Subject:
|
Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:46:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
995 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > 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?
Is there a "wrong way"?
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) Optimization for local conditions can be suboptimal for global. I would hold that humanity's chief survival weapon is cleverness. Anything that selects against cleverness/intelligence/drive (the cited example, for instance) is bad for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) I would think that most people with at least middling intelligence would tend to agree that decreasing the overall intelligence level of our species is the "wrong way". Do you have a reason to think that decreasing our species intelligence is (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) Lets not bring athrax etc into this :) (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
