Has Evolution Stopped in the US?

[Zorro]

Here's a thread I just started over at TW. I thought some of you might find it interesting, so I've mirrored it over here.

Just a little theory my wife and I were discussing. I figured this was the only safe place to bring it up without being labeled some kind of insensitive-to-the-plight-of-the-less-fortunate prick or something.

So, basically, we've become of the opinion that because we go out of our way to make sure that people with disabilities and mental/physical ailments are encouraged to (a) survive and (b) procreate. The very nature of natural selection dictates that the weaker will (a) not survive and (b) be a less attractive mate, less likely to procreate. So, if the less intelligent, less attractive, less healthy, and less capable member of our society are not just allowed, but encouraged to keep their "bad" DNA in the gene pool, are we not doing a disservice to the process of evolution within the human race?

In many other countries, this is not the case. If Ahab the Saharan Bedouin is unable to walk without the aid of a wheelchair, no one in his tribe of wanderers is going to express the least bit of sympathy because he can't get his own water, or scrounge up his own food. Therefore, Ahab is selected out. If Chang, the mongolian is born without the physical capacity to be an effective herdsman or hunter, he starves to death, therefore selected out. If Koobma the Kenyan is not intelligent enough to avoid the many trappings of the Serengeti, he gets eaten by a lion, therefore selected out. So, in conclusion, it seems we are setting ourselves up to become vastly inferior (albeit in the course of several thousand years) to the peoples of different countries/regions of the world. Is this a good thing? Does Darwin's eugenics movement need to be revisited?

Disclaimer: This is for the sake of discussion only. In no way am I encouraging anyone to go out and become Darwin's enforcer or anything. Additionally, I would like to point out that I am not encouraging biggotry towards the disabled of this country, or any other.

[[AK]Squidly]

Originally posted by [AK]Zorro
Does Darwin's eugenics movement need to be revisited?

No.

The human race's mastery of the genome will eventually render this discussion moot.

[[AK]Bribo]

Ahab and Chang? ROFL

[[AK]Squidly]

Call me Ishmael

[Widowmaker]

Well, I have to think that yes this is true. We are screwing up the "natural" selection process. However even though I am not at all a religious man I have to believe that it is wrong to let someone pass away if we are able to stop that from happening. I also can not condone sterilizing of the idiots (though there are many times that I would love to, like on the drive home). Even if it is messing with the natural order I can not believe saving lives is wrong. In my mind this is the exact thing that raises us above "beasts".

However the encouragement to procreate thing is harmful. The current welfare system seemes to pay people to have kids, I know of no job that gives you a raise because you had a baby. Taking care of a childs needs is one thing but "paying" the parrent because he/she breeds is wrong. I have no good solution. I would never condone sterilization because that is just icky but am all for any way to remove the reinforcement given to people that can't take care of a family to have kids. From my days of being a poor person (back when 25 cents an hour over minimum wage was a fortune... and that was about 6 years ago) I saw many people that were less able to take care of THEMSELVES than I was attempting to raise a brood of kids and thinking the world owed rewards to them for having the kids. It disgusted me then as it does now. It is one thing to see the statisics on the news and it is another to be standing in line next to these buggers who were demanding "thier" money... money they only got because of the taxes taken out of my minimum wage check that was so small I still needed state assistance just to make rent and food for one person who even had a roomate to help with the expenses.

peace,
[AK]Widowmaker

[[AK]Hylander]

Hey Squidly... I think this topic would do well in the 'Hawks newsgroup right about now! LOLOL

Otherwise, I'll tend to avoid these type of discussions although I will add that I believe the song "Get over it" by the Eagles is near Gospel for me.

Scott
PA-Scott

[[AK]Squidly]

I think we know which side of the evolutionary coin the WebTV'ers fall on...

[[AK]Palooka]

This line of thinking is nothing new, Zorro. A guy by the name of Adolf Hitler had similar views.

"I would like to point out that I am not encouraging biggotry towards the disabled of this country, or any other."

No, you're just discouraging disabled people from living a normal life and taking advantage of healthcare.

By the way, "disabled" is a broad term. If someone loses an appendage in an accident, that person shouldn't have kids? Ahab might not be able to run a marathon, but he may be able to have healthy kids. Incurring a disability in life does not make one's genes any less viable.

What concerns me most about your post is how you intend for us to eliminate "people with disabilities and mental/physical ailments." Since you make no suggestions, let me present some possibilities. We could segregate the "less intelligent, less attractive, less healthy, and less capable member[s] of our society" from the rest of the population. We could refuse them healthcare, since we wouldn't want to encourage them to live. We could, as Widowmaker has mentioned, sterilize such people, or just kill them all to make sure that they do not further taint the gene pool. Finally, we could mandate that these people have abortions should they unwisely choose to "breed." The latter is, horrifically enough, the most realistic scenario.

There are segments of the scientific community (including a few biology professors I had in college) who believe that all pregnant women should receive amniocentesis, chorionic villa sampling, maternal blood screening, and ultrasound to detect birth defects. Some birth defects can be corrected before birth, but for those unlucky fetuses who have incurable birth defects, abortion would be the treatment. Theoretically, this could rid America of people with, for example, Down's syndrome, congenital heart defects, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis, and Muscular Dystrophy, along with any of the other 4,000 birth defects.

What about people with a history of cancer in their families? Should they not be allowed to reproduce, either? That would leave me out. I also have diabetes on both sides of my family.

The nice thing about America that sets it apart from much of the rest of the world is that every American enjoys the same rights. If you think that the government should regulate who should and should not have children, China might be a better place for you.

It is hilarious that I, probably the most conservative AKer with the exception of perhaps Abaddon, am the official voice for civil rights in this organization. Zorro, look at that flag flying in your signature and think about what it stands for.

[[AK]Palooka]

Speaking of cancer, here's some hopeful news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35490,00.html

[R23]

wow, i dont know what to think of this topic - no side choosing for me, but man palooka the words you use in your writings are just awesome, guess its the way you put words together.
in my line of thinking im still fuming over my cbs 60 minutes post.

live free, die free...

[[AK]Leonidas]

Bah, politics raises its head again! It's a dangerous thing, I tell you.

The logical error is in confusing natural selection with evolution, and confusing evolution with some kind of grand hierarchy of worth.

Natural selection simply means that a population of creatures adapts to its habitat. If the climate becomes colder, the population becomes furrier and fattier, because the thinner and hairier ones die sooner and reproduce less. If the climate becomes warmer again, then the hairy and fat ones will die off and the population will become thinner and less hairy. It's not progression, it's just adaptation.

Evolution is the theory that enough natural selection will lead to one species completely changing into another species. There are big problems with the theory of evolution, mostly because the fossil record doesn't support it. But even the theory of evolution doesn't say that the passage of time leads to creatures that are superior in some moral or cosmic sense.

In a cosmic sense, the most advanced lifeform on the planet is probably the cockroach or some kind of worm. Those creatures will still be on the earth billions of years from now, while there's still the strong possibility that humanity will not last that long due to war or disease. We assume that our brains are obviously superior in some cosmic sense, but in terms of sheer survival (and what other terms are there?) I'm betting on the cockroach.

[[AK]Bribo]

Originally posted by [AK]Leonidas
because the thinner and hairier ones die sooner and reproduce less

Shit! I'm doomed!

[Slaughter]

Originally posted by [AK]Palooka
(1)This line of thinking is nothing new, Zorro. A guy by the name of Adolf Hitler had similar views.

(2)What concerns me most about your post is how you intend for us to eliminate "people with disabilities and mental/physical ailments." Since you make no suggestions, let me present some possibilities. We could segregate the "less intelligent, less attractive, less healthy, and less capable member[s] of our society" from the rest of the population. We could refuse them healthcare, since we wouldn't want to encourage them to live. We could, as Widowmaker has mentioned, sterilize such people, or just kill them all to make sure that they do not further taint the gene pool. Finally, we could mandate that these people have abortions should they unwisely choose to "breed." The latter is, horrifically enough, the most realistic scenario.

(3)There are segments of the scientific community (including a few biology professors I had in college) who believe that all pregnant women should receive amniocentesis, chorionic villa sampling, maternal blood screening, and ultrasound to detect birth defects. Some birth defects can be corrected before birth, but for those unlucky fetuses who have incurable birth defects, abortion would be the treatment. Theoretically, this could rid America of people with, for example, Down's syndrome, congenital heart defects, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis, and Muscular Dystrophy, along with any of the other 4,000 birth defects.


(4)It is hilarious that I, probably the most conservative AKer with the exception of perhaps Abaddon, am the official voice for civil rights in this organization. Zorro, look at that flag flying in your signature and think about what it stands for.

(1) - Ouch.. hope Z was sitting.

(2) - That part right there is like saying, lets kill off Alabama becasue they still have rebel flags.. or because they're all too stupid. Whereas I say.. Down with the rebel flags, but let live.. Rebel flags are all I'm against.. exspecially in these troubling times where everyone should have American flags in the back windows of the trucks.. we should all be united.

(3) - Yes.. I'm sure there are also Scientists out there who would also say that a couple whose age added up to over 80 should be sterilized and then let be.. as there are tests that show that couples who have children when their combined age is 80+ are more likely to have children with birth defects.. whereas I find this to not be 90% accurate. I have 2 friends who's parent's ages were over 80 when they were born, granted on was an accident and the other's Dad is about 70 now(the kid has a free ride.. 16 yrs old has a 95 camaro and a 71 Nova.. ).

(4) - Palooka may be the most conservative AKer.. I'm not certain on my status because I'm just starting my Political life.. time will tell. I do tend to be a Non-Conformist though. (That and I approve of the mothers choise to abortion.. although I don't completely agree with it.)

[[AK]Abaddon]

Ouch. I think a comparison with Hitler is a bit harsh.

However, I have to say that if a "disabled" person can be productive in the workplace with the proper accomodations, I'm all for it. I've known a number of disabled people who were productive members of society, but would have died in a purely Darwinian environment.

Like Widowmaker, however, I have profound problems with encouraging people on welfare to have kids. In fact, in my fire-breathing days, I even have said they should be temporarily sterilized until they are off the dole. That's possible now, but the technology is not truly "there" yet, so I cannot recommend it. Too many side effects from the implants.

In fact, I think that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote as long as they are on the dole. They are just a ready-made constituency for urban machine politics. Bus 'em to the polls, tell them how to vote and let 'er rip!

I would support a return to the old "vote if you have property system" ... replacing "property" with a steady job of any kind and no income requirements, as long as they are not on welfare. If you are only TAKING from the country, I don't think you should have a voice in the affairs of your fellow tax-paying citizens.

But alas ... that's the hardline libertarian in me coming out. Not much chance of either of those two plans being implemented.

Still, one can hope.

[AK]Abaddon

"TANSTAFFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch."

[Zorro]

Whoa, Palooka... My putting something out there for discussion does not mean that I support or endorse that idea or concept. For the sake of a good discussion/debate/argument/whatever, I am more likely to don the garb of the Devil's Advocate (subtle poking of Leonidas...) than anyone else I know. In any case, I pose this question as a scientific one, not a political/moral/societal one.

I can say that I do see that we, as a society, are going against the grain of the natural order of things. Is this a problem? Perhaps. Do I have a solution? Certainly not, and it would definitely not include the sterilization, segmentation, or extermination (little Jesse for ya there) of any portion of our people. Additionally, natural selection and evolution in general is based upon the genetic makeup of the person, which does not include disfiguring injuries that are incurred later in life.

As some people have pointed out in the TW forums, there's a pretty typical inversely proportional relationship between income and number of children in the family. Furthermore, there is another, more obvious, direct relationship between IQ and income level. So, it would seem to me that those of lesser IQ have more children than those of higher IQ. IQ is genetically inherited. Therefore, the current trends would tend to indicate a preference towards people with lower IQ's in our society. That's in direct opposition to the very core of natural selection. (This is why we're having four children: we're helping the gene pool. )What happens if that trend continues?

Further adding to the problem, men and women who are successful and productive members of our society are much more likely to wait until much later in life to reproduce. This is a challenge in two respects. First, women over the age of 35 are roughly 3 times as likely to have a malformed child than a mother just 5 years her junior. Problems such as Down's syndrome, physical defects, mental retardation, and neural system defects are common in children of mothers of this age group, not to mention the increased likelihood of miscarriage or death to the mother herself. The rate of "failure" of the children of these older mothers increases at an exponential rate all the way to the age of infertility. Our best and brightest have a very good chance of not producing the best or the brightest.

Leonidas, the thing that the fossil record does not support, is the process of slow, mini-change evolution. What it does support is the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium". Simply stated this is a process that is kicked off when a stressor occurs in a species' environment that the species has a sudden need to overcome or die. Climatic changes are a frequent stressor, but other things can cause stress to a species. In effect, inner species and inter species evolution is sparked by this need to advance and it occurs over the course of centuries or even decades as opposed to millennia. Were we and the dinosaurs contemporaries on this little rock we call home? If not, that would seem to indicate that there have been changes over time that have allowed us to come along 65 million years after our friends the dinosaurs were obliterated by a rock from space (or so the theory goes). Does that not beg us to question what that process is and how it works?

There is another interesting way of looking at the whole argument. Perhaps these sundry mutations and defects are actually failures in the hit and miss game of punctuated equilibrium. Perhaps, we, as a species, have reached the point where the stressors of increased focus on urban habitation, the increased necessity of our species to absorb and regurgitate more information than ever before, and the continual harm that we are doing to our environment are pushing another giant leap forward in human advancement. Should the next phase of human development have a larger brain better equipped to store and retrieve data and more capable of filtering out the excess stimulation of urban environments? Should he have an extraordinary immune system to combat the incessant assault of disease and chemical and radioactive contamination of the air we breathe and the water we drink? Should he be immune to heart disease, have a special coating on the inside of his stomach to fight ulcers, or UV resistant skin? The thing is that if we don't do something to stem the tide of "progress", we may very well have to see how our grandchildren have to change to guarantee our survivability...