Genetics and population

[Sneakgab]

Exactly

[Aristeas]

No offense, but is seems like Aristeas is of those who think that others dont understand and don't see the obvious truth that in fact the people replying opposing his view do understand (natural selection) and simply DISAGREE with him rather than misunderstanding his point. So I don't about you guys, but if I see a repetition of the ''you guys don't get it, natural selection works like this and is major as it used to be'' post I'm going to pretty much ignore it.

That being my first post in this thread I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. 

[Sneakgab]

Well, others (atleast one), according to my limited memory) had made highly similar posts before you and I hadn't bothered to check theirhiswhatever name. I had mis-assumed you and these other posters to be one and the same.

In addition to this, you're post seemed laced in ways that suggested the stanceattitude of you're's reffered to my last post

''I'm sorry you feel that way because...well...not to put to fine a point on it...you're wrong''

That sounds like somebody who is assuming that others have not thought about their statements do not understand are ignorant of the concepts involved (this assumptions seems necessary to dismiss the views of others so readily)

Thirdly that my ''conclusion'' is based on is the fact that you're post seems much like a repetition of an number of  earlier arguments that had been given seemingly disregarded thought and reply.

I placed ''conclusion'' in  inverted commas beace you used that word but it is not entirely accurate.

''No offense, but is seems like Aristeas is of those''

As you can see my statement was that Aristeas SEEMS this way. That is akin to saying that I had decided that it was likely and it seemed( but certainly not defintely the case) that Aristeas was as forementioned. Though you could accurately call this a conclusions, it places the connotation that I had already decided for sure that Aristeas was so, and that is far from the truth.

finally, I deal daily with those (who annoy me with their presumptiousness) who assume far to much and admittedly from my post it looks like that I joined one of them by assuming you to be as such and thusly ''became my worst enemy''.

All in all, in hindsight, I definetely do apologize for a rather rash and unfair ''sizeing up'' of you on so little (as you stated) experience to go on and do withdraw my unnessary comment. I simply dislike arguments that ignore relevant replies to earlier similar arguments because they cause tediousness and the slowing of the progress of the discussion of the subject matter.

[Aristeas]

Apology accepted of course. Besides, I wasn't completely innocent of any jackassery. I only read the original post and responed to that, completely ignored anything that was said in between. ;)

As far as my post, I'm just spouting off what I was told by my physical anthropology professor. He seemed to think that natural selection was alive and well and I'm more likely to go with his opinion than anyone else's. Now...natural selection is certainly changed by technological and medical advances and he conceded this also. I just disagree that its been stopped.  Its a bit more subtle in some ways but its still there.

http://www.livescience.com/health/051102_natural_selection.html

[Da_Ze_Ir]

Right now ''natural selection'' simply favors the genes of the people who want (I think it's accurate to say: stupidignorant enough to want more children in most cases) to have more children, if there is such a gene, which there probably isn't. Most people choose to have the number of children they do for non-genetic reasons, and it seems difficult to imagine genes that somehow influence childrenno children decision making. Nowadays there exist only the odd situations such as the forementioned ''grizzly'' chase and even then with current technology and lifestyles the relative influence of genetics in even such a situation as that is lower before to the extent that the technology of the future will probably wipe out the genetic influence at all before the thousands of years required for such a minimal influence of average chance to significantly alter teh genepool.

I think genes and upbringing/factors of developement work together.

stupidignorant enough to want more children in most cases

Some are so stupid or culturally undeveloped that it is not even a question of wanting the children.

Right now ''natural selection'' simply favors the genes of the people who want to have more children

There is a combination of gene and cultural "badness" that causes some people to have more children. This "quantity over quality" policy is really bad for the world today.

Nowadays there exist only the odd situations such as the forementioned ''grizzly'' chase

In the world today, if some people are inclided to having more children, they are unlikely to be deterred.

the thousands of years required for such a minimal influence of average chance to significantly alter teh genepool

I actually think that damage can be done rather fast and the pool can degrade in far less time given we do the worst, of which what we are doing now is enough.

even then with current technology and lifestyles the relative influence of genetics in even such a situation as that is lower before to the extent that the technology of the future will probably wipe out the genetic influence

I rather think that current technology does have an effect on evolution: if we are not careful, it causes a degenerate lifestile, causing devolution.

:D"The son becomes the father, the father becomes the son" ... with a little hand from the world around.

[Egeides]

I actually think that damage can be done rather fast and the pool can degrade in far less time given we do the worst, of which what we are doing now is enough.

From which authority do you take that there is such gene pool degradation? I mean, do you have any list of readings or something? What you seem to favor is a highly competitive environment that would force "correct linkage".

It's an interesting thing that you link some quick gene pool degeneration to technology... what is your ideal society then? Would that be something like the Spartans?

[Da_Ze_Ir]

From which authority do you take that there is such gene pool degradation? I mean, do you have any list of readings or something? What you seem to favor is a highly competitive environment that would force "correct linkage".

It's an interesting thing that you link some quick gene pool degeneration to technology... what is your ideal society then? Would that be something like the Spartans?

Tell you what. If you read my posts, I said I prefer a non-jugngle like world, that I wouldn't want to live in such competition, it's inhuman.

I think that when humans turned from simple beasts to sentient beings, they were thrown with the responsibility of morality. Today, I think technology is throwing new responsibilities at us. If we don't take responsibility in the matter of losing the factors that technology takes away or the direct damge it does, we are going to rediscover the meaning of responsibility the hard way, if we still have the mind to do so.

[Egeides]

It's from reading your posts that I noticed comments about a need to put limits (like with Roms). Added to your "grizzly chase" example coming back and again, it really seems like someone is going to feel that sort of competition heat when you put limits.

For example, and this is where it gets gloomy, what are you proposing about Romanichels and whichever others? Sterilise everyone, thus leaving only killings when it doesn't work?

Maybe you're concious of it but it looks like a fascist framework (like this style of "land and people"). And it also looks like taking the question upside down in my sense, addressing things by effects (More ciminality or sickness there? Get rid of them).

[Da_Ze_Ir]

It's from reading your posts that I noticed comments about a need to put limits (like with Roms). Added to your "grizzly chase" example coming back and again, it really seems like someone is going to feel that sort of competition heat when you put limits.

For example, and this is where it gets gloomy, what are you proposing about Romanichels and whichever others? Sterilise everyone, thus leaving only killings when it doesn't work?

Maybe you're concious of it but it looks like a fascist framework (like this style of "land and people"). And it also looks like taking the question upside down in my sense, addressing things by effects (More ciminality or sickness there? Get rid of them).

1.The grizzly chase was not my example.

2.We need to put limits. Anyone having more than 2 children today is commiting a crime against everyone else, especially against those that realise population growth must stop and respect that.

3.I don't adopt the "kill for your ideas/ideals" thing.

4.I haven't given it much thought, but I dissaprove with the natzis because of their disregard for life.

5.The CAUSE is stupidity and ignorance so you have to hit the people responsible if you are to make a difference. Analogy: money doesn't solve the problems, it is the stupidity, ignorace and irresponsibility that is behind them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

To repy make a reply for all to see(I got a message):

I think it is not the romanians that are being nationalistic, but the minorities that are quite crazy. I went to the delta some 6 years ago. There is some ucranian minority there. Our hosts seemed fine enough at a first look, but they were really crazy on the inside. I heard they beat our friend's dog and scolded their daughter for talking to us.

Around the same year we went to Transilvania and the hotel/restaurant was run by hungarians. Those people pretend not to know romanian just to mock you, and deliver second-grade services especially for you.

This might be considdered insane considdering that they are in OUR country. We wouldn't think of them any differently at all if they didn't think that they own the country, like we were intruders and treated us like the nazis would the jews!!!

[Egeides]

I understand better now. With the cases you brought, it looks like "bad behavior" from usual "you guys are bad so we take distances". In itself, it could fall on any un-DNA cause, like your movie blaming the way it's organized (not money or DNA). It seems that strong nurture could bring this as much as DNA, and I wouldn't see positively governments/else controlling the number of children/DNA.