5 ms·

Evolution is only guided by survival alone in situations where as survival approaches 100%, so does fertility. In humans this is very much not the case for an i

by rjf72 8y ago

Evolution is only guided by survival alone in situations where as survival approaches 100%, so does fertility. In humans this is very much not the case for an immense number of reasons even beyond sexual selection. One of the biggest is simply social decisions. For instance there are ever more people that are fully capable of reproducing are 'responsibly' choosing not to. At the same time other populations, including in developed areas, are recklessly reproducing without much concern for anything at all other than themselves. This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. Outside of genetic evolution this also has a major effect on cultural evolution. There are strong correlations between fertility and low income, low education, and high religiosity. 'Responsible fertility' means children from these groups will make up an ever larger percent of all new births. Makes one question the notion of 'responsibility' in this regard. There are also survival factors that are not so in your face as e.g. being eaten alive by a predator or starving to death. For instance obesity is becoming ubiquitous, yet it is strongly connected with a wide array of factors leading to infant death - including neonatal. Having a child means nothing if that child is not ultimately able to, in turn, also able to procreate. Another example of this issue would have been in olden times when royalty would sometimes inbreed to the point of committing genetic suicide. See, for instance, the Habsburgs.

astazangasta 8y ago
>This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. This idea, called "devolution", is dead wrong. First, it presumes some sort of genetic basis for being "responsible", which is hardly in evidence. Second, it presumes no gene flow between these groups, decidedly false as class mobility is nonzero. Finally and most egregiously it posits some form of group selection, whereas selection acts on individual variants.
- radford-neal 8y ago
  There's every reason to think that personality traits such as religiosity, and indeed simple desire to have children, are genetically influenced. (Not that it's been proven, but that's where one should bet.) There's no need to assume there's no gene flow between sub-populations. Indeed, the existence of gene flow would be why some genetic variants favouring desire to have children could become dominant. There's also no need to assume group selection - individual selection is obviously quite sufficient. And there's no call for describing this as "devolution". You're maybe confusing the original poster with one of the replies...
levosmetalo 8y ago
To bring this point to the extreme, after some time we may have two races of humans, one "higher" race, that would be more intelligent, educated, cultural, and would rule over a much more numbered "lower" race that would be physically stronger, has better mass-reproduction ability, but lower intellect, becoming less and less intelligent over time. In even more far distant future, those two races may even split so much, that they become separate species, without ability of cross-breeding. Higher species would continue to call themselves humans, and the lower species will quickly drop to the status of animals in the eyes of the higher species. Then someone will learn that there was once Home Sapiens, which was an ancestors of Home Modernus, and Home Animalis, which is an evolutionary dead end.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  No, this will never happen. Genetic isolation of the kind you describe is impossible. Even attempts to maintain racially pure castes are stymied by people's propensity to fuck the wrong person, never mind this happening through passive means.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    also if you consider the fact that the process would last quite a few centuries of stable society and that illegitimate "hybrids" would be stronger and healthier. (the split would not be 50/50, but more like 99.99/0.01 so the "upper humans" would be a terrible bottleneck)
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  > which is an evolutionary dead end Just to provide a different perspective In this contest the likely evolution of Home Modernus would be through a slight abuse of eugenics and genetic manipulation dictated by a sense of aristocratic entitlement. This is likely to produce (almost literally) peacock tails in the higher humans. Evolutionary dead ends happens indeed when traits and behaviours necessary for the survival of an healthy community lose their utility against the environment (in the case of peacock the vivid colours are a signal of an healthy individual able to provide more that enough food). Meanwhile Home "Animalis" lives outside the upper society, but close to advanced and cheap technology (old by that time standard, but new for us) essentially in a condition not distant from the countryside of many developing nations today. In the long term I would bet on the "lower" race
est31 8y ago
> This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. Outside of genetic evolution this also has a major effect on cultural evolution. I doubt that there is a relevant genetic difference between the "responsible" and the "irresponsible" group. As for the cultural evolution, it seems to me that the "responsible" culture has evolved from the "irresponsible" one in the first place, and that it is constantly recruiting people from the "irresponsible" group.

by rjf72 8y ago

astazangasta 8y ago

>This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. This idea, called "devolution", is dead wrong. First, it presumes some sort of genetic basis for being "responsible", which is hardly in evidence. Second, it presumes no gene flow between these groups, decidedly false as class mobility is nonzero. Finally and most egregiously it posits some form of group selection, whereas selection acts on individual variants.

radford-neal 8y ago
There's every reason to think that personality traits such as religiosity, and indeed simple desire to have children, are genetically influenced. (Not that it's been proven, but that's where one should bet.) There's no need to assume there's no gene flow between sub-populations. Indeed, the existence of gene flow would be why some genetic variants favouring desire to have children could become dominant. There's also no need to assume group selection - individual selection is obviously quite sufficient. And there's no call for describing this as "devolution". You're maybe confusing the original poster with one of the replies...

levosmetalo 8y ago

To bring this point to the extreme, after some time we may have two races of humans, one "higher" race, that would be more intelligent, educated, cultural, and would rule over a much more numbered "lower" race that would be physically stronger, has better mass-reproduction ability, but lower intellect, becoming less and less intelligent over time. In even more far distant future, those two races may even split so much, that they become separate species, without ability of cross-breeding. Higher species would continue to call themselves humans, and the lower species will quickly drop to the status of animals in the eyes of the higher species. Then someone will learn that there was once Home Sapiens, which was an ancestors of Home Modernus, and Home Animalis, which is an evolutionary dead end.

astazangasta 8y ago
No, this will never happen. Genetic isolation of the kind you describe is impossible. Even attempts to maintain racially pure castes are stymied by people's propensity to fuck the wrong person, never mind this happening through passive means.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  also if you consider the fact that the process would last quite a few centuries of stable society and that illegitimate "hybrids" would be stronger and healthier. (the split would not be 50/50, but more like 99.99/0.01 so the "upper humans" would be a terrible bottleneck)
kiriakasis 8y ago
> which is an evolutionary dead end Just to provide a different perspective In this contest the likely evolution of Home Modernus would be through a slight abuse of eugenics and genetic manipulation dictated by a sense of aristocratic entitlement. This is likely to produce (almost literally) peacock tails in the higher humans. Evolutionary dead ends happens indeed when traits and behaviours necessary for the survival of an healthy community lose their utility against the environment (in the case of peacock the vivid colours are a signal of an healthy individual able to provide more that enough food). Meanwhile Home "Animalis" lives outside the upper society, but close to advanced and cheap technology (old by that time standard, but new for us) essentially in a condition not distant from the countryside of many developing nations today. In the long term I would bet on the "lower" race

est31 8y ago

> This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. Outside of genetic evolution this also has a major effect on cultural evolution. I doubt that there is a relevant genetic difference between the "responsible" and the "irresponsible" group. As for the cultural evolution, it seems to me that the "responsible" culture has evolved from the "irresponsible" one in the first place, and that it is constantly recruiting people from the "irresponsible" group.