NationStates Jolt Archive

First: I do not in anyway want to push my beliefs onto anybody. The reader should know that I, believing in evolution, will take it for granted in this thread.
Second: Forgive my spelling errors ;)

Allrighty.
I have been wondering lately. Have we put ourselves outside of evolution? I mean, in our modern society(at least in industrialized countries) we take care of every human life and try to make it last as long as possible. This goes against the rule of survival of the fittest. In the long run, we will weaken our own spiecies. While I think that taking care of everyone is a good thing, it makes me wodner about evolution. Shouldn't we, naturally, instinctively, abandon the weaker and live on by ourselves? We obviously don't. We feel compassion and we take care. Even people who can't live in natural sun light can survive. I think that we have put ourselves, or are in process of, putting ourselves above evolution. Where can this lead?

You might want to read up on the Law of Mutual Aid and the evolutionary scientist Kropotkin.

It sounds like an interesting yet boring read. No idea if I can get it,though.

I found it! Thank you Google, thank you Bobylon!

Extremely simply, it says that if a species functions as an organised society, the creatures can help each other more ("mutual aid") can produce more offspring and so have more chance of survival.

Edit: And you're welcome. ;)

eh, humans are now in control of the evolution of every other species on the planet. Those species now evolve around us.

It sounds like an interesting yet boring read. No idea if I can get it,though.Please stop plagiarizing A Midsummer Night's Dream. Bill won't be too happy with you...

First: I do not in anyway want to push my beliefs onto anybody. The reader should know that I, believing in evolution, will take it for granted in this thread.
Second: Forgive my spelling errors ;)

Allrighty.
I have been wondering lately. Have we put ourselves outside of evolution? I mean, in our modern society(at least in industrialized countries) we take care of every human life and try to make it last as long as possible. This goes against the rule of survival of the fittest. In the long run, we will weaken our own spiecies. While I think that taking care of everyone is a good thing, it makes me wodner about evolution. Shouldn't we, naturally, instinctively, abandon the weaker and live on by ourselves? We obviously don't. We feel compassion and we take care. Even people who can't live in natural sun light can survive. I think that we have put ourselves, or are in process of, putting ourselves aboe evolution. Where can this lead?

I don't think it'll have dire repercussions in the long run. If it gets to the point where there are so many invalids and stupid people, that we no longer have the means to care for them all, then they'll start to die off, and the species will get stronger again. There's no need to start practicing social darwinism.

First: I do not in anyway want to push my beliefs onto anybody. The reader should know that I, believing in evolution, will take it for granted in this thread.
Second: Forgive my spelling errors ;)

Allrighty.
I have been wondering lately. Have we put ourselves outside of evolution? I mean, in our modern society(at least in industrialized countries) we take care of every human life and try to make it last as long as possible. This goes against the rule of survival of the fittest. In the long run, we will weaken our own spiecies. While I think that taking care of everyone is a good thing, it makes me wodner about evolution. Shouldn't we, naturally, instinctively, abandon the weaker and live on by ourselves? We obviously don't. We feel compassion and we take care. Even people who can't live in natural sun light can survive. I think that we have put ourselves, or are in process of, putting ourselves above evolution. Where can this lead?
There's still sexual selection, diseases, and other selective factors.

It wouldn't put us outside of evolution just change the ways in which we evolve.

There's still sexual selection, diseases, and other selective factors.

Plus, if that won't help... genetic engineering. :D

Yeah, deceases is something that'll we'll probably will never be able to shield ourselves from. It is possible, if you live in suits and never get out, but that's not gonna happen. I think that some good points has been made in this thread, and I'm seeing the subject in quite a new light. I don't think, however, that we control the evoultion of other spiecies. We can affect it, but never controll it.

The Future is Wild is a nice program. But it assumes too many things. It is unlikely that humans will become extinct instead of continuing to evolve like we have been.
Though one thing the series got right was that even if we do, another species will certainly become sentient. The Macaques, a species of monkey, have proven themselves to have social structures and learning capacities even more similar to humans than even chimps.
Ex. Before the 80's Macaques and other nonhuman primates did not wash their food. After 1980, a Macaque observed a human washing food, after which it dipped its apple in some water and proceeded to clean it. Next thing you know, she got baby macaques and they're washing all their apples. Then they get located to band of Macaques which previously didn't have the behavior and two weeks later, when researchers went back to check on her, the whole village was washing its food in the river and going for swims which they didn't do previously. The things were even starting to make early complex tools and were using language. Other groups of macaques are known to make artificial shelters, something they learned from Macaques that were released back into the wild.
With Macaques it is very likely we looking at the beginning of entirely new sentient race. So if humans went extinct, there is already a replacement at hand.

Well, have to go to sleep now. Good night.

In any case, I don't think there's any such thing as 'above Evolution'. Evolution isn't God, or some mystical code that all living things must adhere to, and be constantly evolving. When there's no pressure to adapt, then there's no reason to evolve (Crocodiles, I think, have been basically unchanged for millions of years). Currently, Humans are an evolutionary success, but if conditions change, then either we'll adapt or go extinct, just like everything else.

While you do have a point that, yes, we are allowing the survival of weaker people, I think that in htis day and age simply letting the weaker people die would be viewed as a weakness, too.

You might want to read up on the Law of Mutual Aid and the evolutionary scientist Kropotkin.

though be aware that while the basic conclusion holds, significant parts of the actual text are quite dated at this point. stupid science, not sitting still.

First: I do not in anyway want to push my beliefs onto anybody. The reader should know that I, believing in evolution, will take it for granted in this thread.
Second: Forgive my spelling errors ;)

Allrighty.
I have been wondering lately. Have we put ourselves outside of evolution? I mean, in our modern society(at least in industrialized countries) we take care of every human life and try to make it last as long as possible. This goes against the rule of survival of the fittest. In the long run, we will weaken our own spiecies. While I think that taking care of everyone is a good thing, it makes me wodner about evolution. Shouldn't we, naturally, instinctively, abandon the weaker and live on by ourselves? We obviously don't. We feel compassion and we take care. Even people who can't live in natural sun light can survive. I think that we have put ourselves, or are in process of, putting ourselves above evolution. Where can this lead?

i agree, that's one major reason for why i believe in a strong fascist or totalitarian control of government like that.

Allrighty.
I have been wondering lately. Have we put ourselves outside of evolution? I mean, in our modern society(at least in industrialized countries) we take care of every human life and try to make it last as long as possible. This goes against the rule of survival of the fittest. In the long run, we will weaken our own spiecies. While I think that taking care of everyone is a good thing, it makes me wodner about evolution. Shouldn't we, naturally, instinctively, abandon the weaker and live on by ourselves? We obviously don't. We feel compassion and we take care. Even people who can't live in natural sun light can survive. I think that we have put ourselves, or are in process of, putting ourselves above evolution. Where can this lead?

Well, you're kind of mixing up a couple of different concepts here.

First of all, evolution is simply heritable change in a population over time. There are no moral or ethical implications. So long as genes exist, sexual reproduction (or some analog) is possible and mutation occurs, evolution will continue. It is impossible to be "outside" of evolution if these factors are still in play.

Survival of the fittest concerns the reproductive success of populations. Simply, a trait is "selected against" if it somehow lowers an individual's chance to reproduce, thus getting their genetic material into the next generation. Now, the number of areas where this selection can occur is astoundingly large, providing a huge number of phenotypes from a large pool of potential genotypes. Therefore, for change to occur in any substantive way in a large population, it is necessary for a beneficial trait to express in multiple individuals. A single individual displaying a reproductively beneficial trait would most likely be consumed by the vast majority of normal-type traits (agian, this is only true in large populations).

So it is not necesary to abandon weaker or less fit members in a large population and still be in agreement with the principle of natural selection. First, they may not reproduce, given the nature of their phenotypes. Second, any reproduction they may succeed at will be easily assimilated by the vastly larger number of normal-types. Third, should the new-type trait emerge in sufficient quantity to cause a phenotypic shift in the population, well, that's evolution.

Well, you're kind of mixing up a couple of different concepts here.

First of all, evolution is simply heritable change in a population over time. There are no moral or ethical implications. So long as genes exist, sexual reproduction (or some analog) is possible and mutation occurs, evolution will continue. It is impossible to be "outside" of evolution if these factors are still in play.

Survival of the fittest concerns the reproductive success of populations. Simply, a trait is "selected against" if it somehow lowers an individual's chance to reproduce, thus getting their genetic material into the next generation. Now, the number of areas where this selection can occur is astoundingly large, providing a huge number of phenotypes from a large pool of potential genotypes. Therefore, for change to occur in any substantive way in a large population, it is necessary for a beneficial trait to express in multiple individuals. A single individual displaying a reproductively beneficial trait would most likely be consumed by the vast majority of normal-type traits (agian, this is only true in large populations).

So it is not necesary to abandon weaker or less fit members in a large population and still be in agreement with the principle of natural selection. First, they may not reproduce, given the nature of their phenotypes. Second, any reproduction they may succeed at will be easily assimilated by the vastly larger number of normal-types. Third, should the new-type trait emerge in sufficient quantity to cause a phenotypic shift in the population, well, that's evolution.It appears that someone actually studied science. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Educated people on General!! :shock: again x infinity

~Czardas, Ruler of the Universe