Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Dumbed Down

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Tooth
Tooth  95772 forum posts Ireland227 Constructive Critique Points
13 Nov 2012 - 12:56 PM

Evolution is about survival of the fittest, or by implication non-passing on of the genes of the least fit. As society evolves it becomes more compassionate and the least fit are nurtured and protected. so there's more chance of their genes being passd on, which waters down the concept, so matybe there is a slowdown in evolutionary advance. Just a thought, not like I can prove it Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
13 Nov 2012 - 12:56 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

thewilliam
13 Nov 2012 - 1:27 PM

Would any sensible horse breeder allow his/her stock to breed at random?

There have been programs where human breeding has been planned, but inevitably under the least pleasant political systems.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
13 Nov 2012 - 1:35 PM

Just take a look at the Jeremy Kyle Show if you want to see the results of random breeding! Wink

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
13 Nov 2012 - 1:44 PM

[Devils-advocate]
The protection afforded by modern society to those less able, either physically or mentally, allows them to reach a stage in life where they can procreate. Therefore survival of the fittest no longer applies to the same extent and the human gene pool is being progressively weakened in those societies where this condition applies.

A person with a particular gift, such as super intelligence or mastery of carpentry, may do well enough to provide them and their family with a good life but the constraints of society (eg monogamy) prevent them from spreading their seed far and wide (well for the most part anyway) so they will not be able to increase their representation in the gene pool.
[/Devils-advocate]

mikehit
mikehit  46170 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
13 Nov 2012 - 2:06 PM

Re-reading the quote in the OP, it would become easy to be side-tracked about his contention in that he talks about 'intellectually active' rather than 'intelligent'. The reference to '...broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues' is more about critical analysis than intelligence (or intelligence potential?) as such. This may be suseptible to genetic mutations (2,000 to 5,000 mentioned in the article) but the next question would be how many of those are critical - the brain is amazingly plastic in that it can adjust to circumstances and damage to an amazing degree. So in theory it would be compromised but the capacity of the brain would mean it is less critical. I suspect the person-person variation is far greater than ancient vs modern.




Quote: Just take a look at the Jeremy Kyle Show if you want to see the results of random breeding

Imagine having Plato on that show...?
Or Patroclus and Achilles... heh! heh! heh!

Tooth
Tooth  95772 forum posts Ireland227 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 12:00 AM

I'm sure they'd step up to the mark Smile

scrimmy
scrimmy e2 Member 5364 forum postsscrimmy vcard Scotland5 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 1:01 AM

is there not a school of thought that suggests that since we are now able, in a large part, to control our environment there is no need to evolve.

Tooth
Tooth  95772 forum posts Ireland227 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 1:32 AM

there never was a need for anything to evolve..it just happens. Ask the question..who or what needs it?

thewilliam
14 Nov 2012 - 10:19 AM


Quote: Is there not a school of thought that suggests that since we are now able, in a large part, to control our environment there is no need to evolve.

Ever read "War of the Worlds"?

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102255 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 11:58 AM


Quote: there never was a need for anything to evolve..it just happens. Ask the question..who or what needs it?

Agreed. There is no purpose to our lives - we just have to make things as comfortable as possible while we are here.
In my opinion it's impossible for a professor or anybody else to truly establish if we are any less clever now than we were - however, I'm open to any future arguments that might convince me otherwise.
I suspect that many of us are indeed not as sharp and alert as we were when we were hunter-gatherers and had to have our wits about us to survive; but others, maybe a minority are probably just as clever, sharp and alert as their forefathers (and foremothers - let's keep this politically correct! Wink)
We need a different kind of intelligence nowadays. I think it is the case that there are very many more distractions nowadays and so we tend to lose our ability to absorb the mass of information amid the constant background noise and demands of modern living.
If people were so clever centuries ago, why were they so superstitious and why did they allow themselves to be controlled by religious tyrants.
I don't think men and women have changed much fundamentally - we're still greedy and aggressive...

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41177 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 12:08 PM

Survival of the "fittest" is often misinterpreted. It is not always survival of the "strongest" or the "most physically able", but the one that best adapts to surroundings and changes of conditions.

In the past, that meant perhaps the best camouflage to hide from a predator, rather than being physically stronger, or the ability to make cutting tools/weapons to kill for food, or the knowledge of how to preserve food to guard against harsh winters. Whatever gives you the advantage over someone or something else.

Consider the future; we may not perceive a "need" to evolve from where we are, but if a killer epidemic were to break out, and kill everyone except those with a particular gene, strength or knowledge might be useless and only those with the gene would survive to procreate down the line.

Nick

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41177 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 12:16 PM

And we don't need to be as resourceful as before, in everyday life. We have shops to buy food, we don't need to search for it. We don't need to defeat it then butcher it, we just buy it ready done.
It's not that we are less intelligent, I think the gist is that we are less enquiring and we don't need to use our brains and our abilities as much simply in order to survive. We might be good at our jobs or hobbies, but unless you're a survivalist, how many of us wod be able to survive in the wild with no conveniences? Find your own food, start your own fire for warmth, build your own shelter? I suspect many could last for a couple of days, but for the rest of your life? I doubt it. In that case, physical fitness would help, but you would need to discover other skills very quickly. And you might have to fight to protect your resources or move away somewhere else.

Nick

Newdevonian
14 Nov 2012 - 1:33 PM

The most intelligent person I ever met, with a highly analytical mind and extremely eloquent, held the position of department head and was a Professor of some kind of Physics at Cambridge University years ago, but he had absolutely no hand eye co-ordination when it came to DIY. His wife did it all. He was simply incapable.

Last Modified By Newdevonian at 14 Nov 2012 - 1:34 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 1:47 PM


Quote: The most intelligent person I ever met, with a highly analytical mind and extremely eloquent, held the position of department head and was a Professor of some kind of Physics at Cambridge University years ago, but he had absolutely no hand eye co-ordination when it came to DIY. His wife did it all. He was simply incapable.

The absent-minded professor has been a well-known phenomenon for centuries! Smile

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102255 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
14 Nov 2012 - 4:12 PM


Quote: The most intelligent person I ever met, with a highly analytical mind and extremely eloquent, held the position of department head and was a Professor of some kind of Physics at Cambridge University years ago, but he had absolutely no hand eye co-ordination when it came to DIY. His wife did it all. He was simply incapable.

Which just shows how important it is to recognize that we all (or nearly all) have talents and that the future for the human race depends on cooperation and mutual respect - with a bit less absorption with our egos.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.