Unnatural selection

Scioch

mongdesade wrote: »

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

But surely we could get closer to it by trying than not ?

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

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.



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.

Read you own OP.

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.

Point 1. <<you mention violence>> Grand.

Now in point 2. you state in relation to your opening statement that

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.

The above point #2 is not about violent people.

And just to be clear you also state.

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 ?

How does "we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for" relate to people of violence, when often these people are the toughest and often very physically fit.

Stop trying to weedle your way out of it.

Scioch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Read you own OP.


Point 1. <<you mention violence>> Grand.

Now in point 2. you state in relation to your opening statement that
The above point #2 is not about violent people.

And just to be clear you also state.

How does "we'll end up as a species not suit for anything other than being provided for" relate to people of violence, when often these people are the toughest and often very physically fit.

Stop trying to weedle your way out of it.

I'm not weedling my way out of nothing. Listen to me please. I have not said anything at all about removing disabled people. I merely stated a fact.

I stated that there is no hindering of reproduction in modern society in regards to what would previously have been characteristics which facilitated mating.

Point 1 was in relation to how society should act in regards to the generational changes to benefit society and guide it to some extent. I mention trying to limit violence as an example.

Point 2 was in relation to whether or not our dependence on modern society would leave us ill suited for survival if it collapsed.

The only changes I advocated were those detrimental to society which I have explain several times since that are behaviours exhibited by people which negatively impact on society and those in it.

So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

Colmustard

Why does the OP think evolution is a forward process, it isn't. Evolution does not have a goal it is just a cold process. We are not and never will evolve into "Xmen". Lets take the human intellect, it's a very handy survival tool, but it is expensive. It consumes from 25 to 35% of our bodily resources.

So suppose an environmental catastrophe happened that reduced atmospheric oxygen by 50%, then perhaps a mutation "may" occur that a person with a smaller less intelligent brain would have the survival and therefore a reproductive advantage. Then a human branch would evolve with less intelligence but more equipped to survive in the new environment.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm not weedling my way out of nothing. Listen to me please. I have not said anything at all about removing disabled people. I merely stated a fact.

I stated that there is no hindering of reproduction in modern society in regards to what would previously have been characteristics which facilitated mating.

Point 1 was in relation to how society should act in regards to the generational changes to benefit society and guide it to some extent. I mention trying to limit violence as an example.

Point 2 was in relation to whether or not our dependence on modern society would leave us ill suited for survival if it collapsed.

The only changes I advocated were those detrimental to society which I have explain several times since that are behaviours exhibited by people which negatively impact on society and those in it.

So please stop misrepresenting my argument.

Well if I picked you up wrong on that front I apologise, though I don't think I was the only one because your OP does give the impression you are on about controlling evolution with respect to more than just violence.

Scioch

Colmustard wrote: »

Why does the OP think evolution is a forward process, it isn't. Evolution does not have a goal it is just a cold process. We are not and never will evolve into "Xmen". Lets take the human intellect, it's a very handy survival tool, but it is expensive. It consumes from 25 to 35% of our bodily resources.

So suppose an environmental catastrophe happened that reduced atmospheric oxygen by 50%, then perhaps a mutation "may" occur that a person with a smaller less intelligent brain would have the survival and therefore a reproductive advantage. Then a human branch would evolve with less intelligence but more equipped to survive in the new environment.

The first line in regards evolution was about how we got where we are which has been a steady increase in intelligence and standards of life and what have ya. Then I described our current environment and asked if we should actively seek to make changes to better society considering natural selection will no longer result in the changes we as a people would seek to achieve.

I never said evolution had a goal I said humans do, and we are capable of changing our environment and capable of improving on that and society to the benefit of humankind.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

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.

You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.

Donnielighto wrote: »

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.

Yes, we fight nature all the time. I think you need to get a bit more specific with your theory?

Donnielighto wrote: »

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.

Right, not that I agree with that paragraph but what is your proposal exactly?

Donnielighto wrote: »

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

Immunity to HIV doesn't have an impact on the species? What do you want, for them to grow gills overnight?

Donnielighto wrote: »

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

Yes yes, and all it might take is a super virus to take us all down, just like the black death did in 1350. You and me are most likely descendents of people who had an immunity to the black death.

Donnielighto wrote: »

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.

And I say again, there is changes in the environment and in our evolution constantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution

Scioch

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Well if I picked you up wrong on that front I apologise, though I don't think I was the only one because your OP does give the impression you are on about controlling evolution with respect to more than just violence.

Apology accepted I certainly dont hold that view and I've expressed that several times now.

I'm blaming the fact that its a long OP and people tend to pick at stuff in isolation in long posts rather than taking it all in.

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.

Not at all but you dont have to control every facet to make positive changes. I dont see how its a dodgy road to be honest. In the case to neutering violent criminals I see no moral problem whatsoever. Its a consequence of negative social behaviour, thats how society enforces its standards.

starbelgrade

LordSmeg wrote: »

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 ???

It may be possible to limit agressiveness through the control of generational changes, but there's no concrete evidence to suggest that it can be done purely through genetic controls and no evidence at all to suggest that it can be done by controlling who or who does not reproduce.

You could try to limit violence in this manner, but at what cost would it come and more importantly - would it even achieve to set out what it tried to achieve?

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.

Didnt realise the rest of the post was in response to me, you seem to have quoted someone else with what I said. Odd.

Yes, we fight nature all the time. I think you need to get a bit more specific with your theory?

Come on I've gone to great effort here already to explain I'm talking about actively trying to progress in the way we want to and not just as a result of environmental circumstances. Not just react to our environment but to dictate how we want to react to our environment and what we want that environment to be based on what we as a species want. Saying "where do we want to be, what do we want to be" and then trying to achieve that.

Right, not that I agree with that paragraph but what is your proposal exactly?

My proposal is to control it within the current limits set. By only applying these things as a consequence of not adhering to the rules of society and not controlling the lives of valid contributors of society. Neuter all violent criminals. In several generations you will have likely reduced crime, reduced the amount of violent people in society and the amount of people who are influenced by them. I think this would have a huge impact.

Immunity to HIV doesn't have an impact on the species? What do you want, for them to grow gills overnight?

You said people struggle, everyone struggles but it doesnt lead to change in regards to our environment seeing as our environment isnt changing. And immunity in african prostitutes shows what ? Human progress ? Generational changes in prostitutes exposes to HIV, not exatly what we should be striving for is it ?

Yes yes, and all it might take is a super virus to take us all down, just like the black death did in 1350. You and me are most likely descendents of people who had an immunity to the black death.

According to you as long as we pass on the genes the human species wins. Prostitute - HIV immune = win ? You'd think after millions of years we'd be able to aspire to something a bit higher than that.

And I say again, there is changes in the environment and in our evolution constantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution

I'm talking in regards to an unchanging environment and the future of an entire species and how we can actively improve and create a better society, your focused on hookers who wont die of aids and lactose persistence and thinking its grand the way it is :rolleyes:

Scioch

starbelgrade wrote: »

It may be possible to limit agressiveness through the control of generational changes, but there's no concrete evidence to suggest that it can be done purely through genetic controls and no evidence at all to suggest that it can be done by controlling who or who does not reproduce.

You could try to limit violence in this manner, but at what cost would it come and more importantly - would it even achieve to set out what it tried to achieve?

Little cost if those its applied to are convicted criminals, might be of significant benefit. And you dont know for sure it would achieve what it sets out to until its been tried.

I certainly see no downside to limiting the reproduction of violent criminals. And quite a big potential benefit.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

Not at all but you dont have to control every facet to make positive changes. I dont see how its a dodgy road to be honest. In the case to neutering violent criminals I see no moral problem whatsoever. Its a consequence of negative social behaviour, thats how society enforces its standards.

So it's castrating people? No I certainly would not agree with that. I can't see how you don't think it is a dodgy road, we have human rights to deal with this.

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

Come on I've gone to great effort here already to explain I'm talking about actively trying to progress in the way we want to and not just as a result of environmental circumstances. Not just react to our environment but to dictate how we want to react to our environment and what we want that environment to be based on what we as a species want. Saying "where do we want to be, what do we want to be" and then trying to achieve that.

But we already do things like that to an extent. What you're describing sounds like eugenics which is some thing different altogether.

You're saying castrating certain people and allowing certain others to breed? Or forcing them to or what?

LordSmeg wrote: »

My proposal is to control it within the current limits set. By only applying these things as a consequence of not adhering to the rules of society and not controlling the lives of valid contributors of society. Neuter all violent criminals. In several generations you will have likely reduced crime, reduced the amount of violent people in society and the amount of people who are influenced by them. I think this would have a huge impact.

There would be massive upshots to this and I don't agree with it in principal anyway. The most powerful people in the world are violent and bloodthirsty. Getting rid of them might cause society to break down for other reasons or because they aren't there.

LordSmeg wrote: »

You said people struggle, everyone struggles but it doesnt lead to change in regards to our environment seeing as our environment isnt changing. And immunity in african prostitutes shows what ? Human progress ? Generational changes in prostitutes exposes to HIV, not exatly what we should be striving for is it ?

I'm honestly not sure how much more I can say it but the environment is constantly changing, it's everything apart from you.

You said human species aren't involving in these places and I showed you they have become immune to HIV and you say that isn't progress?

LordSmeg wrote: »

According to you as long as we pass on the genes the human species wins. Prostitute - HIV immune = win ? You'd think after millions of years we'd be able to aspire to something a bit higher than that.

From an evolutionary perspective yes, pass on genes and that's all that's required. It's all you're "designed" for.

Higher aspirations like what? Man on the moon? Iphones? Sure. Eugenics and selective breeding? No, I think that would show how much we would have regressed as a species if anything.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm talking in regards to an unchanging environment and the future of an entire species and how we can actively improve and create a better society, your focused on hookers who wont die of aids and lactose persistence and thinking its grand the way it is :rolleyes:

You're talking about chopping off angry Harrys b*llocks. See I can do it to.

You're talking the ramblings of a mad man tbh.

Cú Giobach

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm blaming the fact that its a long OP and people tend to pick at stuff in isolation in long posts rather than taking it all in.

You can blame that, but I explained above in a detail that would not be possible without fully reading and examining the OP, and though it wasn't what you say you meant, it (obviously accidently) implied more than what you intended.

Scioch

Ush1 wrote: »

But we already do things like that to an extent. What you're describing sounds like eugenics which is some thing different altogether.

You're saying castrating certain people and allowing certain others to breed? Or forcing them to or what?

I'm saying remove the ability for violent offenders to reproduce, whether its castration or vasectomy or whatever. If you commit a violent crime you have your bits decommissioned.

There would be massive upshots to this and I don't agree with it in principal anyway. The most powerful people in the world are violent and bloodthirsty. Getting rid of them might cause society to break down for other reasons or because they aren't there.

How would stopping violent criminals having kids cause society to collapse ? And you dont have to be violent and blood thirsty to be powerful its just the easiest way of achieving it in certain places.

I'm honestly not sure how much more I can say it but the environment is constantly changing, it's everything apart from you.

You said human species aren't involving in these places and I showed you they have become immune to HIV and you say that isn't progress?

But the point is that we create the environment now and if we dont change it it wont change. We wont suddenly return to the trees, we will be living in this system where no one type of person will procreate more than any other such as to change the human species. Yes small changes take place and always will but as a species in an environment we have no need for that much change. So I'm saying the changes we think we should strive for or hope to achieve should be actively sought. Not just sit back and say "oh well hopefully in a thousand years we'll all be geniuses" that may happen but it has a much greater chance of happening if we actively try to achieve it by changing the environment to suit it.

From an evolutionary perspective yes, pass on genes and that's all that's required. It's all you're "designed" for.

Yet there you sit at a computer engaging and discussing instead of out riding. There's more to a humans life than biological urges.

Higher aspirations like what? Man on the moon? Iphones? Sure. Eugenics and selective breeding? No, I think that would show how much we would have regressed as a species if anything.

I dont think so, if you think changing the environment to benefit society is acceptable then I dont see why you would be again limit individuals participation in society if they are detrimental. I'm sure you dont disagree with incarceration, no problem locking people up, forcing them to pay for their mistakes, taking their possessions if they fail to meet a repayment. But you draw the line at stopping a violent criminal from fathering a child ? Wait for the kid to become a problem or to be abused before any action is taken ?

Personally I find that morally corrupt, irresponsible and a rather lazy and ignorant attitude to dealing with an issue. I'd rather try to tackle these things than sit back and wait for a few thousand years and fingers crossed it'll all work out !!

You're talking about chopping off angry Harrys b*llocks. See I can do it to.

You're talking the ramblings of a mad man tbh.

I'm talking about trying to remove violent scumbags from society. Hardly the ramblings of a mad man.

This conversation is over, your giving me a headache.

Wibbs

Problem with fiddling around removing genetic elements(if you can even prove they exist*) to improve things is you have no idea what other advantageous behaviours you would lose as a consequence. For instance aggression in males may have a strong relationship with risk taking and forcefulness that benefits humanity. It would make sense that young male aggression was positively selected for a very long time for very good reason(s). Now many of these reasons may no longer be useful, but we have no real way of telling which ones. So it's always better to have a wider pool of tools in the genetic toolbox as you never know when these may prove useful. A population of all "Jocks", or all "geeks" would be a very bad plan**.

As for changing the species longterm? Certainly our "interference" through medicine etc in whether people live or die may change things, but one must also bear in mind the large breeding populations of humans all over the world. You're just as likely in such a system that novel evolutionary changes will occur from one of those than from medical intervention.






*personally I feel the fashion de jour for genetics while incredibly informative is too often the go to explanation for everything. A real touch of "I have a hammer so every problem looks like a nail" going on. We're only scratching the surface of humanity and how these things interact to give us a Mozart or a Mengele. Sometimes both in the same person. Many great thinkers, artists and general drivers of human achievement were decidely dodgy in other ways.

** one of my odd personal theories is this may explain why women seem to have more variable tastes in their "ideal man". Men tend to have a narrower scope by comparison. My suggestion is that the ladies are what drove a lot of human evolution in the past by their choices and those choices were wider to cover all possible future bases. Indeed look at how many women write to and attempt to strike up relationships with monsters and murderers on death rows in the US. Women on death rows have far fewer suitors

Ush1

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm saying remove the ability for violent offenders to reproduce, whether its castration or vasectomy or whatever. If you commit a violent crime you have your bits decommissioned.

Yes, eugenics. As I said, violates countless human rights, I(and most people) believe is morally wrong and may not make any difference anyway.

LordSmeg wrote: »

How would stopping violent criminals having kids cause society to collapse ? And you dont have to be violent and blood thirsty to be powerful its just the easiest way of achieving it in certain places.

Everything changes the environment, and many would argue your second point.

LordSmeg wrote: »

But the point is that we create the environment now and if we dont change it it wont change.

What environment, the environment of de-bollocking?

LordSmeg wrote: »

We wont suddenly return to the trees, we will be living in this system where no one type of person will procreate more than any other such as to change the human species.

Mental.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Yes small changes take place and always will but as a species in an environment we have no need for that much change. So I'm saying the changes we think we should strive for or hope to achieve should be actively sought. Not just sit back and say "oh well hopefully in a thousand years we'll all be geniuses" that may happen but it has a much greater chance of happening if we actively try to achieve it by changing the environment to suit it.

I still don't get this notion you have that evolution is grinding to a slow halt? The only change you've listed is castrating criminals which most people will not back you up on I'd imagine.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Yet there you sit at a computer engaging and discussing instead of out riding. There's more to a humans life than biological urges.

Again, not really from a successful species point of view. You're here or you ain't.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I dont think so, if you think changing the environment to benefit society is acceptable then I dont see why you would be again limit individuals participation in society if they are detrimental. I'm sure you dont disagree with incarceration, no problem locking people up, forcing them to pay for their mistakes, taking their possessions if they fail to meet a repayment. But you draw the line at stopping a violent criminal from fathering a child ? Wait for the kid to become a problem or to be abused before any action is taken ?

Yes, I would draw the line at any interferring with their personal well being outside the remits of the law. I am against any form of capital punishment and would include castration therin.

As I've said, plenty of violent people contribute quite a lot to society, otherwise we wouldn't have armies, bouncers, police force, etc...

LordSmeg wrote: »

Personally I find that morally corrupt, irresponsible and a rather lazy and ignorant attitude to dealing with an issue. I'd rather try to tackle these things than sit back and wait for a few thousand years and fingers crossed it'll all work out !!

I'm all for dealing with issues but you haven't offered a viable, advisable or likely solution I'm afraid.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm talking about trying to remove violent scumbags from society. Hardly the ramblings of a mad man.

This conversation is over, your giving me a headache.

So the biggest scurge to our society is "violent scumbags". What about white collar criminals and bankers, castrate them also?

seamus

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm saying remove the ability for violent offenders to reproduce, whether its castration or vasectomy or whatever. If you commit a violent crime you have your bits decommissioned.

One thing you mightn't have considered is that life tends to route around this kind of "censorship". A little bit like a new river running down the side of a hill, it doesn't stop at the first rock it encounters, it just flows around it.

Someone doesn't become a violent offender, at least not in any way that it would be ethical to sterlise them, until they've been fertile for quite a few years.

So by the time you get to these people, chances are good they already have at least one child. If you make a policy of sterilising these people, rather than simply taking it on the chin, what you will find is that these families will encourage their own offspring to start going hammer and tongs from the age of ten or 11 so that they can have babies, "While they still can". It'll practically be a badge of honour for a man to have at least 3 kids before he's 16.
Families locked in a continual spiral of crime and violence don't have the same cause-and-effect mentality that we do. They get put in jail because they got caught, not because they've done anything wrong. Going to jail becomes an inevitable part of life, something that's practically normal for them. So if you sterlise them, then sterlisation becomes an inevitable part of their life and so they'll just treat child bearing as something you do before the cops get to you.

Then you're ****ed. What do you do with that? You can't sterlise the children of violent offenders - they haven't done anything wrong.

Scioch

seamus wrote: »

One thing you mightn't have considered is that life tends to route around this kind of "censorship". A little bit like a new river running down the side of a hill, it doesn't stop at the first rock it encounters, it just flows around it.

Someone doesn't become a violent offender, at least not in any way that it would be ethical to sterlise them, until they've been fertile for quite a few years.

So by the time you get to these people, chances are good they already have at least one child. If you make a policy of sterilising these people, rather than simply taking it on the chin, what you will find is that these families will encourage their own offspring to start going hammer and tongs from the age of ten or 11 so that they can have babies, "While they still can". It'll practically be a badge of honour for a man to have at least 3 kids before he's 16.
Families locked in a continual spiral of crime and violence don't have the same cause-and-effect mentality that we do. They get put in jail because they got caught, not because they've done anything wrong. Going to jail becomes an inevitable part of life, something that's practically normal for them. So if you sterlise them, then sterlisation becomes an inevitable part of their life and so they'll just treat child bearing as something you do before the cops get to you.

Then you're ****ed. What do you do with that? You can't sterlise the children of violent offenders - they haven't done anything wrong.

But as you said they are locked in a cause and effect mentality. Lots of offenders are convicted of violent crimes at an early enough age. As its behaviour that isnt as easily controlled for youths of that disposition.

So even if they have one kid by the time they are "dealt with" its better than having 2-3, I mean your dramatically reducing the chance of that offender causing more problems by proxy down the road. I also think these people dont have kids for families sake, its just something that happens. They dont plan it more often that not its accidental an then its just another kid caught up in the life of someone who has nothing but a negative impact on them. Young people dont want to be tied down like that its mostly forced on them through circumstance. So I dont think it likely that it would become a badge of honour to such a degree that it would render the original exercise pointless.

The same argument can be made for any form of punishment but you just cant dismiss every form of punishment or every solution on the grounds they may find a work around. Even if it wasnt a long term solution I think it certainly would have short and long term benefits.

cartell_best

Are we not just a species on this planet? We are (and some may disagree) the most intelligent form of life co-existing with a multitude of species. The thing is, as a specific form of life on this planet we have the technology and brain development to outwit and destroy almost every other species of life? We are, without doubt, a species that can, on our own, wipe out not only our own existence but every other living creature on the planet!

The thing is? Its like what goes on in life. We have prisons to control people who have an urge or contempt to upset the natural stages in life and what is, from most rational thinking of people, the wrong thing to do. The thing is, doing wrong or right towards anyone or anything is a stage and we as one of those species, realise that "enough is enough". Evolution or Intelligent design, we are failing on all counts. Hindsight may be an option for our ancestors to contemplate, but at the pace in which we have "evolved" over the last 100 years is something that even I find mind boggling and ancestors is but a word and something that ceases to be nothing more than that . If, as a race, we are capable of such progression in the previous 100 years, what will we be capable of in 2112....

Roadtrippin

LordSmeg wrote: »

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 ?

Last time someone had brilliant thoughts like that and published a sh*t book about it was 1925. It didn't end so well.

Who can truly decide who is suited to living in this world and who isn't?

Evolution has no agenda. It is an illusion to think it can be controlled.

Sea Filly

LordSmeg wrote: »

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 ?

Ummm, they tried this before.

Scioch

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Last time someone had brilliant thoughts like that and published a sh*t book about it was 1925. It didn't end so well.

Who can truly decide who is suited to living in this world and who isn't?

Evolution has no agenda. It is an illusion to think it can be controlled.

We all decide, if you wear a condom or have an abortion you are deciding. If you have a kid with A instead of B your deciding.

Why is everyone going on like I'm trying to set up a concentration camp ?

Scioch

Sea Filly wrote: »

Ummm, they tried this before.

Who's they ? And what did they try ?

Sea Filly

LordSmeg wrote: »

Who's they ? And what did they try ?

Eugenics. Many places in the 20th century. Often compulsory. People who were deemed by the powers that be to be not be worthy of reproducing.

Ush1 wrote: »

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

Exactly. Why do people not get that evolution is NOT forward-looking?

Logical_Bear

Ghandee wrote: »

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

I would.....



Attachment not found.

man thats not right!lol

cartell_best

LordSmeg wrote: »

We all decide, if you wear a condom or have an abortion you are deciding.

That is a contradiction in terms! You use contraception, you are preventing rather than stopping a life that has already begun. That point you make is by no means valid!

hairybowsie

if we had a pure free market economy as proposed by austrian economists then it might help? But surely the next stage of evolution is technologically enhanced humans as proposed by ray kurzweil among others. Unfortunately. humans might live on wildlife reserves while the spiritual machines we created knock us off the perch as most advanced being on this planet. Sounds crazy. But how big will the most powerful computer be in 30 years in terms of the human brain

Scioch

Sea Filly wrote: »

Eugenics. Many places in the 20th century. Often compulsory. People who were deemed by the powers that be to be not be worthy of reproducing.

I'm not saying restart those practises I'm saying look at it within the limits of how we already operate. By applying it only to those already deemed by the judicial system to be detrimental to society.

Exactly. Why do people not get that evolution is NOT forward-looking?

Why do people insist on pointing that out and patting each other on the back when nobody is saying is is is what I'm wondering.

We have progressed as a species in terms of intelligence, ingenuity, standard of living, medical treatment, equality etc and I think as a species the consensus is we would like to continue to progress. To do that we must continue to do actively do that.

The recent advances for the human species didnt just happen they were sought out by groups and individuals who wanted change and progress. Saying we as a society should actively seek to continue that progress genetically as it has been so beneficial socially isnt saying that evolution is forward looking. Its saying humans are.

Roadtrippin

LordSmeg wrote: »

We all decide, if you wear a condom or have an abortion you are deciding. If you have a kid with A instead of B your deciding.

Why is everyone going on like I'm trying to set up a concentration camp ?

Because of your unfortunate way of phrasing your OP and this:

LordSmeg wrote: »

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 ?

Darwinism has been misinterpreted many a time before and you may need to rethink what you're trying to say with this post, I reckon.

And regarding the decision-making processes you're referring to - these aren't just determined by our genetic predispositions... a lot of it has to do with education and your environment as well. The whole nature vs nurture debate. If you're trying to debate how to deal with criminals in society etc., I highly doubt that gene pool control will be the answer to that.

Helix

there's no such thing as unnatural selection, or indeed anything unnatural

anything that exists within the laws of our universe is natural, that includes all technologies that mankind creates. our technological advancements are part of our evolution. they are natural. how we use them, no matter what way that is, will always be natural. even if you don't like it

Scioch

cartell_best wrote: »

That is a contradiction in terms! You use contraception, you are preventing rather than stopping a life that has already begun. That point you make is by no means valid!

It is valid in term of the life that will be, having an abortion is still preventing the life of a human being as far as I'm concerned.

But there is a thread on abortion in AH already so take it to that if you want to argue that further.

Ray Palmer

I actually have an issue with IVF on the grounds it interferes with nature when there is no need. We as a species don't need it.

It is more than fixing a health issue in my eyes. What is rarely mentioned is the children from IVF are much more likely to have various health issues many uncommon in natural selection.

Helix

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I actually have an issue with IVF on the grounds it interferes with nature

no it doesnt

cartell_best

LordSmeg wrote: »

It is valid in term of the life that will be, having an abortion is still preventing the life of a human being as far as I'm concerned.

But there is a thread on abortion in AH already so take it to that if you want to argue that further.

Are you serious? You stated your feelings and because I said otherwise, you re-direct me to another thread? Even though what I said, had validity to your comments... Please...in fairness!

Scioch

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Because of your unfortunate way of phrasing your OP and this:



Darwinism has been misinterpreted many a time before and you may need to rethink what you're trying to say with this post, I reckon.

And regarding the decision-making processes you're referring to - these aren't just determined by our genetic predispositions... a lot of it has to do with education and your environment as well. The whole nature vs nurture debate. If you're trying to debate how to deal with criminals in society etc., I highly doubt that gene pool control will be the answer to that.

I explained in the OP who those changes refer to. I added a bit to clear it though because I'm sick of this coming up so often.

I have also spoke of the added benefit of the fact that if a violent offender doesnt have a kid they will be less likely to be in a position to influence someone. So it applies both to the nature and nurture side of the argument.

Roadtrippin

A dolphin invasion is imminent anyhow so no further debate needed :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4n-4UGqFe8

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/21/dolphins-non-human-persons_n_1290004.html

Scioch

cartell_best wrote: »

Are you serious? You stated your feelings and because I said otherwise, you re-direct me to another thread? Even though what I said, had validity to your comments... Please...in fairness!

The point here was in relation to who has the right to prevent human life. So the fact you disagree with it yet validate my condom reference means its an abortion issue.

I see it as preventing a life you dont. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread thats an abortion discussion which is currently under way in another thread.

cartell_best

LordSmeg wrote: »

The point here was in relation to who has the right to prevent human life. So the fact you disagree with it yet validate my condom reference means its an abortion issue.

I see it as preventing a life you dont. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread thats an abortion discussion which is currently under way in another thread.

Good God, I'm not doing this... My heart goes out to you!

Donnielighto

Ush1 wrote: »

You think we can control every single facet of natural selection? Eugenics is again, a very morally dodgy road which may reap nothing of benefit, and of course, benefit in human terms.



Yes, we fight nature all the time. I think you need to get a bit more specific with your theory?



Right, not that I agree with that paragraph but what is your proposal exactly?



Immunity to HIV doesn't have an impact on the species? What do you want, for them to grow gills overnight?



Yes yes, and all it might take is a super virus to take us all down, just like the black death did in 1350. You and me are most likely descendents of people who had an immunity to the black death.



And I say again, there is changes in the environment and in our evolution constantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Recent_and_current_human_evolution

I think you're quoting the wrong person here

Scioch

cartell_best wrote: »

Good God, I'm not doing this... My heart goes out to you!

Not doing what lol ? Staying on topic ? Keep your heart, maybe try swap it for a brain.

cartell_best

LordSmeg wrote: »

Not doing what lol ? Staying on topic ? Keep your heart, maybe try swap it for a brain.

"Not doing what lol ? Staying on topic ?" Again, my heart goes out to you! I do feel for people, soo much!

"maybe try swap it for a brain." I think now i realise why maybe its better for the heart to rule the head....

Scioch

cartell_best wrote: »

"Not doing what lol ? Staying on topic ?" Again, my heart goes out to you! I do feel for people, soo much!

"maybe try swap it for a brain." I think now i realise why maybe its better for the heart to rule the head....

Thanks for the kind words, but lets end this now ok ? Good bye.

cartell_best

LordSmeg wrote: »

Thanks for the kind words, but lets end this now ok ? Good bye.

I respect the quick response, sound..bye!