![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueA thought occured to me last night.
Evolution in the human race is at a standstill. Or if anything going backwards.
The basic tenets of evolution are that 'positive' traits increase probability of breeding. 'negative' traits reduce the probability. Thus over a long interval, the species evolves by a process of trial and error.
You see, over the last few thousand years, we've gradually been improving our environment. This process has gotten faster and faster. Advancements in surgery and medical techniques increasingly mean that there are less and less things that are going to prevent us having children. (I realise that IVF is almost always an option, but IVF is a notable slower process than dropping a sprog every 9 months).
Today, I wear glasses. My eyesight is not so good. Diabetes and autism are more common than they've ever been. A huge number of genetic 'defects' (and I use the term in this case to mean traits that would alter probabilty of having children, not making value judgements of people who are diabetic or autistic or short sighted) are being propagated down generations.
Because we can fix them. At a time where diabetes made one very unlikely to survive for long, because of how fundamentally risky the world was, there were relatively few. They mostly died off early.
Today, in schools, being a 'boffin' or a 'smart arse' is a negative thing. When at school, I was subjected to scorn for these things. Maybe because I wasn't integrating with my 'peer' group. Maybe because I wanted to know things. A measure of social exclusion was the price, but the result was that at secondary school I cruised through my GCSEs. (Slowed down a bit at A-level, but at that point I had found a group of friends).
We have those who are ambitious and clever less likely to have a family. They're _certainly_ less likely to have many children. Where there are unemployed/unemployable/unskilled trolls who have nothing better to do than fuck their brains out.
Where smart, fast, strong, stable, healthy used to be traits most likely to breed true, now we have stupid, lazy, sickly. (by sickly, I mean predisposed to illness such that they're not part of the 'workforce')
And then, whilst trolling the web, I found a couple of quotes.
"Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. "
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world..."
One was by Charles Darwin. The other by Adolf Hitler. (can you guess which?)
Have you considered that Hitler may have had the right idea in trying to breed a master race?
His methodology was morally wrong. Killing millions of Jews because he thought they were 'inferior'.
I think he was also wrong about the 'master' race - the tall blue eyed blonde. Actually, I'd have thought the 'master' race was more likely to be black, given our propensity towards destroying our environment, because increased amounts of melonin in the skin are better for holes in ozone layers.
What Hitler was responsible for, was a process of evolutionary selection. I think he was aware of the stagnation of the human race and so wanted to restart the process of evolution.
And so he culled and selectively bred people in almost the same way as we do today with ... well any domesticated animal. We breed cows to have more meat. We breed sheep to have more wool. But we don't breed people towards an optimum.
Nietzche is quoted as saying "that which does not kill us, only makes us stronger". It's true in the evolutionary sense. We're breeding species of super-bugs, because we're using broad spectrum anti-biotics. We're killing off the 'weaker' examples, and the ones predisposed to survival are doing so. They're then going to be reproducing and it's _rapidly_ reaching the point where penicillin will become ineffective.
We're responsible for the extinction and near extinction of numerous species around the world.
Sooner or later though, mankind as a force of evolution will be superceeded. Because we're 'forcing' evolution on the world. We're remarkably effective at destroying, killing, culling.
The logical conclusion is that we'll either kill all life on the planet other than evolutionary stagnant humans. Or we will find something that we cannot kill, because we have been 'naturally selecting' that species.
Maybe it will come in the form of a disease. An antibiotic resistant super bug. And the human population will be cut back to levels approaching ecological harmony.
So I see our future as a species in our ability to genetically hack. I don't think 'designer babies' are a good thing. I think we need to start thinking very hard about what traits should breed true, and which should not. I'm not talking about physical beauty - that is, after all, not a survival trait. I'm also not referring to fitness/strength/speed. After all, there are many animals on the planet that are better equipped in that regard.
I think the 'strength' of the human race is our ability to innovate and think and our ambition.
I also think we need to consider what a danger 'peer group pressure' is having in our children - Conformity is the rule. Those exceptional must conform or be brought down by the pack.
I think we need to remember that our future lies with the clever, ambitious, enthusastic, wise and to respect those that can do what we cannot. Not scorn them for it.
Evolution in the human race is at a standstill. Or if anything going backwards.
The basic tenets of evolution are that 'positive' traits increase probability of breeding. 'negative' traits reduce the probability. Thus over a long interval, the species evolves by a process of trial and error.
You see, over the last few thousand years, we've gradually been improving our environment. This process has gotten faster and faster. Advancements in surgery and medical techniques increasingly mean that there are less and less things that are going to prevent us having children. (I realise that IVF is almost always an option, but IVF is a notable slower process than dropping a sprog every 9 months).
Today, I wear glasses. My eyesight is not so good. Diabetes and autism are more common than they've ever been. A huge number of genetic 'defects' (and I use the term in this case to mean traits that would alter probabilty of having children, not making value judgements of people who are diabetic or autistic or short sighted) are being propagated down generations.
Because we can fix them. At a time where diabetes made one very unlikely to survive for long, because of how fundamentally risky the world was, there were relatively few. They mostly died off early.
Today, in schools, being a 'boffin' or a 'smart arse' is a negative thing. When at school, I was subjected to scorn for these things. Maybe because I wasn't integrating with my 'peer' group. Maybe because I wanted to know things. A measure of social exclusion was the price, but the result was that at secondary school I cruised through my GCSEs. (Slowed down a bit at A-level, but at that point I had found a group of friends).
We have those who are ambitious and clever less likely to have a family. They're _certainly_ less likely to have many children. Where there are unemployed/unemployable/unskilled trolls who have nothing better to do than fuck their brains out.
Where smart, fast, strong, stable, healthy used to be traits most likely to breed true, now we have stupid, lazy, sickly. (by sickly, I mean predisposed to illness such that they're not part of the 'workforce')
And then, whilst trolling the web, I found a couple of quotes.
"Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. "
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world..."
One was by Charles Darwin. The other by Adolf Hitler. (can you guess which?)
Have you considered that Hitler may have had the right idea in trying to breed a master race?
His methodology was morally wrong. Killing millions of Jews because he thought they were 'inferior'.
I think he was also wrong about the 'master' race - the tall blue eyed blonde. Actually, I'd have thought the 'master' race was more likely to be black, given our propensity towards destroying our environment, because increased amounts of melonin in the skin are better for holes in ozone layers.
What Hitler was responsible for, was a process of evolutionary selection. I think he was aware of the stagnation of the human race and so wanted to restart the process of evolution.
And so he culled and selectively bred people in almost the same way as we do today with ... well any domesticated animal. We breed cows to have more meat. We breed sheep to have more wool. But we don't breed people towards an optimum.
Nietzche is quoted as saying "that which does not kill us, only makes us stronger". It's true in the evolutionary sense. We're breeding species of super-bugs, because we're using broad spectrum anti-biotics. We're killing off the 'weaker' examples, and the ones predisposed to survival are doing so. They're then going to be reproducing and it's _rapidly_ reaching the point where penicillin will become ineffective.
We're responsible for the extinction and near extinction of numerous species around the world.
Sooner or later though, mankind as a force of evolution will be superceeded. Because we're 'forcing' evolution on the world. We're remarkably effective at destroying, killing, culling.
The logical conclusion is that we'll either kill all life on the planet other than evolutionary stagnant humans. Or we will find something that we cannot kill, because we have been 'naturally selecting' that species.
Maybe it will come in the form of a disease. An antibiotic resistant super bug. And the human population will be cut back to levels approaching ecological harmony.
So I see our future as a species in our ability to genetically hack. I don't think 'designer babies' are a good thing. I think we need to start thinking very hard about what traits should breed true, and which should not. I'm not talking about physical beauty - that is, after all, not a survival trait. I'm also not referring to fitness/strength/speed. After all, there are many animals on the planet that are better equipped in that regard.
I think the 'strength' of the human race is our ability to innovate and think and our ambition.
I also think we need to consider what a danger 'peer group pressure' is having in our children - Conformity is the rule. Those exceptional must conform or be brought down by the pack.
I think we need to remember that our future lies with the clever, ambitious, enthusastic, wise and to respect those that can do what we cannot. Not scorn them for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 03:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 04:03 am (UTC)But you assume that Hitler based his thinking on rational thought instead of hate and prejudice. When he set about creating his "master race" it was nationalist in origin - not in any scientific search for a better human.
Hitler used the whole "master race" idea to promote a political agenda.
Not that I'm saying we should mess with evolution though - its not an idea I support. The diverisity of human traits certainly was driven by more democratic factors such as environment, food sources and the fight for survival.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 04:19 am (UTC)It could as easily be based on stirring up hate and prejudice. Against Jews so they had a national enemy. I think that his ideas of a 'master race' doesn't quite fit there though.
I can sort of see how stirring up hate against a faction can be done to enhance political power. I don't see the advantage in then turning around and telling everyone that they're inferiors...
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 04:38 am (UTC)How's that for a run-on sentence ;)
The advantage of making the conquered feel inferior is one that has been used since the dawn of time - intimidation. Quells the masses. Destroys their morale. Look at Genghis Khan or most of the Roman emperors – psychological warfare as much a part of their arsenal as physical weaponry and gave them a definitive advantage.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 10:40 am (UTC)Eloquent.
:)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 09:56 am (UTC)Moreover I was getting to the idea of what was at the bottom of it. Hitler did not embark upon promoting the German race as "master" because there was no better contender. He tended to pick and choose bits of substantiated scientific theory which supported his agenda and skipped over anything which did not.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 04:59 am (UTC)Gould, who came up with the theory of progressive evolution, believed that it is wrong-thinking to assume that, because we are less likely to be killed off due to poor vision, that we are evolving to a weaker-sighted race.
Your example of diabetes is actually support for this argument, because a proclivity for diabetes can be carried in genes quite easily, without ever manifesting itself. I am diabetic, although neither of my parents are, neither of my grandparents are, and so on.
I would like to be able to talk with more authority about Gould's theories, but I haven't learned nearly as much about them as I would like. There is some information about them on this site (http://www.popmatters.com/books/features/030926-gould.shtml), however.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 09:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 05:04 am (UTC)Diabetes and autism are more common than they've ever been.
Not necessarily anything to do with evolution - could be a measuring effect (the more doctors know how to diagnose autism, the more autism you'll see), or a consequence of longer lifespans, or a consequence of pollution, for instance. "Bad" genes have always been there, and killed off their carriers much more efficiently than they do now, yet they persisted to the present day nonetheless. I don't think you need to worry about some kind of evolutionary crisis in the human genome...
no subject
Date: 2004-03-24 05:25 am (UTC)Then again, I perhaps it's because (to take the same example) autistic traits are now 'more useful'. Mathematical ability, social introversion and focussed determination.
Sounds like an ideal programmer...
(The subject has been covered several times on Slashdot)
I think there's a combination. I think out ability to assess, detect and diagnose _has_ improved, and therefore some less obvious cases are getting picked up.
I also think though, that the incidence is increased.
Many things that used to really decrease chances of survival (severe hayfever, asthma, bone disorders) are relatively easy to diagnose.