Are humans creating their own destruction? Watch

Wineblood
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 13 years ago
#21
I agree with whats been said in the original post about natural selection and how we're messing it up by helping the weak.
What I've noticed is that there is a new type of selection for passing on genes which is based on how we find people beyond their biological fitness. Popularity. People who are like by others are usually the first one to find someone they're comfortable with, have a family and bingo, next genenration. I hope you kind of know what I'm on about, something which would intuitively be called "social selection". The society we're in compensates for any decrement in biological fitness (we help people who need it) and it's our place in society which matters. The more socially adept are more likely to find a mate and procreate. Eventually their generations would be shorter and the genes of socially adept people would spread among the gene pool.

Man, that actually sounds pretty corny. :confused:
0
quote
reply
Wineblood
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
I agree with whats been said in the original post about natural selection and how we're messing it up by helping the weak.
What I've noticed is that there is a new type of selection for passing on genes which is based on how we find people beyond their biological fitness. Popularity. People who are like by others are usually the first one to find someone they're comfortable with, have a family and bingo, next genenration. I hope you kind of know what I'm on about, something which would intuitively be called "social selection". The society we're in compensates for any decrement in biological fitness (we help people who need it) and it's our place in society which matters. The more socially adept are more likely to find a mate and procreate. Eventually their generations would be shorter and the genes of socially adept people would spread among the gene pool.

Man, that actually sounds pretty corny. :confused:
0
quote
reply
guitargirl05
Badges: 0
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
I think we should help disabled children. My 3 year-old cousin was born 3 months early, and she is disabled. She could have epilepsy and she cannot use her right arm or her leg, and she has to wear a leg brace. She also had bleeding on the brain and she had to have an oxygen cyclinder with her for months after she was allowed home. She also has problems with her balance, so she has to wear an eye patch. However, my family have been told that she is the brightest child in her class her pre- school. I think that disabled children do need a helping hand, so they can achieve highly in their life.
0
quote
reply
guitargirl05
Badges: 0
#24
Report 13 years ago
#24
I think we should help disabled children. My 3 year-old cousin was born 3 months early, and she is disabled. She could have epilepsy and she cannot use her right arm or her leg, and she has to wear a leg brace. She also had bleeding on the brain and she had to have an oxygen cyclinder with her for months after she was allowed home. She also has problems with her balance, so she has to wear an eye patch. However, my family have been told that she is the brightest child in her class her pre- school. I think that disabled children do need a helping hand, so they can achieve highly in their life.
0
quote
reply
Ossie1701
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 13 years ago
#25
Who are we to say who lives or who dies.
If we have it in our power to keep someone, anyone alive then we should do so - period. I don't think people really think about it. I think its all well and good that we say, on we are messing up the system - why shouldn't we. I think if it was your child who was born 'weak' you would be arguing for their survival. We are not animals. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humanity, no more than it applies to pedigree dogs.
I again come back to what I said - while we have the power to save lives, we should.

I also think the social fitness is a little out of place as well. Because it doesn't realy fit the pattern, in that, loners as such are not 'dying' out, and I believe that popularity in social groups is not determined by genes but by upbrining. If you are brought up to be an extrovert, to love communicating with people, then you are obviously gonna get on better, but there is nothing stopping you have 10 kids, of which half are anti-social!

I do not believe the whole nature argument is very applicatbe in nowadays society, nor was it 200 years ago, or before. Wild animals kill each other for food - should we kill each other incase we cannot get out Xmas turkey? Two males will compete, possibly to the death for a female. So should I carry a knife every time I go into the bar/nightclub?

Although, I must agree, we are creating our own end, but not with theis survival of the 'weakest/strongest', but with global warming. Someone mentioned it, polar bears moveing south, from the melting ice sheets. Every animal in nature can see it, and we can't - we are destroying the earth.
0
quote
reply
what_apples
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#26
(Original post by Ossie1701)
Who are we to say who lives or who dies.
You could use the same argument to say that if people get really ill we shouldn't go to extreme lengths to save them... but that leads into philosophy/religion issues that can get a bit messy. :eek:

(Original post by Ossie1701)
If we have it in our power to keep someone, anyone alive then we should do so - period. I don't think people really think about it. I think its all well and good that we say, on we are messing up the system - why shouldn't we. I think if it was your child who was born 'weak' you would be arguing for their survival.
We shouldn't mess with the system (i.e. our evolution) for exactly the same reason that we shouldn't mess up our environment - It is counterproductive in terms of the overall health of our species.

(Original post by Ossie1701)
We are not animals. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humanity, no more than it applies to pedigree dogs.
We ARE animals - as are pedigree dogs - it's mereley our awareness, while apparently unique among animals, that makes us think we are so far above the rest of the animals on the planet. Pedigree dogs are a perfect example of what happens when you try and mess about with the natural way that new generations are produced - you get dogs that LOOK nice (based on OUR totally inadequate critera) but that are quite well known to be not as sharp as mongrel dogs that most people would shun. This doesn't seem to apply so well if you start thinking about working dogs (for farmers, or the blind - another example of promoting the survival of the "unfit") but they are only suited to the tasks that we need them for! Whether or not they would survive easily in the wild is, I think, unclear.

(Original post by Ossie1701)
I also think the social fitness is a little out of place as well. Because it doesn't realy fit the pattern, in that, loners as such are not 'dying' out, and I believe that popularity in social groups is not determined by genes but by upbrining. If you are brought up to be an extrovert, to love communicating with people, then you are obviously gonna get on better, but there is nothing stopping you have 10 kids, of which half are anti-social!
I am not really that attuned to the ins and outs of social anthropology, so I can't really comment on this to much. Social aptitude wasn't reall something that came into my mind, in all honesty. Your point states that it doesn't seem to be a genetic trait, in which case it isn't relevant to any evolutionary argument.

(Original post by Ossie1701)
I do not believe the whole nature argument is very applicatbe in nowadays society, nor was it 200 years ago, or before. Wild animals kill each other for food - should we kill each other incase we cannot get out Xmas turkey? Two males will compete, possibly to the death for a female. So should I carry a knife every time I go into the bar/nightclub?
No, we should kill each other for strips of land and oil instead. :rolleyes: And not all animals kill each other for food - plenty of animals hunt in packs and use their strength in numbers to their advantage, so survival of the fittest doesn't require an all out bloodbath.

(Original post by Ossie1701)
Although, I must agree, we are creating our own end, but not with theis survival of the 'weakest/strongest', but with global warming. Someone mentioned it, polar bears moveing south, from the melting ice sheets. Every animal in nature can see it, and we can't - we are destroying the earth.
I agree that there are perhaps more pressing issues that are of our own making and I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me. I am just expressing an idea that occured to me a while ago and has developed over time. Debate makes is good - your post especially, has made me think of other aspects to my point of view - so thank you
0
quote
reply
what_apples
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by guitargirl05)
I think we should help disabled children. My 3 year-old cousin was born 3 months early, and she is disabled. She could have epilepsy and she cannot use her right arm or her leg, and she has to wear a leg brace. She also had bleeding on the brain and she had to have an oxygen cyclinder with her for months after she was allowed home. She also has problems with her balance, so she has to wear an eye patch. However, my family have been told that she is the brightest child in her class her pre- school. I think that disabled children do need a helping hand, so they can achieve highly in their life.
I can see where you are coming from. I know for sure that if one of my sisters, for example, was to come down with some illness or had a disability I would want them to get as much help as they possibly could. But that is my point exactly - even though I can argue my point and work through it very logically, the "human condition" rears it's head and things like compassion and morals get in the way.

My argument is that that human nature itself is the problem. If we were not taught such things when we were are young would we feel so badly about the idea of not helping people?
0
quote
reply
jjuk
Badges: 0
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
(Original post by what_apples)
I can see where you are coming from. I know for sure that if one of my sisters, for example, was to come down with some illness or had a disability I would want them to get as much help as they possibly could. But that is my point exactly - even though I can argue my point and work through it very logically, the "human condition" rears it's head and things like compassion and morals get in the way.

My argument is that that human nature itself is the problem. If we were not taught such things when we were are young would we feel so badly about the idea of not helping people?
I don't think that where taught this it just comes naturally,like a baby knows to suckle or a penguin can find its chicks amongst millions of other penguins.

It just is :rolleyes:

Its natural to want to protect ones own so yes our natural responses are our own worst enemy.
It seems these days that it's your right to live for as long as you want and who evers running things must provide the means to do so.
0
quote
reply
what_apples
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#29
(Original post by jjuk)
I don't think that where taught this it just comes naturally,like a baby knows to suckle or a penguin can find its chicks amongst millions of other penguins.

It just is :rolleyes:

Its natural to want to protect ones own so yes our natural responses are our own worst enemy.
It seems these days that it's your right to live for as long as you want and who evers running things must provide the means to do so.
Wanting to protect your nearest and dearest DOES make evolutionary sense, so maybe using my sisters as an example was a bad choice - maybe a friend would have better illustrated my point. What doesn't make sense is applying the exact same feelings and sentiments to everyone on the planet - mostly people you don't know or have not evolutionary relationship with. Equal opportunities, which oh so many people go on and on about, has a similar problem. How does survival of the fittest have a chance if we are purposely trying to make everyone equal?
0
quote
reply
Nysh
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
We have always been destroying ourselves. It is the point of being human- to ultimately destroy the world with out fear of each other (and ourselves).
0
quote
reply
poltroon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 13 years ago
#31
The process of evolution is a very slow one indeed. Reproducing belatedly is not going to have a perceptible impact on our course.

Who says that our ability to fight diseases is declining? The examples you cite are far less extraordinary than the diseases which, throughout periods of our history, have taken a great toll on the human population. If Superbugs were not killing us then there ancestors would be. It is also unlikely that in our short existence we have become any more or less naturally receptive to be struck down by disease.

If we can help the weak without putting ourselves at a great burden, then why should we not?
0
quote
reply
jjuk
Badges: 0
#32
Report 13 years ago
#32
(Original post by what_apples)
Wanting to protect your nearest and dearest DOES make evolutionary sense, so maybe using my sisters as an example was a bad choice - maybe a friend would have better illustrated my point. What doesn't make sense is applying the exact same feelings and sentiments to everyone on the planet - mostly people you don't know or have not evolutionary relationship with. Equal opportunities, which oh so many people go on and on about, has a similar problem. How does survival of the fittest have a chance if we are purposely trying to make everyone equal?
Exactly.

It dosen't work.

I will never design a Mars orbiter or find the cure for cancer but i make a damn fine Oak framed barn

The wilderbeast thats fitter escapes the jaws of the lioness,the old or seperated calf become lunch.

We are the only animal on the planet thats trying to defiy mother nature so maybe we don't deserve an exsistence :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
scoobrildil
Badges: 0
#33
Report 13 years ago
#33
i think this is a very interesting topic and i'd just like to add some more points.....for instance,....even though the planet is becoming over populated and there is unemployment galore we're still trying to clone people (which i think is sick) and build machines to do all our jobs for us. its madness. In doing all this we become more and more detached from what it means to be alive at a very basic level. this by some is seen as positive but i'm afraid i cannot agree. take for example the tsunami in indonesia......i've seen footage of tourists stood on the beach watching on as the entire sea dissapears infront of their eyes as if its perfectly normal.......i'm sorry for all who perished and god bless them but thats so stupid. THE SEA DOES NOT JUST DISSAPPEAR FOR NO REASON. even it seems many of the people who actually lived there didn't really no what was happening,. And then there is the onge tribe.......a group of very primitive african people who found their way there a long time ago who live on one island, everyone thought they must have been wiped out because the island was directly in the tsunamis path. BUT NO, they ALL survived. and when asked how one of the guys said, ''when the sea dissappeared we knew there was gonner be a fight between it and the land so we went away quickly into the forest and stayed there till it had finished. SIMPLE EH???? So if we are so bloody advanced then how come we can't even see natures obvious warning signs - its crazy.....and its crazier that there are plenty of people who would look down on the onge tribe because they live 'simpler' lives than us......yeah right!!

--------------

(Original post by jjuk)
Exactly.

It dosen't work.

I will never design a Mars orbiter or find the cure for cancer but i make a damn fine Oak framed barn

The wilderbeast thats fitter escapes the jaws of the lioness,the old or seperated calf become lunch.

We are the only animal on the planet thats trying to defiy mother nature so maybe we don't deserve an exsistence :rolleyes:
absolutly!
0
quote
reply
jjuk
Badges: 0
#34
Report 13 years ago
#34
.....and its crazier that there are plenty of people who would look down on the onge tribe because they live 'simpler' lives than us......yeah right!!
We look down on these people because we think that we need to be surrounded by plastic inanimate objects to be civilised.

They have no stress,no mortgage payments,no taxes to pay,no deadlines.

Whos better off? :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Ossie1701
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 13 years ago
#35
We ARE animals - as are pedigree dogs - it's mereley our awareness, while apparently unique among animals, that makes us think we are so far above the rest of the animals on the planet. Pedigree dogs are a perfect example of what happens when you try and mess about with the natural way that new generations are produced - you get dogs that LOOK nice (based on OUR totally inadequate critera) but that are quite well known to be not as sharp as mongrel dogs that most people would shun. This doesn't seem to apply so well if you start thinking about working dogs (for farmers, or the blind - another example of promoting the survival of the "unfit") but they are only suited to the tasks that we need them for! Whether or not they would survive easily in the wild is, I think, unclear.
Yes but the difference between us and dogs, is that we can actually stop someone dying, dogs cannot (probably do not want to) save another dog!
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (135)
18.6%
No (440)
60.61%
Not really bothered about them (151)
20.8%

Watched Threads

View All