humans are destroying the natural way of life

[Blackima]

Heh, there some guy a while back who had the same idea as you

His name was Hitler :p

People remember Hitler for his following of social darwinism namely killing of jews, homosexuals and criminals (and they really really should never have been put in the same category)

But he also thought it'd be a swell idea to kill of those inferior, such as those with mental or physcial handicaps. Hence he went off and ordered for all mentally handicapped men, women and children to be killed.

Yah, he's not too popular these days :p

But I do agree with you, humans can no longer evolve on account of absolutely everyone living. But I don't really see that as being much of a problem, we make up for it in the form of improved technology and improved development of the mind. So while gentically I reckon humans have stopped improving, the environment we live in is, and hence humans will too (remember, on average half of the person we become is genetics, the other half is environment)

From another perspective however, this muddy cuddling (sp?) could very well speed up our evolution. Ultimately evolution can only take major strides when there is a deformity ina baby (the other way of survical of the fittest takes thousands / millions of years to take effect). So by being able to let deformed children live and later have their own kids, we are essentially adding to the variety of the human dna

I've no medical backrground so most of what I'm saying is just opinions based on books / tv, so undoubtedly most of what i say is speculation / my own opinion, not neccesarily true

[Dick Montage]

When you are the top of the food chain, natural selection becomes irrelevent!

[Blackima]

no one is perfect. everyone has a certain degree of bad genes in them but the point of natural selection is the process of minimize those bad genes from occuring. i think we're stopping that process and that's dangerous.

586445346[/snapback]

Hmm, I don't really like the idea of "bad genes"

I mean, remember back at the time when all creatures lived in the sea?

Oh how the other fish must have laughed at that freakishly deformed fish who was born without the ability to seperate oxygen from water.

Last laugh's on them though. That fish gets hooked up, gets pregnants then says "so long folks" and hops out of the water onto land

Obviously this didn't happen :p, but I hope you get my point. I don't really think there's such a thing as a bad gene

[edit] spelt the plural of fish as fishes :pinch: [/edit]

[l77Il7H]

Hmm, I don't really like the idea of "bad genes"

I mean, remember back at the time when all creatures lived in the sea?

Oh how the other fishes must have laughed at that freakishly deformed fish who was born without the ability to seperate oxygen from water.

Last laugh's on them though. That fish gets hooked up, gets pregnants then says "so long folks" and hops out of the water onto land

Obviously this didn't happen :p, but I hope you get my point. I don't really think there's such a thing as a bad gene

586445606[/snapback]

so you're saying having asthma is not a bad gene?

[Blackima]

so you're saying having asthma is not a bad gene?

586445632[/snapback]

Well you know what asthma is, right? Bad stuff goes into lungs, muscle walls constrict, bad stuff doesn't get into lungs anymore, but you end up with craploads of mucus in your lungs which results in wheezing and coughing. The problem with asthma is that that the muscles are contricting due to chemicals that we know are not harmful.

But what if tomorrow a chemical warhead went off in your city. And those with asthma reacted to it. They'd be getting half the dosage of chemical to their lungs, just enough to survive, while the rest of us supposedly healthy people died.

Again my point is far fetched but it is only so to illustrate my point. A bad gene today might be a good gene tomorrow, cause ultimately adaptation is there to allow us to adapt to a changing environment, and half of evolution is adaptation

[Scudworth]

hehe, dealing with the widescale death of a group of the human race can be a touchy topic.? although the other day, i was thinking to myself that we have way too many warning labels these days.? things like "don't stick your hand in a lawnmower while it's running" or "don't drink gas".? we should just get rid of labels like that...our society is geared towards helping the "weak" survive.

586445327[/snapback]

yep, I totally agree

humans are superior to all things living on this earth.? basically humans worst enemie is ourselfs..

586445353[/snapback]

+

When you are the top of the food chain, natural selection becomes irrelevent!

586445568[/snapback]

=

If I put you out in the woods with nothing but your 'wits' we would see who was superior. Humans are probably the weakest of any animal on the planet, they dont have armoured skin, razor-sharp teeth or claws. all we have is our brains, but I suppose that is an argueable superiority.

Natural selection isnt about killing off the weak though, its about allowing them to die off on their own. Nature is neutral it doesnt take sides.

I completely agree that we have destroyed the natural order of the world with regards to ourselves, though. 'We' recognize that when the population of an animal group exceeds a number that their particular eco-system can sustain, that: a) a disease will probably arise and run through the herd, killing off those who cant survive, thus reducing the numbers to a manageable level; or b) a 'cull' must be undertaken to preserve the eco-system. For some reason though, we dont allow such situations to translate over to the human side. Any Disease/disaster/animal, that can pose a threat to any human, must be erradicated, which is horribly one-sided, imo.

then again, as was said, if I hadnt been born healthy and strong, I would probably argue the opposite. I like to think otherwise, but who knows.

Edited August 28, 2005 by Scudworth

[Nexus]

Simple its what they call the right to life. Hence one of the strong arguments in Roe v.s. Wade.

[amradiar]

heh, well if that was the case i would not be here because i had heart problems but they fixed me :D..

[ninjakarl]

The thing about that though is that we have a conscience. No Doctor can sit by and let people die just because you want only the fittest to be able to survive.

[Kst]

Heh, there some guy a while back who had the same idea as you

His name was Hitler  :p

People remember Hitler for his following of social darwinism namely killing of jews, homosexuals and criminals (and they really really should never have been put in the same category)

But he also thought it'd be a swell idea to kill of those inferior, such as those with mental or physcial handicaps. Hence he went off and ordered for all mentally handicapped men, women and children to be killed.

Yah, he's not too popular these days :p

But I do agree with you, humans can no longer evolve on account of absolutely everyone living. But I don't really see that as being much of a problem, we make up for it in the form of improved technology and improved development of the mind. So while gentically I reckon humans have stopped improving, the environment we live in is, and hence humans will too (remember, on average half of the person we become is genetics, the other half is environment)

From another perspective however, this muddy cuddling (sp?) could very well speed up our evolution. Ultimately evolution can only take major strides when there is a deformity ina  baby (the other way of survical of the fittest takes thousands / millions of years to take effect). So by being able to let deformed children live and later have their own kids, we are essentially adding to the variety of the human dna

I've no medical backrground so most of what I'm saying is just opinions based on books / tv, so undoubtedly most of what i say is speculation / my own opinion, not neccesarily true

586445549[/snapback]

heh, i was going to say that sounded like hitlers way of thinking :ninja: :p

I have pondered Darwin's theories when i was younger, until i was abducted by

aliens and they touched my wee wee. I no longer thing about darwin...good luck with that :alien:

[Brandon]

hehe, dealing with the widescale death of a group of the human race can be a touchy topic.  although the other day, i was thinking to myself that we have way too many warning labels these days.  things like "don't stick your hand in a lawnmower while it's running" or "don't drink gas".  we should just get rid of labels like that...our society is geared towards helping the "weak" survive.

586445327[/snapback]

haha well in america all companies would be sued because that lucky bastart decided to try drinking gas for the hell of it

[Mike Frett]

Guess I'm "inferior" to the rest of you then. Any volunteers to come kill me, where's hitler when you need him?

[Scudworth]

The thing about that though is that we have a conscience. No Doctor can sit by and let people die just because you want only the fittest to be able to survive.

586445819[/snapback]

well, that's the hippocratic oath, which to me seem more an ideal, than conscience. They swore to do yadda-yadda-yadda, so they cant allow it, though there may be times when they would just as soon let someone die :ninja:

[asdflkjsdrhthfhrhr]

Heh, there some guy a while back who had the same idea as you

His name was Hitler  :p

People remember Hitler for his following of social darwinism namely killing of jews, homosexuals and criminals (and they really really should never have been put in the same category)

But he also thought it'd be a swell idea to kill of those inferior, such as those with mental or physcial handicaps. Hence he went off and ordered for all mentally handicapped men, women and children to be killed.

Yah, he's not too popular these days :p

But I do agree with you, humans can no longer evolve on account of absolutely everyone living. But I don't really see that as being much of a problem, we make up for it in the form of improved technology and improved development of the mind. So while gentically I reckon humans have stopped improving, the environment we live in is, and hence humans will too (remember, on average half of the person we become is genetics, the other half is environment)

From another perspective however, this muddy cuddling (sp?) could very well speed up our evolution. Ultimately evolution can only take major strides when there is a deformity ina  baby (the other way of survical of the fittest takes thousands / millions of years to take effect). So by being able to let deformed children live and later have their own kids, we are essentially adding to the variety of the human dna

I've no medical backrground so most of what I'm saying is just opinions based on books / tv, so undoubtedly most of what i say is speculation / my own opinion, not neccesarily true

586445549[/snapback]

It's not possible to just kill all of the mentally handicapped people and have the "retarded gene" die out. Normal people can produce handicapped children, and handicapped people can produce normal children.

[Rob2687]

Watch some Gattaca

[incedx]

human is nothing.

we just produce *h*t and bring our s*i* here and there.

the best people among us, are the people whom are guided.

everything is test.

and we don't have exact definition on what is "natural"

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Someone mention Darwin? I need a script for this.

[Thread Moved from GD to RWI]

Let's see how this does in the big kids' sandbox.

Edit: Tumbleweed drifts by...

Edited August 29, 2005 by fred666

[rumbleph1$h]

I think the evolution of science is killing the theory of 'natural selection' more than anything by exposing its weaknesses. :)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Natural Selection is an instictive process.

Mankind relies less on instict and more on rational thought.

[vincent]

I think the evolution of science is killing the theory of 'natural selection' more than anything by exposing its weaknesses.  :)

586446960[/snapback]

natural selection is a instinctive process that just happened to be studied and labeled, natural selection I don't quite understand what you are saying, natural selection is still a process underway in wildlife. Although on the other hand science has impeded it somewhat, but not wholly. But then again maybe it hasn't impeded it, just re-directed it.

[dreamz Veteran]

I think the evolution of science is killing the theory of 'natural selection' more than anything by exposing its weaknesses.  :)

586446960[/snapback]

that just made me happy. pointing out weaknesses is the BEST way for science to mature and develop. :)

as for the original topic, social darwinism, as it has been called, has been tried. one of the foremost proponents early on was herbert spencer and later, the eugenicists. you are not the first to have thought of this. in fact, there were debates during that period about laws that would deliberately ignore the poor.

there are several problems with such a view, though:

-killing off "bad genes" does not mean that you'll preserve good ones. people can still develop in ways that you did not expect.

-what is "good" is sociologically defined. hence, "baldness" might not be considered bad. in fact, one might argue that hair has become less of a necessity and more of a nuisance. by this line of thought, baldness is a "good" trait; therefore, all men with hair ought to be prohibited from reproducing.

-the previous point also indicates another problem, namely, that there is no strict function that determines the "goodness" of a certain trait.

-the function so-defined may also be problematic. clearly, infinitely many criteria could be adopted. instead of asthma, we might consider intelligence. we could set it arbitrarily so that all people with an iq less than 150 would be prohibited from reproducing. such a provision would ensure (by your reasoning) a more intelligent species.

-one problem with the aforementioned criteria function is that those in power will define the function. the lawmakers, for instance, could set the iq to x, where x is the lowest common denominator for them, thereby wiping out a certain portion of the population while guaranteeing their safety. so nature can be manipulated by politics.

-good and bad traits can co-exist in individuals. a nobel laureate may have a bad gene. suppose the gene isn't expressed. does it still make sense to bar him from life, sex, etc.? suppose then that despite an expressed gene, he is still able to do marvelous work that furthers the human species. is it still reasonable? of course, if you change your answers, you're changing your scale of values, which tells me you didn't define them beforehand. this also shows that you need another function that can weigh values, meta-values, etc.

-mathematically speaking, there is no social welfare function that can choose criteria according to universal domain (all possibilities are acceptable), pareto (unanimity), and independence of irrelevant alternatives (irrelevant choices should not affect the final ordering).

-finally, we need a meta-ethics that governs what is "good" and what is "right."

[duhk]

You so smart dreamz.

And here's another problem, if we start governing what is good and right, then we'd still be interfering with natural selection. It's not our decision to make, it's natures.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Okay, here's the solution as I see it.

Let's listen to our basic instincts.

Everyone go have sex with pretty women (or men as need be).

Who is willing to do their bit... for nature?

[gizmostripe]

Oh im sorry that my acne ridden ass has been around polluting the gene pool :rolleyes: and i'll apologise in advance just incase I go bald...and i'll save myself the trouble of having kids just incase they appear slightly disadvantageous because they have a trait or two from me...

On the science side, seeing as we are intelligent enough to adapt the environment to fit our needs, natural selection is irrelevant as we no longer need to adapt ourselves. (Not that i condone that, because it could mean destroying habitats etc.)

Also, different cultures have their own opinions on "beauty" some tribes in africa prefer fatter males etc, and the ideal person is relative to the person whom seeks this ideal.