Mafoo

i feel like human nature is largely governed by a desire to control things within ones sphere of existence. people spend their whole lives trying X to acheive X ideal. not ecstasy lol . i realize that i wouldnt even have a computer to discuss this on if people didnt eventually evolve the ability to manipulate physics.. but why do you think we somehow have this dominion over natural phenomena? what is it in our biology that tells us to make money, have children, pursue our desires etc.. why do we do it?

is it our hormones? does it all boil down to finding a suitable mate to pass our genetics down the line? i kinda feel that, from an evoltutionary POV, alot of modern day society is just an allegory to life in the "wild".

we compete for jobs. the most fit get good jobs, plenty of money.. this allows them access to a larger pool of mates to choose from, and the ability to reproduce in a way that seems like an improvement from the previous generation.. but how do we really judge the quality of our decisions? in a "wild" environment our deicsions would be judged by the highest of consequences.. death. if we fucked up we would likely be killed.. so how do we know that we are really improving (evolving) as a population?

its not as easy to judge when people are taken care of even despite traits that in a harsh environment would likely be the end of the individual(ever seen a wild animal with crooked teeth? probably not.. ever seen a human with crooked teeth?). i know my outlook sounds kinda cold, but to me it seems as though we went from apes to humans in no time at all.. does that mean that society is doing it right? humans seem to take their ability to have children for granted.. from a biological standpoint only the fittest of individuals "deserve" to reproduce.

so do you think we are doing it right? or are we just propping up a population full of poorly adapted individuals?

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

The Rev

The more control you have, the better equipped you are to prevent bad things from happening and cause good things to happen. So, it's reasonable to want to have control over things in your life. Where it gets weird is when the desire gets warped out of proportion, as is the case in psychopaths and with people suffering from some kinds of mental illness or cognitive problems.



The Rev

__________________

mothernature

All evolution is, is that the ones best suited to the current environment, will have a higher chance of survival.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a great example. In places where malaria is present, those who are carriers have a larger chance of surviving. In places where malaria is not prevalent, it is a bad thing.

When you say "from a biological standpoint only the fittest of individuals "deserve" to reproduce", we would then have to ask what is considered "fittest"? Take Stephen Hawking and Mike Tyson. Throw them out into the wild and who is gonna be left alive?

Then we would have to think about our current society. Are some of the desirable traits in our society now, really healthy for the human race as a whole?

And, you're right, its not easy to judge.

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke

Mafoo

hey! dude im supposed to be the one asking the questions

i think what got me onto this subject is that i feel like there could be a time in the future where we must live a bit closer to our environment rather than shaping it in a way that works for us as a species. i look at the global economic problems and the rioting in various places and i makes me realize that maybe humans dont have as much control as we think we do.. so what would become of us if we ever had to live off the land?

like mother nature said, currently we are adapting to our environment in the now.. but what happens if everything changes? our evolution happened over a long time period, thousands of years.. our environment could change in a single year. the criterea for fitness would also change and we would lose fitness.. so is it safe for our species to select traits based on things that dont really lend themselves to survival? i mean look at how many people need glasses or dental work.. in the wild these people would have a really hard time. the bad eyesight and teeth is a manifestation of there being little competition within the species

its kind of out there to think this way i guess

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

John F. Kerry

well, there was a time before the modern social wellfare state, when we competed like you are saying mafoo.

but imo, for the past 70 years or so, give or take, its been different. because even the people who previously wouldnt have made it, they get a lot of stuff subsidized, so like, healthcare, food shelter goods, educations, etc. so the competition that u first talked about it actually hasnt been going on for a while now- because the people who would have lost actually get help anyway.

but since evolution is always happening, we now have an evolution within that wellfare system. so like, i dont even know what happens, maybe the people who are better able to get wellfare benefits or more able to qualify for some things, maybe they benefit , but also, like in an underclass type of way...so there are the people evolving in the higher class like normal, and then there are like the cream of the people in the wellfare class that might also benefit, but maybe to a lesser extent? i dunno, just kinda threw that out there.

i think the ideas of evolution and adaptation have pretty little relation to modern life, because medicine counteracts it, social programs counteract it, its like everything we have set up tries to alter the old way of competition. hmmm.... more thinking required

__________________
Nasa under Obama

Mafoo

i think its worthwhile to point out that since we are social we no longer really experience forces of natural selection. natural selection basically is when the environment is unfavorable and as a result an individual must spend most of its resources (read energy) just trying to survive.. thus there is less time for mating and less chance of viable offspring being produced.

we now experience sexual selection which basically means that we are selected by our attractive features. for women this might mean large breasts or bottom, and with men, a strong face or large muscles. obviously there are numerous other physical features to talk about, but beyond the physical there is also an element of fitness that relates to status in society, like jfk was talking about.

the rich may choose basically whoever to mate with, and the poor have to take what they can get.. GENERALLY.

so is this hurting or helping our species? sexual selection doesnt necesarily make for a healthy individual.. some desirable features may actually be a detriment to an individual. like that super skinny woman who can barely give birth without her body being ravaged by the process.

i feel like we may be harming ourselves, because our physical appearance and status and in society dont really tell our potential mates, "oh hey im healthy on the outside, but im actually a carrier for 10 genetic diseases that will only manifest in my offspring if you also are a carrier."

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

mothernature

I want to point out that natural selection applies to the current environment. If, for example, we had an ice age, the fat people would survive before the thin, thus making fat a more desirable trait for survival.

I also don't see where being rich or poor has anything to do with it. The rich don't have less genetic disorders, do they? And they are a minute potion of the gene pool anyway.

Then we have to ask ourselves, are you prepared to decide what trait is desirable or undesirable? Or have someone decide that for you?

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke

Roach

control is an illusion.

yet they "control" everything.

In order for the less fortunate to survive today, they must either break free of the control...or destroy the illusion. One way or another.

__________________

לזיין את הקופים

Mescalito

Very interesting topic. I have so much to say about this.. but I'm not sure where to start.

I think it is natural for a species to want to dominate its environment, but because of nature in and of itself.. there exists some sort of balance mechanism to keep a population of species in check. If too many plants grow in one area and don't have the opportunity to spread out further, there will be a finite number of individuals that can exist on the finite nutrients.. sunlight.. water etc. available in that area. Humans being natural and part of nature are also 'kept in check' like this. The higher the population density in an area, the more prevalence of starvation, lack of clean water, competition, disease etc. there is. And.. I've lost where I was going with this.. take care now bye bye then.

M

Mafoo

rich people have more time and afluence allowing them access to more people and thus more choices for mates with favorable traits. poor people have to work 20 hours a day to make ends meet, so they have less time to select a favorable mate.

our species is not undergoing natural selection. its sexual selection.. there is a difference. we are no longer hunting other animals and avoiding predation ourselves. we control alot of our environment. nowadays we are judged by potential mates based on our secondary sex characteristics, like broad shoulders in men.

i think im losing the thread

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

mothernature

See, control is an illusion. Even this thread has evolved!

Well, it's like you said, a person may look healthy on the outside and carry 10 genetic diseases. Looks are no longer an indication of physical fitness and health.

I don't think our species has gone through the type of natural selection, that I think you're talking about, for thousands of years. I tend to think that's a good thing.

I do see your point though about the broad shoulders, but I also am thinking that a lot of the secondary sex characteristics are nothing more than things the society has deemed sexual and may not be considered that in another society.

Thanks for this thread. It's made me think about things I enjoy thinking about.

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke

Mafoo

secondary sex characteristics are the things that make a female discernable from a male. besides genitals.

__________________
PLUR
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return

Mescalito

Sexual selection? Sex is natural and natural selection needs sex to be just that.

M

mothernature

Yeah, I had to look it up.

The way i understood it, sexual selection is where mates are chosen for basically good looks as opposed to survivability. They used the peacock as an example. Female peacocks tend to pick the males with the largest and most vibrant tail feathers. Despite the fact that overly large and vibrant tails may actually be a determent in the wild. I'm now wondering if they researched this on wild populations or protected populations.

I think what Mafoo was trying to get at is this, are we doing the human species a dis-service by not allowing some lines to die off because the individuals have strong secondary sexual characteristics?

Take hemophilia for example. Hemophilia mutates at a mathematical rate in the human population. It is also hereditary. In the past, the men having this condition would just die off before reproducing. The mutations would still happen, but the number of the population with hemophilia was kept in check, by having the afflicted ones die before reproducing. Now, we can control this disease. The people that have it can reproduce and the population of people with hemophilia will increase over time.

Now mutiply this by heart disease, diabetes and all the other hereditary diseases controllable by modern medicine. What is the human race going to be like in a thousand years? Are we gonna end up a species that's has 100+ genetic disorders , but with big boobs and broad shoulders?

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke