4 ms·

There’s massive evolutionary pressure now that we’ve developed birth control.

by Robotbeat 3y ago

SoftTalker 3y ago
True, I mean evolution in the forward sense, implied by my "we are probably backsliding"
- Nursie 3y ago
  What do you mean by backsliding? Is it only 'evolution' when things become stronger/smarter/faster? Evolution is organisms adapting to their environment in the face of selection pressure, it has no particular direction.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    A lot of people who would not have survived childhood in the past now live. Birth defects, childhood cancers, diabetes, severe asthma or allergies, poorly functioning immune systems, profoundly poor vision or hearing, etc. Who uses birth control? Smart, pragmatic, disciplined, responsible people. This is being selected against. I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" and there aren't really selections for "fittest" (healthier, stronger, smarter) operating on humans anymore, it's more the opposite.
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      Oh. That's why Elon Musk have 11 kids.
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        It sounds like you are disputing the premise but at least at a glance it seems obviously true. Why do you think surviving previously unsurvivable ailments or living a normal life with what would have otherwise been a debilitating illness past reproductive age isn't partially nullifying natural selection? And is the billionaire with 11 kids the normal case or just maybe slightly cherry picked?
        WaxProlix 3y ago
        Because circumstances have changed, selective pressures have changed, and an ability to grab the half gnawed finger bone from your fellow ape-creature is less valuable now than it once was. In a world where the disabled can write code or whatever, they have evolutionary value. I don't disagree with the premise btw of devolution a la Idiocracy, just think your specific argument falls flat.
    - Nursie 3y ago
      > I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" The people who are reproducing more and passing on genes are "the fittest", by definition. > there aren't really selections for "fittest" (healthier, stronger, smarter) operating on humans anymore, it's more the opposite. That's still evolution. Selection may not be working in ways that select for attributes you or I would necessarily choose, but if there are selective factors and the organism is changing, that's evolution baby. Evolution does not mean "improving", which is subjective anyway. (I picked up on this because basically this idea that evolution has a direction, or aims, or that you can be somehow more or less evolved, that the human organism is de-evolving etc ... all this is the sort of thinking at the root of eugenics, which has some pretty dark history. And it's not the definition or the scientific understanding of the idea - a fish that evolves to be blind in the ocean depths is not de-evolving or going backwards. It's evolving subject to the selective pressures it is under)
    - kbelder 3y ago
      People who don't want kids are being selected against. Sex drive will eventually be replaced with a reproduction drive.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure evolution and survival of the fittest is not as simple and straightforward as having more babies. Among other things, if you have fewer kids but they thrive and reproduce, then you're still in the game.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    I think OP meant something along the lines of Idiocracy. Or maybe a weird eugenics angle.
    - Nursie 3y ago
      Honestly you can view idiocracy as an argument for eugenics... not that I particularly do, but a friend watched it for the first time recently and thought that was what it was. I prefer to treat it as an observation about the direction of culture and a as a comic dystopia. And just a damn good laugh. Though there are definitely moments when I read the news and think "Damn, it really was a prophecy..."
      - Robotbeat 3y ago
        In the strict definition of eugenics, Idiocracy is eugenic in its moral. I’d be willing to bet most people are to some extent. I’m not really comfortable with Idiocracy.

There’s massive evolutionary pressure now that we’ve developed birth control.

SoftTalker 3y ago

True, I mean evolution in the forward sense, implied by my "we are probably backsliding"

Nursie 3y ago
What do you mean by backsliding? Is it only 'evolution' when things become stronger/smarter/faster? Evolution is organisms adapting to their environment in the face of selection pressure, it has no particular direction.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  A lot of people who would not have survived childhood in the past now live. Birth defects, childhood cancers, diabetes, severe asthma or allergies, poorly functioning immune systems, profoundly poor vision or hearing, etc. Who uses birth control? Smart, pragmatic, disciplined, responsible people. This is being selected against. I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" and there aren't really selections for "fittest" (healthier, stronger, smarter) operating on humans anymore, it's more the opposite.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    Oh. That's why Elon Musk have 11 kids.
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      It sounds like you are disputing the premise but at least at a glance it seems obviously true. Why do you think surviving previously unsurvivable ailments or living a normal life with what would have otherwise been a debilitating illness past reproductive age isn't partially nullifying natural selection? And is the billionaire with 11 kids the normal case or just maybe slightly cherry picked?
      - WaxProlix 3y ago
        Because circumstances have changed, selective pressures have changed, and an ability to grab the half gnawed finger bone from your fellow ape-creature is less valuable now than it once was. In a world where the disabled can write code or whatever, they have evolutionary value. I don't disagree with the premise btw of devolution a la Idiocracy, just think your specific argument falls flat.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    > I was using "evolution" in the sense of "survival of the fittest" The people who are reproducing more and passing on genes are "the fittest", by definition. > there aren't really selections for "fittest" (healthier, stronger, smarter) operating on humans anymore, it's more the opposite. That's still evolution. Selection may not be working in ways that select for attributes you or I would necessarily choose, but if there are selective factors and the organism is changing, that's evolution baby. Evolution does not mean "improving", which is subjective anyway. (I picked up on this because basically this idea that evolution has a direction, or aims, or that you can be somehow more or less evolved, that the human organism is de-evolving etc ... all this is the sort of thinking at the root of eugenics, which has some pretty dark history. And it's not the definition or the scientific understanding of the idea - a fish that evolves to be blind in the ocean depths is not de-evolving or going backwards. It's evolving subject to the selective pressures it is under)
  - kbelder 3y ago
    People who don't want kids are being selected against. Sex drive will eventually be replaced with a reproduction drive.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure evolution and survival of the fittest is not as simple and straightforward as having more babies. Among other things, if you have fewer kids but they thrive and reproduce, then you're still in the game.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  I think OP meant something along the lines of Idiocracy. Or maybe a weird eugenics angle.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Honestly you can view idiocracy as an argument for eugenics... not that I particularly do, but a friend watched it for the first time recently and thought that was what it was. I prefer to treat it as an observation about the direction of culture and a as a comic dystopia. And just a damn good laugh. Though there are definitely moments when I read the news and think "Damn, it really was a prophecy..."
    - Robotbeat 3y ago
      In the strict definition of eugenics, Idiocracy is eugenic in its moral. I’d be willing to bet most people are to some extent. I’m not really comfortable with Idiocracy.