Survival of the fittest.

[Raguel]

I'm watching the news at the moment and they're currently talking about a new study into cot death in babies.

Now I know that there's a lot of people who have trouble accepting evolution but I'm a firm believer in the fact that we're mammals..................we are animals. It's scientific fact.

Therefore, I wonder how it affects the human race as a whole if we keep trying to cure and prevent diseases. The animal kingdom gets on just fine by allowing approximately half of their populous to die (on average, it changes between herbivore and carnivore as well as being affected by competition for food) and the fittest survive. The species is forced to splay out in slightly different directions to see which way comes out on top.

However, I can't help but think that by neutralizing the offending disease in humanity, and allowing that person to procreate, we're actually spreading the disease so that, a few generations down the line, all people will suffer from it. This is fine, as long as science can keep up with it, but I doubt that.

There's no humane way in our current civilization to change this now but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/1/06 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote: but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

Nope.

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 05:56 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 11/1/06 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote: but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

Nope.

Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points.

[Imperator]

At 11/1/06 06:14 PM, Raguel wrote:

At 11/1/06 05:56 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 11/1/06 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote: but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

Nope.

Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points.

The fact that we can communicate via the internet kinda speaks for itself.......

And I agree.

My answer:

Nope.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/1/06 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote:

There's no humane way in our current civilization to change this now but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

Humans will eventually kill half or more humans by themselves. Then the victors will rule the world. It's an inevitable. Nuclear war WILL eventually happen, and the smartest people, with the best technology will survive in their bunkers, or with their energy fields (or whatever) and the powerless, average humans will be killed.

Then a million years later, the descendents of the survivors will have space ships and will colonize the galaxy and encounter other life forms that and there will be a galactic struggle for survival and so forth until the end of time.

Thats just the nature of things. life feeds on life, we as humans don't have power to change change nature, we may THINK we do, but our very actions of trying to cure diseases and so forth are still part of our natural progression.

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 06:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Stuff about humans conquering eternally.

I doubt it. I'd say we'll all be gone within the next 100,000 years max.

[cellardoor6]

At 11/1/06 06:37 PM, Raguel wrote:

At 11/1/06 06:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Stuff about humans conquering eternally.

I doubt it. I'd say we'll all be gone within the next 100,000 years max.

WE will all be gone. But our descendents won't be.

[Imperator]

At 11/1/06 06:37 PM, Raguel wrote:

At 11/1/06 06:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Stuff about humans conquering eternally.

I doubt it. I'd say we'll all be gone within the next 100,000 years max.

"Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points."

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 06:37 PM, Raguel wrote:

At 11/1/06 06:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Stuff about humans conquering eternally.

I doubt it. I'd say we'll all be gone within the next 100,000 years max.

WE will all be gone. But our descendents won't be.

Obviously I meant 'we' as in humanity.

At 11/1/06 06:39 PM, Imperator wrote: At 11/1/06 06:37 PM, Raguel wrote:

I doubt it. I'd say we'll all be gone within the next 100,000 years max.

"Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points."

I think that the points were made within my original post and therefore didn't need to be repeated. But if you need instructions, then scroll up to the top of the page and re-read as is necessary.

[dELtaluca]

At 11/1/06 06:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: yadayadayada

he isnt talking about survival of the human race in that sense, hes talking about use basicly, polluting our own gene pool.

in a normal enviroment, the fittest survive, so that the strongest aspects of a species is passed down, and the species becomes stronger, and more able to survive

but with medicine and everything, humans no longer do this, the weak aspects of human populous is passed down into generatiosn, so that rather than becoming stronger, we become almost weaker, by allowing the 'unfit' to survive and pass on their weak aspects that would otherwise single them out, and strengthen the gene pool.

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 06:45 PM, dELtaluca wrote: What I said.

Exactly.

If anything, I expected to get a 'pro-human, you're a fascist' response. But I actually got people who didn't understand what I was talking about and, one of whom, used my own one-liner retort (with no legitimate affect) against me.

So rather than argue with them, what do you think?

[Begoner]

You're treating natural selection as an intelligent process whose goal is objectively correct, but it's not. Why should we only allow the "strong" to survive? Is there some exceptional benefit we can derive from a race of super-humans? No, our world is fine just the way it is; we have negated the need for natural selection to weed out the weak because our species is very capable of not only surviving, but thriving. If we were being assaulted by tigers or lions each day, then we might need to allow natural selection to take its course so that we would be able to defeat the offending animals. However, it has been rendered pointless in the modern world.

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 07:03 PM, Begoner wrote: If we were being assaulted by tigers or lions each day, then we might need to allow natural selection to take its course so that we would be able to defeat the offending animals. However, it has been rendered pointless in the modern world.

Tigers and lions, yes.

But microbes and cancer are a different bag of cats altogether.

[Begoner]

But microbes and cancer are a different bag of cats altogether.

The last time I checked, we cannot breed people that are immune to cancer and other diseases. The best we can due is pour money into medical research, which we are doing. There is nobody who is "fit" enough to survive cancer -- it's the medicine that is either capable or incapable of curing somebody.

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 07:19 PM, Begoner wrote:

But microbes and cancer are a different bag of cats altogether.

The last time I checked, we cannot breed people that are immune to cancer and other diseases.

We probably would be eventually or at least we wouldn't have so many people affected by it if we didn't keep breeding it into ourselves.

Seriously, my original post, if read and understood, would completely remove any need for every post I've made since then, which have all been explaining the original fucking post.

I feel like I should stick by the old rule...............never argue with fools, they'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[Begoner]

We probably would be eventually or at least we wouldn't have so many people affected by it if we didn't keep breeding it into ourselves.

Seriously, my original post, if read and understood, would completely remove any need for every post I've made since then, which have all been explaining the original fucking post.

I feel like I should stick by the old rule...............never argue with fools, they'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Maybe you should have clarified your initial post, then. For example, you stated that you were a "firm believer in the fact that we're mammals." That ranks right up there with Bush's eloquent suggestion that perhaps we can co-exist peacefully with the fishes. You also seem to have a flawed understanding of diseases, which is why your first post was somewhat nonsensical, not to mention incoherent. Genetic diseases can be "weeded out" by selective breeding. However, diseases which are caused by pathogens or illnesses such as cancer are not genetic in nature and thus cannot be extracted from the gene pool (as they're not in there in the first place). What you're suggesting is the equivalent of preventing gunshot victims from breeding because if we do that, eventually there will be no gunshot victims anymore. It's a total non sequitur. However, I do find your last statement quite ironically delicious, however. Yum!

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 07:35 PM, Begoner wrote:

Maybe you should have clarified your initial post, then. For example, you stated that you were a "firm believer in the fact that we're mammals." That ranks right up there with Bush's eloquent suggestion that perhaps we can co-exist peacefully with the fishes.

That's only related because it's a blatantly obvious fact. But I said it because there's a stupid amount of people here who don't accept that.

You also seem to have a flawed understanding of diseases, which is why your first post was somewhat nonsensical, not to mention incoherent.

I don't and it wasn't.

Genetic diseases can be "weeded out" by selective breeding. However, diseases which are caused by pathogens or illnesses such as cancer are not genetic in nature and thus cannot be extracted from the gene pool (as they're not in there in the first place).

Which is the whole point of the topic. Although cancer isn't proven entirely to be genetic it is known to be more apparent in a person whose parents had the same cancer and so, sticking with the argument of weeding out genetic diseases maybe we'd have a better stance on this. Cancer is widespread now and is thought to be an anomaly but if it's being so widely interbred then that would be why it's so widespread.............because so many forms of weaknesses in our bodies are being reproduced. I'm not saying that the cancer is being passed on, but that the weakness within the body that makes you susceptible to it is.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of preventing gunshot victims from breeding because if we do that, eventually there will be no gunshot victims anymore. It's a total non sequitur.

Obviously that would just be stupid.

However, I do find your last statement quite ironically delicious, however. Yum!

It's not ironic because you didn't grasp the point. The only one who did just tried to tell others what I was saying instead of sharing his opinion and therefore I'm sick of this.

I'm not calling you stupid, but you you're just not properly grasping what I said and how it might apply.

Beaten by experience!

[ImmoralLibertarian]

You fascist!!

Nah, only jesting…you have good points….civilisation has removed “survival of the fittest” and some people even claim we are de-evolving (is there such a thing? Evolution means change…for the better of for the worse). The only thing we have now, is survival of the richest.

The only way to ‘bring back evolution’ would be to enter into an anarchism type existence…which isn’t going to happen….because due to our own past evolution as very social animals coupled with our intelligence society is inevitable.

You say that our medical advancement cannot keep up with our genetic deterioration, you may be right but I disagree. If society really has removed our progressive evolution then we stopped improving as a species 10,000 years ago. Any significant medical advancements have been made in the past hundred or so years…yet we are taller, stronger, fitter, have longer lives….

[Demosthenez]

I get what you are saying and I agree to an extent. Yeah a massive plague of some sort will probably decimate humanity one day. Its happened before and will happen again, it is only a matter of time. But just because thats true doesnt mean we should let our friends and family die from preventable deaths just because we are afraid of a possible day where plague desroys us.

At 11/1/06 06:40 PM, mofomojo wrote: Evolution has been made obsolete with the destruction of the natural environment.

No it hasnt. What I think you meant to say is humans have defeated evolution with our medical sciences.

[bradford1]

At 11/1/06 06:14 PM, Raguel wrote:

At 11/1/06 05:56 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 11/1/06 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote: but overall, are we dooming the future of humanity by protecting the present people?

Nope.

Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points.

We're a society, we became sort of like 1 big organism. Medicine will mess with future human evolution, but for the past couple thousand years societies have sort of assumed the role of the organism for humans.

[Deadpool]

I totally agree. I saw a show a month or two ago about deaf people that marry other deaf people and then dont even let their deaf children get a translant to be able to hear because they say they have to know about deaf culture. And it was genetic because the whole family was deaf. Ask yourself what is more barbaric, not letting people with serious genetic ailments reproduce or having to have their kids live a substandard life. I go with the latter.

[JudgeDredd]

The baby who can hardly breathe today, is tomorrow's geek, and althou geekdom may not inherit the earth, they have as much chance as any physically perfect human specimen of saving it, either by invention, or laying the foundation of radical chemistry and physics, and paving the way to mankind colonizing the galaxy.

So a BIG UPS to those weakest human links struggling to survive!

[Raguel]

At 11/1/06 07:53 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

You say that our medical advancement cannot keep up with our genetic deterioration, you may be right but I disagree. If society really has removed our progressive evolution then we stopped improving as a species 10,000 years ago. Any significant medical advancements have been made in the past hundred or so years…yet we are taller, stronger, fitter, have longer lives….

Evolution doesn't mean improvement, it means adaptation. Look at dolphins, they started in the ocean and then evolved into a wolf-like creature and then into dolphins. This just suited the environment over the millions of years and we're the same. If we spent the next few million years in the water more and more, then our eustachian tubes would start to revert back to gills. There's no overall goal for evolution.

Our progressive evolution hasn't been removed, that's why we're going bald. But this has nothing to do with the passing on of weaknesses. 10,000 years isn't a lot of time in terms of evolution. We're taller stronger and fitter because of our societies and the way that we co-operate within them.

What I'm trying to say is this. Assume you have 10,000 dogs, half of which are brown and half of which are gray and they've all been taken out of the wild.

By breeding the stronger ones together more so than the weaker ones and ensuring that they all get fed the best of food and have the healthiest of lifestyles, you'll eventually have stronger fitter healthier dogs.
That has nothing to do with evolution.
With all the shots they get, they'll also need less in the line of a strong immune system because the shots are covering that for them.
Also nothing to do with evolution.
Now assume that you were trying to 'cure' the brown coated dogs. You can dye their fur, but the brown coat is in the genes and will most likely be passed on. If at this point there are more brown dogs than gray dogs then it will be so intertwined with the genes that you'll never get the brown dogs out and you have an eternity of dyeing nearly all of the dogs.

Now assume that a brown coat is cancer.

This is possibly the worst analogy ever, but I don't know how else to say...........evolution has nothing to do with this.

Please don't pick holes in the dog analogy, I know it's shit and it doesn't really cover what I'm talking about but it seems to be a good lie for the purposes of perspective.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 11/1/06 06:14 PM, Raguel wrote: Way to back up your opinion with intelligent points.

Brevity is a virtue. :P

Anyway, the whole concept of "survival of the fittest" is about those that do the best in adapting to the environment, obtaining food, avoiding predators, mating, producing offspring, etc etc etc.

It isn't really about disease and sickness at all. Why? Because even the most physically and mentally fit person or animal can still die or be crippled by disease and sickness, regardless of how good their survival skills are. If you get a wound and you don't take steps to dress it, you get things like blood infections or gangrene or whatever else, and it's a wrap for you. Get the flu and don't do anything to treat it, and it's a wrap for you. Taking steps to protect people's health isn't dooming the future at all. Us not taking ANY steps to protect people's health is what would doom us.

If by "protecting the current people" you mean ONLY those with serious genetic disorders, then it's a bit more complicated of an issue, but I'd still say "nope". Just because someone doesn't live-up to your standard of fitness or normalcy doesn't mean they're actually any less capable of living a full life and having a family and whatnot. The thing about sexual reproduction is that genes from both sides go into the mix... you never really know if the bad traits are going to carry over in the next generation or not until after procreation.

[AdamRice]

Does anyone here consider themselfs to be a weak person with a crappy gene pool?

If so then simply never reproduce, (you won't have to worry about that if you are currently a NG's member).

Problem solved.

But on a more serious note you have to define what classifies someone as having poor genes.
For example:
I suck ass at almost all athletic activites except for skiing, but I'm very mechanically inclined and understand engineering and scientific concepts well.
Does that make my gene pool inferior?

Another example
Joe Athelete gets laid all the time and is the star basketball player of the team. He kicks ass at anything competitive or physical and bangs hot bitches all the time. However, when it comes to the books, Joe Athelete couldnt find his way out of a paper bag. Joe athelete gets married to some hot bitch, but fails to support his family properly due to a dead end job. (that basketball career just didn't work out and Joe blames the black people).

So the question is, who's gene pool is more inferior?
I would think that neither person's gene pool is inferior, but infact two sides of a perfect person. I would assume that if a book smart person were to bang some jock then you would sometimes end up with a child that is good at everything.

There are people at my school that are good at everything and on top of that very attractive. So I suppose they would fall into the superior gene pool category.

[Neoptolemus]

The fact of the matter is the only way we can really tell who would survive if we lived back before any form of technology would be through qhether or not a particular person had some genetic disorder, athleticism isn't a good indicator as a person who is athletic might not necessarily be "fitter" than a person with superior intelect as someone with superior intelect could devise ways of escaping certain situations.

It's all reletive.

[Ravariel]

At 11/2/06 09:49 AM, StealthSteve wrote: It isn't really about disease and sickness at all. Why? Because even the most physically and mentally fit person or animal can still die or be crippled by disease and sickness, regardless of how good their survival skills are.

See: Taysachs syndrome, Sickle Cell Anemia, and the 1% of the population without the proper receptor on their T-cells which makes them immune to HIV.

Trust me, survival of the fittest STILL applies to everyone. Even when it comes to diseases.

If you get a wound and you don't take steps to dress it, you get things like blood infections or gangrene or whatever else, and it's a wrap for you. Get the flu and don't do anything to treat it, and it's a wrap for you. Taking steps to protect people's health isn't dooming the future at all. Us not taking ANY steps to protect people's health is what would doom us.

Obviously, part of teh "fittest" now is the ability to fix problems, such as broken limbs. Brain power is part of the equation, not just physical prowess. However, our "brains" are advancing faster than our bodies, making us, in some ways, MORE succeptible to diseases. Had we let HIV run rampant, we would have already developed some form of genetic immunity to it.

But therein lies the crux... what is better to do: help a few now, or strengthen future humanity?

The old question of the good of the few over the good of the many... which would you pick?

Condemn a family member to die so that future generations can live without what killed that family member?

There's no good answer...

[AdamRice]

People with "serious" genetic defects are automatically less likely to reproduce. Would a mentally retarded guy ever procreate? No!

Would someone with cerebrial paulsy reproduce? Maybe, but probably not.

Then you have to consider that some people become steril, they won't be spreading there bad genes anymore.

[SolInvictus]

mankind seems to have made survival of the fittest obsolete.

[Draconias]

At 11/3/06 11:01 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: mankind seems to have made survival of the fittest obsolete.

Not true. It has just taken a form you are not easily able to recognize. We have only changed the environment in which "survival of the fittest" can operate, not the effectiveness of the mechanism or its existance.