communism stops evolution ?

[Black Sheep]

This is something i am worried about:(:

Well here it goes:
You have a species.Genetic mutations due to false copies of DNA bits provide with the new-born with either beneficial or disadvantageous mutations, and thus the new-born is either better or worse off compared to his competitors for survival in its environment.

Because nature is cruel and stuff, if the new-born has an encumbering mutation it has lower chances of survival and will die, while organisms with beneficial mutations will be more likely to survive, and thus reproduce and pass on their beneficial bach of genes.

In generally, that's how an organism evolves.

However, in capitalism one's survival does not depend on his beneficial small variations in his/her body and mind but rather to class.To make matters worse, in communism the factor of a beneficial mutation is close to nullified.
Survival of an individual is almost guaranteed (if we exclude the obsolete (numerically) cases of terminal illnesses still not conquered by socialisez medicine and science).

My question and frustration is that doesn't that system (communism), while ensuring a good life to all, in the long run cancel natural selection?
We could, of course turn to artificial selection through genetics or something, which would be a good alternative and would remove the terrible cost of natural evolution.

[i had made a similar post some months ago, but now i have given the matter more thought]

PS.I am not a eugenicist,fascist etc. I am jsut concerned if that is a price we have to pay for ensuring everyone's well-being, or if i am wrong/if there are good alternatives to natural selection.

thanks.

[Lynx]

Communism wouldn't cancel natural selection. If you create a gentler and kinder world, organisms will still adapt to their environment. I don't think there is reason to worry about humans ending up like the Eloi, as depicted by H.G. Wells.

[Black Sheep]

Communism wouldn't cancel natural selection. If you create a gentler and kinder world, organisms will still adapt to their environment. I don't think there is reason to worry about humans ending up like the Eloi, as depicted by H.G. Wells.

That's not what i 'm worrying about, our technological development have established us already millions of years ahead of other species.

I m talking about biological evolution, advancement and enhancement of the human species, at its mental,physical -and whatever else you may imagine - attributes.

[LOLseph Stalin]

m talking about biological evolution, advancement and enhancement of the human species, at its mental,physical -and whatever else you may imagine - attributes.

If that was to happen it would take millions of years before any changes would begin occuring. Because of this long time span I don't think it's really something we have to worry about.

[Sean]

The short answer to this is that life will always find a way. Regardless I actually think you are misunderstand evolution. Its not about infinitely perfecting something, its about fitting into a niche. I really think you're putting far too much faith in capitalism's role in natural selection. From your post I get that your post isn't about eugenics but rather that in a perfect world, a self-sustaining society would lead to some kind of atrophy, simply by eliminating competitive factors. Those factors will never ever be removed, they are part of the fun of being human. This idea to me falls into the grey jumpsuit idea of a noncapitalist society where we all act like zombies and mate at given hours while eating 2.5 slices of state bread. That will simply not be the case, even in the worst communist nightmare that cappies dream up. Removing a synthetic social construct and replacing it will affect evolution I'm sure, but no more than the horrors of interracial sex. Notice anyone dying yet?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Evolution is a change in genetic material. If environmental pressure makes it necessary to evolve, we will evolve or become extinct. Technology allows us to adapt without evolving. Our intellect gives us the ability to lift heavy objects - perhaps preventing our evolution toward stronger muscles?

Being able to lift things yourself, without a machine, is still an advantage. It won't be favorably breed, let's presume, because of equal opportunity for child rearing. Those with muscles will not necessarily have children. Similarly, those with low strength will not necessarily abstain from having children.

The environment that best facilitates evolution would cause mass extinction. Society might benefit in the long run, but it isn't a generational occurrence, for the most part. Your not going to miss out on the ability to fly if communism exists.

Communism changes the environment to make evolution less necessary, perhaps, but that isn't terrible. The goal is results. Maybe you want muscles instead of machinery to lift heaving objects, and you could facilitate some sort of eugenics initiatives, but that's another issue.

[mikelepore]

Evolution often produces changes that stop. The cheetah evolved the ability to be fast, but, now that it's already the fastest animal, additional changes in that area are less likely to happen. Similarly, to the end that we can get the banana but the lion can't get us, humans evolved the ability to make tools and use them intelligently. So now we will go on making those tools. We're not interfering with evolution, just being an example of one thing that evolution already did to some extent and then may have stopped.

Then there are other aspects to evolution besides eating and being eaten. Who knows -- perhaps people with longer eyelashes attract more mates, so eyelashes will tend to get longer.

[Picky Bugger]

My question and frustration is that doesn't that system (communism), while ensuring a good life to all, in the long run cancel natural selection?



You seem to be minimising the timescale of evolution here, a communist system would need to be in place for a very long time for it to interfere with evolution and even then as mikelepore said we are not stopping evolution merely changing slightly the favourable conditions.

[Black Sheep]

Regardless I actually think you are misunderstand evolution. Its not about infinitely perfecting something, its about fitting into a niche.
Yeah i know, but competition forces you to always improve yourself, not only the environment.
An environment of post scarcity,solidarity,abundance and safety would put human evolution six feet under.

Yeah..maybe this whole thread's point is stupid.But i cannot help feel a little sad thinking that changes and advances in life with magnitude comparable to the ones from first mammals->humans will not happen (ffs imagine a 4D human entity:drool:).


Those factors will never ever be removed, they are part of the fun of being human.
Yeah but they wont play a role in determining the survival/death of the species,so they can be ignored.


Technology allows us to adapt without evolving.
This sums up the point in your excellent post.:)

Of course communism wont stand for millions of years, but at least theoretically i think i have a point.:blushing:

[frozencompass]

As I perceive it, there are two mechanisms that produce what we collectively call 'evolution': Variation (of genetic traits) and Reproduction (passing on genes).

Communism does not affect variation, as far as I can think of.

Therefore, the problem is with reproduction. Communism does ensure the survival of all people (strong or weak), but this does not affect much the reproduction criteria. One should keep in mind, here, that survival itself is not a goal - the goal is reproduction and survival is merely a precondition for being able to reproduce. Since communism only makes sure that people survive but does not affect the criteria by which humans choose their sexual partner, it's okay to assume that it doesn't get in the way. Besides, in terms of choosing sexual partners, I think that a long-surviving libertarian society would allow evolution (while a long-surviving conservative society with specific moral rules on mating would severely affect it, in a negative way), therefore it seems to me that communism still wins.

Maybe. :sleep:

[Lynx]

That's not what i 'm worrying about, our technological development have established us already millions of years ahead of other species.

I m talking about biological evolution, advancement and enhancement of the human species, at its mental,physical -and whatever else you may imagine - attributes.
Our physical attributes have been shaped by past requirements. For large mammals like humans, the minimum time period for distribution of a new trait is around 20,000 years(?)
Survival traits that are no longer required can become diluted or vestigial. For certain native American tribes, their physiological resistance to periods of famine has resulted in a plague of diabetes. This is due to changes brought on by our modern lifestyle, ie. lack of exercise and processed food diet. What once allowed these people to survive their environment is now harming them.

You may want to read about species that have evolved in predator free, isolated, and niche ecosystems. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism
Perhaps the future will be told by homo sapiens supersize-us

[Revy]

Why should we be concerned with evolution?

If there is any evolution in the future, it will be manipulated by humanity itself through technology (transhumanism).

To lament the end of natural evolution seems to be to be almost primitivist.

[Jack]

If being born into a wealthy family is the result of genetic mutation, and rich people are truly hard workers, then we're shit out of luck!

Good thing Darwinism can't be effectivly applied to human interactions, Social Darwinism is only effective at improving the economy of a nation, therefore is a nationalistic ideology.

[commyrebel]

What? first of all communism has no effect on your genetics. second communism is part of all social and mental evolution, in a communist society you don't have to worry about losing your job or house or paying the bill which would relieve stress and allow us to focus on other things. With that set it would also get all these stupid kids that are eating off there parents silver platters to get to be hard working and smatter which would in-turn rase IQs and common sense. That and the fact that communism is the last social evolution before a technological communist society that little work is done by us most would be done by robotic machines. Take that in and rethink that post

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Dumb people will always find a way to eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

I am a bit worried about the Idiocracy argument, though, that we've reached a point where natural selection no longer applies and what happens is stupid people produce far more offspring than intelligent ones. Not that an individual is necessarily handicapped by ones parents, but it does play a significant role it seems.

[Yazman]

Dumb people will always find a way to eliminate themselves from the gene pool.

I am a bit worried about the Idiocracy argument, though, that we've reached a point where natural selection no longer applies and what happens is stupid people produce far more offspring than intelligent ones. Not that an individual is necessarily handicapped by ones parents, but it does play a significant role it seems.

I agree, but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument - it relies on the concept of "IQ" which is its severely flawed, its own usefulness questionable at best.

[Black Sheep]

Dumb people will always find a way to eliminate themselves from the gene pool.
And how is that justified?


I am a bit worried about the Idiocracy argument, though, that we've reached a point where natural selection no longer applies and what happens is stupid people produce far more offspring than intelligent ones. Not that an individual is necessarily handicapped by ones parents, but it does play a significant role it seems.
I think that as far as intelligence is concerned, education by school,society and parents plays a far more important role.
I doubt you would ccharacterize a person with an IQ 70% of today's average as "dumb".

[bezdomni]

You have a species.Genetic mutations due to false copies of DNA bits provide with the new-born with either beneficial or disadvantageous mutations, and thus the new-born is either better or worse off compared to his competitors for survival in its environment.Your first assumption is actually untrue, most mutations are selectively neutral - providing no functional advantage or disadvantage.

What happens, is these neutral mutations either fade away from the population entirely (assuming a relatively large population) or they fixate (become dominant in the population) at a rate proportional to the effective population size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution


Technology allows us to adapt without evolving.
What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting humans don't evolve?

What does technology have to do with genetic variation, recombination and sexual selection?



To lament the end of natural evolution seems to be to be almost primitivist.
To not acknowledge the importance of the fundamental mechanism by which all life on earth emerged to the nature of human society is unscientific.



Communism changes the environment to make evolution less necessary, perhaps, but that isn't terrible.
Random variation in the genes within a population and sexual selection within that population is a selective pressure.

In order for evolution to happen, there has to be genetic variation, heritability of phenotypes, and random recombination of genes. It is very important to understand that most evolution is the product of neutral mutations accumulating and either fading out of the population or becoming dominant, depending on genetic drift and selective pressures (as well as population size).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

And how is that justified?


(13 January 2008, Florida) Wearing only swim trunks and sneakers, a 37-year-old man raced his motorcycle toward the Manasota Key drawbridge. As the bridge began to open, it was clear that he intended to "shoot the gap." Bridge designers had anticipated such lunacy and invented the crossing guard. The closing gates swept him off his Suzuki, over the side of the bridge, into the water, and out of the gene pool. By a twist of fate the motorcycle continued up the ramp and made it across to the other side.

Source. (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2008-13.html)

I wasn't looking for justification, nor does it need any. It's life.


I think that as far as intelligence is concerned, education by school,society and parents plays a far more important role.
I doubt you would ccharacterize a person with an IQ 70% of today's average as "dumb".

I wasn't talking about IQ necessarily, I'm talking about people who don't read anything not found on a grocery-store checkout aisle, watch a huge amount of television that has no educational value, and, to be blunt, could be summed up as anti-intellectual and raise their kids to fit the mold. (and seriously, schools only exacerbate the problem in many, if not most, cases)

It seems to me that people who fit the above mold are more likely to have more kids than a doctoral student, for example.


I agree, but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument - it relies on the concept of "IQ" which is its severely flawed, its own usefulness questionable at best.

Not necessarily. I would imagine that parents who have their children read instead of watch TV for several hours everyday are going to have an advantage, regardless of IQ.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

Correction.Guns,bombs,George Bush stop evolution

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Why would humanity rely on evolution to secure it's future?
Evolution is slow, inefficient and mindless.

[Radical]

Uhh, I dont care about natural evolution. Why should we care about it?. What diffrence does it make? The sooner everybody is mixed race, the better.

[New Tet]

Why would humanity rely on evolution to secure it's future?
Evolution is slow, inefficient and mindless.

Not necessarily.

Are you acquainted with the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium? If not, I recommend you check some of the writings of Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Punctuated_equilibrium).

[samofshs]

im a creationist. FIX'D!

[Outinleftfield]

Your right natural selection is over.

But evolution is not. We will take over our evolution. I have nothing against this. When gene therapy is here I think it should be considered a human right just like any other medical treatment to treat disease. The only concern is genetic tampering with neutral traits, where the trait replacing the old trait is not "better" except as far as subjective things like "beauty". And what about personality? The idea of them tampering with personality, especially authoritarians is scary. They could breed a generation of happy wage slaves, or even just slaves. Or a docile, obedient army like in Star Wars.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Evolution" is a frustratingly bad name for the process of natural selection, because it suggests that living creatures improve. That is not the case. Living creatures don't "improve" by any human standards of improvement. They change to adapt to their environment. This change is value-free. It's not change for the better or for the worse. It's just change.

And why should humans change to adapt to their environment? We can make our environment adapt to us.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And why should humans change to adapt to their environment? We can make our environment adapt to us.

Simple pragmatism, really. Colonisation of space and other Solar System objects would be considerably easier and safer if we had better resistance to ionising and cosmic radiation. Resistance to vacuum-induced tissue damage would also be handy in an environment that has many thousands (and more) of cubic Astronomical Units of near-perfect vacuum.

Of course, terraforming is an option that should be explored, but even if it can be practically achieved, not all objects can be so modified, and scientists reckon such a process would take centuries, if not millennia to complete.

For those reasons I don't think the two choices (adaptation and terraforming) are mutually exclusive, nor should they be. Genetic and social diversity are good things to have.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I didn't have space colonization or terraforming in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking of our surroundings on Earth. While other animals adapt to various environments (grasslands, forests, coral reefs), we humans build our own environments to suit our needs (farms, villages, cities). We don't need to adapt any further - at least not on Earth. Look at our population numbers: By mammalian standards, they are unbelievably high. We are an insanely successful species. If we want to, we can out-compete any other species for any resource. Among Terran lifeforms, we are supreme and unmatched.

However, while we are perfectly adapted for life on Earth, we are not well adapted at all for life anywhere else. In this you are correct. It would help if we gave ourselves some adaptations for space travel and colonization, such as (much) higher resistance to radiation. But the OP was talking about evolution by natural selection, and we are certainly NOT going to adapt to space environments through natural selection. We could only do it through intentional genetic modification.

I oppose intentional genetic modification of humans because I believe the social dangers are too great, but that's going slightly off-topic. My point was that natural selection in humans has become completely unnecessary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I oppose intentional genetic modification of humans because I believe the social dangers are too great, but that's going slightly off-topic.

The topic seemed to be drifting in that direction, but if you don't feel like going there then that's fine.


My point was that natural selection in humans has become completely unnecessary.Unnecessary for what? It doesn't have a purpose.

[Il Medico]

im a creationist. FIX'D!
I hope your kidding. If not would you provide some evidence to back your claim that the human race arose from the hand of some omnipotent god or other being rather then through natural selection? The fact is you can't so don't bother wasting my time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The topic seemed to be drifting in that direction, but if you don't feel like going there then that's fine.
I think I remember us having that conversation before, and it did not reach any conclusion, because I assume that any new, genetically enhanced intelligent species would be malevolent towards humanity, you assume they would be benevolent or indifferent, and we have no real evidence to point us in one direction or the other.

The discussion will inevitably end with me saying "any species more intelligent than Homo sapiens will enslave or destroy Homo sapiens," and you saying "no they won't."


Unnecessary for what? It doesn't have a purpose.
Unnecessary for any reasonable purpose we might imagine. Whatever natural selection can do, we can do better and faster through technology.

[Bilan]

This thought leads you nowhere, and makes me suspicious of your understanding of both 'communism' and 'evolution'.

[mel]

I thought that evolution stopped whenever there was equilibrium insofar as the adaptability of a species to its environment. In order for evolution to begin to take effect again, the environment must change to make life more difficult for the "standard configuration" of the species.

Because humans have adapted around the environment and managed to configure the environment to better suit them, most don't die from environmental factors before passing along their genes. Natural selection in humans stopped once we were no longer subject to nature's whims on a mass scale. Most (can't actually justify this for certain, but I"m pretty sure of it) people live long enough these days to reproduce, and there does not seem to be any natural factors really involved in who survives and who doesn't with relatively few exceptions. There is selection, but it isn't "natural" and it isn't really progressing us on an evolutionary front.

[bezdomni]

This thought leads you nowhere, and makes me suspicious of your understanding of both 'communism' and 'evolution'.

This is exactly right. The level of stupidity here is astounding.


Uhh, I dont care about natural evolution. Why should we care about it?. What diffrence does it make? The sooner everybody is mixed race, the better.
Yes - why would anybody who cares to have a scientific understanding of reality even bother thinking about the mechanism through which life on Earth has emerged. Your willful ignorance is not impressive.


But the OP was talking about evolution by natural selection, and we are certainly NOT going to adapt to space environments through natural selection. We could only do it through intentional genetic modification.
Did you learn about evolution in 1850? You know, under extreme selective pressure - natural selection will work relatively fast. For instance, Russian Silver Foxes were bred by fur-harvesters for their temper. Those who were easily handled had offspring, those who bit or fought anybody who handled them died off. After just a few generations - the physical and social characteristics of the foxes had completely changed and became very similar to dogs.

There's also a reason biologists who study evolution do lots of experiments with fruit flies - they reproduce like crazy and die really fast. They are ideal for studying the effects random genetic mutations have on phenotypic evolution.


"Evolution" is a frustratingly bad name for the process of natural selection, because it suggests that living creatures improve. That is not the case. Living creatures don't "improve" by any human standards of improvement. They change to adapt to their environment. This change is value-free. It's not change for the better or for the worse. It's just change.
You neglect the part where natural selection eliminates deleterious mutations and favors mutations that increase fitness.

As I mentioned (and was subsequently ignored about) earlier, most genetic mutations are selectively neutral. This fact is fundamental to understanding modern evolutionary theory, and carries very heavy consequences.

[Mo212]

I agree, but there is a fundamental flaw in this argument - it relies on the concept of "IQ" which is its severely flawed, its own usefulness questionable at best.

Also IQ does not mean you are a good person, Chris Langan, person with one of the highest IQ's in the world search "chris langan" on youtube, I can't post links just yet due to not having enough posts.

[Mo212]

I didn't have space colonization or terraforming in mind when I wrote that. I was thinking of our surroundings on Earth. While other animals adapt to various environments (grasslands, forests, coral reefs), we humans build our own environments to suit our needs (farms, villages, cities). We don't need to adapt any further - at least not on Earth. Look at our population numbers: By mammalian standards, they are unbelievably high. We are an insanely successful species. If we want to, we can out-compete any other species for any resource. Among Terran lifeforms, we are supreme and unmatched.

However, while we are perfectly adapted for life on Earth, we are not well adapted at all for life anywhere else. In this you are correct. It would help if we gave ourselves some adaptations for space travel and colonization, such as (much) higher resistance to radiation. But the OP was talking about evolution by natural selection, and we are certainly NOT going to adapt to space environments through natural selection. We could only do it through intentional genetic modification.

I oppose intentional genetic modification of humans because I believe the social dangers are too great, but that's going slightly off-topic. My point was that natural selection in humans has become completely unnecessary.

Except intentional genetic modification of humans has been happening since the beginning of time, whenever you mate with a girl or choose a specific month to mate with her and that particular egg or sperm join you've 'chosen' and influenced the genetic future to some degree.

Arguments against genetic engineering are stupid since evolution has been doing it and a horrible job at it for millions of years, please lets not worship nature, the whole reason human beings are constantly at each others throats and how capitalism and slavery was justified is because *human beings* are not very nice creatures to begin with, their collectively dumbasses, a rational world does not allow suffering, war and poverty, the fact that human beings tolerate it at all is proof of their lack of intellectual power in order to effect change, and a lack of genuine concern for others.

The good and intelligent people outnumber the bad on planet earth by a large margin, you can see this in politics and especially the anti leftist comments on websites that show any kind of concern for people, somehow being compassionate is seen as evil by the right wing and especially right wing christians, their compassion by and large is so shallow and hollow it is alarming.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Did you learn about evolution in 1850? You know, under extreme selective pressure - natural selection will work relatively fast. For instance, Russian Silver Foxes were bred by fur-harvesters for their temper. Those who were easily handled had offspring, those who bit or fought anybody who handled them died off. After just a few generations - the physical and social characteristics of the foxes had completely changed and became very similar to dogs.
NoXion was talking about resistance to cosmic radiation and vacuum-induced tissue damage. We cannot evolve such traits naturally because it would require putting a large human population in space - which can only happen as the result of an intentional, deliberate decision. It wouldn't be natural selection, it would be artificial selection.

The same applies to the foxes you mentioned. They were placed under intense selective pressure designed by humans with a human purpose in mind. The mechanism of evolution is the same regardless of the souce of selective pressure, true, but we cannot simply ignore the differences between adaptation to a natural environment and adaptation to a human-designed environment that has zero chances of occurring naturally (such as a fur farm or a space station).


You neglect the part where natural selection eliminates deleterious mutations and favors mutations that increase fitness.
"Fitness" is a relative term. An animal is "fit" to the extent that it can reproduce. The same trait can be a sign of fitness in one species and a crippling handicap in another. It depends entirely on the environment. Feet adapted to running through open grasslands may get you killed in a thick forest.


Except intentional genetic modification of humans has been happening since the beginning of time, whenever you mate with a girl or choose a specific month to mate with her and that particular egg or sperm join you've 'chosen' and influenced the genetic future to some degree.
But that is not intentional. You do not intentionally choose which sperm cell or which egg will be used in fertilization. You do not intentionally choose the genetic traits of your offspring.


Arguments against genetic engineering are stupid since evolution has been doing it and a horrible job at it for millions of years, please lets not worship nature...
On the contrary, natural evolution is better than genetic engineering precisely because nature is blind and doing a horrible job at it. Nature is not going to design a race of unstoppable ubermenschen. But humans might.

[mel]

NoXion was talking about resistance to cosmic radiation and vacuum-induced tissue damage. We cannot evolve such traits naturally because it would require putting a large human population in space - which can only happen as the result of an intentional, deliberate decision. It wouldn't be natural selection, it would be artificial selection.

And of course the biggest problem with an intentional decision like this is that we'd be sending off a bunch of people to space with the idea that most of them will die until we've bred a group that can survive in those conditions. I personally have a problem with killing off a bunch of people for scientific progress.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And of course the biggest problem with an intentional decision like this is that we'd be sending off a bunch of people to space with the idea that most of them will die until we've bred a group that can survive in those conditions. I personally have a problem with killing off a bunch of people for scientific progress.

Which is partly why I don't think it should be done that way, just to be clear. Resistance to radiation and vacuum damage can be expressed at the level of cells and tissues, meaning we can develop such traits using non-human mammals as test subjects. We don't even have to leave the surface of the Earth do it either - we can use vacuum chambers and artificially produced radiation to simulate the environment of space.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Alternatively, we could improve the shielding on our ships and design better space suits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Alternatively, we could improve the shielding on our ships and design better space suits.

Redundancy is something that any half-way decent engineer holds as a central principle. That's why things such as generous safety margins exist (or at least they should).

Besides, electromagnetic shielding constantly consumes energy and is useless against photonic radiation and fast neutrons, while physical shielding is heavy, which drives up energy costs. it's not so big a deal for space stations as it is for mobile spacecraft, but even if physical radiation shielding was procured from Near Earth Objects instead of being dragged up from Earth's gravity well, there's still an energy cost associated with shifting such materials due to inertia.

Then there's Murphy's Law. A shielding failure, hull breach, or unexpected solar flare has a high probability of killing an unprotected or unprepared baseline human. Genetic modification may not provide 100% protection, but at worst it can buy some time where otherwise death would be certain.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Looking at the problem from an engineering perspective, you are correct. However, looking at the problem from a sociological perspective, creating a separate group of humans better adapted to spaceflight than the baseline has a very high probability of resulting in spaceflight becoming the privilege of this special minority.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking at the problem from an engineering perspective, you are correct. However, looking at the problem from a sociological perspective, creating a separate group of humans better adapted to spaceflight than the baseline has a very high probability of resulting in spaceflight becoming the privilege of this special minority.

Why? What makes you think that all space-adapted humans will have the same opinions with regard to baseline access to space?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why? What makes you think that all space-adapted humans will have the same opinions with regard to baseline access to space?
Looking at history, I conclude that every time a group of humans have the opportunity to give themselves a special privilege at the expense of everyone else, they will do so.

It will be in the material interest of the space-adapted humans to establish a monopoly over space travel if they can. It is always in one's material interest to establish a monopoly over anything if one can do so.

[Misanthrope]

Communism doesn't stop evolution, communism is evolution.

[Sarah Palin]

I would argue that capitalism stops evolution. In it's most extreme, the richest people who own the corporations are doing no work at all but trading workers and goods to other rich people. They don't need to change because everything is provided for them. But the workers don't evolve at all either. They remain as laborers, doing nothing but work; not learning or doing much else. Under communism, the richest people would be tried and shot for their crimes, and the workers would have opportunities to do other things then work, such as learn and have real power in their lives.