Evolution vs Welfare State

Nerusy said:
So to answer the OP, yes welfare messes up natural selection but would we be better off without welfare state...that is impossible to answer, too many variables. Also we're very social beings, its in our nature to help each other. My very wild guess is, if there was no welfare state we'd kill each other as all the compassion would die out.
Click to expand...

The OP has a point, if you look at natural selection on an individual level.

What if, you look at natural selection on a species level? In which, the species which for some reason, choose to allow those with "flaws" etc to reproduce. Those "flaws" may somehow enable the species to produce some individual (?hawking), which will elevate or somehow play some key role in the survival of the entire species.

We may be in the process of the natural selection of the entire race. If we display society traits, or otherwise, we may in effect remove our entire species from the selection process (nuclear war etc), and then another will come about and maybe they will not do the same.

So OP, it may be counter-intuitive to enable the "weak" to breed, but maybe this will be what saves the entire lot of us.
 
You're forgetting:

1. The human race probably won't live long enough for any meaningful evolution to take place, be it because of environmental factors or conflict
2. Genetic defects will likely be cured in the future
3. The fact that we use medicine and can cure genetic defects mean we are no longer at the mercy of physical based natural selection, but rather our intellect and tactile manipulation of the materials around us
4. Evolutionarily speaking, how much better can we really become? Technology, Biotechnology, Research and Education will allow us to make ourselves better without evolution.
5. The 'inferior' members of our species should not affect the process of improved evolution, because they are in a minority. Thus, their genetic code is less likely to affect evolution in a negative way. The purpose of evolution is to adapt and become better, therefore any perceived negative effect from the procreation of genetically inferior people - relatively speaking - should not overwhelm us
6. Improvements to the human genome and physical being are likely to come from expensive surgeries and genetic manipulation. Being that there is some correlation between poverty and 'genetic inferiority', it is more likely that the minority become even less in number.
 
Last edited:
Depending on how you look at it, either natural selection is redundant in a heavily medicated affluent society, or the criteria selected for have simply changed.

After all, women don't look for a mate purely based on hunting ability, do they? They pick wealthy males, because hunting is about money nowadays, not running and throwing spears. Different criteria.
 
d_brennen said:
Indeed. Airbags could be blamed for keeping thousands of idiots alive who "should" have been removed from the gene pool over the years.
Click to expand...

True - but I would allow airbags because they protect you (a perfectly evolved human being) from some other moron (who perhaps shouldn't be allowed an airbag) :)
 
Anyone who even considers this topic as a policy should immediately be put at the top of the list under the category "stupid".
 
vonhelmet said:
Can I get a definition for the "evolution" which you feel is being impeded by the welfare state?

I'd like to know which criteria you are applying to this particular brand of "evolution".
Click to expand...

Welfare state in Britain

The concept of a welfare state is to re-distribute wealth to those most in-need. If you take the viewpoint that those in-need should remain in need, then any part of the welfare state is conflicting with natural selection. If you want to split it down and discuss the parts seperately, I consider there to be five parts of the welfare state in Britain:
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)
 
billysielu said:
Welfare state in Britain

The concept of a welfare state is to re-distribute wealth to those most in-need. If you take the viewpoint that those in-need should remain in need, then any part of the welfare state is conflicting with natural selection. If you want to split it down and discuss the parts seperately, I consider there to be five parts of the welfare state in Britain:
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)
Click to expand...
Did you even read the question? He asked you to define "evolution" not "welfare state".
 
Addressing the Stephen Hawking point:

I'm not suggesting we screw-over Stephen Hawking, he can pay for his own healthcare because he's smart enough. Restricting his care would be MORE interference with natural selection - this topic is directed at whether there should be LESS interference with natural selection.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Did you even read the question? He asked you to define "evolution" not "welfare state".
Click to expand...

Yes, misread the whole criteria thing..

Survival of the fittest

Everyone who's pointed out that evolution and natural selection aren't the same thing is correct. Natural selection is a part of evolution by which those who fail to adapt die out. I would state that those who have dependency on the following have failed to adapt (but that's what's up for debate):
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)
 
billysielu said:
Yes, misread the whole criteria thing..

Survival of the fittest

Everyone who's pointed out that evolution and natural selection aren't the same thing is correct. Natural selection is a part of evolution by which those who fail to adapt die out. I would state that those who have dependency on the following have failed to adapt (but that's what's up for debate):
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)
Click to expand...

First you need to prove that the welfare state is actually having any impact at all. For the evidence against I put forward the vast swathes of humanity that survive and breed so called undesirable traits in parts of the world that do not have a welfare state and in this country prior to a welfare state existing.
 
RDM said:
The many many generations that were born and died prior to the welfare state existing would suggest that these undefined traits you feel are not being bred out seem to be quite resilient...

If the welfare state is responsible for keeping such "defects" going in the gene pool how did they manage to survive up to the point that the welfare state was introduced?
Click to expand...

Indeed. How about in another ten thousand years? What sort of timeframe are you talking about? How long does it take for 'evolution' to take place (i.e. the final change into the 'new' species)?
 
billysielu said:
Yes, misread the whole criteria thing..

Survival of the fittest

Everyone who's pointed out that evolution and natural selection aren't the same thing is correct. Natural selection is a part of evolution by which those who fail to adapt die out. I would state that those who have dependency on the following have failed to adapt (but that's what's up for debate):
- Job Seekers Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Income Tax
- National Insurance (Pensions)
- National Insurance (NHS)
Click to expand...

Or they've adapted to accommodate the benefits on offer and take advantage of them? After all, the underclasses heavily outbreed more affluent people, so are more successful at passing their genetic material on. Terrorists win.

Rich people are so hung up on their toys that they have fewer children by and large. Maybe it's they who have failed to adapt and thus are voluntarily selecting against themselves?
 
Hatter The Mad said:
You could, until you start allowing people with genetic flaws and defects the ability the reproduce (using technology and medicine), which reduces nature's ability to remove the bad genes from the pool.
Click to expand...

you're missing sexual selection though.



Living a long time is all well and good but if no one wants to **** you you're not passing your genes on.


Say some weird gene that resulted in male humans dying at 21 but being irresistible to women until then would be an evolutionary advantage.


there are quite a few examples of genetics that are "bad" in terms of survivability and natural selection but beneficial in terms of sexual selection (the bids with big brightly coloured chests and no camouflage, while they die to predictors they attract mates better than others, so they evolve to have the biggest and brightest chests.).
 
remove the welfare state and you will just be getting robbed/beaten by poor or stupid people that are bigger/tougher/stronger than you and need to survive

you won't be evolving anywhere
 
I dont think the welfare state situation can be linked to evolution itself or at least that link is quite loose.As someone mentioned already, the human history is too short for any significant evolution process to take place.With regards to the welfare state, its more to do with questions on the human nature where our incentive,whether now or in the past, has been to go for maximum benefits at lowest possible effort. This only applies to the group of people that prefer to live off the state while they could easily not do so.

With regards to the other group,the one that genuinely needs help, we sure go against the principles of natural selection but many would argue that this is what makes us human(or at least the need for cooperation is one aspect of it). Also,many handicaps on people are not necessarily transferable over generations so we cannot hold the position that keeping such people alive would make us support the continuation of "inferior" species. If anything, their disability may make such people less attractive to the opposite sex in order to reproduce so this is more valid way to talk about natural selection and it should still work in the way it always does.

The real problem for the welfare state is to become more efficient in distinguishing between the two groups because the post-war generations grew too comfortable with thinking that the state is there to back them while politicians have been pretty myopic in their attempts to be reelected by offering more and more welfare goodies that countries,especially in the West, eventually would not be able to afford.

This is my 2 cent on the issue. Apologies if some of the points were already raised but I didnt have the patience to go through all the posts(too much flaming).
 
Genetic screening and manipulation of genes in un-born or not yet conceived kids will give evolution the kick-start it needs.

Terrible thought mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom