Due to the nature of modern medicine as well as agriculture, we're able to keep all humans alive for as long as possible no matter the circumstance. Would this eventually mean that the intelligence of humans will eventually decline, and mental genetic mutation rates and other occurrences could spike exponentially? Of course it's not limited to that, just off the top of my head.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("No supporting information, low-content OP" - Megafan))[/highlight]
Sometimes I think of this, then I'm like "holy shit I'm becoming Hitler" and nope the hell out of that thought process.
I think natural selection is starting to disappear for the most part in some societies, because its relevance is starting to disappear completely, though the deterioration of human intelligence as a whole could be a big problem.
[QUOTE=Mr.95;40107609]I think natural selection is starting to disappear for the most part in some societies, because its relevance is starting to disappear completely, though the deterioration of human intelligence as a whole could be a big problem.[/QUOTE]
a good way to solve/prevent this problem is to euthanise retarded individuals.
[QUOTE=Martele;40107624]a good way to solve/prevent this problem is to euthanise retarded individuals.[/QUOTE]
How does that solve the problem at all?
[QUOTE=Martele;40107624]a good way to solve/prevent this problem is to euthanise retarded individuals.[/QUOTE]
There's many things you could do to maximize the efficiency, strength, and intelligence of the human race in general, though the main issue is that they go against common ethics and human rights in general, and would most likely spark an crisis if a country started practicing it.
[QUOTE=Martele;40107624]a good way to solve/prevent this problem is to euthanise retarded individuals.[/QUOTE]
how will that fix anything, at all?
as far as I am aware, mentally challenged people usually don't reproduce and thus don't pass on those genes.
There is no way to actually get rid of selection (bar the end of reproduction and mutations whilst reproducing).
You can only choose between 2 forms of reproduction once in selection. There is natural selection (where natural events, ecology, etc will determine who will out-compete the others and adapt) and artificial selection (where an external human agent, from a single person determining who gets to reproduce or not, up to a government deciding who can).
If you keep eugenics out of it, people are still going to evolve.
In fact we already have changed significantly in the past 12,000 years. A great deal of many humans are adapted for agricultural societies, given by the fact we have better immunity to disease than hunter gathers (whom live in small isolated groups that rarely allow pandemics to develop), and the ability to consume a whole variety of diary products for instance.
For much of the past several thousand years, success has generally been thrust upon the type of person who thrives in an agricultural society. With the advent of the industrial revolution however, the type of person that will thrive, will be one best adapted to an industrial, (mostly urban), capitalist world. Of course, this will mean that the remaining hunter-gather peoples are probably doomed to die out in the long run at this rate.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40107737]There is no way to actually get rid of selection (bar the end of reproduction and mutations whilst reproducing).
You can only choose between 2 forms of reproduction once in selection. There is natural selection (where natural events, ecology, etc will determine who will out-compete the others and adapt) and artificial selection (where an external human agent, from a single person determining who gets to reproduce or not, up to a government deciding who can).
If you keep eugenics out of it, people are still going to evolve.
In fact we already have changed significantly in the past 12,000 years. A great deal of many humans are adapted for agricultural societies, given by the fact we have better immunity to disease than hunter gathers (whom live in small isolated groups that rarely allow pandemics to develop), and the ability to consume a whole variety of diary products for instance.
For much of the past several thousand years, success has generally been thrust upon the type of person who thrives in an agricultural society. With the advent of the industrial revolution however, the type of person that will thrive, will be one best adapted to an industrial, (mostly urban), capitalist world. Of course, this will mean that the remaining hunter-gather peoples are probably doomed to die out in the long run at this rate.[/QUOTE]
Lets also not forget that sexual selection isn't likely to disappear any time soon either. A lot of what we consider attractive on a base level is related to health.
How arrogant are we that we think we, as animals, are separate from nature? If female ducks prefer a greener head in males, and all ducks without green heads die out without passing on their genes, leaving only the genes for green-headed ducks, we call it Natural Selection, but when Humans select certain genes and traits and breed those out, we call it 'artificial selection'.
[QUOTE=prooboo;40107917]How arrogant are we that we think we, as animals, are separate from nature? If female ducks prefer a greener head in males, and all ducks without green heads die out without passing on their genes, leaving only the genes for green-headed ducks, we call it Natural Selection, but when Humans select certain genes and traits and breed those out, we call it 'artificial selection'.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it natural for another species to decide which members will mate (beyond eating the less fit ones but that isn't what we do is it)
[QUOTE=prooboo;40107917]How arrogant are we that we think we, as animals, are separate from nature? If female ducks prefer a greener head in males, and all ducks without green heads die out without passing on their genes, leaving only the genes for green-headed ducks, we call it Natural Selection, but when Humans select certain genes and traits and breed those out, we call it 'artificial selection'.[/QUOTE]
It's called artificial selection because it isn't nature deciding.
For instance, animals bred to produce milk, wool, muscle mass or speed would never exist in nature because they would die out without something selecting for that.
The cauliflower for instance, is basically a mutant cabbage. It can never survive in the wild of its own accord, but due to human intervention, it continues to thrive.
We even breed dogs for their behaviours, for instance, selecting for aggressive traits in dogs when we want them to kill rats or other dogs.
[QUOTE=Martele;40107624]a good way to solve/prevent this problem is to euthanise retarded individuals.[/QUOTE]
no, please don't bring this out of your thread.
Yeah I think a slow decline in intelligence is a very horrible and very real threat to the existance of our society.
[QUOTE=elowin;40108041]no, please don't bring this out of your thread.
Yeah I think a slow decline in intelligence is a very horrible and very real threat to the existance of our society.[/QUOTE]
Good thing the exact opposite is happening:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url]
I mostly put it down to advances in nutrition and the removal of poisonous things from the environment (such as lead paint).
This question begins to blur the lines between morality and depravity - for lack of a better word. Should we institute a man created selection for the better of the world, or should we continue to allow the process of evolution to deteriorate due to our lack of a larger picture? Sure, euthanasia is wrong in some instances, but we are completely overcoming the process of life itself. It's not natural selection that's the problem, it's nature as a whole that we have a problem with.
Here's a question I always ask my friends for fun: If you had to choose between releasing a singe pill that cures every type of cancer, or a single pill that takes away all pain and fear of death without side effects or dependency risk, which would you choose? You could only pick one, and the other will be destroyed forever.
[QUOTE=GameDev;40107533]Due to the nature of modern medicine as well as agriculture, we're able to keep all humans alive for as long as possible no matter the circumstance. Would this eventually mean that the intelligence of humans will eventually decline, and mental genetic mutation rates and other occurrences could spike exponentially? Of course it's not limited to that, just off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]
These kinds of processes happen over thousands of years.
The reason they won't happen is because we won't need them. We're already enhancing our intelligence with computational power indirectly, who's to say we won't do it directly?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40107992]It's called artificial selection because it isn't nature deciding.
For instance, animals bred to produce milk, wool, muscle mass or speed would never exist in nature because they would die out without something selecting for that.
The cauliflower for instance, is basically a mutant cabbage. It can never survive in the wild of its own accord, but due to human intervention, it continues to thrive.
We even breed dogs for their behaviours, for instance, selecting for aggressive traits in dogs when we want them to kill rats or other dogs.[/QUOTE]
But these arguments still rely on the definition of nature that disincludes humans. Why do we think we're so special that we're not animals just like every other animal? Like we're some sort of divinely chosen people who are meant to lord over the lesser animals as their "artificial" masters.
[QUOTE=prooboo;40108191]But these arguments still rely on the definition of nature that disincludes humans. Why do we think we're so special that we're not animals just like every other animal? Like we're some sort of divinely chosen people who are meant to lord over the lesser animals as their "artificial" masters.[/QUOTE]
You're literally arguing over semantics.
Selection group A is a natural process, and is called "natural selection."
Selection group B is a process created by mankind, called "artificial selection", and is a subset (or special case) of "natural selection".
[QUOTE=prooboo;40108191]But these arguments still rely on the definition of nature that disincludes humans. Why do we think we're so special that we're not animals just like every other animal? Like we're some sort of divinely chosen people who are meant to lord over the lesser animals as their "artificial" masters.[/QUOTE]
It's a piece of terminology to refer to selection where humans choose which traits predominate by breeding out unwanted traits and selecting for favoured ones.
It's still selection, and selection is something impossible to remove.
In fact, it's not really life if it can't evolve.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40108247]You're literally arguing over semantics.
Selection group A is a natural process, and is called "natural selection."
Selection group B is a process created by mankind, called "artificial selection", and is a subset (or special case) of "natural selection".[/QUOTE]
But once again, you make a comparison between a "natural process", and "a process created by mankind". How is humanity not a part of nature?
and I'm arguing over semantics because asking whether or not human intervention kills natural selection relies on the assumption that human intervention isn't natural. if we come to find out that they are one-in-the-same, then we can conclude that No, human intervention doesn't kill natural selection in the same way that an earthquake that kills off a species of birds or a tsunami that kills off a species of ferrets doesn't kill natural selection, because these things ARE natural selection.
[QUOTE=prooboo;40108280]But once again, you make a comparison between a "natural process", and "a process created by mankind". How is humanity not a part of nature?[/QUOTE]
Did you not read my post?
Selection group B is a process created by mankind, called "artificial selection", and is a [b]subset[/b] (or [b]special case[/b]) of "natural selection"
Both are caused by a natural process, but artificial selection has several unique features to it.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40108301]Did you not read my post?
Selection group B is a process created by mankind, called "artificial selection", and is a [b]subset[/b] (or [b]special case[/b]) of "natural selection"[/QUOTE]
So we agree that humanity is part of nature, and artificial selection an expression of natural selection. Then if we are, through medicine and agriculture, only expressing a part of natural selection, then humanity is incapable of killing natural selection, instead only [i]causing[/i] it.
[QUOTE=prooboo;40108329]So we agree that humanity is part of nature, and artificial selection an expression of natural selection. Then if we are, through medicine and agriculture, only expressing a part of natural selection, then humanity is incapable of killing natural selection, instead only [i]causing[/i] it.[/QUOTE]
I have a lot of chocolate bars in my kitchen. Some of them are white chocolate, some of them are dark chocolate, some of them are milk chocolate.
Every day, I take a random bar of chocolate and eat it, in a process called "chocolate selection". One day, I decide to remove 2 bars of chocolate- one at random, and another in a process I call "dark chocolate selection". The question is "will this contribute to me eating more dark chocolate in the future?"
"But hold on a moment!" says prooboo, "isn't dark chocolate selection the same as chocolate selection?"
Well-
1.It isn't the same, even though both processes involve me selecting a bar of chocolate- "dark chocolate selection" has a special property- the selection will always involve dark chocolate.
2. [b]WHO CARES[/B]. This literally has nothing to do with the original question.
[QUOTE=prooboo;40108329]So we agree that humanity is part of nature, and artificial selection an expression of natural selection. Then if we are, through medicine and agriculture, only expressing a part of natural selection, then humanity is incapable of killing natural selection, instead only [i]causing[/i] it.[/QUOTE]
We arn't really speaking of artificial selection here though. Medical advances don't really artificially select, they prevent selection.
Well it seem's that the stupidest people breed the most so perhaps this species is screwed. With systems like welfare that reward having a dozen children I think this may harm future generations.
People with serious genetic problems and such may be able to survive in our modern world but reproduction is slim. People who are completely healthy can also give birth to people with genetic problems anyways. This world also isn't a world where we need the strongest to survive. We don't need to be able to have the physical attributes to hunt down a buffalo, etc. It's all about the education and finer skills which is nurture, not nature.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40108392]I have a lot of chocolate bars in my kitchen. Some of them are white chocolate, some of them are dark chocolate, some of them are milk chocolate.
Every day, I take a random bar of chocolate and eat it, in a process called "chocolate selection". One day, I decide to remove 2 bars of chocolate- one at random, and another in a process I call "dark chocolate selection". The question is "will this contribute to me eating more dark chocolate in the future?"
"But hold on a moment!" says prooboo, "isn't dark chocolate selection the same as chocolate selection?"
Well-
1.It isn't the same, even though both processes involve me selecting a bar of chocolate- "dark chocolate selection" has a special property- the selection will always involve dark chocolate.
2. [b]WHO CARES[/B]. This literally has nothing to do with the original question.[/QUOTE]
So if natural selection cant be compared to artificial selection because artificial selection has specific characteristics, why do we call what WE do artificial selection and EVERYTHING ELSE natural selection. Why dont we call the change of environments because of earthquakes tectonic selection, or the change in tides tidal selection. Why dont we classify everything else as parts of natural selection instead of calling ourselves artificial and everything else natural? Either everything is a part of natural selection, and therefore an expression of it, or there is no such thing as natural selection, and everything is merely its own form of selection (tidal, tectonic, artificial, etc.). Why do we classify artificial selection as uniquely different from natural selection and then just say "oh everything else is natural selection". It's purely through our own arrogance that we think we're so much more special than every other thing that happens in the universe that we have to give ourselves a special name so we can separate ourselves as "above" nature
[editline]31st March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rhenae;40108413]We arn't really speaking of artificial selection here though. Medical advances don't really artificially select, they prevent selection.[/QUOTE]
They allow potentially inferior genes to be passed along through genetics
Homo Sapiens would rather branch of into two different species, one more and one less intelligent, rather than becoming less intelligent as a whole.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40108582][B]Well it seem's that the stupidest people breed the most [/B]so perhaps this species is screwed. With systems like welfare that reward having a dozen children I think this may harm future generations.
People with serious genetic problems and such may be able to survive in our modern world but reproduction is slim. People who are completely healthy can also give birth to people with genetic problems anyways. This world also isn't a world where we need the strongest to survive. We don't need to be able to have the physical attributes to hunt down a buffalo, etc. It's all about the education and finer skills which is nurture, not nature.[/QUOTE]
This isn't accurate at all. Often the less educated breed more (due to less access or knowledge about contraception) but they aren't stupid, their base intelligence is likely the same as any other. They are simply less informed and that is an easily fixable problem
[QUOTE=Rhenae;40108624] their base intelligence is likely the same as any other. They are simply less informed and that is an easily fixable problem[/QUOTE]
I apologize for that but genetics do play a part in intelligence. I still think how people are raised and their education matters more but still, we can't ignore genetics.
[url]http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html[/url]
I was reading this interesting page early, it's pretty interesting. Wikipedia also has some pretty interesting stuff on Nature v Nurture.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.