Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#9122 09/11/06 02:23 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Y
y Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Y
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
what will be the effects of an evolution that progresses with the sole intention of enabling future generations to aquire money?

in the past the ability to find food and water were the driving forces. Have those days gone as money = food and water?


y
.
#9123 09/11/06 07:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
that may be true in some areas, but not everywhere.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#9124 09/11/06 09:13 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Before asking about the effects of selecting for making money instead of finding food, ask this question:

Do people who are very successful financially have the most children?

If the answer is no, your question is not important.

If you still want to play "what if..." I would guess that heavy selection toward financial success to the exclusion of food-providing success would eventually result in a population crash.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9125 09/12/06 01:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Y
y Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Y
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
'If you still want to play "what if..." I would guess that heavy selection toward financial success to the exclusion of food-providing success would eventually result in a population crash.'

Would this lead to the financially successful having to support the finacially unsuccessful for the sole purpose of breeding?

Or would this lead to a crash (not in population) but in the value of money?

Would it depend on how much importance a financially succesful person (in general) valued money (their own comfort) over the continuation of mankind?


y
#9126 09/12/06 01:43 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Would this lead to the financially successful having to support the finacially unsuccessful for the sole purpose of breeding?

I don't see how.

Or would this lead to a crash (not in population) but in the value of money?

No, I think a crash in the value of money would be what pulls the rug from under the whole scenario.

Would it depend on how much importance a financially succesful person (in general) valued money (their own comfort) over the continuation of mankind?

What the whole thing would depend on is if the financially successful produced a lot of children, and their financial success genes, if such a heritable trait exists, is passed on.

I have to say that I don't think there are financial success traits that are separate from other abilities. If someone is shrewd, and can figure out a given system to make it work very will for him/her, why couldn't they apply that intelligence to persuits like food production?


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9127 09/13/06 02:15 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
I thought the sole purpose for evolution was to survive as a species. The traits we develop as a species are secondary to this purpose. We are not evolving so that we are better able to spend. We are acquiring the ability to spend as the best means to survive - or so the evolutionary capitalists would have us believe.


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
#9128 09/13/06 07:12 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
Apparently people can't seem to understand that evolution takes its way not based on necessarily the preservation of one species, but mainly on needs and conditions. Do keep in mind that there are more than one "species" of humans (call them sub-species, or races, if you like).

How I see this matter is: presuming that we have a whole branch of humans based on money, high income and the life according to previous facts, they might end up (after... many years) in a totally different species from the lower-income, agricultural type of humans. Sort of the Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon branches...

They will both be adapted to their condition, and they might both survive, or one of them might die out. They may even end up not being compatible with each other in terms of reproduction.

But who knows? I really am not going to wait that much to see smile A grave will be waiting for me before that happens.

#9129 09/13/06 07:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51
Rigor. The situation you describe appears to be what is confronting humanity today. We have industrial human represented by the first world and we have subsistence human represented by the third world. Should we allow subsistence human to perish in acordance with evolutionary theory - or attempt to assist in some way? If we allow subsistence human to perish - what effect will this have on the level of our own humanity? Does it matter? if it does matter, why?


Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.
#9130 09/13/06 01:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Te Urukehu:
I thought the sole purpose for evolution was to survive as a species. The traits we develop as a species are secondary to this purpose. We are not evolving so that we are better able to spend. We are acquiring the ability to spend as the best means to survive - or so the evolutionary capitalists would have us believe.
The "evolutionary capitalists"??

Evolution is without "purpose," it's just a process that occurs. The traits developed are just part of that process.

I don't think "the ability to spend" was a trait that arose after the development of a monetary system.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9131 09/13/06 01:47 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Apparently people can't seem to understand that evolution takes its way not based on necessarily the preservation of one species, but mainly on needs and conditions. Do keep in mind that there are more than one "species" of humans (call them sub-species, or races, if you like).

Well, it takes its way based on conditions. And what other species or sub-species are you talking about? There is only one species of humans alive today.

How I see this matter is: presuming that we have a whole branch of humans based on money, high income and the life according to previous facts, they might end up (after... many years) in a totally different species from the lower-income, agricultural type of humans. Sort of the Neanderthal - Cro-Magnon branches...

Please. What are the different habitat types of these different varieties of humans? In what way is agriculture, once it goes beyond subsistance, not like any other business?

They will both be adapted to their condition, and they might both survive, or one of them might die out. They may even end up not being compatible with each other in terms of reproduction.

You're talking about ONE species that is highly adaptable to a variety of situations. Why would barriers to breeding develop? You're talking like there is some isolation of one group from another going on.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9132 09/13/06 01:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Te Urukehu:
Rigor. The situation you describe appears to be what is confronting humanity today. We have industrial human represented by the first world and we have subsistence human represented by the third world. Should we allow subsistence human to perish in acordance with evolutionary theory - or attempt to assist in some way? If we allow subsistence human to perish - what effect will this have on the level of our own humanity? Does it matter? if it does matter, why?
I beg to differ. The situation Rigor describes is NOT confronting humanity today. "Subsistance human" and "industrial human" are exactly the same!!! Take "subsistance human" and put him/her into "industrial human's" habitat, or vice-versa, and each will *miraculously* become the other.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9133 09/13/06 08:00 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
R
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
R
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12
I cannot but agree with soilguy on the last post. As for the first response, I clarify:

Since I'm not a native English speaker, I believe I made a mistake when I said "species"... my apologies, I was at work and had little time to worry about dictionary correctitude.

As for the different habitat... it depends on the field of view entirely. "Habitat" is generally understood as the place you exist in, but that also influences the type of food people eat, their tolerance to certain factors (E-substances, fat levels, cholesterol, atmospheric pollution, etc.). Since we are talking about a distant future (I, at least, was), it is possible to evolve into separate species. Though very unlikely, I have to admit, but who knows ? We have yet to see whether humans will not adapt and ultimately evolve into something else once we start colonizing other planets (should that ever happen).

As for the breeding barriers: once a branch has differentiated itself enough from the species, according to the theory, some or all of its new adaptations might not be compatible, talking in a genetical way, to the previous DNA structure, thus resulting in DNA chains not being able to bind together correctly. That is actually breeding incompatibility, if you refer specifically to binding the sperm DNA to the egg DNA (or v.v.).

Right now there is no multimorphism between different human "levels", and I hardly see how anyone during my lifetime will ever get to see such differences, but it's a possible future.

#9134 09/13/06 09:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Rigor O'Mortis:

You seem a little stiff in your conclusions.

How about education as a source of evolution. We get a better education to make us more fit for a better living. more money if that is what you want or more opportunities to "evolve" to a higher level of knowledge and understanding. We are, quite likely, participating in our own evolution.

In passing I will confess that I could never tolerate the "rigor of mortis" you are the prime exception.
jjw

#9135 09/14/06 09:26 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
I see no reason why the human species would not diversify into several species in the future. We could say there are several subspecies at present although the geographical isolation the led to these is decreasing. Who can say it will not increase in the future? All other species diversify over time. We should therefore expect humans to do so over the long term as well.

#9136 09/14/06 07:13 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 34
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 34
I can?t see a diversification of the human species occurring, if a sub-species began to develop and was recognised the scientific community would be fascinated but the rest of the population would be scared ("It's an abomination" or "its so sad we must help") because of sapience we won't let this happen, its basic xenophobia and either we all evolve together or we stay as we are.

Ohh! I?m not a biologist so gave me a hand. Is inelegance an evolutionary fluke or do many evolutionary paths lead to it eventually?


If you believe everything you read, better not read.
#9137 09/14/06 09:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
I see no reason why the human species would not diversify into several species in the future. We could say there are several subspecies at present although the geographical isolation the led to these is decreasing. Who can say it will not increase in the future? All other species diversify over time. We should therefore expect humans to do so over the long term as well.
It may diversify, but today's conditions won't lead to diversification, IMO. Today's conditions will lead to homogenization rather than further diversification.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9138 09/14/06 09:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally posted by Beaker:
I can?t see a diversification of the human species occurring, if a sub-species began to develop and was recognised the scientific community would be fascinated but the rest of the population would be scared ("It's an abomination" or "its so sad we must help") because of sapience we won't let this happen, its basic xenophobia and either we all evolve together or we stay as we are.

Ohh! I?m not a biologist so gave me a hand. Is inelegance an evolutionary fluke or do many evolutionary paths lead to it eventually?
I agree. I don't know what you mean in your last paragraph, though. Evolution itself is an elegant theory, but that doesn't mean any living creature molded by evolution is elegant!


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#9139 09/15/06 03:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
It took nearly four million years for humans and chimpanzees to separate so I don't expect any group of humans to wake up one morning and suddenly find they're a different species. I would be very surprised if in four million years every creature descended from humans alive today will belong to just one species.

#9140 09/15/06 01:06 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
I'm just going by conditions TODAY. Will conditions on Earth change in such a way that environments to which we (present day humans) can't adapt well, come into existence? Will environmental conditions and society change in a way that isolates populations from each other? If so, diversity can certainly happen.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5