Have we out-evolved darwinism?

[hitch1978]

We are no longer answerable to the rules that led to our evolution. Survival of the fittest, has been replaced by survival of everyone, at least in the 1st world. People with frail body's, that would have never lived to puberty 100 years ago, are now capable of reproducing. Same applies to people with mental ilnesses. I am not saying that these things are wrong or bad, but it does raise a few interesting questions.

As we develope as a worldwide commumity, and arradecate the infant death rates and suchlike in the 3rd world, and the species as a whole is dragged into a similar state of being as the first world countrys in terms of medical care and opportunitys, will we have eliminated any kind of selective breeding programme? (Not sure about my terminology, but I'm sure you get the point.)

Are we reaching a level where our evolution will no longer be driven by nature, in the way of darwinism, and in a more conscious way? I have no doubt that as a social, global organism we will continue to evolve as we learn new ways to adapt and use our knowledge, but have we personnally stopped evolving as single specimin's of a species?

Are our future evolutions going to be self driven by laboritory modifications to our genetics, and not by the survival of the fittest?

[Nielsio]

Your question is not very refined, but the answer is: yes.

A good example of this is how many people have glasses today. I think I would be a decent hunter physically (tall, strong build, etc), but even though my glasses aren't even that strong, I would be a serious donkey in the wild without them.

However, it doesn't seem to matter at all today. We just wear glasses or lenses and all is fine. I'm not exactly sure what kind of longterm effect this could have, but I'm optimistic in how technology can stay ahead of big problems (unless markets keep getting trampeled and destructed by states, over and over again).

[tame_deuces]

No we haven't, we are just changing some of the parameters of the ecosystem.

Illustration: Passing on your genes in a city, or in the wilderness. Some base principles as those of evolution apply, but different properties are rewarded.

[bbbaddd]

The main thing about today's society is that resources are not as scarce as they were for our ancestors. Evolution and adaptation mostly occur in a competition for scarce resources (maybe bad wording, I'll elaborate if needed), but when hardly anything is scarce (at least in a globalized country) that creates an interesting dynamic where, as you said, lots more people are capable of reproducing.

Another important thing is that our definition of success and nature's definition can be quite different. For instance, in today's world, we would assume that those who were fittest or most successful would be those with the most understanding of capitalism, community, money, etc, but instead it appears to be the opposite. Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.

As long as a particular genetic frequency is favored in any way over another, there will be adaptation and evolution. Our environment will still determine which genes are favored, even if it's vastly different than it has been throughout time.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is not very refined, but the answer is: yes.

A good example of this is how many people have glasses today. I think I would be a decent hunter physically (tall, strong build, etc), but even though my glasses aren't even that strong, I would be a serious donkey in the wild without them.

However, it doesn't seem to matter at all today. We just wear glasses or lenses and all is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


our civilizations have evolved, but the notion of survival of the fitness has not. the fact that people get their vision corrected doesn't really matter b/c we don't live in hunter-gatherer/warrior societies. the traits/characteristics that aid the survival of individual genes have changed, but that doesn't mean we've "out evolved darwinism."

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

that implies that they passed their genes on more easily b/c they were poor. this is only true b/c there are more poor people than rich people.

[foal]

Typically when a species has no competitors its population will grow rapidly until it grows too large for the amount of resources available in its niche. Then it's population will decline. In the period of decline there will be a lot more natural selection going on than in the period of rapid growth. Humans are still in a period of rapid growth, but assuming this continues we will eventually outgrow our resources and then natural selection will become more relevant to us again.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is not very refined, but the answer is: yes.

A good example of this is how many people have glasses today. I think I would be a decent hunter physically (tall, strong build, etc), but even though my glasses aren't even that strong, I would be a serious donkey in the wild without them.

However, it doesn't seem to matter at all today. We just wear glasses or lenses and all is fine. I'm not exactly sure what kind of longterm effect this could have, but I'm optimistic in how technology can stay ahead of big problems (unless markets keep getting trampeled and destructed by states, over and over again).

[/ QUOTE ]

So the desire to see outcompetes the desire to look good, or the desire to be afraid of change, or whatever else.

The answer to the OP is of course not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your question is not very refined, but the answer is: yes.

A good example of this is how many people have glasses today. I think I would be a decent hunter physically (tall, strong build, etc), but even though my glasses aren't even that strong, I would be a serious donkey in the wild without them.

However, it doesn't seem to matter at all today. We just wear glasses or lenses and all is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


our civilizations have evolved, but the notion of survival of the fitness has not. the fact that people get their vision corrected doesn't really matter b/c we don't live in hunter-gatherer/warrior societies. the traits/characteristics that aid the survival of individual genes have changed, but that doesn't mean we've "out evolved darwinism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, this.

[foal]

Another way of looking at natural selection:

This is an interesting article by the sci-fi author David Brin. The idea (and I guess Dawkins came up with this) is that bundles of ideas or "memes" go through a process akin to natural selection among humans. Brin speculates on some very broad meme classifications and how they can be thought to be waging war on one another. This is interesting, because much like DNA, ideas can have a very high power to perpetuate themselves. An interesting question is what qualities of an idea make it likely to survive. We can look to history for answers, but I think the battle of human ideas is very much in its infancy (assuming we survive for a long time) and it's tough to predict, which sort of ideas will win out over a much longer period of time or whether the same sort of patterns will just keep repeating themselves.