General

We're skewing the evolution process but we're also making sure humans remain the dominant species therefor ensuring our survival so essentially...we're doing what evolution was meant to do all long?

we have drunk driving and the fire challenge as modern forms of natural selection

@Llamaemon I've never done any research on evolution, which is why I made this thread. I just read what I posted out of a book, and I wanted to see what you guys had to say about it.

Could you give me an overview of how you believe evolution works? Try to put it as simply as you can so an idiot like me can understand!

@mitarumetaro So if we limit diversity we also limit the resiliency of our species. But how does having less inferior characteristics in the gene pool limit resiliency in the case of humans? I would think that it would do the opposite. Are you saying that this would make the species less adaptable as well? If so, how? Also it seems like GMOs are a pretty bad example of this because there are so many other factors that could cause extinction for them.

[quote=MarshMallows]I would disagree. Constraints on resiliency only happen when you start weeding out physical characteristics - however, IQ is more of a mental one than a physical one. After all, all "brains" are generally the same - it's just how we use them. So in theory, placing a limit on IQ would be the same as genocide by "random" selection. Diversity is not limited in this case. Dumbing it down a little - for every "dumb" asian, there's a "smart" asian, so it cancels out.[/quote]

There are physical correlates of IQ--which makes sense. When we are talking about IQ we [i]are[/i] talking about physical characteristics; we are just talking about those physical characteristics using a different vocabulary--namely a mental vocabulary.
When you say "all brains are generally the same"... well... kind of, but also not really. It depends on what you mean by "generally the same". They are the same in the sense that they play the same role in the human organism, and that they all function in the same basic way. But that could be said about pretty much everything that has to do with us as organisms.

[quote=mitarumetaro]
You'll find that artificial selection is worse than natural selection. If you selectively breed, you limit diversity, which places a further constraint on the resiliency of the species as a whole. We actually see this exact sort of thing happen with GMOs, which can lead to things like extinction.[/quote]

I would disagree. Constraints on resiliency only happen when you start weeding out physical characteristics - however, IQ is more of a mental one than a physical one. After all, all "brains" are generally the same - it's just how we use them. So in theory, placing a limit on IQ would be the same as genocide by "random" selection. Diversity is not limited in this case. Dumbing it down a little - for every "dumb" asian, there's a "smart" asian, so it cancels out.

i think we're ok just the way we are.

we should genocide idiots like OP with a grossly oversimplified view of evolution.

[quote=PinnacleWalk]I heard that we are becoming more stupid because now competition for survival is gone.[/quote]
Whoops, didn't mean to like. But anyway that's a stupid notion, by the very definition we are the smartest we have ever been thanks to the sheer amount of knowledge available in seconds

we'll end up having the x-gene.
mutants y'all.

[quote=PinnacleWalk]I heard that we are becoming more stupid because now competition for survival is gone.[/quote]
Life is too easy in a modernized society, so I can agree with this. There's really intelligent people in poor countries that'll do anything and everything they can do to survive and improve their lives. Such as this kid, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOLOLrUBRBY

I'm pretty sure the genetically blind or deformed aren't having babies so calm down.

[quote=ColdAir]how will humans evolve if we no longer wean off the weak and inferior members of our species? since we now let the weak live for moral reasons humans may not evolve into a more superior species because mutations will be all over the place. the strong will reproduce with the weak over and over causing the species to stay the same. or even worse the weak will reproduce with the weak causing our species to degenerate. the rare cases when the strong reproduces with the strong will be offset by this.

what should we do[/quote]
I think you're misunderstanding how evolution works. Evolution favours the most adaptable. It has nothing to do with your arbitrary notion of superiority, or strength, etc.

[quote=MarshMallows]One of my classmates in high school actually brought this up.
If intelligence was proven to be genetic, why not just commit mass genocide of the bottom ~20~30% in relation to IQ?
This would raise the overall intelligence of humanity. And if you do this repeatedly, then we would probably be smarter in a few generations.
By testing IQ, you can erase ALL socioeconomic barriers. If you're rich, but not "smart"? Good bye. You're poor, but smart? You get to live.
Of course, the test would need to be well designed.
He brought up an interesting point. Not that I agree with mass genocide, but still.[/quote]
You'll find that artificial selection is worse than natural selection. If you selectively breed, you limit diversity, which places a further constraint on the resiliency of the species as a whole. We actually see this exact sort of thing happen with GMOs, which can lead to things like extinction.

One of my classmates in high school actually brought this up.
If intelligence was proven to be genetic, why not just commit mass genocide of the bottom ~20~30% in relation to IQ?
This would raise the overall intelligence of humanity. And if you do this repeatedly, then we would probably be smarter in a few generations.
By testing IQ, you can erase ALL socioeconomic barriers. If you're rich, but not "smart"? Good bye. You're poor, but smart? You get to live.
Of course, the test would need to be well designed.
He brought up an interesting point. Not that I agree with mass genocide, but still.

Op is one of the weak

We don't need to evolve yet.