Evolution and its application

[Elok]

Originally posted by Felch
Evolution only works if those who are unfit for a niche die before they can breed. Normally it works, but human ingenuity is stalling it.

How do you know? It takes millions of years to work properly, and the human ingenuity you speak of has been around for less than a thousand.

[RGBVideo]

How do you know? It takes millions of years to work properly

not really. you should be talking of generations, not years, and even three generations can bring radical change if theres a genetic bottleneck

the thing is Felch, this is the ultimate Godwin. "pro-evolution" government policies designed by politicians led directly to the extermination of ~6 million Jews in the '40s.

[Elok]

Originally posted by VJ

bingo

your ideas are not new; designing social policy based on evolution aka society-driven eugenics have already been tried, on a very large scale. the problem is, they were tested by nazis

You got it backwards. The problem with the Nazis, or one of their problems anyway, was that they were big on eugenics. Whenever human beings get together and judge each other's fitness to live, it tends to cause problems for some reason. If the Nazis had simply hated the Jews without the giant death camps, they would be merely one of the more recent variants in a long, proud tradition of antisemites.

this is a taboo subject. many people vaguely agree on theory that invididuals who are better for the health of society (id est kinder, gentler, more intelligent) should breed more than invididuals who are worse for it (ie. idiots, retarded people, even the perma-unemployed), but very few want to discuss about it, probably because starting to think where to draw the line with this is so uncomfortable.

Or because allowing anyone the power to determine the future of the whole human race is problematic, to say the least.

[Nostromo]

Evolution 101

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

[Elok]

Originally posted by VJ
not really. you should be talking of generations, not years, and even three generations can bring radical change if theres a genetic bottleneck

And since it takes at least twelve years for humans to reach sexual maturity (and reproducing at that age causes problems anyway), it is a matter of years. I'd like to see any breeding project achieve dramatic results within three generations.

the thing is Felch, this is the ultimate Godwin. "pro-evolution" government policies designed by politicians led directly to the extermination of ~6 million Jews in the '40s.

That's just it, they weren't "pro-evolution." Evolution is a natural process. The moment it's artificially directed it ceases to be evolution and becomes merely a group of people getting rid of people they don't like. Calling the Nazis (or Felch's proposal) "pro-evolution" is like calling demolition "pro-thermodynamics."

[Felch]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Hi Adolf, long time no see.

Hi, Nikolai. Nice to see you too.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Elok
Calling the Nazis (or Felch's proposal) "pro-evolution" is like calling demolition "pro-thermodynamics."

For the record, I am a life-long believer in thermodynamics.

Where are the Dawkins and Hitchens fans? I'm curious on their take.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Elok
i am looking for an argument

whatever

[Lorizael]

The real difficulty with your argument, Felch, is that you have to prove that evolution is, in fact, superior to other methods of improving the human population over time.

[Felch]

Lorizael, I'm open to suggestions. Would you advocate genetic manipulation, or what?

[Lorizael]

I'd be in favor of developing objective criteria as to what constitutes better for the human population, first.

[Felch]

Eliminating specific genetic diseases for starters.

Once we get the public behind something agreeable like that, we move on to phase 2

[Provost Harrison]

Re: Evolution and its application

Originally posted by 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?

You're making one major omission - by the time that obesity has killed someone prematurely, they are still past reproductive age. It is the same reason why one of the causes of senescence is an evolutionary benefit...ensures that you can live to reproductive age but dooms you in the long run.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Felch
Eliminating specific genetic diseases for starters.

Once we get the public behind something agreeable like that, we move on to phase 2

Such as sickle-cell anemia? You do realize that people with one set of the trait have greater immunity to malaria?

One man's disease is another's gift of life.

[Felch]

Re: Re: Evolution and its application

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You're making one major omission - by the time that obesity has killed someone prematurely, they are still past reproductive age. It is the same reason why one of the causes of senescence is an evolutionary benefit...ensures that you can live to reproductive age but dooms you in the long run.

Snoopy brought that up. I admitted to my hatred of old people being the primary motivation. He rated my troll, 0.062/10 IIRC. I told him it should be at least 7/10.

Anyways. . . I still hate old people. They drive slow, smell bad, vote too damn much, have no sense of humor, and expect checks from the government every month.