And my TSL tool concept makes that even more true for sake of every individual, not merely the over all ruling class.
It is “fitted”, it fits modernity. 
Ah, yes, not four years ago but 4 pages back from here.
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…
…sure I have heard that before… Amen [-o<
Sexual, Kin and Social selection methods are all types of Natural Selection. It is the parent term.
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection
A good argument against the position that humans being are a socially selected/selecting species.
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.
True. And you and I are not the only ones with an eye on this…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
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.
Never mind, Orbie.
Actually they do, but not consciously.
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…
Arminius, I read your post again, and it seems that your objection to darwinistic selection principle is that the indivicuals with the best features in a species are not always the one who are getting selected.
Leaving out of the discussion the notion of what the best might be, since we can only evaluate what the best might or not be from a human from the 21st century point of view, basically yes. That is true. How does that falsify the principle?
It doesn’t. In fact it asserts it. The principle is a natural occurrence not affected by Arminius’ view about what is or is not “best”.
Nature selects what is ‘best’ not because it is ‘best’. It IS best because it is selected! There is no calculation about value or worth- just simply reproductive success.
I think the confusion lies in his head as he is coming from a teleological theistic perspective that assumes that nature is purposeful.
NS: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.
The adaption is simply measured by reproductive success, and that is what is meant by adaptive.
I have given the answer already several times, Phoneutria. Just read the posts, please. In addition: I have no time now … because I have to get the airplane …: … Holiday … 
Arminius, none of your posts prove the darwinistic selection principle to be false.
Enjoy your holiday, even if it is just a cover for your human disguise, robot.
Your statement is false, Phoneutria.
Try again.
Thank you.
Maybe you are interested in the place where I spend my holidays.