'Survival of the fittest' is a phrase often attributed to Charles Darwin; but a contemporary of Darwin's, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, actually coined the phrase.

What the phrase refers to is nature's way of 'weeding out' less suited individuals of a particular species. The weakest, stupidest, less cautious members of a group did not survive and thus, did not continue the genetic traits of weakness, stupidity, or rash behavior.

Throughout mankind's history, the dumbest, rashest, or weakest of us perished relatively early. Due primarily to less advanced medicine, industry, and technology.

I walk away from encounters with people everyday and think...how in the heck did you survive childhood?.

Think about this in the context of evolution. Our genetic lines are being weakened by the continued reproduction of less than hardy stock. This is an incredibly difficult topic to discuss without the immediate thought of Nazism, racism, or ethnocentrism. It has nothing to do with any of those ideas. Simply think about us as animals, like a farmer or dog breeder would.

And, I'm aware of the hardships in the developing countries...I'm not talking about them...This is about cultures with technology.

NC

"The human herd" has been sold the lie that we are nothing more than animals so we can better justify slaughtering each other.

Life expectancy is tied to the living conditions we inflict on each other, not 'evolution' or 'modern medicine' making us 'live longer'.

I used to breed world champion stock and did it by selecting the best 'spirit' and treating all life as a blessing, from which I was just blessed more and more.

The stupid thing is that others started hating me for not sharing my 'secret' when it was no secret at all, but something I always proclaimed. I gave all credit to God, The Creator, where it belongs.

His Word, taught me how to be a good animal husband, and I applied it. God first, pray always, do justice and avoid pride, are the main keys.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
"The human herd" has been sold the lie that we are nothing more than animals so we can better justify slaughtering each other.

It's not a lie suzy...biologically, we are animals...our reproductive systems, digestive systems, etc. are no different than cows, or dogs, or fish, in how they work. Making a baby, or passing gas, is still pretty much the same process.

Life expectancy is tied to the living conditions we inflict on each other, not 'evolution' or 'modern medicine' making us 'live longer'.

Life expectancy and birth rates are directly related to the level of industry and technology achieved by a culture. 'Modern medicine' falls under the technology umbrella. We enjoy a longer life expectancy as a direct result of improved medicine and technology.

I used to breed world champion stock and did it by selecting the best 'spirit' and treating all life as a blessing, from which I was just blessed more and more.

So you completely ignored any physiological traits and propogated the line based solely on how friendly the critter was? Please clarify that. From what I gather, breeders of any champion stock base their decisions on physical appearance. As an example, look how breeders nearly destroyed cocker spaniels some years back by ignoring behaviorial traits and focusing on their appearance.

NC

Sure, our bodies are meat like the other bodies on this planet, but I assure you we are "above the herd." We are obviously different than other animals that walk this planet. Apes don't build cars, we do. Apes don't participate in the Olympics, we do. Apes don't dream of a wife and kids and a white picket fence, we do. Evidence is showing that we have been able to form modern concepts with our minds for thousands of years, at least. Archaeology has dug up some very cool things from the past.

You can be part of the "herd," I prefer "human being." Thinking of us in terms of herds belittles us and degrades us down to the level of dumb animals. Though I love animals, I won't be equated with a beast.

Troy

Aside from our minds, we are beasts. We perform the exact same functions in order to survive. Eat, sleep, procreate, defend, flee...I agree, our minds are different...but we, meaning humans, are a herd. And the strength of the herd is diminished by inferior genetics. Stupid, weak, etc..

NC

O.K. I said, "nothing MORE THAN animals". I know biology.

Now I had a debate about life expectancy with someone else here where I listed the age of death of many people who lead hard and 'primitive' lives. 75, give or take a decade or two, has always been the norm where safe shelter, clean water and basic foods were available. Wars, 'bad' 'advances' of science and dislocation are the early killers. And Today more people live in natural disaster zones because they trust science to save them. In the old days those areas weren't prefered settlements.

You may want to have a close look at who collects and corrolates those statistics, of life expectancy. There is an agenda. Like making people demand more of what kills us to try to fix the last 'improvements'. "They" get richer and kill off more competition.

As to my breeding success, eight generations since I stopped, they are still the most sound in body and mind and highly sought after. Their 'spirit' was what separated two otherwise equal animals. To me it was like a 'life force' I could 'see', that reproduced consistantly, but others were 'colourblind' to. If it was 'missing' in even the most outstanding animal, their qualities just didn't reproduce.

One could argue that one of the aims of humanity, having a moral and spiritual side to us that other animals may not have, is to move BEYOND physical evolution.

IOW, we have the ability to ensure the survival of those members of our species who would perhaps not make it in a more primitive, survival-of-the-fittest type of environment. The weak, the sick, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. can all be cared for and allowed to flourish in ways that they couldn't in the animal kingdom.

Perhaps we are not meant to be bound by physical limitations, but rather, move beyond them and begin an evolution of the mind or heart or both. Evolution of the Soul. Spiritual evolution. Call it what you will.


Or maybe it really is all about opposable thumbs, sex, fighting, and food. Who knows?
Thoughts?

Thanks to everyone for the input. This is far more engaging than analyzing blurry photos.

suzy,
I'm pretty sure I know what you mean about the 'spirit' in an animal. I have seen much the same quality in particular lines of dogs. I have purchased pups from a particular breeder because of the spark exhibited in his litters. Other dogs of the same breed, age, size, etc, from different gene pools seemed to lack that spark. I'm curious though; does that 'spirit' or 'life force' appear in animals that may not have the physical traits necessary for breeding? And if so, would you use them in the breeding program despite not having the correct size or shape of haunch?

quango,
You're correct, we do have the ability to improve the survivability of the weak, infirm, etc. We seem to be compelled to do that and I am certainly all for it. I work in elementary schools and I want every single one of those children to live long, happy lives. I am all for an altruistic society, yet I'm often an annoying pragmatist. Regardless of the loftiness of our souls, spirits, or intentions, we are still bound by simple biology. Neither the most vile criminal nor the most enlightened philosopher would exist if a male and female of the species did not procreate.

I'm pondering the consequences of sowing the gene pool with examples that may not be optimal. Isn't it possible our altruism can be threatening our genetic future?

NC

A quick question for you NC, and I am casting no aspertions when I ask this. What criteria are you using in defining optimal genetics? That is a very, very slippery slope your walking on there.

seagull,

I'm completely aware of how slippery this slope can become. Refer to my first post; I am aware of the negative connotations of this type of discussion. I have absolutely no ideology present in my pondering. (Well, maybe a wish for every woman to look like Cameron Diaz, but that's beside the point).

I cannot define optimal genetics. Furthermore, I think it would be pointless to try to define optimal or non-optimal characteristics. Then you're sliding down the slope IMO. Consider this analogous to discussing statistics, it's a group thing, individual characteristics are meaningless.

I know where you're coming from seagull, I'm very much hoping other posters will keep this as a discussion. Just brain-storming or wool-gathering.

NC

[edit on 19-3-2006 by NotClever]

Okee-doeky. It would be so boring if all women looked like Cameron Diaz, but I understand the thought (thinking...Jessica Alba ).

The idea of controlling breeding is a very uncomfortable notion to me, though I can see some aspects of it would be beneficial. I just feel it would be too easily abused, and what of the fate of those deemed unsuccessful? The social and ethical problems seem to me, at present, to outweigh any benefits gained.

I don't think any formal breeding program would be necessary. How 'bout something as simple as making it illegal for children to wear bicycles helmets when riding their bikes? Way I see it....if they have the motor skills and wits to survive that...they've earned the right to continue contributing to the human race.

I know, that's cold...remember, just brainstorming here.

I once had neighbors who were unbelievably clueless. And they had about 6 kids. They too, clueless. I started imagining that cluelessness spreading through the populace logarithmically. Cluelessness as an unstoppable force, befuddling more and more of the world.

Again, just brainstorming.

NC

[edit on 19-3-2006 by NotClever]

Originally posted by NotClever
Think about this in the context of evolution. Our genetic lines are being weakened by the continued reproduction of less than hardy stock.
NC

I do not consider mankind’s ability to show compassion a weakness; it may be one of our greatest strengths. I believe that the one who created all things is very loving towards all life. Compassion would seem to be the greatest form of emulation.

Besides, genetic stagnation is not tolerated in this world. Remember the potatoes in Ireland? They were all cut from the same plant and all it took was one blight to destroy the entire crop and cause a famine. Inbreeding will eventually lead to extinction as well.

Our diversity is a survival tool. The reason some of us are white or black or tan is an insurance policy. Our diversity insures that nothing, no virus or bacteria or anything else can destroy us all. (With the exception of ourselves of course)

Just my thoughts on it. Love and light,

Wupy

Surveys show that people that consider themselves politically liberal have fewer children. People that describe themselves as politically conservative have more children.

Is there a connection here?

As has been refered to, I believe it is our spiritual side that separates us from the rest of the animals. I just think it's a bad thing to think of ourselves as nothing more than beasts. That kind of thinking belittles our true nature. Not to mention some folks have been known to have "out of body" experiences, while at the same time, remaining concious. So that let's me know that there's more to life than just meat, bones, and chemicals.

Troy

O.K., I'm gonna' bump this and try to steer it in the direction I had originally hoped for.

I value each and every contribution to a thread that I've authored. Each post adds a bit more information for my understanding of the world and the people in it.

I cannot argue with the position that humanity, of all the creatures native to this planet, is the pinnacle of intellect, spirit, or soul. (Although, I think the trees around me have a little spark in 'em...so what, I'm a tree-hugger).

Despite our lofty position in the hierarchy, it is not possible for two wonderfully spirited souls to 'think' a baby into existence. Some very primal activity has to take place. The fact of our existence and continuance is irrevocably based on biology. Our physical existence stems from our basic animal-ness.

That being said....the traits of a human male and female are passed on to their offspring.

As technology improves and legislation becomes more intrusive, the members of our herd that would have been less likely to survive 200 years ago, continue to propogate traits that may be detrimental to survival in the long run.

NC

Originally posted by NotClever
'Survival of the fittest' is a phrase often attributed to Charles Darwin; but a contemporary of Darwin's, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, actually coined the phrase.

What the phrase refers to is nature's way of 'weeding out' less suited individuals of a particular species. The weakest, stupidest, less cautious members of a group did not survive and thus, did not continue the genetic traits of weakness, stupidity, or rash behavior.

Throughout mankind's history, the dumbest, rashest, or weakest of us perished relatively early. Due primarily to less advanced medicine, industry, and technology.

I walk away from encounters with people everyday and think...how in the heck did you survive childhood?.

Think about this in the context of evolution. Our genetic lines are being weakened by the continued reproduction of less than hardy stock. This is an incredibly difficult topic to discuss without the immediate thought of Nazism, racism, or ethnocentrism. It has nothing to do with any of those ideas. Simply think about us as animals, like a farmer or dog breeder would.

And, I'm aware of the hardships in the developing countries...I'm not talking about them...This is about cultures with technology.

NC

You should be very careful here. Someone was banned for comments like these made in another thread. I don't care because I'm pretty open-minded, but just be aware that not everyone who posts at ATS is.

NC. I understand where you are going, and coming from, with this thread.
Mankinds ability as an imaginitive toolmaker has enabled us to rise above simple "survival of the fittest" to become the dominant speicies on this world, and to a certain extent ignore Darwin's thesis.

We are able to prevent the deaths of our young from disease, and misfortune by the use of medical tools and knowledge. Which in turn deepens the genepool, and strengthens, not weakens, us as a speicies. So I submit to you that your entire notion is mistaken.

It has been a very long day, and I am not sure I explained my thinking as clearly as I might have.

Originally posted by mrwupy

Originally posted by NotClever
Think about this in the context of evolution. Our genetic lines are being weakened by the continued reproduction of less than hardy stock.
NC

I do not consider mankind’s ability to show compassion a weakness; it may be one of our greatest strengths. I believe that the one who created all things is very loving towards all life. Compassion would seem to be the greatest form of emulation.

Our diversity is a survival tool. The reason some of us are white or black or tan is an insurance policy. Our diversity insures that nothing, no virus or bacteria or anything else can destroy us all. (With the exception of ourselves of course)

Just my thoughts on it. Love and light,

Wupy

that belies the idea of creation in the first place because humanity knew of purity in creation on this earth and this existed for a long time.

We don't even have to talk about humans here, let's look at animals for example.

if I cross a lion with a leopard then what do I have?

the fact that people who would have died long ago are alive now because of the progress we have made is totally true. but that has added to our success as a speices. Is that not what determines the success as a speices, the # of young that surive to adulthood, the fact is that even the most clueless of us are able to produce some of the most amaizing things (art,music,ideas,etc) a person can be thought to be the dumbest man alive until he comes up with an one idea that makes everyones life better.then he is hailed by all mankind.and a man can be the smartest in the world until he forgets to sign a million dollar contract until after its to late.