Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

Lebowski,

You might not want to call it de-evolution as the educated, evolved, etc. will still continue to evolve if they stick together.

So what may happen is that in a time, longer than shorter, there may indeed be two "breeds" of humans. Luckily we'll be dead by then so we can leave it up to the scientists and philosophers to decide if name distinction is necessary.

Also, some of the conversations that must stem from these discussions are extremely taboo so don't expect too many positive responses to this thread.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we don't need to have tons of kids for survival is what marks the most recent evolutionary breakthrough. We evolve culturally now, and our children 'inherit' these traits through our upper level interactions with them instead of exclusively through genetic process.

It's not hard to see how the more extreme cases of what you're describing produce 'less fit' offspring. They work in construction yards and factories, they are the warehouse grunts. They are needed to bootstrap the rest of society and provide a foundation for infrastructure. If they ever become useless to society their economic means will certainly be cut off and their numbers will dwindle. The process regulates itself, there's no need for anyone to engineer a selection mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that a lot of people just don't get. We will not always need those warehouse grunts, or the garbage men. We will automate every single mundane process that there is, and then move on to more difficult things to automate. You understand this, but most don't.

I hear a lot of "someone has to pick up the garbage," and the like, but that's criminally short sighted.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that we don't need to have tons of kids for survival is what marks the most recent evolutionary breakthrough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Over the range of all possible future scenarios, # of kids has to be the most effective survival mechanism, by a long shot. The sheer weight of probability, and the initial exponential branching for the first few generations, would give one a massive advantage. In the gene propagation stakes, I think someone with a 90 IQ and 70 great grandkids is going crush someone with a 140 IQ and four great grandkids.

The only situation where this wouldn't be true is if society stratified into classes, and the lower classes got wiped out. But even there, sheer probably will propel some of those 70 grandkids and their kids into high IQ phenotypes, advantageous marriages, and attainment of upper class status.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

people aren't dying of chicken pocks anymore,


[/ QUOTE ]

You might wanna turn dat dere modzilla thingy on youself and wile you at it you mite wanna see if maybe u mite ken fine a grammer, vokaboolary, sintax and punktuwation thingy 2 go wid it.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
in the past, poor people needed to have as many kids as possible to survive. they passed these genes onto their poor children. now, in the year 2007, having tons of kids isnt required for survival, but they are doing it anyways. that means for every scientist and doctor couple who have one child, a prison inmate and his baby's mamma have nine kids, some redneck and second cousin have seven kids. That means seven more kids believing in jesus and watching nascar versus one kid studying evolution and watching film noir. this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they are forced with a decision: extinction or mass genocide of the uneducated christian populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
this affect will keep multipling until the educated are such a small minority that they have lots and lots of slaves

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

people aren't dying of chicken pocks anymore,


[/ QUOTE ]

You might wanna turn dat dere modzilla thingy on youself and wile you at it you mite wanna see if maybe u mite ken fine a grammer, vokaboolary, sintax and punktuwation thingy 2 go wid it.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this would just be evolution?

Calling it "de-evolution" falsely implies a goal of complexity and higher intelligence, rather than a simple observation regarding reproductive success.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to nit it up, guys! Actually "devolution" is perfectly acceptable usage here, as its primary non-technical definition is, "The process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality." (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

But, I understand, it's crucial to show off your nuanced postmodern indifference to mankind's fate. Continue, continue.

Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only situation where this wouldn't be true is if society stratified into classes, and the lower classes got wiped out. But even there, sheer probably will propel some of those 70 grandkids and their kids into high IQ phenotypes, advantageous marriages, and attainment of upper class status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially if they are hot.