Is the human species hard-wired for "moral" conduct

[Jenyar]

Yes, I do understand, but I don't agree. If selfishness and greed is the product of evolution, who are you to question it? Are you somehow priviledged not to have those qualities? I know they are in me, even if I try not to exercise them. It's called self-control.

There is one thing that you have not taken into account. What if our environment promotes those qualities, and that is why they devloped? There is one test I usually do mentally: Imagine you were the last person on earth. Now test those qualities and see if they can still be exercised.

What do you think? Is one immoral person enough to corrupt many moral ones? What role does temptation play?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Yes, I do understand, but I don't agree. If selfishness and greed is the product of evolution, who are you to question it? Are you somehow priviledged not to have those qualities? I know they are in me, even if I try not to exercise them. It's called self-control.
Oh I have those qualities.
But I don't have much self control. You do huh?
So did you stop believing in god to test that like I requested?
Could you swear at the heavens and order god to make sure you go to hell?
Everyone has their weaknesses. I don't know you, but I know you do to. Just because yours are different weaknesses than mine or our friend mr murderer doesn't prove anything other than the diversity of the human species.
Lets say you have complete self control, you never eat chocolate or jack off or anything, thats amazing. But self control is just another trait that YOU have. Some people simply DO NOT. They can't help it, its how they are.
Maybe you should be the F1 in the breeding program Self control certainly seems like a desirable trait.

There is one thing that you have not taken into account. What if our environment promotes those qualities, and that is why they devloped? There is one test I usually do mentally: Imagine you were the last person on earth. Now test those qualities and see if they can still be exercised.
What do you think? Is one immoral person enough to corrupt many moral ones? What role does temptation play?

While a mammal develops they are usually very easy to influence, because this is the time their parents are supposed to "positively" influence them, thus fully forming them as a complete organism.

Other mammals are really good parents. Be they a single parent, a couple or a family group.
Humans often have poor parents(due to, as I have mentioned a million times, a lack of natural selection) and on top of that humans get parented, not only by 1 parent, a couple or a family group, but by the entire species(television, the internet and civilisation in general, the general public on the street etc)
This has positive and negative affects. The rate of human progress certainly owes its impressive speed to this, a human with incompetent parents can make it through by being parented by outside sources(in my case the discovery channel)
But it can also create organisms that are less than competent, merely because it can, it shields them from predators, thus allowing them to breed and become incompetent parents and continue the cycle.

I'm not judgeing people or accusing them of being incompetent based on my own preferences. I am merely using my knowledge of the natural world. No animal on earth has evolved to the point of only producing perfect specimens, it seems many of you assume humans have, but some people are born without the ability to move for example, people are born with mental disorders that make their brains stop developing after a certain age etc etc, we all know this. Humans actually have more defective offspring than any other animal.
I don't "hate" disabled people, I'd like it if no one had to suffer like that ever again.

The current breeding patterns of human beings creates both freakishly exceptional specimens that never would have been in the natural world but it more commonly creates incompetent specimens that never would have survived in the natural world. This is cold hard reality. I'm not "being a big meanie" when I say some people aren't life-worthy. I'm telling it like it is. The runt of a wolf litter isn't life worthy, it sure is cute and sweet, it means well, its a horrible fact of life but that wolf was born to die. I don't see you kicking up a stink about that, why don't you go punch a tree for being so judgemental of the wolf population?
You know its just the way it is, well humans are no different, humans that were born to die are growing up and having children, that should be of concern because its not normal.

As for your question, I guess an "immoral"(whatever that means) person could corrupt a young developing "moral"(" ") person.
Thats because nature designed us for family life, not city life. Our children are supposed to be raised by a family clan that cares about them and instinctively wants to raise them well. Nature designed young mammals to be like sponges because that works well if they are being positively influenced by good competent parents or family members. Thats is what they were designed to be influenced by, now they get influenced by all sorts of strange organisms that don't necesarrily have their development as a good human in mind. To put it lightly.
There are so many aspects of todays society that are doing an amazing job of deppreciating the human species. I wouldn't have ever needed to have met or seen a human to know they were in trouble, all I would need to know are the facts on paper.
Actually if thats all I had I would assume they were in an even sadder state than they are.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic


That would depend what you want the human species to be.

Those would be the large mostly hairless apes who walk on two legs, build elaborate settlements, and tend to live together in large social communities.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
There is no objective good or bad.

And as such no objective morality.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
There is an objective "right set" for each species that evolved naturally through trial and error.

A natural "Right set"? How do you figure? This has to be one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard of. There is no "Right way" to adapt to your environment, there are only those methods which work, and those methods which do not work (toward the goal of survival and reproduction, I suppose). It had occurred to you that all aberrations are evolved naturally through trial and error, as well, hasn't it?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Humans had a set perfect for hunter and gatherer humans. They would have kept this unchanged untill civilisation arose.

No we didn't. We'd evolved in such a way, and learned certain behaviors that allowed us to exist as hunters and gatherers, we weren't the "Perfect" hunter/gatherers, there's simply no way to even devise criteria for such a statement.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The natural selection stopped so it hasn't been trial and error, its been trial and success for every variation, this is why we see such a diverse range of "interesting" humans around.

Natural selection hasn't stopped, it's still in effect. Humans can not stop such a process. Our environment (which we are now largely responsible for creating) now allows us much loser standards for survival. Diversity would have popped up regardless of this, because not all humans would be living in the same parts of the world, or under the same circumstances, and as such the criteria for survival would not be the same. Why, in your opinion are varieties of people which would not have been able to survive in the wild inferior? If they are living in out modern world, then they have already proved that they have adapted well enough to survive, so why should we hold them to a standard of survival which no longer applies to humanity? It would be like calling a wild dog poorly adapted and unfit to survival because it can not program computers or drive a car.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
For all animals a certain amount of instincts are set in the egg or womb. This is enough for sharks to get by on. Mammals are more complex and so the instincts continue to be established after they are born. The parent's instincts tell them how to mould their young's instincts to a set that will be beneficial to their youngs survival.

All you are doing here is confusing the distinction between instinct and learned behavior. An animal can not mould another's instincts, but it can teach it a certain kind of behavior which could help them to survive. Raccoons, for example are not born knowing how to get the lid off of a trash can, but they can learn this from experience or from watching other Raccoons. This behavior will help them survive by providing them with a very convenient source of food, but it is not instinctual.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
When did you decide animals don't display behaviour? After looking at still pictures in a national geographic magazine?

I never implied any such thing. I said that animals do not display any sense of morality, it's a completely abstract idea and far beyond anything but a human. Animals are full of behavior, that’s why they don't just lay there on the ground not moving. . . I don't imagine that they'd still be around if they were like that.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Even if your prerequisite for morals is that they be a learned set of behaviours you'll find thousands of animals displaying sets every bit as complex as yours.

Yes morals MUST be a learned set of behaviors and ethics, that's simply what morals are, go look it up in the dictionary. An animal can not fathom the idea of an action being somehow indefinably and abstractly good and somehow indefinably and abstractly bad, as such they can not understand morality. Also I'd contest that there is no animal which is capable of such specifically complex behavior as a human, as none can learn such complex tasks as we can. I'd like to see a Dolphin put together an engine, or a pet cat type a response over the internet to another cat sitting at a computer who knows how many thousands of miles away.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Natural selection is a system that ensures only those perfectly suited to the conditions they live in breed, resulting in the betterment of the species over time.

You are nothing but flat out wrong in this statement. Go back to biology 101, because they didn't teach you enough about evolution.

Natural selection does not produce perfect anything. It works purely on a "Good enough" basis, if a particular trait is good enough to allow a creature to survive and reproduce, then it will be passed along, and conversely if a trait is not so much of a drawback that it will prevent a creature from reproducing or surviving, then it will also be passed along. This is why humans have an appendix, it's why dogs can't see in color, it's why cancer exists in most every species, and why just about every other biological drawback or quirk exists. There is no such thing as a "perfect" organism, only organisms which are "good enough to do the trick" as it were, or simply suited well enough to fill their ecological niche, continue to survive and reproduce. You can look this up in any high-school biology text book, I'm certain.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Nuff said. Humans clearly are not controlled by such a system anymore.
Congrats guys, you've "done" well but its time to stop celebrating our "victory" and realise we aren't going anywhere but in a steep downward spiral.

Through what means are we going into a "downward spiral?" We are perhaps one of the most astoundingly well adapted creatures on the face of the earth. This is because rather than being molded by our environment (though this does obviously still take place) we have shaped it to fit our own biological characteristics. We are ever in the process of creating an environment which is well suited to us, so where does this prophesized failure come in? There is a good reason that we are living high on the hog, throw a party, our species is suited better for it’s environment than any other species in the known universe!

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
No we shouldn't return to the wild, we should never have left, or at least waited untill we were more mature as a species.

What exactly do you mean by "More mature as a species"? I hope you realize that evolution is not a linear progression, species do not start out "bad" and get "good" It's a wandering and meandering process fueled by random genetic mutations which slowly shape the species according to a "good enough " (or a "not quite bad enough") model.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
That makes me sick, utopia should be strived for at all costs.
But we keep on creating criminals and punishing them. Its such a moronic waste of time.

And one of this has a damned thing to do with biological evolution.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic

Originally posted by Jenyar
Are people only "arrogant and retarded" if they reject your system of values, or arrogant and retarded because you think you are yourself?

Where do my system of values come into it?
Flagrantly abandoning the sytem that made them what they are and creating a haphazard half-assed system without covering all the aspects needed for a species to thrive was a mistake.

But, Lou, we have changed the aspects needed for our species to survive, we're the ones who are in control of that now. Why, then should we bother paying any attention to any behavior or instinct which was developed by living under different circumstances? Doing that would make one completely maladjusted and poorly adapted to the world that they are actually living in. Let the past be the past and the now be the now. Don't live according to where you have been, live according to where you plan on going.

All you are doing here is making an argument against adaptation, and evolution.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by Mystech
But, Lou, we have changed the aspects needed for our species to survive, we're the ones who are in control of that now. Why, then should we bother paying any attention to any behavior or instinct which was developed by living under different circumstances? Doing that would make one completely maladjusted and poorly adapted to the world that they are actually living in. Let the past be the past and the now be the now. Don't live according to where you have been, live according to where you plan on going.

All you are doing here is making an argument against adaptation, and evolution.

I sort of half agree.
We have changed the aspects need for our species to survive. We should have slightly altered the system. But we started from scratch due to our lack of knowledge and made a system that sucks. There's alot we could have taken from the natural system and incorporated into the one we live by. Surely that would have been the wiser thing to do.
What do we really know about the universe? Who are we to think we know so much better than the way things naturally occur?
The difference between you and me is I don't think humans necessarily know what they're doing. They have existed for a microsecond of evolutionary time and they are going about living rather haphazardly. There is such a huge difference between the system they are living by and the system every single other species is living by. Something must be right about the way things have existed since the begining of time, the way things naturally occur in the universe.
If you are saying the way humans live is right than you are automatically saying everything else is wrong because the way we live is not a modified version of nature, it is a grave contradiction of nature, it is the exact opposite. You are basically saying the universe is an idiot that should have taken a lesson from the book of man to learn how to be awesome.
Excuse me while I assume the universe knows more than an immature species with an uncertain future.
Species are disposable.

On natural selection;
I'm sure your high school biology book says alot of things, I never read one. I do know how natural selection works for every species though. Right now it is betterring and refining every single one, EXCEPT for homo-sapiens.
I only need to learn the breeding habits of animals and the trials of their lifestyles to see how it works.
Perhaps you should actually look at the real world as opposed to someones interprettation of it.

Instincts;
Yes most people don't refer to learned behaviour as instincts. I argue there is no need for the seperation. Some scientists would argue with me some would agree.
Mammals are simply more complex than what we call "instinctual" animals. Their instincts are learned in life, they are flexible and intricate. But technically they are still instincts. It was simpler for mammals to develop babies that are sponges ready to absorb their parents teachings than born with the instincts needed. It has proved to be risky, but it could work so it did.
Call it want you want, we actually are on the same page here and the word we use is irrelevent. I'm not confusing the distinction, I know what YOU think the distinction is, its feathers and fur, lets just say they have skin.

The old "i'd like to see a dolphin build an engine" statement;
Would you like to see one chug a beer or push his mamma down the stairs?
Dolphins don't have hands. If they did we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Bottom line is their brains are as powerful as ours, they are using them for something, maybe its thinking? We should take a time out and do the same.
For all we know dolphins could be far more intelligent than we are. Failing to build an engine would only prove something if they wanted to build an engine. I consider myself intelligent, but I can't build an engine.
They spend their time frolicking and socialising and having sex. We spend out time doing things we don't even want to do like working crappy jobs. I know which seems more intelligent to me.

Like most you hold humans pretty highly and fail to be able to meet an animal with humility.
If you won't admit you are arrogant, will you at least admit you think you are better than everything else?

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I sort of half agree.
We have changed the aspects need for our species to survive. We should have slightly altered the system. But we started from scratch due to our lack of knowledge and made a system that sucks. There's alot we could have taken from the natural system and incorporated into the one we live by. Surely that would have been the wiser thing to do.

Why? We've shaped our world to work for us, and it seems to be working just fine, why should humanity be satisfied with only those things that just happened to be here when we showed up?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
What do we really know about the universe? Who are we to think we know so much better than the way things naturally occur?

Haha, so seeking self preservation, and betterment as a species and individuals is arrogant because if we were meant to do these things then we would have been able to do them through some sort of biological means?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The difference between you and me is I don't think humans necessarily know what they're doing. They have existed for a microsecond of evolutionary time and they are going about living rather haphazardly. There is such a huge difference between the system they are living by and the system every single other species is living by. Something must be right about the way things have existed since the begining of time, the way things naturally occur in the universe.

And why should we be satisfied with "the way things are"? Nature is nothing but a system of events which have occurred randomly and managed to become self perpetuating. It's by no means perfect, for every natural cycle there are countless other dead end events, as it were, but if something happens to be "just good enough" to stick around then we'll be able to observe it for a while, really what is so sacred about that that we shouldn't go beyond it?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If you are saying the way humans live is right than you are automatically saying everything else is wrong because the way we live is not a modified version of nature, it is a grave contradiction of nature, it is the exact opposite.

This is an argument of false alternatives. It certainly doesn't have to be one or the other in this case, and I really don't see why it should be. Nature does it's thing, it's there it exists and it keeps itself going for the most part, and then humans consciously shape their own environment (which isn't exactly outside of nature) to keep themselves going and achieve all sorts of things that make life better for us. I don't see what could possibly make one of those inherently right or inherently wrong, there simply aren't any criteria to make such a judgement.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
You are basically saying the universe is an idiot that should have taken a lesson from the book of man to learn how to be awesome.
Excuse me while I assume the universe knows more than an immature species with an uncertain future.
Species are disposable.

You're a very young person, aren't you? I don’t mean that as an insult, it's just that you're making some very silly arguments here based on huge and pretty clumsy assumptions in a very heavy handed and grandiose manner, while managing to work in your general angst and hatred toward the world. It all seems to fit in place.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
On natural selection;
I'm sure your high school biology book says alot of things, I never read one. I do know how natural selection works for every species though. Right now it is betterring and refining every single one, EXCEPT for homo-sapiens.
I only need to learn the breeding habits of animals and the trials of their lifestyles to see how it works.
Perhaps you should actually look at the real world as opposed to someones interprettation of it.

Well do yourself a favor and go get an education on a scientific subject before you decide to go having debates over how you THINK a particular thing works. All you are doing here is showing for certain that your argument is based on ignorant assumptions, and I'd recumbent you fix this, because you've long passed the point where you sound like a completely arrogant bafoon.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Instincts;
Yes most people don't refer to learned behaviour as instincts. I argue there is no need for the seperation. Some scientists would argue with me some would agree.
Mammals are simply more complex than what we call "instinctual" animals. Their instincts are learned in life, they are flexible and intricate. But technically they are still instincts. It was simpler for mammals to develop babies that are sponges ready to absorb their parents teachings than born with the instincts needed. It has proved to be risky, but it could work so it did.
Call it want you want, we actually are on the same page here and the word we use is irrelevent. I'm not confusing the distinction, I know what YOU think the distinction is, its feathers and fur, lets just say they have skin.

Again, you can't go redefining well established scientific terms in the middle of an argument and then expect that everyone is on the same page as you. If you ask me it just sounds like you are doing some sloppy backpedaling here because you've realized that you're backed into a corner. Either that, or you are implying that a human being is born knowing how to build a car, fly a plane and do complex mathematics every bit as much as he is able to breath eat or screw. There is a very clear distinction between instinct and learned behavior, please become more familiar with these terms before tying to use them in a debate.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The old "i'd like to see a dolphin build an engine" statement;
Would you like to see one chug a beer or push his mamma down the stairs?
Dolphins don't have hands.

Haha, oh, so it's simple as that, then is it? Dolphins haven’t displayed this supposed vast intelligence of theirs because they don't have hands? I suppose they don't wear glasses because they simply don't have ears to hold them up, right? The point is that they show no extraordinarily intelligent behavior, if they were even a fraction as smart as we are they'd busy themselves shaping their environment to be better suited to them, self preservation demands it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If they did we'd be in a lot of trouble.
Bottom line is their brains are as powerful as ours, they are using them for something, maybe its thinking? We should take a time out and do the same.

Thinking is, for the most part, what got our quality of life to where it is today, and you don't seem to be very pleased with it, so I find your statement here to be a rather odd contradiction. Dolphins have no hands, and we haven't any tentacles, that hardly matters. Intelligence doesn't come from hands, if an intelligent species wished to improve it's life or it's chances of survival not having hands would likely be the least of it's concerns, it would find a way. . . that's what intelligence does for an animal.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
For all we know dolphins could be far more intelligent than we are. Failing to build an engine would only prove something if they wanted to build an engine. I consider myself intelligent, but I can't build an engine.
They spend their time frolicking and socialising and having sex. We spend out time doing things we don't even want to do like working crappy jobs. I know which seems more intelligent to me.

Yes, but for the most part we don't spend our time being eaten by bigger animals, dieting of diseases and injuries which should be very easy to treat, or swimming all over the god damned ocean hoping to find some tasty fish so that we don't starve and die. If dolphins are anywhere as near as intelligent as we are then they sure do have a funny way of showing it.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Like most you hold humans pretty highly and fail to be able to meet an animal with humility.
If you won't admit you are arrogant, will you at least admit you think you are better than everything else?

Well to this day I've never been out witted by my pet cat, and I've never read anything written from any animal which I found to be thought provoking, so yes I would have to say that I feel humans have a pretty good leg up on just about any wild animal. Given the choice to be any of the beasts I think I'd quite like to stay human, it's a pretty good deal.

 

[and2000x]

Unity makes the species weak. Diversity is what makes us adaptable and innovative, the alternative is stagnation and death.

What are you a retard? There is no instance of this at all. Biodiversity within a system is important, but the key is that these are different species, NOT the same thing. Most liberal chimpanzee families corrode and die if they mate with outsiders, though some integrate without problems.

Sharks for example, are some of the most advanced creatures on the planet: they have no lifespan (they have a life expectancy), they are immune to almost all pain, and they regenerate their teeth. This is because they resisted change for so long, which assured purity.

Bees, Ants, Wolves, and Lions are like this as well, and resist diversity by being united against outsiders.

There is enough variation within a species to hault any 'in breeding', unless it is in very small communities (like a house full of cats or a bird cage, where inbreeding occurs).

On a social level: increased diversity (like immigration) has always spelled the death of a society. Rome and Egypt for example, corroded greatly because they allowed Jews and Christians into their state, who were counter to the ideas of the state. The others nationalities were more loyal to their own race than the state and formed non-fluid communities. Your teachers may have also told you that Sparta collapsed because it wasn't open to outside ideas. No, it collapsed because everyone died in battle.

China is highly homogenous, and they have no inbreeding problems. In fact, diversity wouldn't exist is animals were forced to mix constantly.

 

[and2000x]

If I was serious about culling humans I'd probably include myself in the culling because I doubt I could survive in the wild. Especially in the wilds of africa where humans evolved and should be.

I agree. Despite the claims that I hate blacks (I don't), i think we have no environmental pressures left (psychological maybe). We put so much care into breeding animals, I see no reason why silly humanist morality should get in the way of doing it to humans. People say 'eugenics is evil' or 'we wouldn't have motzart'. It comes down to people who fight for 'personal choice' and throw out relativistic garbage like: 'how do you know that guy with the horrific nerve disorder isn't suffer? How do you know that obsese people aren't happy? People born with organs outside their body or people with hereditary diabetes don't care about it."

 

[and2000x]

I'm also curious as to why everyone associates Eugenics with Hitler alone. Eugenics has been practiced by the majority of early civilizations, even as far up to 19th century europe. I have hereditary asthma as well as a variety of mental disorders, behavioral abnormalities, the chance of getting diabetes, as well as other things. Do you really think I am happy about this? Especially considering my father is of perfectly healthy stock and decided to breed with a trainwreck of health. Eugenics makes sense.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by and2000x
Sharks for example, are some of the most advanced creatures on the planet: they have no lifespan (they have a life expectancy), they are immune to almost all pain, and they regenerate their teeth. This is because they resisted change for so long, which assured purity.

How exactly did they "resist change" what exactly is "purity" and if they resisted change, then how in gods name did all of those genetic traits come about?

You should also see about getting a refund on your education, someone screwed you up very well. I'm not talking astrophysics here, this is biology101 stuff. Genetic diversity is what drives evolution.

 

[and2000x]

Actually I discovered this on my own, by talking to actual biologists. My education was pathetic, as are most schools these days. I learned more watching discovery channel than I ever did at school.

 

[and2000x]

It comes down to the fact that averaging and evolution do not co-exist. Let's say breed A, which is a stronger breed, may mix with Breed B, which is a weaker breed.

By combining the traits they exchange immunities and resistance (which is what biologists mean by 'benefits'.) However, the key point is that Breed A has obtained inferior genes from Breed B which could show up in all sorts of troublesome forms. I have bred cats for example. Although the mutt cats seem healthier at first, they gain odd and uneven traits and lose their distinct evolutionary characteristics, such as specific fur colors, better eyesight, etc.

Mixing within like groups that are slightly different is healthy (which is probably what you are saying), but overmixing two very distinct groups that have little in common cancels out evolutionary traits that have been aquired after millions of years of adaptation.

 

[Mystech]

You're using extremely archaic and unscientific terminology. What is a "strong breed" and a "Weak breed"?

The point is that if you allow only a closed group of genetically similar individuals whom you have judged arbitrarily to be genetically superior to others to breed with one another, then the effects are identical to inbreeding, and the problems inherent. There is no such thing as a perfect organism, and as such no perfect group of creatures which could survive any circumstance that nature throws at them. As such, any particular weakness which your little master race is vulnerable to, or does not have any particularly strong resistance against could quite simply all be wiped out by a single environmental change, whereas a group with great genetic diversity may contain individuals which would be able to adapt and thrive even in the new environmental conditions.

I recommend you take this to the biology board so that others there may set you straight better than I am able. No genetic diversity (which I assume is what you mean when you say “purity”) grants a species nothing but a very low range of adaptable traits, and extreme vulnerability to environmental changes, and possible extinction. It is only through having a very large and diverse breeding population that a species can develop new traits (yeah some times these new traits may not be overtly beneficial, or may even harm an organism) gain a larger capacity for adaptation, and have a much better chance at being able to survive.

 

[SpyMoose]

Wow is this the thread of unsupported assumtions or what? Here are my rebuttals to some of the themes in this thread.

1. Evolution does not go backward
No matter how many rednecks you breed you wont get a primordial ooze, just a super redneck who is entirly suited to living in a shack in the mountains with a rusted pickup truck on his front lawn. The concept of "overbreeding" which im almost sure you just made up, or is a dog breeders term for making sure that dalmatians stay spotty, has no application to human populations who havnt got specific evolutionary goals in mind.

2. Evolution has not stopped
To my knoledge there are still people in the world who go thier entire life without breeding. Argument over, if there are still people who cant pass on thier genes and the reasons for this are not arbetrairy (we have no reason to believe they are) then evolution is working. Just because you didnt see a mountain lion jump off the top of that bus stop and eat a man dosnt mean that humans arnt still competing for limited breeding resources.

3. "Overbreeding" is not making the species weak
Define weak. Overpowering a mountain lion is not a realistic contemporary challange, and hence is an absurdly poor example. If this is the criteria you are judging how strong the species is on then you are under some false impressions about what might be the shaping forces of modern evolution

4. We have not grown away from our ancestors
6,000 years of civilization and counting, most of it not terribly cushy and layed back (and it isnt now either, turn on the news) this span of time is evolutionary insignificant. Any weakness you see in the modern species was there before civilization as well. Our modern life expectancys that perhaps are part of your false impression that evolution is stopping or going backward (Because more people are living and living longer) have been in existance for a bare handful of decades and in many reagons of the world have never existed, this modern weakness can be nothing more than observer error.


You seem to think that just because human evolution documentarys frequently feature the savahnas of ancient africa that this is the proper and natural setting for evolution. Perhaps you further think that situations much like it are the only ones where it can take place. I cannot stress enough that you are mistaken. Human evolution in highly modern sociotys will merely take different cources than if we were all faced daily with having to squat in the bush. We are still compeeting with one another for limited breeding resources and there will alwayse be those who cant cut it and they will be culled from the gene pool.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Originally posted by SpyMoose
You seem to think that just because human evolution documentarys frequently feature the savahnas of ancient africa that this is the proper and natural setting for evolution. Perhaps you further think that situations much like it are the only ones where it can take place. I cannot stress enough that you are mistaken.

I cannot stress enough how mistaken you are in thinking I think that.
Talk about unsupported assumptions.
This whole thread has degraded into people telling me things I knew litterally before I ever went to school of any kind.

I know very well how complex natural selection is. In fact I feel I have a firmer grasp on its complexity than you do.
Reason being you insist humans are still controlled by it.
All other animals(and traditionally humans as well) face so many trials throughout the day that we could not possibly imagine. Compared to say, the average family of elephants, a human family in a third world country is living on easy street.
"mapula needs to walk 3 hours every morning just to get water "- some commercial

Oh yeah? Well trunky the elephant and his family need to walk for 8 days through a hot rocky desert just to find a muddy puddle, then they need to walk back for 8 days to their feeding grounds only to need to return again after a couple of days.
And before you say it, no, elephants aren't suited for this lifestyle any better than we are, they are actually semi-aquatic but this is where they've found themselves so they tough it out, this is a true story(names have been changed).

But, like trunky, mapula actually is living by the laws of natural selection, even if hers aren't as harsh, and when we see her on the tv we are disgusted. Thats shows how incredibly seperated from reality we are. Starving children in africa is a natural occurence, just like starving seal pups on the galopogos are a natural occurence, just like starving dinosaurs and trilobytes were natural occurrences. This IS natural selection, its how it has worked since the dawn of time. Yes it is only one tiny aspect, but an aspect none the less, just like lion predation and oh so many more.

What aspects of natural selection are we as civilised humans confronted with?

Any one of those children starving in africa could easily survive and breed if they were born in america, england, australia, italy etc etc etc, as could any member of trunky's family if they were accepted into society.
Sure they MIGHT get hit by a train, they MIGHT get influenced by jackass and jump off a building, they MIGHT urinate on a box that has a "danger high voltage" sign on it, but its not likely, as I've said there is no order to societies selection. It is so much more forgiving that by comparison it could be considered non-existent.
You simply won't survive in the wild if you are lacking in ANY way, you will be faced by harsh trials every single day repeatedly, it is absolutely required that you excell at the art of survival, if you don't you WILL die, bottom line.

We are protected, not just by a family group but by doctors and police and farmers and "danger high voltage" signs etc etc, society is a big overprotective mother, and frankly, ANYONE can breed.

The people that die aren't always dying due to there shortcomings and the people that survive to breed very rarely get there due to their mastery of survival tactics.
As that lame chef would say; BAM!
The traditional system has been warped, and this should be obvious to everyone If it isn't then it is all too evident that you have no knowledge of what the traditional system is.

Now it IS fair for you to say "yes it has been warped, no question, but I happen to think its a good thing".
I can see why people would feel that way. I don't have a legitimate argument against that, other than the fact that we are now in unfamiliar territory and there could be serious repurcussions for all we know.
Perhaps we are already being faced by some of those repurcussions and we just accept them as facts of life or don't see them.

As pollux said in another thread "cheetahs don't need braces", aahh how true, and physical discrepencies are like small fish, when there is small fish around you know there must be big ones not too far behind. If a species is popping out countless physically flawed specimens, there is little doubt it is also producing specimens with minds that shouldn't be, hence overcrowded correctional facilities and fecofiliacs.

And those are just short term effects, we never saw them coming and long term effects could be something far more serious. I doubt we will see them coming either, we can see some problems but we ignore them, like the state of the planet.

As I keep saying, I don't think man is smarter than the universe, man has made a system for himself that is different than the one the universe made for him, he is still very much just one of the universes animals so I have no reason to think that's going to fly and I see millions of indications that support my pessimism. You are relying on your faith in the human brain alone, and although it might be powerful, I fear a lack of intellectual equals within our environment has lead us to assume its alot more powerful than it is.

And before you respond, don't treat me like an idiot, some of the "you seem to think..." 's that have been aimed at me have been absolutely ridiculous and insulting, raise the fucking bar, jesus christ