Evolution vs Welfare State

Randomface74 · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:19

Evolution
Welfare State

I know you're trying to relax on a weekend... but I'm thinking about this...

Q: Does the welfare state counteract natural selection (those who fail to adapt would otherwise die), thereby reversing or slowing the natural process of evolution? Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?

SparkyG · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:38

Wow heavy debate time........

maybe to balance things out we should put people's benifit money in cage with a lion and see if they can get it out with beeing ripped apart, lol

d_brennen · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:39

Oh god I'm not even drunk yet, brb

PermaBanned · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:43

A pack that doesn't look after it's own is bound to fail. Human's aren't lone wolves, they're social creatures. Like ferrets but less smelly.

Nerusy · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:52

billysielu said:
Evolution
Welfare State

I know you're trying to relax on a weekend... but I'm thinking about this...

Q: Does the welfare state counteract natural selection (those who fail to adapt would otherwise die), thereby reversing or slowing the natural process of evolution? Could evolution produce greater overall wellbeing than the welfare state?

Yes but evolution can not be slowed down or sped up. All that it does is does not let natural selection do it's job.

And yes, if it wasn't for welfare state perhaps there would less genetically inferior people born by now.

PermaBanned · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:54

Nerusy said:
And yes, if it wasn't for welfare state perhaps there would less genetically inferior people born by now.

Yeah, damn generically inferior people. You know that Stephen Hawking really boils my blood... and while we're at it everybody with glasses, asthma and diabetes, taking all our money :mad:

Nerusy · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:56

PermaBanned said:
Yeah, damn generically inferior people. You know that Stephen Hawking really boils my blood... and while we're at it everybody with glasses, asthma and diabetes, taking all our money

Good for you buddy. Tip of the day, don't jump to wrong conclusions.

d_brennen · 2 Jul 2011 at 18:59

Nerusy said:
Yes but evolution can not be slowed down or sped up. All that it does is does not let natural selection do it's job.

And yes, if it wasn't for welfare state perhaps there would less genetically inferior people born by now.

And most likely you too either directly, through your parents, grandparents etc. Obviously you and all your family 4 generations back are all herculean in appearance and fell out of the womb into gainful employment

SlyReaper · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:02

Nerusy said:
Good for you buddy. Tip of the day, don't jump to wrong conclusions.

Then don't use phrases like "genetically inferior". That's just begging for a Godwin.

Nerusy · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:02

d_brennen said:
And most likely you too either directly, through your parents, grandparents etc. Obviously you and all your family 4 generations back are all herculean in appearance and fell out of the womb into gainful employment

You think I do not realize that?

I did not say we should start doing forced eugenics, I am against that.

I simply pointed out that if we did, there would less people with poor genetic code. By poor I mean genetically transferred diseases or illnesses.

Goodness gracious, why do you guys have to jump to wrong conclusions all the time.

PermaBanned · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:04

Nerusy said:
Good for you buddy. Tip of the day, don't jump to wrong conclusions.

Better tip of the day; don't take life too seriously.

Nerusy · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:04

SlyReaper said:
Then don't use phrases like "genetically inferior". That's just begging for a Godwin.

Tell me what phrase to use then, English is not my first language.

Nerusy · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:05

PermaBanned said:
Better tip of the day; don't take life too seriously.

Again jumping to wrong conclusions, what makes you think I take it too seriously or not. I simply saw that you misunderstood what I ha to say, so I corrected you.

Nitefly · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:07

I have never known the true choking and incapacitating grip of terror until I read the opening post of this thread.

:eek:

Castiel · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:24

Nitefly said:
I have never known the true choking and incapacitating grip of terror until I read the opening post of this thread.

I was thinking we had a budding advocate of Eugenics.... :eek:

Gackt · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:36

PermaBanned said:
Yeah, damn generically inferior people. You know that Stephen Hawking really boils my blood... and while we're at it everybody with glasses, asthma and diabetes, taking all our money

I wasn't aware that Stephen Hawking's intelligence came from his disability. :confused:

Lightnix · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:42

This is kind of a stupid argument but I'll wade in with a view of some sort:

I think removing the welfare state would also prevent many people from taking risks, for example changing jobs, moving houses, that kind of thing. It's kind of a safety net for if things go really bums to the sky for a lot of people. Most progress, for example that which would be gained by people moving from less well paying/less economically productive jobs to 'better' jobs, involves some risk taking. Removing the welfare state would reduce risk taking hence removing the welfare state would reduce progress.

If you feel so inclined, consider it an exercise to the reader to speculate over how that could affect natural selection. Yay armchair bio-economics pseudo-science.

d_brennen · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:49

Gackt said:
I wasn't aware that Stephen Hawking's intelligence came from his disability.

The point was, I assume, that Hawking shouldn't really be alive if it weren't down to the millions of pounds/dollers/whatever poured into looking after those less fortunate, less able and just plain scrap

Energize · 2 Jul 2011 at 19:51

PermaBanned said:
Yeah, damn generically inferior people. You know that Stephen Hawking really boils my blood... and while we're at it everybody with glasses, asthma and diabetes, taking all our money

Those aren't genetic conditions though.

Art · 2 Jul 2011 at 20:06

Energize said:
Those aren't genetic conditions though.

Eh? Short/long sightedness, asthma and type 1 diabetes are all thought to have genetic components.