Are we thwarting Darwin by keeping losers alive?

[Argus]

Once upon a time, if you were an idiot, a loser, an incompetent, then you didn't eat. If you were lazy, were a lousy hunter, you were malnourished, got sick early in life, and died. Not only that, but no family was going to let you marry their daughter, so you didn't get to breed your lousy genetics into another generation.

But none of that is the case any longer. No matter what kind of a loser you are, how stupid, how lazy, how unpleasant, how despised by general society, you'll eat well, because the rest of society will supply you with good, with clothing and with shelter. Even if you're a criminal we'll see to it that you eat well. As for breeding, young women aren't waiting for marriage these days, and certainly aren't having their parents arrange one based on the suitability of the would-be husband. They're having sex with men based on how hot they think the guy is, and having their children, often enough, regardless of whether he (or she) has the slightest ability to support those children. After all, society will support them in the end.

And this isn't just about welfare, by the way. Donald Trump and other rich kids, can be as idiotic as they want, for starting out life with a silver spoon in your mouth and millions in the bank makes it almost impossible for you to fail. The end result is the same: morons get to thrive, survive, and reproduce their defective genes, thus thwarting Darwinisms desire that only the fit should survive. Does this mean that the human race will gradually devolve as these losers continue to breed? Should we start leaving losers out on ice flows or something? Wouldn't that improve the breed eventually?

Has anyone figured out what part of the genetic code contains the stupid gene?

[guyser]

Has anyone figured out what part of the genetic code contains the stupid gene?

Based on this post of yours, supply me with a sample of your DNA and we will soon have an answer.

[Canuckistani]

Greater equality of wealth, of power and of prestige has been achieved in certairi hunting and

gathering socletles than in any other human societies. These soc~eties, which have economies

based on inimediate rather than delayed return. are assertively egal~tarian. Equality IS achieved

through d~rect, ind~vidual access to resources; through direct, individual access to means o i

coercion and means of mobil~ty which l~mit the inlposltlon of control; through procedures

which prevent savlng and accumulation and impose sharlng; through mechanisms wh ~ c ha llow

goods to circulate w~t h o u tm aklng people dependent upon one another. People are systematically

disengaged from property and therefore from the potent~ality in property for creating

dependency.

http://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf

Social networks show striking structural regularities, and both theory and evidence suggest that networks may have facilitated the development of large-scale cooperation in humans. Here, we characterize the social networks of the Hadza, a population of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania. We show that Hadza networks have important properties also seen in modernized social networks, including a skewed degree distribution, degree assortativity, transitivity, reciprocity, geographic decay and homophily. We demonstrate that Hadza camps exhibit high between-group and low within-group variation in public goods game donations. Network ties are also more likely between people who give the same amount, and the similarity in cooperative behaviour extends up to two degrees of separation. Social distance appears to be as important as genetic relatedness and physical proximity in explaining assortativity in cooperation. Our results suggest that certain elements of social network structure may have been present at an early point in human history. Also, early humans may have formed ties with both kin and non-kin, based in part on their tendency to cooperate. Social networks may thus have contributed to the emergence of cooperation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22281599

etc etc

[WWWTT]

Once upon a time, if you were an idiot, a loser, an incompetent, then you didn't eat. If you were lazy, were a lousy hunter, you were malnourished, got sick early in life, and died. Not only that, but no family was going to let you marry their daughter, so you didn't get to breed your lousy genetics into another generation.

Looks like you have a good picture in your head who should be allowed to reproduce!

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

Calling Dr. Shockley...

[Moonlight Graham]

Well the most stupid of us are in jail because they've done stupid things & are stupid enough to get caught for it, and in jail they don't really get much of a chance to breed (unless they already have a wife or whatever), to that should help things out a little bit.

[jacee]

Today, 06:28 PM Argus, on 26 May 2012 - 07:13 PM, said: Has anyone figured out what part of the genetic code contains the stupid gene?

Based on this post of yours, supply me with a sample of your DNA and we will soon have an answer.

:lol:

[TheNewTeddy]

Bad hunters might be good inventors. There is a reason for keeping people alive who do not have skills in one specific area.

Note this differs from people who lack skills in all areas.

[Peter F]

Darwin is thwarted everytime somebody buys a pair of spectacles; gets admitted to a hospital; uses an inhaler; gets rescued from a burning building etc etc

Edited May 27, 2012 by Peter F

[bleeding heart]

Once upon a time, if you were an idiot, a loser, an incompetent, then you didn't eat. If you were lazy, were a lousy hunter, you were malnourished, got sick early in life, and died. Not only that, but no family was going to let you marry their daughter, so you didn't get to breed your lousy genetics into another generation.

But none of that is the case any longer. No matter what kind of a loser you are, how stupid, how lazy, how unpleasant, how despised by general society, you'll eat well, because the rest of society will supply you with good, with clothing and with shelter. Even if you're a criminal we'll see to it that you eat well. As for breeding, young women aren't waiting for marriage these days, and certainly aren't having their parents arrange one based on the suitability of the would-be husband. They're having sex with men based on how hot they think the guy is, and having their children, often enough, regardless of whether he (or she) has the slightest ability to support those children. After all, society will support them in the end.

And this isn't just about welfare, by the way. Donald Trump and other rich kids, can be as idiotic as they want, for starting out life with a silver spoon in your mouth and millions in the bank makes it almost impossible for you to fail. The end result is the same: morons get to thrive, survive, and reproduce their defective genes, thus thwarting Darwinisms desire that only the fit should survive. Does this mean that the human race will gradually devolve as these losers continue to breed? Should we start leaving losers out on ice flows or something? Wouldn't that improve the breed eventually?

Has anyone figured out what part of the genetic code contains the stupid gene?

There is no such thing as "thwarting Darwin," much less "Darwin's desire."

edit: Even so, Peter F.s response is an excellent rejoinder to the op. Good stuff.

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Manny]

Darwinism cannot be thwarted. But Darwinism takes place over long periods of time, over generations, so it has taken this long to arrive at the point we are at now.

Eventually the leftist liberal socialist culture, if left unfettered to its own devices will bring about its own demise. You won't see problems like the ones illustrated in the OP taking place in a Taliban society, for example. Or those that uphold sharia law, which may be coming to our country in the future. Or among the Nazis, or in the ancient, pre-christian Roman empire.

In the United States for example, Latino population is on the rise. White population in decline. The Latinos are making babies, which means raising families and all it entails to do it right, vs the amoral self serving hedonist liberal culture, that makes no judgement on itself or others. The Roman empire finally fell, not due to military supremacy of the barbarians but because of its own internal decadence. Its culture had evolved to an advanced level and so became too "soft".

[bleeding heart]

Darwinism cannot be thwarted. But Darwinism takes place over long periods of time, over generations, so it has taken this long to arrive at the point we are at now.

Eventually the leftist liberal socialist culture, if left unfettered to its own devices will bring about its own demise.

Yes, so the professional Hate-the-Left Red-baiters, who are mostly dumb as rocks, mean as rattlesnakes, and as subservient to Power as anyone you could find, keep throwing tantrums about.

In the United States for example, Latino population is on the rise. White population in decline. The Latinos are making babies, which means raising families and all it entails to do it right, vs the amoral self serving hedonist liberal culture, that makes no judgement on itself or others. The Roman empire finally fell, not due to military supremacy of the barbarians but because of its own internal decadence. Its culture had evolved to an advanced level and so became too "soft".

So...these Latinos aren't part of the "real" population, and as their numbers rise, it connotes the fall of the West?

Or the fall of Empire, surely a moment of great sadness for everybody?

What the hell are you talking about?

(At any rate, this particular "liberal leftist socialist" has had three children...have you been doing your part in Saving "Our" Culture, Manny?)

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

Based on this post of yours, supply me with a sample of your DNA and we will soon have an answer.

Old Guyser can always be relied on for a banal insult in place of anything thoughtful.

I guess it's hard on him trying to engage in discussions while owning the intellect of a sub-literate cretin.

[Argus]

http://libcom.org/files/EGALITARIAN%20SOCIETIES%20-%20James%20Woodburn.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22281599

etc etc

Did you have anything to actually say other than quoting other people? I noticed the part about 'greater means of coercion" which I presume means "You better get off your ass and work or I'll stick my spear through your belly".

[Argus]

Well the most stupid of us are in jail because they've done stupid things & are stupid enough to get caught for it, and in jail they don't really get much of a chance to breed (unless they already have a wife or whatever), to that should help things out a little bit.

Most of them do have girlfriends, actually, which is why we allow conjugal visits.

[Argus]

Bad hunters might be good inventors. There is a reason for keeping people alive who do not have skills in one specific area.

Note this differs from people who lack skills in all areas.

And yet people who lack skills in all areas still are kept around by our society.

[Argus]

Darwin is thwarted everytime somebody buys a pair of spectacles; gets admitted to a hospital; uses an inhaler; gets rescued from a burning building etc etc

I disagree on the spectacles, since they have the means to rectify their problem, though I would agree to some extent if the state pays for it. And yes, hospitals do thwart Darwin in many cases where people ought to die of genetic flaws, but live to pass them on to succeeding generations. Being rescued doesn't seem to follow, however, unless you're being rescued from your own stupidity.

Did the Spartans have the right idea for genetic improvement -- albeit cruelly done - by letting babies die if they were flawed?

Ie, if only handsome, healthy and intelligent people were permitted to breed, would this not eventually improve the race dramatically?

Edited May 27, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Manny]

Yes, so the professional Hate-the-Left Red-baiters, who are mostly dumb as rocks, mean as rattlesnakes, and as subservient to Power as anyone you could find, keep throwing tantrums about.

So then, you know what I'm talking about.

So...these Latinos aren't part of the "real" population, and as their numbers rise, it connotes the fall of the West?

Or the fall of Empire, surely a moment of great sadness for everybody?

What the hell are you talking about?

They are part of the real population in my view. But they are part of a different subculture within it. They are the ones who are on the rise, while "whites", or the descendents of European settlers for lack of a better term are in decline. The reasons for that deserve to be explored a little bit.

I'm not being xenophobic, just extrapolating from the OP in my own way. You won't hear me saying "we must do something about these people, get rid of them" etc. Just making very general observations about the natural sway of things. This the way it's been in history before us, and this is the way things change over long periods of time.

[Canuckistani]

Did you have anything to actually say other than quoting other people? I noticed the part about 'greater means of coercion" which I presume means "You better get off your ass and work or I'll stick my spear through your belly".

Sure. I thought I would show you what scholars think of the issue. Physical anthropology has also found that paleolithic and neolithic sites had many members with injuries, deformities, etc that were obviously being kept alive by the rest of the group. These groups were very communal with sharing of resources. I'm sure in tough times, if there was famine, there were tough choices made about who got the food, with the old and sick being denied it - like the cliche of the old being sent out on an ice floe.

The primary means of coercion was ostracism and expulsion - the latter would be a death sentence in effect.

But your suggestion that the hunter-gatherers were all little Rush Limbaughs just doesn't hold.

[bleeding heart]

So then, you know what I'm talking about.

They are part of the real population in my view. But they are part of a different subculture within it. They are the ones who are on the rise, while "whites", or the descendents of European settlers for lack of a better term are in decline. The reasons for that deserve to be explored a little bit.

I'm not being xenophobic, just extrapolating from the OP in my own way. You won't hear me saying "we must do something about these people, get rid of them" etc. Just making very general observations about the natural sway of things. This the way it's been in history before us, and this is the way things change over long periods of time.

Thanks for clarifying for me, and thanks for the civil reply.

[bleeding heart]

But your suggestion that the hunter-gatherers were all little Rush Limbaughs just doesn't hold.

[Argus]

Sure. I thought I would show you what scholars think of the issue. Physical anthropology has also found that paleolithic and neolithic sites had many members with injuries, deformities, etc that were obviously being kept alive by the rest of the group. These groups were very communal with sharing of resources. I'm sure in tough times, if there was famine, there were tough choices made about who got the food, with the old and sick being denied it - like the cliche of the old being sent out on an ice floe.

The primary means of coercion was ostracism and expulsion - the latter would be a death sentence in effect.

But your suggestion that the hunter-gatherers were all little Rush Limbaughs just doesn't hold.

I didn't suggest they were little Rush Limbaughs, but what you've already said above is basically just a restatement of what I pointed out. Ie, you didn't get to loaf along on the sweat of others back then. You worked and you contributed. And yes, perhaps they would help to carry you to some extent if you couldn't contribute as well as others. But would any of the fathers let an incompetent fool of a hunter who could barely keep up to the group marry his daughter? Probably not. And if resources were scarce, you were booted out.

[Canuckistani]

I disagree on the spectacles, since they have the means to rectify their problem, though I would agree to some extent if the state pays for it. And yes, hospitals do thwart Darwin in many cases where people ought to die of genetic flaws, but live to pass them on to succeeding generations. Being rescued doesn't seem to follow, however, unless you're being rescued from your own stupidity.

Did the Spartans have the right idea for genetic improvement -- albeit cruelly done - by letting babies die if they were flawed?

Ie, if only handsome, healthy and intelligent people were permitted to breed, would this not eventually improve the race dramatically?

Do they have to be all three, because Stephen Hawkins certainly wouldn't qualify. Two out of three - he'd still be out but Britney Spears would be in.

Then, who will judge the handsome part? What does healthy mean? What kind of intelligence qualifies, only IQ or

do we use Gardner's 9 types of intelligence?

1.1 Logical-mathematical

1.2 Spatial

1.3 Linguistic

1.4 Bodily-kinesthetic

1.5 Musical

1.6 Interpersonal

1.7 Intrapersonal

1.8 Naturalistic

1.9 Existential

My guess is you would fail on 1.6 and 1.7 for instance.

[Argus]

Do they have to be all three, because Stephen Hawkins certainly wouldn't qualify. Two out of three - he'd still be out but Britney Spears would be in.

Then, who will judge the handsome part? What does healthy mean? What kind of intelligence qualifies, only IQ or

do we use Gardner's 9 types of intelligence?

1.1 Logical-mathematical

1.2 Spatial

1.3 Linguistic

1.4 Bodily-kinesthetic

1.5 Musical

1.6 Interpersonal

1.7 Intrapersonal

1.8 Naturalistic

1.9 Existential

My guess is you would fail on 1.6 and 1.7 for instance.

I don't know. Apparently I'm able to engage in conversation on abstract subjects without having hissy fits and insulting people. So I guess I'd do better than you would. And by what interpretation of intelligence would you say Britney Spears qualifies?

[Canuckistani]

I don't know. Apparently I'm able to engage in conversation on abstract subjects without having hissy fits and insulting people. So I guess I'd do better than you would. And by what interpretation of intelligence would you say Britney Spears qualifies?

Sorry about the snide remark. I came to this forum to do better. There was no need for it.

Read my post again. She's "handsome" and healthy, so if 2 out of three criteria are used, she would be in.

Handsome should already by taken care of by natural selection, no. Depending on how much value it has for survival. I could see us imagining a group of people most of us would consider ugly who see themselves as quite lovely and certainly not impeded in survival in any way. Handsome mostly already means healthy. At one time it included being fat, because that meant better survival during pregnancy/childbirth for women and wealth for men.

But what does healthy mean. Should people with a history of heart disease in the family be prevented from breeding? It doesn't usually come into play until they have raised children of their own, and who knows what contribution they or their children will make before they have that myocardial infarction?

And, do you really want to live in Sparta? All they produced were warriors. The great art was produced by other cities with a softer approach to life. Same with the great philosophers and mathematicians.