Unnatural selection

Scioch

We all know the role evolution by natural selection has played in getting humans to this point. Best people suited to the environment thrived while those who weren't didnt and we evolved to become the most adaptive creature on the planet.

Now though we live in a rigged environment where we dont have to adapt or even do much to survive. So there are no people who are ill suited that are failing and allowing the better ones to enhance the gene pool and push the species forward. No matter how lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured you are you can reproduce. Which means we are stagnating as a species and adapting to live in a rigged environment where nothing but social skills are needed.

I have two points in relation to that.

1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society. Do we have to stop these people reproducing if we want to ever achieve our goal of an equal society ? Because as long as those traits remain we will forever be fighting them. If you dont remove them they will forever be there passed own from generation to generation, possibly becoming more prominent as a lot of densely populated areas suit these types of people very well and the planet will become a lot more densely populated.

2. Will this be our downfall as a species ? Millions of years becoming the most adaptive thing on the planet, then thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousand even millions) slowly undoing that by living in an environment where humans essentially live in controlled conditions. Not allowed to fail or fall behind and basically living on life support as a species. With natural disasters that life support might be switched off. Returning us to conditions we would not only no longer be built for but the complete opposite of what we are built for.

TL;DR: Should we try to control our own evolution to suit our new environment or continue to go with the flow and hope it all works out ? Or are we fcuked either way given that we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for ?

Please read the thread before accusing me of trying to start concentration camps. I'm not, in terms of those I refer to as "not suited to this society" I am talking about violent criminals and who cannot exist peacefully alongside other members in society. I am not talking about people with disabilities, I am not trying to perfect the human being and I am not talking about ending any lives. Just trying to improve society in a way that will benefit decent people who just want to live in peace and contribute by reducing the chance of people being born and raised as violent thugs.

Ush1

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

Hande hoche!

Eugenics?

Duggy747

While reading Point 1, I instantly thought of the future in Demolition Man

*You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute*

Ghandee

OP, a lot of us humans have evolved into fine lookin specimens.

I would.....



Beauty.jpg

Hande hoche!

Ghandee wrote: »

OP, a lot of us humans have evolved into fine lookin specimens.

I would.....



Beauty.jpg

You marvellous creature. I laughed heartily.

Diapason

Who do you trust enough to make the controlling decisions?

Apart from me, obviously.

Captain Darling

Soylent green.

Chuck Stone

So you want to gas disabled people is it LordSmeg?

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

Scioch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you want to gas disabled people is it LordSmeg?

No just neuter violent lunatics.

Channel Zero

Is that you Charles?

AnonoBoy

LordSmeg wrote: »

Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution.

Given that ugly and attractive are subjective terms I don't see how a clear line can ever be drawn. Also you seem to think more attractive people will somehow benefit the species. Why and how do you think this will happen?

Being more attractive doesn't neccessarily equal being healthier.

pickarooney

You could argue that evolution is ongoing on a societal level rather than an individual level and/or that by cross-pollinating and reproducing in ever increasing numbers the human race is maximising its chances of producing an inherently better specimen somewhere along the line.

seamus

The beauty about the process of evolution is that it can't be interfered with. Whatever the outcome for humans, however we decide to direct our path, it's the result of the process of evolution.

If "ugly" people are now more succesful than they were previously, that's evolution. It's a natural progression, and all outcomes, whether we consciously try to control it or consciously choose to let it run, all outcomes are the result of evolution. People with previously fatal genetic diseases surviving is not a distortion of evolution, it's simply evolution in another guise.

That is, if we decide as a society to "exclude" certain people from the gene pool, that's the result of the evolution of our brains to the point where we're capable of making those decisions. In that case, we're not "controlling" evolution, we're simply continuing it.

If we decide to just let it go where it takes us, then that too is evolution.

Evolution as concept isn't solely biological - it applies to societies and mental constructs too. The concept of the "meme" demonstrates this kind of non-biological evolution, where those ideas which are favourable to the society survive and expand. Those ideas which are not, die.

The problem is that evolution is painted as a process with an end-goal; to produce the most perfect specimen. That's completely incorrect. The process of evolution simple causes favourable things to be selected because they naturally are better at surviving. There is no "end goal".

Scioch

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Given that ugly and attractive are subjective terms I don't see how a clear line can ever be drawn. Also you seem to think more attractive people will somehow benefit the species. Why and how do you think this will happen?

Being more attractive doesn't neccessarily equal being healthier.

Well if all the people I see as ugly didnt reproduce and all the people I think are attractive did then in my view the will likely be more attractive people. Im just pointing out something that has an impact is all. I'm not saying thats beneficial to the species I was just using it as an example of something that is a factor in reproducing (have to attract a mate).

I was just using it as an example to set up my point about whether or not society should actively try to control people who negatively affect it reproducing as would happen in nature. If your no good for the group the group wont want you, cant find a mate and you dont reproduce. The group then loses the genes of those who are likely to be that way resulting in offspring more likely to be beneficial to the group.

Scioch

pickarooney wrote: »

You could argue that evolution is ongoing on a societal level rather than an individual level and/or that by cross-pollinating and reproducing in ever increasing numbers the human race is maximising its chances of producing an inherently better specimen somewhere along the line.

Given the population will continue to increase and that more manipulative and aggressive people thrive in densely populated areas perhaps this better specimen is what we would currently call a thug ? Great for the species a thug who takes what he wants but bad for creating an ideal society which is what we should be trying to achieve.

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Scanlas The 2nd

LordSmeg wrote: »

Ush1 wrote: »

1. Evolution does not have a goal, it's irrelevant how "ugly" you are.

2. The environment is anything that is not you. So there is still plenty and always will be selection pressures.

3. Going by your way of thinking of evolution, in many parts of the world there is still a major struggle for survival(Africa, Middle East, etc...).

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

People will always be ugly. No matter how good looking by today's standards we evolve, our perception of looks will also evolve, so someone who would be perceived as good looking today wouldn't may not make the grade down the line if evolution were to increase the standards of looks. There will always be those who are on the lower end of the bell curve in terms of looks, no matter how good looking we evolve and they will be the ugly ones.

Diapason

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though? If you took a person from "good" genes and put them in a "down-and-out" situation, would they turn into violent criminals themselves?

Tell you what, you should arrange for a futures trader to swap lives with a bum, and I bet you $1 the trader will start acting like a bum himself. We just need to be a bit careful that we don't lose our business and wealth on the FCOJ market.

pickarooney

LordSmeg wrote: »

Given the population will continue to increase and that more manipulative and aggressive people thrive in densely populated areas perhaps this better specimen is what we would currently call a thug ? Great for the species a thug who takes what he wants but bad for creating an ideal society which is what we should be trying to achieve.

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Thugs, politicians or business moguls - manipulation and aggression have always been key to dominating your peers. It's a testament to society that artists and the disabled can survive and thrive.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

We have to protect ourselves from evolution too and try to guide it based on morals and what we want society to be.

Which society, whose morals, who makes the decisions???

Scioch

seamus wrote: »

The beauty about the process of evolution is that it can't be interfered with. Whatever the outcome for humans, however we decide to direct our path, it's the result of the process of evolution.

If "ugly" people are now more succesful than they were previously, that's evolution. It's a natural progression, and all outcomes, whether we consciously try to control it or consciously choose to let it run, all outcomes are the result of evolution. People with previously fatal genetic diseases surviving is not a distortion of evolution, it's simply evolution in another guise.

That is, if we decide as a society to "exclude" certain people from the gene pool, that's the result of the evolution of our brains to the point where we're capable of making those decisions. In that case, we're not "controlling" evolution, we're simply continuing it.

If we decide to just let it go where it takes us, then that too is evolution.

Evolution as concept isn't solely biological - it applies to societies and mental constructs too. The concept of the "meme" demonstrates this kind of non-biological evolution, where those ideas which are favourable to the society survive and expand. Those ideas which are not, die.

The problem is that evolution is painted as a process with an end-goal; to produce the most perfect specimen. That's completely incorrect. The process of evolution simple causes favourable things to be selected because they naturally are better at surviving. There is no "end goal".

Evolution has no end goal but humans do. So to phrase it better, maybe we should be more actively engaging in trying to achieve that through manipulating the gene pool to create individuals more suited to that end goal rather than trying to achieve it despite the the gene pool producing individuals not suited to it.

Whats favourable depends on the people that gravitate towards it which itself can be changed by changing what the people are prone to gravitate towards. Reducing the amount of violent people reproducing may result in less people gravitating towards more violent methods of doing something.

Scioch

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People will always be ugly. No matter how good looking by today's standards we evolve, our perception of looks will also evolve, so someone who would be perceived as good looking today wouldn't may not make the grade down the line if evolution were to increase the standards of looks. There will always be those who are on the lower end of the bell curve in terms of looks, no matter how good looking we evolve and they will be the ugly ones.

Well I dont want to focus on attractiveness. I just meant that it would have an impact on the evolution of the species.

Scioch

Diapason wrote: »

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though? If you took a person from "good" genes and put them in a "down-and-out" situation, would they turn into violent criminals themselves?

Tell you what, you should arrange for a futures trader to swap lives with a bum, and I bet you $1 the trader will start acting like a bum himself. We just need to be a bit careful that we don't lose our business and wealth on the FCOJ market.

Its probably all interlinked. Take the domestication of dogs. Started as wolves who were aggressive, only the tamest ones were bred and eventually you get an animal pre disposed to be non aggressive. Although still capable of it its less likely to be that way.

Same with humans, scumbag doesnt have a kid thats one less likely scumbag. Whether its because of the upbringing or what they are pre disposed to or a mixture it still results in the same thing. Someone non beneficial to society not given the chance to reproduce and increase the chance of there being more people non beneficial to society.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

I know it doesnt have a goal I was just using attractiveness as something that would separate you from someone else in terms of reproducing. Only when there is a clear separation ugly v attractive in terms of reproducing will you get a clear path of progress in terms of evolution. If ugly people dont reproduce then people are more likely to be better looking on the whole.

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

LordSmeg wrote: »

But thats just it there are very few selection pressure now that will have an impact on the progress of the species. No matter what your physical or social standing you are very likely to reproduce. So the species on the whole isnt adapting to anything other than the fact that there is no selection pressure.

There is always selection pressures and the resources on this planet are finite so there will forever be a struggle for them.

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

LordSmeg wrote: »

I dont understand your third point. Africa and the middle east are little different from the west in terms of what I'm talking about. Similar social structures exist and as you see with foreign aid, efforts are made to help people in condition ill befitting human survival to survive and reproduce there. As a group they struggle to live comfortably but its not a struggle that will produce something beneficial to future survival of those who live there. They rely on the same thing we rely on, others to provide and help us and structures to be put into place to facilitate that.

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

LordSmeg wrote: »

The fact that the people who live closest to what we would see as our past conditions struggle so much to survive backs up my point about how we would struggle to survive outside of our current safety net of our rigged environment. An environment that you do not need to adapt to in order to survive in.

But they do survive, and that's all that's needed.

Scioch

pickarooney wrote: »

Thugs, politicians or business moguls - manipulation and aggression have always been key to dominating your peers. It's a testament to society that artists and the disabled can survive and thrive.

It always seems to be in conflict with society though doesnt it ? If your a thug you get on grand yet your going against whats expected of you by the rest of society. Something that should result in them losing not thriving.

I think thats the line between the old and the new in terms of society. We know what we want and we are trying to achieve it yet individuals still remain that contradict that and they can so easily thrive in doing it.

seamus

LordSmeg wrote: »

Evolution has no end goal but humans do. So to phrase it better, maybe we should be more actively engaging in trying to achieve that through manipulating the gene pool to create individuals more suited to that end goal rather than trying to achieve it despite the the gene pool producing individuals not suited to it.

Whats favourable depends on the people that gravitate towards it which itself can be changed by changing what the people are prone to gravitate towards. Reducing the amount of violent people reproducing may result in less people gravitating towards more violent methods of doing something.

But that's not guiding or interfering with evolution. If society deems that violence is unfavourable and weeds them out, then that's evolution in action. Nothing more, nothing less.
Likewise if violent people thrive and reduce society to cinders, then that's evolution too.

Ignoring evolution for a second, you have a rather large ethical issue to overcome first - how do you know that people are genetically predisposed to violence? Sure it runs in families and lines, but that then raises the possibility that this is equally likely down to upbringing factors. In that case then, it would be impossible to genetically eradicate violence and we should be looking for other ways to improve these people.

Donnielighto

Diapason wrote: »

Is scumbaggery/violence a genetic thing or a societal thing, though?

Both society affects the development of a person, genetics affects the inherent disposition. With regard to the argument against the influence of genetics how else do people explained trends in behaviour among breeds of dogs? (We are all animals so don't use that line)

Ush1

Natural selection is not the A honours student, it's the D pass just good enough one who doesn't hope to be any better than that.

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

But thats where we differ from slugs, we can have an end goal, our evolution is not solely dependent on chance. We can control what we are as a species based on what we want to be as a species. By progress I mean changing as a species to best suit our environment. In terms of living in a modern equal society the best individuals suited to that are non violent people who respect others, who do not harm or exploit others. Getting closer to achieving that is the progress we should be after.

There is always selection pressures and the resources on this planet are finite so there will forever be a struggle for them.

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

I disagree I think there is a struggle for a comfortable life not survival or selection. There are monetary pressures yes but they dont affect selection, yes people die every day but many many more thrive and live longer and reproduce more because of medical advancement.

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

I'm not saying it stops I'm saying we are evolving to suit our environment. An environment which doesnt have the struggles and pressures present in the natural world. The struggle by and large in the modern word is a struggle to live comfortably not to survive and reproduce.

But they do survive, and that's all that's needed.

I know thats all thats needed but the point was they struggle to survive while those in conditions closer to the modern world dont. They only struggle to live comfortably. And we are not far into the modern age. The structures of modern society creates an environment that doesnt involves a struggle for survival.

Donnielighto

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by progress? Sexual selection exists yes but it doesn't mean we'd be any "less of a species" if we were all butt ugly. It's simply about passing on genes. Again, there is no end goal to be strived for, a slug is as evolved as you or me.

Think he meant it in terms of change btw. Also going by your statement we are as evolved as the original single celled species, no more. I find that incongruous with evolution which is progression from simpler to more complex forms through development and diversifying.

Ush1 wrote: »

Very likely to reproduce no matter physical condition and standing? I don't agree at all, it's not the case. Pressures in the west are now monetary and power based for a lot of people. People are dying every day because of waiting lists for operations and not being able to afford insurance etc..

The waiting list for operations is a bit questionable, people can still have kids especially since they are supported by the rest of society to do so (financially). A wide spread of people having a low number of children and relatively very little to separate people between life and death up to child bearing age as was in the past.

Ush1 wrote: »

Infrastructures and health care are vastly different from the west. My point was that if you're talking the classic eugenics style "survival of the fittest", Africa still has such pressures.

Women sex workers have found to be resistant to HIV because of a mutation.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2001/08/02/fj.00-0619fje.full.pdf

Evolution does not stop. In fact in Africa, procreation IS there defence mechanism.

Thats nuts If that were evolution wouldn't it mean that those women would for want of a better word have come from sex worker "stock" otherwise it would be an inherent chance among humans and these are the ones who havent died otherwise the population proportions would be the same ie not evolution, yet anyway?

Donnielighto

Ush1 wrote: »

Natural selection is not the A honours student, it's the D pass just good enough one who doesn't hope to be any better than that.

Thats a pretty poor analogy, if you are going down that line, it is everyone who doesn't fail (to reproduce).

Green Mile

LordSmeg wrote: »

1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society. Do we have to stop these people reproducing if we want to ever achieve our goal of an equal society ? Because as long as those traits remain we will forever be fighting them. If you dont remove them they will forever be there passed own from generation to generation, possibly becoming more prominent as a lot of densely populated areas suit these types of people very well and the planet will become a lot more densely populated.

2. Will this be our downfall as a species ? Millions of years becoming the most adaptive thing on the planet, then thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousand even millions) slowly undoing that by living in an environment where humans essentially live in controlled conditions. Not allowed to fail or fall behind and basically living on life support as a species. With natural disasters that life support might be switched off. Returning us to conditions we would not only no longer be built for but the complete opposite of what we are built for.

TL;DR: Should we try to control our own evolution to suit our new environment or continue to go with the flow and hope it all works out ? Or are we fcuked either way given that we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for ?

Good points but I so disagree.
Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

Who are we to decide who is weak, ugly or unfit to reproduce?

If we lived in such a society as you outline, Stephen Hawking would have been deemed undesirable and we'd be way behind with scientific knowledge.

Also one who is a D student in maths could be a very successful artist/film-maker.

Although I disagree with you, you make good points and I have no alternatives to suggest.

Donnielighto

Green Mile wrote: »

Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

Godwin'd thread over, tea and coffee available in the foyer ppl.


Also re: the Steven Hawking thing he developed als when already a respected scholar, a bit off point i know but still, the man is brilliant, we should all know his life story inside out.

Scioch

seamus wrote: »

But that's not guiding or interfering with evolution. If society deems that violence is unfavourable and weeds them out, then that's evolution in action. Nothing more, nothing less.
Likewise if violent people thrive and reduce society to cinders, then that's evolution too.

Evolution is the generational behavioural/biological changes in a species.

By controlling our own evolution I mean actively seek the change we want by controlling or attempting to control generational changes by limiting the reproduction of people with traits we deem to be detrimental.

Ignoring evolution for a second, you have a rather large ethical issue to overcome first - how do you know that people are genetically predisposed to violence? Sure it runs in families and lines, but that then raises the possibility that this is equally likely down to upbringing factors. In that case then, it would be impossible to genetically eradicate violence and we should be looking for other ways to improve these people.

People are pre disposed to certain behaviours. Growing up in a certain environment or exposed to certain individuals displaying that behaviour will also have an effect. Either way it can be dramatically reduced by not allowing those who display violent behaviour to reproduce. Whether its done by passing on the characteristics through inheritance or upbringing both cannot happen if that person does not have children.

I know you can never completely eradicate violence but you can make changes which will reduce the likelihood of people acting in violent manner.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

By controlling our own evolution I mean actively seek the change we want by controlling or attempting to control generational changes by limiting the reproduction of people with traits we deem to be detrimental.

Who makes the decisions on who or what is acceptable???
As was mentioned that has been done already in recent history and it didn't go down too well.

Scioch

Green Mile wrote: »

Good points but I so disagree.
Hitler had the same mind-set but unfortunately also had the power to kill the undesirables.

Hitler was a jerk.

Who are we to decide who is weak, ugly or unfit to reproduce?

Its not about weakness or attractiveness. But who are we to decide who is fit or unfit to reproduce ? The same people who can decide who has a place in society to begin with. Society itself can decide this based on whats best for society. If you have convictions for violent crimes and can be locked up for the rest of your life they why is it such an immoral thing to say you cannot have a child which you will likely abuse and who will likely exhibit the same behaviour you do ?

If we lived in such a society as you outline, Stephen Hawking would have been deemed undesirable and we'd be way behind with scientific knowledge.

Not at all. Stephen Hawking is a great benefit to society. And I am not saying anyone who doesnt contribute is the problem I'm saying those who have a negative impact are. Scumbag D Maguilegan for instance who has spent his life beating and threatening people isnt a great benefit. Thats who we dont need.

Also one who is a D student in maths could be a very successful artist/film-maker.

Although I disagree with you, you make good points and I have no alternatives to suggest.

If you fail everything you ever did and everything you paid your hand to turned to shít it doesnt matter. If you want to be a member of society and contribute and not spend your life taking away from it and abusing other people then that is what society needs.

Scioch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Who makes the decisions on who or what is acceptable???
As was mentioned that has been done already in recent history and it didn't go down too well.

Who made the decision that people go to jail ? Have their kids taken away ? People have always been held accountable for their actions, this is just another consequence.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

Who made the decision that people go to jail ? Have their kids taken away ? People have always been held accountable for their actions, this is just another consequence.

People don't go to jail for being mentally or physically disabled.

Scioch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

People don't go to jail for being mentally or physically disabled.

No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.

Green Mile

LordSmeg wrote: »

No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.

People go to jail for crimes they committed. (past tense)

You are talking about manipulating their genes so that they have no criminal flaws or to take away their ability to have children who they in turn wont cause crimes down the line.

Can you not see problems with this?

You are talking about punishment before crimes are committed. Yes the crime wont happen if genes are altered but it's not right to make assumptions about crimes that haven't happened yet.

What was that Tom Cruse film called again? Time cop was it?

Scioch

Green Mile wrote: »

People go to jail for crimes they committed.
You are talking about manipulating their genes so that they have no flaws or to take away their ability to have children who in turn wont cause crimes down the line.

I'm talking about removing their ability to reproduce as a consequence for displaying behaviour detrimental to society through committing violent crimes. They have no business raising kids.

Can you not see problems with this?

You are talking about punishment before crimes are committed. Yes the crime wont happen if genes are altered but they it's not right to make assumptions about crimes that haven't happened yet.

What was that Tom Cruse film called again? Time cop was it?

I'm not talking all futuristic time cop stuff at all. Just a snip for violent criminals so they wont have kids they can raise to be violent criminals. Should the likes of Larry Murphy really be allowed to father and raise a child ? I say no. Once you show you cant exist in society without causing others harm your goose is cooked and a child is the last thing you should be let near.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

But thats where we differ from slugs, we can have an end goal, our evolution is not solely dependent on chance. We can control what we are as a species based on what we want to be as a species. By progress I mean changing as a species to best suit our environment. In terms of living in a modern equal society the best individuals suited to that are non violent people who respect others, who do not harm or exploit others. Getting closer to achieving that is the progress we should be after.

Natural selection is not based on chance. Having an end goal is called artificial selection. It sounds like what you're describing is eugenics?

Also, we still are changing to suit our environment naturally without an end, that doesn't stop.

Who would be deciding who is best for modern society? It's really a dodgy road to go down.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I disagree I think there is a struggle for a comfortable life not survival or selection. There are monetary pressures yes but they dont affect selection, yes people die every day but many many more thrive and live longer and reproduce more because of medical advancement.

So you think no people struggle for survival in the world? Honestly?

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm not saying it stops I'm saying we are evolving to suit our environment. An environment which doesnt have the struggles and pressures present in the natural world. The struggle by and large in the modern word is a struggle to live comfortably not to survive and reproduce.

Well really the struggle is to pass on genes and that struggle is still present.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I know thats all thats needed but the point was they struggle to survive while those in conditions closer to the modern world dont. They only struggle to live comfortably. And we are not far into the modern age. The structures of modern society creates an environment that doesnt involves a struggle for survival.

But people still die and still evolve, I'm not sure where we are going here?

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

No they go to jail for committing violent crimes and being detrimental to society. That is what I'm talking about. Not disabled people.

Your words ...... "lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured" or according to their "physical or social standing" and of course the wonderfully ambiguous "traits we deem to be detrimental", or should I say "traits you deem to be detrimental".

Ush1

Donnielighto wrote: »

Think he meant it in terms of change btw. Also going by your statement we are as evolved as the original single celled species, no more. I find that incongruous with evolution which is progression from simpler to more complex forms through development and diversifying.

We are as evolved as any other modern species, number the cells isn't that relevant.

Donnielighto wrote: »

The waiting list for operations is a bit questionable, people can still have kids especially since they are supported by the rest of society to do so (financially). A wide spread of people having a low number of children and relatively very little to separate people between life and death up to child bearing age as was in the past.

That sounds like mainly the west to be honest. There is still plenty of people who aren't passing on genes or avoiding it. The number of children born in western countries is far less that in African countries where there are less resources. Defence mechanism? Strange how our grandparents had 10 kids and we only have 2.

Donnielighto wrote: »

Thats nuts If that were evolution wouldn't it mean that those women would for want of a better word have come from sex worker "stock" otherwise it would be an inherent chance among humans and these are the ones who havent died otherwise the population proportions would be the same ie not evolution, yet anyway?

I'm not sure what you're saying here? My point is that there is people in Africa with a gene resistant to HIV. Scientists forecast that there will be a genetic shift in the population favouring those born with this gene.

starbelgrade

LordSmeg wrote: »

Its probably all interlinked. Take the domestication of dogs. Started as wolves who were aggressive, only the tamest ones were bred and eventually you get an animal pre disposed to be non aggressive. Although still capable of it its less likely to be that way.

But if you take that analogy to it's conclusion - which is the breeding of purebreds for certain "attractive" characteristics, you end up with the situation which exists today with purebreds, in that many of them suffer from genetic problems.

I'm also not convinced that you can breed violence or "ugliness" out of the human gene pool.

And even if you could, I don't see any reason why you would.

Ush1

Donnielighto wrote: »

Thats a pretty poor analogy, if you are going down that line, it is everyone who doesn't fail (to reproduce).

How is it a poor analogy, it's exactly the case? Evolution isn't looking for some anthro-centric greek god.

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

Natural selection is not based on chance. Having an end goal is called artificial selection. It sounds like what you're describing is eugenics?

Seems to be eugenics yes, although I havent looked into it detail. By chance I mean the slug has no control, no awareness everything it is and will be is just a result of wherever it finds itself. Humans can divert from that, chane the environment to suit us, change us to suit the environment.

Also, we still are changing to suit our environment naturally without an end, that doesn't stop.

But we can also make changes based on future environments not just the environment we are in now. We have the ability to shape our environment and ourselves to achieve what we want in the future not just react to current circumstances.

Who would be deciding who is best for modern society? It's really a dodgy road to go down.

Not really, we already dictate who can be in any particular society and the roles which they can have based on the behaviour they display. We constantly live within limits set by society. This wouldnt break away from that.

So you think no people struggle for survival in the world? Honestly?

Of course they do but not in such a way as will have an impact on the species.

Well really the struggle is to pass on genes and that struggle is still present.

Not really. Populations have exploded in recent years. The struggle now is to live comfortably as materialism has taken over from instinct.

But people still die and still evolve, I'm not sure where we are going here?

And we are back to the main point. Evolve in what way ? What constraints on the selection process creates change in the species ? None. Its a lucky dip as far as small changes and there will be no big changes as our environment isnt changing as people dont have to change to live in it.

Scioch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Your words ...... "lazy, ugly, thick or disfigured" or according to their "physical or social standing" and of course the wonderfully ambiguous "traits we deem to be detrimental", or should I say "traits you deem to be detrimental".

You misunderstand. That was in relation to the stagnating of evolutionary progress in relation to our current environment. Not detrimental, your mis representing my post here and I dont appreciate it.

1. If we are accepting that then shouldnt we use our own form of gene pool control and remove those not suited to living in this new society ? Those prone to violence, who exploit others and things which we see as detrimental to society.

That was in relation to controlling it. Notice the words violent, those who exploit others, detrimental to society.

I never mentioned stopping disabled people from reproducing.

Scioch

starbelgrade wrote: »

But if you take that analogy to it's conclusion - which is the breeding of purebreds for certain "attractive" characteristics, you end up with the situation which exists today with purebreds, in that many of them suffer from genetic problems.

I'm also not convinced that you can breed violence or "ugliness" out of the human gene pool.

And even if you could, I don't see any reason why you would.

That was just to show that aggressiveness can be limited through the control of generational changes.

But I'm not talking about selective breeding in relation to humans I'm talking about limiting reproduction in an active attempt to reduce the number of violent individuals. I never mentioned doing anything to make people more attractive, I just used that as a point in relation to the diversity of the gene pool.

And why wouldnt you see any reason to try and limit violence if it was possible ???

mongdesade

An evolutionary utopian society is unattainable as we as a species are the most detrimental factor in the equation.