Not the single Mom, mind you, but her genetic information. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
