In nature, of which we are a part, although we sometimes like to pretend otherwise, life is cheap. On average 9 out of 10 juveniles do not reach adulthood. This is for a very good reason. Whether through physical inability to compete with well with siblings, susceptibility to disease, being unable to outrun competitors, making a stupid error of judgement or any number of possible other failures they are cast out of the gene pool. This is how evolution works.

All of us are born with countless genetic differentiations. Quite random and usually detrimental to our survival ability were we to be living in a dangerous environment like other life forms. However, humans have no natural predators, are mollycoddled until their teens and even the weakest most degenerate members are protected. All male and female humans breed regardless of mental or physical health.

As a result of this abnormal situation humanity has been physically devolving for many decades now and perhaps even centuries. Weight for weight a Chimpanzee is 6 times stronger than a man. Our intelligence is the only advantage we have over other animals and even in that area we see a remarkable percentage of people with mental illnesses.

Like sightless fish in the ocean depths, in nature you either use it or lose it. Humans need nothing to survive and live a full life, and therefore we are losing everything.

Population controls would worsen the situation by diminishing the gene pool even further each generation.

The reason the greatest sportsmen come from Africa and other countries with a recent tribal past is that civilisation has had less time to weaken these people. With a drop in mortality comes an increase in genetic devolution. Humanity reached its pinnacle long ago and now we are on the downward slide. Those who talk up population controls are willing an acceleration of this descent into darkness.

Science is based on truth and not evangelical wishful thinking.

“However, humans have no natural predators”

Really? How about the fact that our bodies are in constant war with bacteria and viruses? Aside from microorganisms our biggest natural predator is our own kind.

“As a result of this abnormal situation…’

How can it be abnormal? You said we are part of nature, so everything that has happened to us and is happening must be natural. Even to discuss population control is part of our nature. If we become extinct, despite our best efforts, why worry about it? That’s nature.

"How about the fact that our bodies are in constant war with bacteria and viruses?"

Even the immune system is getting a helping hand from anti-biotics. Doctors now realise that they've been over-prescribing this cure all and viruses have been building up an immunity as a result. We've been relying on medicine to fight viruses while our immune systems haven't kept pace with the new strains. Expect some really bad plagues in the next few decades if medicine doesn't again come to the rescue.

"...our biggest natural predator is our own kind."

Any idiot can fire a gun. Modern warfare involves munitions capable of taking out thousands of people at the touch of a button. Luck seems to be the greatest survival factor and that's a random quantity. The only competition which seems to have any bearing on success in breeding is monetary. Rich people are more favoured by females. Ofcourse they are also too busy to have much time for raising kids and prefer a small family while unemployed couples living in a trailer park might have a dozen children to reap in the extra social security payments.

"How can it be abnormal? You said we are part of nature, so everything that has happened to us and is happening must be natural."

It seemed an adequate word to describe a situation peculiar to very few species on Earth but you are right. Human evolution and our apex predator status is a result of millions of years of natural progression. However, using that argument it can be aid that nothing is abnormal.

"Even to discuss population control is part of our nature."

As is discussing the price of such a move.

"If we become extinct, despite our best efforts, why worry about it? That’s nature."

If we become extinct we will be incapable of worrying about it. I daresay it's more likely a catastrophe will wipe out much of the population and force it back to a stone age culture. The imminent erruption of Yellowstone Parks volcano which is about due to turn supervolcano for instance.

I agree with Wayne.Our human species is devolving because we are saving babies that would normally die.Imperfect genes are being given to the next generation.

We have but these choices,either we stop saving defective humans or we let science intervene and start genetically engineering the human race.In the past natural selection eliminated the negative genes that gave us deformities.Nature produces an enormous variety of genetic outcomes to cope with possible environmental changes,however there are many failures.We cannot afford to eventually to have half our population surviving on an intravenus drip while the rest of the population slaves away paying taxes to support them.8% of our working population are now on disability pensions.How will we cope if this number trebles?

If the body be the vehicle for the soul,shouldn't we be improving the vehicle?If there is re-incarnation,would you like to come back with genetic deformities?

"The reason the greatest sportsmen come from Africa and other countries with a recent tribal past is that civilisation has had less time to weaken these people. With a drop in mortality comes an increase in genetic devolution."

That sounds very much like the perversion of Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" that was so popular amongst the Nazis. Lennie Riefenstahl certainly shared your appreciation of the physical quality of Arfican tribesmen. Nazis also adopted the idea of eugenics, where defective members of the community could be sterilised, though they decided to expand this idea by using this "life not deserving of life" for medical experiments.

But what about "Technology to the rescue!"? I am often perplexed at how population growth proponents will readily spout about how technology will solve any problem created by population growth. Yet mention a problem associated with a stabilising or falling population, including your hypothesis, and suddenly the prospect of any technological rescue evaporates. Why such inconsistency?

There is remarkably little genetic variety in the human species compared with other mammals. (Consider dogs, for example.) Evidence suggests that humans passed through a "genetic bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, during which the human race was reduced to a few thousand individuals, wiping out much of whatever genetic variety pre-existed.

Now that there are well over 6 billion humans, even aggressive birth control (such as the former Chinese one child policy) is unlikely to wipe out what variety exists, anytime soon. Even a few thousand survivors could be sufficient for our species to survive and increase in numbers again.

"The reason the greatest sportsmen come from Africa and other countries with a recent tribal past is that civilisation has had less time to weaken these people."

Presumably this is why some of the greatest swimmers come from Australia?

Genetic variants more common in Eastern Africa (e.g. Kenya) than elsewhere in the world account for East Africans' frequent success in middle and long distance running.

Different genetic variants more common in West Africa (which is where most black American and British athletes' ancestry stems from) provide particular advantage in sprinting and jumping. This is nothing to do with weakening by civilisation or the absence thereof.

Conversely, East Africans tend not to be brilliant at sprinting, nor West Africans at distance running.

If nine out of ten humans were wiped out tomorrow, the remaining number would still be larger than the world's human population was in the year 1700. Some, concerned with the condition of the planet, say that even this number would be too many.

Evidence suggests that humans passed through a "genetic bottleneck" around 70,000 years ago, during which the human race was reduced to a few thousand individuals, wiping out much of whatever genetic variety pre-existed.

some bottleneck ..! the apearance of homo genocidus

for the increased number of children surviving today in spite of
being somewhat less than the pure 100% hunter gatherer
as soon as the survival pressure ease a bit , variations occurs
leading to sub species , then full species .
the astounding population explosion and improved survival rate to
adultood lead to more variant kids , most mutation are bad but
some scientists are not exactly centerfold material , as a rule
mere survival is not suficient ,
the next step is succesful breeding
most negative variants get eliminated ther

"Even the immune system is getting a helping hand from anti-biotics. Doctors now realise that they've been over-prescribing this cure all and viruses have been building up an immunity as a result".

Rubbish, name ONE virus that antibiotics can effect.

Antibiotics do not work on viruses because viruses are not alive. A bacterium is a living, reproducing lifeform. A virus is just a piece of DNA (or RNA). A virus injects its DNA into a living cell and has that cell reproduce more of the viral DNA. With a virus there is nothing to "kill," so antibiotics don't work on it.

So given that you do not understand this basic, I suggest the rest of your post is codswollop.

Confusion about viruses and bacteria aside, I reckon the underlying fallacy in Wayne’s argument is that our understanding of evolution and genetics ought to provide some kind of moral compass or strategic guideline about how we should behave. They don’t: at best they can provide some understanding of where we’ve come from and can give us some insight into some of the more bewildering aspects of human nature and some technologies to reduce human suffering. There is no “very good reason” why nature is so cruel. This is a teleological view of evolution, a remnant of the human tendency to regard the universe as revolving around it. Evolution is purposeless mechanics. It's not all about us.

There’s no doubt in my mind that six billion individuals represents an unsustainable ecological footprint, particularly if we hope for reasonable living standards at some stage for all. Overbreeding is far more of a threat to us (and everything else on the planet) than underbreeding.

Nature is, as Tennyson said, red in tooth and claw. All of us alive today are the genetic survivors of billions of years of ruthless, pitiless selection, and, most likely, tens of thousands of years of intermittent human generated genocides, which continue unabated to the present day. Our challenge is not to see this as an inevitability, but to build a future different to our past

"Our human species is devolving because we are saving babies that would normally die. Imperfect genes are being given to the next generation."

I certainly don't believe in establishing a "death squad" that has the right to decide who lives or dies. It would be reminiscent of Hitlers master race stratagem. What we deem important to future generations may not be what mother nature would select.

Personally I think we should do the opposite. Find exceptionally fit and exceptional individuals and pay them to provide their seed to sperm banks. Dilute the genetic defects in the pool by flooding it with robust and healthy DNA. Ofcourse overpopulation becomes a factor then.

"That sounds very much like the perversion of Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" that was so popular amongst the Nazis."

I fully expected somebody would raise that ugly episode of human history. I didn't give any solutions in my original post. Only details of the problem as my laymans mind comprehends it.

"But what about "Technology to the rescue!"? Why such inconsistency?"

You are pre-supposing that I don't see technology as a possible solution. Untrue. I see technology as the only solution.

"Presumably this is why some of the greatest swimmers come from Australia?"

Interesting observation. We are surrounded by beaches. That might have something to do with it. Also, tribes rarely try to outswim their prey.

"So given that you do not understand this basic, I suggest the rest of your post is codswollop."

That is a rather lame argument. To suggest that any error makes an entire argument wrong is a very ancient political trick. I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

"Nature is, as Tennyson said, red in tooth and claw. All of us alive today are the genetic survivors of billions of years of ruthless, pitiless selection...."

Our evolution took a long time as you say. No doubt we could continue to slowly devolve over a long period of time and still be masters of our environment. Perhaps evolution doesn't always go forward but frequently backtracks. I thought this an interesting topic to raise.

Wayne

If you are going to espouse a hypothesis on anything it is diminished when you make a statement that is patently wrong.

Treat it with contempt if you wish.

Thanks for your permission. I will. My confusion between bacteria and viruses was in response to a reply. It was not in my initial posting. I don't mind being corrected when I make an error. To call everything I write "codswallop" because of a minor mistake is insulting. I'm not a doctor but I'm not an idiot either. Nitpicking is actually beneath contempt in my book.

Wayne

I am glad that you understand fallacious reasoning. But it only makes me more curious as to why you would propose such a low tech and potentially catastrophic solution for a hypothetical problem? What is your reason for choosing this solution ahead of a call for more genetic research?

A forum like this can offer you the chance to test and expand your arguments. You can only learn from this.

Wayne, I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination. I don’t believe this. The apparent “forward” direction of evolution is an artifact of our own narcissism.

What we’re doing here is applying traditional and erroneous ideas of man’s centrality in the universe to a very recent (150 year old) understanding of the physical mechanisms that brought about our human intelligence from stardust. Galileo was one of the earliest to start this process of disillusion, but for all our fears, Darwin tells us that there is grandeur in this (brave, new) view of life.

None of “us” as individuals evolve. We are all mere specks in a nearly infinite universe in incomprehensibly long time. Evolution only makes sense in retrospect, considering lengths of time and numbers of individuals and quantities of meaningless suffering that can only highlight the minuscule dimensions of our own lives and decisions. For us as individuals to worry about the quality and directions of the evolving human genome is absurdly presumptuous, and occasionally disastrous, especially given our fondness as a species for genocide.

There are much more basic, and urgent questions facing us. Like how to ensure the dignity and value of all humans already living, and how to ensure we as a species don’t exhaust the limited resources of our small and beautiful, beautiful planet.

Questions about the direction of the evolution of the human genome are of little consequence unless we can solve those concerns.

Thanks for starting this thread.

No doubt there will come another time when disaster in one form or another wipes out a large chunk of the world population. Whether it be by force (meteor?), natural disaster (ice-age?), disease (bird flu?), or human action (nuclear attack?), no doubt it will happen sooner or later. Nature has a way of rebalancing the equation. Usually the results are appalling, but nature is not a kind creature.

If the disaster is of sufficient magnitude then humans will once again be forced into a "survival of the fittest" situation. For example, without the health care system that we have now, thousands would die. I am among those who have the miracles of modern medicine to thank not just for my existence, but also my life. If I seem to have repeated myself, let me clarify: I only survived my own birth due to caesarean section. Likewise, the only way I am able to give birth is the same. If for whatever reason I am plunged into a situation where I am pregnant and there is no hospital, I will die. That is survival of the fittest. Whether I have a defect passed to me by my own mother is unknown, but the results are just as harsh should that medical knowledge be unavailable.

a specie , usually ,die from what made it succesful
it tend to get in an evolutionnary race to devellop its initial
advantage to absurd lenght .
for humans , take your pick

_large brain , way too large for our own good

_ sociopath interaction , we are a food group who became UBERpredator

_ A civilisation based on cheap and plentiful energy
if we were to consume the energy of the 1930's we would have the
society of the 1930's , except than we cannot come back without
a massive crash ,the law of democratic politic make it impossible

"curious as to why you would propose such a low tech and potentially catastrophic solution for a hypothetical problem? "

Simple is often best. Selective breeding has worked for the farming industry over the last few thousand years. It doesn't remove peoples right of choice and seems more natural than poking around with the genetics of unborns. If we offered top brand dna to IVF customers then we could do away with immigration over time. Thus solving the population imbalance such increased fertility rates might bring about. When the healthier children turn into adults they mix with the rest of the gene pool in the usual way. We help childless couples and improve the gene pool. Win win. Currently genetic science has no answer.

"A forum like this can offer you the chance to test and expand your arguments."

That's why I initially came here but I'm usually disapointed by the lack of intelligent responses. No offence.

"I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination. I don’t believe this. The apparent “forward” direction of evolution is an artifact of our own narcissism."

That's your difficulty. I can't be bothered explaining evolution or arguing its existence here in this thread. Just assume its a given or go and start another thread on the matter please.

"I only survived my own birth due to caesarean section. Likewise, the only way I am able to give birth is the same. If for whatever reason I am plunged into a situation where I am pregnant and there is no hospital, I will die. That is survival of the fittest."

A good example.

Wayne I too nearly died on the operating table due to a burst appendix.There are millions who would never have survived only for the intervention of medicine.

If we look at the trends in our society,the shrinking middle educated class have fewer children than those being supported by social security.The middle/working class are too busy paying for the mortage and taxes to pay for the indolent,who spend their time procreating on John Howard's baby bonus.We have 300,000 single mothers,of which many use their children as a source of income from the Govt.This is not really smart in terms of economics or genetics.

As you have suggested,why not pay intelligent people to donate sperm and eggs so we can enrich our genetic banks with people who can cope with the complexity of the technologies that quite often befuddles this old man,one Arjay.

Wayne

Just what is it you are suggesting? Massive overpopulation followed by survival of the fittest or a technologically created master race? So far you seem to be suggesting both.

Wayne

"The reason the greatest sportsmen come from Africa and other countries with a recent tribal past is that civilisation has had {less time to weaken these people"}
Less time? Didn't the Big Pharm's come to the rescue with their unproven AIDS treatments? for a disease which was man made in the first place and never proven to exsist? People are dying slowly so they (their Government) can be milked for every penny they got. So my point is,the Africans Do get a helping hand to cull their numbers. Who worries about genes then? Oh Monsanto would anyone for an investment in gene tech?

"Just what is it you are suggesting? Massive overpopulation followed by survival of the fittest or a technologically created master race? So far you seem to be suggesting both."

Massive overpopulation is unavoidable and already a reality.

So is survival of the fittest. We can't guess at the infinite number of challenges to be faced by future generations.

I don't recall recommending a technologically created master race or even suggesting one. Putting words in my mouth to try and make me out as some sort of Nazi is getting tiring. I've raised a very real issue and naturally I don't have an instant solution to this mammoth problem. I've merely pointed out that limiting the number of children will worsen it.

Devolution was certainly accelerated by the two major world wars of the last century. We sent our strongest and healthiest young male specimens to the front lines where they got massacred. Thus removing the best DNA from the pool. We are already a mere shadow of our ancestors.

I think we should stop immigration and assist the one in four couples unable to conceive a child by offering them suitable eggs, sperm or embryo's.

If you put a world champion race horse in amongst a herd of ordinary horses then over time you'll likely improve the entire herds racing ability. This is not creating a master race but improving the current one.

"Didn't the Big Pharm's come to the rescue with their unproven AIDS treatments?"

There is a man in England who apparently has a natural immunity to aids. I would ask people like him to be on the the list of 'exceptional people' and encourage IVF clinics to spread his seed as far and wide as possible. Obviously we can't have too many or else we risk accidental inbreeding, but a thousand kids would be helpful in stregthening the human immune system over time.

"We are already a mere shadow of our ancestors."

Do you have evidence to back this up? Is there any evidence for a genetic degradation of humanity as a result of modern civilisation? And I think that you would agree that breeding fast racehorses is an easier task.

You are tired of the Nazi comparison, but what better example is there to learn from? The Nazis did not see their actions as atrocities, but merely as a people acting in accordance with the rules of nature, where it was the right of the strong and superior to replace the weak and inferior. The Nazi regime conducted a large amount of scientific research to support their actions. One research paper determined that Jews took an average two hours to have a bog.

My suggestion is that you get a bit more grounding for your philosophy before concluding how best to create your utopia. Hitler left the Germans a mess.

Wayne,

Two points:

1. I said: “I have a lot of difficulty with “devolution”, which assumes an intentional and progressive direction for evolution, as though there is a true road for life to follow, and we are its destination.”

Your reply: “I can't be bothered explaining evolution or arguing its existence here in this thread. Just assume its a given or go and start another thread on the matter please” indicates that you haven’t understood what I was saying.

Steven Jay Gould wrote a whole book on the fallacy of evolution having a “direction”, and explained very nicely the statistical misconception that has led to this common misapprehension. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_From_Plato_to_Darwin if you can’t be bothered reading the book (and Gould does tend to labour the point a bit – I prefer Dawkins for his clarity).

Given that our understanding of evolution is central to your argument, I think it’s a bit churlish of you to dismiss an important insight from one of the most prominent evolutionists of the last century.

2. “Survival of the fittest” is a highly problematic expression in evolutionary biology and tends to be avoided by scientists mainly because it is tautological. “Fittest” in a Darwinian sense means “that which survives natural selection”. The expression also has unfortunate and fallacious associations with what is sometimes called “Social Darwinism”, which has little to do with biological theory. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest.

I’m really puzzled how you saw my post as arguing against evolution by natural selection as scientific fact

While I’m at it, what on earth are you on about, eftfnc? About AIDS being man made, and at the same time never proven to exist? And AIDS treatments being unproven?

We possibly have some areas of agreement about the motivations and behavior of Big Pharma, and I think the fundamental injustice of Africans’ access to the best health care is indisputable, but I’m a bit concerned that your understanding of medical science might be a bit… umm… out there. Perhaps I’ve failed to pick up on some deliberate sarcasm?