Are we 'breaking' evolution?

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: stormbv
Define "sick people"...

I'm a type 1 diabetic, so absent medical treatment I would have died within a few weeks of being diagnosed back in 1992. The OP's contention is that I'm weakening the human race by passing the predisposition for type 1 diabetes on to the next generation. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: jumpr
This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

I won't get into a big debate about this topic. But I did want to add fuel to the fire. Spreading heritable diseases MAY be good for the human species. Yes, I just said what you think I said. Often evolutionary diseases are beneficial to the overall health of the species.

Initially that idea seems counter-intuitive. Why would evolution and natural selection favor bringing in heritable diseases? Because those same genes that create the disease also have other effects. These other effects are often more benficial than the disease itself - the disease is just a mild side effect.

I'll give you one example: sickle cell anemia is beneficial to the human race. Yes, I said it, sickle cell is beneficial. There is a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia. If you have just one gene - you don't have any sickle cell problems. But, there is a reason that natural selection gave us this gene: malaria. Those with one recessive sickle cell gene almost always survive malaria. Epidemics of malaria are minor in populations with lots of sickle cell genes. If we as humans eliminate the sickle cell gene, say hello to massive malaria outbreaks. On the other hand, if we let people with sickle cell genes survive, say goodbye to malaria. This heritable disease can be beneficial to pass on to our kids.

Of course, if we could first wipe out malaria, then we could end sickle cell disease without problems, but that is a long time away.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: stormbv
Define "sick people"...

I'm a type 1 diabetic, so absent medical treatment I would have died within a few weeks of being diagnosed back in 1992. The OP's contention is that I'm weakening the human race by passing the predisposition for type 1 diabetes on to the next generation. Sorry 'bout that.

No worries. We can remedy that quick. Where do you live?
j/k j/k

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: jumpr
This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

I won't get into a big debate about this topic. But I did want to add fuel to the fire. Spreading heritable diseases MAY be good for the human species. Yes, I just said what you think I said. Often evolutionary diseases are beneficial to the overall health of the species.

Initially that idea seems counter-intuitive. Why would evolution and natural selection favor bringing in heritable diseases? Because those same genes that create the disease also have other effects. These other effects are often more benficial than the disease itself - the disease is just a mild side effect.

I'll give you one example: sickle cell anemia is beneficial to the human race. Yes, I said it, sickle cell is beneficial. There is a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia. If you have just one gene - you don't have any sickle cell problems. But, there is a reason that natural selection gave us this gene: malaria. Those with one recessive sickle cell gene almost always survive malaria. Epidemics of malaria are minor in populations with lots of sickle cell genes. If we as humans eliminate the sickle cell gene, say hello to massive malaria outbreaks. On the other hand, if we let people with sickle cell genes survive, say goodbye to malaria. This heritable disease can be beneficial to pass on to our kids.

Of course, if we could first wipe out malaria, then we could end sickle cell disease without problems, but that is a long time away.

Give it a rest. The sickle cell-malarie connection is such an old idea. For the most part disease and susceptibility to it is a terrible thing for any species.

 

[CTweak]

This is one of my favorite areas to think about in evolution theory. We are definitly altering the selection criteria - but recall our cultural abilities have only been operating for a short period of time in the phylogenic history of our species. Also keep in mind evolution doesn't "work to strengthen a species" - selection works on the individual level per current conditions only. What is fit today may not be fit in one hundred years (for example). Selection adjusts each generation's allele frequency, but only by what is fit at the time. It has no 'goal' or direction.

 

[Remy XO]

People that get beat up for sleeping with someones wife can now go to the cops and seek shelter and put the real man behind bars.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Evolution is neither a strategic nor a directed process. It does not serve to improve things. Evolution occurs as a result of the perpetuation of certain genes through succesful reproductive strategies. Whatever works in the here and now is what will get passed on.

Sponging off the government, living in the projects and having 12 kids is a highly succesful reproductive strategy.

In the case of sick people staying alive, being sick is no longer applying selection pressure to the population - it is therefore (for the time being) irrelevant.

12 kids living in the projects can't really be that successful because a lot of the kids will be malnourished or die a victim of violence. An example of successful strategy would be something like George Foreman. Huge number of kids and lots of money. Cats have multiple children when giving birth, but that does not make them more successful in terms of the evolutionary outlook because the survival rate is somewhat low.

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: Vortex22

We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

I was actually thinking about this the other day. And I agree with you for the most part... although there isn't really anything that can be done about it.

In some ways, but if Avian flu becomes big, then know
although if AIDS became airborne, after about 6mos no one would have aids, because everyone who didnt have natural immunity would be dead. So about 5-10% of hte population would be left, ewe fvckin nasty...

 

[Smackem]

This is litterally crazy talk. No enviormental stressors? It takes a different person to live today, because our enviorment is different. Its just producing people who are good at making money instead of fighting each other.


All this stuff sounds alot like euthinization.

Theres not just a whole lot of poor people reproducing on a massive scale, thereby giving them selves a better chance of their genes being passed on. It just doesn't work like that.




some of these posts just scare me. I worry about the mental health of atot sometimes.

 

[Remy XO]

i say we all fight in the UFC to make money.

 

[stormbv]

I'm a schizophrenic. I better get myself fixed to do my part in strengthening the genetics of the human race. :roll:

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: Smackem
some of these posts just scare me. I worry about the mental health of atot sometimes.

You're just jealous of their superior, unflawed genes!

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Smackem
some of these posts just scare me. I worry about the mental health of atot sometimes.

There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious. Everyone knows it would be bad and wrong to not give medical attention, but taking a objective POV, it is a totally logical answer.

 

[BudAshes]

evolution is evolving

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

We are not 'breaking' evolution, just steering it the wrong way. What you say is true. If mankind will sustain the same lifestyle as of now for a few thousand years we will change.

It has actually already happened. Look at the height of people. The average height has grown considerably in the last few hundred years due to better food.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?

1. 
   
   The bigger problem isn't so much "sickness" but people who have inferior intellect and behavior problems.
   
   Poverty breeds poverty partly because of poor genes. Part of it is enviroment, but I do believe naturally dumb people are more likely to have naturally dumb kids, which stems from genes.

1. 
   
   a greater danger comes from sociopaths such as yourself and Adolf Hitler, people devoid of human compassion who seek to genetically engineer the human race to suit their own warped and psychotic standards.

 

[Fraggable]

No, because evolution never happened anyway. We're just changing how long people live due to advances in medicine.

 

[jumpr]

Originally posted by: Fraggable
No, because evolution never happened anyway. We're just changing how long people live due to advances in medicine.

Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

If evolution never happened, why are humans born with appendixes?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Mwilding
Evolution is neither a strategic nor a directed process. It does not serve to improve things. Evolution occurs as a result of the perpetuation of certain genes through succesful reproductive strategies. Whatever works in the here and now is what will get passed on.

Sponging off the government, living in the projects and having 12 kids is a highly succesful reproductive strategy.

In the case of sick people staying alive, being sick is no longer applying selection pressure to the population - it is therefore (for the time being) irrelevant.

12 kids living in the projects can't really be that successful because a lot of the kids will be malnourished or die a victim of violence. An example of successful strategy would be something like George Foreman. Huge number of kids and lots of money. Cats have multiple children when giving birth, but that does not make them more successful in terms of the evolutionary outlook because the survival rate is somewhat low.

The evolutionary definition of success is perpetuation of genes. That is it in a nutshell.

If you get an ivy-league education, get a cake job that pays $1,000,000 a year, and bang a new chick every weekend but always wear a condom, you are doomed to failure. You might have a helluva time, but unless you pass your genes on to a successive generation, you screwed the pooch.

Wealth certainly provides its advantages, but it is reproduction that is the yardstick of success.

Keep in mind, selection pressures can change rapidly and con often be arbitrary and capricious. A new disease could come along tomorrow and wipe out half the world. Some nutjob could blow up a nuclear bomb in your hometown. It doesn't matter if you had 75 kids who each have a trustfund, if you all die, you failed. It's not fair. It just is.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
a greater danger comes from sociopaths such as yourself and Adolf Hitler, people devoid of human compassion who seek to genetically engineer the human race to suit their own warped and psychotic standards.

Genetic engineering will be the only solution to keeping the human race alive for thousands of years into the future.

We humans, as we are now, will kill each other off. The vast majority of human beings are born violent low browl thugs with little intellect.

Imagine an entire society of peaceful intellectuals.

I don't think it's "zombifiying" a civilization, I think that it's just changing the way we are built. It's no different than how nature does it, accept nature is somewhat random. We are just "guiding" nature. We are already engineered in a random configuration by nature. Some of us are peaceful, some are violent. No one is engineered in a "neutral" configuration. We are all living our lives and making every decision, every thought, in accordance to a random configuration by nature of our personality.

Why not guide nature in the right direction to only create "good" people?

But it is almost certain that the human race will probably die off within the next 500 years without genetic engineering. Our technologies in regards to war are too capable. Even today we could nuke every inch of the Earth, and to top it off, most humans are violent, ignorant, low browl troglodytes, this is a recipe for disaster.

We need to structure our DNA in a way that rids it of the "violence" gene. We need to shed our primitive ancestoral histories of "hunting for food," and structure ourselves in a way that makes us peaceful and wise. Humans have always fought and been violent and without genetic engineering we will always be that way. 99% of the people on this Earth are savages with no intellect, self discipline, or patience. That is why the world is such a terrible place.

And don't compare me to Hitler, I have nothing in common with someone as insane as he was.

 

[IGBT]

..yup. Lots of Yorkies walking around.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: aidanjm
a greater danger comes from sociopaths such as yourself and Adolf Hitler, people devoid of human compassion who seek to genetically engineer the human race to suit their own warped and psychotic standards.

Genetic engineering will be the only solution to keeping the human race alive for thousands of years into the future.

We humans, as we are now, will kill each other off. The vast majority of human beings are born violent low browl thugs with little intellect.

Imagine an entire society of peaceful intellectuals.

I don't think it's "zombifiying" a civilization, I think that it's just changing the way we are built. It's no different than how nature does it, accept nature is somewhat random. We are just "guiding" nature. We are already engineered in a random configuration by nature. Some of us are peaceful, some are violent. No one is engineered in a "neutral" configuration. We are all living our lives and making every decision, every thought, in accordance to a random configuration by nature of our personality.

Why not guide nature in the right direction to only create "good" people?

But it is almost certain that the human race will probably die off within the next 500 years without genetic engineering. Our technologies in regards to war are too capable. Even today we could nuke every inch of the Earth, and to top it off, most humans are violent, ignorant, low browl troglodytes, this is a recipe for disaster.

We need to structure our DNA in a way that rids it of the "violence" gene. We need to shed our primitive ancestoral histories of "hunting for food," and structure ourselves in a way that makes us peaceful and wise. Humans have always fought and been violent and without genetic engineering we will always be that way. 99% of the people on this Earth are savages with no intellect, self discipline, or patience. That is why the world is such a terrible place.

Look, I'm all for wiping out the phenotype of "thug", as far as it relates to my own personal existence and relation to the rest of the world. However, one thing you neglect to consider the survival characteristics of the broader range of human behaviors when transplanted beyond the immediate environment of this planet. There's a lot of practical consideration, vis a vis terraforming and simple survival under harsh conditions, but to deal with the more abstract: How will a civilized non-violent human species cope when it encounters another space-faring species that has chosen *not* to cull themselves of all that is violent, aggressive, or that which makes them *survivors*.

I'm not saying we need our violent characteristics to deal with giant malevolent insects from planet Throg. It may be that we need the lack thereof to deal with the peaceable insects from Gorg, because they wipe out any lesser species that offend them.

The point is, while it makes for wonderful speculative fiction, you cannot know one way or another which is a "better" choice, and to presuppose so is arrogance that very much parallels the person you claim to not be parroting. Whether you think he had a good idea or not, in case you hadn't noticed, his genes didn't survive.

 

[Bartolo]

I would agree to a degree, but we also create these drugs to combat the diseases and the drug ends up creating a new strong variation.

 

[Powermoloch]

Yes without a doubt. Unless...we did gene therapy. that's a different story.

 

[toekramp]

eugenics FTW