Evolution - Is it down to Us?

Macha

Nuravictus wrote: »

Your saying the 3rd highest percentage of that survey is not a lot ?. I agree with on about dancing, that’s why I go to nightclubs.

"3rd highest percentage" doesn't mean anything. The mots important stat is the one that I pulled out - less than 18% of cases.

Nuravictus wrote: »

We are talking about woman’s affect on Evolution. I am stating that only woman who live in Western Cultures get that right. I linked Western with White so its around 8%. The majority of woman in this world are not born equal. The reason I relate the white aspect because a large amount of immigrants don’t integrate in our culture. Just look at the issues we are currently having in Europe with Muslims. In Afghanistan recently a man got 20 years in prison for saying woman should be equals in contradiction to the Qur’an.

Yes, I see what you mean - although I wouldn't say that it's only women in western cultures but yes, there are very few other places where women have full power over their own reproductive rights and get an equal say in who their partner is. Having said that, often the people who choose instead are her parents...one of which is female. I don't know - maybe the father has more say..

Nuravictus wrote: »

Smallest Birth Rate, Sorry but you are correct here but we getting older as a race & that’s well stated. The fact relates to the ability of woman to affect evolution. Less western woman means less woman with that right. Less affect on Evolution.

Thanks for calling me out btw, Love a good debate .

No worries, me too Well, you could argue that it the West has the lowest birth rate at the moment because we are the most economically developed, however other countries are catching up economically and I would argue that their birth rates will slow accordingly. But I take your point.

Edit: also, we may have lower birth rates but with high levels of immigrants increasing our populations in the West, what effect would have? I mean, I know a lot of them keep their own culture and the example of my friend is probably not representative...

Nuravictus

taconnol wrote: »

"
Edit: also, we may have lower birth rates but with high levels of immigrants increasing our populations in the West, what effect would have? I mean, I know a lot of them keep their own culture and the example of my friend is probably not representative…

It puts a massive drain on our Socialist system of Government. When a immigrant is having 8/9 kids while a native person is having 1 or 2. it means taxs are raised or benefits are lowered. There is a well known case of a Muslim man who now has 15 kids & he wont stop because he believes Muhammad controls whether his wife has a child. In large parts of the United Kingdom Sharia law is practiced in secret underground courts by Muslim Communities. Our system is about majority presentation but if you have a Muslim Majority you can have referendums & remove laws that protect minorities & so forth. You could see the raise of Sharia law. 60 years for Italy for Italians to be the minority & 100 years for white people to be the minority in Europe.

The Dutch moviemaker Theo van Gogh made a movie showing Islam & highlighting the issue of woman’s rights. He was shot eight times with a handgun and he died on the spot but then bouyeri (Muslim who killed him) then cut Van Gogh's throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. When a shrine was made in tribute to the man who was murdered some placed a sign saying “Thou shall not kill” that sign was latter removed because it caused rage among Muslims. This is all because of the failed policies of Multiculturalism & Political Correctness.

taconnol wrote: »

No worries, me too Well, you could argue that it the West has the lowest birth rate at the moment because we are the most economically developed, however other countries are catching up economically and I would argue that their birth rates will slow accordingly. But I take your point.

I don’t think so, they are entering the early stages of enocmic development. Look at what life was like for people in the West when we had just entered the system. In India the rich will get richer & the poor will get poorer. In China it will still be the same. Economic success doesn’t mean they will change, just look at the Middle East. Here is a example….

A Saudi woman who was gang-raped by 14 men has been sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison, the BBC reports. Her original crime was being in the car with a man unrelated to her, but her punishment was doubled and prison time added when she appealed the original sentence. Judges said she tried to use the media to influence them; her lawyer says the sentence violates both Sharia law and international conventions.
Seven of the Shia woman’s rapists—all Sunnis—were sentenced to prison time; the judges also doubled their sentences. The woman’s attorney has been suspended from the case and had his license revoked. He says the court let personal views influence it and vowed to file another appeal.

The most important thing to do is do the research & find out for yourself.

Edit: To answer some of your questions above.

Dragan

Nuravictus wrote: »

Not really, Majority of the woman on this planet are still miles below men, Western Culture is white Culture so what you are saying will occur with 8% of the Human Population. However with more econmic growth in India & China this could lead to woman been more keen on certain things but we are a long way of that.

So you are basically saying that "White Culture" as you talk about is not a suitable sample group for this exact debate?

It doesn't matter where it occurs, and cultural boundries leading to a semi closed off gene pool would only benefit the argument for selective breeding based on morals, as you are trying to cut out too much gene variance, surely.

The simple fact is though, on a whole, it wouldn't work. You would never catch everything, and the slower you make the process of choosing a mate and having a child then the lower the population.

The genes and the "moral" traits that make someone a wanker will always come through and essentially what you are doing is boiling down to a super bastard. I mean, survival of the fittest works both ways.

As a brief aside, would this idea be so politely dicussed if i had started a thread about a team of male doctors who had developed away to tell you how to choose who should be the father of your baby?

It's just interesting that the talk is removing male traits from society, controlled by women. And no talk off the female traits, or perhaps the traits of the mothers.

Wibbs

Dragan wrote: »

It's just interesting that the talk is removing male traits from society, controlled by women. And no talk off the female traits, or perhaps the traits of the mothers.

True enough. There are traits found more in women than men that humanity could equally do without.

g'em

Dragan wrote: »

It's just interesting that the talk is removing male traits from society, controlled by women. And no talk off the female traits, or perhaps the traits of the mothers.

Because in the context of evolution, given that women are the limiting factor, men are the variable. As Wibbs pointed out earlier:

Wibbs wrote:

the average male of 25 would have far far more sexual partners than his grandfather... if a man chooses to never settle down and milk this freedom, he can do so very easily. He can essentially string along one woman after the other for decades... I know of a guy who has slept with literally hundreds of women and left 3 kids behind and in his mid 30's is still in the market... Men also have the advantage that they can settle and have a family with one woman, leave her at say 45 50 and go out and start up aother family with a new woman.

Sure, women have traits that are undesirable to humanity, but the women who display those traits will pass their genes onto a minority. Bastards however, have the potential to pass their traits onto a multitude.

This, of course, is coming from a very biological perspective, which is essentially the angle you need to take if you strictly want to talk in terms of evolution.

Having said that the true meaning/ implications of evolution sort of got lost in the middle of page one of this thread so I'm not sure how pertinent that point is...

Wibbs

g'em wrote: »

Sure, women have traits that are undesirable to humanity, but the women who display those traits will pass their genes onto a minority. Bastards however, have the potential to pass their traits onto a multitude.

Pretty much. I suppose it could be summed up that on average women have more say, but high social value males who avoid commitment have the most say and low social value males have the least say in evolution. Look at an extreme like Genghis Khan. Genetic studies in Asia seem to suggest that he and his very close male line have left their genetic mark throughout the region. No woman in history could say the same. Even mitochondrial eve would be a different case. So if you want to make a difference as a male, be a high value bastard basically.

g'em

Wibbs wrote: »

So if you want to make a difference as a male, be a high value bastard basically.

Actually I'd argue against that. Someone mentioned Dawkins earlier and this is where his 'Prisoner's Dilemma' theory comes into its own. Altruism is a fundamental necessity for the progression of our species, an idea which is explained much better than I'm capable of doing in Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" and even more laymanly here -

Society, the collective cooperative efforts of individual human beings, could never have evolved out of a species whose natural instincts are to lie, cheat, and otherwise betray one another for personal gain.

Wibbs

I would agree, but it doesn't need to be either or. I would contend that the majority can be altruistic and move humanity on down that road and act as a brake on more extreme behaviours, but that a minority of individuals can and do impact that on that road, if they so choose and have the talent or resources to do so. Indeed the story of humanity reflects that and not just in reproduction. Consensus is fine and dandy, but many if not 99% of great leaps forward in society, politics, art, technology and simple invention come from a very small pool of people, if not one person. Those people tend not to be altruistic either

Dragan

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree, but it doesn't need to be either or. I would contend that the majority can be altruistic and move humanity on down that road and act as a brake on more extreme behaviours, but that a minority of individuals can and do impact that on that road, if they so choose and have the talent or resources to do so. Indeed the story of humanity reflects that and not just in reproduction. Consensus is fine and dandy, but many if not 99% of great leaps forward in society, politics, art, technology and simple invention come from a very small pool of people, if not one person. Those people tend not to be altruistic either

Bingo, by aiming to cut out one extreme you will also end up cutting out the other.

I'd personally prefer if Humanity did not become one writhing mass of yes men and metro's who are too afraid to even think.

Then again, we appear to be on the way already.

To quote Team America of all thinks. "Sure i'm a Dick, and maybe i **** Pussy's but dammit.....dicks also **** assholes".

WindSock

brianthebard wrote: »

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

Inconclusive, and just like abortion is an emotive topic that will always be argued.
There are always people who will be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed because you don't like it.

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)

So a woman being a bit more thoughtful in whom she chooses to mate and have offspring with is seen as unnatural or immoral? Don't we want whats best for our kids, always?

I didn't mention class, btw.

I don't know if people are genetically predisposed to criminality and violence either. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Nuravictus

WindSock wrote: »

I don't know if people are genetically predisposed to criminality and violence either. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Its not genetical. Its social. Most scumbag are not reared by there parents. They are dragged up. When I was a kid if I was bold I got smacked & all my ma had to do was hold a wooden spoon & we would all bail out of the room & upstairs. Now I am older & I think my ma & dad did a great job. Poltical Correctness has ruined a generation of children who think they have more rights than their parents. With more & more Governments telling you how to raise your kids it will contunie this way.

Children need clear defined rules & they will be happy as ****. Sadly this doesnt happen most of the time with Parents been more stressed than ever now with a econmic downturn in ireland.

So yea its a Social thing. Why arent adopted rich children robbers because there are raised well & are not allowed to hang out on the street thats why. Children need focus like sports, comics & other things. However most parents fail at this because they are stressed out.

Galvasean

Nuravictus wrote: »

Its not genetical. Its social.

I'm going to go ahead and stop you there and say that statement is wrong. It's actually a combination of both.

Rich, well raised people don't commit crime ever? News to me. You should look up 'thrill killing'. many of the perpetrators here have come from well off backgrounds and good upbringings.

metrovelvet

^ He said it was socialised, he never said it was class based.

Dragan

WindSock wrote: »

I don't know if people are genetically predisposed to criminality and violence either. I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

It should also be noted that genes can act off each other, or be dormant for a generation, or combine in all manner of ways.

So, in effect, you could have Saint Mom and Angel Dad and the child is still a genetic bastard.

( I have to say, i am really enjoying this thread!)

Nuravictus

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm going to go ahead and stop you there and say that statement is wrong. It's actually a combination of both.

Rich, well raised people don't commit crime ever? News to me. You should look up 'thrill killing'. many of the perpetrators here have come from well off backgrounds and good upbringings.

I was talking about normal crime and yes some of the most famous rapiest were rich people like the hier to Max Factor who I think date raped 3 woman or Javed Iqbal who raped & murdered over 100 children. Point is its all about parenting, a rich family can have crap parents just as much as a poor family. So yea its Social.

Galvasean

Nuravictus wrote: »

I was talking about normal crime and yes some of the most famous rapiest were rich people like the hier to Max Factor who I think date raped 3 woman or Javed Iqbal who raped & murdered over 100 children. Point is its all about parenting, a rich family can have crap parents just as much as a poor family. So yea its Social.

While I would agree that the vast majority of criminal activity could be avoided with the aid of social conditioning, it is not the single defining factor. I have known many people who have good upbringings but still turn out to be hellions (would use harsher language to describe them but it's a public forum). Some people simply have a chemical imbalance which makes them do things which are evil by society's standards. No amount of good parenting can change these particular people.
There is a lot more to this debate than most realize.
You can't simply tar every criminal with the same brush and say they just had bad upbringings, because it simply is not true.

Dragan

Nuravictus wrote: »

Point is its all about parenting, a rich family can have crap parents just as much as a poor family. So yea its Social.

And two very good parents can have a kid that is a wanker. So......

Nuravictus

Galvasean wrote: »

While I would agree that the vast majority of criminal activity could be avoided with the aid of social conditioning, it is not the single defining factor. I have known many people who have good upbringings but still turn out to be hellions (would use harsher language to describe them but it's a public forum). Some people simply have a chemical imbalance which makes them do things which are evil by society's standards. No amount of good parenting can change these particular people.
There is a lot more to this debate than most realize.
You can't simply tar every criminal with the same brush and say they just had bad upbringings, because it simply is not true.

True, the N&N Theory is the best thing we have atm but you admit yourself a vast majority of criminal activity could be avoided with the aid of social conditioning. I would say that the other people who are evil have probally has a tramacial experience. There are a lot of things that change who we are like, bullying, sexual abuse & rejection. Look at people with no crimial record who killed there partners because of rejection. There is a lot of social factors I have not touched upon but if your parents perpare you for life & its the hardships of it you should be able to come pass all these issues.

Thou a massive issue is the way Police carry out there jobs now a days. A generation of youth are been arrested for stupid things & been given crimal records, this causes a lot of trama & sets people on the way to commiting larger crimes. Policing for too Government required statistics is wrong.

Dragan wrote: »

And two very good parents can have a kid that is a wanker. So......

They may be great friends but that doesnt make them good parents. Most people are not as good a parent as they could be to be honest because of stress & other social stress which they cant help. People set the bar too high for themselves & feel like they are bad parents when all it requires if that you be firm, fair & consistant in your parenting. You will probally find your friends are not this. Also Kids are happy in School where they have clear definded rules, so why dont people have this at home ?. A lot of what a kid will be in older years in defined as a young child. Our Social Structure defines that.

Galvasean

Nuravictus wrote: »

True, the N&N Theory is the best thing we have atm but you admit yourself a vast majority of criminal activity could be avoided with the aid of social conditioning. I would say that the other people who are evil have probally has a tramacial experience. There are a lot of things that change who we are like, bullying, sexual abuse & rejection.

While that is often the case, there are people born with as i mentioned before chemical imbalances in their brain, ie: born crazy for lack of a better term.
Many would like to brand such people as evil. This is an unfair labeling. In fact many others would argue that evil itself is a purely subjective term, citing how deeds deemed to be evil are the result of either inherent neurological imbalances or bad experience or even both.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Look at people with no crimial record who killed there partners because of rejection. There is a lot of social factors I have not touched upon but if your parents perpare you for life & its the hardships of it you should be able to come pass all these issues.

As you said, certain things (eg: being molested as a child or witnessing a particularly random act of violence) can have a detrimental effect on one's development. Many instances are out of parents' control, so therefore it would be naive to suggest that good parenting is blanket protection from such things.

Galvasean

Nuravictus wrote: »

Also Kids are happy in School where they have clear definded rules,

Such a sweeping statement is utter nonsense. Many kids hate school and are far from happy being forced into an environment with such a strict and defined structure. Not to mention that a classroom environment, where attention and affection must be distributed among many children as opposed to just one as they are used to, can be quite traumatic for many children.

Nuravictus

Galvasean wrote: »

While that is often the case, there are people born with as i mentioned before chemical imbalances in their brain, ie: born crazy for lack of a better term.
Many would like to brand such people as evil. This is an unfair labeling. In fact many others would argue that evil itself is a purely subjective term, citing how deeds deemed to be evil are the result of either inherent neurological imbalances or bad experience or even both.

Everyone is born with the ability to do evil mate & everyone is born with the ability to do good. If I had a Child who was killing cats down the back of the Garden. I will give him a good few smacks & tell him its bold. Soon enough he will realise “killing cats” equals “pain for me” and he will stop. I know I tried to put my brothers pet cat down the drain when I was 4 but my ma sorted that one out :P. That doesn’t make me evil but look at the experiments done in American where the results showed that most people would give the man a fatal shock even thou they could hear him scream in pain (Actor). The Social side of this is the ability to say “NO” & walk away. Very few people did in that experiment because they felt they were under due arrest. So everyone can commit murder under the correct social conditions.

Thou the above point could be used to state that everyone is born evil !.

Galvasean wrote: »

As you said, certain things (eg: being molested as a child or witnessing a particularly random act of violence) can have a detrimental effect on one's development. Many instances are out of parents' control, so therefore it would be naive to suggest that good parenting is blanket protection from such things.

No what I same saying is preparing children by getting them in sports & as many social interactions as possible. Children sitting watching TV all day was not been prepared.

Nuravictus

Galvasean wrote: »

Such a sweeping statement is utter nonsense. Many kids hate school and are far from happy being forced into an environment with such a strict and defined structure. Not to mention that a classroom environment, where attention and affection must be distributed among many children as opposed to just one as they are used to, can be quite traumatic for many children.

Studies show kids are less disruptive in school because of clear structure & rules. This get hased at best in the home. Thats my point. You can be a loving parent & enforce structure.

metrovelvet

Dragan wrote: »

It should also be noted that genes can act off each other, or be dormant for a generation, or combine in all manner of ways.

So, in effect, you could have Saint Mom and Angel Dad and the child is still a genetic bastard.

( I have to say, i am really enjoying this thread!)

Indeed. Genetics can be a roulette table. My son is a strawberry blonde and no one knows where the hell that came from.

Nuravictus

metrovelvet wrote: »

Indeed. Genetics can be a roulette table. My son is a strawberry blonde and no one knows where the hell that came from.

Thats Ginger, Hes a ginger nut :P. At least you can call him Fire Croach when he gets to that age. Good Luck

WindSock

metrovelvet wrote: »

Indeed. Genetics can be a roulette table. My son is a strawberry blonde and no one knows where the hell that came from.

The Postie?

Dragan

Nuravictus wrote: »

They may be great friends but that doesnt make them good parents. Most people are not as good a parent as they could be to be honest because of stress & other social stress which they cant help. People set the bar too high for themselves & feel like they are bad parents when all it requires if that you be firm, fair & consistant in your parenting. You will probally find your friends are not this. Also Kids are happy in School where they have clear definded rules, so why dont people have this at home ?. A lot of what a kid will be in older years in defined as a young child. Our Social Structure defines that.

That has absolutely **** all to do with my point, no disrespect intended.

I said an absolute which exists in modern society, that peope who are good parents can have bad kids.

Also, i'd like to see some studies on how happy kids are in school.

No offence, but your putting forward a lot of your opinions as if they are facts, or vice versa.

Galvasean

Nuravictus wrote: »

Everyone is born with the ability to do evil mate & everyone is born with the ability to do good.

that is an absolute kop out of an argument. Your acting like humans are born a blank slate. everyone isn't born equal. You can put two people in the exact same environment from birth and they can end up completely different.

Nuravictus wrote: »

If I had a Child who was killing cats down the back of the Garden. I will give him a good few smacks & tell him its bold. Soon enough he will realise “killing cats” equals “pain for me” and he will stop.

Is he becoming good though? Possibly not. Perhaps he will see it as being caught = pain and continue to carry on his activity in covert fashion.

Nuravictus wrote: »

Studies show kids are less disruptive in school because of clear structure & rules. This get hased at best in the home. Thats my point. You can be a loving parent & enforce structure.

Other studies have shown the exact opposite. Some people develop much better in a more open ended environment as it stimulates their artistic tendencies, while others develop better in a structured environment (eg: if their particular skill was something more rigid, like mathematics).
Once again you are making the assumption that everyone is born the same which is simply false.

Nuravictus

Dragan wrote: »

That has absolutely **** all to do with my point, no disrespect intended.

I said an absolute which exists in modern society, that peope who are good parents can have bad kids.

Also, i'd like to see some studies on how happy kids are in school.

No offence, but your putting forward a lot of your opinions as if they are facts, or vice versa.

So whats your saying is that a Parent has no control of the actions of their Child. If you all took that approach we might as well just feed them & have no more interaction. You can be a bad parent by not committing enough time to the kid. The kid might be been a bold because he/she is not getting enough attention or some other social issue. Children seek approval from there parents & if you dont spend enough time with the child they will probally end up doing thing to get your attention. I stand by my points and from my experience kids are happy in school because they have predefined rules & set structure. In the house they rules can change on the kids depending on the parents mood.

See the issue ?

Dragan

Nuravictus wrote: »

See the issue ?

Yes, i see you ignoring points raised and arguing around points you don't like because they don't suit your argument.

I would call that an issue.

You made an absolute statement that kids are happier in school, now that becomes "in your own experience" when you are called on it.

And for the third time, i offered you an absolute on the "good parents", i don't want arguments about why these imaginary parents are not as good as they could be, I want a decent opinion of why good parents can have bad kids, not reasons as to why those parents are not "good".

It's a different argument.

Nuravictus

Galvasean wrote: »

that is an absolute kop out of an argument. Your acting like humans are born a blank slate. everyone isn't born equal. You can put two people in the exact same environment from birth and they can end up completely different.

You swear there is no social conditioning going on, Do we all go murdering or raping people ?. No because we are ALL shown this is wrong as children so a majority wont do it.

Galvasean wrote: »

Is he becoming good though? Possibly not. Perhaps he will see it as being caught = pain and continue to carry on his activity in covert fashion.

Fair point but in the majority of cases he will stop in my opinion.

Galvasean wrote: »

Other studies have shown the exact opposite. Some people develop much better in a more open ended environment as it stimulates their artistic tendencies, while others develop better in a structured environment (eg: if their particular skill was something more rigid, like mathematics).
Once again you are making the assumption that everyone is born the same which is simply false.

True you are correct but the truth is that Children are still happy in School whether that be in there maths class or arts class. Is doesn’t matter.

Dragan wrote: »

Yes, i see you ignoring points raised and arguing around points you don't like because they don't suit your argument.
I would call that an issue.

What do you want me to answer ?

Dragan wrote: »

You made an absolute statement that kids are happier in school, now that becomes "in your own experience" when you are called on it.

Everything I post is my opinion or taken from something I have read, I can’t go link every article that I have read in the past 5 years just to get you to accept my point. So you will have to take my “word”

Dragan wrote: »

And for the third time, i offered you an absolute on the "good parents", i don't want arguments about why these imaginary parents are not as good as they could be, I want a decent opinion of why good parents can have bad kids, not reasons as to why those parents are not "good".
It's a different argument.

I find this really annoying, If the kid is been bold. The parent is doing something wrong. This sense that it was nature & I am not a crap parent is a load of crap. Different Kids need different approachs. What worked on their first kid might not work on there second. So on the first kids they could of been GREAT parents but on the seconds they would of been crap parents.

This is a great thread btw, Im getting called out on nearly everything I say :P