|
|
#21
05-04-2007, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] But I think they are selected against as a group, in the long run. If you look at it as rich vs. poor, which the stupid vs. smart leads to, then look at Katrina. Do you think an equal proportion of rich people and poor people died? Natural disasters will always select against the poor. So will wars. Poorer people also have more health problems and lower average life expectancy, meaning (I assume) that less of them survive to reproduce. They also tend to have more dangerous jobs. I'm sure there are a lot more factors I could think of that show poorer people as a group being selected against in postindustrial societies. So I think if stupider people are likely to be poorer, then they ARE more likely to be selected out of the species. Perhaps it isn't as dramatic as the cave man days, but seems like it still happens. 
|
|
#22
05-04-2007, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inevitable
"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? "
Yes, thats essentially what Im saying.
|
|
#23
05-04-2007, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] But I think they are selected against as a group, in the long run. If you look at it as rich vs. poor, which the stupid vs. smart leads to, then look at Katrina. Do you think an equal proportion of rich people and poor people died? Natural disasters will always select against the poor. So will wars. Poorer people also have more health problems and lower average life expectancy, meaning (I assume) that less of them survive to reproduce. They also tend to have more dangerous jobs. I'm sure there are a lot more factors I could think of that show poorer people as a group being selected against in postindustrial societies. So I think if stupider people are likely to be poorer, then they ARE more likely to be selected out of the species. Perhaps it isn't as dramatic as the cave man days, but seems like it still happens. [/ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. In the Katrina situation the catastrophe may have disproportionately affected the less capable, but there are plenty more of them available to migrate back to the area. Even if there were limited migration (eg a tsunami wipes out a disproportionate number of less capable remote islanders), that only impacts that limited population and would have no impact on the species in general.
|
|
#24
05-04-2007, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. [/ QUOTE ] Natural selection is only dominant in low resource situations, once there are enough resources for survival sexual selection becomes more dominant. [ QUOTE ] In the context of classism in a purely homogenous and abundant society there are no distinguishable characteristics [/ QUOTE ] Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot.
|
|
#25
05-04-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot. [/ QUOTE ] Ive already said that such a situation may never occur, but the premise of the thread is " Inevitable", ie under all possible conditions, so it isnt a moot situation.
|
|
#26
05-04-2007, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot. [/ QUOTE ] Ive already said that such a situation may never occur, but the premise of the thread is " Inevitable", ie under all possible conditions, so it isnt a moot situation. [/ QUOTE ] The likelyhood is essentially 0. Even if you started out with a homogeneous population that population wouldn't remain homogeneous since you still get mutations within germ lines.
|
|
#28
05-04-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. "Migration will generally unify gene frequencies among populations rapidly in evolutionary time. In the absence of selection, migration is a strong force for equalizing the gene frequencies of subpopulations in a species. Provided that the migration rate is greater than zero, gene frequencies will eventually equalize. Even if there is only one successful migrant per generation, gene flow inevitably draws the population's gene frequency to the species' average. Gene flow thus acts to bind the species together." Driving the gene frequency to the species' average limits the abiity of natural selection to operate. Read any good biology text and lack of migration is cited as a requirement for natural selection. The converse is that speciation most rapidly occurs in very isolated populations.
|
|
#30
05-04-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] Dane, both groups compete for each other, the more monogamous the relationship the more selective the male will be.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
