Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding.

Re: Classism is Inevitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait.

There may never be such an environment though.

There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection?

I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this?

Re: Classism is Inevitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you would think this.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copernicus
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 06/13/03
Posts: 4761

[/ QUOTE ]
Might explain it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre understanding fine. Its just two different types of sexual selection...this is an example of intrasexual selection where males are competing with each other for access to the most females. Intersexual selection has the female of the species selecting between those that have gotten access. In the first the female is passive and doesnt drive the selection process (eg the development of colorful plumage doesnt require a female preference for a particular plumage, access is gained by being more noticeable). In intersexual selection it is the specific female preferences that select out the most desired traits.

In the context of classism in a purely homogenous and abundant society there are no distinguishable characteristics for intrasexual competition, and if there are also no means for the females to distinguish between males for intersexual selection, classism will fade since it is a consequence of sexual selectione which would have no mechanism to operate.

Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper
http://www.thegossipfix.com/wp-conte...1/kfedpimp.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet stupid people continue to breed at higher rates. Leave it to our govt to take from the genetic superiors to give to the Jerry Springer guests....WTF!, the future of the human race is at stake. I SAY LET MOTHER NATURE THIN THE HUMAN HERD OUT AS SHE SEES FIT.

tommorrow on springer..... 27 men...who is the father? (you can bet that there are 15 or less jobs held by the 27 men, most have sub 100 IQs, and they were all dumb enuff to drill some 300+ pound cumdumpster of a thing that resembles a woman, only hairier)

not quite my definition of selective breeding. Sounds more like the anaconda breeding ball I saw on discovery channel.

jerrry!jerrrry!jerrrrrrry!

Re: Classism is Inevitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait.

There may never be such an environment though.

There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection?

I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. When all males are capable of providing for their offspring (say because technology provides all of the essentials) there is no natural selection driving the process. Without natural selection favoring certain characteristics (ie more characteristics survive the gene pool) intersexual selection will also fade because the percentage of males in the population that have any particular favored characteristic becomes too low....3 billion females cant all breed with the 10 million males who happen to retain a favored characteristic....., limiting intersexual selection.

Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper
http://www.thegossipfix.com/wp-conte...1/kfedpimp.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet stupid people continue to breed at higher rates. Leave it to our govt to take from the genetic superiors to give to the Jerry Springer guests....WTF!, the future of the human race is at stake. I SAY LET MOTHER NATURE THIN THE HUMAN HERD OUT AS SHE SEES FIT.

tommorrow on springer..... 27 men...who is the father? (you can bet that there are 15 or less jobs held by the 27 men, most have sub 100 IQs, and they were all dumb enuff to drill some 300+ pound cumdumpster of a thing that resembles a woman, only hairier)

not quite my definition of selective breeding. Sounds more like the anaconda breeding ball I saw on discovery channel.

jerrry!jerrrry!jerrrrrrry!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can.

Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if stupid people didnt have sufficient wherewithall to survive (ie they couldnt compete for a scarce resource that requires intellectual capacity) then they would be selected out of the species. No more equally stupids to breed with each other.

Re: Classism is Inevitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait.

There may never be such an environment though.

There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection?

I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. When all males are capable of providing for their offspring (say because technology provides all of the essentials) there is no natural selection driving the process. Without natural selection favoring certain characteristics (ie more characteristics survive the gene pool) intersexual selection will also fade because the percentage of males in the population that have any particular favored characteristic becomes too low....3 billion females cant all breed with the 10 million males who happen to retain a favored characteristic....., limiting intersexual selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. If there is no more scarcity of essentials like food, there will no longer be enough competition to drive natural selection?

This seems to be contradicted by the incredible premium women in postindustrial societies place on superfluous wealth. A woman does not, in any meaningful way, risk her or her kids starving or going without shelter when she marries a guy who makes 50k a year. Then why is she MUCH more attracted to the guy who makes a million a year? In this example, necessity does not drive the woman's choice, yet if the higher earner has any genes that enhance his ability to procure wealth, won't those genes be naturally selected for?

Or are you saying that we're not there yet, but will be in the future when the competitive instinct is socialized out of us or something like that?

Re: Classism is Inenvitable
 

[ QUOTE ]
The alpha jocks intimidate the omega nerds

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually studies on bullying show that the most popular are rarely involved in bullying.