About natural selection...

[Module]

Random thought...
Human beings have evolved to where they are over time through those who are the smartest and the strongest the ones that being judged best to breed with by us fellow human beings, because they are the 'fittest' in their environment,
Given that nowadays those fittest in our global environment are typically those with the most money, which means those born into western countries and wealthy families, which has far less to do with having 'superior' genes physically and intellectually,

Do you think it's possible that the evolution of our species to become more intelligent (for example) will be (or has been) slowed down?

Or is this just an absurd suggestion that I probably should've thought through further before posting in a thread? :confused:

[Apollodorus]

It is not absurd, do not worry, comrade. It is perhaps a bit confusing though. I interpreted that post as 'The rich become rich because they are smarter, and therefore mankind will become smarter.' Correct me if I am completely wrong.

Firstly, those who are rich and successful are not so because they are smarter or physically superior. Some get there by circumstance, some by ruthlessness and immorality, some by burning motivation, et cetera.

Secondly, evolution is not based on survival of the fittest. Darwin never actually used the phrase survival of the fittest. A more correct phrase would in fact be survival of those who have the greatest number of offspring, or actually greatest future influence of those who have the greatest number of offspring. Rich and successful people never have more than two children, and frequently have one or none. This is partly because of the nature of rich and successful people, and partly because if they did have lots of kids then they would not really be rich and successful.

Actually, if birth rates continue as they do for many many years, then the Sub-Saharan regional genes will dominate. Or, out of all the classes, those who are very poor; so poor they need children to work for them.

[Module]

Thanks for replying, and sorry that I have confused you.
I was making the opposite point, actually - that it's because the rich are not so because they are more intelligent that there is the 'problem'.
And yes, I am aware that 'fittest' means greatest number of offspring, I phrased it as
being judged best to breed with by us fellow human beings
Sorry if I was being confusing :D:D
Besides that, yes, I had considered that also. Richer nations don't necessarily have the highest birth rate, and I suppose I was being simplistic in forgetting that over the fact they have a much higher life expectancy (for instance).
Now I reconsider, those nations with the highest population growth are not those developed nations, at all, and my point altogether seems rather silly.
But, I was in the shower and it just 'came' to me, so... haha.

[Luís Henrique]

"Fittest" is always "fittest to a certain environment"; and, no, being "stronger" or "smarter" does not make one necessarily "fitter". If so, incredibly stupid critters like bacteria or slugs wouldn't exist any more.

Evolution is not a mechanism designed to select anything; it is a process in which some become selected out of purely local reasons.

And, oh yes, maybe every poor kid in the world fancies making children with Paris Hilton, but, regardless, they will still have their children with the girl next door... so money does not have anything to do with evolutionary pressures.

Luís Henrique

[STI]

Poor people tend to have more kids than the well-off, especially if we look globally.

So if anything, natural selection would weed out the rich... though neither would actually occur.

[MarxSchmarx]

Poor people tend to have more kids than the well-off, especially if we look globally.


True. But until recently few survived to reproduce so on average it came out to about the same.

RA Fishers so-called fundamental theorem states that organisms become ''fitter'' due to natural selection, whatever their environment.

THe OP's argument hasd been made before for the UK:

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/a_farewell_to_alms.html

It's not az strictly natural selec-ion based argument but is similar in spirit:

[Module]

Evolution is not a mechanism designed to select anything; it is a process in which some become selected out of purely local reasons.

And, oh yes, maybe every poor kid in the world fancies making children with Paris Hilton, but, regardless, they will still have their children with the girl next door... so money does not have anything to do with evolutionary pressures.

Luís Henrique
I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about natural selection, which is a mechanism "designed" to select.
And I wouldn't say it was necessarily how successful men would be in bedding Paris Hilton as it is about generally changing averages, and so ranges of genetic mutation.
Millionnaires are more likely to have their gene's passed on to the next generation, for example, than their economic opposites, who are probably dying of manutrition, along with their potential offspring.
The same way that a genius would have more people who want to reproduce with her/him than a mentally handicapped person.
In a lot of societies money matters a great deal in who you choose to marry. India is one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are much better examples.
Somebody with money to feed and clothe themselves and their family will have a much better chance of having their genes passed down than somebody without.

[jake williams]

Evolution is a very complex process. To some degree we do select those organisms we determine to be the fittest, but it's a contorted and largely secondary process. We also select those organisms which our bodies determine to be the fittest, and they have different selection criteria. There are plenty of things we naturally select for still which aren't necessarily beneficial in the current environment, because evolution moves slowly and in weird ways. It's not perfect at all.

Also I don't think the drive to get with rich people has much to do with "evolution" in some big and profound sense. More that people seek out money for more obvious reasons. But people, obviously are limited in their capacity to do this. And there's always gender asymmetry. And really just a whole bunch of other factors.

[Apollodorus]

Millionnaires are more likely to have their gene's passed on to the next generation, for example, than their economic opposites, who are probably dying of manutrition, along with their potential offspring.

The poor can not afford contraception though, so it would make little difference.



The same way that a genius would have more people who want to reproduce with her/him than a mentally handicapped person.

You should know that the vast majority of men do not really care about how smart women are, and vice versa.



In a lot of societies money matters a great deal in who you choose to marry. India is one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are much better examples.

India is more about caste, I thought.

[Module]

Yes, might I actually draw attention back to my second post :D - I did quickly reconsider my point, but thankyou all for replying to me anyway, and I'll try to continue the discussion.

The poor can not afford contraception though, so it would make little difference.As I mentioned, I would be under the impression that those poor enough to not be able to afford contraception would be those with children far less likely to reach an age where they can reproduce.

You should know that the vast majority of men do not really care about how smart women are, and vice versa.That's a point I suppose. People with lower levels of intelligence probably themselves wouldn't value it as highly as others (although that is an assumption.)

India is more about caste, I thought.Yes, as a country India is primarily divided by the caste system, although in terms of arranged marriages, families are chosen primarily due to economic status, as well as the wife's dowry being considered very important - there are laws against it but of course they are largely ignored.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about natural selection,

If you are talking about natural selection without talking about evolution, then I would dare say that you don't know what you are talking about.


which is a mechanism "designed" to select.

So pray (npi) tell us, who's the designer?


Millionnaires are more likely to have their gene's passed on to the next generation, for example, than their economic opposites, who are probably dying of manutrition, along with their potential offspring.

Obviously that isn't true.


The same way that a genius would have more people who want to reproduce with her/him than a mentally handicapped person.

On the other hand a genius would probably figure out how contraceptives work, and why it is economically and psychologically interesting to use them.


Somebody with money to feed and clothe themselves and their family will have a much better chance of having their genes passed down than somebody without.

Yes, this being the reason the bourgeoisie is counted in billions of people, while the proletariat is a handful...

Really...

Luís Henrique

[jake williams]

In fact it's worth mentioning that the bourgeoisie loves to have a large proletariat for driving down wages and so on.

[Module]

Let's not be rude.

If you are talking about natural selection without talking about evolution, then I would dare say that you don't know what you are talking about.
No, you misunderstand me.
Natural selection is what happens through evolution, the 'selection' of genes to be passed down. Evolution is what happens when these genes change over time. If you're talking specifically about evolution then you miss what I'm saying.


So pray (npi) tell us, who's the designer?I am using your wording, hence the quotation marks.

Obviously that isn't true.Tell me why, then, don't just say it.
Of course there are far more of their economic opposites than themselves, be on an individual scale that is true.

On the other hand a genius would probably figure out how contraceptives work, and why it is economically and psychologically interesting to use them.That is a fair point, although,
How do you mean 'psychologically' interesting?

Yes, this being the reason the bourgeoisie is counted in billions of people, while the proletariat is a handful...

Really...I'm not talking about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, here. I'm talking about people with enough money to survive.
I'm saying that people with money to feed and clothe themselves have a better chance of survival than those who don't.
Obviously that is true.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm saying that people with money to feed and clothe themselves have a better chance of survival than those who don't.
Obviously that is true.

No, it isn't.

Survival up to sexual maturity is the only thing that counts. Surviving up to 90 or 100 years old is not significant in matters of "passing genes".

The relevant statistics are, how many children, on average, do people have, in correlation to their income?

In any given capitalist society, there is an inverse correlation between income and size of offspring.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Natural selection is what happens through evolution, the 'selection' of genes to be passed down. Evolution is what happens when these genes change over time.

That's mutation, not evolution.

Luís Henrique

[jake williams]

Mutation + natural selection = evolution. Mutation creates new genes, natural selection selects them, and you get a new or different organism/species over time.

[Module]

That's mutation, not evolution.

Luís Henrique
Mutation causes the change over time of general genes, but that change is evolution. The changes in specific genes is mutation, the change over time is evolution.

I won't reply to your other post, because as I've mentioned a few times, I'm already aware I'm wrong!

[Woo! 100th post! It's taken a year and a half but I finally got there.]

[Luís Henrique]

Mutation + natural selection = evolution.

Mutation + natural selection+sexual selection = evolution.

Luís Henrique

[MarxSchmarx]

Mutation causes the change over time of general genes, but that change is evolution. The changes in specific genes is mutation, the change over time is evolution.A less confusing way of putting this is: mutation is the change of the gene sequence in the genome. Evolution is the change of frequencies of genotypes or phenotypes in a given population over time.


Mutation + natural selection+sexual selection = evolution.
I interpret this to mean to say that mutation, natural selection, and sexual selection are the complete set of processes that drive evolution. It seems you are trying to get at the distinction between viability selection (selection to survive to reproduce) and fecundity selection (selection on the number of offspring produced).

Surely you do not mean to say sexual selection is required for evolution (e.g. virus evolution). One could argue that mutation per se must result in evolution, because it changes the gene frequencies in the population at least temporarily. However, unless the mutations are selectively advantageous or subject to fixation through drift, such evolution is often negligible and frankly uninteresting.