Does Civilization Strengthen or Weaken Us As a Species

[LordKOTL]

I could see Rosh's point of view. Once could say that it could be considered beneficial to the species en masse to breed out the colorblindness gene (one that I can't fathom would have any natural advantage in any way shape, or form, but I could be wrong). But barring that, what about a gene that is Aesthetic and has no bearing on survival in the modern world (but had advantages before civilization)? Do we breed out the gene that determines skin color and tone? What about hair texture? Both of those had a biological advantage at one point but now are considered moot in terms of survivability.



Now, I'm not one for the whole "Where does it end?", But I think at this point in human evolution, we are far too stupid and rely far too much on religion, pseudoscience, and "My ma dun tol' me..." to even think we can address the issue of genetic engineering without reliving "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürer!"

 

[supraman]

But I question what is undesirable, who makes that call. Lets put it this way, in my opinion the pros of having a civilization far outweigh the cons of having these supposedly "undesirable" genetic traits being passed on. It could be argued that our ability to even form a civilization is due to evolution. Traits that allowed humans to form societies, reciprocal relationships, planning, abstract thinking and the emergence of language has all to do with the development of the human brain. And in the future we could be able to genetically alter ourselves and the whole notion of "undesirable" traits is pointless. Along with that comes a whole new can of worms as you mentioned with bioethics, but hopefully some day these gene altering technologies would be so ubiquitous and available to anyone who wants them where these bioethical concerns are meaningless. Religious concerns about gene modification I'll just let stand on it's own, since in my opinion it's unnecessary.

That's fair point. As for undesirable genetic traits I would simply sum it up as any trait that hampered the person(s)'s ability to survive. Cancer, colorblindness (that was a good one), fat gene, etc. Basically if it the trait causes you to be the weakest one of the group it is undesirable

I could see Rosh's point of view. Once could say that it could be considered beneficial to the species en masse to breed out the colorblindness gene (one that I can't fathom would have any natural advantage in any way shape, or form, but I could be wrong). But barring that, what about a gene that is Aesthetic and has no bearing on survival in the modern world (but had advantages before civilization)? Do we breed out the gene that determines skin color and tone? What about hair texture? Both of those had a biological advantage at one point but now are considered moot in terms of survivability.



Now, I'm not one for the whole "Where does it end?", But I think at this point in human evolution, we are far too stupid and rely far too much on religion, pseudoscience, and "My ma dun tol' me..." to even think we can address the issue of genetic engineering without reliving "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fürer!"

I dunno the "My ma dun tol' me" seems to be becoming ever more present. here's an example. The stars of jersey shore might be as smart as a box of rocks combined. They are going to have offspring. Do we really want those dumbfucks having kids? Since they most likely aren't going to raise them well which therefore continues their stupidity another generation

 

[roshinaya]

That's fair point. As for undesirable genetic traits I would simply sum it up as any trait that hampered the person(s)'s ability to survive. Cancer, colorblindness (that was a good one), fat gene, etc. Basically if it the trait causes you to be the weakest one of the group it is undesirable

But luckily we live in a civilized society where we also take care of the weakest of our kin. That's what separates us from the animals. To see this as somekind of burden is what I don't agree with. We managed to evolve to a point where it's not longer necessary to leave the less fortunate by the wayside.

 

[supraman]

But luckily we live in a civilized society where we also take care of the weakest of our kin. That's what separates us from the animals. To see this as somekind of burden is what I don't agree with. We managed to evolve to a point where it's not longer necessary to leave the less fortunate by the wayside.

But morals and ethics aside, do these "burdens" hamper us as a species. Would we be stronger with their genes not being passed down or not?

 

[LordKOTL]

That's fair point. As for undesirable genetic traits I would simply sum it up as any trait that hampered the person(s)'s ability to survive. Cancer, colorblindness (that was a good one), fat gene, etc. Basically if it the trait causes you to be the weakest one of the group it is undesirable







I dunno the "My ma dun tol' me" seems to be becoming ever more present. here's an example. The stars of jersey shore might be as smart as a box of rocks combined. They are going to have offspring. Do we really want those dumbfucks having kids? Since they most likely aren't going to raise them well which therefore continues their stupidity another generation

But luckily we live in a civilized society where we also take care of the weakest of our kin. That's what separates us from the animals. To see this as somekind of burden is what I don't agree with. We managed to evolve to a point where it's not longer necessary to leave the less fortunate by the wayside.

I can't buy the "weed the gene out" because I think that procreation should be allowed to take its course. If you have the fat gene and you're lucky enough to have someone want to **** you, you have the right to procreate whether or not it weakens the specie en masse. If no one will touch your fat ass, sucks to be you. No one has the right to procreate (or ****, for that matter), you're at the mercy of the gentic hand you're dealt, and I don't think any human is wise or smart enough to say what are the "best" genes to pass on. And as for it "hampering" us as a species, maybe we're supposed to breed ourself into a genetic dead-end (that's my misanthropy talking).



On the other thand, though, I do think that the genepool does need some chlorine if we're to strenghten ourselfs as a specie, but I don't think any person, or any group of people has the right to say which direction is stronger than another. Nature should be allowed to take it's course and the only hand we should give it is removing laws protecting people from themselves.

 

[supraman]

I can't buy the "weed the gene out" because I think that procreation should be allowed to take its course. If you have the fat gene and you're lucky enough to have someone want to **** you, you have the right to procreate whether or not it weakens the specie en masse. If no one will touch your fat ass, sucks to be you. No one has the right to procreate (or ****, for that matter), you're at the mercy of the gentic hand you're dealt, and I don't think any human is wise or smart enough to say what are the "best" genes to pass on. And as for it "hampering" us as a species, maybe we're supposed to breed ourself into a genetic dead-end (that's my misanthropy talking).



On the other thand, though, I do think that the genepool does need some chlorine if we're to strenghten ourselfs as a specie, but I don't think any person, or any group of people has the right to say which direction is stronger than another. Nature should be allowed to take it's course and the only hand we should give it is removing laws protecting people from themselves.

I wasn't even referring to someone saying who could **** or not. I even have issue with that but was suggesting that if civilization hadn't existed and we had only achieved small packs/tribes would we have been better off as a species?

 

[roshinaya]

But morals and ethics aside, do these "burdens" hamper us as a species. Would we be stronger with their genes not being passed down or not?

It's a terribly complex question you are asking and impossible to answer. It's not simply about the stronger reproducing with healthier genes, like the wiki article I linked earlier explained. Natural selection doesn't work that way. And considering on how vastly different places we humans live in, some traits might be more beneficial in a certain environment while it might be a disadvantage in another. To do a sweeping generalization that having all bad genes culled would be a good thing for the species as a whole is just impossible to say, just because of that fact. We can always talk hypotheticals, but we would be none the wiser. Bottom line is that we have morals and ethics and the capability to take care of those with "undesirable" traits that might have gotten them killed before.



Look at all that we've achieved by being "hampered" by allowing bad genetics to be passed on. Again, the question still remains what are these bad traits? You mentioned color-blindness, it's hardly a trait that will get you killed in today's society. Being fat, sure, it might get you killed but as I said earlier I think it also has a lot to do with lifestyle. Cancer is trickier as some are genetic and others aren't so it would pop up regardless. Having the Jersey Shore cast procreate isn't as much about bad genetics, but about upbringing and values. Which is something that can be addressed without resorting to eugenics.

 

[supraman]

It's a terribly complex question you are asking and impossible to answer. It's not simply about the stronger reproducing with healthier genes, like the wiki article I linked earlier explained. Natural selection doesn't work that way. And considering on how vastly different places we humans live in, some traits might be more beneficial in a certain environment while it might be a disadvantage in another. To do a sweeping generalization that having all bad genes culled would be a good thing for the species as a whole is just impossible to say, just because of that fact. We can always talk hypotheticals, but we would be none the wiser. Bottom line is that we have morals and ethics and the capability to take care of those with "undesirable" traits that might have gotten them killed before.



Look at all that we've achieved by being "hampered" by allowing bad genetics to be passed on. Again, the question still remains what are these bad traits? You mentioned color-blindness, it's hardly a trait that will get you killed in today's society. Being fat, sure, it might get you killed but as I said earlier I think it also has a lot to do with lifestyle. Cancer is trickier as some are genetic and others aren't so it would pop up regardless. Having the Jersey Shore cast procreate isn't as much about bad genetics, but about upbringing and values. Which is something that can be addressed without resorting to eugenics.

But you are still working on the assumption of civilization. My original question was basically would we have been stronger as a species if civilization never exists. So yeah colorblindness isn't an issue in society but if there was no society I don't see someone colorblind surviving very long. Also the jersey shore kids would be eaten by something before be able to procreate therefore ending there ability to raise children poorly.



There isn't a right answer, it is merely an academic debate and something BS about. I don't hold any beliefs that we should get rid of the "undesirables" (especially since I'm fucked in that case).

 

[LordKOTL]

I wasn't even referring to someone saying who could **** or not. I even have issue with that but was suggesting that if civilization hadn't existed and we had only achieved small packs/tribes would we have been better off as a species?

Well, when you diverged into genetics and different genes hampering us it was a logical jump for me.



Going off your last point, I think it's all on perspective. Those that show more social tendencies will say that civilization is simply an extension of our specie's social nature and does more good than bad. Those more antisocial will say that civilization has more or less ruined things and that their "abberant" antisocial behavior may just be a move to a specie split.



Rosh: Colorblindness can very well get you killed if you cannot determine the difference between a red light and a green light. The difference there between life and death is not the gene itself, but the use of intellegence to give cues to make up for a lack in one area. Granted it's a stretch, but one to be considered.



The only determinant of bad genes should be nature itself and the bounds of life as the individual as they know it. The only eugenics sould be passive and let nature determine what is "good" or "bad".

 

[roshinaya]

First it needs to be established what you mean by "stronger" as a species? How far back in human evolution would we need to go back to and start examining our alternative path for humanity? There are isolated tribes out there in the jungles today, who pretty much live like pre-historic man, have they been more successful and become more stronger? Or do we need to go even further back in time? Wouldn't a strong species be one that can survive and thrive in any environment? And if this species can't survive at a certain place at first, it can manipulate the environment until it can survive there. If that's the case humans have managed to be a pretty "strong" species. On the other hand we have bacteria and cockroaches that are even more successful than we are. It all matters on how you measure success.



Couldn't it be argued that the forming of a civilization is inevitable? At first small separated tribes and packs of humans live on their own and let nature take it's course, weeding out those that can't survive. What happens if two tribes join to take out a third tribe or assimilate it, now they are a bigger tribe and so on? Strength in numbers, more people, larger genepool, more traits. What happens if one of the weaker members of the tribe happens to be an expert in medicinal plants and can help heal the strong and fit warriors of the tribe? Have him teach his knowledge to a fit and strong person who would be more useful out in battle or have him teach someone that is "weaker".



What I am saying is that to me, civilization and somekind of organized society is an inevitable result of our human evolution. Had we stayed as isolated tribes fighting daily for our survival we wouldn't even have this discussion, would we? Organizing ourselves into larger groups and helping out each other has allowed some of our ancestors to spend their time thinking and figuring out things instead of hunting for food and struggling to survive. And over the generations this knowledge has moved on and been refined until we can have this discussion over the interweb.

 

[LordKOTL]

First it needs to be established what you mean by "stronger" as a species? How far back in human evolution would we need to go back to and start examining our alternative path for humanity? There are isolated tribes out there in the jungles today, who pretty much live like pre-historic man, have they been more successful and become more stronger? Or do we need to go even further back in time? Wouldn't a strong species be one that can survive and thrive in any environment? And if this species can't survive at a certain place at first, it can manipulate the environment until it can survive there. If that's the case humans have managed to be a pretty "strong" species. On the other hand we have bacteria and cockroaches that are even more successful than we are. It all matters on how you measure success.



To me, the definition of a "strong(er)" specie is one that doesn't have a future in question. Gentic stagnation, outstripping needed environmental resources per population size and density, and low genetic diversity would mean a weak specie. I wouldn't say humanity is that weak, but an argument can be made that wer are breeding into genetic stagnation and we are most definitly too large of a population to maintain with the current allocation of environmental resources.



Couldn't it be argued that the forming of a civilization is inevitable? At first small separated tribes and packs of humans live on their own and let nature take it's course, weeding out those that can't survive. What happens if two tribes join to take out a third tribe or assimilate it, now they are a bigger tribe and so on? Strength in numbers, more people, larger genepool, more traits. What happens if one of the weaker members of the tribe happens to be an expert in medicinal plants and can help heal the strong and fit warriors of the tribe? Have him teach his knowledge to a fit and strong person who would be more useful out in battle or have him teach someone that is "weaker".



What I am saying is that to me, civilization and somekind of organized society is an inevitable result of our human evolution. Had we stayed as isolated tribes fighting daily for our survival we wouldn't even have this discussion, would we? Organizing ourselves into larger groups and helping out each other has allowed some of our ancestors to spend their time thinking and figuring out things instead of hunting for food and struggling to survive. And over the generations this knowledge has moved on and been refined until we can have this discussion over the interweb.



The converse argument to this is that since civilization could be getting too large to be sustainable, that it could be the death of the human specie--and that backing off civilization into a more antisocial paradigm might bet better for the specie as a whole.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

But then you run up against bioethical issues and religious issues with genetic manipulation. Which for the record I'm all for.

Absolutely those are issues that will impede, but not stop. This will boil down to the micro and not the macro because of how diverse most societies truly are.





Also, something else to think about is how quickly the population has increased and how slowly civilization (specifically gov't) has been to adjust.

 

[supraman]

First it needs to be established what you mean by "stronger" as a species? How far back in human evolution would we need to go back to and start examining our alternative path for humanity? There are isolated tribes out there in the jungles today, who pretty much live like pre-historic man, have they been more successful and become more stronger? Or do we need to go even further back in time? Wouldn't a strong species be one that can survive and thrive in any environment? And if this species can't survive at a certain place at first, it can manipulate the environment until it can survive there. If that's the case humans have managed to be a pretty "strong" species. On the other hand we have bacteria and cockroaches that are even more successful than we are. It all matters on how you measure success.



Couldn't it be argued that the forming of a civilization is inevitable? At first small separated tribes and packs of humans live on their own and let nature take it's course, weeding out those that can't survive. What happens if two tribes join to take out a third tribe or assimilate it, now they are a bigger tribe and so on? Strength in numbers, more people, larger genepool, more traits. What happens if one of the weaker members of the tribe happens to be an expert in medicinal plants and can help heal the strong and fit warriors of the tribe? Have him teach his knowledge to a fit and strong person who would be more useful out in battle or have him teach someone that is "weaker".



What I am saying is that to me, civilization and somekind of organized society is an inevitable result of our human evolution. Had we stayed as isolated tribes fighting daily for our survival we wouldn't even have this discussion, would we? Organizing ourselves into larger groups and helping out each other has allowed some of our ancestors to spend their time thinking and figuring out things instead of hunting for food and struggling to survive. And over the generations this knowledge has moved on and been refined until we can have this discussion over the interweb.

Working under your theory, human civilization is an evolutionary abnormality and time will tell if it is a successful one. Besides humans all of the animal kingdom weeds out the inferior. The sick and weak get eaten or starve to death, in some animals the pack will do what it can but it will not sacrifice the good of one over the good of the group.

 

[roshinaya]

To me, the definition of a "strong(er)" specie is one that doesn't have a future in question. Gentic stagnation, outstripping needed environmental resources per population size and density, and low genetic diversity would mean a weak specie. I wouldn't say humanity is that weak, but an argument can be made that wer are breeding into genetic stagnation and we are most definitly too large of a population to maintain with the current allocation of environmental resources.



The converse argument to this is that since civilization could be getting too large to be sustainable, that it could be the death of the human specie--and that backing off civilization into a more antisocial paradigm might bet better for the specie as a whole.

All valid points, which I haven't addressed since it hasn't been really the point of the discussion. At the current rate the human civilization is indeed a threat to itself and unless actions are taken to change to course the future isn't looking too bright. The problem when talking about the human civilization there isn't anything to compare it to. Sure there have been empires that have risen and fallen over the course of history, but never at the scale we have today.

Working under your theory, human civilization is an evolutionary abnormality and time will tell if it is a successful one. Besides humans all of the animal kingdom weeds out the inferior. The sick and weak get eaten or starve to death, in some animals the pack will do what it can but it will not sacrifice the good of one over the good of the group.

As mentioned earlier, there is no comparable for the human civilization that we can look at. For all we know we might be the first sentient species to have evolved in our universe and the first species to extinguish itself. The planet will be here with or without us, it might be scarred and deformed after us, but nature will manage. Yes, we as humans don't weed out the inferior, is it a good or a bad thing is a difficult question. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you want to see it, we have thought up ideas such as human rights and morals and ethics of right and wrong which today control our behavior. To propose an idea of active eugenics is sure to raise a few eyebrows and we are in a whole different ballpark then.

Some form of population control is needed, but it doesn't need to be one that weeds out "inferior" people, it just needs to stop people having so many damn babies. And there are several reasons for this unsustainable population growth and many of them could be fixed by everyone chipping in and getting a lot of people to do something is like herding cats. For it to work there needs to be a fundamental change in how we people see ourselves and our place on this planet.