Hi crspur6! I likes me some biology so let's jump right in!
crspur6 wrote: One obvious dilemma of the modern world is over population. Which has a pretty significant effect on the lack of resources needed for all. I think we all can admit that over the last century the population has sky rocketed.
When you come to think of it, i think over the past century or so we have been slowly getting rid of natural selection in todays world.
Nope. Natural selection is always in terms of the environment. While we have been good at removing the intensity of many of the selective pressures, "natural selection" is exactly the same as it always has been - those best-adapted to environmental pressures (this includes social) will be the most likely to survive (and then reproduce) and there are likely
some traits that determine this which are inherited. Now, before you get the wrong idea, I am not 1) racist nor am I 2) a social darwinist. The types of things I'm talking about relate to the sad truths like say... the fact that someone without the sickle cell allele will be more likely to die young in parts of Western Africa than someone possessing the allele.
Removing these pressures are indeed what has allowed our population to skyrocket. It is important to remember that traits which would have been selected against in the past but which are fine now do not possess some kind of natural stigma that makes them something that must be "weeded out". That would be a combination of the 'is-ought' fallacy (natural selection is descriptive, not socially prescriptive) and a misunderstanding of the natural selection dynamic.
crspur6 wrote: When i go out into the streets it is ridiculous to see the amount of "stupid" people, i mean people who contribute absolutely nothing to our society. Also i look upon our education programs and i a cannot say it bluntly enough but people are just getting "dumber" and i think we are just letting the stupidest people live. This might sound like the most immoral thing ever but, even letting mentally challenged kids become a part of out society is really just a waste of money.
Have you seen idiocracy? In any case, you are making more of a social argument concerning cold-hearted efficiency than anything based on biology, which is right in line with my mention of the 'is-ought' fallacy.
Concerning the bits implicitly dependent on biology in there, though, a couple things: first, the amount of that intelligence which lies entirely on one's inherited biology is disputed. An exception to this would be a person with Down's Syndrome for which there is a clear genetic basis and a clear reduction in most of the things we'd call intelligence (note: there is huge variability in the severity of this reduction).
Now if we take just that one example, people with Down's Syndrome, and apply it to your idea of taking care of them being a "waste of money", the implied argument is that it is a waste to take care of people who have mental health issues and 'reduced intelligence'. In what way do you justify that, other than the idea that it is inefficient if greater cognitive capacity = greater efficiency (some very smart people can be pretty lazy, btw
). I don't buy that personally, although we could get into some interesting ethical discussions concerning screening very young embryos for Down's Syndrome as a personal decision...
crspur6 wrote: Over the past century or so is when we really started to see natural selection descend. So we must think on some changes in the last century or so. The first thing in mind is womens rights. during the mid century women started to fight for equal rights among men. Generally women are physically weaker to men. Women also have a much softer side. So while women were given these rights, they were able to accede into higher political positions and maybe since they were and are in a good position's to make major decisions they brought the soft with them. For example, letting mentally challenged kids become main streamed. I think the females were unable to be immoral and apply natural selection upon these people. Also with poverty. There has been an increase in the amount we help out with the poor. Applying the natural selection theory to poor people would be " If you can't adapt to society and make a living then you shouldn't live" as cruel as it sounds it may be true.
You would fit in well with the bigoted social darwinists of the late 19th century. In other words, the arguments are based largely on a combination of guesswork, the 'is-ought' fallacy, and frankly inventive bigotry (concerning women). I would invite you to restate your idea with a proper understanding of natural selection and the 'is-ought' fallacy. There is nothing, I repeat
nothing about caring for one's kin or fellow species-mates that violates "natural selection", as "natural selection" merely describes how inherited characteristics differentially change within a population.
Your last sentence is the definition of social darwinism. Your ideas aren't original so I would recommend looking up that term and its various proponents and critics
. If I've sounded insulting, it was unintentional - I can say things which come off rather harsh, but I assure you it's unintended.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace