Evolution vs Welfare State
- Thread starter Randomface74
- Start date
Well true. Just because it has a genetic component doesn't mean it is a totally genetic-makeup dependent disease, but in the issues talked about genetic factors seem to be extremely important in whether or not you develop the condition. So, in short sightedness, "Genetic factors play a critical role in the development of myopia, especially high myopia". For Type 1 diabetes, "Although the disease has a strong genetic component...only few causal genes have currently been identified". I'd take "causal gene" to mean that genetic makeup is a major factor in it.
In the context PermaBanned was talking, I'd guess that any genetic risk factor, particularly a "causal" or "critical" gene would probably fall into the "inferior" category.
EDIT: The one caveat is that these diseases are really complex and nobody is 100% certain of the causes. I'd guess there's a spectrum of "purely genetically caused", "mixed environmental and genetic" and "purely environmental" to them, but like I said in the context Permabanned was talking I'd say the risk-factor genes would still fall into the category he was talking about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
That doesn't say anything for large numbers of people with any of those conditions (myself included) being included in the 'genetically inferior' group as sweepingly defined by a previous poster.
Semantics. For you interest I myself fall under that category too.
Again if that word is not correct please do suggest a better word to describe it.
Pin in down to Jews?
How can you compare natural selection to the welfare state... I know you are trying to come accross clever and all but its liek comparing a shoe to a space shuttle and saying which is the green one.
We are Human beings not animals. Most of us sorry, yes there are a few sea slugs here and there on this forum.
We are Human beings not animals. Most of us sorry, yes there are a few sea slugs here and there on this forum.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
---
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
One could argue that medicine is defence against other species. I wouldn't suggest that sticking to evolution means only fighting with sticks, medicine is okay because it's using our evolved intelligence.
That's different to treating a condition, or pain relief. Perhaps if we didn't have those we would evolve natural resistance.
Lets stick to the welfare state if we can though
Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?
Lets stick to the welfare state if we can though
Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?
Maybe. But at what cost?
Indeed, but the argument is a null point frankly. Yes, he would less likely to exist in his current state, if any at all. That doesn't mean someone of equal or greater intelligence would not have been born. His mental capacity has nothing to do with his disability, and as such linking the two are pointless. Yes, the smart man that exists now wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean by breeding stronger people that you would eliminate the kind of intelligence that he possesses.
And it is an interesting point, though. The 'welfare state' does give a security and longevity to people who would otherwise be too weak or too stupid to survive. Where nature would have them eliminated (by 'natural' causes or by being destroyed by fellow beings) due to those defects, you would essentially be weeding out such defects from the gene pool over a period of time, possibly leading to a 'naturally' stronger species while at the same time, it could be argued that the said 'welfare state' provides security so that those who are physically weaker but mentally superior, or mentally inferior but physically superior survive, so thus leading to a stronger species in different ways.
Last edited:
Indeed. Airbags could be blamed for keeping thousands of idiots alive who "should" have been removed from the gene pool over the years.
Personally, and I don't believe in god, I believe that our future evolution is not going to be physical (IE in strength, resilience, mental capacity etc) but in our social nature and scientific endeavour. Not as individuals but as a species. Bit like the Matrix but less evil. Innit. Now I'm drunk, see post 3
Personally, and I don't believe in god, I believe that our future evolution is not going to be physical (IE in strength, resilience, mental capacity etc) but in our social nature and scientific endeavour. Not as individuals but as a species. Bit like the Matrix but less evil. Innit. Now I'm drunk, see post 3
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
Evolution only comes into play with selection, the next ice age will do the selecting. Which could be just around the corner.
It makes most sense to me although I imagine, or rather hope, our mental capacity would increase, but rather our physical characteristics (vision, physical strength, speed, defense mechanisms) will stay as they are; average. Without any kind of predators we don't have the defense mechanisms that many other organisms have to protect ourselves, and as such, our mental capacity increases as does our knowledge of the universe and the teaching of such information. We have become the top of our food chain because of ability to create and use tools and because of our superior numbers. I don't see that changing any time soon and in fact will simply occur along that line until we eventually slip off our mortal shells and being pure energy. Booya.
Evolution is about physical survival, someone 200yrs ago was more adept at surviving than a wage slave today... how has being a glorified serf and trading the paper your master gives you for food etc creating more evolved human beings? if anything we have gone backwards as a race in comfortable modern times. Most people today would be screwed without shop shelves and a microwave, all of my older relatives are great at knitting how many people could make their own clothes if an ice age hit and the economy collapsed?
Also, you are making the assumption that idiots don't work, workplaces are full of them.
Quite, with all the global warming fantasia going on that will be a real kick in the knickers for the "scientific community" that whole heartedly back the idea
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Hmm I don't know.
Currently the welfare state encourages the poorest to procreate with less discrimination than anyone else would, which is welfare going against evolution I guess.
You could also argue that the technological advances which have meant innately disabled or less abled people can have children (thus continuing the defective genetic line) more explicitly goes against evolution in a more classical sense.
Currently the welfare state encourages the poorest to procreate with less discrimination than anyone else would, which is welfare going against evolution I guess.
You could also argue that the technological advances which have meant innately disabled or less abled people can have children (thus continuing the defective genetic line) more explicitly goes against evolution in a more classical sense.