Is it normal to think that we are messing up natural selection?

82% Normal
6 Comments

In nature, the number of offspring of a member of any species is positively correlated with their strength, intelligence, and over-all genetic quality. Just look at the hierarchy in wolf packs, for instance; only the dominant 'alpha' couples are allowed to breed, and this ensures that the species' gene pool stays clear of imperfections and even improves from generation to generation. The same goes for bacteria and the so called 'super-bugs' which are causing havoc in some hospitals. If a culture of several billion bacteria is exposed to antibiotics, only a few organisms will survive due to mutations which have made them immune to the substance. Those organisms will then reproduce, passing their mutations onto their off-spring, and before long, the antibiotic is useless against that particular race of bacteria. This is what is known as natural selection, where positive genetic traits are more likely to be passed on than negative traits. In our artificial society, however, the most 'genetically superior' individuals are all focusing on their careers, and show little interest in having children, while all the arguably inferior people (such as high-school drop-outs, Muslim extremists, and rednecks) breed like bloody rodents. The genes of the high-flyers will gradually fade away as they are drowned in the ever growing pool of shoddy DNA. And what's frustrating is that there doesn't seem to be a politically correct way of doing anything about it.
It seems to me are not only preventing evolution, but that we are actually reversing it. Does this thought scare anyone else? is it normal to be worried about this?

Voting Results
82% Normal
Based on 17 votes (14 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 6 )
  • zoffix
    9 years ago

    There's actually a movie (a comedy) exactly about this. It's called "Idiocracy." watch it; it's funny :)

    We do already know how to manipulate genes and gene therapy research is progressing nicely. We won't "de-evolve" into poop flinging monkeys in the next decade, so why worry? Who's to say what's "genetically superior" for our current environment, however artificial it is?

    And that brings me to your other point, that high-school drop-outs, Muslim extremists, and rednecks have inferior genes... How do you figure that out? Do you really think someone's choice of religion and whether someone will drop out of high-school is genetically coded? You're deeply mistaken, you'll find. Also, are you claiming that someone who's career-focused necessarily has good genes? Or do you mean that someone with good genes will necessarily be career-focused? Seems to me you're oversimplifying everything to ridiculous proportions and then fretting about the result.

    There actually has been a study that showed that indeed we dumbed down a bit from the Victorian era and this dumbing down will continue. But should we really be worried?

    P.S. As seekelp pointed out, your understanding of the process of natural selection is a bit skewed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • gashlover
    9 years ago

    darwin is a douche bag

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Drawingmud
    9 years ago

    Nice novel

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • seekelp
    9 years ago

    "the number of offspring of a member of any species is positively correlated with their strength, intelligence, and over-all genetic quality"

    Nope. "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

    That's why we need to start genetically engineering superior babies. Eugenics is for squares.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • _felix
      9 years ago

      The males of many species (lions, mountain goats, stags etc.) fight eachother to the death each year for the privilege of passing on their genes.
      A peackocks with the lushest, most colorful plumage has the greatest chance of wooing a peahen. Some male birds even build nests in order to attract a female. All of these are manners of displaying genetic superiority over rivals. Why shouldn't we do the same? Adaptability is important too in the long run, but it is generally a trait shared by an entire species (such as rats), and not only by some individuals of a species.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • seekelp
        9 years ago

        "peackocks with the lushest, most colorful plumage has the greatest chance of wooing a peahen"

        Sure, but that peacock isn't necessarily the strongest or the smartest, he's just the one with the most attractive plumage.

        "displaying genetic superiority over rivals"

        What is superior genetically is simply an individual who is superior at passing along their genes. The quote above isn't saying that adaptability is in and of itself the most useful skill, it's saying that, from an evolutionary perspective, that it's the only useful skill.

        If circumstances make being stronger a superior trait genetically, than that is selected for. However, circumstances may in some cases select for weakness because that is the superior trait for passing along genes.

        Ultimately the notion of a "superior species" beyond passing along genes is an entirely human one.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0