I'm not too sure where to post this ridiculous question I've been thinking about. Biology is my best guess. There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't belive this theory, but that's besides the point) If this is so, why are there still apes? I know it sounds so stupid and there's probably an easy logical explanation, but I never claimed to be a genius Just something I wonder from time to time.

jillianleab

Let me take a stab at this, and Micheal, if I got this totally wrong, sorry.

Think of the population like an apartment building. You own this building (Hey! You can pretend to be god! ) Apartments at the bottom of the building are less desirable, whereas the penthouse is ideal, thus, lower levels rent for less. The closer you are to the top, the better off you are (in people; smarter, faster, stronger, etc) and closer to the bottom, the worse off you are (in people, less intelligent, slower, weaker, etc). Where do you want to be? Where do you want your kids to be? Closer to the top, right? You want to be in the best apartment possible, and the more people in good apartments, the more money you, as the owner, makes (more productive society). So what happens if the apartments on the bottom floors start to fill up, much more rapidly than the ones on the top floors? That's not good for you, because you make less money. It's not good for people because we bring the less intelligent, slower and weaker people into society. So what can happen? One possibility, the cost of ALL your apartments drops, so the penthouse which was on the 100th floor now goes for a rate of an apartment on maybe the 80th floor. Not good for your profits! OR, you get segmented - your upper levels and bottom levels are the most populated (the bottom moreso), there's a clear line in the middle floors, and not many people living there.

Now, this is a very basic comparison. In reality you can't stick people into such easy assignments because we all have things we are good at or bad at. You have people who are very, very smart, but who have little physical strength. Or who have diseases that in general, you don't want in your population. Take Stephen Hawking, for example. He's very, very smart, and also very, very handicapped. Now, his disease is not always caused by genetics, but let's just say it is. What floor do you put him on? On the one hand, he's desirable because he's smart, but on the other hand, he's weak and has bad genes. This is where civilization comes in. We don't get rid of people because they aren't perfect. When a child is born with a genetic disorder, we don't get rid of her because she will later poison the human race. But as far as natural selection is concerned, she wouldn't have the same opportunities as others who are "normal". So civilization has taken natural selection out of the equation. People with fertility problems can reproduce now with help from technology. From a natural selection standpoint, if you can't reproduce, you die out, because the ones who CAN take over.

So we have a problem. How do you further the human race without getting rid of the people someone deems as "undesirable"? Who gets to decide who is "undesirable"? That would be eugenics - you have X wrong with you, you don't get to live or reproduce because I said so. You can't have that in civilized society (as a side note, Cuba has forced abortions when there is something wrong with the fetus, we don't want that way of thinking to spread). So what do you do? How do you get the "best" to have more kids, and the "not so goods" to have fewer, and do it ethically?

firmbeliever

Thanks Jill,
That made more sense.

I am also thinking that all intelligence is not genetics, there is the nature nurture debate.

Very intelligent/healthy parents have ill/less intelligent kids, who later on become productive through rehabilitation of different sorts.

And from what I have noticed, the very intelligent productive citizens of many societies are working half their life amassing wealth.Then in their middle ages find some medical assistance or other to concieve.
I am not sure if I am factually right,but I have heard of twins and triplets being born due to some fertility treatments,which I am guessing does not really help the babies in being healthy.(Am I wrong in my assumption?).

About getting rid of "undesirables".How can we know if a baby born will be less intelligent than the existing population?I know that physically some deformities can be accurately known before birth,but intelligence is totally different.
As you said each of us has something to contribute into the society and before a child grows up into an adult (I mean mentally,not chronologically),we cannot really assume how productive or unproductive a person will be to the society.

Natural selection in animals I can understand because I watched two of my cats kill their newlyborn kittens,one was born too small to survive while the other had a bleeding umbilical cord.
When it comes to human population I cannot put aside the humane factor and conscience and talk about humans in the same level as animals.

EDIT:::Sometimes I have seen less healthy babies do not survive for long in this world.

michealb

Cuba currently preforms abortions and lets infants die if they appear to have medical problems so they can keep the government run health care cheap. (funny how Michael Moore didn't mention that, different topic though). I don't want to get rid of existing babies, fetuses or even restrict peoples rights to breed because I don't feel any of those things would be ethical. I am doing something that I try not to do in my life which is point out a potential problem but offer up no solution. I won't lose much sleep over this right now though it may not even be a real issue for another 1000 or more years, so we don't really need to come up with a solution anytime soon. We have time to think about it. Rent the movie Idiocracy for a humorous view point of it. Idiocracy (2006) or don't it has some crude humor in it and I don't know how you feel about that stuff.

One of the great things about mankind is we don't all think the same. If we did we would have died out a long time ago. I don't like to think of us on the same level as animals either but I do it as a way to recognize problems that we might not normally see, by thinking outside of ourselves we might be able to avoid problems before we have to take drastic actions to correct them.

jillianleab

Glad I helped you understand.

Intelligence is not solely based on genetics, at least that's not the prevailing thought right now. There are contributions from nature and nurture, of course. And yes, two smart people are not guaranteed to have smart kids, but when speaking on such mass scales, those are the assumptions that are made; smart people give their kids smart genes, and nurture intelligence throughout childhood allowing the child to thrive. Less smart people give their kids less smart genes and don't nurture in the same way. Of course this is a generalization, there are always exceptions.

The point you make about people working their lives away and not having kids until later (if at all) is a excellent one, and reinforces the original point - the hardworking, intelligent people are having less children than the "undesireables", that drives the demand for bottom floor apartments up, and demand for top floors down. Of course then we have to get into who is an "undesirable" and who is not; is anyone who doesn't work 80 hours a week and earn 6 figures a year and "undesirable"? I don't think so. But in general, you want society to be populated with people who work hard, not people who sit on their bums and contribute nothing (or almost nothing) of value to society. In the US we have a program which gives people money when they are too poor to support themselves. It's great if it's a temporary thing, but many people abuse it and choose not to work and earn a living because the govt gives them money. On top of that, the more kids you have, the more money you get. So you sit at home, have lots of kids and collect govt money. Does that sounds like a parent who is providing their child with a thriving environment? Fertility treatments do sometimes result in multiple births, but it doesn't always compromise the health of the children. My point with fertility treatments and how anyone can have babies is that if natural selection (god, whatever) is saying, "you really shouldn't reproduce" science is allowing them to do so. It works both ways.

You're right about not knowing intelligence levels at birth or before, that's impossible. But if you make the assumption that smart people have smart babies and dumb people have dumb babies (to put it bluntly!), you see how someone might be put into the "undesirable" category. Think about the advancements medical science and other technologies have made and how they've changed our need for survival. We can keep people with compromised immune systems and organs around for YEARS now, whereas without those advancements it wouldn't happen that way. Things like sanitation, easy access to clean drinking water and better nutrition also change who gets to live and who dies. In the past, if you drank diseased water, and your neighbor was smart enough to find clean water, you die and he lives. That means he has kids who are also smart enough to find clean water, you don't.

It's the ethical component for humans that changes all of this. What makes us different from animals is that we are civilized, they are not. Your cat killed her kittens because they were not fit for survival; would you do the same to your child? Of course not! We are civilized, we understand that even people who have a defect have a right to live, and that it will destroy society to start killing those who don't make "the cut". To consider natural selection and how it would work in humans, remove civilization from the equation. Take away your toilet, your electricity, your car; imagine we all live in caves or mud huts and in our community if someone can't pull their weight it puts the whole community at risk. If you believe that at one point in time we were cavemen (I don't remember if that is part of your belief system or not), you can see where natural selection can take place. Even in tribal areas, and some third world regions you might get a little bit of it. If, in a remote village in India a baby is born with medical complications, she will likely die with no access to a hospital. That means you have stopped the reproduction of someone who is "defective". My previous point about Cuba; they are, in effect, manipulating natural selection. If they detect a problem with your child, they eliminate it, it never gets to join the gene pool. If every baby you ever get pregnant with has this defect, you never have an offspring that contributes to the gene pool. What they are doing is wholly unethical and disgusting, but look at it objectively and you can see their intent (not that I endorse it at all!). They don't want sick people in their country. Sick people cost more and make more sick people. Sick people are bad, healthy people are good.

No one here is saying we should label one person as smart and allowed to reproduce and another as too dumb to have kids, that would be reprehensible. Perhaps a way to make more demand for upper level apartments is to better education, offer more resources, I don't know. The answer is certainly not to tell people they aren't allowed to reproduce.

firmbeliever

About sick people (maybe off topic)..
what about the mentally sick but healthy ones who escape these selective abortions?

jillianleab

Do you mean in Cuba? Assuming you do...

First the abortions aren't selective, they are forced. You have no choice. Beyond that, and this is my speculation, I would guess those individuals don't get the same quality of care as the healthy. If you have seen the movie Sicko (I haven't, just report after report on it), Michael Moore takes some 9/11 volunteers who are suffering from health problems to Cuba because the US won't care for them. He goes on and on about how great Cuba's system is and the US is horrible. Anyway, the hospital he takes them to is the same hospital the elite in Cuba go to - not anyone who lives in the country. Cuba, and other nations with national healthcare systems are very concerned with how much you cost them. If you will cost them $100K to "fix" and will only live another 3 months, they might not treat you. Instead, they spend $100K on 30 people who if they "fix" they will live for 50 years. So my guess is, people in Cuba (and possibly other countries) who are "unfixable" simply don't get treatment.

Here's an article you might be interested in:
ABC News: Michael Moore to John Stossel: 'Little Debate' About Health Care in Cuba

firmbeliever

I am no fan of Micheal Moore...and he is not really important from where I stand because I am too far away to be really bothered about him..

I am wondering are we not taking over this thread?
Why not start a new one, so we can get this one going longer without anyone feeling bad about us taking over this thread.

I feel bad for the OP.

jillianleab

I agree, we are taking over. If you want to keep the conversation going, feel free to start a new thread, I'll join in!

Sorry OP!

firmbeliever

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-s...ne-121890.html
I already have asked it here.

stuntmangt

All those evolution theories are absurd to the highest degree. Christianity and, agreeing with katieperez, Creationism are right. I'm not one of those weirdos who thinks everything I say or think is correct. I'm basing this all on the Bible. I know that the Bible is correct. That's not my opinion either. It's a fact.