The Role of Human Culture In Natural Selection 337
gollum123 writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "... for the last 20,000 years or so, people have inadvertently been shaping their own evolution. The force is human culture, broadly defined as any learned behavior, including technology. The evidence of its activity is the more surprising because culture has long seemed to play just the opposite role. Biologists have seen it as a shield that protects people from the full force of other selective pressures, since clothes and shelter dull the bite of cold and farming helps build surpluses to ride out famine. Because of this buffering action, culture was thought to have blunted the rate of human evolution, or even brought it to a halt, in the distant past. Many biologists are now seeing the role of culture in a quite different light. Although it does shield people from other forces, culture itself seems to be a powerful force of natural selection. People adapt genetically to sustained cultural changes, like new diets. And this interaction works more quickly than other selective forces, 'leading some practitioners to argue that gene-culture co-evolution could be the dominant mode of human evolution.'"
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad more educated people tend to breed less.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, yes. Slashdot... where correlation does not mean causation unless the study supports your prejudices.
Does high IQ produce the bent away from conservative values and religion? Or does high IQ cause one to feel "superior to the masses", arrogance and then a rejection of these values? The study is not able to go into this.
And assuming this is the same study as the one I read... was done on a college population (brilliant sampling technique, I must admit). It also found that the "ubermensch" has an average IQ of 103. Clearly our atheist, liberal overlords are far beyond what I can even imagine intellect wse.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals in America think *public* resources should be used to help others. Conservatives think that private resources should be used.
Did I wake up in a parallel universe where Ike is still President?
Re:eugenics (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider, for example, the historical trajectory of IVF. When it first became available, there was significant controversy(to this day, the official Catholic position is that it is contrary to natural law). However, because it delivered the results that people (even the people who condemned it) wanted, public perception warmed considerably. You have to look pretty damn hard to find people actively condemning the practice today, even among the sorts of religious hardliners who are stridently anti-abortion and quietly anti-contraception. Among people moderate enough to be considered "serious" in public discourse, the only controversies come up when somebody does something really tacky(e.g. Octomom) or there is some sob story of an infertile couple who can't afford to have the child they always wanted.
Consider also the example of Trisomy 21, Down's syndrome. The population level incidence is roughly 1 in 8000, and has remained fairly level. The individual incidence is strongly correlated with maternal age. In the western world, average maternal age has increased substantially. Downs incidence hasn't. Obvious(but unspoken) conclusion? Selective abortion.
Once sperm sorting gets reasonably cheap, I assume we'll see the same general warming of attitudes that we did with IVF. Proper genetic engineering will probably go the same way, though it really isn't developed enough for human use yet. Of course, it will be customary to vociferously condemn those who do it for the "wrong" reasons(hair/eye color selection, that sort of thing); but there will be enough medically compelling applications(you'd have to be a real asshole to oppose using genetic engineering to ensure that a child isn't born with cystic fibrosis, say) to make the tech commonly available. Once it is commonly available, the uses that everyone will find fashionable to condemn will be widely available, and widely popular.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:4, Insightful)
*Except banks and investment firms. Oh, and Halliburton and Blackwater.
conservatives don't pay (Score:2, Insightful)
for public or private resources
the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor
there is no room for the middle class in conservative ideology. this includes no room for middle class idiots who believe the corporate propaganda about "evuls socialisticisms". some people are their own worst enemy
the money you have in your pocket is an abstract expression of the wealth of the society you live in. if you do not invest in your society, the money in your pocket loses value. if you invest in your society, you are paid dividends of a richer society, which pays you back with more business opportunities, etc
"but dem freeloading welfare queens..."
oh shut up retard. take a look at denmark someday. tell me they aren't happier healthier and wealthier than the average american. and then take a look at their tax rate
i'd rather be taxed to high hell than worry about declaring bankruptcy if i get cancer
but the conservative answer about a rising poor underclass (made up of previous middle class people) is to buy more guns
the greatest irony/ tragedy/ comedy is how many previously lower middle class people who are now the new american poor (because of conservative initiatives like gutting depression era financial protections that created the real estate bubble) support with such rapturous passion the gutting of social safety nets that only exist to serve them. some people are full of so much stupidity and hatred- for their own neighbors, their own society, and their own government, that they only destroy themselves
but i'm not going to let the morons take us all down. and if you read my words and agree with me, roll up your sleeves: there is a real life zombie apocalypse of propagandized retards out there, and we need to fight them to save our country from their self-destructive conservative stupidity
Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong. Wrong about what a scientific theory is, and wrong about the level of evidence for the theory. It is far from being theoretical in the popular sense of the word, and much closer to the popular understood meaning of the word 'fact.'
Re:Biologists haven't seen it this way for a while (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Contradiction in terms (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand the definition of natural selection. The term exists in contradistinction to the term "artificial selection" which is to say, human controlled selective breeding of the kind that gives rise to domesticated animals. The llama is the result of artificial selection. Its wild ancestor, the guanaco, is the result of natural selection.
Take the well known example of lactose tolerance. Nobody ever conducted a lactose tolerance breeding eugenics program - our ancestors didn't coral whole villages and kill those who were lactose intolerant and force those who were lactose tolerant to breed with each other (this is how artificial selection works). Lactose tolerance in European and African populations where it is prevalent, arose through natural seleciton. Those that were able to digest milk as adults (i.e., the lactose tolerant ones) left more offspring in areas where milk was widely available. This is an example of natural selection, not artificial selection.
It is also a direct result of cuture. The only reason milk was and is available is because of the domestication of cattle, which is a cultural activity. So here is an example where natural selection, (the increase in lactose tolerance among adults), was influenced by culture, (the domestication of dairy cattle).
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Back up your wild assertions with some links, or everyone will be forced to conclude you just made that up. Here's one rebuttal to the assertion: http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html [blogspot.com]
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.
The idea that liberals give away 'other people's money' is ludicrous on the face of it. Liberals don't pay taxes? We're putting our money towards charity, too, but charity is a public good, and we demand that you pay your fair share of this shared good. When I give to a charity, you benefit. because the charity makes society a better place. Charities make the hungry and homeless less desperate, and less likely to steal your stuff. They make the useless and uneducated into productive citizens who grow the economy. Charities do all kinds of beneficial things, and everyone benefits, which is why everyone should pay.
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Your agenda is showing. The world isn't black and white. You paint conservative idealism, yet don't point out the flaws in liberal idealism. Idealism is dangerous in general, since the solution is always in the grey area. Deciding on a solution to a problem based on the current situation always beats deciding based on an ideal.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:3, Insightful)
Education can contribute to IQ, though. We've been seeing a steady rise in IQ points for quite a while now, and the best theories I've seen suggest that it's directly caused by the rise in abstract-thinking skills amongst the general populace. Since abstract thinking is a learned behavior, this certainly suggests that IQ measurements - no matter how well designed - will be influenced by the level of education of the person being tested.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:2, Insightful)
Insightful my ass. It was fun to watch, but that's it. The trend of the poor and uneducated breeding more than the well-educated upper classes has been with us for a long time now, yet our species has continued to improve technologically and the average IQ has continued to rise. You can poke fun at American popular-culture, if that's what makes you happy, but if you're going to suggest that the human race is about to start getting stupider then you'd better have some damn good evidence to support that.
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:3, Insightful)
You can with the American Tax Code. Ask Warren Buffett sometime.
please tell me (Score:5, Insightful)
how the average lower middle class person is supposed to pay for healthcare in this country
the conservative answer is "shut up and get busy dying"
you don't have an answer beyond that, and it makes my blood boil. the cost of a sick society is much higher than the cost of a health care system which is attuned to taking care of people, rather than raping them for profit
"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist
meanwhile, i can point to many countries without a strong central government which naturally gravitate towards a rich upper class and the vast majority being poor. i don't understand why you cannot see that without strong functioning social nets this is the inevitable result of your ideology. how many examples of how many third world countries with weak central governments and no protections do you want? and yet this third world status quo is EXACTLY what you are arguing for. can you not see the obvious result of your ideology?
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:2, Insightful)
So I guess natural selection is failing in your eyes, since we still have "Religious Neanderthals."
In the same sense that natural selection is failing because we still have wisdom teeth. Which is to say, not at all.
Atheism is a belief, since God has not been disproven.
No, atheism is not a belief - atheism is the rejection of a belief.
Sure, you can argue it's more or less logically sound, makes more or less sense, but when it come down to it - since God is not something you can taste, see, feel, touch, etc.,
Exactly - which is why anyone with a smidgen of intelligence should reject the idea right off the bat. Believing in things which do not manifest in the real world is not only silly and unreasonable, but completely pointless.
it's hard to be proven or disproven by science.
Science also has a hard time proving that Xenu isn't waiting at the edge of the solar system. Scientology is every bit as valid as any other religion - which is to say, not at all.
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the worst part of the two above posts is that it illustrates what is *really* wrong. And that is that liberals believe that conservatives are destroying the country and conservatives believe that liberals are destroying the country. It's very easy to see everything as black or white, meanwhile, life goes on and is *neither*. The real world is messy and confusing and does not benefit from applying a single ideology to everything. There are certain instances where a "conservative" approach might make more sense, and others where a "liberal" approach will be better. What is important is to be able to look at each situation independently so that the *best* solution can be reached. That is what "intelligent" people do. The real "zombie apocalypse" approach would be to blindly apply one particular ideology to every problem, regardless of the outcome.
*end rant*
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I will run that by you one more time. Do try to keep up.
People in desperate situations do not just give up and die. They take desperate actions. Not only do they not contribute to society, not only are they a drain, they are dangerous, and a destabilizing element.
Keeping people from desperation thus benefits society. Yes, they are 'freeloaders,' but that is better than being a desperate animal with the brains of a human. And, because people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, when we help people out, they want to pay it back and contribute to society. They aren't freeloaders for long. They become productive, and as I'm sure we both agree that the economy is not a zero sum game, the more productive members of society we have, the more we all benefit.
See? Everyone benefits. So why should some people get away without paying for that benefit? If they are in a desperate situation themselves, I could understand, but if they can afford to pay for this benefit, and they don't, why should they continue to receive all the other benefits that come from living in a mutually beneficial society?
What statistics do you suggest I look at, exactly? And where do you get the idea I'm a liberal? I'm far scarier than that. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:3, Insightful)
or, "Liberals want a welfare state. Conservatives want a corporate welfare state."
bad form to quote myself, I know...
Re:please tell me (Score:3, Insightful)
"the ultimate effect of a conservative ideology is a third world country: a rich upper class of a few, and a vast underclass of poor"
The ultimate effect of a liberal ideology is a third world country: a rich elite ruling class of a few, and a vast underclass of dependents of the state.
can you point to such a society for me please? this is a pleasant fiction to support your bankrupt thinking, as this country doesn't even exist
You are incorrect. While the largest such country ceased to exist 1991, there are a few that still exist, including North Korea and Cuba.
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:3, Insightful)
We can argue back and forth about who has evidence, since the tendency is to simply dismiss the other side's evidence as non-evidence... with any debate, that's the case. Just look at the AGW debate.
The ideological side of the AGW debate, sure. On the science side, it's quite a bit different.
The word "evidence" has a pretty clear meaning. If you can submit actual evidence, I'd be more than happy to look at it. On the other hand, if all you can do is pull out Pascals Wager, a God of the Gaps argument, or a claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics ... then you don't actually understand what the word "evidence" means. Those types of arguments should be rejected offhand, regardless of what claim you're trying to prove. If someone was trying to argue for a position in which I do believe and was providing "evidence" of similar quality, I'd reject their argument too, and call them out on it. Ideology should not be a basis for accepting or rejecting evidence.
In other words, many of our words seem to have gotten quite broad in meaning
Yes, that's true. That's why when people ask me if I believe in a god, I usually say "which one?". There are at least a few thousand different definitions. For all I know, your definition of "god" might be one that I can believe ... but I sincerely doubt it :)
Re:conservatives don't pay (Score:3, Insightful)
I like your point about liberalism and taxation - to put it simply, nobody gets to vote for spending just other people's money on a cause, they have to include raising their own taxes with everyone else's.
However, I have to take exception to this:
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.
I'm on the outreach committee of a church. This involves donating specifically to non-members and non-member causes. We have other charitable funding earmarked for our own members who become destitute or ill, but this money all goes outside the church, and much of it outside the local community. First, about $32,000 a year goes to Haiti (and that will go up this year for obvious reasons). Other money goes to various medical flight providers, some people doing experimental plant breeding three states away from our location, some middle east peace initiatives, and other such causes.
Then there's money going to northern Ireland to promote peace there. You could argue we're preaching a bit on that, because we have about 25-50 kids of mixed Protestant and Catholic backgrounds we bring to the US for a couple of weeks each year as part of this. Since they already are mostly Christians,and their parents want them to practice, they mostly attend services with us or our local R.C. 'competition' when they are in the US, although that's optional. I don't know of any offhand who has ever moved to our area, but some have immigrated to the US as adults, so they could conceivably become members, and make enough to donate more than they once got. That sounds like lousy odds, or an incredibly poor rate of return if you prefer.
None of that money seems to be actually getting us members in our locale, so far. Then we feed some more local families. They are selected for us by people who work for the local school systems as counselors. The conditions to put them on or take them off the list are thus agreed to with secular government officials, and are basically that the kids in those families stay in school and get decent grades. We have completely relinquished any right to vet these people based on their religion, if any. If we're preaching to them, it's pretty well limited to wishing them a Merry Christmas or Happy thanksgiving as they leave.
There's a local ecumenical storehouse, which provides free, mostly used furniture and fixtures to the poor. The quickest way on their list is for a local fire department official to put a family on there after they have a burnout, rather than to listen to any sermons. Certainly nobody is making anyone sit and listen to anything spiritual or promise themselves to Jesus before they will load a kid's mattress and springs on a truck and tie it down, although I have made a few people promise to not drive over 45 with the load.
The idea that we can help people enough that they start being able to give and help others actually doesn't sound so bad. I wish what we do could be a multi level marketing scheme, where the various people we help, get rich enough to take up the load and help others in the same way. That's simply, absurdly far from reality, where most people who start off poor stay poor, and never get to the point whey they can pay anything forward. We are accomplishing a lot more survival than real leg ups,
Re:Religious Neanderthals (Score:3, Insightful)
"Atheism is a belief"
Only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.
But having a passion to stop others collecting stamps and become active about it IS a hobby. He/she active engaging in such activies feels rewarded by such activities.