Evolution and its application

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Felch


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.

And so what?

[snoopy369]

Perhaps if you understood the process of evolution, instead of just believing in it, you wouldn't sound so silly...

Also, get your gladiator orders in

[Felch]

Originally posted by Elok
If evolution works, why does it need your help?

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.

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Perhaps if you understood the process of evolution, instead of just believing in it, you wouldn't sound so silly...

Explain what I've gotten wrong. Without splitting hairs. Basically it's a matter of certain combination of genes allowing individuals to thrive better than others. Those successful individuals will over time numerically overwhelm the others. There's more to it than that, but am I missing some key point? Is there something about what I've said that doesn't mesh?

Also, get your gladiator orders in

I sent them in. And I already said I was sorry to EPW.

[Felch]

Originally posted by BeBro
And so what?

If you're responding to the health care crisis, it's actually a pretty big problem. But it's not a matter for this thread.

Nobody here is taking this seriously. That's fine. The question obviously isn't serious, or I would be an inhuman monster. But instead of saying it's a "troll" how about we give it the Kraut moniker, "Gedankenexperiment?"

In that spirit, what is wrong with applying scientific knowledge to public policy? Why are we so cowardly when it comes to making a better world?

[snoopy369]

You need to say you're sorry to all of us

I stand by my point. So long as you 'believe in evolution', you will remain ignorant. Several people have given you a serious answer, but you don't understand evolution adequately, so you don't understand the answers as serious...

[Felch]

You're the only one who has given a serious answer to the question.

You mentioned old people. That was good, but given the potential for genetic testing, it doesn't address the long term potential for social engineering. Also I hate old people, and want them dead for other reasons.

Everybody, including you, seems to prefer whining about how I don't understand rather than illuminating me.

One serious question. How is believing in evolution ignorant?

[Aeson]

Your "goal" is to eliminate people not suited for their environment... but you're refuting your goal by eliminating those people who can survive to pass off their genes in their environment. It runs contrary to your assumed "goal" that you ascribe to evolution. (Which actually has no goal, it's an unthinking uncaring process.)

If a person can survive to pass on their genes in the current environment, your "purpose" is already served.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Felch


Explain what I've gotten wrong. Without splitting hairs. Basically it's a matter of certain combination of genes allowing individuals to thrive better than others. Those successful individuals will over time numerically overwhelm the others. There's more to it than that, but am I missing some key point?

Links posted by some other polyposter in some other thread:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13687-evolution-myths-evolution-promotes-the-survival-of-species.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13640-evolution-myths-evolution-produces-perfectly-adapted-creatures.html

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves.html

Quote from the last link:

For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness – variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.

Or, in short, if you want a science based policy, start first to try to understand what science really says and most important, what it does not say. Otherwise, you end up with some self-proclaimed scientist/wannabe ruler who promotes its own agenda based on pseudo-, half undestood-science.

[Felch]

Good answer.

Edit: Response to Aeson. Not that Dry isn't cool or anything, just a cross-post.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Dry
Quote from the last link:

For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness – variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.

Or, in short, if you want a science based policy, start first to try to understand what science really says and most important, what it does not say. Otherwise, you end up with some self-proclaimed scientist/wannabe ruler who promotes its own agenda based on pseudo-, half undestood-science.

I'm not talking about social Darwinism. I'm talking about not wasting scarce resources on people who are improperly adapted to the modern world. I'm assuming that there is a population of self-replicating entities, and that those entities have genetic variance, and that the variance is passed on. In fact, that's the whole point of the idea. Eliminate people whose genes favor a stone age food situation, and allow those people who are better able to handle modern nutrition to prosper.

[Felch]

Let me get you all started on a better response than splitting hairs over the definition of evolution.

• Keeping "unwanted" genes may give humanity a better chance of surviving catastrophe. People with slower metabolism and better fat storage will do better in lean times than skinny people.
• Some genes may interact in ways that give hidden benefits, such as immunity to disease. This is a bit more nuanced than the previous argument, but along the same lines.
• Continuing on that train of thought, variation in a species is critical to warding off illness. Cloned plants, like bananas, are notoriously vulnerable to infection.

It's just for fun guys. Don't take it so personally, and quit assuming I'm ignorant just because I'm sloppy with details.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Felch


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



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.

Hi Adolf, long time no see.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, more that I understand science but just a bit of evolution, as I am not a biology guy. But still...

JM

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Nikolai


Hi Adolf, long time no see.

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

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.