"  I did not have the pleasure of being involved in the reproductive process, and my genes will not be seen in the next generation.  I'd be damned before I would help another set of weak genes live to reproduce again just because their imbecile parents could not grasp contraception.

The issue here is not the poor.  The issue is the raving masses, who seem to have no sense of proportion or dignity.  If you would promise me that you would take the spawn of these fools, select amongst the intelligent and strong, and destroy the rest; I would gladly lay down my life and resources.  You cannot promise me this; so, I will go on in my present state.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote: Well

theotherguy wrote:
Well lookee here, we seem to have a conservative eugenics-endorsing bastard on the forums.

Guilty on the conservative part (at least fiscally). I have not endorsed eugenics, merely made the statement of my belief of what will happen. As I pointed out eugenics is impossible and any attempt would lead to a tyrannical government that I wouldn't want to live in.

However, you should pick your insults with more care. Call me an asshole, prick, jerk etc. But I am not a bastard.

Quote:

 Could it be, perhaps, that poorer people have less education simply because they are poor? Is it possible, perhaps, that it is not purely genetics, but socioeconomics, which can cause someone to be poor and uneducated?

Yes, in some situations. I never claimed it was purely genetics but then many people born poor work their way out of it (a sign of good genetic traits). The American system isn't perfect but it is pretty good. I would argue that any person whether educated or not has the potential to at least earn a livable income, by which I mean they can pay the rent, buy food, electricity and other basic expenses without government help.

In cases where you have people who are chronically unemployed, alcoholics and generally are leeches on society I believe their genetics might play a fair role. Although, I would argue that government welfare programs also play a role in keeping people in those situations.

I don't want people to be chronically in poverty. I want them to work their way out. When our government encourages them to stay in those situations and then they raise their kids in those situations is where I become concerned. You end up with multiple generations of people who are dependent on society. The genetic traits that would prosper in those situations are not positive. As more people become dependent on government they will become more lazy, more stupid and fatter. Why should they expend effort to survive when they survive without expending any effort?

Quote:
But I disagree entirely with your cruel eugenicist sentiments. Social welfare is necessary to provide those people in poor socioeconomic conditions with resources necessary to gain further education. It is far more likely that poorer people tend to be "less intelligent" because they simply lack access to education, and other such environmental factors, than it is to be purely a function of genetics. It is thus certain that uplifting the lower social classes with government or charity funding does far more good than harm when it comes to creating an educated populace.

Government welfare programs don't uplift anyone. They are the equivalent of life-support and lead to an unhealthy dependent lifestyle which often gets passed on to kids. If we required people to work for what they get they will take some pride and work to do better.

And quite frankly, if you can't even take care of yourself without sitting on a government subsidy you have absolutely no business having kids. Making money in America is so damned easy a monkey can do it. Americans waste their money on everything. I once met a man in Alaska who made a living selling laminated moose shit. Even working a minimum wage job you can pay the bills. If you are incapable of even doing that either

A. You have a significant disability and probably won't be having kids anyway so we'll take care of you.

B. You are incredibly dumb and really shouldn't be having kids until you can figure out how to take care of yourself.

C. You are incredibliy lazy and really shouldn't be having kids until you get off your ass.

D. You have severe addiction problems and really shouldn't be having kids.

E. You have been struck with a temporary life crisis and really shouldn't be having kids until you have worked your way out.

I don't really have a problem with helping A or E but B, C, and D have severe issues that I think might be genetically related, but even if they aren't they have no business having kids and we shouldn't encourage them to unless they are able to deal with their problems. Right now we hand all five groups whatever they want and try to make them dependent on government. If they pop out another kid we pay for that too.

Given that we have modern advanced birth control methods, there really is no reason for anyone to have a kid unless they can afford to take care of the kid without government help. All I am saying is that by creating dependence on government we are creating a culture of people who leech, and within that culture the genetic traits that will adapt to that culture will be people who are dumber, lazier, fatter and have more addiction problems.

So let's work on getting these people off of the government dole. And stop encouraging them to have more kids unless they are able to make it on their own. It would be better for them, better for those of us who work our asses off and better for the human species.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy

theotherguy wrote:

Bullshit.

 

The poor are in a vicious cycle because they lack the opportunity to gain education and good jobs. This isn't because of welfare, this is because of the broken, pointless family system that keeps poor children as the chattel of their poor parents, and because of wider, socioeconomic patterns that prevail in the inner city and deep rural areas.

Bullshit.

So are you saying that if is that family units fault? So we should take kids away from their parents like Plato suggested. You know, you might be onto something, we could take the kids away, raise them away from their families. Then, if the kids turned into failures again it is genetics so we should send them to surgery right away to make sure they don't breed. Then Big Brother Government will solve all our problems.

Um, screw the future I'll pass.

Quote:
It is the duty of the government to provite funds to the poor so that they can have the opportunity to pursue advanced education, get out of their debts, and find better jobs. Where the market and society fail, the government must make up the difference

Why is it the duty of those of us who earn a living to pay for those who don't?

Note, my whole premise in my thread is precisely the point you bring up here. In modern society we generally accept that the government has to take care of people who fail. Pre modern government, those people would have died and their children would as well. In any wild species those that fail die. It is cruel and harsh but it is the world. It is the death of those that fail combined with the breeding of those who don't that cause evolution and creates a species capable of surviving in its environment relatively efficiently.

In modern society we do not allow those people to die because we have the notion that we have to take care of them. Therefore, those with weaker genetics continue to breed as they wouldn't outside of modern society. From this I draw the conclusion that evolution on humans will not have the effect of creating a better, stronger, smarter species but will actually create a more mediocre species because modern society does not require most of its members to be smart, strong or better.

If you actually have been reading what I have written you would understand that this is the only real claim I have made. I have not stated we should start killing babies or anything of the sort. Although I did say that it would be helpful if we at least stopped encouraging failures to have babies.

So if you want to debate my overall conclusion that people will evolve to be more mediocre let us try to focus on that topic.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
nero wrote: Beyond

nero wrote:

Beyond Saving,

I agree with you in many of your points.  I would advise you to avoid connection to the those who argued for Eugenics in the 20th century.  They were flawed in their application for several reasons.  First, they assumed that race had something to do with the system, and it does not.  Second, they were using the concept for political gain, which we see clearly in the antiSemetic rhetoric of Goebbels.  Third, they were not allowed to implement it completely.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. of the United States Supreme Court was an ardent supporter of eugenics.  He even starred in a film called, "Are you fit to breed?"  He reasoned that the longer that a particularly successful line was allowed to reproduce that more successful individuals would be had.  (His father was a well known philosopher, and he was a justice.)  He recognized by the end of his life that society would never allow the brutality necessary for eugenics to succeed.  There would always be the Dickensian "work houses and brothels" to support the unsuccessful.

This is a reality of our modern world.  People choose to allow Downs Syndrome children to come into the world, and society insists that while the live, they must be protected as any other individual.  However, there are responsible individuals out there.  I have had major illnesses in my life that are attached to my genetics.  I will not breed because I am not fit to do so.  It is my duty to the species.  I, however, control resources.  In a true and eugenic society, those resources would be taken from me, and I would be eliminated.  If this were applied across society, I would approve of it as well.

What I will not do is lay my resources at the feet of others who should also be eliminated.  I would rather consume them myself than see the slackjawed masses slobber over them.  Soem would suggest that it is my duty to support unfortunate children because they are shackled to their parents.  I say, "No!"  I did not have the pleasure of being involved in the reproductive process, and my genes will not be seen in the next generation.  I'd be damned before I would help another set of weak genes live to reproduce again just because their imbecile parents could not grasp contraception.

The issue here is not the poor.  The issue is the raving masses, who seem to have no sense of proportion or dignity.  If you would promise me that you would take the spawn of these fools, select amongst the intelligent and strong, and destroy the rest; I would gladly lay down my life and resources.  You cannot promise me this; so, I will go on in my present state.

I promise you that I will use all your resources to help someone who is intelligent and strong to do a lot of spawning. Is that good enough?

Seriously though Nero, I appreciate your heartfelt dedication to the human species by refraining from breeding. Of course, you have the inteligence to realize that you don't want to pass along your health problems to the next generation. Unfortunately, the uninteligent do not realize they are uninteligent and wouldn't realize they are doing humanity a disservice by breeding.

But it seems to me that we could significantly improve the genetics pool without turning to brutal or totalitarien tactics. Is it so horrible to suggest that those who can't take care of themselves without help should refrain from having kids? Or those like yourself who have potentially hereditary health issues? Although I would rather see another inteligent person with health issues than a stupid person who is healthy. My hat is off to you for making a responsible decision my fellow "conservative eugenics-endorsing" devil.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm an atheist, and the

I'm an atheist, and the only thing of this sort I hope to pass on to my (currently ficticious) children is the open and critical mindedness to assess actual evidence.

They will be completely loved no matter what traits that evolution passes on to them, and that's the best that I can do.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
blink...blink...

blink...blink...

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken