6 ms·

Evolution requires survival of the fittest to still be a thing. If the weak die off faster than the strong, the strong have a better chance of reproducing. Then

Evolution requires survival of the fittest to still be a thing. If the weak die off faster than the strong, the strong have a better chance of reproducing. Then their superior genes are passed on, etc... However, this is no longer as much the case. People who have weaker immune systems, for example, can take medicine to prevent dying from a (previously fatal) sickness.

mindcrime 11y ago
Then their superior genes are passed on, etc... However, this is no longer as much the case. It's still absolutely the case... it's just that the fitness function has changed. Now evolution isn't testing to see who can outrun a wooly mammoth or sabre-tooth tiger, or survive without food for 27 straight days, or to see who has the strongest immune system. Now it's testing to see who can navigate their way through high-school, get into a good college, choose a valuable major, get a degree, and get a job making beau-coup money. Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. All of that said, let's not ignore that the physical stuff still matters as well. Unless a lot has changed in the 20 some odd years since I was in high-school, the jocks on the football team are still getting laid more than most guys. And being bigger and stronger and more physically fit is still correlated with success in the worlds of business and politics. I don't have the reference handy, but I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing that taller men are more likely to be elected in political races. And having political power, again, tends to lead to more reproductive success, etc.
- ckarmann 11y ago
  Yes, being tall, in good health, physically well-built and smart gives you, on average, more success in career and with members of the opposite sex. But does it give you more offspring, which is the important thing for evolution? In our times having a lot of sexual partners or one partner with a lot of sexual activity doesn't mean you have a lot of children. To be clear: do rich and successful people have more children than poor ones? Someone has any source on that?
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    To be clear: do rich and successful people have more children than poor ones? Someone has any source on that? Two thoughts on that: 1. They almost certainly have more opportunity for mating. But they may not always take advantage of that opportunity (especially since they may have child-less sex through various birth control measures) 2. It isn't just a question of the number of children, it's also a question of the fitness of their children. If "fit attracts fit" then the most fit females tend to pair up with the most fit males, and their children average out as more fit than others. But now we're back to the idea that we no longer know exactly what "fit" means in this world. I guess the answer is "it's complicated". But I still don't see any reason in any of that, to think that no evolution occurs.
- modoc 11y ago
  I think you're unfortunately wrong on this point. While high earning well educated people may live longer, at least in the US they aren't reproducing more. Most of the educated/high-earning people I know are either not having kids at all, or are having 1-2 kids. Most of the lower educated, lower earning people I know have 3+ kids and have them at a younger age, which in turn leads to larger descendant populations in a shorter time period. Medical care is good enough (at least here in the US) that virtually all of those children are making it to adulthood, and then reproducing.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    That's a fair point... that we live in a world with birth control, and where people are more likely to make a conscious decision to not have kids does change the dynamic. But I still don't think that any of that would lead one to think that "evolution has stopped". Even if you step back to only focus on what you describe as "the lower educated, lower income" people, there's still competition for reproductive success within that group. If nothing else, sexual selection is still a factor, even if survival selection isn't as much a factor. Another thing to consider is the "red queen" theory that human evolution and the evolution of pathogens are locked into a (more or less) permanent "arms race". I don't know that anybody knows for sure that that theory is true, but if it has merit, that's another reason to believe that we are still evolving on some level.
    - GauntletWizard 11y ago
      Evolution hasn't stopped, but it's failed to move in any direction we can call forward. We've long since hit the age of Devo [1], where the selection pressure of genetics and the things we consider progress as society are at odds. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone among even my conservative friends (and I'm fairly far freaking right as far as HN is concerned) who would consider the Quiverfull[2] movement/cults to be the preferred future of humanity, but they're growing fast. Likewise, inner-city welfare-queens are a real thing, albeit fringe. The alternative is to actively promote reproduction of the successful... which sounds, quite rightly, like eugenics. It's a nasty paradox. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d43gKl9xIME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d43gKl9xIME [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
- im3w1l 11y ago
  But the rich and successful aren't having kids. What we are currently selecting for is people who have lots of kids and let society pay for their upbringing.
- pharrington 11y ago
  > Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. That's nice. Financially secure people tend to have way less children then the working class/poor. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Financially secure people tend to have way less children That's a fair point, but then we also have to ask "do they have fitter children in turn"? Sexual selection would suggest that more fit individuals seek out and mate with other more fit individuals, as each tries to maximize the fitness of the vessel carrying their genes. If that's the case, I wonder what the effect of that is, carried over multiple generations. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I really don't have an answer, but it's worth pondering. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce. Just living long enough isn't enough, you also have to be able to attract a mate to reproduce with. I suspect it is the case that in modern times, sexual selection is more of a factor in human evolution than survival selection. Nonetheless, you guys do make a good point about the wealthy/educated having less children. We humans have complicated things by creating things like birth control and by evolving our thinking minds which (in theory) allow us to override the imperative of our "selfish" genes. :-)
    - pharrington 11y ago
      I think it's really, really easy to have sex. Like, be young or/and drunk, and it will happen by accident. But the part that's not opinion is that once sex is in play, birth control requires additional energy and resources that positively affect those with less social power. e: i think i meant to say birth control (evolutionarily) negatively affects those with more social power
    - im3w1l 11y ago
      Ugly loser bores may not be able to attract funny successful beauties. But they can still attract each other.
  - 11y ago
mhurron 11y ago
> Evolution requires survival of the fittest to still be a thing The definition of 'fittest' is not set in stone.
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  It absolutely is, but it's defined backwards compared to how most people intuit it. You can't look at a population today and identify which individuals are the fittest in evolutionary terms. It's not possible to state with precision that someone who has e.g. more sex or more children or is taller or richer or poorer or better spoken or more sociopathic is more likely to succeed. Rather, fitness is something that can only be defined in reverse, because today's population is full of individuals with ancestors who have survived and reproduced, and so on all the way back. As Neal Stephenson puts it: "Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo---which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead."
Cowen 11y ago
Evolution doesn't "require" anything except breeding.
Jtsummers 11y ago
Survival of the fittest [in their environment]. We're still evolving, even if it's not in a way that would make us better at surviving in the plains/tundra/forest/jungle anymore. It may make us worse at those things (as a species), but better in our new environment (urban, factories, offices).

mindcrime 11y ago

Then their superior genes are passed on, etc... However, this is no longer as much the case. It's still absolutely the case... it's just that the fitness function has changed. Now evolution isn't testing to see who can outrun a wooly mammoth or sabre-tooth tiger, or survive without food for 27 straight days, or to see who has the strongest immune system. Now it's testing to see who can navigate their way through high-school, get into a good college, choose a valuable major, get a degree, and get a job making beau-coup money. Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. All of that said, let's not ignore that the physical stuff still matters as well. Unless a lot has changed in the 20 some odd years since I was in high-school, the jocks on the football team are still getting laid more than most guys. And being bigger and stronger and more physically fit is still correlated with success in the worlds of business and politics. I don't have the reference handy, but I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing that taller men are more likely to be elected in political races. And having political power, again, tends to lead to more reproductive success, etc.

ckarmann 11y ago
Yes, being tall, in good health, physically well-built and smart gives you, on average, more success in career and with members of the opposite sex. But does it give you more offspring, which is the important thing for evolution? In our times having a lot of sexual partners or one partner with a lot of sexual activity doesn't mean you have a lot of children. To be clear: do rich and successful people have more children than poor ones? Someone has any source on that?
- mindcrime 11y ago
  To be clear: do rich and successful people have more children than poor ones? Someone has any source on that? Two thoughts on that: 1. They almost certainly have more opportunity for mating. But they may not always take advantage of that opportunity (especially since they may have child-less sex through various birth control measures) 2. It isn't just a question of the number of children, it's also a question of the fitness of their children. If "fit attracts fit" then the most fit females tend to pair up with the most fit males, and their children average out as more fit than others. But now we're back to the idea that we no longer know exactly what "fit" means in this world. I guess the answer is "it's complicated". But I still don't see any reason in any of that, to think that no evolution occurs.
modoc 11y ago
I think you're unfortunately wrong on this point. While high earning well educated people may live longer, at least in the US they aren't reproducing more. Most of the educated/high-earning people I know are either not having kids at all, or are having 1-2 kids. Most of the lower educated, lower earning people I know have 3+ kids and have them at a younger age, which in turn leads to larger descendant populations in a shorter time period. Medical care is good enough (at least here in the US) that virtually all of those children are making it to adulthood, and then reproducing.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  That's a fair point... that we live in a world with birth control, and where people are more likely to make a conscious decision to not have kids does change the dynamic. But I still don't think that any of that would lead one to think that "evolution has stopped". Even if you step back to only focus on what you describe as "the lower educated, lower income" people, there's still competition for reproductive success within that group. If nothing else, sexual selection is still a factor, even if survival selection isn't as much a factor. Another thing to consider is the "red queen" theory that human evolution and the evolution of pathogens are locked into a (more or less) permanent "arms race". I don't know that anybody knows for sure that that theory is true, but if it has merit, that's another reason to believe that we are still evolving on some level.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Evolution hasn't stopped, but it's failed to move in any direction we can call forward. We've long since hit the age of Devo [1], where the selection pressure of genetics and the things we consider progress as society are at odds. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone among even my conservative friends (and I'm fairly far freaking right as far as HN is concerned) who would consider the Quiverfull[2] movement/cults to be the preferred future of humanity, but they're growing fast. Likewise, inner-city welfare-queens are a real thing, albeit fringe. The alternative is to actively promote reproduction of the successful... which sounds, quite rightly, like eugenics. It's a nasty paradox. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d43gKl9xIME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d43gKl9xIME [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
im3w1l 11y ago
But the rich and successful aren't having kids. What we are currently selecting for is people who have lots of kids and let society pay for their upbringing.
pharrington 11y ago
> Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. That's nice. Financially secure people tend to have way less children then the working class/poor. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  Financially secure people tend to have way less children That's a fair point, but then we also have to ask "do they have fitter children in turn"? Sexual selection would suggest that more fit individuals seek out and mate with other more fit individuals, as each tries to maximize the fitness of the vessel carrying their genes. If that's the case, I wonder what the effect of that is, carried over multiple generations. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I really don't have an answer, but it's worth pondering. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce. Just living long enough isn't enough, you also have to be able to attract a mate to reproduce with. I suspect it is the case that in modern times, sexual selection is more of a factor in human evolution than survival selection. Nonetheless, you guys do make a good point about the wealthy/educated having less children. We humans have complicated things by creating things like birth control and by evolving our thinking minds which (in theory) allow us to override the imperative of our "selfish" genes. :-)
  - pharrington 11y ago
    I think it's really, really easy to have sex. Like, be young or/and drunk, and it will happen by accident. But the part that's not opinion is that once sex is in play, birth control requires additional energy and resources that positively affect those with less social power. e: i think i meant to say birth control (evolutionarily) negatively affects those with more social power
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    Ugly loser bores may not be able to attract funny successful beauties. But they can still attract each other.
- 11y ago

mhurron 11y ago

> Evolution requires survival of the fittest to still be a thing The definition of 'fittest' is not set in stone.

jeremysmyth 11y ago
It absolutely is, but it's defined backwards compared to how most people intuit it. You can't look at a population today and identify which individuals are the fittest in evolutionary terms. It's not possible to state with precision that someone who has e.g. more sex or more children or is taller or richer or poorer or better spoken or more sociopathic is more likely to succeed. Rather, fitness is something that can only be defined in reverse, because today's population is full of individuals with ancestors who have survived and reproduced, and so on all the way back. As Neal Stephenson puts it: "Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo---which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead."

Cowen 11y ago

Evolution doesn't "require" anything except breeding.

Jtsummers 11y ago

Survival of the fittest [in their environment]. We're still evolving, even if it's not in a way that would make us better at surviving in the plains/tundra/forest/jungle anymore. It may make us worse at those things (as a species), but better in our new environment (urban, factories, offices).