Natural Selection and evolution in modern society

[Hellbent]

Here is the true problem with evolution and modern society. Evolution is based on the strongest surviving to pass on their genes while the weak sick and the old die off. Due to "societal norms" it is no longer acceptable to allow the weak to die off. Society as a whole (for the most part) carries the burden of the weak, lazy and the infirm. Those who are genetically inferior are allowed to breed as well as other undesirables. I speak from no high horse im merely stating fact. Those who cannot see, hear, walk etc. would never survive if nature were truly allowed to take its course.

Through our own benevolence we ensure the delabrement of our species. We are systematically counteracting the evolution of our species.

Of course the modern man is fed enough propaganda encouraging him to aid the weak that he even feels that he is doing the right thing. And to speak out against such aid is to be categorized amongst the most evil of men.

But ask yourself this and use your own experiences as a gauge. How often do the men you consider evil go hungry?

[neil100]

Originally posted by Hellbent
Here is the true problem with evolution and modern society. Evolution is based on the strongest surviving to pass on their genes while the weak sick and the old die off. Due to "societal norms" it is no longer acceptable to allow the weak to die off. Society as a whole (for the most part) carries the burden of the weak, lazy and the infirm. Those who are genetically inferior are allowed to breed as well as other undesirables. I speak from no high horse im merely stating fact. Those who cannot see, hear, walk etc. would never survive if nature were truly allowed to take its course.

Of course the modern man is fed enough propaganda encouraging him to aid the weak that he even feels that he is doing the right thing. And to speak out against such aid is to be categorized amongst the most evil of men.

I think you will find if you do some research that many primates and some of the other more intelligent animal species very often protect and help the weak in their society.

"A female Japanese macaque who lives in Jigokudani park was born with no hands and feet. Her name was Mozu, and despite her natal affliction she continues to survive, living successfully among a group of free-ranging macaques. The group apparently accommodates for her handicap because they could easily just overtake her or leave her to perish, and either way she would not survive. Why this tolerance? Is there any gain for the individuals of the group to have Mozu in their lives? Mozu could only be a detriment to the group and if the individuals of the group are trying to maximize their survival chance, Mozu appears to only stand in the way. In this show of seeming respect for a handicap monkey by her peers lies the questions; are animals good-natured and if so do they have the capacities for virtue and morality? Or are these only human states?"

This is an example of "nature taking it's course", aiding the weak has little to do with propaganda, but everything to do with empathy, instinct, mutual benefit and neurobiology.

[Flawless_koder]

Neil - Extremely interesting.

Do you have a link where I can read more on that?

Flawless

[neil100]

It's from a book / essay on the origins of right and wrong in humans / animals, you can read it at http://www.students.bucknell.edu/gumert/de_Waal.htm

[Golgotha]

oh man, I can't wait to contribute to this thread. One of my favorite things to talk about, culture, ecology and man kinds survival. But, I can't now, too much work. But, now I can't wait to get home!!!

[Mike]

I don't have time to post either, but I'll say that I belive the facts posted by HellBent are more true than what othes have said. I'm not sayiong I agree with them, just that they have grounds on which to stand.

[Golgotha]

Ok, one quick point to make for hellbent. ALL species do what they can to survive. God did not give us the gift of flight, or gills, or skin that changes color to adapt to its suroundings, or bright skin color to warn others that we are poisonous or any other of the thousands of attributes that allow other creatures to survive. What God gave us is a very sophisticated brain to use for survival.

[mmi]

neil100's got it right - the problem with your argument, Hellbent, isn't so much that it is, if you'll excuse the expression, fascist nonsense, but rather that it's clearly incorrect - as Wayne and others suggest, human beings are a lot more sopphisticated than microbes - through social evolution, we've manged to overcome much of the limitation that follows from being controlled by rigid "survival of the fittest" practices - would the human species be better off "if nature were truly allowed to take its course" with, e.g., Stephen Hawking, Franklin Roosevelt, Bob Dole, Barbara Jordan, Stevie Wonder, etc?

you might be interested in these docs, HB:

http://www.county.org/resources/libr...15/heroes.html

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/disa...es_history.htm

[Golgotha]

yes, mmi that was also my point above. I will make it more clear to see that Hellbent's statement, "Those who cannot see, hear, walk etc. would never survive if nature were truly allowed to take its course." does not hold water.

Hellbent's above statement would be true if humans were like a pack of wolves, or gazelle, or a flock of birds, where depending on speed, strength, sight, or acute hearing were vital. As humans you can still be a key part of the tribe, pack, flock without these skills, I hope you see this.

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by Golgotha
yes, mmi that was also my point above. I will make it more clear to see that Hellbent's statement, "Those who cannot see, hear, walk etc. would never survive if nature were truly allowed to take its course." does not hold water.

Hellbent's above statement would be true if humans were like a pack of wolves, or gazelle, or a flock of birds, where depending on speed, strength, sight, or acute hearing were vital. As humans you can still be a key part of the tribe, pack, flock without these skills, I hope you see this.

Sure you can still be a part of the "tribe" as you say, but does that really make the "tribe" any stronger or collectively weaker? I’m speaking from a purely genetic aspect people. "fascist nonsense" aside anyone who has even the most basic understanding of genetics should be able to see my point. The "Social Evolution" mentioned earlier is clearly retarding the genetic evolution.

You don’t breed the runts or the culls in any species, It's just unkind to the resulting offspring. mmi your posting links talk about Mathew Duncan Ector, First off he was not born with any sort of defect he was wounded in a war. And considering his intelligence and bravery he could easily breed. As far as George Bernard Erath is concerned if it had not been for his daughter assisting him he would have been unable to complete his memoirs.

Peter Wagener Grayson now here is a winner. He helped the whole gene pool out when he shot himself.

Originally posted by Golgotha
What God gave us is a very sophisticated brain to use for survival.

From my particular belief structure "God" does not exist and therefore gave us nothing.

Originally posted by neil100
I think you will find if you do some research that many primates and some of the other more intelligent animal species very often protect and help the weak in their society..

Does it make their society any stronger genetically? It does not seem that my argument is being addressed.

Originally posted by neil100
This is an example of "nature taking it's course", aiding the weak has little to do with propaganda, but everything to do with empathy, instinct, mutual benefit and neurobiology...

What you call propaganda I call fact. I also like the obvious disregard for the fact Jigokudani park is just that, a park. The monkey's are not subject to natural predators. If there were the handicapped monkey would be even more of a detriment to its "tribe". And just what is the mutual benefit for the rest of the tribe?

[Golgotha]

the basic principles of evolution are, what works makes it, what doesn't work will be lost. All species have there occasional birth defect or disability for whatever reason, loss of a leg from a war or a bear trap. This does not make the species ecologically fragile. So you don't have to worry about if the blind man reproduces or not. We have greater problems that need addressed.

[neil100]

Originally posted by Hellbent

Does it make their society any stronger genetically? It does not seem that my argument is being addressed.

No I doubt in the case of a monkey it does add much to society, my point wasn't wether or not the monkey added much to society, but rather that you seem to be saying that it's our "society" and "propoganda" which protects the weak or "genetically inferior" as you put it and if it was left to nature / evolution these would be weeded out, yet there are plenty of examples in nature that show the weak are not always removed through evolution, your rather oversimplistic view of evolution cannot explain why these weak or "genetically inferior" animals survive, it's certainly not down to "society norms or propaganda".

Originally posted by Hellbent

What you call propaganda I call fact. I also like the obvious disregard for the fact Jigokudani park is just that, a park. The monkey's are not subject to natural predators. If there were the handicapped monkey would be even more of a detriment to its "tribe". And just what is the mutual benefit for the rest of the tribe?

Well no actually what you call propaganda is well.. propaganda, you introduced it in your first post :

"Of course the modern man is fed enough propaganda encouraging him to aid the weak"

The monkeys in the park was only one example of several in the link I posted to the essay, others were animals in the wild who also protected the weak just like humans do.

When I refered to mutual benefit I was taking in other parts of the essay perhaps I should of quoted them.

If you want an example of how the "weak" or "genetically inferior" can contribute in our society try Stephen Hawking, confined to a wheelchair and needs a voicebox to talk, yet has contributed to physics, passes on his knowledge to students, gives people pleasure and understanding with the books he writes, creates wealth for others through his books and pays more taxes which go on to benefit society than the majority of us.

[mmi]

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this, HB - it seems to me your reasoning is seriously flawed - what difference does it make if a disability is congenital? - you're suggesting that someone born blind, deaf, etc should, in an ideal world, not be allowed to "breed" while those who suffer from a disability suffered after birth should? - for one thing, it's often the case that these characteristics are not inherited - secondly, as has been pointed out, an individual with disabilities can make critical contributions to society - who's not addressing that point? - I'd say it's you

your view on this matter comes straight out of the eugenics philosophy of the Nazis - you say that "anyone who has even the most basic understanding of genetics should be able to see my point" - perhaps you should seek to enlighten the American Society of Human Genetics and the American Medical Association, which as long ago as 1937, found no "scientific basis to justify limitation of conception for eugenic reasons" - I'm guessing that the programs carried out by the Nazis didn't do anything to change their minds

and speaking of figures from history, how about Josesh Goebbels? - "Highly gifted, he was subjected from an early age to a tormenting feeling of physical inadequacy; he had a weak constitution and a crippled foot" - he "bred" quite successfully - six healthy children, I believe - he murdered all of them - maybe he didn't want to take a chance they'd pass on his "flawed genes"

and btw, I hope to one day have children of my own - I certainly won't view this as "breeding"

[Hellbent]

The global scientific community is making extraordinary advances in understanding the human genome. This knowledge has contributed many important medical benefits. Yet, concern about the possibility of misuse of genetic concepts and genetic information may be as great today as at any time since World War II. Many fear that as we learn more about how genes vary and function, some individuals or institutions may be tempted to ascribe an overly deterministic influence to their role in shaping human health and potential and pursue social policies that limit or constrain reproductive freedom.

Therefore, the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics reaffirms its commitment to the fundamental principle of reproductive freedom and unequivocally declares its opposition to coercion based on genetic information

In other words no matter what we find out about those carrying debilitating or tainted genes, due to social pressure stemming from a war in the 1940's we will do nothing about it (would not want to offend the politically correct as it might cost us our nice guy image ).

The American Society of Human Genetics recognizes that genetic variation can significantly influence risk for disease and the nature of an individual's future health and that many human capacities and talents are influenced by genes.

But by all means if your genes are flawed or defective (ill insert the Webster definition as to avoid further accusations of Nazi temperament Flaw or Defect An imperfection that mars or impairs) who are we to stop the proliferation of such genetic throwbacks. Now what is flawed? Someone who has congenital defects and is unable function without infringing on the society in which he or she lives. Be it wheelchair ramps, Specialized tutoring etc. As far as the Stephen Hawking argument I will once again re-iterate the difference from an established member of society who has been wounded or diseased from a genetically defective individual at birth. Stephen Hawking has a motor neuron disease and was already at Oxford before being diagnosed. ALS is not congenital and Stephen was already a brilliant student. So your argument is mute. Do me a favor and find me one physically or seriously mentally impaired person at birth who ever accomplished anything without special provisions being taken by society? Thought so. Stop mentioning the wounded and diseased because it has very little to do with evolution and genetic inferiority.

The American Society of Human Genetics deplores laws, governmental regulations and any other coercive effort intended to restrict reproductive freedom or constrain freedom of choice on the basis of known or presumed genetic characteristics of potential parents or the anticipated genetic characteristics, health or capacities of potential offspring.

If there are "known" genetic traits that can be passed along to potential offspring it seems to me unfair that someone with defective genes is allowed to contaminate their offspring. It is no different than intentionally maiming someone.

[Golgotha]

Mozart- Deaf
Roosevelt - wheelchair bound
Harriet Tubman - civil rights activist - Epilepsy
Tom Wiggins - composer - autistic
Helen Keller - Activist- Deaf / Blind
Jhamak Ghimire - Poet - cerebral palsy

These people have probably contributed more to humanity than some of the brightest scholars around, not to mention the genetically 'normal'. The question is, what are you contributing?

[mmi]

why use "other words"? - from the excerpt you quoted:

some individuals or institutions may be tempted to ascribe an overly deterministic influence to their [genes'] role in shaping human health and potential and pursue social policies that limit or constrain reproductive freedom

I think you may have missed a lecture or two in your pursuit of a medical degree - the onset of ALS does indeed typically occur in the fourth to seventh decades of life - however, and this is central to refuting your argument, it can be inherited - several genes associated with ALS have been identified or at least mapped to a specific region of a chromosome - there's also childhood-onset ALS, with a mean onset age of 6.5 years - so even though ALS symptomology is not present at birth, it's still there, in those defective inherited genes - I don't know if Professor Hawking's disease is inherited or not, but ...

The gene for ALS2 is transmitted in an autosomal recessive pattern, i.e., the individual inherits copies of the same recessive gene from both parents. Symptoms of ALS2 manifest in the first or second decade of life and progress slowly for 10 to 15 years, akin to those of Stephen Hawking, the physicist.

would you advocate a Big Blue Needle for the man if it is? - perhaps he anticipated this outcome

Shortly after I came out of hospital [at age 21], I dreamt that I was going to be executed. I suddenly realised that there were a lot of worthwhile things I could do if I were reprieved.

If there are "known" genetic traits that can be passed along to potential offspring it seems to me unfair that someone with defective genes is allowed to contaminate their offspring. It is no different than intentionally maiming someone.

this is indeed a difficult issue - but it is much narrower than your original position (I'd argue it's not even related), namely that "[t]hose who cannot see, hear, walk etc. would never survive if nature were truly allowed to take its course." - you stated that we should "allow the weak to die off" and lamented social policies that force the strong, industrious, and healthy among us to carry the "burden of the weak, lazy and the infirm" - so we should execute or at least sterilize anyone that

a) can't do enough push-ups, or
b) doesn't work hard enough, or
c) becomes ill

I guess that would indeed solve many of our problems with health care and the aging population - perhaps you feel I should do away with my 85-year-old mother who's yet to fully recover from a broken hip - yeah, it is a burden on me, no doubt - kind 'a like when I was a burden on her as an infant, only of course less so - hmmm, I could go smother her with a pillow right now - maybe I could rely on yer arguments as a defence

I figure you'll say this isn't what you meant, but it is what you posted - and to whom were you referring with the expression "other undesirables"?

one final point - I don't appreciate mocking, wise comments like "thought so" - I'd suggest you learn the difference between "mute" and "moot" and indeed the proper use of "moot" before taking such an arrogant posture

[neil100]

Originally posted by Hellbent

As far as the Stephen Hawking argument I will once again re-iterate the difference from an established member of society who has been wounded or diseased from a genetically defective individual at birth. Stephen Hawking has a motor neuron disease and was already at Oxford before being diagnosed. ALS is not congenital and Stephen was already a brilliant student. So your argument is mute. Do me a favor and find me one physically or seriously mentally impaired person at birth who ever accomplished anything without special provisions being taken by society? Thought so. Stop mentioning the wounded and diseased because it has very little to do with evolution and genetic inferiority.

As mmi pointed out, the "defective genes" are in fact there at birth, that the genes may lie dormant until later in that persons life is irrelevent, they would still be "genetically inferior" to use your phrase.

If a previously perfectly healthy wolf broke a couple of legs, it would no longer be able to keep up with the pack or hunt and would almost certainly die off, if we take your idea that if the human race went "back to nature" then the weak, elderly and sick would die off like the wolf, then we would of missed out on the benefits that Stephen Hawking has given to society, he would of died off under your theories years ago, wether someone is born with a disabiity/ disease or develops it in later life is irrelevent.

Originally posted by Hellbent

If there are "known" genetic traits that can be passed along to potential offspring it seems to me unfair that someone with defective genes is allowed to contaminate their offspring. It is no different than intentionally maiming someone.

Exactly how far do you go with what should be passed onto the offspring, if for example someone happens to be the stereotype racist thug with the almost mandatory low IQ, yet is physically fine with no disease, is it unfair they pass on their lack of brains to their kids?

[greg.harvey]

Hellbent, you're actually scaring me! I have rheumatoid arthritis and have had since I was about 13. If I was 'in the wild' as it were, I'd probably be dead. As it is, I take anti-inflamatorys and I'm fine to lead a normal life.

Are you suggesting I should be neutered or something???

[KC]

If there are "known" genetic traits that can be passed along to potential offspring it seems to me unfair that someone with defective genes is allowed to contaminate their offspring.

This brings up an interesting point. When I was pregnant with my last two children, I had an amniocentesis test to determine if either child would be born with defects. This test can determine if they are born with Edward's syndrome, Down syndrome, spina bifida and several other abnormalities. Because of my age (over 35), it was recommended that I get the test. While waiting for the results, my husband and I pondered what to do if either child were born with these defects and we both concluded only one option; life over death. Now if someone told me I wasn't allowed to have my children because of a defect I would spit in their face. I carried one child with a single umbilical artery and she was born without any abnormalities. The chances were 50-50.

The point is the test was recommended because of my age, not because there was evidence of defective genes on either side of the families. Stuff happens and age is not a defective trait or gene but something we all face eventually.

Until a person is faced with the same situation, you cannot judge nor suggest theories about genetics. Your views would most likely change if faced with the same situation.

[mmi]

If a previously perfectly healthy wolf broke a couple of legs, it would no longer be able to keep up with the pack or hunt and would almost certainly die off

if it were two, yeah - but I remember a story I saw on TV about a pack of wolves being monitored in the wild - I think maybe they'd been relocated or something - one wolf badly injured a leg and it had to be amputated - I can't remember exactly but I think it had already been the dominant member - I do remember that it assumed the Alpha position in the pack when returned after recovering - I suppose it was its size/strength and personality that made in dominant, even on three legs

and I'll always remember the little three-legged dog in mmy neighborhood that continually pushed around dogs twice its size - this guy was a real dynamo - if a bigger dog gave him a hard time, he'd wade into it without hesitation and grab onto its neck - of course, I wasn't able to observe this dog at all times, but whenever I saw one of these incidents, the other dog would invariably end up backing down, often lying on its back submissively - that little guy has often been a source of inspiration to mme over the years

Are you suggesting I should be neutered or something???

nah, just keep downin' those pints - that oughta slow ya down when presented with an opportunity

Your views would most likely change if faced with the same situation

got that right

[greg.harvey]

nah, just keep downin' those pints - that oughta slow ya down when presented with an opportunity

Too true!

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by mmi
one final point - I don't appreciate mocking, wise comments like "thought so" - I'd suggest you learn the difference between "mute" and "moot" and indeed the proper use of "moot" before taking such an arrogant posture

mocking, I think not. The "thought so" statement was merely an affirmation. Seeing as how you do not have the chance to respond real-time. And I implore you may the heavens forgive me for this grievous misspelling. <--- (that’s mocking)

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by mmi
if it were two, yeah - but I remember a story I saw on TV about a pack of wolves being monitored in the wild - I think maybe they'd been relocated or something - one wolf badly injured a leg and it had to be amputated - I can't remember exactly but I think it had already been the dominant member - I do remember that it assumed the Alpha position in the pack when returned after recovering - I suppose it was its size/strength and personality that made in dominant, even on three legs

and I'll always remember the little three-legged dog in mmy neighborhood that continually pushed around dogs twice its size - this guy was a real dynamo - if a bigger dog gave him a hard time, he'd wade into it without hesitation and grab onto its neck - of course, I wasn't able to observe this dog at all times, but whenever I saw one of these incidents, the other dog would invariably end up backing down, often lying on its back submissively - that little guy has often been a source of inspiration to mme over the years nah, just keep downin' those pints - that oughta slow ya down when presented with an opportunity
got that right

I find myself at an impasse. Let me see if I can further clarify. Someone said that there is no difference in a wound or disease vs. a genetic inability at birth. Where that does not hold true is that the wounded can often recover as well as the diseased. Now people who cannot see hear etc left to nature would never be told they "weren’t allowed to breed" simply because of the fact they would never live that long, and providing they did if society did not care for them they would be scavengers. As is the case with a god deal of the American homeless population. My facts on this may be somewhat outdated but in college we researched how many of the homeless were indeed unable to work etc. Due to the difficulty of accurately tracking such a transient populace we had to work with rough figures and if I recall about 25% of the homeless were seriously mentally ill and receiving no medication, over 40% were comprised of the elderly leaving roughly %35 who simply chose not to work. Now it seems to me that if we did not have outreach programs these "undesirables" would die off.

mmi talks about murdering his 85-year-old mother. This will not be necessary, if during her life she has made appropriate choices to insure her financial security in old age then she should be cared for because she is no burden. However if she has not made these choices then all you need do is quite simply, nothing. Murder would not be necessary. Now going back to even earlier argument of mine where modern man is subjected to social pressure to support the weak the previous statement about doing nothing for you mother is called "criminal negligence". Simply ludicrous.

URally for someone who is arguing against my point I find it odd that you would take a 50-50 chance with another beings life. If they had been born with Edward's syndrome, Down syndrome, spina bifida and several other abnormalities it would clearly have been your fault. I guess it really doesn’t matter though. If your children had been defective you could have always played on things like Aid to States for Education of Handicapped Children in State-Operated and State-Supported Schools (which comes out of my pocket as well as other taxpayers). However you would have made your choice and rather to refuse to pay for your handicapped child (and have my face spat in) I pay.

Now honestly if you are wealthy enough to support genetically inferior children or the old who have not planned for their own retirements etc. I have no problem with that, it is when MY money is taken to support people who honestly have no right to infringe on me and my financial situation that I have a problem. If you want to save and support retards and the armless, legless, eyeless, go right ahead. However don’t ask the government to fund programs for them that come out of my tax dollars. That’s what I mean about even in modern day society the weak and infirm are still a burden to the "tribe".

Am I a b(a)stard? Most likely, but im right.

[mmi]

so will you be there to take that long walk to the death house with Professor Hawking if we find his malady to be inherited? - or are you ready to accept deaf-eat??

The healthy-wealthy-wise affirm
That early birds obtain the worm—
(The worm rose early too!) - bad genes, I guess

[Hellbent]

Originally posted by mmi
so will you be there to take that long walk to the death house with Professor Hawking if we find his malady to be inherited? - or are you ready to accept deaf-eat??

The healthy-wealthy-wise affirm
That early birds obtain the worm—
(The worm rose early too!) - bad genes, I guess

Deaf-eat nah? Hows about we just stop changing the mans diaper and feeding him. if he can go get some food himself im sure he'll make it.