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?

that may be true in some areas, but not everywhere.

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.

'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?

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?

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.

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 A grave will be waiting for me before that happens.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

It may diversify, but today's conditions won't lead to diversification, IMO. Today's conditions will lead to homogenization rather than further diversification.

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!

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.

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.