Bad taste We're all dying of something, just not yet.

[Scouse]

put their heads into industrial machines, or drink themselves to death...so yes, Darwinism still lives

Those two are weighted in favour of the rich. 1) They won't be working industrial machinery and 2) the families can afford proper healthcare and expensive rehab and detox programs - so drink/drug "problems" are less of an issue.

 

[Raven]

Oh come on, really? There is more than enough help for those that aren't too stupid to want it. You also don't need to be rich to know not to put any body part into machinery.

 

[old.Tohtori]

In terms of life expectancy and life advantage the scales are tipped in favour of the wealthy - and in times of famine, war and pestilence (an actual darwinian survival scenario) the scales are tipped that way too.

The problem there, however, is that wealth is no determiner of genetic superiority - so whilst a darwinian-type mechanism still operates it now works against the species, not for it.

Yeap, as a species(or darwinism rules) we as a species would be worse off with riches being the defining factor for survival, but i was putting forward the idea that since we're no longer a nature species and more of a tech species(habitat etc wise) then the darwinian rules might not apply and in our current state survival of the richest is the new law.

 

[Scouse]

darwinian rules might not apply

Darwinian rules still apply. The selection pressures are completely different is all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Agreed, terminology used was off.

 

[DaGaffer]

Oh come on, really? There is more than enough help for those that aren't too stupid to want it. You also don't need to be rich to know not to put any body part into machinery.

You obviously haven't watched Elysium. Which while not a very good movie, it addresses your point directly.

NB. Its fairly obvious that natural selection doesn't apply to us in the same way as the rest of nature. First of all, longevity has nothing directly to do with Darwin; as far as natural selection is concerned human usefulness is done as soon as your offspring have kids of their own (although as pack animals there may be selection benefits for having grandparents as well); in the "natural" order of things there's not much reason for us to survive past 50 (enough time to have kids and a generation of grandparenting); but of course we have all kinds of societal reasons to live longer that break that purely Darwinist logic. There's also the slight issue that the apparently superior "wealthy" actually pass on their genetic material far less than the poor. There may be a genetic advantage to nurturing fewer offspring for longer (which strongly correlates with wealth), but I'd say the case is by no means proven.

 

[Scouse]

Oh come on, really? There is more than enough help for those that aren't too stupid to want it. You also don't need to be rich to know not to put any body part into machinery.

I disagree completely on the drug help thing - we criminalise the poor whilst the rich get help. I've first hand experience of seeing this happen - my brother in law used to regularly turn up at police stations to get rich people's kids out of jail and back into their arms of their shocked families before any charges of posession of banned substances (or assault) were pressed - so they could be treated by families who'd forcibly wang 'em in a posh rehab centre.

Poor kids would have charges pressed by plod and they'd be fucked on the job front.

As for the "don't need to be rich to know not to put any body part into machinery" bit - it'd never happen to them because they're too rich to work on industrial machinery. However, I'd wager the rate of industrial accidents occuring if they were forced to would be equivalent - or maybe higher because Farquar would have been mollycoddled all his life. And if we know one thing for a fact it's that kids who are protected from dangers when they're young end up killing themselves through stupidity when they're older...

 

[rynnor]

I think what is interesting about recent human evolution is how its really concentrating on intelligence in a way that normal evolution couldnt support - old physical factors are becoming less important because of support systems in society but everyone needs intelligence.

 

[Scouse]

I think what is interesting about recent human evolution is how its really concentrating on intelligence in a way that normal evolution couldnt support - old physical factors are becoming less important because of support systems in society but everyone needs intelligence.

Again, I disagree. Where's the selective pressure that makes the intelligent more likely to breed?

More likely to succeed financially, yes. But not pass their genes on.

In fact, the intelligent are less likely to bother in this economy because they know how much kids cost and they know what they have to give up to have them.