6 replies [Last post]
CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Survival of the Fittest

A post, I believe by Hawkeye talking about the lap dogs we've created that wouldn't survive in the wild and a couple of other comments made me think of this.

Have we gone too far with our compassion and willingness to level the playing field?  In nature, the strong survive and that ensures the survival of the species.  In our world, we have removed the need to be the strongest to survive and is that hurting us?

I believe in compassion and helping others, but does the compassion meter need realigning?

hawkeye270's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Joined: 06/15/2008
Posts: 1862
This is a really interesting

This is a really interesting thing to think about and something that science nerds like me like to think about. What about genetic disorders like autism and down syndrome? Have these disorders become more frequent because we nurture and make life for these people normal enough that they are actually able to reproduce and pass on their genes in some situations. If they never reproduce than they do not really figure into evolution because evolution only takes place on heretable traits that are passed on from generation to generation. If the traits are not passed on through reproduction (in the case of organisms that use sexual reproduction like humans) than it wouldn't have a fact in evolution. Crazy stuff to think about. A member of any of the other species in our genus Homo that had a genetic disorder definitely would not have had the same chances of reproducing as members of our species.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
You bring up a very

You bring up a very interesting, albeit politically incorrect, subject.  I think you might be right, but the tricky part is if it is true and valid, would we ever consider not letting people with genetic disorders from reproducing?  Nature is pretty cold and unfeeling and takes care of the weak that we as humans do not even want to consider.

I am not suggesting that you suggested that we consider it....just building upon what you said.  There are people that have and do suggest limiting who can reproduce.  I think that as humans we find ways to work around these problems and keep our species strong.

The one area we do need to work on is where we have "fit" people who choose not to contribute to society.  I believe in helping people help themselves, but not carrying those can walk, but choose not to walk and expect to be carried.

hawkeye270's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Joined: 06/15/2008
Posts: 1862
Yeah, I am definitely not

Yeah, I am definitely not suggesting that we limit who can reproduce. And I am happy that you are not suggesting that I suggested it ha ha. Going down the road of controlling stuff like that is a slippery slope to all kinds of nastiness. Thinking about the processes and how we got here is a very interesting thing though.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
It is a very delicate, but

It is a very delicate, but interesting subject to ponder.  Let's add this thought to the mix....Whether it be plants, pigs, chickens or cows, or horses, we try to be selective in breeding to improve the quality of the offspring, but when it comes to humans, it is just a random selection based on non-tangible qualities.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2368
politically correct or not

Selective breeding to many degrees has served mankind well over the millenium.  Without it we never would have what we now know as the domesticated dog breeds we enjoy today.  In primiative times those dogs who displayed undesireble traits were culled to ensure we engineered the domestic dog to our needs.  Same goes for other domestic animals and livestock too.  I do worry the practice could one day be carried over to humans on a widespread field.  The movie Gattica really scared me to think what man is capable of doing to other humans. But then again when you look at countries like developed western European countries, Japan, China, their birth rate is unacceptably low.  Europeans will be nearly extinct in the next 100 years if they don't start breeding again.  The birth rate here has dropped pretty significant, but at least Americans are still having kids, even if it is one kid.  Sadly many Americans have replaced having real children with having lap dogs instead and if that continues to become the norm we are going to be in real trouble.

Ca_Vermonster's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!Moderator
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: 07/27/2007
Posts: 5746
Well, from what I see in

Well, from what I see in nature in general, species have a way of trying to protect the weak and injured.  Sure, the predators target these animals, but with the young ones and others that cannot defend themselves, the stronger and bigger animals will help out, especially in a pack mentality.  Look at herds like elephants, water buffalos, etc.  They aill circle around the youngsters and protect them from the lions.

Maybe it does not translate across the board, but it's similar.   I don't think it is hurting the overall survival of our species to be protecting these people.  I think as we have evolved, as humans, we have developed the cognitive ability to think, reason, feel compassion, etc.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Maybe Darwin Was Wrong?!Hal Fast508/12/2010 08:06 am
Albino deerWhelland604/03/2007 09:45 am
Volunteers Needed to Review New Survival Curriculummshuey003/13/2007 15:49 pm
New Survival Book Releasedsurvival009/19/2005 16:07 pm
Introducing Global Survival Technologies...mshuey002/22/2007 10:53 am