[inthebox]

The difference between us and horseshoe crabs is birth control. Birth control has given us a safe and easy way to prevent pregnancy. This has given an advantage to the bottom end of the bell curve by increasing the number of offspring they have and decreasing the offspring of those at the higher end of the curve. Even a 1% increase in birth rate in people at the bottom end of the bell curve could spell disaster for our species.

This is a retread of eugenics.

One group decides they are "genetically" superior and thus those that don't meet their certain standard are not fit, or should not reproduce, and in the extreme, should not live.

Who determines "fitness?"

One can argue that those who reproduce more [ have 5 kids with 2 mates for example ], though their progeny may not go to an ivy league school, are "fitter" than those intellectually eggheads that have one or no kids.

Besides is not intelligence more than a GPA or degrees obtained?

Maybe those that reproduce at a higher rate and that you consider at the low end of the curve, are physically stronger, or better mechanically, or have a stronger will to live, or are better critical thinkers, or have higher emotional or social intelligence.





Grace and Peace

[inthebox]

e[QUOTE=Capuchin]michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.



Is this rational thought by humans and other species?

Dog to a B.. ch, "lets get it on and further our genes."
B.. ch to dog, " your slower, weaker, and a dauchsand....I don't think so."

Or is it instinct, lust, or whatever you want to call it. If it is instinct, where does this instinct to reproduce come from?







Grace and Peace

[Capuchin]

Is this rational thought by humans and other species?

Dog to a B..ch, "lets get it on and further our genes."
B..ch to dog, " your slower, weaker, and a dauchsand....I don't think so."

Or is it instinct, lust, or whatever you want to call it. If it is instinct, where does this instinct to reproduce come from?

Grace and Peace

No thinking, just instinct. The instinct comes from their genes. Animals that don't have the instinct to reproduce don't and so don't pass on their genes. So eventually only animals with the instinct to mate exist.

Animals who don't have the instinct to mate with the stronger individuals mate with weaker ones from which the offspring invariably die before mating, so only the genes that make them mate with strong individuals survive.

[Prettyhotbabe97]

Uum there is no way that is right.

[Prettyhotbabe97]

No one really knows how we came a about on this earth.but like katie said,why is there still apes?and if we came from 2 people,wouldn't we all be (forgive me)metally wrong.

[inthebox]

[QUOTE=Capuchin]

e

No thinking, just instinct. The instinct comes from their genes. Animals that don't have the instinct to reproduce don't and so don't pass on their genes. So eventually only animals with the instinct to mate exist.

What if they want to "reproduce" so to speak, and have no luck?

This should select for the good looking, rich, smooth talking, romantic.:D





Grace and peace

[Capuchin]

[QUOTE=inthebox]

What if they want to "reproduce" so to speak, and have no luck?

This should select for the good looking, rich, smooth talking, romantic.:D

Grace and peace

Well, that's a different gene that also gets selected for, fertility ;)

Sorry I edited my earlier answer to talk about why strongest individuals are selected.

[michealb]

This is a retread of eugenics.

One group decides they are "genetically" superior and thus those that don't meet their certain standard are not fit, or should not reproduce, and in the extreme, should not live.

Who determines "fitness?"

One can argue that those who reproduce more [ have 5 kids with 2 mates for example ], though their progeny may not go to an ivy league school, are "fitter" than those intellectually eggheads that have one or no kids.

Besides is not intelligence more than a GPA or degrees obtained?

Maybe those that reproduce at a higher rate and that you consider at the low end of the curve, are physically stronger, or better mechanically, or have a stronger will to live, or are better critical thinkers, or have higher emotional or social intelligence.

Grace and Peace

Inthebox,

I don't support eugenics. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they do or don't do with their bodies. I am a libertarian. Which means I put personal liberty above everything else.

I also agree that intelligence is much more than gpa or degree obtained. The point that I'm trying to make though is that we live in an artificial world created by our intelligence. The downside of that is we no longer need our intelligence to survive. While some may not see this as a problem, I think far ahead when we are no longer smart enough to run the machines that keep us alive.

Firmbeliever,

The reason I see it as a disaster for the human race is because if the bottom of the bell curve gets even a 1% advantage that is huge in evolutionary terms. This could have two possibilities that I can think of as far evolutionary terms for humans goes. One would be that the entire curve starts to shift towards the lower end. Meaning that the population as whole gets evenly mixed and the entire race moves toward the bottom or what would be the new middle soon enough. The other option is divergence which means the curve would spilt into two. One large hump near the bottom then it tapers and goes in to a small hump before it tapers off again. Although I think divergence is the best of the two possible outcomes I'd prefer to think of a ethical way to solve this problem before it becomes a problem.

[firmbeliever]

Firmbeliever,

The reason I see it as a disaster for the human race is because if the bottom of the bell curve gets even a 1% advantage that is huge in evolutionary terms. This could have two possibilities that I can think of as far evolutionary terms for humans goes. One would be that the entire curve starts to shift towards the lower end. Meaning that the population as whole gets evenly mixed and the entire race moves toward the bottom or what would be the new middle soon enough. The other option is divergence which means the curve would spilt into two. One large hump near the bottom then it tapers and goes in to a small hump before it tapers off again. Although I think divergence is the best of the two possible outcomes I'd prefer to think of a ethical way to solve this problem before it becomes a problem.

Thanks for the explanation.

Not to sound dumb,but I still do not understand.

[Gernald]

The human species branched off from apes something big probably happened like the human species were separated from the ape species or a genetic mutation occurred in some apes but not in others. The same thing happened with the marsupials (Kangaroos and Koala's) in Australia, Koalas were probably just regular bears or something when Australia was separated and then they evolved seperatly in to a whole new species based on there surroundings.
Try reading some of the stuff from Darwin, it excplains some of his ideas.

[jillianleab]

Thanks for the explanation.

Not to sound dumb,but I still do not understand.

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 conceive.
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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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 Michael 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]

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...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.