It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is natural selection dead?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 09:52 AM
Now please keep in mind that I hold no ill will towards any being on the face of this Earth be it mammal, amphibian, reptilian or insect. Human life is worth no more and no less than any other life on this planet.

Now, is it just me or is the Earth getting a little bit more crowded?

I cant help but look at this earthquake in Haiti as mother nature at her finest, there is something to be admired in this travesty that has fallen upon Haiti and that is the fact that the Earth is still more terrible than we as mere men can ever hope to be.

Iran, 2003
Earthquake in Bam, Iran, officially kills 26,271 people.

Dec. 26, 2004 - The magnitude-9.3 Indian Ocean earthquake and resulting Sumatran tsunami is estimated to have killed more than 225,000 people. It affected a broader region and more people than any modern disaster.

August 2005 - Hurricane Katrina killed more than 1,800 people and is the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. More so than any U.S. disaster in recent decades, its effects linger even today as New Orleans and many coastal communities still struggle to get back on their feet.

Oct. 8, 2005 - Magnitude-7.6 earthquake in Pakistan killed more than 40,000 people. The destruction was due in part to the quakes shallow origin.

12 South Asian Nations, 2004 - 2005
Earthquake of 9.0 and the resulting tsunami creates one of the world's worst disasters. It does major damage to: Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Maldives, Somalia, Tanzania, Seychelles, Bangladesh, and Andaman. Deaths: Between 235,000 and 285,000.

South Asia, 2005
Earthquake, primarily affecting Pakistan, but also India and Afghanistan. Current figures: over 50,000 dead.

May 2, 2008 - The death toll from Cyclone Nargis remains uncertain but has been put at 140,000 or more. Caught with nowhere to run, residents of low-lying rice fields in Maynmar were simply swept away

January 12, 2010 - Casualties resulting from the Haiti quake are still unknown, but the Red Cross estimates that up to 3 million people may have been affected.

Now I am no pagan worshipper of nature or some tree hugging hippie but it looks to me like the planet is trying to cut down our numbers drastically the only way it can. Our planet is over run with Humans, most of which shouldn't be alive anyways.

I'm not saying don't help I am simply putting out the idea that maybe we need to let natural selection run its course. We keep extending the lifeline of people, civilizations and countries far past the time that they were supposed to have already been wiped out. Look at all these 3rd world countries just dying, they are on life support! What would have happened on Easter island had someone intervened?

Those people drove themselves to extinction by cutting down every last tree on that island to build something bigger and better than the last guy. Was it someone Else's responsibility to then bring them more wood, food and other supplies to help keep them alive? No, and now they are gone completely due to their own selfish nature of "I'm bigger, I'm better"

Evolution and natural selection seem to have been completely abolished. Look at our old and dying just here in the US. We have people living far beyond an age that they were meant to and as such we are over populated. We treat illnesses that were put in place to kill these people and keep population down. It does not surprise me that the government refuses to allow one of the many cures for cancer to be used because that's a primary population control tool.

All I am saying is that it seems like there are way to many people on this planet and that maybe helping people to stay alive, even though they will live an existence so utterly horrible that death is a welcome thing, might not be such a good idea.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:42 AM
Yes, natural selection has been dead for some time lol.

We have people marrying for money, not for appearances, mates finding partners through chance or design, not competition, or in the case of the Haiti Earthquake, total unpreparedness- People didn't prepare for the government pretty much ingoring them during a disaster.

I call that natural selection- being stupid enough to trust the government to actually do something with all that tax money- and there are a lot of 'idiots' in the world when it comes to that.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 10:49 AM
Natural selection is not dead, and never will be dead.

The old saying goes, survival of the fitest.

Since the world has changed, the sentence should be changed, but what happens is the same things as natural selection.

The new saying is, survival of the wisest.

Being smarter and wiser is the new game. Being smart and capable is the new way of life and if you can not keep up, you have a possibility of death financially or physically.

Those whom are smart enough will survive.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Quickfix

In response to "smart will survive": This is not the case biologically. The smartest are having the fewest children while the poor are having many children. This is not to equate with poor=non-smart. Smart may succeed financially but those having the most offspring are the winners from an evolutionary perspective.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by star in a jar

Natural selection occurs all of the time - it's how species survive or die according to their natural environment.

Consider the Earth becoming more densely populated, then it's highly likely that a more densely packed earth would also have more deaths as well due to diseases and natural disasters - one example being earthquakes in more heavily populated cities. Better housing and technology to warn us of disasters may provide a dip in these casualties, but as populations increase the number of deaths due to disasters etc, will also increase proportionally and steadily over a longer period of time. It seems that we have reached a stage where populations levels (in esp. poorer countries) require us to provide better planning such as earthquake-proof housing.

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by amance

Smart may succeed financially but those having the most offspring are the winners from an evolutionary perspective.

That reminds me, I better go forth and continue breeding!

[edit on 16-1-2010 by john124]

top topics

log in