[nannham]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

That many of the forces that favour one population over another are social in nature is without question, but the consequences are visible changes in population.  How much the social changes are themselves biological in origin is itself open to debate (i.e. to what extent are social values genetically determined?).

One thing I would state categorically is that social advantage is not determined by such one dimensional concepts as who is the 'smartest'.

George

I see what you mean here ...

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by iko
Don't worry, I don't think anybody here is talking of the deformed humanoids of the future with enormous skulls and atrophic bodies that we saw in some old movies!
We probably have to define better who is the 'smartest'...
It could mean not the brightest, the most clever, the successful person, but the tolerant, adaptable and capable of facing new realities and change (who cannot change...won't survive)
I have a vague memory (Dr. Alzy is making my brain fall into pieces...) of a psycological study comparing IIWorldWar survivors (USA parachuters I recall) to normal people: they were found to have a particular attitude and positive reactions in facing difficult and stressful situations...plus other interesting findings I can't remember.
Smart could mean too many different things!
LOL (lots of lies)

iko

I don't even think it is likely to be the most extreme in any particular psychological model.

One has tp be careful in extrapolating from any research done in one particular environment (particularly when the environment is as extreme as warfare), that the same may not necessarily carry over to other environments.

The whole point about human beings is their adaptability, that they can survive in many environments.  Each of those environments will need a different kind of human being.  There is no doubt that there are some traits that will make certain human beings particularly suitable for certain extreme environments, but unless that environment becomes the norm for most human beings over a prolonged period of time, then it is likely that those humans will thrive in that environment, but will be disadvantaged in other environments.  Thus one would expect within humanity that there be different types of human being, each thriving in some circumstances, and disadvantaged in others; but overall, so long as all those environments remain part of the challenges that humans will face, then all of those humans will have some arena in which they can flourish.

If we were to lose some types of human being, then we would also probably lose our ability to thrive in certain environments.  This would be a likely scenario only if humans cease to continue to occupy that environment.  There is no doubt that as time progresses, humans do face different challenges, and many of the environments that neolithic man faced we no longer face today, and so have less need for many of the capabilities that neolithic man required; but we have no less need for flexibility and diversity, on the contrary, our need for diversity has increased as the range of environments we occupy increases.

Ofcourse, it may come that one day we will create such an artificial environment for ourselves that we remove much of the need for the diversity to meet the diversity of natural environments; and when that day comes, it could be that the human animal will become more specialised and the species more homogeneous.

It may also come about that external factors may force us to relinquish occupation of many of the environments we occupy today, thus requiring that we become more specialised in those environments that we will continue to occupy.  If this were to happen, it would ofcourse demand a massive reduction in population, as well as a reduction in the diversity of population.

George

[dkv]

I think i have a grasp on the basics of evolution, so i have a question.

when a species allows for the survival of everyone, regardless of their genes (like ours), shouldnt it provide for the development of quick advances and changes in genes?

The behaviours turned out to be the way they are. It was not needed.
Thats what is expressed by Evolution. Even the most lenient interpretation
of natural selection doesnt guranetee anything more than greater presence of particular genes in a population.
Quick advances and changes require extra time in the developement of computer programs. Too quick more errors.More errors less chances of survival.From replication point of view it turns out this rate of change is suitable of survival. If animals wouldnt have survived then we would not have seen them.For some strange reason survival gets promoted in the
random evolutionary process. This is UNexplained.
Who can explain this ?
I can.
All life forms reinforce themselves.whether gene or species or any life structure.
How do they reinforce themselves?
All life forms search for a biological state which is equivalent to Happiness in humans.
This is expressed as Towards Sustainable Pleasure or TSP.


=======================

Normally, for new traits to appear, it has to be beneficial to reproduction, or neutral to it. Then later a bunch of neutral traits can combine to form a positive trait.
However in a society that allows for just about all traits to remain, then it opens up the possiblities, as potential negitives to reproduction (like ADD, for example) remain in the gene pool, instead of dying out. And later, a bunch of these can combine to make a sudden change...potentially...
Idk its late...and im just thinking, not very coherently, but when am i ever really coherent...?

REP: Incoherent or not the truth is replication doesnt provide any purpose..
The natural selection can lead to extinction as well.