|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 7, 2024 10:33:25 GMT
Are humans, us an evolutionary dead end? That as discussed on here the glaring faults of governance, not only in Britain, but around the world, that the application of common sense, fairness, democracy, makes no difference. That those in charge purposely push us to obliteration, and the vast, vast majority approve.
The answer has to be yes, indeed nature in its way, is clearing the path for the ending of human life by making socialism permanent.
In the depths of chaos, despair, hopelessness, can we as a species pull the coals out of the fire.?
That Starmer and his cohort from hell are the harbingers of doom, Satan is coming.....for you....but proffessing good deeds.
What will come after?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 7, 2024 18:13:02 GMT
Are humans, us an evolutionary dead end? That as discussed on here the glaring faults of governance, not only in Britain, but around the world, that the application of common sense, fairness, democracy, makes no difference. That those in charge purposely push us to obliteration, and the vast, vast majority approve. The answer has to be yes, indeed nature in its way, is clearing the path for the ending of human life by making socialism permanent. In the depths of chaos, despair, hopelessness, can we as a species pull the coals out of the fire.? That Starmer and his cohort from hell are the harbingers of doom, Satan is coming.....for you....but proffessing good deeds. What will come after? Not necessarily a dead end. We are still evolving and most of the evolution is how to control our minds, our bodies and our environment and most especially other human beings. It is a balance between cooperation and selfishness although it could be argued cooperation evolved from a selfish need. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 8, 2024 6:26:33 GMT
Evolution - or at least evolution for the better - relies on "survival of the fittest". But human beings have basically eliminated that by deliberately providing support for those who would normally die. For example Africa has regular droughts and famines which would control their population, were it not for the fact that the richer nations provide aid.
So they carry on doubling their population every 50 years or so. And when they get too crowded (or poor) they come to the richer countries where they degrade the gene pool. It's a strange conundrum that when it comes to animals we're all in favour of keeping the purity of the various gene pools by eliminating cross breeding - which animals naturally do anyway - but when it comes to human beings that's total anathema to the "progressives" who see interracial breeding as a good thing. They call it diversity but it's actually destroying diversity at the gene level.
Of course this is the kind of discussion that is now "verboten" because of the Nazi's eugenics experiments. But the fact is that our social policies mean that our evolution is for the worse - not the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 8, 2024 9:00:22 GMT
Thats interesting Steppenwolf, are you saying that mixing up the gene pool, persons of different ethnic backgrounds reproducing, is a bad thing.? My understanding is that the opposite is true, that interbreeding produces maladaption, serius mental and physical illness.
Like in the Asian community when cousin marries cousin. Discussion of this kind is not forbidden, that any knowledge must be welcome. In my career i have had experience of Huntingdoms Chorea, a truly horrific genetic illness, and in its treatment reproduction of affected individuals is not forbidden but seriously disapproved of.
There is that game show host he of lets say, a smaller build, married a woman who had a similar genetic disorder and they produced children who were also dwarfs. Those children throughout their lives would suffer physically as well as emotionally, but that did not stop the parents condemning them to a hard life.
Eugenics is practiced in Britain, but not in the Nazi way. Pregnancies who show genetic abnormalities, are advised to be aborted.
In the not so distant past there were hospitals full of people with physical and mental handicaps of the extreme sort, looking after them was difficult, and they suffered daily, horribly. The cost of running these places was extreme. They dont exist today. It ius good to halt a genetic lineage that contains a serious genetic abnormality, Huntingdons chorea is brutal, death comes slowly, it is better not to suffer that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 9:52:32 GMT
People with genetic weaknesses live longer and reproduce today because of modern technology.
So genetically weaknesses will spread .
That may or may not continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 13:38:00 GMT
People with genetic weaknesses live longer and reproduce today because of modern technology. So genetically weaknesses will spread . That may or may not continue. But one of the routes we have gone down in an evolutionary sense is one of cooperation and that cooperation means we help each other because all of us at some point need the assistance of others. At what point do you draw the line as to what is a genetic weakness? Certain groups have weaknesses due to a degree of inbreeding but other weaknesses may be IQ, beauty, aggression, morality and much more. I am perfectly willing to be the judge of what is and is not genetic weakness but I do not believe I will be fully accepted in my decision making. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 13:41:10 GMT
Thats interesting Steppenwolf, are you saying that mixing up the gene pool, persons of different ethnic backgrounds reproducing, is a bad thing.? My understanding is that the opposite is true, that interbreeding produces maladaption, serius mental and physical illness. Like in the Asian community when cousin marries cousin. Discussion of this kind is not forbidden, that any knowledge must be welcome. In my career i have had experience of Huntingdoms Chorea, a truly horrific genetic illness, and in its treatment reproduction of affected individuals is not forbidden but seriously disapproved of. There is that game show host he of lets say, a smaller build, married a woman who had a similar genetic disorder and they produced children who were also dwarfs. Those children throughout their lives would suffer physically as well as emotionally, but that did not stop the parents condemning them to a hard life. Eugenics is practiced in Britain, but not in the Nazi way. Pregnancies who show genetic abnormalities, are advised to be aborted. In the not so distant past there were hospitals full of people with physical and mental handicaps of the extreme sort, looking after them was difficult, and they suffered daily, horribly. The cost of running these places was extreme. They dont exist today. It ius good to halt a genetic lineage that contains a serious genetic abnormality, Huntingdons chorea is brutal, death comes slowly, it is better not to suffer that. Eugenics is practised in Britain because there is a low level campaign to encourage inter-racial procreation as both normal and desirable and to create the numbers so that interracial marriage will be given as many opportunities as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 14:02:17 GMT
People with genetic weaknesses live longer and reproduce today because of modern technology. So genetically weaknesses will spread . That may or may not continue. But one of the routes we have gone down in an evolutionary sense is one of cooperation and that cooperation means we help each other because all of us at some point need the assistance of others. At what point do you draw the line as to what is a genetic weakness? Certain groups have weaknesses due to a degree of inbreeding but other weaknesses may be IQ, beauty, aggression, morality and much more. I am perfectly willing to be the judge of what is and is not genetic weakness but I do not believe I will be fully accepted in my decision making. Evolution is the result of whatever route the species goes. Cooperation doesn’t ensure that the species survives or adapts . If cooperation underpins weaknesses which are vital to survival in one environment…and that environment changes ,then cooperation would become a negative . |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Jul 8, 2024 14:21:36 GMT
Indeed. Humans, with opposable thumbs can engineer things and produce whatever it wants, but i suggest this is not the end of the argument. It is not the physical adaption to our environment thats important, it is important though.
For instance, a Brontosauras with human intelligence could not type on a key board, never mind produce a computer, even if it could. My argument is that human beings are MENTALLY unfit to survive.
That those with the intellect and ability to nurture society to greater heights are about 0.8 to 1 percent of the population, the chances of gaining political power is almost zero, that such can not be fully developed well into their twenties, even thirties. An MP elected in cambs who is 22 is laughable.
These people think, feel, and behave differently, apparently they feel like aliens.
Anyway, i can mention endless political names that highlight my point.
The most recent are Sunak, Johnson, May, all catastrophic. Never mind the left, like Corbyn.
My point is that its not only about the physical side, that the grey matter is still pre historic, primitive. Heres another, Jacqie Lawrence the ex MP for Redditch is in government.
Who can argue with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 14:32:37 GMT
But one of the routes we have gone down in an evolutionary sense is one of cooperation and that cooperation means we help each other because all of us at some point need the assistance of others. At what point do you draw the line as to what is a genetic weakness? Certain groups have weaknesses due to a degree of inbreeding but other weaknesses may be IQ, beauty, aggression, morality and much more. I am perfectly willing to be the judge of what is and is not genetic weakness but I do not believe I will be fully accepted in my decision making. Evolution is the result of whatever route the species goes. Cooperation doesn’t ensure that the species survives or adapts . If cooperation underpins weaknesses which are vital to survival in one environment…and that environment changes ,then cooperation would become a negative . I agree, however nothing ensures that any species adapts or survives except adaptation and survival and of course successful procreation. If cooperation underpins weakness, and it does, then that is the route that has been evolutionary accepted. In part because it also leads to success for many within the species and the weakness is an evolutionary trade off similar to birth difficulties and walking upright which was undergoing evolution and is in part mitigated by our success in helping others through these difficulties. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 14:42:21 GMT
Evolution is the result of whatever route the species goes. Cooperation doesn’t ensure that the species survives or adapts . If cooperation underpins weaknesses which are vital to survival in one environment…and that environment changes ,then cooperation would become a negative . I agree, however nothing ensures that any species adapts or survives except adaptation and survival and of course successful procreation. If cooperation underpins weakness, and it does, then that is the route that has been evolutionary accepted. In part because it also leads to success for many within the species and the weakness is an evolutionary trade off similar to birth difficulties and walking upright which was undergoing evolution and is in part mitigated by our success in helping others through these difficulties. “route that has been evolutionary accepted?” What route and what or who accepts it ? Evolution is the result ie we are still here and Dodos are not . We know the result but we don’t know if there is an actual process ( as such) that leads to the result . It could be just an ongoing series of random events that look like a process . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 14:43:22 GMT
Indeed. Humans, with opposable thumbs can engineer things and produce whatever it wants, but i suggest this is not the end of the argument. It is not the physical adaption to our environment thats important, it is important though. For instance, a Brontosauras with human intelligence could not type on a key board, never mind produce a computer, even if it could. My argument is that human beings are MENTALLY unfit to survive. That those with the intellect and ability to nurture society to greater heights are about 0.8 to 1 percent of the population, the chances of gaining political power is almost zero, that such can not be fully developed well into their twenties, even thirties. An MP elected in cambs who is 22 is laughable. These people think, feel, and behave differently, apparently they feel like aliens. Anyway, i can mention endless political names that highlight my point. The most recent are Sunak, Johnson, May, all catastrophic. Never mind the left, like Corbyn. My point is that its not only about the physical side, that the grey matter is still pre historic, primitive. Heres another, Jacqie Lawrence the ex MP for Redditch is in government. Who can argue with that. Because part of the survival of the fittest is opportunism. There is a fish, I forget which type, that makes a run for the female to lay eggs in so that it can swim through after her and release sperm on the eggs. A much smaller fish of the same species keeps careful watch and dashes in to fertilise some of the eggs before the bigger fish gets to the entrance to begin his swim through. This is opportunism which works on an evolutionary scale. All we do is we are able to argue about what is opportunism in terms of survival. Being a victim is an excellent survival strategy in the human world some of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 14:49:15 GMT
I agree, however nothing ensures that any species adapts or survives except adaptation and survival and of course successful procreation. If cooperation underpins weakness, and it does, then that is the route that has been evolutionary accepted. In part because it also leads to success for many within the species and the weakness is an evolutionary trade off similar to birth difficulties and walking upright which was undergoing evolution and is in part mitigated by our success in helping others through these difficulties. “route that has been evolutionary accepted?” What route and what or who accepts it ? Evolution is the result ie we are still here and Dodos are not . We know the result but we don’t know if there is an actual process ( as such) that leads to the result . It could be just an ongoing series of random events that look like a process . The route that works. No matter for who and for how many. What works works and what does not will either have to adapt or die out. The Bird of Paradise has a huge decorative tail that must be a hinderance to flying and survival but that is what attracts the female for unknown, although conjectured, reasons. It works on an evolutionary scale and birds with tails that do not meet female approval do not breed and die out |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 14:52:11 GMT
“route that has been evolutionary accepted?” What route and what or who accepts it ? Evolution is the result ie we are still here and Dodos are not . We know the result but we don’t know if there is an actual process ( as such) that leads to the result . It could be just an ongoing series of random events that look like a process . The route that works. No matter for who and for how many. What works works and what does not will either have to adapt or die out. The Bird of Paradise has a huge decorative tail that must be a hinderance to flying and survival but that is what attracts the female for unknown, although conjectured, reasons. It works on an evolutionary scale and birds with tails that do not meet female approval do not breed and die out “ the route that works “ is no route at all. It’s a specific point in series of random events . Unless you think there is system involved . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 8, 2024 18:36:58 GMT
The route that works. No matter for who and for how many. What works works and what does not will either have to adapt or die out. The Bird of Paradise has a huge decorative tail that must be a hinderance to flying and survival but that is what attracts the female for unknown, although conjectured, reasons. It works on an evolutionary scale and birds with tails that do not meet female approval do not breed and die out “ the route that works “ is no route at all. It’s a specific point in series of random events . Unless you think there is system involved . Of course there is a system involved and it is survival and procreation. Those that survive and procreate continue their line. Of course there is much randomness within that system and luck plays a part but time and numbers is the essence of how it works and it works because one line is best suited to a potentially ever changing environment through being adapted to it or able to adapt to it. The one step at a time process continues on with small changes in units surviving better on average. Evolution designs by getting rid of failed designs and keeping successful ones. |
|
