Darwin and the survival of the fittest is pretty old hat Chris. The focus is on the extended phenotype. DNA is very dynamic stuff, highly negatively charged and surrounded by 'small stuff' and in interplay with 'all sorts'. I think the Koreans now have cloned sniffer dogs in anti-drugs service. Sharks and saw fish have organs that sense differences in electric charge and its pretty likely that animals are sensing a material world we remain unaware of. In the complexity of all this we might wonder why there is any simplicity and how it arises! The rise of 'trailer park trash' and so many people living in the poverty of urban slums should be interesting us much more than it does, and science should be informing this dialogue. My guess is that we leave the issue of what society should be about more or less hidden because we are scared of it. RA Fischer (most statistics rely on his work) once said (and claimed to have proved) that we would screw our gene pool in a generation - he was wrong but that didn't stop eugenicist claims. Science suggests we should breed fairly young, but not too young and that we should limit population size. Economics has done this amongst the better off and older societies did practice infanticide and such. What we don't seem able to do is find an approach that isn't disgusting, perhaps because we are 'disgusted' by the wrong things. Catastrophe has had a lot to do with evolutionary change, as have accidents of geography and weather and man-made ecocides. My guess is that we haven't a clue about using technology and knowledge and stupidly trust to evolution to sort things out.
On 22 July, 17:48, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it folly or is it what helps us to survive? Putting oneself first > is, as you say, a human trait and also as you say, we are still here > as a species so it must work pretty well. Your sentiments echo some > from Molly not too long ago when she commented on the Narcissistic > tone of some of the posts and how we perhaps shouldn't make everything > about us(me.) I disagree. It is always all about me. That doesn't > mean I don't try to fit in or make someone more comfortable or improve > other people's lives but ultimately I do it for me. Because it makes > me feel better or live with myself better. I'm selfish that way. > Yeah, I know... > > I,I,I, Me, Me, Me. Just like when I was four. > > dj > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Chris > > > > Jenkins<[email protected]> wrote: > > I certainly never suggested that...however, the point of the thread is that > > I see "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" bandied around, and > > yet it's clear that the speaker doesn't truly seem to have a grasp of what > > those terms really mean in a Darwinian sense. > > > This is mostly the fault of the business/financial world, where it's become > > synonymous with success. The problem is, it's diluted the meaning, or more > > accurately, the understanding of those phrases, in our conversations about > > social and biological evolution. > > > We as humans have become so egocentric that we have a hard time discussing a > > topic that really couldn't care less about the individual. The progression > > of a species (or society) is measured in generations, yet our self centered > > world views have become so pervasive that we are barely able to think as > > scientists without relating even these concepts back down to the individual > > (and yes, I'm using the generic 'we' here). > > > Our iteration of a line of code is in and of itself nothing more than an > > execution which will perform better or worse than another line of code being > > executed simultaneously. It is the folly of humans to place so much > > intrinsic value on the "ME" factor of it all. > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Big Brother should make everyone have babies before they are 20 after > >> which they are rendered impotent? Obviously my father was 120 when he > >> sired me! > > >> On Jul 21, 12:14 pm, 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=EntrezS... > > >> > or for something a little simpler: > > >> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1944386?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezS... > > >> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
