Subject:
|
Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:16:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
746 times
|
| |
|
|
> > Too early to tell for sure but we as a species have in part stopped evolving
> > because we have shut down most of the selection factors (disease,
Lets not bring athrax etc into this :)
> > famine,
> > the birth defect effect on reproduction)
>
> "in part stopped evolving". I don't get the meaning of that. Humanity is either
> evolving or not - and I disagree that we've made any significant differences in
> these areas. Oh, maybe a little in the western world...
This is an interesting point. It is a generaisation, but in the UK low
income families tend to have more kids than higher earners. Many couples
(married or otherwsie) decide to have only one or no kids at all. If we
assume (again a generisation) that low income familes have lower levels of
intelligence (measured by lower levels of educational attainment) is our
gene pool geing skewed the wrong way?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) "in part stopped evolving". I don't get the meaning of that. Humanity is either evolving or not - and I disagree that we've made any significant differences in these areas. Oh, maybe a little in the western world... (...) Nah, just more so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
