# Are humans still evolving? Should we subject ourselves to the laws of nature? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984 "2009-04-13T20:38:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/41 "2009-04-14T15:28:54Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > You seem to be saying that, completely left to their own devices, tribal peoples would eventually be us. Meaning, they would presumably at some point in the future, be building skyscrapers and sending emails. Why do you suppose they’re lagging so far behind? No, I’m saying they already have all the elements of human society which distinguish them from other animal life. I’m saying there’s nothing in the lifestyle of the Maasai that’s any more (or less) “natural” than a New Yorker’s. I’m saying you’re quibbling over differences of degree between them and us, when the dividing line between them, us and everything else couldn’t be clearer. > [@Cisco](#): > > (My answer, to preempt my question from being twisted: I don’t think they’re lagging behind at all. I don’t think they would ever be like us, because they don’t live like us. They’re not part of the dominant society that has “removed” itself from nature [symbolically, in many ways - I don’t think you can literally remove yourself from nature, and in any case that’s a different discussion] and is the topic of this thread.) The Maasai are as removed from nature as you or I. Their cattle are no more or less natural than those in Texas, their red tartans are no more their natural coverings than my 501s, their _bomas_ are no more or less a natural structure than my Victorian house. > [@Cisco](#): > > I don’t know, I’m not an engineer. Neither am I - but “complexity” isn’t an engineering term. What did you mean by “more complex”? More interactions? More components? What? I’ve already said why it fails by any sensible measure of “complexity”, but you continue to disagree. Why? > [@Cisco](#): > > My point was that that hut is closer to a bird’s nest or a bee’s hive or an ant’s hill than it is to the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House or the Brooklyn Bridge. In what way? If you just mean in function, then so is any house or apartment. And functional difference is not a measure of complexity. > [@](#): > > It is a purely functional shelter, built for temporary survival assistance. I think you’ll find it’s also a place to raise kids, host parties (yes, parties), bind a group together. Yes, it’s not a _public_ building, as all those you listed are, but I see no difference between the hut and my house, in terms of its relevance to the idea of society. Certainly, we can say it is not \*just \*a shelter, as you intimate. And, from what I can read, not meant to be that temporary at all. And I think the other crucial difference is that it is a _cultural_ artifact, not a genetic one like all the animal structures you mention, which are all _built by instinct_. Equating them to nests strikes me as all kinds of chauvinistic. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/42 "2009-04-14T15:30:22Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Society doesn’t have anything to do with large buildings. They are entirely incidental, and skyscrapers don’t help your point. Aborigines, Bushmen, etc, may or may not have a substantially different society than us, but that point will not be settled by looking at pictures of bridges and well-lit architecture. > > It is one thing to say our society is separate from that of the Aborigines, it is another thing entirely to assert that they have no society at all. > > Do Aborigines greet each other? Do they love their families? Do they cooperate? Do they use body language? Do they raise their children? Do they use tools and build things? Do they improvise solutions to their problems? Do they use impartial intermediaries to settle disputes? > > Those questions may not be the best for investigating Aboriginal society, but they are a lot more relevant than “Do they live in high rise buildings?”. So, as I alluded to in post #14, this discussion is not about learning anything, or thinking differently, or realizing a point, or really paying attention to or attempting to comprehend _anything_ I’ve said - - it’s about the definition of the word “society”. How utterly, dreadfully predictable. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/43 "2009-04-14T15:33:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The elimination of the genes of those willing to adopt children will make the future a better place ? “willing to adopt” – you make it sound like a cross to carry. The elimination of the genes of those not wanting children will make the future a better place. Yes. That’s about right. A little bit better if in the future people will want children because they are genetically coded to love children. I assume people that don’t want children, don’t love children as much as people that want children. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And saying that the future will be a better place because people who prefer to be childless don’t pass on their genes is insulting too. Glad you liked it. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/44 "2009-04-14T15:39:01Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > [QUOTE=ghardester] > I think society IS the natural behavour of the human animal. Unlikely. 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](http://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. [/QUOTE] This is your first post on the nature of “society”. [QUOTE=Cisco] So, as I alluded to in post #14, this discussion is not about learning anything, or thinking differently, or realizing a point, or really paying attention to or attempting to comprehend anything I’ve said - - it’s about the definition of the word “society”. How utterly, dreadfully predictable. [/QUOTE] If your point wasn’t to discuss (or define in your own peculiar way) what constitutes human society, then what was it? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/45 "2009-04-14T15:42:45Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, I’m saying they already have all the elements of human society which distinguish them from other animal life. I’m saying there’s nothing in the lifestyle of the Maasai that’s any more (or less) “natural” than a New Yorker’s. I’m saying you’re quibbling over differences of degree between them and us, when the dividing line between them, us and everything else couldn’t be clearer. > The Maasai are as removed from nature as you or I. Their cattle are no more or less natural than those in Texas, their red tartans are no more their natural coverings than my 501s, their _bomas_ are no more or less a natural structure than my Victorian house. > Neither am I - but “complexity” isn’t an engineering term. What did you mean by “more complex”? More interactions? More components? What? I’ve already said why it fails by any sensible measure of “complexity”, but you continue to disagree. Why?In what way? If you just mean in function, then so is any house or apartment. And functional difference is not a measure of complexity. > I think you’ll find it’s also a place to raise kids, host parties (yes, parties), bind a group together. Yes, it’s not a _public_ building, as all those you listed are, but I see no difference between the hut and my house, in terms of its relevance to the idea of society. Certainly, we can say it is not \*just \*a shelter, as you intimate. And, from what I can read, not meant to be that temporary at all. > > And I think the other crucial difference is that it is a _cultural_ artifact, not a genetic one like all the animal structures you mention, which are all _built by instinct_. Equating them to nests strikes me as all kinds of chauvinistic. I find it hard to imagine ways in which you could more thoroughly miss the point of everything I’ve said here. Read [this](http://www.davidsheen.com/b/b1.htm), paying special attention to the law of limited competition, which indigenous peoples still follow, and we don’t. That is the difference between us and them, and between us and “nature”. It was suggested that it is essentially human to live “against nature” the way we do, and I merely offered counter-examples that strongly suggest that it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/46 "2009-04-14T15:43:33Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > So if humans are evolving, what environmental pressures are causing selection? Lots of them. As human society becomes less agrarian, it even more favors intelligence - the smarter you are, the more money you can make, the more succesfully you pass your genes on. War is and always has been a selective pressure on humans. On chimps, too. Western humans are probably adapting to a sedentary lifestyle. Whoever has whatever stupid gene combo that lets you be a couch potato, eat fat, and still live to 90 will probably have lots of descendants. Cancer-resistant skin will be a big seller going forward. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/47 "2009-04-14T15:59:24Z")
[QUOTE=bup] As human society becomes less agrarian, it even more favors intelligence - the smarter you are, the more money you can make, the more succesfully you pass your genes on… [/QUOTE] Wrong. In fact it seems just the opposite is true–the less money you make and the lower your quality of life, the more offspring you pop out. There is much less pressure against low intelligence than there should be (Darwin awards notwithstanding) because once you are born society will do its best to cushion your survival rate. > [@](#): > > War is and always has been a selective pressure on humans. On chimps, too. > > Western humans are probably adapting to a sedentary lifestyle. Whoever has whatever stupid gene combo that lets you be a couch potato, eat fat, and still live to 90 will probably have lots of descendants. True, but these are not necessarily selective pressures for the net good, which is what the OP is concerned with. > [@](#): > > Cancer-resistant skin will be a big seller going forward. Good point. Interestingly enough, technology has already overcome natural selection in this regard: [tollbit-host.com](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4208538/Birth-of-first-British-baby-genetically-screened-for-breast-cancer.html) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/48 "2009-04-14T16:28:36Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Unlikely. > > Fully modern humans ~250,000 years old > “Society” as we know it ~10,000 years old There was still “Society” prior to 10,000 years ago. It was tribal and didn’t leave behind a written record, but we were social animals all the same. Limiting your definition of “society” to “the way we’re doing it now” doesn’t make any sense. Your cite seems very worked up about the notion that humanity existed before agriculture. Well, so what? We were still social creatures. Some humans may have a greater capacity for altering their environment that others, but in the grand scheme of things ALL humans remain at the mercy of the environment and nature; even the most technologically advanced societies are utterly dependent on nature to survive, and are hopelessly unable to prevent it from killing them when chance decides to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Cagey\_Drifter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@Cagey\_Drifter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cagey_Drifter)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/49 "2009-04-14T16:33:14Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Whoever has whatever stupid gene combo that lets you be a couch potato, eat fat, and still live to 90 will probably have lots of descendants. How so? The way I see it, this person only needs to live to 40 or 50, or however long it takes for him to have a few kids. Typically, 90 year old men/women don’t have children. So I don’t really see how this person is favored in any evolutionary sense to any ordinary person who lives to the age of 40 or 50. Someone explain how this would work over an aggregate. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/50 "2009-04-14T16:33:36Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > There is much less pressure against low intelligence than there should be “Should” implies a judgement call. Who decides whether or not there is enough selective pressure? From the perspective of someone who is educated and well-mannered, perhaps there is not enough selective pressure on low intelligence individuals. From the standpoint of natural selection, however, I’m not sure there’s ever “too little” or “too much” selective pressure. Whatever selective pressure is present on a population is the right one under the given environmental conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/51 "2009-04-14T17:00:46Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > There was still “Society” prior to 10,000 years ago. It was tribal and didn’t leave behind a written record, but we were social animals all the same. Limiting your definition of “society” to “the way we’re doing it now” doesn’t make any sense. > > Your cite seems very worked up about the notion that humanity existed before agriculture. Well, so what? We were still social creatures. Some humans may have a greater capacity for altering their environment that others, but in the grand scheme of things ALL humans remain at the mercy of the environment and nature; even the most technologically advanced societies are utterly dependent on nature to survive, and are hopelessly unable to prevent it from killing them when chance decides to do so. Very simple summary of thread: -The OP asks about humans that have “generally have found ways to not subject ourselves to the whims of nature.” -Beadalin and ghardester suggest that this is natural way for humans to live -I point out that it is actually a recent, and not universal development -Several posters ignore my point and launch a quest to define the word “society” ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/52 "2009-04-14T17:10:38Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > “Should” implies a judgement call. Who decides whether or not there is enough selective pressure? From the perspective of someone who is educated and well-mannered, perhaps there is not enough selective pressure on low intelligence individuals. From the standpoint of natural selection, however, I’m not sure there’s ever “too little” or “too much” selective pressure. Whatever selective pressure is present on a population is the right one under the given environmental conditions. I kinda went into this at length in my previous posts, but I understand if you didn’t see it in the flood of posts. I quote myself: > [@](#): > > I concur that there was no goal to evolution, it is simply the way it is (favoring those able to pass on genes) because that is only way it could be. However, the arrival of humanity, a species that is capable of feeling and understanding happiness on a level that no other product of natural selection has, is significant because now Life has been given a goal: the maximization of happiness in amplitude, multiple, and duration. I agree with you that ‘natural selection’ in as much as it is a force or entity in our minds, doesn’t give a flying fuck. My point is that we as conscious and intelligent animals, capable of giving and receiving pain and pleasure, should start giving a fuck and making judgment calls. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/53 "2009-04-14T17:13:11Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Limiting your definition of “society” to “the way we’re doing it now” doesn’t make any sense. Again, the posters I was responding to were referring to society that paved roads, etc. If **ghardester** meant “society” in the way that you mean it, then his/her statement: > [@ghardester](#): > > I think society IS the natural behavour of the human animal. wouldn’t make any sense. It’s a foregone conclusion and no one would disagree that we are social animals. He/she was referring to “the way we’re doing it now.” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/54 "2009-04-14T17:14:40Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Wrong. In fact it seems just the opposite is true–the less money you make and the lower your quality of life, the more offspring you pop out. Because that’s necessary for survival, and they don’t all live to reproduce. As people and societies move away from the subsistence level, they’re able to have fewer children and focus their resources on a smaller number of children, which gives greater advantages to the kids and increases the chances they survive. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/55 "2009-04-14T17:21:18Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Wrong. In fact it seems just the opposite is true–the less money you make and the lower your quality of life, the more offspring you pop out. There is much less pressure against low intelligence than there should be (Darwin awards notwithstanding) because once you are born society will do its best to cushion your survival rate. > [@Cagey Drifter](#): > > How so? The way I see it, this person only needs to live to 40 or 50, or however long it takes for him to have a few kids. Both of these assume that just having the baby is enough. In most mammals, and with humans in particular, the parent needs to stick around to makes sure the offspring survives to raise offspring. Human lifespan is a reflection of the evolutionary need to be around for the young and even for the young’s young. I should cite-check a column \*\*Cecil \*\*did on this. It’s also worth noting that humans protect members of the species they aren’t even _related_ to - _really_ rare in the animal kingdom. Social animals’ groups are almost always built around extended families. In fact, I can’t think of another species (even including perhaps other \*homo \*species) that moves beyond extended family. It’s a different strategy on gene preservation - it helps the species in our case because of the complex societies we develop. It’s still evolution, and it still favors intelligence as societal roles change and require intelligence. Here, I should cite [Before the Dawn](http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239729515&sr=8-1), an excellent, substantive-but-layman-oriented exploration of human evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/56 "2009-04-14T17:23:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Because that’s necessary for survival, and they don’t all live to reproduce. As people and societies move away from the subsistence level, they’re able to have fewer children and focus their resources on a smaller number of children, which gives greater advantages to the kids and increases the chances they survive. Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding, I understand that point better now. Still I think it’s safe to say that the kinds of selective pressures present today are not ideal for the very specific goal of increasing happiness experienced. edit: thanks for the book recommendation **bup** , and again, I am not disputing that evolution is still happening (as has been mentioned it is impossible to stop as long as reproduction is imperfect), I’m merely questioning natural selection’s relevancy in a new, electron-speed world. There are better ways for humans to improve ourselves than to sit around and wait millennia. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/57 "2009-04-14T17:27:37Z")
> [@Cagey\_Drifter](#): > > 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. Oh, just noticed this. Murder like humans do it is also pretty rare; I wouldn’t call it a ‘law of nature.’ Lots of other species kill others’ young, but just killing healthy adults is (I think) restricted to a few primates. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/58 "2009-04-14T17:33:13Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Oh, just noticed this. Murder like humans do it is also pretty rare; I wouldn’t call it a ‘law of nature.’ Lots of other species kill others’ young, but just killing healthy adults is (I think) restricted to a few primates. I disagree. Any behavior that arises naturally (i.e. as a result of our nature) is natural. The fact that it is rare means just that: that it is a rare but natural phenomenon. Premeditated murder for emotional reasons is surely more complex than farting or hunting, but that is only because powerful brains capable of the range of emotions and thoughts necessary for such an act is a new development. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/59 "2009-04-14T17:33:35Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > There is much less pressure against low intelligence than there should be > … > True, but these are not necessarily selective pressures for the net good, which is what the OP is concerned with. You’ve clearly got some goal in mind for humanity other than continuing to produce descendants. _Evolution doesn’t_. It’s not an optimizing principle. If whatever genes humans have are good enough to allow us to keep producing descendants, that’s good enough from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution isn’t some kind of deity that is trying to create a better human being, or a happier one. > [@](#): > > There are better ways for humans to improve ourselves than to sit around and wait millennia. Yes. Evolution isn’t going to improve our quality of life for us, or get rid of genetic diseases that diminish quality of life but don’t prevent reproduction. If we want that, we have to do it ourselves. Evolution didn’t eliminate smallpox, or make humans immune to it. It was much more efficient for us to use vaccination and other public health techniques to do that. > [@Marley23](#): > > As people and societies move away from the subsistence level, they’re able to have fewer children and focus their resources on a smaller number of children, which gives greater advantages to the kids and increases the chances they survive. We’re [K strategists, not r strategists.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection) An r strategy, where you pump out lots of kids, isn’t the only game in town for ensuring that you have descendants. Having a few kids and expending a lot of resources in caring for them is a plausible strategy, too. In fact, in a stable environment, it tends to predominate over the strategy of having lots of kids and not taking care of them. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984/60 "2009-04-14T17:46:11Z")
[QUOTE=Anne Neville] You’ve clearly got some goal in mind for humanity other than continuing to produce descendants. _Evolution doesn’t_. It’s not an optimizing principle. If whatever genes humans have are good enough to allow us to keep producing descendants, that’s good enough from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution isn’t some kind of deity that is trying to create a better human being, or a happier one. [/QUOTE] Yes, you’re exactly right, I understand the theory of evolution. I’ve said as much in 2 or 3 posts on this page. My only point was that evolution is no longer the primary force of change, we have much greater tools for improvement at our fingertips, which is a point you seem to agree with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-still-evolving-should-we-subject-ourselves-to-the-laws-of-nature/492984.md?page=4)