Theories on future human evolution

[The-Peeman]

I've been debating with myself on the position of humans in the grand natural order and what not. I'm thinkin about our evolution, and whether we can still relate our future evolution, to evolution as we've observed it for the past however long we've had life on earth, or if we maybe have surpassed evolution all together.

With our future as a species, I've seen and read a few theories and speculations, but it's hard for me to believe any of them could actually happen. I read Steven Hawking's theory on how we have surpassed normal evolution, and how our evolution now lies in recorded knowledge, self modification, and integration of technology and our own bodies. The ending of the human race in his scenario though is a little unbelievable, in which we all basically become transformers, ditch the planet, and establish Cybertron. The other problem with his scenario is that not all of society is that intelligent, and even fewer of that percentage even want to learn anything, leading into the next scenario I've been seeing. This one unfolds like in the movie Idiocracy, and Korn's evolution music video, where instead of intelligence prevailing, the stupid become the dominant power. Basically it's based on the statistics that lower I.Q. families are spawning more children than higher I.Q. families, therefor creating a sort of natural selection type deal, culminating into devolution. It's hard to believe anything like this may happen because I don't think intelligence is predetermined by genes, and even if it was, there are still intelligent people who would at some point realize the trend and figure out some way around it, possibly in a way similar to Hawking's theory. I'd like to hear some opinions on what you guys think about the subject. Do you think either theory trumps the other? Could they both happen and cancel each other out creating an evolutionary stand still? Would the evolution of other species change the outcome of our own? Are there any other theories out there (that don't involve a dead jewish man with mental heath issues)? Gimme some feedback.

[Duffi]

Now. evolution is a very, very complex thing. Through time, mankind HAVE experienced a evolution in many ways. However, none have been extremly significant, as all have been minor physical changes to the body.

The theory of mankind evolving itself, with eletronical devices, implants, and integrating technologies could be possible, but as it is now, it's either impossible, or very limited what we can do.

After that, the theory get's absurd. Cybertron? Ditching the earth?

We will never be able to live with out oxygen, as it is one of the biological fundaments for us to live.

Oxygen is basically pumping our blood. And blood fuels the body.

The whole "low I.Q humanity" theory is biased. A large change would have to happen if we should be that massively affected. And as you said, I do not believe ALL intelligence is determined by bloodline, though, it is clear that you WILL own a major part of your parents heritage.

As it is now, evolution "should only" happen when there is need. The earths climate is perfect for us, so the human race has no actual need for an evolution. And mind you, theese things don't happen in just a generation, rather many hundreds if not thousands.

[Drakim]

I just wanted to point out that you misuse the word devolution. devolution has nothing to do with evolution.

devolution: The principle or practice of self-government in the internal affairs of a dependent country or other political unit.

There are no such thing as reversed evolution. Even when we do changes that might seem bad, it is still evolution, because it is positive for that very moment. Think of it like a car that cannot drive backwards. It can only turn around and drive forward in the other direction. Evolution cannot be reversed, it can only evolve away the things that it had as a benefit earlier. All progress, even the one that will doom us long term, is still progress in a sense.

[Sammeh]

Even if we become dumber we are still evolving, not devolving. And besides, we have evolved over the past centuries. Think about life expectancy. We only used to live up to 40, now we live up to almost double that. Surely thats evolution right?

[Brick-top]

I think if the human race progesses as fast as we have been I think severe genetic altering will hit us before we evolve.

[Imperator]

Pfff....

I know the answer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hDl4xcbpZWE

[emmytee]

Western countries have stoppped evolving, evolution is a response to a pressure for change, with medical care, cleanliness and other advances very few don't make it to reproductive age. Seriously, a big real scientist man said this at my university.

[emmytee]

not that africans are monkeys or any shit lol, justthat cause of hunger etc, there probably is evolution but simply in creating stronger, faster or more "water efficient" varieties. given a trillion odd years, you might see a minor change.

[Zoraxe7]

We will all be furries.
(but in real life)

[Ravariel]

At 9/5/07 05:47 PM, Imperator wrote: Pfff....

I know the answer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hDl4xcbpZWE

Counterpoint:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8kChDiQVAAE

[Ravariel]

At 9/5/07 06:13 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: We will all be furries.
(but in real life)

Cough.

[AapoJoki]

Human population will evolve towards communism. Logically speaking, communism would be the best system for the wellbeing of the humankind. However, the inherent flaws of our nature: greed, laziness, envy, antisocial behaviour, stand in the way of our utopia. This much everyone knows. In the future, though, the laws of natural selection will see to it that these traits will begin to disappear, and give room to altruism, compassion, team spirit and tendency to work hard for the common good, which will enable us to establish a fully functioning and efficient communist society.

[Pyro-Maniac25892]

I'd think in the west there would be a big change with mattabalism (didn't spell that right did I) to eliminate obesity through evolution then again I know very little about how evolution works.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/5/07 07:24 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

:However, the inherent flaws of our nature: greed, laziness, envy, antisocial behaviour, stand in the way of our utopia. This much everyone knows. In the future, though, the laws of natural selection will see to it that these traits will begin to disappear,

TODAY you benefit from egocentrism. Thus, evolution favors the egocentristic. But I do agree that socialism is the best social system.

[InsaniMaster471]

At 9/5/07 02:13 PM, The-Peeman wrote:

::A lot of stuff that I'm not gonna waste my space quoting.

Now this interesting. I like your question.

Now my answer:

I honestly think that it will actually be a combination of the two where we don't necessarily become "Transformers" (i.e. self-made robots) but we will come to the point where we use technology more often then we use the traits evolution gave us. And when that happens, we will devolve (is that a word?) through natural selection so that the only traits we have are the ones that technology simply can't fulfill. We may, in essence, become cyborgs.

But that's just my theory. Here's the theory that is 100% correct:
We'll just have to wait and see. Evolution is random and you can't really predict something that is random. You can assign a problem factor to it but you can't predict what will happen. I mean, we do so much that effects evolution, and we don't even entirely understand the effects of our actions on the world, so how can we hope to predict how our actions will effect evolution, without understanding that?
We can speculate, sure, and guess, definitely, but we should not place any confidence in our predictions coming true, because most likely, the end result will be something none of us predicted.

[InsaniMaster471]

At 9/6/07 10:29 AM, InsaniMaster471 wrote:

::You can assign a problem factor to it but you can't predict what will happen.

I meant probability factor.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/5/07 07:24 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

:However, the inherent flaws of our nature: greed, laziness, envy, antisocial behaviour, stand in the way of our utopia. This much everyone knows. In the future, though, the laws of natural selection will see to it that these traits will begin to disappear,

TODAY you benefit from egocentrism. Thus, evolution favors the egocentristic. But I do agree that socialism is the best social system.

[Draconias]

At 9/5/07 07:24 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Human population will evolve towards communism. Logically speaking, communism would be the best system for the wellbeing of the humankind. However, the inherent flaws of our nature: greed, laziness, envy, antisocial behaviour, stand in the way of our utopia. This much everyone knows. In the future, though, the laws of natural selection will see to it that these traits will begin to disappear, and give room to altruism, compassion, team spirit and tendency to work hard for the common good, which will enable us to establish a fully functioning and efficient communist society.

This much everyone knows? Nothing of what you said is true. What you call "inherent flaws" of greed, laziness, envy, and anti-social behavior are not what make Communism unreasonable and unworkable. The necessary traits of self-concern, risk/reward motivation, self-preservation, and independent thought are what make Communism unworkable. not human flaws.

The key concept of Communism, total or near equality, is foolish; it eliminates any form of economic incentives, leaving only social pressure and force to keep a society running. Every individual, intelligently, does a risk/reward analysis for any task; economic incentives, such as increased pay, availability of goods, or economic freedom are necessary to justify dangerous jobs, such as working on an oil rig or as a coal miner; high skill jobs, such as being an engineer or a particle physicist; and high pressure or workload jobs, such as being an ER doctor (20 hour shifts, anyone?) or a factory worker.

In Communism, it is not "laziness" that makes people avoid these jobs, it is an entirely reasonable realization that those jobs are not worth the cost to you, as an individual. It is not "greed" to want self-benefit. Taking care of yourself and your family are the only true obligations for a human; seeking quality of life improvements, better health, extended lifespan, and greater security for those people is not only reasonable, but necessary. Communism ignores such necessary motivations.

Further, Communism seeks to eliminate the status of the individual. If anyone begins to think differently from the community, and realizes that their natural and proper desires can be fulfilled by bypassing Communism, then the system will fall apart. A Capitalistic system will establish itself outside of the bounds of the Communist economy-- a Black Market will form. Communism is simply an inefficient system for allowing each individual to reach the satisfaction they wish to have, and when the system fails them (and Communism's inherent flaws force it to do), they will break away.

The only way for Communism to avoid such a collapse is through social pressure and force, both of which we see expressed in every country that has attempted Communism so far, and both of which lead to a tyrannical and oppressive nation, one which eventually rips itself apart under its own hipocrisy.

For these reasons, not only will those traits you suggest not disappear, but they will likely become more prevalent as the population continues to grow and the borders grow outward into space and other realms. When the system itself grows larger, each individual must be more reliant on his or herself and on the small social networks to which he or she belongs. Protecting yourself, and determining your own life, is even more necessary now than it ever was before, and it will continue to be this way for as long as humanity continues in this same manner.

Forget altruism and those other "soft" traits-- they can only exist after the individual has shown proper concern for his or herself and secured his or her own safe position and state. The "soft" traits will never replace the necessary traits of individuality.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/6/07 12:01 PM, Draconias wrote: The key concept of Communism, total or near equality, is foolish; it eliminates any form of economic incentives, leaving only social pressure and force to keep a society running. Every individual, intelligently, does a risk/reward analysis for any task; economic incentives, such as increased pay, availability of goods, or economic freedom are necessary to justify dangerous jobs, such as working on an oil rig or as a coal miner; high skill jobs, such as being an engineer or a particle physicist; and high pressure or workload jobs, such as being an ER doctor (20 hour shifts, anyone?) or a factory worker

In Communism, it is not "laziness" that makes people avoid these jobs, it is an entirely reasonable realization that those jobs are not worth the cost to you, as an individual. It is not "greed" to want self-benefit. Taking care of yourself and your family are the only true obligations for a human; seeking quality of life improvements, better health, extended lifespan, and greater security for those people is not only reasonable, but necessary. Communism ignores such necessary motivations.

The motivation doesn't have to come from personal economic gain, it can also come from making a contribution to the society. The reward of your work still exists, it's just a collective reward. It doesn't even mean that everyone has to work as much, or get "paid" as much; it means that everyone willingly gives as much as he is able to and then takes as much as he needs for his survival and wellbeing. If the human nature evolves the way I'm speculating, then no one will intentionally slack off, or greedily take more than he needs.

Further, Communism seeks to eliminate the status of the individual.

Well, if everyone has a highly specialized task, set for what each individual excels at, I don't see how they could be more individual. It's not like tens of millions of people will be working in factories 18 hours a day, wearing the same kind of gray clothing - that's what capitalism does.

If anyone begins to think differently from the community, and realizes that their natural and proper desires can be fulfilled by bypassing Communism, then the system will fall apart. A Capitalistic system will establish itself outside of the bounds of the Communist economy-- a Black Market will form. Communism is simply an inefficient system for allowing each individual to reach the satisfaction they wish to have, and when the system fails them (and Communism's inherent flaws force it to do), they will break away.

The only way for Communism to avoid such a collapse is through social pressure and force, both of which we see expressed in every country that has attempted Communism so far, and both of which lead to a tyrannical and oppressive nation, one which eventually rips itself apart under its own hipocrisy.

It seems that you were so eager to rant against communism that you completely forgot what this topic is about. You don't need force or brainwashing to make people obey the laws of communism. If communism, in which people work collectively for the common good, everyone doing conscientiously their best to contribute as much as possible, enabling everyone to reap the benefits of the collaborative work, is indeed the system in which humankind would thrive and prosper without polluting too much or consuming all of the natural resources, then eventually natural selection will see to it that, through generations and generations, our nature will become more adaptable to such a system, favouring the traits I mentioned. Evolution, not dictators.

Forget altruism and those other "soft" traits-- they can only exist after the individual has shown proper concern for his or herself and secured his or her own safe position and state. The "soft" traits will never replace the necessary traits of individuality.

Individuals do not evolve; populations do. While it may appear that at first glance that evolution favours only traits that help you take care of yourself and those who share your genes, I fail to see why it shouldn't favour genes that help a population survive as a whole.

[Draconias]

At 9/6/07 01:27 PM, AapoJoki wrote: The motivation doesn't have to come from personal economic gain, it can also come from making a contribution to the society. The reward of your work still exists, it's just a collective reward. It doesn't even mean that everyone has to work as much, or get "paid" as much; it means that everyone willingly gives as much as he is able to and then takes as much as he needs for his survival and wellbeing. If the human nature evolves the way I'm speculating, then no one will intentionally slack off, or greedily take more than he needs.

Disregarding for the moment the absurdity of living solely for the group entity, what counts as "needs"? In a very small group in near-death conditions, group survival wokrs because any loss of anyone could mean death for all. However, when you are discussing a society with a very large cushion of wealth, there is no clear line between "want" and "need"-- and no one will be satisfied with only "needs".

When you take out the balancing factors of a capitalistic economy--personal money, individual management of expenses, etc.--you have no real effective mechanism to prevent any individual from massively overspending, or feeling as if they have been slighted if you cut off their spending. Any mechanism that could control group spending in a large system is inherently oppressive and eliminates a large degree of individual freedom.

Well, if everyone has a highly specialized task, set for what each individual excels at, I don't see how they could be more individual.

For what each individual excels at -- Empty statement, impossible to apply.

How do you determine what an individual excels at, if anything, or what if many things? How do you balance between a desire to perform something and what their skills are best suited for? How do you balance the skills available and the skills needed? Communism is never, ever thought through thoroughly, because if you did then it would eventually be obvious that it doesn't work.

It's not like tens of millions of people will be working in factories 18 hours a day, wearing the same kind of gray clothing - that's what capitalism does.

Yes, they will be. If you believe otherwise, you are being a fool; those jobs exist because a need for them exists. Regardless of economic system, someone must do those jobs or your society will collapse.

Evolution, not dictators.

First of all, Communism or not, the same demands for society and the same technologies to fill demands will exist, so cut the stupid "Communism means no pollution, and perfect natural harmony!" crap. It's so blatantly false that it isn't worth discussing.

Second, your situation proposes Communism first, evolution second. Like I explained, Communism could not work first, so the evolution will never occur, and there is no evolutionary drive towards such sheepish and mindless traits in the real world.

Incidentally, did you notice as well how Orwellian Dystopia your idea sounds? The main premise of 1984 was a "utopian" society formed with no distinct leader and roles assigned by society, where active brainwashing and mental-molding was actively used to weed out disbelievers and squeeze the people until they followed the system mindlessly. Even their language and ability to think was being trimmed to drive it towards a perfect "utopian" society where everyone worked for the community alone and never sought to escape or fight it.

That sure sounds a lot like your Communist "utopia" to me.

Individuals do not evolve; populations do. While it may appear that at first glance that evolution favours only traits that help you take care of yourself and those who share your genes, I fail to see why it shouldn't favour genes that help a population survive as a whole.

You misunderstand the dynamics of evolution. What helps the population as a whole is irrelevant. What helps your lineage is surpremely important. Individuals in a society who are purely altruistic will actually be weeded out because they favor the survival of the non-altruistic individuals at the cost of themselves.

Organisms who don't take care of themselves and their lineage first and foremost die out-- and the overly-altruistic traits die with them. There is absolutely no mechanism to favor such individuals because the non-altruistic individuals either survive and benefit with the whole population, or survive while the population declines. The altruistic die when the population declines as they attempt to support the others.

[JakeHero]

Devolution and atavisms are not interchangeable, that being said, there is some call to minor concern with the direction humanity seems to be going.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/6/07 03:11 PM, Draconias wrote: what counts as "needs"?

Food and a place to live, to name the obvious ones. Additionally, I believe a healthy human being needs and deserves some free time, recreational activities, chances to express him or herself through art or music, etc. Perhaps there would be some sort of "libraries" where people could go borrow these things - musical instruments and such, and return them when they're done using them. There might have to be someone as a "librarian" to monitor the process, but if humans evolve to have as much solidarity as I hope, this might not even be necessary.

I don't really know how Marx envisioned the details of the actual distribution process, or if he did at all (perhaps that's one of the reasons why none of those communist dictatorships never really got down to the distribution part :P). Therefore, I can't say for sure how exactly it would happen. However, I don't think we would have to follow Marx's plans from a word to word, especially in this future environment, where the genetic composition of humans will be quite different from that of the 19th century.

In a very small group in near-death conditions, group survival wokrs because any loss of anyone could mean death for all. However, when you are discussing a society with a very large cushion of wealth, there is no clear line between "want" and "need"-- and no one will be satisfied with only "needs".

I think it's interesting. I think self-preserving genes are more useful in an environment with scarcer, more limited resources than ours - not in a near-extinction scenario like above, but nevertheless in a struggling society, which is quite common among most populations of most species. In our ancient Darwinian past, the selfish traits that we nowadays often consider negative: greed, envy, gluttony, even laziness, served a purpose. It made sense to get everything as much as you possibly can, because you never know when it runs out. You eat as much as you can, you amass property as much as you can. You try accomplish things with as little effort as possible, to save energy. For tens of thousands of years, this worked for us.

However, when we started to achieve a better standard of living, culminating in the invention of agriculture and later in the industrial revolution, I think this changed. The traits mentioned above do more harm than good for us. Greed unbalances the human society, envy causes unnecessary violence, gluttony and laziness lead to obesity, etc. We're also consuming our resources as rapidly as possible. We've destroyed forests the way that it will take thousands of years to grow back to normal, we've used up fossilized resources worth millions of years. The reason these things exist, is because our genes have not changed virtually at all from our Darwinian past, despite the massive change our society has gone through, in the form of cultural evolution, which includes agriculture and industrialization.

When you take out the balancing factors of a capitalistic economy--personal money, individual management of expenses, etc.--you have no real effective mechanism to prevent any individual from massively overspending

Except evolution.

Any mechanism that could control group spending in a large system is inherently oppressive and eliminates a large degree of individual freedom.

Even if this mechanism is our genes and the instincts they provide?

How do you determine what an individual excels at, if anything, or what if many things? How do you balance between a desire to perform something and what their skills are best suited for? How do you balance the skills available and the skills needed?

Those are good points, actually, and I've often wondered the same. Well, since this topic is about evolution, I can perhaps suggest it as a solution to everything? We will evolve a natural instinct to desire jobs that will inherently help the society. This already exist to some extent; when you ask a bunch of 5-year-olds what they want to be when they grow up, they say they want to be doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen. These aren't well-paid jobs, with the exception of a doctor, these kids are merely thinking instinctively jobs that are useful. However, when they start to enter the cruel world of adults, they will put their naïve dreams aside, and start thinking money.

Yes, they will be. If you believe otherwise, you are being a fool; those jobs exist because a need for them exists. Regardless of economic system, someone must do those jobs or your society will collapse.

Not really, considering the vast majority of items manufactured in these capitalist factories are useless crap, which will be discarded and thrown to a landfill within one year from the production date. There will be far less factories in communism, and the working environment in those few factories will be much more pleasant.

Communism or not, the same demands for society and the same technologies to fill demands will exist, so cut the stupid "Communism means no pollution, and perfect natural harmony!" crap. It's so blatantly false that it isn't worth discussing.

In communism, there is no demand for a mass production of utterly useless items, like there is in our current form of capitalism. Companies will make tons and tons of crap, if they can convince people that that is what they've always wanted. Nothing is recycled, everything is just remade. You can't make any personal profit in communism, so you won't be producing anything that is not necessary. Toys and other items we tend to throw away, will be recycled more efficiently. For these reasons, communism produces less waste than capitalism.

...

You misunderstand the dynamics of evolution. What helps the population as a whole is irrelevant. What helps your lineage is surpremely important. Individuals in a society who are purely altruistic will actually be weeded out because they favor the survival of the non-altruistic individuals at the cost of themselves.

Organisms who don't take care of themselves and their lineage first and foremost die out-- and the overly-altruistic traits die with them. There is absolutely no mechanism to favor such individuals because the non-altruistic individuals either survive and benefit with the whole population, or survive while the population declines. The altruistic die when the population declines as they attempt to support the others.

There are plenty of cases where evolution will favour altruistic traits over selfish traits. Example: Population A, with plenty of altruistic genes in their dna, and Population B, with hardly at all. One day these two populations go to a war against each other. The battle is bloody, and eventually survivors from both sides have to retreat. Members of the Population A will stay at the battlefield a little longer, picking up the injured, tending to them and taking them home for further treatment. Meanwhile, Population B leaves its weak ones to die. The next time these populations go head-on against each other, Population A will outnumber Population B, because its recovery from the first battle has been quicker than B's. As a result, Population B becomes extinct. Population A will reproduce, inhabit the areas where B used to live, and spread on the altruistic genes.

This is a simplified case, of course, but I can imagine events like this have probably happened countless of times through human prehistory. It also explains why the "soft" traits: altruism, compassion, and whatever else I mentioned, exist in humans, to the extent that they do. It's a shame, though, that these traits are only fully expressed at times of wars and disasters.

You cannot say that altruism doesn't serve any evolutionary purpose at all, otherwise we would have absolutely none of it. We would be brutish and cruel, and any "morality" we might have, would be based on purely calculative fear of revenge or punishment.

[Jimmy3280]

Humans is all gonna turn into super powered folk with them lazar eyes and super fast feet and angul wings like them X-men (nanna nanna nanna nanna.... X-Men! woohop, man!)
(wtf do this gotta do with politics?

[Jimmy3280]

wait................never mind, jest read all that stuff above me. whoohop, man.

[Draconias]

At 9/7/07 01:52 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Food and a place to live, to name the obvious ones.

Sounds to me like living in a Zoo cage: here is your daily food and fabricated hovel, and some squeeky toys lying around the cage to play with. It does not sound at all mentally or spiritually satisfying to me; you are nothing but a borrowed home and borrowed books.

I don't really know how Marx envisioned the details of the actual distribution process, or if he did at all

His thoughts are irrelevant. You never, ever rely on the thoughts of one person to actually create a workable system. Did the Founding Fathers just implement the ideas of a few Greek philosophers to make a Republic? No, they took that suggestion and developed a workable plan.

In our ancient Darwinian past, the selfish traits that we nowadays often consider negative: greed, envy, gluttony, even laziness, served a purpose.

Okay, we need to get something straight here: those traits are moralistic, subjective judgements that do not actually exist in any absolute sense. Your use of them is not only ignorant, but annoying for the skewed worldview it attempts to force into the discussion.

Greed is an over-extension of the natural and proper desire of Self Benefit, a purely subjective moral judgement. Envy is an aspect of Self Interest and is postivie as a motivator; Coveting, though, is strictly negative and fed by self-hatred and frustration instead. Gluttony is not a trait, but a foolish weakness; Efficiency, though, reasonably suggests eating all the food you have available that can't be stored for later, and storing what can be. It's a survival trait. Laziness is a lack of motivation, not a trait.

Stop talking of these as "evil traits," for they are not, and look at reality.

We're also consuming our resources as rapidly as possible.

No, we are consuming resources at the rate that our actions demand. We could consume them much faster if we wished.

Except evolution.

Evolution favors the overspender in a community system. Who do you think has the largest share of support and the best capabilities for raising children?

Even if this mechanism is our genes and the instincts they provide?

Genetics means absolutely nothing when discussing such a concious, intellectual issue as spending habits and lifestyle decisions. Also, according to you, the genetic instincts you suggest are completely opposite of the current ones in existance, that took billions of years to develop.

We will evolve a natural instinct to desire jobs that will inherently help the society. This already exist to some extent; when you ask a bunch of 5-year-olds what they want to be when they grow up, they say they want to be doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen.

Stop dreaming. Evolution does not function in that manner, nor can genetics provide such a solution under any circumstances. Young children desire those jobs because they are praised as respectable and exciting and "heroes" through all of the things we teach our children. They are icons of adult society, so children name what they know. Very few 5-year-olds know what an Industrial Engineer is-- so how can any of them want that job?

Not really, considering the vast majority of items manufactured in these capitalist factories are useless crap, which will be discarded and thrown to a landfill within one year from the production date. There will be far less factories in communism, and the working environment in those few factories will be much more pleasant.

Blind dreaming. "Useless" items are produced for entertainment. Entertainment is a requirement in any society. Take off your rosy glasses and take a look at the reality of how economics works, instead of this propaganda-quality "OMG the world is perfect simply because of Communism!" style of thought.

In communism, there is no demand for a mass production of utterly useless items, like there is in our current form of capitalism. Toys and other items we tend to throw away, will be recycled more efficiently. For these reasons, communism produces less waste than capitalism.

Again, what makes you so confident that the desire for such "useless" entertainment items will not still exist? Such items are made because people want them enough that the small cost of making them is worth it. Enough demand exists to cause the production, so how can you say that the demand will disappear?

There are plenty of cases where evolution will favour altruistic traits over selfish traits. Example: Population A, with plenty of altruistic genes in their dna, and Population B, with hardly at all. One day these two populations go to a war against each other.

Utterly wrong.
Population B will have a strong effort to recover the wounded for the simple, non-altruistic reasons of individuals attempting to preserve their social networks; if all of my friends and comrades die, I suffer, so I will put in whatever effort I can to maintain my protective group for my own safety and security.

When altruism is not your motivation, self-concern drives you towards doing everything you can to maintain the solidarity of your Tribal Group for the benefits you recieve from it, such as protection, food and supplies, etc. These desires mean so much more than the empty trash of "I just want to help others" that Population A will express.

However, Population B will not be tainted by a desire to help injured Population A members, nor will it waste effort on those who cannot be saved, since non-altruistic motivation demands that you save as many people as quickly as possible-- even if that means leaving the unsaveable to die. Altruistic motivations would not allow you to ignore those too injured to survive, and thus you waste time, manpower, and supplies on pointless attempts.

Considering complex factors in the long-term, altruistic factors may work against Population A for total growth; for example, would a compassionate person have sex with his dead friend's wife? The surviving males in Population B have more female availability and fewer altruism-triggered obstacles to procreation. Population A, on the other hand, now has more unfit males and hence more females tied into inefficient or unproductive relationships. Population A will suffer more from the battle.

This is reality. The situations is always more complex than your ideals would lead you to believe; actually think about it this time.

It's a shame, though, that these traits are only fully expressed at times of wars and disasters.

I believe the opposite is true. What we see in wartime and disasters is as far from altruism as we can get. Primarily, what we see is the Social Contract in operation; I help you because, Socially, we have agreed that you would help me if I was in the same situation. It's a means for increasing the security for all by pledging aid to those who needs it; it is more of an obligation than a "compassionate desire"-- you don't have time for compassion during a disaster or a battle. For example, with two soldiers, is it altruism to guard and protect your fellow soldiers? No, it's a Social Contract; you guard my back, I guard yours, and we all survive. There's no altruism there, only a universal Self-Concern.

You cannot say that altruism doesn't serve any evolutionary purpose at all, otherwise we would have absolutely none of it. We would be brutish and cruel, and any "morality" we might have, would be based on purely calculative fear of revenge or punishment.

Altruism is not evolutionarily beneficial, but it is a culturally taught trait that manifests itself in some individuals because Society can benefit from those individuals-- regardless of what happens to those people. However, neither are brutish and cruel actions evolutionarily beneficial; not only are they completely pointless, but they generate enemies. The most evolutionarily-favored behaviors are those that discourage violence and help you to develop powerful allies; altruism is not part of that.