That wasn’t my point. I am saying that an environment can be so controlled that there are no selective factors to weed out unadaptive behaviors and diseased organs… so that what would in any other context be considered as ‘unfit’ is actually irrelevant because the environment is no longer making those demands on the organism.
The inability to walk, for instance, would not be a weakness in this artificial environment. It would be like a vestigial physical inferiority.
How about this then. The rate at which the human being can modify his environment so that the traits that make him unfit become irrelevant to his reproductive success, is the rate at which the definition of ‘healthy trait’ changes (and hence, the definition of fitness indicator).
100 years from now, in the future, or perhaps less, new generations of turds and retards will be born and indoctrinated with the Global Education Program. This “education” will re-educate what was once thought and believed to be true. Instead of evolution and natural selection occurring, instead the children of future generations will be taught something else. Randomness. Why do women fuck some men, but not others? “Who knows???” Replies the teacher. “It’s all random.” Sex is dictated by chance. A woman, like Phoney, is given a choice between two adult men. One is handsome, tall, charming, rich, the other is ugly, short, autistic, poor. How does Phoney decide her mate, and which progeny will reproduce? Let’s ask her. “I don’t…know!” Admits Phoney. She just “feels it”. No explanation. No reason. No cause. No science. No objectivity.
Whoops, it was an accident, she accidentally chose the more sexually attractive male. Why? Random. Accident. Whatever, man.
Evolution won’t exist because what’s the difference anyway??? How dare you discriminate between one person and another? Are you a person-ist? How dare you say one person is more attractive than another, smarter, faster, stronger, richer, whatever? How. Dare. You??? Judge. Somebody. Else? Just who do you think you are?
Are you in control of your own genitals? No, somebody else is. God did it. A mystical, magical force is directing all the genitals of the world. No explanation. It’s a game of chance, which genes reproduce. And which genes will not!
She may have relations with either for different reasons, but as far as progeny is concerned, she may go to a sperm bank, where they have more exact data for the best progeny possible
If I could post pictures: an older pseudo intellectual
Starting to resemble a tomato plant. Don’t worry I planted it my self, it’s strictly organic, no preservatives or viruses.
I feel a sudden urge to publicly apologize to You Phon, I warned You of the inverse relation between humor and the absurd.
This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: “Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?”.
There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection …
There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection …
This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: “Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?”.
There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection …
We select. Of course we do. Duh!
Not only. And even a Darwinist does not deny this fact.
Again:
Or it is not, because the “selectors” conradict it, they “select” against the “natural selection” (cp.: “handicap” - it can also be interpreted in the opposite way as it is by Darwinists).
This is another example of the so-called “social selection”, thus the selection with some of the humans as selectors. Humans have always “selected” (more appropriate is the word “breeded”) humans.
She says this:
The conclusion is that the Darwinistic “survival of the fittest” must be nonsense, because Darwin claimed to know something about the “fitness”.
Yes.
Yes.
Not only. Humans do as well.
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah, … man, oh, man.
Yes, it can but does not need to.
In the past 200 years! If you consider 250 years, then it is the 9 fold population.
If you mean the Darwinism or other evolutionary theories with the so-called “evolutionary standpoint”, then it is very problematic, because the Darwinism and other evolutionary theories claim to be “objective”.
The evolutionary process is not capable of having an interest and of explaining (remember your own words: “It does not have a mind”).
And remember too:
Yes. It is symptomatic for the majority of the modern people who are influenced by the modern media.
But that definition is problematic, if you can never know what “fit”, “fitness” , and the “fittest” are, as Phoneutria herself said:
The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called “natural selection”, for example by their own “selections” (“social state” as “social selection” and so on and so forth).
a. No environment can be controlled to that degree. Even in a climate of over-population and a sheltering state, you have no reference for making a claim that such an environment could exist. it’s a fantasy born out by the imagination and by television. Consider how clean and safe our environment is to the environment of the first homo-sapiens. It would appear flawless and perfect to such a man. Does it appear that way to us? An increase in technology is accompanied by the understanding which produces it and the relative mastery of the processes such technology involves. this means:
i. we will always be in an environment where flaws, deficiencies and imperfections are present and observable and the observation will be that of a human being, with human sensory organs and a human genetic history, adapted to observing and responding most positively to indicators of good genetic health.
ii. an increase in technology that intricate would be under the domain of people who have too precise an understanding and too honest an objective assessment to use/design such decadent technology and they would reject as being reasonable the drive towards infinite and unlimited health in any and all circumstances. They would be much more likely to use technology to add intensified stresses to the organism, as opposed to reducing or erasing them, in order to produce something that is genuinely more resilient and representative of its own genetic history of health. Those characteristics which emerged and flourished in non-artificial environments.
b. What you just described would technically be the end of life: immortality, infinite preservation and the destruction of any and all decay. This is pure utopian hallucination. Even if such a state was attainable in a distant future world we are nowhere near that technologically advanced and the intelligence and objectivity required to create that world could only be reached with a long-term incentivisation of traits and refinements of our finest attributes. Any vestigial inferiority would still be a perceived inferiority in any environment which is not perfect. We don’t need physical muscle in the same way we once did, but that has possibly increased the attraction that indicators of physical fitness wield. It’s like the equality paradox. The more freedom that is attained by women in industrial societies, the more typically feminine their choice of behaviours and occupations becomes. It is the lower type of stressor of the third world environment, the immediate pressure of poverty, hunger etc. yet to be overcome, that sees women entering in large numbers into typically male dominated fields simply to get by (Engineering in India for example). The point being that ,a technological environment anywhere near as sophisticated as the one you claim is possible to achieve, the concept of which prevents you from accepting that the individuals with the highest potential fitness will always and in any possible environment be the most likely to survive, would de facto provide an unprecedented access to leisure and introspection and will result in an environment where unprecedented choice will emerge, and this can only benefit the drive towards superficial, innate, primal, pleasurable and creative characteristics i.e. the rudimentary indicators of health, beauty, dominance further entrenching us in a reality where genetic health is never ‘overcome’. (Although it is perhaps interesting to consider the increase in inequality and the widening class gulf as the rich gain wealth and the underclass swells uncontrollably. Perhaps we are already in a world where a certain class is engaging in these pursuits and leaving the slaves in a pool artificially reinforced dysgenics and top-down sentimentalism[, although, I do not see a marked increase in the apparent fitness of that class]).
c. i. that rate is never quick and disorienting enough to remove our innate appreciation for genetic health, you can only have renditions of modern psychological control and emasculation which train people to negate rationality for emotionality (social conditioning, brain-washing to remove any logical analysis of issues relating to genetic fitness and it’s associated behavioural and psychological affects)
ii. no environment can ever be produced that is both A) void of imperfections in removing all biological proclivities towards foundational genetic health and B) designed by human organisms with human intelligence and a human genetic history which, wherever possible, selects the organisms with the highest level of potential genetic fitness (which is perceptible and therefore ALWAYS necessary to factor into understanding out evolutionary past/potential futures.)
All in all, I am saying, to reduce fitness to mere the achievement of ‘survival’ or more accurately ‘existence’ and to ignore greater or lesser potentially fit classes of currently surviving human organisms, based on your fantasy that we will someday technologically overcome the gene itself, is not only naive, it is also an irresponsible cop-out and is so fantastical that it places life outside the confines of life…
Yes but it is and was via imposition, not nature. Similarly, moderns are bombarded with absurd social memes that distort and demonize logical and objective thinking about these subjects. What we have emerging is an upper/ruling class who can live freely and acknowledge these facts and a lower class who are taught to aim for a frictionless social utopia where every person with every possible type of behaviour (there are exceptions: think outspoken conservative) is received and accepted without any value judgements being permissable. Safe-spaces, fat and slut-shaming and micro-aggressions all symptoms of this trend.
Which, as I say, reduces fitness to the level of mere existence and denies that any nuance is relevant to the the OP. This is why she is a dishonest dimwit who cannot be taken seriously.
That is the question. The “social state” as the selector according to the “social selection” does “select” against the Darwinistic “selection principle”, thus against the “natural selection”.
But so what? If left to natural devices, how would
more complex and unnaturally developed people
survive the very changes, which bring about complexity? Intellectuals for one may be thwarted in their effort to overcome their short comings. These
in turn may deficit the use of their artifacts with
which would diminish on account of the adege,:‘use it or, loose it’
I personally see this as something deliberate, not as the by-product of largess and over-achievement. The state wants dumb, illogical drones but will allow a technocratic, managerial class to rule over them. I think it is impossible for this class, with unimaginable information at their fingertips, to be propagating this new social morality and peer-pressure based ignorance with anything other than ill-intentions. This class is rational to the point of psychopathic, but they promote Sentimentalism, hyper-sensitivity and hysteria.
Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they “select” against the “natural selection”. But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.
Arminius, I will reply to your full post, but for now I want to just grab this little piece to make a comment:
This is not exclusive to humans. There are several examples in nature and I can give you a common one. The massive tail of the male peacock disrupts its ability to fly and makes it slower and clumsier and morenprine to predation. It serves no purpose other than to attract females. That is an example of sexual selection.
As to human power to destroy its own ecosystem, we do it because we can. If other creatures could modify thenenvironment to suit them, they would. Ine example is thenbeaver, who blocks and alters courses of rivers and floods massive amounts of space in forests just to make it easier to move around.
Yes, that is true, and as I know you, I would add that this is almost to a T a substantiation if someone saying that in the process of shift fro, natural to social selection, the product no longer resembles the agent . I was only trying to lay a logical foundation to a premature hypothesis. it just indicates the quality of the transition, and does not indicate a break. Sorry Arminius to have given that impression.
We all know this examples, Phoneutria, but I do not want to go in too many details again, because I have already mentioned those and similar examples in other posts. But “sexual selection” and “social selection” are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.
As I said several times.
Of course, they would, but they do not. It is a question of quality. And there is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.
Rabbits nibble the buds off tree buds and sapling but do not eat them. This maintains grassland where they can see predators coming; it also helps the grass remain pasture.
And of course all ruminants by nibbling grass, and defecating on the same spot maintain prairies; also trampling saplings in the migrations.
Many animals make beds, dens, nests etc… The number of examples goes on and on…
