De-evolution

[Jarod]

For those of us who belive that the theory of evolution is essentally a valid and likely true theory... I have been thinking of the logical extension of the theory and where that puts our civilization in the future.

If evolution occured, it is reasonable to me to assume that it is still ocuring. We are still evolving into something different than we currently are.

But here is my concern, and what I want to know what others think about...


Might we be devolving? To me evolution has always been a process of the different species becoming more refined and better suited to our enviroment. With the advent of birth control it seems the set up has changed so that those of us better suited to accell in our enviroment (the more educated, wealthy) are having less offspring, while those less suited to accel in our enviroment (less educated, less wealthy) are having more offspring.

What is the logical result of this? If the genetics for becoming less successfull in the enviroment are resulting in more children how would that not result in devolution or a process of less successfull traits becoming more promenent?

 

[Cancel3]

For those of us who belive that the theory of evolution is essentally a valid and likely true theory... I have been thinking of the logical extension of the theory and where that puts our civilization in the future.

If evolution occured, it is reasonable to me to assume that it is still ocuring. We are still evolving into something different than we currently are.

But here is my concern, and what I want to know what others think about...


Might we be devolving? To me evolution has always been a process of the different species becoming more refined and better suited to our enviroment. With the advent of birth control it seems the set up has changed so that those of us better suited to accell in our enviroment (the more educated, wealthy) are having less offspring, while those less suited to accel in our enviroment (less educated, less wealthy) are having more offspring.

What is the logical result of this? If the genetics for becoming less successfull in the enviroment are resulting in more children how would that not result in devolution or a process of less successfull traits becoming more promenent?

It would still be evolution. The process of evolving is not always an improvement, but over the long term (biological long term) the improvements win out.

 

[Jarod]

It would still be evolution. The process of evolving is not always an improvement, but over the long term (biological long term) the improvements win out.

That makes sense, but I was using "de-evolution" to illistrate my point. What you are saying if I understand correctly is... That my observations might be valid for the short term and evolution may take a path that is not necessarly improvement, for the short term, but eventually progress wins out.


Might it happen that eventually two seperate species will result?

 

[Cancel3]

That makes sense, but I was using "de-evolution" to illistrate my point. What you are saying if I understand correctly is... That my observations might be valid for the short term and evolution may take a path that is not necessarly improvement, for the short term, but eventually progress wins out.


Might it happen that eventually two seperate species will result?

What you are describing is, essentially, a social phenomenon rather than a biological one. I don't think those who underachieve are genetically different.

At some point, if the over achievers continue to reproduce at a significantly lower level, the burden will overcome their ability to support the masses. And the situation will right itself in some manner.

 

[Jarod]

What you are describing is, essentially, a social phenomenon rather than a biological one. I don't think those who underachieve are genetically different.

At some point, if the over achievers continue to reproduce at a significantly lower level, the burden will overcome their ability to support the masses. And the situation will right itself in some manner.

That makes sense. It is a very interesting topic to me. I really enjoy hearing others ideas on where its going. I belive that at some level, the underachievers are often genetically different.

In our current society however, I know lots of very successfull business people who are not so good at there profession. Doctors and lawyers and such.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

For those of us who belive that the theory of evolution is essentally a valid and likely true theory... I have been thinking of the logical extension of the theory and where that puts our civilization in the future.

If evolution occured, it is reasonable to me to assume that it is still ocuring. We are still evolving into something different than we currently are.

But here is my concern, and what I want to know what others think about...


Might we be devolving? To me evolution has always been a process of the different species becoming more refined and better suited to our enviroment. With the advent of birth control it seems the set up has changed so that those of us better suited to accell in our enviroment (the more educated, wealthy) are having less offspring, while those less suited to accel in our enviroment (less educated, less wealthy) are having more offspring.

What is the logical result of this? If the genetics for becoming less successfull in the enviroment are resulting in more children how would that not result in devolution or a process of less successfull traits becoming more promenent?

First I find it funny that you think education and wealth are the factors that make us more/less suited to excel in our environment.

Second, I agree that the degenerates do seem to be breeding more.... which is why that damn lawyer population has increased to the point of over saturation. Time for the rest of us to thin that degenerative lot.

 

[Cancel3]

First I find it funny that you think education and wealth are the factors that make us more/less suited to excel in our environment.

Second, I agree that the degenerates do seem to be breeding more.... which is why that damn lawyer population has increased to the point of over saturation. Time for the rest of us to thin that degenerative lot.

What is a desired trait is determined by the environment in which the subject lives. This works within society as well.

If we are living in an urban environment, the average New Yorker would be much more successful than the average person from Wyoming. And accountant would be more likely to be successful than would a sheep rancher.

However, if you place those two people in Wyoming, their successes might well change drastically.

An MD is more educated than a mechanic. But the doctor standing by while the mechanic does what he cannot changes the idea of who is "smarter".

 

[Jarod]

What is a desired trait is determined by the environment in which the subject lives. This works within society as well.

If we are living in an urban environment, the average New Yorker would be much more successful than the average person from Wyoming. And accountant would be more likely to be successful than would a sheep rancher.

However, if you place those two people in Wyoming, their successes might well change drastically.

An MD is more educated than a mechanic. But the doctor standing by while the mechanic does what he cannot changes the idea of who is "smarter".

All that is true, but is it not true for example, that educated people on average live longer than uneducated people? That in general, educated people have more access to resources than uneducated people.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What is a desired trait is determined by the environment in which the subject lives. This works within society as well.

If we are living in an urban environment, the average New Yorker would be much more successful than the average person from Wyoming. And accountant would be more likely to be successful than would a sheep rancher.

However, if you place those two people in Wyoming, their successes might well change drastically.

An MD is more educated than a mechanic. But the doctor standing by while the mechanic does what he cannot changes the idea of who is "smarter".

I have always advocated that intelligence is determined by the topic being discussed.

I agree that what it takes to survive changes by environment. Which was my point to Jarod. His definition of 'wealth and a degree' are not going to get him too far in the rainforest or heart of Africa.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

All that is true, but is it not true for example, that educated people on average live longer than uneducated people? That in general, educated people have more access to resources than uneducated people.

What makes you say that? Have you read an article or seen a study to suggest that? Or is that just an assumption you are making and thus questioning?

 

[Jarod]

What makes you say that? Have you read an article or seen a study to suggest that? Or is that just an assumption you are making and thus questioning?

Regarding the life span, Ive seen data on that.

With regard to access to resources it is a logical assumption. I know I have access to an iphone while others I know do not. I can buy a stash of canned food while others I know cannot afford it. I have a yard for my kids to run and play in while others I know do not.

 

[Jarod]

I have always advocated that intelligence is determined by the topic being discussed.

I agree that what it takes to survive changes by environment. Which was my point to Jarod. His definition of 'wealth and a degree' are not going to get him too far in the rainforest or heart of Africa.

I agree with you about situational intelegence, but I am talking about in our, American culture. It is my observations that the Doctor who moves to rural Idaho will still have more access to resources than the cattle hurder.

 

[Cancel3]

Regarding the life span, Ive seen data on that.

With regard to access to resources it is a logical assumption. I know I have access to an iphone while others I know do not. I can buy a stash of canned food while others I know cannot afford it. I have a yard for my kids to run and play in while others I know do not.

And yet, others with less resources than you have can still use a city park, make smart choices when spending their food dollars, and have a quality life.

I also know that teachers and firefighters make far less money, but have successful lives and have access to all the things you are speaking about.



Basing success on income is a mistake, I think.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree with you about situational intelegence, but I am talking about in our, American culture. It is my observations that the Doctor who moves to rural Idaho will still have more access to resources than the cattle hurder.

access to resources can help you to an extent.... but last I checked, cancer, car accidents, strokes, heart attacks etc... do not discriminate based on wealth or access to resources.

To counter your point further... sometimes access to wealth and resources can lead to bad eating, exercise habits.

Whereas those whose jobs involve manual labor could be in better shape....

Bottom line, there really isnt a generalization that you can make (that I am aware of anyway) based on wealth/degrees

 

[Jarod]

And yet, others with less resources than you have can still use a city park, make smart choices when spending their food dollars, and have a quality life.

I also know that teachers and firefighters make far less money, but have successful lives and have access to all the things you are speaking about.



Basing success on income is a mistake, I think.

People can use a city park, but it is more difficult and takes more resource to to get the same benefit. I agree that basing success on income is a mistake, but in general success based on education and access to resources is not.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

People can use a city park, but it is more difficult and takes more resource to to get the same benefit. I agree that basing success on income is a mistake, but in general success based on education and access to resources is not.

ok, you lost me. How is it more difficult for people to use the park or eat/exercise well?

You can have a healthy diet without wealth
You can exercise without wealth
You can use a park in the same manner regardless of wealth

Determining success based on education and wealth only works if you are of the mindset that money and access to resources are a sign of success.

Some people view a healthy happy family as successful. Others see success as working less and having more free time. Bottom line, success is a subjective term.

 

[Jarod]

ok, you lost me. How is it more difficult for people to use the park or eat/exercise well?

You can have a healthy diet without wealth
You can exercise without wealth
You can use a park in the same manner regardless of wealth

Determining success based on education and wealth only works if you are of the mindset that money and access to resources are a sign of success.

Some people view a healthy happy family as successful. Others see success as working less and having more free time. Bottom line, success is a subjective term.

I belive you are being disengenous here. If you have a nice back yard its easier for your kids to get exersize safely. If you are poor or uneducated its much harder to eat healthily. Look at the stats, uneducated people smoke at a MUCH higher rate than educated people.

 

[Timshel]

For those of us who belive that the theory of evolution is essentally a valid and likely true theory... I have been thinking of the logical extension of the theory and where that puts our civilization in the future.

If evolution occured, it is reasonable to me to assume that it is still ocuring. We are still evolving into something different than we currently are.

But here is my concern, and what I want to know what others think about...


Might we be devolving? To me evolution has always been a process of the different species becoming more refined and better suited to our enviroment. With the advent of birth control it seems the set up has changed so that those of us better suited to accell in our enviroment (the more educated, wealthy) are having less offspring, while those less suited to accel in our enviroment (less educated, less wealthy) are having more offspring.

What is the logical result of this? If the genetics for becoming less successfull in the enviroment are resulting in more children how would that not result in devolution or a process of less successfull traits becoming more promenent?

Yeah, rent Idiocracy, or catch it on Comedy Central. Funny idea but proven wrong by the fact that by all objective measures individuals are smarter than ever.

 

[Cancel3]

I belive you are being disengenous here. If you have a nice back yard its easier for your kids to get exersize safely. If you are poor or uneducated its much harder to eat healthily. Look at the stats, uneducated people smoke at a MUCH higher rate than educated people.

It may not be that the education is the reason for the other problems.

In my opinion, it is more likely that the same thing that prevented them from getting a good education is what prevents them from guarding their health, eating well or whatever.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I belive you are being disengenous here. If you have a nice back yard its easier for your kids to get exersize safely. If you are poor or uneducated its much harder to eat healthily. Look at the stats, uneducated people smoke at a MUCH higher rate than educated people.

No, I am not. I am quite serious.

You can exercise in your living room Jarod. You dont need a back yard to do it safely.

You are quite incorrect... a college degree does not make you eat healthy. Anyone can eat healthy. The idea that it is cheaper to eat processed foods or fast food is false.

I have not seen stats that show 'uneducated' people smoke more, so please share them if you have them. But that said, it is still a CHOICE. It is not determined by education or access to resources. Because clearly it is cheaper to not smoke.