+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 48

  1. #1
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    (un)Natural selection

    Historically, males with greater social intelligence generate more offspring, corresponding with the evolution of more intelligent humans. In modern times, however, it’s fairly obvious that intelligence and reproductive fecundity don’t generally correlate. This change, the scientists found, along with exposure to a large number of ideas, could throw a curve ball to evolution’s increasingly intelligent humans.

    “As the extent to which social success translates into reproductive success declines in modern societies, cognitive abilities are expected to be significantly reduced by natural selection,” the scientists wrote in their study.

    This was also one of the most eyebrow-raising results for Gavrilets.

    “Surprisingly, the competition for social/reproductive success was a very large driving force in the whole process,” he said. “Personally, I didn’t expect to find that the model would predict a reduction in intelligence.”
    From: http://www.physorg.com/news83410847.html

    I have been trying to find scientific evidence of this for some time. It reminds me of the lyrics of a song "Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding"

    It seems anyone with intellegence can forsee the demise of the planet due to overpopulation and those that do not have the intellegence or education are the ones that continue to breed out of control. Then they expect the rest of the world to take their illegitimate offspring.

    It seems that people are not all equal. This poor natural selection is actually having an evolutionary impact in only a few dozen generations.

    As a society we have a duty to recognise the effects of natural selection, the burden of overpopulation, and the role of evolution and start making better choices in those who have the burden of replenishing our population.

    We have to find a resilient way to stop stupid people and people with terminal genetic diseases from procreating and dragging down our gene pool.

    At the very least, we should have methods available to determine whether a couple has genetic diseases so they can decide whether to procreate or adopt.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag
    From: http://www.physorg.com/news83410847.html

    I have been trying to find scientific evidence of this for some time. It reminds me of the lyrics of a song "Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding"

    It seems anyone with intellegence can forsee the demise of the planet due to overpopulation and those that do not have the intellegence or education are the ones that continue to breed out of control. Then they expect the rest of the world to take their illegitimate offspring.

    It seems that people are not all equal. This poor natural selection is actually having an evolutionary impact in only a few dozen generations.

    As a society we have a duty to recognise the effects of natural selection, the burden of overpopulation, and the role of evolution and start making better choices in those who have the burden of replenishing our population.

    We have to find a resilient way to stop stupid people and people with terminal genetic diseases from procreating and dragging down our gene pool.

    At the very least, we should have methods available to determine whether a couple has genetic diseases so they can decide whether to procreate or adopt.

    Sounds like something a fella back in the thirties was spouting in Germany. Something about keeping the races pure I think was the way he put it.

    Throughout history groups of humans have risen up to proclaim that their kind are superior to others and somehow have the right to cleanse the planet of the vermin. It's true that the earth will suffer from overpopulation unless we act to prevent it but this talk is scary. When you mention "draggin down our gene pool" it would seem that you see yourself in a group that has no "stupid people" in it. How did you get chosen to be in that group?

    Something like 98% of all the species that ever existed have become extinct, or so I've read, and it's not unlikely that humans will suffer the same fate. We haven't been here very long compared to the five billion year age of the earth and not only are there no humans superior to others, humans themselves are not superior to other life forms. We just have this capability to reason and it is that ability that is going to give us any chance of figuring out our problems including overpopulation. Of course in another five billion years or so our sun will die out and as it does it will expand to a size that envelopes the earth's orbit so we're gonna need a better rocket.

    I'm the proverbial optimist my friend. People live longer today than ever before. We are in better health and have more prosperity than ever. And science brings us new knowledge each day. We just have to keep people of faith and others who think their way of thinking is superior to others from getting in the way.

    The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us are going to the stars.

  3. #3
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    Sounds like something a fella back in the thirties was spouting in Germany. Something about keeping the races pure I think was the way he put it.

    Throughout history groups of humans have risen up to proclaim that their kind are superior to others and somehow have the right to cleanse the planet of the vermin. It's true that the earth will suffer from overpopulation unless we act to prevent it but this talk is scary. When you mention "draggin down our gene pool" it would seem that you see yourself in a group that has no "stupid people" in it. How did you get chosen to be in that group?

    Something like 98% of all the species that ever existed have become extinct, or so I've read, and it's not unlikely that humans will suffer the same fate. We haven't been here very long compared to the five billion year age of the earth and not only are there no humans superior to others, humans themselves are not superior to other life forms. We just have this capability to reason and it is that ability that is going to give us any chance of figuring out our problems including overpopulation. Of course in another five billion years or so our sun will die out and as it does it will expand to a size that envelopes the earth's orbit so we're gonna need a better rocket.

    I'm the proverbial optimist my friend. People live longer today than ever before. We are in better health and have more prosperity than ever. And science brings us new knowledge each day. We just have to keep people of faith and others who think their way of thinking is superior to others from getting in the way.

    The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us are going to the stars.
    I think you have read too much into my artical. Your friend back in the 30's was going WAY too far and didn't have the right goals in mind. I don't want to "clease the race" or anything scarey like that. I think all races should be included and evaluated on an individual basis - race taken out of the calculation.

    Most likely I am guessing that I would not be in the categories of "intellectually superior" or in the "prime breeding stock". If I were to make the rules, I don't think that I would make the cut.

    Not that we should go out and slaughter those that don't make the cut the way our subject of the 30's did, we should prevent them from donating to the continued gene pool.

    I think the number is closer to 99.9% when you include all the single cell organisms that didn't make it.

    I'm all for optimism, but I am a realist myself. With the promising reality of longer life, you have to realize that if people live longer, the room for new people is reduced even further. We have to reduce the birthrate and we could certainatly use a little better selection than "the most fertile will procreate"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    554

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Medicine is also saving people that natural selection would have never allowed to breed. Mankind is headed for disaster and there is nothing we can do about it. Starvation and dieses will kill 90% of the population within 50 years, no way around it. The best you can do is try to make sure your loved ones are in the 10% that survive. They will be part of a brave new world if they live.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag
    From: http://www.physorg.com/news83410847.html

    I have been trying to find scientific evidence of this for some time. It reminds me of the lyrics of a song "Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding"

    It seems anyone with intellegence can forsee the demise of the planet due to overpopulation and those that do not have the intellegence or education are the ones that continue to breed out of control. Then they expect the rest of the world to take their illegitimate offspring.

    It seems that people are not all equal. This poor natural selection is actually having an evolutionary impact in only a few dozen generations.

    As a society we have a duty to recognise the effects of natural selection, the burden of overpopulation, and the role of evolution and start making better choices in those who have the burden of replenishing our population.

    We have to find a resilient way to stop stupid people and people with terminal genetic diseases from procreating and dragging down our gene pool.

    At the very least, we should have methods available to determine whether a couple has genetic diseases so they can decide whether to procreate or adopt.
    I understand exactly what you are saying, and I do agree with you, its not hard to see the trend and predict where its leading (although its not a topic I usually bring up in conversation, it tends to have negative overtones). But yes, eventually, one way or the other, we are going to run into a wall as far as population is concerned, and selection is going to occur (I'm sure in poverty stricken regions in places like India natural selection is already pushing populations towards slower, more effecient metabolisms).

    Its up to us whether we want to guide that selection or not. Of course there are all sorts of social/political/religous/ethical issues, but it doesn't negate the problem. I guess we could allow each person to produce one offspring, thus keeping the population constant, or assign each person 3/4 of an offspring to reduce the population. That would be a fair method.

    Personally, I hope that before this becomes a problem we are able to manipulate our genes sufficiently well that we can 'transcend' evolution by natural selection and evolve with a purpose.

  6. #6
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Worried_in_the_USA
    Medicine is also saving people that natural selection would have never allowed to breed. Mankind is headed for disaster and there is nothing we can do about it. Starvation and dieses will kill 90% of the population within 50 years, no way around it. The best you can do is try to make sure your loved ones are in the 10% that survive. They will be part of a brave new world if they live.
    YES! That is exactly what I think my method will help! This should start cutting back the population so we don't hit that critical mass.

    At some point we will have so many people that a pandemic will flow unchecked from city to city. In older days the space from one person to the next was large enough that viruses had to have huge long lives to travel from one host to the next making them have longer life cycles and giving our immune system longer to fight them.

    Viruses that do not need to depend on long life cycles can replicate much quicker and outnumber the immune system much faster. They won't be transmitted as far, but they won't need to.

    Starvation and disease... Natures answer to overpopulation... Can anyone think of something better?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_jag
    Starvation and disease... Natures answer to overpopulation... Can anyone think of something better?
    Have you ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert?

    After millenia of oppression and with severely limited, severly expensive interplanetary travel, the human race discover a new type of technology that makes it possible for anyone to travel just about anywhere in the universe, and all of a sudden the human race explodes (its called 'The Scattering' in the book). After this humans are spread so far throughout the universe that no one source could ever wipe them out, and no one person could ever control them all.

    This is what I hope happens :D

    Ok so, not exactly that like that, but I only hope we last long enough that we see an exponential expansion across the universe. After that evolution will ensure that the planets with social systems that prevent overpopulation survive and expand, and those with social systems that don't work will eventually wipe themselves out. Unfortunately at the moment, all our eggs are in one basket.

    Ok, so its not a practical contribution to the thread, but its a nice day outside and I'm in a daydreaming kind of mood.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    55

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    even if we dont die from starvation, nearly half the world's population will die over the next 100-150 years due to rising sea levels, caused by global warming. if only the US had signed the Kyoto agreement...

  9. #9
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Douts
    even if we dont die from starvation, nearly half the world's population will die over the next 100-150 years due to rising sea levels, caused by global warming. if only the US had signed the Kyoto agreement...
    Thats rather unlikely. The worlds oceans will rise, very very slowly maybe 10 ft. There aren't many people that live below 10ft above sea level, and if they do, I'm sure they will take the hint to walk up shore when high tides start to flood into their homes.

    No one will drown due to rising sea levels, but the usable land will diminish slightly.

    Rising sea levels aren't what you should be worried about.. Warming seas are. The warmer a sea gets, the more energy it can provide to storms - such as hurricanes. Remember Katrina? Direct result of warmer oceans.

    If warming continues, a hurricane like Katrina will be one of the smaller ones of the year. You will also see a lot more rains on western shores, cause flooding and landslides. All the extra water will accentuate the change in climate in these areas causing the intrusion of new invasive species.

    The whole world is going to hell, and we can do something about it. We need to start controlling the reproductive rate in an effective manner.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    55

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    arctic and antarctic ice is melting faster than ever, 90% of bangledesh is less than 2m above sea level, and they have a population of about 250 million. Florida will be underwater, louisiana and other states with coasts on the gulf of mexico will be underwater, atlantic and paciffic states will be partially underwater. holland will be wiped out, most of the UK's big cities are on the coast, london, liverpool, newcastle, plymouth, portsmouth, southampton etc, they'll all be gone, all the paciffic islands will be gone

  11. #11
    Johnny Angel Guest

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    intelligence may not, after all, be a long term survival trait...

  12. #12
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Angel
    intelligence may not, after all, be a long term survival trait...
    Unless we decide to make it be. We have the luxury of excessive gene pool to select the most intellegent from.

  13. #13
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Douts
    arctic and antarctic ice is melting faster than ever, 90% of bangledesh is less than 2m above sea level, and they have a population of about 250 million. Florida will be underwater, louisiana and other states with coasts on the gulf of mexico will be underwater, atlantic and paciffic states will be partially underwater. holland will be wiped out, most of the UK's big cities are on the coast, london, liverpool, newcastle, plymouth, portsmouth, southampton etc, they'll all be gone, all the paciffic islands will be gone
    Ok Bangladesh? screwed. UK cities? doubtfull, they have mountains there. I'm sure they can walk upland a little. Pacific islands are mountainous. Tiny ones may dissapear, but not by much.

    When you look at a topographic map of New York:
    http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/states/maps1/ny.gif
    It looks like even long island will have some mountain peaks sticking up. I dont know the scale of that picture.

    Venice? screwed - unless they raise their buildings another storey, which could happen for all coastal cities including all bangladesh. Remember, there still will be normal tides, and the low tide of the future will be lower than the high tide of today. Besides, if we actually cut our pop by a factor of 10 there will be plenty of inland housing for all.

    Remember, when they talk of melting glaciers etc, they include all the ones on non-arctic/antarctic mountains as well. Most of those are already gone.

    Then look at all the water removed from the ocean system by such structures as the 3 rivers dam (in china to be completed ~2010) That will help offset the water normally flowing into the ocean a little....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    55

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    do u really think that banglesdeshis can afford to add another floor to their houses?? whether of not there are mountains is pointless, because you can build or farm on mountains, the ground isnt fertile enough.

  15. #15
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    Quote Originally Posted by Douts
    do u really think that banglesdeshis can afford to add another floor to their houses?? whether of not there are mountains is pointless, because you can build or farm on mountains, the ground isnt fertile enough.

    Fine... then they can do like Germany or New orleans did and go ahead and live below sea level. Just erect a huge dike to shelter them from the oceans and install some pumps to keep rain water from filling it in.

    Dont tell me you cant farm the mountains. Ever heard of an ancient civilization called the azteks? They farmed mountains with no more sophisticated tools than rocks and sticks. (maybe a hoe or two...)

    Don't tell me you cant live in the mountains. Isn't that what the rocky mountain coastliners do?

    Will rising oceans be a pain in the butt? Sure!

    Would all the problems of rising oceans be solved if we cut the world population by 75%? I bet my life it would.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    55

    Re: (un)Natural selection

    it probably would, but reducing the population by 75% would be impossible, you would need to kill everyone in china four and a half times, which obviously you cant do. the only way to minimise global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 09:32 AM
  2. Natural Order
    By moh in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-23-2009, 06:24 AM
  3. Has natural selection been aborted?
    By coberst in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2009, 08:07 PM
  4. Big Oil and the the GOP .. a Natural Fit !!
    By Self Employed in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2008, 03:41 AM
  5. Why the FDA is cracking down on these `natural' me
    By SunniOne in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 05:49 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, abc, action, acts, add, africa, agreement, aliens, allowed, america, american, another, article, atm, avoid, bad, based, basically, beat, bit, books, bring, british, building, called, cancel, care, career, carry, categories, cattle, caused, causing, cer, chance, coming, continue, corrupt, corruption, cost, couldn, countries, critical, crowd, cure, damn, day, decision, disaster, disease, diversity, dna, doesn, dog, dollars, don, dont, doomed, due, dun, dying, education, effective, electio, eliminate, ends, environment, ethical, examples, expand, experience, extra, extremely, factor, factories, factory, families, financial, food, frank, fry, future, generation, give, global, gonna, ground, group, growth, guys, hasn, hats, held, hell, hey, high, higher, homeland, html, huge, huma, human, humans, hurricanes, ial, identify, imagine, immune, impact, important, include, india, innovation, interest, islands, isn, issues, italy, john, judge, katrina, land, large, league, lets, listen, living, loan, london, long, longer, los, louisiana, making, management, mankind, manufacture, maps, marries, mass, mea, medical, mel, members, men, mental, method, million, millions, mind, model, monetary, money, natural, necessarily, nope, north, numbers, office, operation, oppression, orleans, owns, pacific, pandemic, par, part, people, person, personal, picture, plan, plane, planning, political, poor, pos, positive, post, posted, poverty, power, predators, presiden, prevent, prime, problem, professional, promising, question, race, raise, raising, ran, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, recorded, reduction, removed, responsible, rise, rising, role, rome, room, safe, sca, scale, scary, screw, select, sen, service, severe, sho, short, shot, shouldn, slaughter, social, solution, song, sort, source, stars, start, states, stock, stop, story, strategic, strength, stupid, sun, super, survival, systems, take a look, taken, talking, test, thread, times, told, tools, trade, tradition, tribute, twin, ugly, unfortunate, universe, url, usa, vanish, version, view, wanted, warming, wars, wash, western, win, wins, wise, women, won, worked, world, worldwide, year, york, youth

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •