Natural selection and capitalism.

[yagecero]

How do you think capitalism affects the process of intra-species natural selection?

Do you think that some people having access to better medical care through higher socio-economic status could have an adverse effect on the gene-pool, and by extension, the evolution of the human species?

I've been reading a lot about the history of the indigenous people of my country over the past few months and one of the most predominant excuses among the British bourgeoisie for the genocide committed against Australia's indigenous people was Darwin's theory of natural selection and the idea that the original Australians represented a lesser evolved sub-species.

[Yeah - real proud by the way ]

In my opinion, what occurred in this country is the most shameful aspect of British colonialism, and I have no doubt that more than a little valuable information was lost. Placing the stupidity of racism aside, the genocide of the first Australians was also the killing off much of an estimated 40000 years of oral history.

I'm by no means an expert on Darwinian theory, so I'm posting this here in the hope that others will create a more interesting discussion around what I've proposed.

 

[Opiates4lyfe]

I don't feel that people having "higher socio-economic status" having access to better medical care is going to create a huge difference as most people don't have that.

Overthe course of our time of existence humans have physically been getting bigger and more athletic. As through natural selection women naturally want to mate with the bigger more athletic guy thus these genes get passed on. Im not saying every women is going for the stud, because they are not... im just saying the MAJORITY of them are going for the bigger strong faster male. Just as dinosaurs we will continue to slowly get physically bigger and bigger over several years ( given we have the resources to support our life). I know, Some Dinosaurs were huge but we have only been around a fraction of their reign.

 

[panic in paradise]

Do you think that some people having access to better medical care through higher socio-economic status could have an adverse effect on the gene-pool, and by extension, the evolution of the human species?

Absolutely, this is one deep~hole in the ground you are beating around.

 

[hiphophippy]

Capitalism and bio-genetic/societal advancement.

Capitalist traits=money
possitive biogenetic and socio-comunal advancement= positive advancement of humans as a healthy species

capitalistic triats∝possitive biogenetic and socio-comunal advancement
therefor
money= negative de-evolution of humans and society.

 

[nAON]

So how does this make capitalism responsible? Are you saying that rich people are somehow having more kids while having more genetic disorders, while poor people don't have any kids and have no disadvantageous traits?

Should also note that social eugenics has been out of fashion for at least a century now.

 

[Busty St Clare]

As my mother always said, "there are more of them than there are of us and they are breeding twice as fast". If you look at an advanced Western society like Australia the wealthy have generally fewer or even no children where as the poor are often having larger families. In truly poor societies large families are off set by high infant mortality. It would all even out.

The problem with your theory is evolution works over thousands of years and many, many generations, and would not be effected by a countries economic conditions over a 200 yr period. I would think man made disasters such as the nuclear leaks in Japan being a bigger strain on human genetics than improved nutrition and immunisation for all.

 

[hiphophippy]

So how does this make capitalism responsible? Are you saying that rich people are somehow having more kids while having more genetic disorders, while poor people don't have any kids and have no disadvantageous traits?

Should also note that social eugenics has been out of fashion for at least a century now.

I'm really just bullshitting. But the best way to make the most money in my country generally speaking is to possess more traits that contribute negatively to society. Primal hoarding of materials, lack of empathy, ability to hold face while you're fucking someone over.

In a more specific but less related way one can look at the effects of mostly capitalist industry and the things that getting a dollar has propagated over time, Colonial imperialism, genocide, slavery, pollution of natural resources, maintenance of self perpetuating economic gaps that force many people into poor standards of living. and then issues that follow those conditions, racial prejudice, irreversible ecosystem damage, rise of biological disorders among children ect.

 

[shimazu]

I dont think genocide is ever an ok thing to do. But some people should really not be allowed to have children.

 

[yagecero]

So how does this make capitalism responsible? Are you saying that rich people are somehow having more kids while having more genetic disorders, while poor people don't have any kids and have no disadvantageous traits?

As I said, this thread was more a post to see what others thought about the topic, than to suggest that I believe this to be the case - that's why I added the disclaimer that I'm far from an expert when it comes to the theory of natural selection. I suppose it depends on what you view to make up the evolutionary process. Are we merely talking about biology and genetics here, or can we add sociocultural relations and the evolution of thought to the equation?

As my mother always said, "there are more of them than there are of us and they are breeding twice as fast". If you look at an advanced Western society like Australia the wealthy have generally fewer or even no children where as the poor are often having larger families. In truly poor societies large families are off set by high infant mortality. It would all even out.

The problem with your theory is evolution works over thousands of years and many, many generations, and would not be effected by a countries economic conditions over a 200 yr period. I would think man made disasters such as the nuclear leaks in Japan being a bigger strain on human genetics than improved nutrition and immunisation for all.

I agree with what you're saying here from a biological perspective, but it's not only a strong and healthy physical state that propels the species forward. If anything we are going backwards (or at least remaining stagnant) with many aspects of the human condition that are essential for the evolution of the species. Having strong genetics was far more pertinent to the development of the species before the industrial revolution, but since then, it has become less relevant with the advancement of technology. To me, while we may have developed strongly in this manner, we have yet to develop the necessary thought and compassion to use our "advancements" in a manner that benefits the species as a whole.

But the best way to make the most money in my country generally speaking is to possess more traits that contribute negatively to society. Primal hoarding of materials, lack of empathy, ability to hold face while you're fucking someone over.

In a more specific but less related way one can look at the effects of mostly capitalist industry and the things that getting a dollar has propagated over time, Colonial imperialism, genocide, slavery, pollution of natural resources, maintenance of self perpetuating economic gaps that force many people into poor standards of living. and then issues that follow those conditions, racial prejudice, irreversible ecosystem damage, rise of biological disorders among children ect.

This is a similar train of thought to the one that led me to start the discussion. The reason why I also raised the issue of the indigenous people is because I see the exploitation of the earth for financial gain as one of humanity's grand errors, and think things would have been very different today if during the colonial period (which hasn't ended at all) anglo-european conquistadors met the various indigenous peoples of the world halfway, especially regarding their inherent (and ubiquitous throughout the world) manner of seeing (hu)mankind as part of nature instead of something that holds dominion over nature.

So do evolution and natural selection only pertain to the realms of the biological, or do thought, perception and spirituality come into play when the advancement of the species is concerned?

 

[panic in paradise]

I'm really just bullshitting. But the best way to make the most money in my country generally speaking is to possess more traits that contribute negatively to society. Primal hoarding of materials, lack of empathy, ability to hold face while you're fucking someone over.

In a more specific but less related way one can look at the effects of mostly capitalist industry and the things that getting a dollar has propagated over time, Colonial imperialism, genocide, slavery, pollution of natural resources, maintenance of self perpetuating economic gaps that force many people into poor standards of living. and then issues that follow those conditions, racial prejudice, irreversible ecosystem damage, rise of biological disorders among children ect.

Some might be the type to believe our creator sorts us out in the end, and so in the meantime others will live in accordance to the par set for the sum to match the needs and wants to define the whole.

Like a rosebud, life grows in predictable measures, it is ever expansive though into every sense so the nature of its beauty goes unseen in "normal" life, and once this marvel is noted what then was an individuals reality begins to take new form and does spread into its environment causing the same response in those it reaches until, the petals are in the wind at last un known to each other again, yet all the while a new shoot was growing from a stem.

 

[hiphophippy]

This is a similar train of thought to the one that led me to start the discussion. The reason why I also raised the issue of the indigenous people is because I see the exploitation of the earth for financial gain as one of humanity's grand errors, and think things would have been very different today if during the colonial period (which hasn't ended at all) anglo-european conquistadors met the various indigenous peoples of the world halfway, especially regarding their inherent (and ubiquitous throughout the world) manner of seeing (hu)mankind as part of nature instead of something that holds dominion over nature.

So do evolution and natural selection only pertain to the realms of the biological, or do thought, perception and spirituality come into play when the advancement of the species is concerned?

I've only heard of your situation down under recently. natural selection only applies to survival of species vs nature. once an animal begins to have a basic mastery of it's environment by way of things like tools then natural selection becomes less relevant. then agriculture medicine ect.

I wish we lived in a world that practiced eugenics. Because we've removed ourselves from the natural world we're killing ourselves. Because of medicine people with early developing diabetes, previously lethal disorders are allowed to live and further propigate their genetics like Lizzie Velasquez (picture below) I'm sure she is a nice lady, infact I have pretty strong evidence that she is a really nice lady, but it is irresponsible of her to let her genetic material continue in this world because she can be dooming another person to her fate. But also kinda a counter to that is that by use of eugenic facsilities she could have her shit screened so the genetics that caused her condition are indefinitely not re injected into the world.
"http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01668/lizzieVelasquez220_1668013f.jpg"

 

[yagecero]

^So while it's no longer natural selection that we're discussing, we're still talking about evolution, just not the Darwinian type.

 

[hiphophippy]

^So while it's no longer natural selection that we're discussing, we're still talking about evolution, just not the Darwinian type.

More or less. plus if we do it right we might start nuclear world war three, almost annihilate ourselves and then be saved by the Vulcans and then start the united federation of planets :D

 

[nAON]

You guys are assuming traits evolve that affect only the individual. Seeing as humans are a very social animals, processes like kin selection and social evolution come into place. ie., altruistic traits that may benefit members of your family or tribe (who would be genetically closely related to you) will still be passed on to offspring (albeit not directly from you).

 

[panic in paradise]

You guys are assuming traits evolve that affect only the individual. Seeing as humans are a very social animals, processes like kin selection and social evolution come into place. ie., altruistic traits that may benefit members of your family or tribe (who would be genetically closely related to you) will still be passed on to offspring (albeit not directly from you).

Maybe we are more of egotistical animals who would rather cultivate a sense of well being in this aspect(and all that entails) by either displacing ones own lives concerns onto others or attempting to diminish what another may have found personally to be of value. There is a sense of loss that can not be filled by ignoring what the ego is wishing to cover-up, and near everything to gain by recognizing how much conflict this creates everyday. Doing so is much the same as recognizing what you dont not love about yourself, so that you might be able to better love what does surround you - to accept more socially not try and be more socially acceptable is beneficial for everyone.

 

[Biovail]

IMO if there were fewer women in the world and they were more selective, this might be a valid issue. But as it is there are enough women that pretty much any guy can get laid and have kids. And barring the 1-2% of highest earning households, poorer families normally have far more kids. The traits I see being passed down are shortsightedness, sex drive, low motivation, and low intelligence.

And then our government pays for their schooling and spends so much money that they have to start CLOSING the state university program, preventing anybody from going to school.