wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > So, it is not the survival of the
> fittest any more!? Fascinating!!!
> >
> > Of course it's not "survival of the fittest"
> any more..... in most parts of the
> > world it hasn't been since the late Upper
> Paleolithic or thereabouts.
>
> So now is it the survival of the weak!? LOL

No, it's "survival of however many the local society can manage to keep alive" & "survival of the fit AND those unfit who manage to manipulate the fit into carrying them".

> > Our average brain size has decreased.
>
> I don't play by the averages!

Nature does.

> > Looking around me, I can't help suspect that
> our psychological stability has decreased.
>
> You mean social "degeneration"! That would not
> surprise me since all civilizations ultimately
> just collapse and become extinct...

No, I mean "psychological stability". I think that we've a higher overall percentage of people who are psychologically unstable..... and "maybe" (in THIS case being due to social & environmental factors) even an overall lowered stability for all or most people as well.

> > The genetic load (frequency of deleterious
> alleles) on our species has increased,
> > due to the existance of "society" and
> "technology" allowing the survival of
> > Darwinian "unfit" organisms.
>
> That, of course, makes no sense at all!

Wrong. As technology develops, and as societies became more complex (& powerful), the effects of natural selection on humans became weakened. Individuals who couldn't survive on their own, and who couldn't have survived in lower or middle Paleolithic societies (or nowadays, often not even in Neolithic through Industrial Revolution societies!)..... now survived & reproduced, increasing the relative percentage of deleterious alleles in the overall genepool.

> Being fit to survive is always a relative
> term...It is more like adapting quickly to changes
> and surviving...

Nope. Being unable to survive without extensive dependance on a complex technology & industry is NOT relative. Being unable to survive without the notoriously fickle charity of a "rich" (also a fickle condition) society is ALSO not relative.

> > People that would have died young a few thousand years ago are now surviving &
> > reproducing instead.
>
> So, what is your latest theory of survival in the
> 21st century!? LOL

You need to be more specific here.

> > Hell, we provide welfare & disability benefits to highly unfit individuals....
> > who then use this leisure & guaranteed meal ticket to reproduce at a
> > disproportionately high level.... while world class athletes & scientists
> > & the like are often "too busy" to reproduce at all, or at anything other than a
> > disproportionately low level.
>
> That is exactly how and why all societies always
> degenerate! All it takes is one or two healthy
> couples (male-female) to maintain any species...

No, you have some VERY inaccurate ideas concerning basic biology & how it works. If all you have are 1-2 healthy couples, you've got far too limited a genepool for the species to have much chance of survival.

On average, every individual has ~10 mutant genes.... most are not improvements, some are lethal recessives. Excessive inbreeding rapidly affects fertility, capability (intelligence, strength, reaction time, etc), disease resistance, and so on. Not all offspring will be adversely affected (unless you're really unlucky in the choice of the "healthy" couples & their complement of masked recessive genes), but enough will be that reproductive success & competitiveness is seriously affected.

At a rough guess, I'd lay odds that something like 95% of all animal species & a lesser number of plant species (eh, maybe 60-70% or so, depending on reproductive strategies?) would eventually go extinct after passing through a genetic bottleneck that narrow.

Maybe more..... it depends partly on random factors like which pathogens they come into contact with, and the selective pressures at work in their new environment.

> > Read the papers..... alcoholics get liver transplants, paid for by public funds or
> > absorbed by hospitals & passed on to paying patients. Indigents use emergency room
> > services as first aid ("doctor, I have a sore throat" "or a sore back"), again, cost
> > paid by the more productive members of society (who often "can't afford" to have
> > as many kids as the indigents do!).
>
> I don't have to read it since I am already fully
> aware that all civilizations eventually collapse
> and die. Note that NONE that is 100% of them has
> survived...

Eh, define "civilizations".... and "eventually".

For example, I'm Cherokee.... and there is no evidence that our civilization has EVER "collapsed and died". It's changed, yes, evolved over time in response to changing conditions and various innovations..... but never "collapsed" or "died".

Eh, perhaps you're really thinking of "specific urban centers"..... or "specific nation states"....? Although even there, exceptions might be argued.

> > Careless idiots who lose legs trying to hop trains get free medical treatment & public
> > assistance. Idiots who start wildfires (by careless "accident", or trying to signal
> > help after being lost for a few hours) that burn tens of thousands of acres of land....
> > including Old Growth forest!....and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
> > houses and property..... and kill other people..... who are "punished" with a slap on
> > the wrist jail sentance & fines that do nothing to recoup even a fraction of damages.
> > Runaway brides who cost $60,000+ in search fees.... which they don't repay..... and
> > are then given million dollar book deals.
>
> Welcome to common reality...

Why? I've not been offplanet, or living in the Nth dimension all my life.

> > Nope, unless we get hit with a MAJOR pandemic, asteroid strike, WWIII, or
> > societal/industrial collapese, we aren't going to see much "natural selection"
> > at work any time soon.
>
> Well, IMHO I don't think that you fully understand
> what natural selection is! All prior societies and
> all prior civilizations have all collapsed and
> died and become extinct, so there is nothing new
> about this natural reality...

Nope, see above.

Not only are you confusing things on the individual level with that of societies or species level, but you're wrong about "all.... have collapsed and died and become extinct".

Uh, you HAVE read Darwin haven't you? And modern evolutionary texts? And anthropological texts?

> > Till then, it's "survival of the "fit enought" and the "most parasitic".... with the
> > advantage going to the most parasitic.
>
>> Kenuchelover-the-cynic.
>
> Well, if these millions or even billions of beings
> cannot quickly adapt to the Earth changes, they
> will become extinct...
>
> -wirelessguru1

No, at most they will become individually "dead"..... their species might well continue on without them, due to the existance of OTHER individuals.

Kenuchelover.