About the gene pool, I was just having a discussion with a ten-year-old about why we humans haven't evolved super eyesight or even greater intelligence. It's all about tradeoffs. If you have too high an IQ, you become evolutionarily unfit. Unable to attract a mate. Prone to criminality and depression. Possibly putting all your effort into raising one young who turns out to be a non-breeder (not that there's anything wrong with that). That's why one guy I know is raising his son to be on the "top of the Bell curve," average in every way. For his child's happiness and for maximum evolutionary fitness.
About the gene pool, I was just having a discussion with a ten-year-old about why we humans haven't evolved super eyesight or even greater intelligence. It's all about tradeoffs. If you have too high an IQ, you become evolutionarily unfit. Unable to attract a mate. Prone to criminality and depression. Possibly putting all your effort into raising one young who turns out to be a non-breeder (not that there's anything wrong with that). That's why one guy I know is raising his son to be on the "top of the Bell curve," average in every way. For his child's happiness and for maximum evolutionary fitness.
Another, equally logical conclusion is that humans should not be allowed to randomly breed, (this was Hitler’s basic proposal of course). Bovine, (cattle) breeding has been very successful for the last 400 yrs(?) with emphasizing genetic characteristics—so logically it should work in humans.
But as a human with a voice, (unlike a cow), I might protest that plan.
It would be interesting to see what aliens could do if they came down and dominated us, and they decided to start breeding humans like we bred dogs. How tall could some humans become? How fast? How small? What about cool black-and-white spotted skin and conical craniums?
Interesting experiment, but not one I would want to participate in. In the end our individuality supercedes our commitment to evolutionary growth as a race.
An interesting aside is that is precisely this individuality that causes political systems predicated on social good over individual rights to fail.
It means we are pretty lucky to be the dominate at this time.
I wasn't really thinking that forced breeding to create freakish humans would be "evolutionary growth as a race." But then who agrees on absolutely everything?
All political systems include a mix of "social good" and "individual rights." How long a system lasts depends on a lot of factors. A system based on pure selfishness won't last much longer than Ayn Rand's failed little cult.
I wasn't really thinking that forced breeding to create freakish humans would be "evolutionary growth as a race." But then who agrees on absolutely everything?
If you think about it any change in a species is evolutionary. The spectrum of change is not linear, it’s n-dimensional; so who are we to decide what change in humans is good or bad? We judge the results of selective breeding by the extent to which they serve us.
All political systems include a mix of "social good" and "individual rights." How long a system lasts depends on a lot of factors. A system based on pure selfishness won't last much longer than Ayn Rand's failed little cult.
More to the point, political systems are like a species in that they are ever-changing, Their development is not linear, and the balance between social rights and individualism is never acceptable to everyone, (I am willing to guess that the percentage of people fully satisfied with the blend is very small). Moreover, no one knows what development is good or bad at the time it is adopted.
Contesting for a better balance according to our own priorities, needs, and secondarily our professed philosophies is the only constant of human society.
In this context, permanent peace is never really achievable
One final point for consideration—political systems really do not end, unless every member of that society ceases to exist. When a system fails, it fails to satisfy the needs of a large portion of that society. The system is then modified, sometimes drastically, but it never really ceases.
I am not sure where all this speculation is going, but the journey is fun.
Posted on Tue, 12/18/2007 - 01:25 — by CCTModerator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 135
Prayer to God requires a belief in God. No God, no prayer.
If there is a God, he must be all-powerful, God must be omnipotent.
If you pray, it is because you believe in God, but God must be omnipotent, or there is no God, therefore, you must also believe that God can heal you.
But, if you have to read it here, obviously, you do not believe in God nor in prayer. Going swiming for Christmas? Dont' catch a cold, Y'hear?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 97
What's a "gene poll" ? Is that where you ask a bunch of people what type of denim pants they like to wear?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
You caught me, I meant Gene Pool not gene poll.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 97
About the gene pool, I was just having a discussion with a ten-year-old about why we humans haven't evolved super eyesight or even greater intelligence. It's all about tradeoffs. If you have too high an IQ, you become evolutionarily unfit. Unable to attract a mate. Prone to criminality and depression. Possibly putting all your effort into raising one young who turns out to be a non-breeder (not that there's anything wrong with that). That's why one guy I know is raising his son to be on the "top of the Bell curve," average in every way. For his child's happiness and for maximum evolutionary fitness.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
About the gene pool, I was just having a discussion with a ten-year-old about why we humans haven't evolved super eyesight or even greater intelligence. It's all about tradeoffs. If you have too high an IQ, you become evolutionarily unfit. Unable to attract a mate. Prone to criminality and depression. Possibly putting all your effort into raising one young who turns out to be a non-breeder (not that there's anything wrong with that). That's why one guy I know is raising his son to be on the "top of the Bell curve," average in every way. For his child's happiness and for maximum evolutionary fitness.
Another, equally logical conclusion is that humans should not be allowed to randomly breed, (this was Hitler’s basic proposal of course). Bovine, (cattle) breeding has been very successful for the last 400 yrs(?) with emphasizing genetic characteristics—so logically it should work in humans.
But as a human with a voice, (unlike a cow), I might protest that plan.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 97
It would be interesting to see what aliens could do if they came down and dominated us, and they decided to start breeding humans like we bred dogs. How tall could some humans become? How fast? How small? What about cool black-and-white spotted skin and conical craniums?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
Interesting experiment, but not one I would want to participate in. In the end our individuality supercedes our commitment to evolutionary growth as a race.
An interesting aside is that is precisely this individuality that causes political systems predicated on social good over individual rights to fail.
It means we are pretty lucky to be the dominate at this time.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 97
I wasn't really thinking that forced breeding to create freakish humans would be "evolutionary growth as a race." But then who agrees on absolutely everything?
All political systems include a mix of "social good" and "individual rights." How long a system lasts depends on a lot of factors. A system based on pure selfishness won't last much longer than Ayn Rand's failed little cult.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 585
I wasn't really thinking that forced breeding to create freakish humans would be "evolutionary growth as a race." But then who agrees on absolutely everything?
If you think about it any change in a species is evolutionary. The spectrum of change is not linear, it’s n-dimensional; so who are we to decide what change in humans is good or bad? We judge the results of selective breeding by the extent to which they serve us.
All political systems include a mix of "social good" and "individual rights." How long a system lasts depends on a lot of factors. A system based on pure selfishness won't last much longer than Ayn Rand's failed little cult.
More to the point, political systems are like a species in that they are ever-changing, Their development is not linear, and the balance between social rights and individualism is never acceptable to everyone, (I am willing to guess that the percentage of people fully satisfied with the blend is very small). Moreover, no one knows what development is good or bad at the time it is adopted.
Contesting for a better balance according to our own priorities, needs, and secondarily our professed philosophies is the only constant of human society.
In this context, permanent peace is never really achievable
One final point for consideration—political systems really do not end, unless every member of that society ceases to exist. When a system fails, it fails to satisfy the needs of a large portion of that society. The system is then modified, sometimes drastically, but it never really ceases.
I am not sure where all this speculation is going, but the journey is fun.