Here's an observation that could be a good debate. Natural Selection. We all know the cardinal rule of it, Survival of the fittest/strongest. Every insect and animal in in the world is subject to this but Humans on the other hand seem to be above it. Take the mentally handicapped for instance, out in the wild they'd be prey for the predators and become part of the food chain but alas we don't allow that to happen we care for their every need. If we took part in Natural Selection there probably would not be a world population explosion problem.
1.Why should we?
or
2.Why shouldn't we?
3.Why do you think we are above Natural Selection?
Only one rule for this debate, Keep Religion out of your argument!
1.Why should we?
We should because we have the resources to. Very few disabilities or mental problems are genetics, and even fewer get passed. For instance midgets... 2 can have a child and the chances of the baby being normal is every bit as great as the rest of us.
2.Why shouldn't we?
I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. It's not in my nature to want to let someone die.
3.Why do you think we are above Natural Selection?
We have the technology and resources to be above it.
A rather stupid example of mine would be cars. If you just let them run till they broke and weren't allowed to fix it, I'm sure Toyota and Honda would soon be the last two manufacturers remaining. But we don't do that, and because we don't we tolerate cars that are inferior "genetically".
---
Good debate topic:
Humans, IMHO, have been out of natural selection in it's entirety when we were able to control the producer species to become producers ourselves. In essence, skill wasn't needed by the species and life wasn't as dire and didn't need to be taken as seriously. As such, someone that couldn't procure, through hunting or gathering, the food they needed was provided food in exhange for a skill they could contribute back to the herd, or sometime for nothing at all.
And that nothing at all put us all in the handbasket.
In regards to modern society--without regressing to give up control of the food sources, or without some sort of predator, we're breeding in weakness--in that people that can contribute nothing are having children that contribute nothing. We're becoming parasites off of ourselves.
Further, i don't think that life is sacred--because we all die and most of those that claim life is sacred are selective in who/what the sacntity is allowed to.
I think really, we've gone too far. People are overbreeding.
Genetics IMHO only PARTY enter into it--but it's like the initial dealing of the cards--you're dealt the hand and you must play it to your best of abilities. Thus, it doesn't mean that someone with bad eyesight, or who's naturally obese doesn't deserve to live--only that they have as fair of a shot at life as people who don't have--and they must cope with their faults as everyone else does--no prejudice, and no concessions.
The rest of it is less of genetics and more of attitude. I don't think people that leech off the system should be churning out babies. Nor do i think having a kid makes you noble in any sense.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
WTF, how are humans above natural selection? Natural selection is having a trait that allows them to have offspring, wherby passing their genetic code, and hopefully the trait that allowed them to survive, on. I don't see too many handicaps going out and having handicapped babies.
Natural selection isn't simply surviving. It's about passing your genes on. It also takes thousands of years so it's not something you will notice in your everyday life.
And WTF??!!?! "Very few disabilities or mental problems are genetics"?????
______________________________________________________________
ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.
Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.
Glace wrote:WTF, how are humans above natural selection? Natural selection is having a trait that allows them to have offspring, wherby passing their genetic code, and hopefully the trait that allowed them to survive, on. I don't see too many handicaps going out and having handicapped babies.
Yes, you do.
Glace wrote:
Natural selection isn't simply surviving. It's about passing your genes on. It also takes thousands of years so it's not something you will notice in your everyday life.
And WTF??!!?! "Very few disabilities or mental problems are genetics"?????
You actually haven't contributed to the thread with the above. Make a case, not a statement.
---
Seems to be working great in Africa.
AGuSTiN wrote:Yes, you do.
AGuSTiN wrote:
Make a case, not a statement.
You made a note about midgets. Genetics made them what they are! It's not like they decided to be short or their environment makes them short, it's the way they are born. Same goes for Down's Syndrome, Alzheimer's, Cerebal Palsy, Sickle Cell Anemia, Hemophilia, etc etc. Genes govern our hair color, height, weight (to some extent), and yes diseases and disabilities. Saying that "very few disabilities or mental problems are genetics" is ludicrous. If it's not genetics, then what is it?
______________________________________________________________
ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.
Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.
Glace wrote:
You made a note about midgets. Genetics made them what they are! It's not like they decided to be short or their environment makes them short, it's the way they are born. Same goes for Down's Syndrome, Alzheimer's, Cerebal Palsy, Sickle Cell Anemia, Hemophilia, etc etc. Genes govern our hair color, height, weight (to some extent), and yes diseases and disabilities. Saying that "very few disabilities or mental problems are genetics" is ludicrous. If it's not genetics, then what is it?
You know what, you're right. I'm wrong.
---
Quote:
Seems to be working great in Africa.
Hahhahah^^^^^
" Im 18 more mature than you" - Bortsy!!
We aren't above natural selection. We ARE natural selection. Natural selection is simply evolving to the point where you are able to reproduce and continue the next phase of evolution. We are no more above natural selection than any other species on the planet, as a matter of fact, we have digressed in every way but technologically. Ever wonder why so many people are obese compared to 50 and 100 years ago? Our lifestyles generally don't require much physical labor, and quite a bit of the food we consume is engulfed in saturated fats and other processed 'nutrients'.
So to answer your questions...
1.Why should we? Why should we what?
or
2.Why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we what?
3.Why do you think we are above Natural Selection? We aren't above natural selection.
I don't think we're above natural selection per se, we still tend to eat our own though.
Okay..
We are not above natural selection, because we're not going to last more than a week out in the wilds without the tools we've developed for ourselves. That said, we have learned to alter our own habitats to suit our needs. We build houses and buildings, roads and rail, etc. To insulate ourselves from the wilderness.
Basically we're creating our own micro-habitats.
We keep people alive that physically wouldn't be able to defend themselves because of various reasons, either we have profound emotional attachment (Terry Schiavo) or they are still able to contribute to society, just not in a purely physical sense (Steven W. Hawking). The difference between the two are pretty profound once you get past the physical.. Hawking is mentally all there and his brain is in 5th gear most of the time, Schiavo's couldn't have gotten out of the gate if it got a boot in the ass.
The interesting thing is that Neither of them had any children. They're not responsible for the explosion of population.
No, it's the aftermath of the 2nd world war... at that point, the french and british empire's were basically dismantled leaving a lot of people that were poor, and needed the stability of the patriarichal system to keep them afloat... Basically they needed more hands doing work to keep the house afloat, so they did the easiest thing they knew.. made babies... once the child hits 4-5: off to work. Hate to say it, but if it weren't for Child Labour, a lot of economies would fail (The US, Britian and Canada are no exception at the outset... by no means).
Kids are also being born because people refuse to use proven birth control practises, and they have sex recreationally in a risky manner. The kids are being kept (I'm not going to get into abortion) by incompetant mothers, and the children are not learning what they need to know in schools or from their parents in order to be able to have sex, and be safe, and get pregnant only when they want it. The cycle can be broken it's up to lawmakers to pull their heads out of various body parts and ancient tomes and basically wake up and smell the Maple nut Crunch.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Maple @!#$ Nut Crunch?
Are you gonna tell me Juan Valdez is down in Bogata now fielding a field of maple nuts? I don't @!#$ think so!
As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my left maple nut that he's not!
Pull up your pants.
degenerated wrote:Maple @!#$ Nut Crunch?
Are you gonna tell me Juan Valdez is down in Bogata now fielding a field of maple nuts? I don't @!#$ think so!
As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my left maple nut that he's not!
Pull up your pants.
I love Denis Leary! One of my favorite comedians!
Back to the topic:
We're PARTLY above it--but not in the way we think we're above it--we're basically defeating the purpose of it by breeding in weakness.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Anybody ever heard of Eugentics? It's what the human race tried not all that long ago, to make a perfect human..almost the same goals at Hitler.
Eugenics Info
We learned about this in class a few weeks ago, I couldn't believe I've never heard of it before. Basically those in charge of this movement in the US tried to stop the lower class and those with disabilities to stop breeding, while those with good breeding stock were pushed to have more children. In a way, working towards the same goals as natural selection, just more of a manual route.
Yes....... I know that's not a lizard.
I'm sure this has already been said but this is my take on it.
Humans in themselves have ceased to "Naturally Select"
We live long unnatural lives nowadays using all sorts of technology. Animals in nature do not have this option
Humans also conform the environment to their will, whereas in nature the environment controls and "naturally selects" animals.
up until thousands of years ago there were several kinds of bipedal humanoid life forms. "Homo Sapien" Was created and due to it's leap in mental superiority more or less wiped out the other humanoid life forms to make what we, more or less, know now.
We procrate, we survive the same illnesses, killed by the same illnesses. there's nothing new added to the gene pool. The same genes get passed on every generation, there is no innovation.
All it takes is one major disruption and BAM, change.
Darwin's Finches evolved because they were separated and evolved genetically to survive different conditions.... and since humans essentially live in constant similar conditions... where is the catalyst for growth and change?
Now I have to make the point, I do enjoy being alive and I do enjoy being human. but I'm just stating what my opinion is on this subject.
that's my 2 cents.
I agree with most, that natural selection in humans still exist, it is a trait that we will never get rid of I hope. We are the only species that choices to ignore it. It still exist, but we are able to breed in weakness like "keeper of the light stated". Most of the time, humans with major disabilities can not give natural birth to children, but now with our technology they can. They has to be a reason why cross bread species can not produce offspring, like mules (from horse and donkey), and even a liger (a male lion and female tiger). both are 99.9% sterile. I know it is not exactly the same thing, but close enough.
I believe we need more natural selection, but this will never happen.
Why shouldn't we, the only reason is morals.
We ARE NOT ABOVE natural selection.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
The eugenics link is faulty.
Eugenics was never really a "science" to begin with... it was a pseudo science that was developed in the 18th century, and rolled along as a way to purge the indigent, unclean, the poor, the unpopular, the radical and the non-servile from "polite society." Basically it started out as a way to reduce crime by pushing out the unseemly elements of society to make it even more bland and numbingly same.
Eugenics is now becoming more of a study of bloodlines, and in that, I think it's a real and founded science. Studying the blood line and not assigning a qualtitative assessment on that bloodline is the key.
<a href="http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/">Here</a> is a link portraying the American ideals behind eugenics. Basically, Irish (micks), Itallian (WOPs), Gypsys, Negros, mongoloids, mid-easterners (sand-niggers), were all considered unclean, and an unnecessary burden to the upper strata of American WASP culture. I use the derrogitory names because in "polite" society, this was the one vulgarity that was allowed.
Eugenics started, like many of our current abominations, in Britain, and it was pretty much held, in the beginning, as an ideal that some people were meant to succeed and live long, pampered lives, while others were meant to live in squalor, and die young after siring children to take up their parent's mantle. The idea evolved somewhat into a "science" where Caucasians (not Irish, nor most Scots, nor most northern europeans) were ranked above all others, although, most aristocrats were ranked fairly high.. but could never aspire to the perfection (in all it's in-bred splendor) of the British King. It was basically a socio/racial casteing system that assured some people's rank in society.
It spilled over into the US by way of British Immigrants, and basically brought a lot of the old world troubles, biases and such along. Irish were workers because they reproduced like rabbits, Itallians could be worked until they died, Greeks had no nobility but were skilled masons, and negros would do as they were told as long as you kept them fed, brainwashed and happy. More Irish, Acadian and Itallians died in Boston, New York, Lousiana civil works projects than any other group because they weren't valued as people. The whole mess culminated with the sterilization of mentally retarded children and adults because it was "for their benefit."
At this point, I think we're collectively more enlightened to know that people that are not physically perfect, or mentally perfect can still contribute to the group as a whole, and deserve as much back as everyone else. Natural Selection is still in play because most people don't want to have sex with mentally retarded people (at least, not within a relationship), but those that have Down's syndrome can still have children that are perfectly normal, they're just carriers of the gene, just like everyone else in their family potentially is.
Natural selection is an ideal, but it's not quite refined well enough for us to use it in any way to start shaping our future genetically. We've learned to isolate and insulate ourselves from the rest of nature, but we're still part of it. I think the ideal that everyone in our society can contribute, and every contribution is worthy. If you think that's not the case, would you want someone to judge YOUR contribution as deficient? We're stronger together anyhow... Natural selection works on a species level, where one rises and falls as others ebb and wane. Natural selection isn't as workable a theory as natural webs, where whole groups of interdependant species thrive and fail as a group.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Yeah I'll live with that. well said.
Thanks
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
