Evolution and its application

[Felch]

Some people are keen on criticizing people (mostly Americans) who doubt the validity of Darwinism, and/or macro-evolution. How many of you are willing to decide public policy issues on that basis?

Here's an example:

Our bodies evolved to store fat and handle nutrition as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, in an era of industrial farming and processed food, obesity and related diseases such as diabetes are becoming major killers and expensive in the public health sector.

Right now, our public policy appears to be rejection of evolution. We keep people alive who would ordinarily die in nature, and we are stunting our species' development as a result. Instead of keeping these people alive, why don't we allow them to die, and if necessary, exterminate anybody with recessive genes linked to these health issues.

Now, I see certain problems with this. The biggest problem is the investment made in certain people who are still valuable for our economy. Skilled workers are expensive to replace, and it would take years for any replacements to learn the ins and outs of a trade that only years of experience can deliver. But I think that the overall benefits of a human race without genetic weakness outweigh the economic costs of the shortage in labor supply.

This is just an example. What do you all think?

[snoopy369]

I do not believe in evolution.

I understand the theory referred to as 'evolution', and consider it the most likely theory for explaining the development of life in its current form.



Also, your above argument is idiotic in the extreme. Nearly all people 'kept alive' by medicine are well beyond their reproductive lifespan, and so have no affect on the future of humanity. If you really wanted to have an evolution-based public policy, you would forbid reproduction until people reached 75 or 80 (frozen eggs for the women, of course).

[BeBMan]

There's a difference between "I think evolution is how man developed from sauce" and "I think because selection happens in nature societies found on that principle will be great".

[Felch]

Snoopy, let me get this straight. You accept that there is a natural phenomenon that allows organisms over many generations to adapt to their environments. But you're not willing to apply that understanding of the natural world to public policy? Even if, in the long run, it would prove beneficial?

[Felch]

Originally posted by BeBro
There's a difference between "I think evolution is how man developed from sauce" and "I think because selection happens in nature societies found on that principle will be great".

What's wrong with a society based on applied science? Should we go back to burning witches?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Felch
Snoopy, let me get this straight. You accept that there is a natural phenomenon that allows organisms over many generations to adapt to their environments. But you're not willing to apply that understanding of the natural world to public policy? Even if, in the long run, it would prove beneficial?

Umm, you didn't really read my post, did you.

How would letting old people die help our species' development?

[Arrian]

ToE =! social darwinism.

ToE is something that aims to explain who things happened. Not how things should be done. Do you understand the distinction?

-Arrian

[Felch]

Well that wouldn't, actually. But I don't like old people, so if we're gonna start with the whole "mass-murder" thing, I figure we should start with them.

How do you feel about exterminating people with recessive genes linked to health problems?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Felch
Well that wouldn't, actually. But I don't like old people, so if we're gonna start with the whole "mass-murder" thing, I figure we should start with them.

How do you feel about exterminating people with recessive genes linked to health problems?

Ah, so you now admit to your real purpose.

0.062/10

[Felch]

Originally posted by Arrian
ToE =! social darwinism.

This thread isn't about social darwinism. I'm not hating on poor people. I'm saying we should eliminate inferior genes.

ToE is something that aims to explain who things happened. Not how things should be done. Do you understand the distinction?

-Arrian

I understand the distinction. However, I think swimming upriver is silly. Why spend outrageous sums of money and energy keeping people alive who are merely passing on bad genes. We built ourselves a world where nothing goes wrong for anybody, and now we're stuck with the consequences.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Felch


What's wrong with a society based on applied science?

What do you need a society for when you don't want to go beyond a simple natural principle? You could stay as well on the "sauce" level and wait how things play out.

Seriously, it's not even good as a troll, because the connection "if evolution really happens we must base everything on the survival of the fittest" does not follow.

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
0.062/10

Come on Snoopy, if I got you to reply seriously twice it deserves at least a 7/10.

[snoopy369]

Not if I was just doing it for my own amusement

[Felch]

Originally posted by BeBro
Seriously, it's not even good as a troll, because the connection "if evolution really happens we must base everything on the survival of the fittest" does not follow.

That's misunderstanding the point. I believe in evolution. It happens. And it works. So why are we trying so hard to keep it from working on humans? Why not evolve beyond where we are, and become better? Why not breed superior humans?

This isn't racial, or socio-economic. If better genes exist they should be allowed to prosper, and inferior genes should be eliminated. What we're doing now is building a world where genetics no longer count. And because of that we're spending a greater portion of our wealth on health care every day.

[Elok]

If evolution works, why does it need your help?