Have we out-evolved natural selection and survival of the fittest?

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Do some people die without ever breeding? Then no.

We should have, yes.

I'm not a biologist, so I don't have a great answer.

But if I had to guess, the answer is that natural selection still exists, but its significance is basically negligible.

I'd say so.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Do some people die without ever breeding? Then no.

Does society foster and support those who have otherwise proven to be ineffective at demonstrating the ability to survive?

Human support networks are part of the environment and they are suited enough to survive I don't get your point, unless it's "blerrr we aren't the ubermenzch because we don't have to worry about running away from wolves"

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Not at all. We're no longer filtering out obvious, physical traits, but we're still seeing it in our scientific development.

We'll use calculus as an example: it was discovered by numerous people all around the same time, and even though it's accredited to a few individuals it was actually a scientific eventuality for us to reach, in a process akin to speciation.

Through which we continue to degrade the gene pool by allowing people that have terrible health problems or that are unintelligent to continue to breed and survive who would have otherwise died without society's support. Call it archaic or apathetic but it's true. We're not above the laws of nature.

1. Averagely unintelligent people breed just fine in primal conditions. A lot of intelligent people have been able to survive because of modern technology.

2. Unhealthy conditions will still weed individuals out on aggregate and healthy ones will produce more.

3. By lifting the burden of survival we can focus on bigger things.

In the conventional or basic sense of the phrase, yes.

We'll reach the McDonalds singularity fairly soon, you can only keep on cheating mother nature with hamburgers and diet coke for so long.

Anyone notice how bad rates of childhood obesity are getting? And I don't mean 16 year olds, I mean 4 year olds.

Somehow I doubt the following generation of bloaters are going to be able to survive long enough to reproduce at the prodigious rates their forebearers have.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

We'll reach the McDonalds singularity fairly soon, you can only keep on cheating mother nature with hamburgers and diet coke for so long.

Anyone notice how bad rates of childhood obesity are getting? And I don't mean 16 year olds, I mean 4 year olds.

Somehow I doubt the following generation of bloaters are going to be able to survive long enough to reproduce at the prodigious rates their forebearers have.

That's sort of what I was getting at but you said it a lot more politely than I did.

The moral question of the century. Should we really allow people like that to breed, survive, and carry on those hereditary afflictions?

I think the moral question answers itself when you consider the horrors inherent in depriving bloaters of their favourite source of coronary heart disease.

As a species we should, it rids the gestalt of those too stupid to eat a proper diet and/or exercise.
As humans with a supposed conscience, we shouldn't be allowing it to happen because it's not exactly the fault of the children that their parents are bloaters. Sins of the father and all that.

It's kind of a futile endeavour though, I mean look at how psychotic people get over tobacco legislation. An addictive product proven to cause cancer and worse, yet people get the screaming abdabs about another round of kneecapping the tobacco companies for their crimes.

We'll reach the McDonalds singularity fairly soon, you can only keep on cheating mother nature with hamburgers and diet coke for so long.

Anyone notice how bad rates of childhood obesity are getting? And I don't mean 16 year olds, I mean 4 year olds.

Somehow I doubt the following generation of bloaters are going to be able to survive long enough to reproduce at the prodigious rates their forebearers have.

That's sort of what I was getting at but you said it a lot more politely than I did.

The moral question of the century. Should we really allow people like that to breed, survive, and carry on those hereditary afflictions?

Selectively.

My blue eyes and potential blonde haired recessive genes need to be passed on, but my family history of diabetes (father's side) and allergies  (mother's side) needs a few generations of careful planning to breed out.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

no

ITT: Not understanding how evolution/natural selection works

It will never not be a thing. It's physically not possible for it to not be a thing.

ITT: Not understanding how evolution/natural selection works

It will never not be a thing. It's physically not possible for it to not be a thing.

It won't be "a thing" in any meaningful or noticeable way, though.

YouTube

unless something fucking cataclysmic happens

also, if everyone stopped having kids, it would, obviously, cease to be "a thing"