Be a Supporter!

Natural selection... ignored.

  • 893 Views
  • 32 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
SpaceAndTime
SpaceAndTime
  • Member since: May. 26, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-24 23:31:12 Reply

Now this is going to SOUND heartless, but... well, just read it.
I have been thinking quite a bit recently about the gene pool. It is weakening. A lot. Why? Because through all our technological advancements, like pennicilan, chemotherapy, various drugs, and all sorts of other life saving stuff, we are saving the weak, who will breed and enter the gene pool. So now we have a gene pool that is easily killed. MORE people are likely to die now. Those with weak DNA are surviving when in a less advanced society they should have died. Now, I am all for saving lives, but guess what? We are ignoring natural selection! If it weren't for natual selection, none of us would be here. We can't just abandon it!

The smallpox virus has been completley contained. Actually, FROZEN. So what would happen to us if that virus was unleashed as a dirty bomb? With no resistance/antibodies, most of us would be killed. This would be bad because, well, people would die. But it would be "good" in the long term because the gene pool would then be stronger and resistant to smallpox.

Pennicillan is great. But guess what? Some bacteria survive. The strong ones. Really strong. They breed. And today, Pennicillan is not nearly as effective. That is Natual selection at its greatest!

We as humans can't think we are above natural selection, that we do not need it anymore because we have our precious technology. WRONG! Someday something will go wrong, the grid will crash and THEN where will we be?
Sorry if I repeated myself in there.

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-24 23:39:10 Reply

Using your logic couldn't it be reasoned that we are merely delaying natural selection and the big cataclismic event you refer to will just be nature balancing things out? If so why worry? Those who are suppose to perish will and those who aren't won't, I don't see how it would be any different than the alternative of just letting the week die off in nature's time.


BBS Signature
SpaceAndTime
SpaceAndTime
  • Member since: May. 26, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 00:00:36 Reply

At 8/24/05 11:39 PM, BeFell wrote: stuff

You are right, but it is still not wise to have a weak gene pool.

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 00:17:18 Reply

At 8/25/05 12:00 AM, Matomic wrote:
At 8/24/05 11:39 PM, BeFell wrote: stuff
You are right, but it is still not wise to have a weak gene pool.

I like to think of it as a diverse gene pool. Although it is true that it may contain some genes that are less than desirable there may be other genes linked to those that could be good to have around for another situation. If the gene pool was clensed of all weakness then that would give us a homogeneus population that would be open to being wiped out by one thing. With diversity then there is a chance that some will survive.


BBS Signature
jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 05:02:09 Reply

This kind of teleology has no place in our entropic universe.

Is it wrong that we are allowing those who would be naturally unfit to survive and reproduce and thus pass on "inferior" genes, and will some natural catastrophe come by to balance things out, punish us for our sins, and bring us back to nature? My personal opinion, the answer is no.

The social disaster that could result from eugenics has already been demonstrated, and I'm not about to go into it, but think jews and ovens. Yeah bad thinking for humans to do.

Basically, if you want to look at evolution, it's a natural process. If we are capable of duping nature and natural selection and let our loved ones live, we are perfectly allowed to, because we want to and our capable of doing so. If you have to look at things in an orderly fashion, think of it this way: our complex and capable minds and our new-found generosity toward members of our own species are evolved traits that elevate the fitness of our species.

But in reality, the universe doesn't work in this orderly fashion, things don't have rhyme or reason like the imagined order that brought this question about, and we simply do these things because we can, and we aren't breaking any rules of life because there aren't any.

TropicalPenquin
TropicalPenquin
  • Member since: Jan. 8, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 08:31:30 Reply

The human race has learnt to replace "weak links" in the gene pool with technological advancements, but i agree, weak gene pool= accident waiting to happen

Drow1
Drow1
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 09:06:39 Reply

It is possible that we are still evolving, and that the one thing that has made the human species(our minds/intelligence) the dominant one on this planet is evolving at a faster rate than ever! But to all these people thinking that we are actually killing our species in the long-term by helping it in the short-term, you may have a ponit. but then again maybe not. And about the thing with the weak genes, whose to say which is definately weak? Some people seem to think that the trait for sickle cell is a weak gene, but people with sickle-cell are basically immune to malaria Could that be a hint of evolution? Or what about the fact that bacteria and viruses become immune to medicines over time? Is that not evolution? They evolved to be immune or else thay would have "died".

Irish-Jim
Irish-Jim
  • Member since: Apr. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 15:22:21 Reply

The idea that since our bodies have more or less stopped changing we are ignoring evolution is a rather uninformed one, because it belies the acknowledgement of continued evolution on a different plane than before. True, we will probably not evolve physically very much anymore, but we humans doomed ourselves to evolution of behavior rather than evolution of physical atributes when we invented agriculture and medicine. Since our physically weak no longer live in constant fear of death, it is now a question of who is mentally and emotionally equipped to deal with their shortcomings that are able to continue adding to the gene pool. Natural selection, which once favored the strongest and fastest humans, now favors the rich and the intelligent, which is the direction we are moving in socially.

Just because we no longer succumb to natural selection at such a rate as before doesn't mean we aren't evolving. Even from generation to generation we make huge strides. Ever had your parents try to help you with 12th grade algebra? They can't do it because of the mores of their generational education.

punisher19848
punisher19848
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 16:37:31 Reply

That's what I was attempting to explain to FABULOUS a few months ago on another topic area: medical technology today saves the weakest of our species at the expense of the strong and that, in time, newer and more powerful strains of viruses would evolve to combat our medical technology. I'm just happy to see someone else here sees it to.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 16:54:34 Reply

At 8/25/05 03:22 PM, Irish_Jim wrote:

Natural selection, which once favored the strongest and fastest humans, now favors the rich and the intelligent, which is the direction we are moving in socially.


Just because we no longer succumb to natural selection at such a rate as before doesn't mean we aren't evolving. Even from generation to generation we make huge strides.

None of this is actually biological evolution. Those who aren't rich and intelligent are still able to survive to breeding age and produce offspring, and therefore aren't eliminated for unfitness. And becoming more intelligent has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with expanding the human body of knowledge.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 16:56:10 Reply

At 8/25/05 04:37 PM, punisher19848 wrote: medical technology today saves the weakest of our species at the expense of the strong

How is it at the expense of the strong?

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 17:42:15 Reply

hey i've heard the same exact thoughts before, i think they were put down in the Mien Khemph


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
Buckdich
Buckdich
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 18:19:44 Reply

Some of you guys are starting to sound really Facist in this thread...

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-25 20:02:17 Reply

The author was speculating on the posibility of disease wiping out a good amount of people, not actively disposing of them through genocide. Although there is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest the AIDS virus is a bigot.


BBS Signature
altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 06:56:20 Reply

Right on, chap! We should bring back natural selection. And to support natural selection, I'm gonna take anything I want from people. If they're too weak to take it back, then thats their own damn fault! And the same goes for murder, rape, etc. If they're too weak, then screw them.

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 11:08:54 Reply

At 8/26/05 06:56 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: Right on, chap! We should bring back natural selection. And to support natural selection, I'm gonna take anything I want from people. If they're too weak to take it back, then thats their own damn fault! And the same goes for murder, rape, etc. If they're too weak, then screw them.

You're one of those people who has trouble with reading comprehension, aren't you?


BBS Signature
XxTheShortOnexX
XxTheShortOnexX
  • Member since: May. 5, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 11:33:37 Reply

Well for many generations certain amounts of people have survived through the decades, from plague and all sorts of other shit. But now I think we found a blockade to future evolution, maybe you're right about technology is a part of that blockade. But the only reason we're using technology is to help those that are on the weaker side of the species. But I still believe that those with a stronger(rarely found) part of the species will survive the longest. But as it always been, it's survival of the fittest.

punisher19848
punisher19848
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 13:06:13 Reply

At 8/26/05 06:56 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: Right on, chap! We should bring back natural selection. And to support natural selection, I'm gonna take anything I want from people. If they're too weak to take it back, then thats their own damn fault! And the same goes for murder, rape, etc. If they're too weak, then screw them.

Actually, I already follow a similiar philosophy. You're stealing my ideas and passing them off as your own! I'll kill you for that!!!!

*raves like a mother-fucking lunatic while seaching for the red "doomsday" button*

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 15:35:39 Reply

At 8/26/05 11:08 AM, BeFell wrote: You're one of those people who has trouble with reading comprehension, aren't you?
At 8/26/05 01:06 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Actually, I already follow a similiar philosophy. You're stealing my ideas and passing them off as your own! I'll kill you for that!!!!

I forgot that sarcasm doesn't carry too well over the internet :P I was mocking the topic-starter.

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 15:49:16 Reply

At 8/26/05 03:35 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
At 8/26/05 11:08 AM, BeFell wrote: You're one of those people who has trouble with reading comprehension, aren't you?
At 8/26/05 01:06 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Actually, I already follow a similiar philosophy. You're stealing my ideas and passing them off as your own! I'll kill you for that!!!!
I forgot that sarcasm doesn't carry too well over the internet :P I was mocking the topic-starter.

I understood your meaning but you're still a dumbass. The topic starter was referencing threats from bacteria and viruses which we have managed to prevent or wipe out with medical technology. It had nothering to do with the strong taking advantage of the weak. Apparently you dumb shits can't have a conversation without referencing nazis so you have taken a thoughtful debate on whether we should place limits on what we do as a society to combat natural illness and turned it into something idiotic.


BBS Signature
Demosthenez
Demosthenez
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-26 16:32:20 Reply

At 8/25/05 04:37 PM, punisher19848 wrote: That's what I was attempting to explain to FABULOUS a few months ago on another topic area: medical technology today saves the weakest of our species at the expense of the strong and that, in time, newer and more powerful strains of viruses would evolve to combat our medical technology. I'm just happy to see someone else here sees it to.

What the hell are you talking about?

If you are gonna bring me into this, at leas link or reference it. I have no idea what you would be referring to now.

altanese-mistress
altanese-mistress
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-27 02:40:02 Reply

At 8/26/05 03:49 PM, BeFell wrote: It had nothering to do with the strong taking advantage of the weak.

Just letting the weak die out sounds close enough.

Apparently you dumb shits

And that right there is where I realize you just want to make someone feel worse then you so that maybe you can convince yourself you don't have a sad pitiful life. Or you, yourself, are dumb.

can't have a conversation without referencing nazis so you have taken a thoughtful debate on whether we should place limits on what we do as a society to combat natural illness and turned it into something idiotic.

And saying 'we should just let the weak die instead of spending so much money on letting them live and messing up the gene pool' ISN'T Nazi-istic idiotic?

BeFell
BeFell
  • Member since: Oct. 31, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-27 13:00:12 Reply

At 8/27/05 02:40 AM, altanese_mistress wrote:
At 8/26/05 03:49 PM, BeFell wrote: Apparently you dumb shits
And that right there is where I realize you just want to make someone feel worse then you so that maybe you can convince yourself you don't have a sad pitiful life. Or you, yourself, are dumb.

Ooh phsycological. So you think you can examine my physche based on a couple of posts but you are still unable to comprehend the basic principles in the question the topic starter asked?

can't have a conversation without referencing nazis so you have taken a thoughtful debate on whether we should place limits on what we do as a society to combat natural illness and turned it into something idiotic.
And saying 'we should just let the weak die instead of spending so much money on letting them live and messing up the gene pool' ISN'T Nazi-istic idiotic?

He didn't say anything about the cost element. His basic point was that by maintaining the gene pool it's current state we are stalling our own evolution. His thinking is that we are not changing with the environment as nature intended so he speculates that some time in the future the environment will change beyond the point that our technology can sustain us so the human race will be wiped out. I don't neccesarilly agree with him but that is the debate, not fucking NAZIs.


BBS Signature
DJ8Ball
DJ8Ball
  • Member since: May. 18, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-08-27 13:30:06 Reply

i thought about what you said and realized its prety fucked up but youre realy are correct we will cuz are gene pool will be so weak a simple cold could kill us

punisher19848
punisher19848
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 13:10:27 Reply

At 8/26/05 03:35 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
I forgot that sarcasm doesn't carry too well over the internet :P I was mocking the topic-starter.

I know you are sarcastic, but I knocked you for it anyway simply because it amused me to do so. Amoralists rock!

punisher19848
punisher19848
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 13:17:20 Reply

At 8/26/05 04:32 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: What the hell are you talking about?

If you are gonna bring me into this, at leas link or reference it. I have no idea what you would be referring to now.

I can't find the topic (I guess it was deleted some time ago), but I do remember that you and I did discuss the idea of man being subject to the forces of natural selection. You stated that man has reached a point that natural selection no longer holds sway over man because we have the technology to defy those forces (example: medical technology to sustain the weakest of our species and assist them through life).

I, on the other hand, stated that natural selection still does apply and our technological capabilities won't change it (example: diseases building resistence to our medicines and coming back stronger than before. Only those strong enough to resist the illness will make it).

That's how the discussion went down.

punisher19848
punisher19848
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 13:20:29 Reply

At 8/27/05 02:40 AM, altanese_mistress wrote: And saying 'we should just let the weak die instead of spending so much money on letting them live and messing up the gene pool' ISN'T Nazi-istic idiotic?

It's not Nazi-istic, it's naturalistic! This is how nature has been pruning our gene pool since the beginning of time and will continue until this planet is sucked into a black hole.

Xuljester
Xuljester
  • Member since: Jun. 5, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 14:26:35 Reply

Sooner or later, we would've advanced in life-saving, or disease-curing. All of the products we use today are derived from natural things. And even now, most plants naturally grown tend to have a better effect than any man-made product. We've had these tools, and more, at our finger tips, so why not use them?

Evolution? No, none of this is evolution. Evolution would be a jump from a bird to a bird-fish, and to a new fish. I, for one, refuse to believe that I came from some primordial ooze, or even an ape. What you all are looking for is the word adaptation, and possibly even mutation. Viruses adapt to change, as do ALL organisms. Survival of the fittest is key in wiping out that which cannot adapt, but isn't always the right path to follow. Man has adapted to the basic diseases that roamed the planet, the diseases adapted to man's resistance--everything learns, in a sense, from the environment and community around it. Also, most people classify mutation as something horrible, but that isn't necessarily true. Mutation seems to help in some cases. Take, for instance, those immune to AIDs. AIDs is horrible, but when something is infected with the disease, that thing can adapt--or mutate--to become resistant, if not immune.

Don't expect to evolve in to some higher form of human and sprout wings or something, that will never happen. BUT, thanks to the technology which allows most of us to be here, we can someday achieve that which we can not through natural means. HOWEVER, thanks to that same technology, and the stubborness of those in power, we are quickening our journey towards the end of all we have worked so hard to achieve. Fortunately, the world will most likely end before then, in one way or another, and we won't have to worry about our own stupidity bringing about our demise.

Sure, the gene pool does have it's weak links, and those weak links are mostly weeded out or protected against threats. Natural selection still exists, though not as blatantly obvious as it used to be. If some new or highly adapted form of virus were to strike humanity and nearly wipe it out, then you can thank natural selection for that. But you know, in that process of elimination, you lose a lot of the progress made thus far in technology and human "perfection", so to speak.

But you've also got to think... Since everything is constantly in a state of degradation, what was the gene pool like say... 1000 years ago? I won't say 1,000,000,000 years ago, because I refuse to believe the earth has actually been around that long and yet has only progressed this far, or is even still here. Anyhow, the gene pool 1000 years ago would've been a lot stronger than it is now, so if survival of the fittest was constantly wiping out the weak, why aren't there very many strong left?

Huh... I've lost my point and train of thought... I'll be back later...

Demosthenez
Demosthenez
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 14:45:48 Reply

At 9/2/05 01:17 PM, punisher19848 wrote: That's how the discussion went down.

Ahh, ok. Apologies. I thought you were being condenscending towards me. Yeah, I still think natural selection aint working. But, hey. I guess we went over that already, didnt we?

Nomader
Nomader
  • Member since: Mar. 11, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 54
Melancholy
Response to Natural selection... ignored. 2005-09-02 18:40:56 Reply

My god... listen... so your suggesting that we don't help our fellow species? My god... imagine the cost - Doctors out of work - hell if we went by your idea, you have a stroke, you dead - you shudnt be alive.


Nomader ('No, mad, er').
Review Request Club // Former Wi/Ht? Regular
Oh God, you're an idiot.

BBS Signature