Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Take a look at society, we have healthcare, police etc, but isn't this stopping survival of the fittest? Evolution will not happen if everyone survives anyway. Because of this, there are a lot of fail genes in the gene pool, meaning that humanity is the worst species. If we let the worst genes survive, won't there be more rubbish genes for the next generation and so on? God help us.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Survival of the fittest is misleading. Natural selection should be seen as the survival of the organisms that best adapt to their environment.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It is true that survival of the fittest doesn't work in modern society, but there isn't anything we can do about it without being politically incorrect. We either have to accept that the species is going to be damaged by poor genes surviving, or do something about it. Doing something about it would involve preventing people with bad genes, (such as for diseases, or for low intelligence, or for weakness), from having as many children. Obviously this sort of system is not likely to be implemented, so we just have to put up with a halt in human evolution.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lukerchenko)
    Take a look at society, we have healthcare, police etc, but isn't this stopping survival of the fittest? Evolution will not happen if everyone survives anyway. Because of this, there are a lot of fail genes in the gene pool, meaning that humanity is the worst species. If we let the worst genes survive, won't there be more rubbish genes for the next generation and so on? God help us.
    Do you really want to live without modern medicine, central heating, cars and supermarkets? The whole 'survival of the fittest' concept is badly understood anyway; evolution is a blind process and 'fitness' is only ever meaningful in the specific context of the environment acting on a gene/organism/species. Besides, does it really look like humanity is struggling to keep its numbers up to you?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Survival of the fittest ultimately comes down to who manages to breed the most.

    People with 15 kids are, from an evolutionary point of view, going to pass on their genes more than people who have 2 kids.

    Make of that what you will.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Do you really want to live without modern medicine, central heating, cars and supermarkets? The whole 'survival of the fittest' concept is badly understood anyway; evolution is a blind process and 'fitness' is only ever meaningful in the specific context of the environment acting on a gene/organism/species. Besides, does it really look like humanity is struggling to keep its numbers up to you?
    But eventually it will get to the stage where there'll be too many people, ie resources will be diminished. Humanity can afford to get rid of a few people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Survival of the fittest disappeared when people started to be governed by religion.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Xenopus)
    It is true that survival of the fittest doesn't work in modern society, but there isn't anything we can do about it without being politically incorrect. We either have to accept that the species is going to be damaged by poor genes surviving, or do something about it. Doing something about it would involve preventing people with bad genes, (such as for diseases, or for low intelligence, or for weakness), from having as many children. Obviously this sort of system is not likely to be implemented, so we just have to put up with a halt in human evolution.
    The thing is, any real commitment to such a 'back to nature' programme would prevent plenty of wealthy and intelligent people from reproducing; your average theoretical physicist or economics professor probably isn't all that good in a to-the-death bare fist-fight. It's funny how wealthy and, putatively, intelligent supporters of the curbing the reproduction of the poor and the 'unintelligent' under a principle of 'survival of the fittest' don't address that issue, lol In short, such advocates are cherry-picking the notion of 'fittest' which excludes themselves from scrutiny.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lukerchenko)
    But eventually it will get to the stage where there'll be too many people, ie resources will be diminished. Humanity can afford to get rid of a few people.
    Ok, well, if it's fitness in nature you're after then those who can't hunt effectively, grow crops and put up a good show in a knife-fight should all be sterilised. Remember - being clever with computers or having wealth which only has meaning in our anti-nature society don't count where 'survival of the fittest' is concerned as you mean it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Xerophelistica)
    Survival of the fittest ultimately comes down to who manages to breed the most.

    People with 15 kids are, from an evolutionary point of view, going to pass on their genes more than people who have 2 kids.

    Make of that what you will.
    This is right, basically.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There isn't much selective pressure from our environment anymore. About the only thing that could maybe have an effect on modern society is if there's an extremely virulent pandemic that wipes out people with a certain phenotype.

    Sexual selection may have a limited effect on our evolution, but I don't really think it's as drastic as each successive generation being better looking than the last like the media suggests. It would take more than a few generations for that to happen. And besides, that suggests that ugly people are significantly more likely not to breed, which is very unlikely. Everyone has pretty much equal chance of breeding in our society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the bell shaped IQ curve becoming flatter.
    Stupid people marrying other stupid people.
    Clever people are marrying other clever people.

    I think we will have a polarized society at some point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukerchenko)
    Take a look at society, we have healthcare, police etc, but isn't this stopping survival of the fittest? Evolution will not happen if everyone survives anyway. Because of this, there are a lot of fail genes in the gene pool, meaning that humanity is the worst species. If we let the worst genes survive, won't there be more rubbish genes for the next generation and so on? God help us.
    Yes, we have put a halt to ecological selection, but you must remember that there are different kinds of selection which drive evolution.

    People with 'bad' genes don't die in competition with people with 'good' genes anymore. We accommodate everybody whose genes don't kill them immediately.

    But there are still different methods of selection. There's still sexual selection, for example. We still choose our partners based on their characteristics, and breed with them, and this works as a way to provide heredity for certain genes and not others.

    But it depends how you look at it. Natural selection was, after all, the process that gave us the brains which enable us to create a societal system which puts a halt to ecological selection. So we are all, here on earth, the fittest for survival, because natural selection has endowed us with the ability to mould our environments in such a way that we can easily pass on our genes regardless of how well-suited we would be to a natural environment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm


    Which one will have YOUR genes?
    Offline

    13
    If humans are still around in 10,000 years from now, and there has been a technological-progress continuum in that time, we'll be able to gene-therapy ourselves with a pill, grow bigger brains, etc etc. Heck, we'll probably be able to transfer ourselves into computers by then. We may have developed biological technology to the extent that we will only be a 'standard' human if we opt for it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think that Darwin and survival of the fittest is more alive in modern society than you might think. Take the post above that states that someone with 15 children is more likely to pass on their genes than someone with fewer. Did anyone read the news a couple of weeks back about the lady who was about to give birth to her 14th child? All of them had been taken into care, and quite a lot of them had either died or had serious health complications. The reason people with low intelligence, low outlooks on life etc have to breed so much is to try and ensure their survival.

    Take the growing chav problem in this country as another example. Why do they have kids so young and have so many? On a deep down level it's to ensure that their genes survive. Someone living on a crappy council estate with shootings every 5 minutes, and smoking themselves to an early grave has a far lower life expectancy than someone from middle class England working in an office. Just as certain animals give birth to thousands of offspring where only a few will survive, the human race is working in a very similar way.

    If due to various socio-economic factors the average life expectancy of the lower class is say 20 years shorter than that of their middle and upper class friends, stands to reason they have to breed more to survive.

    I forget where I read it now, but did browse over an interesting article that suggested as this evolves over the centuries, we will have two types of humans. One that has degenerated back to a neanderthal man being, and the other that has evolved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    of course it still exists , evolution can't take place without it. Mammals are constantly adapting to changing environments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    Humans have more or less dislodged themselves from natural selection and the usual course of evolution, and we bring with us domesticated animals who also are unaffected by them.
    humans and all animals are still evolving at the same rate they always were.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lukerchenko)
    But eventually it will get to the stage where there'll be too many people, ie resources will be diminished. Humanity can afford to get rid of a few people.
    People like Hitler thought like that.

    Eugenics is an evil practice...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big_C.)
    People like Hitler thought like that.

    Eugenics is an evil practice...
    But he's right, it doesn't mean you should go around killing people, but there will be to many. Too many people are surviving. Every other time in history has had setbacks in populations in large scales. WWII was obviously a big one, but since then what's there been? Who knows if there will ever be another...
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.