Survival of the fittest?

[Dukat]

Just something I've been pondering whilst bored at work:

Is Darwinism - "The survival of the fittest", redundant ?

Nowadays with new technology, people live longer and survive diseases that would normally have been fatal.

Is there any longer a need for it though? Nowadays physical strength might not be such an important factor, but weak genes themselves that normally would have died out will now be passed on into the gene pool and may end up weakening the entire race as a whole. 500, 600 years down the road will we end up having a biological disaster due to our weakened genes?

I'm not really an expert in this sort of thing, but I thought it was interesting to think about how natural evolution and technology (specifically medical technology) seem to be almost in direct competition.

 

[Mabs]

ethics arguments are fine, however, bottom line is

more and more people...

finite living space and resources...

something has to give

 

[Huntingtons]

that is exactly what will happen, you see it already. handicapped people usually have no chance of surviving are living good lives.
on the other hand you have the gene technology that makes it possible to select which physical treats and probably also the genotypes (the interior of the human, stuff that cannot be seen) treats that will be their offspring. therefore natural disasters will hit us harder than normal because we have become so addiceted to technology.

/edit

but we also choose our partners on the basis of their physical treats which could eliminate some genes still.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Survival of the fittest isn't species limited though, so survival of the fittest evolved humans to this(bloody lucky that one), and now as you might notice, we very effectively kill eachother.

Iraq<-->US, survival of the fittest.

 

[Dukat]

Survival of the fittest isn't species limited though, so survival of the fittest evolved humans to this(bloody lucky that one), and now as you might notice, we very effectively kill eachother.

Iraq<-->US, survival of the fittest.

The only problem is, We only send physically sound people out to fight - the soldiers being killed in the middle east arent dying because of physical defects, therefore Darwinism cannot take place.

Therefore any losses to war arent weeding out the weaker genes(if anything they're doing the opposite and killing off the stronger ones) also, because the losses to war nowadays are so small scale, there isnt anything like enough of a loss to weed out anything much anyway.

This sounds very macabre and cold, but we just dont kill each other enough for it to be effective, if you see what I mean.

Civilians by and large arent subject to the "survival of the fittest" laws because they're protected from any sort of predatory danger, sufferers of deblilitating diseases are cared for and protected.

It sounds like I'm implying this is a bad thing - I'm not, just posing the question

If weaker genes continue to survive though, I wonder if we'll eventually end up as frail, weak and susceptible to illness as the martians are in war of the worlds

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ah yeah, read/explain problem there.

Sure, kill all the r'tards and crippled(from birth), morons and such. Works wonders for the genepool, and in 1000 years we don't even care. Probably would thank the people who came up with it.

We could do it(in a "survival of the fittest" way, yes, ofcourse we could. But human nature is so nansy pansy that it's never gonna happen.

Also those r'tards and crippled ain't trying to kill us, so as long as the status quo remains, even animals don't kill others.

And by the way, we are the strongest, we got the tech, darwin didn't exclude technology from it

 

[Megarevs]

If weaker genes continue to survive though, I wonder if we'll eventually end up as frail, weak and susceptible to illness as the martians are in war of the worlds

I've been told that in the book the world is being destroyed...

OT. Killing Mentally and physically handicapped people reminds me of WW2 Germanny / Spaim / Italy

 

[Huntingtons]

Ah yeah, read/explain problem there.

Sure, kill all the r'tards and crippled(from birth), morons and such. Works wonders for the genepool, and in 1000 years we don't even care. Probably would thank the people who came up with it.

We could do it(in a "survival of the fittest" way, yes, ofcourse we could. But human nature is so nansy pansy that it's never gonna happen.

Also those r'tards and crippled ain't trying to kill us, so as long as the status quo remains, even animals don't kill others.

And by the way, we are the strongest, we got the tech, darwin didn't exclude technology from it

that wouldnt really help much because handicaps are also a genetic mutation as well as a genetic heir. we'd still have retards and whatnot, but not in the same number - forbid them to breed would solve it better and make us feel better about ourselves.
darwinism dont count on technology unless you assume technology is a organic part of us - take a human and dump him alone on the savanna with no technology. now how well would he survive? take a lion and drop it into any NON-technological enviroment and it would survive better than a man in the same place. there's your survival of the fittest.

 

[old.Tohtori]

that wouldnt really help much because handicaps are also a genetic mutation as well as a genetic heir. we'd still have retards and whatnot, but not in the same number - forbid them to breed would solve it better and make us feel better about ourselves.
darwinism dont count on technology unless you assume technology is a organic part of us - take a human and dump him alone on the savanna with no technology. now how well would he survive? take a lion and drop it into any NON-technological enviroment and it would survive better than a man in the same place. there's your survival of the fittest.

Well, killing defected at birth would solve a lot of issues. Anyhoop, different matter.

But doesn't survival of the fittest mean by any means necessary? the man creates a sprea out of wood and stone, maybe a crude crossbow, kills the lion, eats it. Unless you are saying "survival of the fittest" in darwins sense did mean only organic, raw, animal ways, in which case Dukats point is moot.

About technology being a part of us, maybe not organic, but it's been part of humans since the invention of fire and it's uses.

And also, to be completely fair, savannah is a lions homeground. We should drop a lion and a human into the himalajas, or the amazon forest, and then see who survives.

Let's just say, speach and opposable thumbs. We rule.

 

[Huntingtons]

And also, to be completely fair, savannah is a lions homeground. We should drop a lion and a human into the himalajas, or the amazon forest, and then see who survives.

Let's just say, speach and opposable thumbs. We rule.

can see your point, but his survival of the fittest didnt built on men as such but more on animals evolving to fit into their natural habitat. and for the quoted statement i did comment on it and i would still deem the lion having a better chance of surviving there than the average human (B.S. Christiansen and Chuck Norris excluded)

 

[Dukat]

Killing Mentally and physically handicapped people reminds me of WW2 Germanny / Spaim / Italy

That isnt what I was saying at all though.

I'm NOT talking about killing anyone, I'm NOT talking about making a 'master race' without any undesirable genes. I'm NOT talking about actively trying to stop people with weaker genes from producing - I believe that my family is susceptible to heart problems, probably has something to do with genes, so I might have some of these 'weaker genes', so I'm not talking about anything like that.

I'm just wondering what the consequences of weaker genes and increasingly good medical know-how will be in a few hundred/thousand years.

 

[Gamah]

Oh come on, the world would be a better place is chavs were castrated.

 

[old.Tohtori]

can see your point, but his survival of the fittest didnt built on men as such but more on animals evolving to fit into their natural habitat. and for the quoted statement i did comment on it and i would still deem the lion having a better chance of surviving there than the average human (B.S. Christiansen and Chuck Norris excluded)

Ah yes, if we speak about it in an animal based way, then yes, tech has little if any to do with it and humans would be f*cked compared to other predators around.

But Dukat was speaking of it more towards humanity and with tech included, which is silly really, since it has nothing to do with eachother. Well, in that original sense.

But if we REALLY wanted to compare a human and a lion, in an evolutionary survival way, we'd have to also take into consideration that we should compare a human that was raised in the savannah to a lion raised in the savannah.

Basicly a brute, muscle bound male human could very well hunt smaller animals and even(if we take the real big f*cks walking about) fend off beasts like lions. A cromagnon(sp?) perhaps?

If we took a lion that was spoonfed in an apartment complex and dropped that to the savannah, would be one poor kitty.

 

[Raven]

quite a few of the problems effecting developing countries is due to the fact that there are far to many people living there, before the more developed countries got involved they got along just fine with the high death rates and their communities grew to match their environment. these days we insist on keeping everyone alive regardless of the effect it has on the resources of a community (not arguing whether its a good thing or not)

 

[gohan]

the thing is, yes a lion is stronger than a human, its bigger genrally speaking and its get big teeth an claws, its faster ect ect i could go on, BUT what makes us the "fitest" is the fact we are fare more intelligent and therefore superior, we can use our initative, make a weapon out of verly little, a stick for instance, hold it tight with our opposable thumbs a wack wack wack till the fucker stops moving



soooooooo


we win

 

[Celestino]

First of all, the US does not send its fittest to war, but its poorest.

The next thing is, survival of the fittest should not be misunderstood. It does not refer to physical strength alone but to adaptability. The world changes constantly, not only thru what we do (see the global warming discussion or the rainforest thingie) but naturally as well. So every new generation struggles with this change, lush green lands become deserts or rise to become a mountain, their usual food might become unavailable. And they interact with another, a plant might develop a poison or a bitter taste making it inedible or a new predator better suited for the terrain might arise. In the end its a big game of adaption, don't adapt at all and u will be left behind, adapt too much and the next change is sure to come and wipe u away.

Now back in the direction of the topic:
We humans are part of this process like all other species and even in nature caring for another is not our domain alone as cooperation appears more and more to be a potent means of survival (see social animals). Evolution works thru reproduction, the combination of 2 sets of chromosomes creating a new organism with its own traits.
Even ill and "weak" humans can donate perfectly fine material for this process, or even form an immunity in future generations. So keeping them alive is in the interest of evoltion as it generates a larger genepool to pick from.

A note to the end of War of the Worlds:
Never read War of the Worlds myself but imho the end does not mean the martians are especially susceptible to illness but that they simply have no defense against our illnesses coz they have never had a chance to tune their immune systems to them. That happens to us humans as well, we met new illnesses in America, as well as in the east and were not prepared for them.

About Technology:
Technology allows us to keep ppl alive that a few years ago would have had no chance of survival, that does not mean that we're interfering with Evolution. It's quite the opposite as technology is a direct result of Evolution, of our ability to make tools, and so is in itself a tool of Evolution. With our technology, our advanced tools to get a banana out of a cage, we might be able to adapt not only to illness but to pretty much anything that comes along to the point where it might be possible for us to expedite evolution for example by increasing and sharpening our memory with an interfaced data storage.

 

[Dukat]

First of all, the US does not send its fittest to war, but its poorest.

The next thing is, survival of the fittest should not be misunderstood. It does not refer to physical strength alone but to adaptability. The world changes constantly, not only thru what we do (see the global warming discussion or the rainforest thingie) but naturally as well. So every new generation struggles with this change, lush green lands become deserts or rise to become a mountain, their usual food might become unavailable. And they interact with another, a plant might develop a poison or a bitter taste making it inedible or a new predator better suited for the terrain might arise. In the end its a big game of adaption, don't adapt at all and u will be left behind, adapt too much and the next change is sure to come and wipe u away.

I agree that its not about raw strength per se, however I do believe that it is the fittest that developed nations send to war. The UK, for example, spends alot of money selecting, training and preparing combat troops to survive in a hostile environment, the best of them - (arguably) the SAS - are armed with the ability to adapt and survive in almost any climate that exists on the planet: I would like to see how the majority of civilians fare in similar situations when compared with a special forces soldier.

As you say, its about adaption, but what I was trying to say in my original post was that evolution seems to be being 'suppressed' by modern medical technology, because, as I said, people who suffer from illnesses that would normally be fatal survive and pass thier genes on to the next generation, therefore the next generation becomes prone to that illness, after this happens enough times, surely it will be like the opposite of 'survival of the fittest'? surely in 1000, 2000 or however many years time, we'll end up as a race that is prone to most illnesses going - because we've allow genes that are vunerable to these illnesses to reproduce?

A note to the end of War of the Worlds:
Never read War of the Worlds myself but imho the end does not mean the martians are especially susceptible to illness but that they simply have no defense against our illnesses coz they have never had a chance to tune their immune systems to them. That happens to us humans as well, we met new illnesses in America, as well as in the east and were not prepared for them.

I sorta meant it as a rough example when i mentioned war of the worlds... didnt mean it literally


I think raven had a good point though - most developed countries only introduced the increased lifespan after we could actually sustain our own numbers, the undeveloped countries now also have this increased lifespan, thanks to mass innoculation etc, and now they have grown to such large numbers that they cant sustain themselves using thier current level of development.

Its a difficult situation tbh :S Like Raven said, you cant say "this is a bad thing" when it comes to mass innoculations etc, because we know that life is important, but i think perhaps we're going about the whole thing in the wrong way - its like the saying on that old advert "give a man a fish and he will beable to eat for one day, give a man the ability to catch his own fish, and he can feed himself for the rest of his life". Its been too much about handouts and not enough about education, infrastructure and proper governance.

 

[Golena]

Technology essentially gives us the ability to adapt the environment.
That's every bit as important a part of evolution as us adapting to the environment.

Evolution is definately still happening however. The question is "are we winning?"

The threat isn't from stuff like lions. We are now in a position to suitably control the environment under which we encounter them to ensure that we will win. It's from stuff like diseases which we have no counter to.

One way of surviving is to generate technology to kill them faster than they can adapt to it. The darwin effect will take over here to create better viruses.
The other posibility is that we don't adapt the technology fast enough in which case people will start dying to viruses. There's 2 scenario's here. 1) The virus wins and the human race is wiped out or 2) the virus lives and some people develop a natural immunity, these people survive and reproduce, those not immune die.

Killing off people we perceive to be weaker on the basis that they are disabled, have issues we consider to be weaker would be detremental. What makes a species strong is diversity. It could be something that makes someone less physically or mentally strong that means they are effected less by a new virus. The more diverse the population the more chance we have of surviving the unknown threat.. And it's going to be an unknown threat (new strain of flu for example) that's the biggest risk to our species.

The fact there's an ever growing number of people competing for an ever shrinking number of resources is also something that's going to have to "give". War (while perceived as bad) is something that is inbuilt into our genes. In the past we fought for resources, which is why we survived. Nothing has changed here, except it's now our own species, not the lions we are competing with.

 

[Sharma]

Nah don't worry, Darwinism is still sort of in effect.

The Darwin Awards

 

[Celestino]

Technology essentially gives us the ability to adapt the environment.
That's every bit as important a part of evolution as us adapting to the environment.

Evolution is definately still happening however. The question is "are we winning?"

The threat isn't from stuff like lions. We are now in a position to suitably control the environment under which we encounter them to ensure that we will win.

Thats one arrogant statement, we control nothing. We can't even control the rats in our sewers, shark alarms still send ppl out of the water, the weather goes crazy whenever and wherever it likes. We have some influence, but even for that we need a massive effect that we can neither control nor even assess. Adapting the environment to our needs is like a fly trying to BEND a big glass window

[...]It's from stuff like diseases which we have no counter to.
One way of surviving is to generate technology to kill them faster than they can adapt to it. The darwin effect will take over here to create better viruses.
The other posibility is that we don't adapt the technology fast enough in which case people will start dying to viruses. There's 2 scenario's here. 1) The virus wins and the human race is wiped out or 2) the virus lives and some people develop a natural immunity, these people survive and reproduce, those not immune die

How many viruses do u know, that our kind has defeated (not even speaking of killed) up to now ? We're helpless in the face of viruses and all we can do is trying to limit its spread.
But even then no virus would be able to effectively annihilate the human race, it might cripple us, but like with the medieval plague, outbreaks are limited locally and depend on a way to spread which can be identified and avoided. Even with the all hyped avian flu that manages to travel quite some distance the amount of exposed ppl is incredibly small compared to the number of humans living on planet earth.

[...] And it's going to be an unknown threat (new strain of flu for example) that's the biggest risk to our species.

Thats the usual hype, a big bad new virus, or some rock falling from the sky, or maybe we'll nuke ourselfs into oblivion ? The real danger doesn't come from hollywood but from the history of our planet, temperature or atmospheric change, maybe even aided by us is something, we should fear more than the unkown killer from the cinema. If we die out, chances are good it won't be a days work, but it will be the result of generations of small nearly unnoticed change

The fact there's an ever growing number of people competing for an ever shrinking number of resources is also something that's going to have to "give". War (while perceived as bad) is something that is inbuilt into our genes. In the past we fought for resources, which is why we survived. Nothing has changed here, except it's now our own species, not the lions we are competing with.

We fight when we have to, especially as fighting is expensive as well and its easier to use the growing number of ppl for cheap labour than to wage war against them especially as the weapons of those ppl have evolved from pitchforks to bombs. What are another few million poor compared to dead kids that come home in bodybags ? That lesson will be learned, maybe the hard way if ppl elect some more lunatics.
In the end it will be easier to find a way around the diminishing resources coz they will run out anyway.

 

[Dukat]

How many viruses do u know, that our kind has defeated (not even speaking of killed) up to now ?

Smallpox

But even then no virus would be able to effectively annihilate the human race

I dont think thats really something that can be proved, only disproved - there are some pretty nasty bugs developed in chemical/biological warfare centers that would do a pretty good job of wiping us out if someone released one of them in a major airport or something.

Thats the usual hype, a big bad new virus, or some rock falling from the sky, or maybe we'll nuke ourselfs into oblivion ? The real danger doesn't come from hollywood but from the history of our planet, temperature or atmospheric change, maybe even aided by us is something, we should fear more than the unkown killer from the cinema. If we die out, chances are good it won't be a days work, but it will be the result of generations of small nearly unnoticed change

One could argue globalwarming just the usual hype nowadays

 

[Sharma]

I think the most likely way the human race will die out will be that we nuke ourselves to death.

The fact that we HAVE nukes and they HAVE been used in the past are evidence of this.

The way the world is at the moment, it'll only take one stray move against a country that has them for the shit to hit the fan.

 

[old.Tohtori]

First of all, the US does not send its fittest to war, but its poorest.

Actually, they send whoever the f*ck is dumb enough/military enough to join.

 

[Bahumat]

Does Survival of the Fattest play any part in this?

 

[Megarevs]

That isnt what I was saying at all though.

I'm NOT talking about killing anyone, I'm NOT talking about making a 'master race' without any undesirable genes. I'm NOT talking about actively trying to stop people with weaker genes from producing - I believe that my family is susceptible to heart problems, probably has something to do with genes, so I might have some of these 'weaker genes', so I'm not talking about anything like that.

I'm just wondering what the consequences of weaker genes and increasingly good medical know-how will be in a few hundred/thousand years.

I wasn't writeing that you said, that we should Kill them. I'm just saying it reminds me of it

 

[Ctuchik]

Is there any longer a need for it though? Nowadays physical strength might not be such an important factor, but weak genes themselves that normally would have died out will now be passed on into the gene pool and may end up

i dont give a damn. i'm most certainly not alive by then

for all i care, humanity are more then welcome to wipe itself out after i'm gone

 

[Ctuchik]

First of all, the US does not send its fittest to war, but its poorest.

ROFL! that was probably THE most moronic statement i have ever seen

care to give some valid proof of this?






no i didnt think so.

 

[Huntingtons]

ROFL! that was probably THE most moronic statement i have ever seen

care to give some valid proof of this?






no i didnt think so.

although its not quite true but they do recruit alot more from the poverty hit areas than the rich areas. its only logical. the government will pay for some education for these kids if they join the army and since their family cant afford to educate them highly they have little choice.

 

[Golena]

Thats one arrogant statement, we control nothing. We can't even control the rats in our sewers, shark alarms still send ppl out of the water, the weather goes crazy whenever and wherever it likes. We have some influence, but even for that we need a massive effect that we can neither control nor even assess. Adapting the environment to our needs is like a fly trying to BEND a big glass window

I didn't say we could change everything in our environment now did I. We can control portions of it that make the chances of a lions evolving to the point where they can actually harm our survival is fairly small. We could at any point if we decided to kill every lion on the planet in a week. At the moment they are zero threat to the human race. To one human in the wrong position maybe, but they pose no threat to our existance, simply because we control their environment enough to limit their threat to us. They can't just roam freely through the streets of new york for instance.

How many viruses do u know, that our kind has defeated (not even speaking of killed) up to now ? We're helpless in the face of viruses and all we can do is trying to limit its spread.

We've defeated many forms of viruses on a personal level. You can't get the same cold twice, if you get a cold it will be a slightly different strain of cold you get, and again they arn't killing us for the most part. The body's immune system wins and we recover. Are we wiping them out completely, no. It's an ongoing war.

But even then no virus would be able to effectively annihilate the human race, it might cripple us, but like with the medieval plague, outbreaks are limited locally and depend on a way to spread which can be identified and avoided. Even with the all hyped avian flu that manages to travel quite some distance the amount of exposed ppl is incredibly small compared to the number of humans living on planet earth.

None are wiping us out yet..
It's not going to be an overnight virus that wipes us in the holywood style. If it happens it will almost certainly take many years to actually happen, and will probably span several generations.

Thats the usual hype, a big bad new virus, or some rock falling from the sky, or maybe we'll nuke ourselfs into oblivion ? The real danger doesn't come from hollywood but from the history of our planet, temperature or atmospheric change, maybe even aided by us is something, we should fear more than the unkown killer from the cinema. If we die out, chances are good it won't be a days work, but it will be the result of generations of small nearly unnoticed change

There's always the chance of the big all die scenario, but your right, it will almost certainly happen over a long time due to lots of little things. Climate change is something that we will evolve to overcome.. the question is can we evolve fast enough during climate change to actually survive.