Sleepyjack

Natural selction defined: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dicti...ural+selection

1. The differential survival and reproduc- tion of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources.

2. the process whereby members of a species who have more surviving offspring than others pass their traits on to the next generation, whereas the less favored do not do so to the same degree.

Is natural selection still applicable to todays soceity? Maybe on some subconscious level still, like most people have an attraction (maybe unconsciouis) to fit/healthy bodies, or their own ideal body type.

And then, if so, is our current materialistic and somewhat artifical world we live in, effecting the natural selection process. I mean, there's many artifical ways of adjusting appearance, such that they obtain these favourable body types?

It comes in many forms as well. Basically all the beauty products you see deodroant, make up, moisturiser, plastic surgery, lipsosuction and a whole host of artifical beautification treatments to get our bodies to an attractive, or naturally selectable state.

And with these, own genes aren't being changed, so no longer are weaker genes being filtered out of the gene pool. I guess it may ve a little inappropriate to be talking like this, as it's such a primitive thing, but anyone have any thoughts on it? And although our world is materialistic, people's choices for reproduction aren't really consciously fueled by making our race stronger, anymore. So there could be some invalidity here.

Although, i think their attraction to a partner in the first place, may of been related to, unconsciously, the fact that their children (sharing their genes) would be strong and healthy. Although to an extent, i think there's a lot of cases where the money pool is preserved above the gene pool

Your thoughts?

charlesesl

First off, materialism does not contradict natural selection, instead it fuels it. Think of it this way, in today's society, if a young physically attractive wonman where suppose to choice between two canadates to be her husband, on being a over weight slob getting by with a minimum wage job, another being a succesful good looking business man. Who is she gonna choose.

Naturally selection is nothing wrong,but it is terroubly crude which is totally against the modern code of ethics. The ones who practices naturally selection usually go over board. Example: Adolf Hitler.

In my openion, natually selection will keep on taking a ever smaller role due to the improvements in medical technology. Perhaps in the future biolotechnology will be the only way for our specie to becomes better.

__________________
It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us.
Dr. Viktor E. Frankl

Crack

I for one am glad natural selection is going the way of the dodo, it gives guys like me a chance to get ahead in life...
~Crack

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

KellyC

Would any care to venture with me in saying that the start of civilzation of man dwindles natural selection? this is just my opinion btw, i could be dead wrong, so be gentle if your'e going to fret about it.

k1ng

my opinion-
i think that medicine is making us weaker. i dont want to sound insensitive but people who get sick and die, well are suppose to. the strong will survive. by keeping the weak alive and reproducing with them we make the species weaker.

-a few strong are better than many weak.

__________________
"Delight in excellence is easily confused with snobbery by the ignorant." -Joseph Epstein

Mantus

I would have to say that natural selection is almost non-existent in our species.

Not only because we have the capability to make even the weakest specimens survive and have a chance at reproduction but also because our ideas of a perfect mate are influenced by society.

For example, the west’s version of an attractive woman is an anorexic, prepubescent woman with fake breasts. Such traits would mean that the woman is easily influence by social standard (gullible, un-intelligent). She would have faulty reproduction capabilities due to hormonal imbalance cause by her low weight. She would bear weak children because she does not have the energy to support a child within her. Her condition would increase the chance of complications during birth. Finally she would not be able to breast-feed the child.

Our medicine has the capability to bypass all these hindrances so that they do not seem to matter. Yet this obviously does not produce the strongest possible specimens in our species.

Soon enough humanity will take evolution into its own hands though the possibilities of bio-engineering and cybernetics. While such paths will lead to difficulties they are our only hope of becoming greater then what we are today.

Rodney

Natural selection is always at work on some level; if not on the individual level, then on the societal level. If a society or culture encourages its individual members to become weaker and less capable, and protects them from the immediate consequences of their action, then that society will eventually weaken, because it is of course composed of individuals. And it will eventually meet a challenge that it cannot surmount, and fail.

God, that sounds libertarian.

King, I believe medicine (properly practiced) helps keep us strong, though I'm not in favor of "heroic" medicine that keeps someone alive at the cost of making them basically useless and a prisoner of the medical establishment. Still, I'd never want to be the one to say, "you should live, but _you_ should die."

filtherton

I think if natural selection applies it is more on an intellectual level than a physical one.
I don't think that medicine has made us weaker as a species. I guess it depends on how you define weak. The average human life span in an industrialzed nation is longer than ever and keeps increasing. I doubt that overpopulation is a problem you'd associate with a "weak" species(not that it is necesarily sustainable).

As for "natural" v. "artificial", when it comes down to it, this computer that i am typing on is as no more artificial than a bird's nest or an obsidian knife.

John Henry

Natural selection is never bypassed, never superceded, never sidestepped. It's just natural selection. Do you think that the invention of the staircase decreased the value of the universal gravitational constant? Or that aeroplanes fly by making the Earth's gravitational pull weaker? No.

The theory of natural selection is very simple. It uses ockham's (or however the fuck you spell it) razor to reduce the following postulate:

"Shit happens because it is the will of Allah"

(As believed by medieval European Christians and as still widely believed in some of the more culturally primitive (if technologically and fiscally advanced.) western countries.) To the following postulate:

"Shit happens"

It does NOT mean

1) " We have conquered nature."
2) " We ought to gas all the cripples."
3) " It is morally right for me to do what furthers my cause at the expense of everyone else."
4) " Surely these days, we have scientifical proof that God does not exist"
5) " THE WEAK MUST PERISH!!"


It simply answers the question " Well, if the toolmaker God didn't sit down in his little workshop and design all these creatures like I would, then how come they are all able to survive in this crazy mixed up world? Why aren't there like, y'know, snakes what eat themselves an fings what like drowning?"


With the reply "Because if they can't survive, they don't survive and if they can survive, they do! Simple, huh?"

As for medicine, society, cybernetics, blah blah, blah, it's all part of natural selection.

If medicine reaches a point where we can keep surviving all sorts of illnesses, but keep our population at a maintainable level, that is natural selection.

If we keep all the weak alive and consequently become so weak as a species that we all die out, that is natural selection.

If the increasing number of physically weak phenotypes leads to stronger selection of mentally strong phenotypes, which then leads to a load of super-intelligent people designing reproducing, bionic bodies and moving to Alpha Centauri, that is natural selection.

If there is life on Earth when it eventually spirals into the Sun and everything dies, that is natural selection.


So to put it simply, if something lives, dies or breeds, guess what, it's natural selection.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

macro

Yep, bingo. Natural selection cannot be controlled. It may look like it is, but that's just what you perceive.

Sho Nuff

We are becoming much weaker as a species due to our obsession with preserving human life. The weak should die off for the good of the species. Because we are trying to subvert natural selection we are vastly overpopulated and eventually nature will have to be rebalanced. The world consists of finite resources and eventually we will be brought back into balance with the planet. Natural biological agents will eventually weed out the weak. We cannot continue to deny natural selection forever.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

papermachesatan

Natural selection is still active in society.

Butt-ugly people don't reproduce.

papermachesatan

I agree that we are becoming poluted with genetic disease(i.e. diabetes, heart disease, etc.)

Perserving the weak is a fundamental part of civilization, however. Genetic engineering is the answer to the survival of our species.

papermachesatan

Genetic engineering is a far better solution. It's true that we are becoming polluted with various weaknesses including inheritable diseases but at the same time, we gain from many our weaker individuals. (Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, etc. etc.)

We eliminate weakness while preserving the species. Overpopulation is solved by expanding into the stars.

Sho Nuff

Genetic engineering is good in concept but our understanding of the human body and genetic material is too elementary for it to be the backbone of society. We have a tendency to claim mastery of things far too early.

__________________
I know Nietzsche doesnt rhyme with peachy, but you sound like a pretentious prick when you correct me.

timalkin

Ever watch Jerry Springer?

papermachesatan

Genetic engineering isn't too far off. And quite frankly, we need genetic engineering. Genetic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, etc. are only going to become more and more prelevant in the future. People that would have died earlier are being allowed to survive at least long enough to reproduce. Their kids are then able to pass their genetics on. Unfortunately, evolution is working agaisnt us on this one.

We're going to seriously be fucked in the future if we don't eliminate this problem medically or socially(which is the highly undesirable "gas the weak").

papermachesatan

Natural selection takes effect in other ways with this crowd. Afterall, who really wants to start a family with their own mother?

Sleepyjack

Yep, i think i get what John Henry is getting at then
Cheers