Evolution - Is it down to Us?

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

Ah, ok. Well if it's socio-ecological issues you want to discuss it's probably better to leave the chimps out of it - comparing human reproductive patterns to those of our close living relatives, the great apes - this is dangerous and easily misconstrued. It's true that certain members of the monkey and ape family engage in highly complex societies, but we can't draw parallels between them and us. Humans and apes, while close genetically, are worlds apart sociologically.

I don't know what some of these terms mean yet, and I won't pretend that I do. I think it is interesting to see how chimps and other apes behave, just to draw parallels between them and us. What works for them may not work for us but to see where it stems from helps, I think.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

I did say violent criminals in my OP. Was I was wrong to say that.

So you did - brian, my apologies too.

WindSock wrote:

I was just coming from the perspective there of why are we attracted to those that are violent.

Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

metrovelvet

Its all part of nature's sinister plot windsock. However, a man can be a bastard and still read very well genetically.

g'em

WindSock wrote: »

I don't know what some of these terms mean yet, and I won't pretend that I do. I think it is interesting to see how chimps and other apes behave, just to draw parallels between them and us. What works for them may not work for us but to see where it stems from helps, I think.

That's my point, you can't draw parallels. Sure we can view it as interesting reading, but to start making direct comparisons between apes and human reproductive behaviour is misleading and highly incorrect. I agree that it can broaden our mind to introduce ideas for behavioural patterns, but we can't draw any conclusions whatsoever from it about how humans act.

Nevyn

Thing is women are attracted to different types of men at different times in thier "cycle".

Also the type of man and how they behave towards a woman and why she is attracted to that is more then just looks and pheremoans it is based on the examples of men in her life as she grew up. So 'what' a man is and what is acceptable behaviour by a man in general and in a relationship parameters are based on the male role models in a child's life.

What ever that turns out to be then you have boys growing up thinking they have to be that way to be a man and girls thinking that is what they should be looking for in a man.

Also those patterns can be broken, if a person works on it and is aware.

Just cos someone does have a child with a person who turns out to be a complete waste of skin does not mean that thier child will grow up to be like that or to seek that out in a partner.

I think that is is more to do with what we consider acceptable behaviour in our socail groups and how we educate people as to what is acceptable behaviour generally in our society.

I would love to think that the Mammy's boy who can't use a washing machine is on the way out, it does the boy growing up a diservice as everyone should be able to do for themsleves.

So I think it is parenting and setting standards rather then just who you mix dna with.
Nurture rather then nature, but part of that is looking at what standards you are going to have in the family home and yes part of that is who you set up home with.

Karl Hungus

WindSock wrote: »

I don't mean that we don't mate at all. But perhaps we should not approach the violent criminal types and others with less desirable qualities to be that Fathers of our chidren.

I'd say there's plenty of young ladies who'll spread their legs for whichever scumbag can supply them with the most weed/dutch gold/sovereign rings/supermacs. I'm not going to be polite in saying it, but scumbags are breeding scumbags.

PS. I'm pro-eugenics.

Slow Motion

g'em wrote: »

So you did - brian, my apologies too.


Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

I tend to agree with you, but then I started thinkng about popular movie stars and many of the roles they play, James Bond, Jason Bourne etc. Huge hollywood sex symbols how often portray violent characters. If I had a penny for all the times I have heard a woman say the would in a heartbeat I'd have at least ten. I know most people can tell the difference between fiction and real life, but still it makes me wonder!

A Primal Nut

g'em wrote: »

So you did - brian, my apologies too.


Well here's where I find fault with the argument - are we really? If there are women attracted to violence (and this is, again, dangerous territory, I don't want to get into a discussion of domestic violence) they are in the minority. Violence is not an accepted trait anymore in either sex, but there is truth in the argument that women can be attracted to bad boys. That's not a genetic thing though, it's sociological.

I'm not sure if women being attracted to bad boys is genetic (I think it might be to a small extent) however I think this thread is more to do with the effect of that attraction on the future of the species - obviously if women are attracted to violent men, the human race would get more violent.

I don't believe women are attracted to the violence itself - I think somehow some women think that a guy with a criminal record is somehow wild, fun, a rebel, or "a real man." Even though that couldn't be further from the truth. Of course there are many traits that bad boys which have which so-called "nice guys" don't have which women like.

Incidentally, I agree that apes and monkeys are largely irrelevant to this discussion. While there interesting in finding out how we may have developed certain traits and understanding what human traits are genetic, I think they are irrelevant in this case.

Slow Motion

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Of course there are many traits that bad boys which have which so-called "nice guys" don't have which women like.

Such as?

brianthebard

Slow Motion wrote: »

This is what I understood from windsocks post! And I think it is quite inflamatory to refer to it as eugenics and the connotations the term implies!

What does it imply? What does it mean? Did you read my link? Do you realise that it doesn't simply mean Nazism and sterilising people, but it also includes selective breeding to stop certain traits in future generations?

G'em, yes people choose who they breed with on an individual level, but that is due to individual choices, opinions, politics, etc. Its not a socially dictated thing (except in the case of say incest, which is taboo and illegal).

Nevyn

This thread reminded me of something I read a few years back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/13/colombia.sibyllabrodzinsky

Gang members in one of Colombia's most violent cities face an ultimatum: give up guns or give up sex. In what is being called a "strike of crossed legs", supported by the Pereira mayor's office, the wives and girlfriends of gang members have said they will not have sex with their partners until they vow to give up violence.

"We want them to know that violence is not sexy," said Jennifer Bayer, 18, the girlfriend of a gang member. She and at least two dozen other women have said the sex strike will continue until their men hand over their weapons to authorities and sign up for vocational training offered by the mayor's office.

The women yesterday launched a rap song that will become the strike's anthem. "As women we are worth a lot. We don't want to fall for violent men because with them we lose too much," Ms Bayer sang down the telephone to the Guardian.

She said the men had laughed about the strike but would soon see it was serious. The women were not worried that frustration would lead to violence against them by their partners. "They wouldn't do that to us," Ms Bayer said.

The city's security secretary, Julio César Gómez, said surveys of gang members showed that their favourite activity was having sex and their membership of gangs was more about power and sexual seduction than money.

Pereira, a city of 300,000 people, has Colombia's highest murder rate at 97 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Slow Motion

brianthebard wrote: »

What does it imply? What does it mean? Did you read my link? Do you realise that it doesn't simply mean Nazism and sterilising people, but it also includes selective breeding to stop certain traits in future generations?

Yes I do, but I believe a lot of people may not, and I think that using it was cheap shot, I didn't read your link, and I think you are being a little disengenious! The term certainly has uncomfortable overtones, wether it's warrented or not and you know that too!

g'em

brianthebard wrote: »

G'em, yes people choose who they breed with on an individual level, but that is due to individual choices, opinions, politics, etc. Its not a socially dictated thing (except in the case of say incest, which is taboo and illegal).

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

brianthebard

Slow Motion wrote: »

Yes I do, but I believe a lot of people may not, and I think that using it was cheap shot, I didn't read your link, and I think you are being a little disengenious! The term certainly has uncomfortable overtones, wether it's warrented or not and you know that too!

Its not a cheap shot, its a word that describes what the op was about. If you can't deal with that...
I'm not being disingenuous in any way and think its a bit much for you to say that, its a pretty inflammatory issue, with a very inflammatory op (about criminals and violence) and you think that I'm trying to raise ****-well I'm not.
Further, why should it be my fault if people don't understand these terms? I'm sick of people throwing survival of the fittest out as some sort of argument, without knowing its origins, applications, and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

g'em wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

Well the op said that breeding was up to "us Women" which suggests very strongly to me a gender wide argument.

A Primal Nut

Slow Motion wrote: »

Such as?

Ask them!!:p

I knew of one girl who was attracted to bad guys (which in fairness, she admitted to, crazy girl). The same guys my father, a detective seargeant in a moderately-sized town would arrest. I guess she thought they were tough guys because they kept saying how they would protect her and beat up anyone who touched her, bla bla bla so she believed. She thought they were rebels because they were in and out of jail, like they'd provide excitement. Of course I knew that most of the people they beat up were guys way smaller than them (usually teenagers) and women. There crimes would be fairly pathetic as well. But when my father would arrest them, he'd go to the house and their mother would answer the door and say "don't arrest my son, bla bla". Complete mama's boys. He would walk in grab them by the ear and drag them out of the house and give them a good seeing too in the station, until it wasn't allowed anymore. I think most guys can recognise that the scumbags around the town are cowards. But women see their criminal record and all their talk of beating anyone who touches them and thinks "ooh, he can look after me." In addition, they probably see their arrogance as some kind of confidence.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

This thread reminded me of something I read a few years back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/13/colombia.sibyllabrodzinsky

Reminds me of Lysistrata.

ScumLord

I've heard of this before and I thought it was fairly well established, that throughout the living world that reproduces sexually it's the females that decide what male to reproduce with, what trates get passed on and are therefore in the driving seat when it comes to the future of any species. Just because we introduced marriage doesn't mean women will bare the child of the husband it just means they could possibly get the best of both worlds.

WindSock

g'em wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is suggesting a socially dictated breeding program. We're just talking about women's personal choices about who they have children with, the factors that lie behind those decisions, and the implication those decisions will have on the future of humankind (sociologically speaking).


At least I think that's what we're talking about

It is yes. You are far more betterer at articulating it than I am though :pac:

A Primal Nut

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm sick of people throwing survival of the fittest out as some sort of argument, without knowing its origins, applications, and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Survival of the fittest is natural selection and is not synonymous with eugenics. Eugenics is survival of the people whom other people decide should survive - its artificial.

Nobody in this thread is suggesting women should be forced mate with whomever society tells them - that would be eugenics. We are talking about personal choice. You clearly don't understand the purpose of this thread.

brianthebard

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Survival of the fittest is natural selection and is not synonymous with eugenics. Eugenics is survival of the people whom other people decide should survive - its artificial.

No survival of the fittest is not natural selection.

An interpretation of the phrase to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the "fittest" ones.

Nobody in this thread is suggesting women should be forced mate with whomever society tells them - that would be eugenics. We are talking about personal choice. You clearly don't understand the purpose of this thread.

Again an argument for ignorance is not an argument-eugenics doesn't necessarily involve forcing women to mate with someone. You haven't read any of the links I posted.

g'em

ScumLord wrote: »

I've heard of this before and I thought it was fairly well established, that throughout the living world that reproduces sexually it's the females that decide what male to reproduce with,

Hehe, I was only boring my OH about this over the weekend. Throughout the living world at large it is indeed true - females are the limiting factor for reproduction and are therefore the 'choosers' where sex is concerned.

In humans that choosing role is a bit muddled though, because (sweeping statement alert) while men will want to have sex at virtually every opportunity, they are looking for sex for pleasure - monkeys, dolphins, humans and a few choice other spp. aside, animals are doing it to produce offspring.

The introduction of the idea of self-gratification during sex makes the factors behind the decision basis that bit more convoluted and evens out the playing field somewhat.

WindSock

One thing stuck out when I read that wiki, brian

Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people

A Primal Nut

brianthebard wrote: »

No survival of the fittest is not natural selection.



Again an argument for ignorance is not an argument-eugenics doesn't necessarily involve forcing women to mate with someone. You haven't read any of the links I posted.

Its one way in which Eugenics can occur. Obviously its not the only way and certainly isn't the most practical.

Eugenics definition:

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Controlled is the key word.

To be honest, I really don't understand the debate your having here. The original point of the thread was to discuss the impact of female choice of sexual partners on the future course of human evolution. What would happen, say, if women were attracted solely to nonviolent men? Would it make humans less violent? Nobody is advocating the rights and wrongs of it and indeed, WindSock even suggested there may be advantages to females being attracted to violent males when it comes to chimpanzees.

I'll say it again, nobody is advocating anything, eugenics or anything else - its a discussion of the mates women choose and why they do it.

Slow Motion

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not a cheap shot, its a word that describes what the op was about. If you can't deal with that...
I'm not being disingenuous in any way and think its a bit much for you to say that, its a pretty inflammatory issue, with a very inflammatory op (about criminals and violence) and you think that I'm trying to raise ****-well I'm not.
Further, why should it be my fault if people don't understand these terms? I'm sick of people throwing survival of the fittest out as some sort of argument, without knowing its origins, applications, and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest




Well the op said that breeding was up to "us Women" which suggests very strongly to me a gender wide argument.

It's your interpretation of what the OP was on about, as for people not understanding the terms you are using, it may not be your fault but however maybe you should explain them more clearly rather than throwing links at people. Argue for yourself, you seem perfectly capable of doing it!

Spyral

I don't mean that we don't mate at all. But perhaps we should not approach the violent criminal types and others with less desirable qualities to be that Fathers of our chidren.

it's commonly held that ciminals and the promiscous tend to have more children due to healthier seed leading to an increase in criminals.

eugenics is bad but it happens anyway in the uk just not ireland !

g'em

Spyral wrote: »

it's commonly held that ciminals and the promiscous tend to have more children due to healthier seed leading to an increase in criminals.

Held by whom exactly?

And surely by the very nature of his behaviour a promiscuous man will have more children than a man who has limited sex with fewer partners? One man = lots of sperm. Lots of sperm + lots of women + lots of sex = lots of children, non?

brianthebard

WindSock wrote: »

One thing stuck out when I read that wiki, brian

Sure. But did it say it was a good thing? What meaning do you take from eugenics then?

Slow Motion wrote: »

It's your interpretation of what the OP was on about, as for people not understanding the terms you are using, it may not be your fault but however maybe you should explain them more clearly rather than throwing links at people. Argue for yourself, you seem perfectly capable of doing it!

I think its been pretty clear so far. Do I need to dumb things down? The information is there and easily read in the links provided, I don't see the point in compressing it because it would only lead to more confusion. Can you tell me what you would call it when a person suggests it is down to Women to decide what genetic traits exist in society? (a crisis in terminology imo, but anyways)

LightningBolt

Personally I find the notion of Evolution being the responsibility of Women to be laughable. Certain events that occur in a persons life may change their personality and character and there is little that can be done to prevent that.

Macha

I don't think womens' choice of partners will have that much of an impact on future evolution for a few reasons:
1) With more equality, it will be the decision of two people to have children together, not just one partner choosing another (eg, in recent centuries, the man often chose the woman)
2) Most of the problems that exist in today's world have very little to do with genetics. Poverty, fear, nationalism, greed, etc - these all play a much bigger role. IMO

Interesting topic, Windsock. Now you have me thinking!

Bob1970

if you want to introduce this you have to take away choices.your back to people being given partners as very few can choose an all rounded partner.as another poster said earlier i dot think being a scumbag is to do with genetics so you wont block out anything by selective breeding unless its pure vanity/looks your discussing?