Holy Moses! We're breeding ourselves into extinction! Somebody call 911!!!
The biggest reason I have one kid and not 3 or 4 is the price tag. I do love kids. One son's education costs vs. that of 2 or three times that. Not to mention he eats like a horse. Pretty scary with a recession and politicians slavering over my hard earned cash getting more prevalent every day. It's interesting that single Mom with 3 kids has a survival advantage. What are the odds my one kid will end up paying taxes to support the children of these hypothetical kids of a single mom? Yes, it's rhetorical and impossible to predict but a betting man would give it a better then 50 percent chance I'd wager. Goes back to my constant and I'm very sure annoying mantra of 'our social net is too wide' whine. For the love of God, stop feeding hungry children or we're all doooomed! I'm kidding of course, but it is a dilemma. Or a conundrum. dj On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Chris Jenkins<[email protected]> wrote: > OK, that's a misleading title, but it'll do as a starting point. Humans have > altered the progression of Darwinian evolution because of our delineation of > sex and procreation, and yet we continue to use Darwinian terminology in the > discussion of psychosocial and biological evolution. > > 1. "Survival of the fittest" ONLY relates to procreation. Period. It does > not relate to physical fitness, longevity, comfortability of lifestyle, > attractiveness, intelligence, prowess, or wealth. It specifically relates to > the generational progression of genetic material via progeny. Therefore, > unlikely though it may seem... > > Single Mom of three in trailer park with three viable offspring > Bill Gates > > 2. While much focus is placed in our society on health as key to longevity, > longevity may actually be the antithesis to "fitness", in a Darwinian sense. > First, a shorter life cycle leads to faster progression of generations, > meaning in simple terms, faster evolution. This is why drosophilae are a > favorite of geneticists, since changes to the core structure of DNA/RNA can > be quickly (relatively speaking) tracked through several generations of > offspring. Second, the longer humans live, the more our DNA degrades, > leading to the predictably more common occurrencess of cancer of all types: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8460632?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_PMC&linkpos=2&log$=citedinpmcarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed > > or for something a little simpler: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1944386?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed > > With humans living longer lives, and the growing western trend of > procreating later in life, an illusion of "fitness" is created and > maintained, while passing on degraded genetic material, the negative impact > of which won't be seen for more than a century due to the length of the > modern life cycle. > > Thoughts? > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
