I was thinking about humanity and its place in evolution, and came to the conclusion that we have tried our best to exempt ourselves from the the laws of nature. We tend to find ways to support the weak among us, we care for the frail and elderly, destroy our natural predators, and generally have found ways to not subject ourselves to the whims of nature. Those who cannot hack it in the wild (or even in our society) are still generally supported in some way or another. Even those with no particular positive traits (relative to our society or the natural world) are preserved, and are finding the ability to reproduce. Therefore, it would seem that we are not really whittling down or refining our gene pool significantly over time.
Obviously, many would argue that as a human(e) society we don’t really want to subscribe to the laws of nature (rape, murder, etc.), especially when our interests and attachments are at risk; but the question to me is whether our current strategy is one that is short-sighted for the future of our species.
You seem to think “whittling down the gene pool” is a desirable strategy. So did the Nazis. The best evolutionary “strategy” is diversity. Since we don’t know what environmental conditions will exist 100,000 years from now, it makes sense to hedge our bets by preserving the widest gene pool as possible.
I actually never stated that things “should be” any particular way. I was asking about the long-term viability of this course, especially considering that no other creature is really in the same position, which by your account seems to imply that they are not part of an optimization strategy.
BTW: You can’t ask someone for permission to rape them; to ask defies the purpose of the act. And besides, if they say “yes” then it’s not rape.
I’d argue that if we’re doing it, it’s natural. The laws of nature apply to humanity as much as they do to every other species. Think of it this way: paving roads and wearing clothes and participating in society are as much survival strategies as claws and horns and asexual reproduction.
No species has a long-term optimization strategy. They keep making more of themselves, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Catastrophic events, new predators and disease take their toll, but no species – humans included – is doing anything other than trying to stay alive as long as possible, and trying to make more of themselves. Humans have gotten really, really good at it, but then again so have countless bacteria, insects, rodents…
I am more put into mind of the population of the protohistoric earth in Hitchikers Guide, you know, the phone swabbers, hairdressers, makeup artists …
If given the choice to save Paris Hilton, or some dirt farmer from Somalia, Sorry Paris, thanks for playing and don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. I can’t find anybody who has the excuse of being born to a Name and being a party girl worth giving a shit about. Now if she actually did something worth while, like many relatively unknown trustafarians manage to do, I might give a shit about what she is up to …
Exactly. If you die before you pass on your genes, your genes don’t get passed on. It works that way for people and for any other animal. And as far as allowing the survival of people who might not have made it on the savannah - obviously those individuals benefit, but the species also benefits from contributions they might not otherwise have made. If it’s easier for us to survive, that’s a good thing for everybody.
Wrong. See, if they can get people to support them, they ARE “hacking it” in Darwinian evolutionary terms, the terms you are talking about. Evolution is about the successful transmission of genes, not about physical or mental accomplishments. Being dependent on the aid of others may qualify someone as a failure in the eyes of most people, but in evolutionary terms it’s just as valid as any other method of surviving to pass on your genes.
And there’s still plenty of selection going on. For resistance to disease, for looks, for the ability to seduce, for prudence, the ability to co-operate, etc.
Nope. We’ve clearly been quite successful so far. And if you want to think long term one of two things is overwhelmingly likely to happen. Our civilization will collapse, which will fatally winnow out the more dependent/sickly/whatever of our species; or genetic engineering will simply erase the defects without killing those that harbor them. Our civilization freezing where it is for 10,000 years isn’t going to happen.
I agree with this post. Some believe that what we call society is separate from the natural world. I think society IS the natural behavour of the human animal.
It is a natural trait of humans to be able to modify their surroundings and organize to achieve goals. That trait has helped natural selection in favor of humans for world wide success.
And I believe that we are evolving at a fairly swift rate. Pressures for reproductive selection manifest itself in the same ways that always have been. Areas of productivity and prosperity exploitation increase survival.
The concept of long periods of time is hard to grasp. So even if thousands of years have passed and changes are not evident, that does not mean the changes are not occurring.
I’m sure I have seen other Dopers speculate that we are in more of an equilibrium period, under the punctuated equilibrium model. But as long as genes are passed on and people compete, evolution works the same way it always does.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that “whittling down or refining our gene pool” would benefit any human being in any way, shape, or form. As has already been mentioned, the philosophy in this paragraph lead to some of the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. The quality of a person is not determined by his or her genes, but rather by the decisions that he or she makes. Hence trying to improve the human condition by eliminating some genes is a futile strategy.
Oh, please. Some genes inflict agonizing deaths or crippling infirmities upon people. Eliminating those would most certainly “improve the human condition”. And genes strongly affect people’s “quality”, regardless of their decisions. You can’t will yourself to be smarter, for example. Much of our abilities and desires are created and shaped and limited by our genes; the “blank slate” theory of human nature is baseless and ideologically driven.
Fully modern humans ~250,000 years old
“Society” as we know it ~10,000 years old
What we think of as society is mostly the ultimate result of one particular form of agriculture that originated in the Fertile Crescent a few thousand years ago and went on to dominate or assimilate most other cultures. A few remaining peoples such as the Maasai or Kombai don’t live in a way that we would think of as “societal”*, and I assure you their behavior is perfectly natural.
*Yes, you can merrily hop over to m-w.com and find a definition of society that applies to them, but the point is they do not practice totalitarian agriculture, they do not build cities, they do not wage wars of conquest; they do not live like we do.
But (assuming you’re male) you have to choose someone to mate with (which is the whole name of the game anyway), who is it going to be? P. Hilton, together with her very large future prospects, or the Somalian dirt farmer?
It’s not about moral/ethical decisions, its all about self-interest and programming.
OR, until we stop hearing thngs like, “Lets do whatever tv captain of the football team wants to do!”, “Skinny means beautiful!” and words like “pits”, still a big fat NO.
I think the Internet set us back a tad, but if you’re strctly speaking of evolution biology, I wouldn’t mind being Cyclops or Wolverine. Hell, who wouldn’t want to evolve into Wolverine…
We are not only subjecting ourselves to them, we are helping them along, though not always in a way that is “good” for the *Homo sapiens *species. On one hand, our culture, including its technology, is helping people live longer than they would otherwise. On the other hand, that means that many people can reproduce who would not have a few hundred years ago. The thing is, Big-N-Nature doesn’t care if we fill the world with, frinstance, hemophiliacs. All it cares about, if it cares about anything, which it doesn’t, is that a pair of individuals make more individuals. If Nature cared, and I repeat that it doesn’t and that it’s “laws” were imposed on it by people trying to make sense of it all, it would be pleased at our success: some several billion of us.
My definition of ‘society’ was inclusive of any cooperation for group progress. The Maasai do build shelters, organize hunts, decide when to move to improve odds of finding water and game, trade, barter, etc. So society is a part of their nature. They do not function as individuals but have their own society that benefits the group.
I was not limiting to modern society, whatever that means. Society or tribal behavour, call it what you like. Cooperation and communication are just other animal traits that we are better at, that have made the difference.
As far as survival of the fittest. It is also about the averages over time. Some weaker individuals have been protected and can reproduce to pass on their genes. Some highly successful individuals die young or are killed and do not pass on their genes.
Over long periods of time success is still measured in adaptations that favor those that reproduce.
