Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
The-King

Human devolution

Recommended Posts

The-King

After going through a whole unit over the Gilded Age in my US History class and gaining information over the belief of "Social Darwinism" I came up with a little theory (not in scientific terms, more of a hypothesis, but I'll call it a theory for easier reading and writing). Basically I'm trying to say that in the rich, if they continue to primarily marry other rich will in turn devolve due to the fact that rich usually don't have to work, and tend to live in a relatively static environment. The working class on the other hand commonly have jobs that require hard work that they are fit for, and with advance in technology the methods of achieving what the job accomplishes requires, change in actions, and methods necessary in completing the work. While the rich tend to have more work relating to diplomatics and speech requiring use of the mind rather than use of the body (Assuming that people's genetics don't contain any form of gene relating to mental capacity, or rationality). While the working class tend to have jobs that test the body, usually some more than others, and those well adapted will be able to do the job efficiently, get paid well to do so (all a matter of opinion on people's definition of "well paid"), and have time to procreate and pass on their genes that are well adapted to their kids. While the rich tend to marry the best looking and smartest, with no natural selection they pick the best appearing without any consideration for choosing someone who is well adapted and can help them keep on living, on the contrary the working class tend to choose mates who can provide for them, and are well adapted to what they do.

 

My idea isn't limited to the working class and the rich, it's a general idea that the increase in technology that does stuff that once took hours in a few seconds. I also believe this is the undermining cause of the increase in obesity, as people's lives become less complicated and physically straining. If you look in the past people who were obese were few and far between, often being limited to nobility and the rich, as a sign to show how rich they were, and it was an attractive quality. Now with everything being excessively convenient people will devolve, or cease any state of evolution and become static. As the less well adapted, and less fit have the same opportunities to live as the well adapted and fit do. That's how homosapiens came to be is through the process of natural selection, but now that everything has become artificial, natural selection has ceased to exist in humans, everyone is deemed equal, and there is no means of nature selecting who is better fit for their environment because the environment is tailored to keep everyone alive.

 

Several thousand years ago the human population was less than one tenth what it is today, yet somehow in a few thousand years we multiplied our population exponentially. Not because of evolution, but because of means to keep the weaker and less fit alive to pass on their genes. Face it, humans have evolved very little if at all since homosapiens first began walking the earth 60,000 to 100,000 years ago. Not because we are at our peak, but because our natural means of evolution have been destroyed with items that keep those less adapted alive.

 

Maybe it's just my picasso esque mind but in the extremely long run this path that humans have taken could be detrimental to our evolution and end in the human race failing.

 

Sounded a bit ramblish', but I hope I got my idea through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

We are not exactly devolving. It is more of a degeneration. The process is similar to what happens in the inbreeding. Damaged genes still get passed on, and slowly accumulate, resulting in poorer health of individuals.

 

Personally, I think that certain regulations need to be established limiting who should be allowed to reproduce. There are minimally invasive surgeries that can ensure that a person is incapable of reproducing without otherwise affecting their life style. Such people could still adopt and have families. We'd also only need to weed out the bottom few percent to ensure that we are not degenerating, and might even help us to continue evolving. The tests can check the combination of intelligence level, known genetic defects, and physical fitness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

1 How did rich people get to be rich? Won't working people get there the same way? How did the working people get to be working? won't rich people get there the same way?

 

2 I don't know if there is a smart gene it is obvious however that genes do have an effect on intelligence, down syndrome is a genetic disease (not to mention the fact that genes are all that is between us and every other species)

 

3 The working class now works with the mind more than 60% of all work is in services. Management, Sales, Consulting, - these are all jobs for the mind.

 

4 There was a book Time Machine by HG Wells, which described what happened after some thousands of years after around the turn of the century (XIX-XX), the lower class miners had evolved to become extremely efficient underground, and the rich had devolved as they had an easy life picking berries on the surface. 1984 by George Orwell and 1985 by Anthony Burgess are also very good books on the same subject.

 

 

Personally, I think that certain regulations need to be established limiting who should be allowed to reproduce.

"What's the capital of North Dakota?" "1+1=1"

 

 

To those who say 'Is America ready for a black President?' I say, 'WHY NOT, We just had a retarded one!'

 

Honestly? It seems overpopulation is a stage of darwininsm, we have become efficient, so now we grow until we are turned back, perhaps by some meteor or the blowing up of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

Personally, I think that certain regulations need to be established limiting who should be allowed to reproduce.

That is an awfully slippery slope. I don't have to say that it's not without precedent, saavy? wink.gif I think that, by the time we can truly identify "problem genes" and the projected result of "removing" them from the gene pool, we'll also be able to properly overcome the deficiency.

 

You know, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

If our technology does continue to progress quickly I think we may gain a much deeper understanding of genetic engineering in the future and be able to steer our own evolution to keep us from going in a negative(or static) direction.

 

That's really in the long term though and it's assuming that there won't be some great technological crash/ultimate global catastophe in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

In some sense people are devolving, but it has nothing to do with being rich or working class. Keep in mind that, in most countries, wealth only lasts several generations. That's not nearly long encough for significant evolution to take place.

 

An example of how people are degenerating is the increase in eye problems in people. Thousands of years ago, people with bad eyesight were more likely to be eaten and therefore didn't reproduce as much, so their bad eyesight wasn't passed on. Today, people with bad eyesight don't have to woory about natural selection and can reproduce and pass on their genes, thus contributing to the increase in bad eyeyight.

 

 

Personally, I think that certain regulations need to be established limiting who should be allowed to reproduce.

While doing this would seem like like a big violation of human rights, I sort of agree, to some extent. We could essentially end the occurrence of genetic diseases by preventing or deterring carriers of these genes from reproducing with someone who might produce offspring with the disease. Of course, today's society probably wouldn't accept this, since eugenics is generally considered unconventional or immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

How about a gross violation of my rights? I suffer from an atygmatism. Are you going to stop me from having kids?

 

Over my dead body.

 

Who's going to select what's important? Hell, if we eliminated people with ALS, for example - POOF! There goes Stephen Hawking. wink.gif I know, manipulative argument, but it raises a serious question: how do we decide?

 

Who, ultimately, would decide who's fit for reproduction? How can we ever truly know the results of genetic control, and shouldn't we have a firm grasp on it before such a plan is initiated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Are you going to stop me from having kids?

 

Over my dead body.

Why is it so important? You can still raise kids. They wouldn't be your kids biologically, but why should survival of your genetic material be so important to you? And with some advances in genetics, they could even have partially your DNA. For example, if we know which chromosome is responsible for condition we don't want passed on from you to your kids, we can isolate that chromosome and replace it with that of a donor. This can actually be done already. We just need a little more research to know which conditions are caused by genes on which chromosomes.

 

Sure, we are going to lose some potential geniuses by eliminating certain genotypes, but we would get a potential to gain a lot more by having a stable and improving genetic pool. It would be a winning situation in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

It could be a winning solution in the long run. It could also, theoretically, create some hideous freaks of nature. We don't know enough. I mean, obviously, we can't just remove the "alzheimer's" gene. Also, stopping those with alzheimer's from having kids is obviously a little too late, and if we stop people with alzhiemer's in their family from reproducing, we'll fast run out of options.

 

And, as I said, what do we strive to eliminate? We're at the stage that we can screen for major genetic problems in the first trimester. So what do we want to eliminate next? Near sightedness? Baldness? For one, I haven't seen evidence that such things are on the rise, and secondly, aren't they entirely arbitrary?

 

I happen to like myself. I think my kids would be great people. I don't want to raise some other asshole's kids simply because there's a chance my son would have to buy a pair of glasses when he turns 40.

 

Anyhow, we're not in the position where such drastic actions need to be taken, and I think we've got bigger problems to deal with than genetic purity, especially in a society where nearly half of our children are morbidly obese. A lot of help good eyesight is... with advanced diabetes. tounge.gif

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Evolution works. It doesn't matter what genes you are really eliminating. If you keep selecting for certain traits, they will improve. You don't need to screen for genetic problems. All you need to do is screen for health condition and mental development.

 

We also know that lack of selection is equivalent to inbreeding. It is just a little slower in a big genetic pool. As you said, we really don't know what each part of DNA is needed for, and we won't know any time soon. In the mean time, our DNA is deteriorating. We can't fix that with genetic screening. Do you want the entire civilization to end up in the gutter? Do you really want to send everyone there just because you want a privilege of fathering children from your own DNA?

 

And as I said, all we really need is eliminate the bottom percent or even less, and we're good. This will permit people with a small number of minor health issues to continue reproducing. It's just people with major problems or a really large number of small problems will be prevented from reproducing. More importantly, we are eliminating the dumbest people from the gene pool, resulting in slow growth of overall human intelligence, which might lead to better solutions in the future.

 

Anyhow, we're not in the position where such drastic actions need to be taken

It will be too late when we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3niX

Well...

Natural selection still works....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

 

Well...

Natural selection still works....

Exactly. And it has adapted to our society today.

K^2, you said it yourself - evolution works. wink.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

Evolution doesn't always work the way you think it should.

 

Like with some species of birds, the female chooses of the available mates, the one with the longest tail.

 

If birds were put in a situation where all were able to reproduce, the females would not reproduce with the ones with tiny tails, only with those with longer and longer and longer tails.

 

Ultimately these tails would be perhaps too long for the bird to be able to fly, making him unfit for life outside the artificial situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill
Well...

Natural selection still works....

Exactly. And it has adapted to our society today.

K^2, you said it yourself - evolution works. wink.gif

You're right, evolution does work. But that doesn't means it is automatically going to work to our advantage. People won't just gradually get smarter or stronger. The traits humans or any other organisms acquire over time are based on the traits that are successfully passed on for many generations. The traits that are passed on are usually positive traits that would help survival because the organisms that are best at surviving are most likely to reproduce.

 

The problem with humans is that natural selection has changed. Because people who are stupid, weak, unhealthy, or slow aren't eliminated by predation or other factors, the can live and reproduce just as much as smart, strong and healthy people, so negative traits are passed along just as pervasively as positive traits.

 

The question is, does a violation of human rights outweigh the decline of the human race that will happen eventually if we can't control the spread of negative genetic traits?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Natural selection still works....

No it doesn't. Short of disabilities making it absolutely impossible for one to reproduce, we have no selection at all. It doesn't matter if you are fat, weak, dumb, or whatever. You will almost certainly find a mate and reproduce eventually. Even people that have problems with reproductive system often reproduce using things like artificial insemination, surrogates, etc. There is virtually no selection, and with advances in medicine, it is bound to only get worse. Without selection, there is degeneration of genetic pool. It is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Natural selection still works....

No it doesn't. Short of disabilities making it absolutely impossible for one to reproduce, we have no selection at all. It doesn't matter if you are fat, weak, dumb, or whatever. You will almost certainly find a mate and reproduce eventually. Even people that have problems with reproductive system often reproduce using things like artificial insemination, surrogates, etc. There is virtually no selection, and with advances in medicine, it is bound to only get worse. Without selection, there is degeneration of genetic pool. It is that simple.

And without the bottom wrung, our entire society falls apart. Natural selection has adapted to our situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJkWhoSaysNi

 

Personally, I think that certain regulations need to be established limiting who should be allowed to reproduce.

suicidal.gif

 

and lets tell people what they can wear and what they can eat and what job they have to do.

 

 

Honestly, this idea is horrible. Taking away peoples civil liberties in an attempt to improve society might improve the population genetically but culturally it would set the world back.

 

Should we breed people so there are only people with blond hair and blue eyes left? [/godwin]

 

While we're at it, for immediate results lets use transgenics to take positive traits such as strength and speed from animals, that'll diversify the population and bring more positive traits to the gene pool. or even better, lets take the top 5% of the population, clone them, stop everyone else from reproducing and use the clones as a base for an improved population. sarcasm.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
Evolution doesn't always work the way you think it should.

 

Like with some species of birds, the female chooses of the available mates, the one with the longest tail.

 

If birds were put in a situation where all were able to reproduce, the females would not reproduce with the ones with tiny tails, only with those with longer and longer and longer tails.

 

Ultimately these tails would be perhaps too long for the bird to be able to fly, making him unfit for life outside the artificial situation.

So your argument is basically that creatures bred in controlled captivity wont survive in the wild? Eureka! tounge.gif

 

Essentially, in your tightly controlled "artificial situation," you'd end up creating flightless birds, or at least flightless male birds.

 

Congratulations, you've bred chickens. tounge2.gif

 

 

The problem with humans is that natural selection has changed. Because people who are stupid, weak, unhealthy, or slow aren't eliminated by predation or other factors, the can live and reproduce just as much as smart, strong and healthy people, so negative traits are passed along just as pervasively as positive traits.

 

The question is, does a violation of human rights outweigh the decline of the human race that will happen eventually if we can't control the spread of negative genetic traits?

 

This nightmare scenario is also as outlandish as The Day after Tomorrow, though. Human rights aren't a bartering chip to begin with, because without our rights, we may as well be dead.

 

The fact is, if it were important to be intelligent to survive, we'd be a hell of a lot smarter. It comes down to - who chooses what our positive traits are? These values vary depending on who you ask.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

 

The problem with humans is that natural selection has changed. Because people who are stupid, weak, unhealthy, or slow aren't eliminated by predation or other factors, the can live and reproduce just as much as smart, strong and healthy people, so negative traits are passed along just as pervasively as positive traits.

 

The question is, does a violation of human rights outweigh the decline of the human race that will happen eventually if we can't control the spread of negative genetic traits?

 

This nightmare scenario is also as outlandish as The Day after Tomorrow, though. Human rights aren't a bartering chip to begin with, because without our rights, we may as well be dead.

 

The fact is, if it were important to be intelligent to survive, we'd be a hell of a lot smarter. It comes down to - who chooses what our positive traits are? These values vary depending on who you ask.

 

It may be hard for you to accept, but in some cases rights need to be sacrificed for the overall benefit of society. An example of this would be killing one person (of course, violating their right to live) in order to save the lives of multiple other people. Ever heard of utilitarianism? Its a philosophy that says people's rights can be forfeited for the greater good.

 

Advocates of eugenics say that buy restricting the rights of some people to reproduce, it would benefit mankind as a whole in the future. While the positive effects of doing this might not matter for until the distant future, isn't it always best to plan ahead? I guess it's a matter of priorities. What's more important to you, people's rights today, or the wellbeing of humans in general in the future. But if something isn't done to improve the genetic pool, eventually the average person will be a weak, nearsighted, diabetic, hemopheliac with an IQ of 70.

 

Of course, we'll all be long dead by then, so who cares, right? confused.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Again, that's a false nightmare scenario. Sky is falling type stuff.

 

As for the future - we're going to die out eventually. Perhaps even before the "positivie effects" come to fruition. If one cares not for the propagation of his own children, then why should one care for the future of humanity?

 

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mortukai

The whole reason this problem exists, and the wholer eason this problem is so "unethical" and the whole reason this problem will continue to exponentially get worse, is just one reason.

 

People are biologically programmed to reproduce. The whole purpose of our existence and all our behaviour is so that our genes can duplicate and live on.

 

OUR genes.

 

Nobody cares about other people's genes. They care about THEIR genes. We could not have evolved otherwise.

 

So yeah, it's basically one big sh*t creek. We can't take away other people's entire purpose of living for the sake of creating a better world for OUR children (anyone who suggests eugenics inevitably thinks they will be one of the elite who is spared). That would be intolerably cruel. And if we don't allow natural selection to start kicking in again, then our species will inevitably become too genetically weak to survive. Cancer and diseases will wipe us out. Just so you know, cancer is caused by accumulation of genetic errors, and avoiding genetic errors is precisely why we reproduce sexually, and why inbreeding is so abhorent to us.

 

And K^2, in order to save humanity, we would need to sterilise at least the bottom 15% of the population. We don't have to worry about retards and sh*t, they aren't doing much reproducing, certainly not enough to pose any threat to anyone who isn't a retard. The people who need to be culled are the people with bad genes. Fat, ugly, stupid (not low IQ, stupid is different to low IQ), disease prone, physical mutations (like siamese twins, stumpy fingers and toes, etc), people with MS, women with birth complications, people who stroke, have heart attacks, need breast implants, anyone who needed cosmetic surgery to lead a normal life, anyone who needs their stomach pumped, basically anyone who would have died if we didn't have medicine. Every single time medicine saves someone's life, or fixes them up so they can be normal, we are acting AGAINST evolution, and allowing the weak and stupid and unfit to survive and breed.

 

The whole reason we got to be so great in the first place was because all the fat and stupid and weak and ugly people were killed off by natural selection or never had kids because no-one in the other gender would f*ck them. So we became smart, strong, creative, fit, beautiful, and proud. Then we started to change our environment to suit us, and so we started getting weaker. Every time we make life easier for us, we make ourselves as a species weaker. Someone earlier mentioned chickens, and how there's no way they can survive in the wild. Well guess what? We can't either. Take away our technology and our man-made environments, and we are, as a species, weaker now than we have ever been, and will continue to get worse.

 

All because we have made it so that more and more of the less fit can survive and breed.

 

And the less fit do a whole lot more breeding than the cream of the crop. They have to. Because they are less fit, they know genetically that if they don't breed more, their children have less chance of surviving. While really fit people don't need to breed as much, because each child has a much better individual chance of surviving, so they can afford to have only a couple, and provide for them really well, as opposed to the strategy of the weak, which is to have as many as possible and provide for them all poorly. Thanks to medicine, pretty much all of the weak survive.

 

If we look at just one generation of 1 billion humans, and say that hypothetically, 80% of the population are "fit", and 20% fall below the threshold for genetic fitness. If every fit couple had 2 babies, and every weak couple had 4, then in the next generation, There will still be 800,000,000 fit people (from the fit previous generation who basically just replaced their numbers), but we'll have twice as many unfit people, up to 400,000,000. If the trend continues, then in the next generation, the unfit people will be up to 800,000,000. that means that with this trend, it takes two generations for the unfit people to equal the fit people in numbers. In two more generations, the balance will have flipped entirely, and 80% of the population will be unfit, and only 20% will be fit.

 

If fit people only replace themselves, and the bottom 20% of the population doubles in numbers, then in 4 generations the fit will be outnumbered by the unfit 4 to 1.

 

Luckily, this isn't the case yet. The average difference between fit and unfit people's breeding is much closer, but the unfit do definitely breed more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

Honestly, this idea is horrible. Taking away peoples civil liberties in an attempt to improve society might improve the population genetically but culturally it would set the world back.

And having 90% of population being complete retards would not? Cost and benefit. The cost of allowing this civil liberty far outweighs its benefits. You aren't going to argue that people should have a civil liberty to kill other people. Telling you who you can and you can't kill is violation of your liberties, but you agree to it, because other liberties don't mean sh*t if you can get killed at any moment. Well, liberties won't mean sh*t if we all go back to flinging excrements at each other, either.

 

And K^2, in order to save humanity, we would need to sterilise at least the bottom 15% of the population.

Why so grim? I know that this is still more generous than the way the nature would do it, but we have more direct methods of problem detection. We can check if someone's an idiot without having to wait for them to have a fatal accident. We can check if someone has a heart condition without waiting for a heart attack. Etc. Nature has to go for overkill, because a lot of individuals slip by on dumb luck long enough to reproduce. If we can eliminate that, surely, we can allow a much bigger fraction of the population to pass the tests.

 

The average difference between fit and unfit people's breeding is much closer, but the unfit do definitely breed more.

I thought the correlation was between education/income and reproduction. I'm sure that ones fitness will have some impact on income, eventually resulting in the connection, but it could be pretty weak. Can you think of a good way to check this?

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I think we've altered the definition of fitness, as it applies to us. While we have become chickens, we're pretty comfortable chickens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Otter, it doesn't matter how we define fitness, as long as we define it. We need genes that code for proteins - fact. There are errors in DNA that prevent production of proteins - fact. Genes do get damaged all the time - fact. If there is no mechanism to prevent replication of damaged genes, they will eventually break down completely - sound conclusion from the above facts. Currently, there is no selection mechanism, so we have the above situation - observation supported by facts. If left as it is, we will end up with no working genes to make us humans, chickens, or any live form at all - thesis.

 

If you would be comfortable as a chicken, you may define fitness in such a way that it allows you to be one. I, however, enjoy living as a part of a civilization. I don't care if humans will end up having feathers and lay eggs, but it is important to me that the civilization does not collapse. This is why I add intellect into the pile of things to be checked to decide fitness. The said civilization would also be more stable if each individual can survive well enough without the special medication, controlled environments, etc. This means that we want people to be able to locomote efficiently on their own, have a working immune system, and have no vital dependency on medication. Mortukai proposes limitations that would be even more strict. I am not sure if they are necessary, but it would certainly be safer for the civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill
Again, that's a false nightmare scenario. Sky is falling type stuff.

 

As for the future - we're going to die out eventually. Perhaps even before the "positivie effects" come to fruition. If one cares not for the propagation of his own children, then why should one care for the future of humanity?

We are all going to die out eventually? If you think that's a good reason not to care about the future of your species, then what's the point of reproducing at all, since , in the end, it'll be in vain because everyone will die out. Hell, why should we care about the environment or the ozone layer and all that crap. What does it matter that that the generations that follow us will suffer if we f*ck everythig up, if eventually it's all going to end anyway?

 

The effects of the lack of natural selection for humans may come sooner than you think. Genetic diseases are going to become a lot more common and become a much greater greater hindrance to people in the somewhat forseeable future. Maybe over the course of a few thousand years, maybe even a few hundred. Thjings aren't looking too bright, considering the fact that the disesases and viruses that antagonize us are evolving faster than we are. It may only be a matter of decades before many viruses are immune to our medicines and antibiotics because people today use them too frivolously.

 

Btw, how is this a false nightmare scenario. Its pretty much a certainty that it's going to happen (unless your a fundamentalist and you don't believe in this stuff), the only thing that's questionable is the timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

K^2, Civilization is a controlled environment.

 

Cypress,

 

"Genetic diseases are going to become a lot more common"

 

Prove it, mate. As for not caring about the future of our species, that's my point. If my bloodline dies with me, why the f*ck should I care about the future of the race?

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

 

Cypress,

 

"Genetic diseases are going to become a lot more common"

 

Prove it, mate. As for not caring about the future of our species, that's my point. If my bloodline dies with me, why the f*ck should I care about the future of the race?

 

Its simple. If there is nothing to eliminate people with "bad" genes from the gene pool, then whats to stop these people from spreading their genes and the diseases they carry through reproduction? Why do you think cancer is more common than ever (with the exception of cancers caused largely by other non-genetic factors, like smoking and lung cancer).

 

Also, like you said before, humans are all going to go extinct anyway, so whats the point in trying to continue your bloodline if its just going to die out eventually? If you look at it with this perspective, there's no point in reproducing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

"cancer is more common than ever"

 

Is it?

 

Additionally, I mean, it's not like cancer leads to an evolutionary dead end in the wild anyhow. Most cancers attack post 30. That's well past the male sexual prime, my friend. And honestly, do you think short sightedness will cut a man's life short?

 

As for the future of the human race... any hope I have for other people's future children pales in comparison to the vested interest I have in the rights and quality of life of people - actual people, not statistics or probabilities - today.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All-Blacks

You can't just stop some diseases by preventing people with it reproducing, its much more complicated than that. I'm type 1 Diabetic but no one else as I know of in my family has got/had it, but somehow i've inherited the disease from someone. We all have a disease (or problem as such) in our gene pool which can be passed on to either your sex partner (eg- AIDS) or children (eg- Diabetes). Just say you have 5 kids, in most cases at least one of 'em is going to have something wrong with his or her body, even if it is as small as infertility. Theres just no way in god can we literally just kill a disease off. The world doesn't work like that.

 

We shouldn't be worried anyways, how is 90% of the world just going to be retarded through genetics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You can't prevent a lot of things, no. But lets say that some people have a few proteins present that make them less likely to get a disease. We stop everyone with disease from reproducing, and next generation, people with the genes that produce these proteins are a little higher percentage. It would do almost nothing in one generation, but it is an exponentially growing thing. After some number of generations, virtually everyone will have the protective genes.

 

We shouldn't be worried anyways, how is 90% of the world just going to be retarded through genetics?

Because genes break, and there is no way of fixing them. The only thing that can be done is preventing people with broken genes from reproducing. Occurrences of many-generation inbreeding, which are perfect conditions for fastest gene breakdown, allow us to see what will go first. When you increase the size of the genetic pool, the process is slower, but it is always present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.