In a conversation about equity vs equality which started about HERE, we get this response from james M. Now to be clear, I agree with Ndividuals response, so that's not really the discussion that needs to take place, if you want to weigh in on that discussion, go HERE. The question is, is james right? Are the poor, poor because of their evolution? Is spending resources to educate the poor just "slow down the advancement of our species"? Thoughts?
Well, we do have to realize that to some extent the economic system is an artificial imposition on the process of evolution. But yes, there arises the question of how do we help the poor long-term without that causing problems in the gene pool over the course of three or four generations. Because no matter how much we give trying to help the poor, nature will eventually catch up to those efforts. That's why I believe tough economic times are particularly devastating after a 60+ year period of prosperity. It's a harsh survival of the fittest system but that's the only workably sustainable strategy (over a long-term period) unless our society pursues some sort of eugenics.
This is right out of Trump's playbook - if you aren't rich, you're a failure. I reject equating financial worth with the worth of a person.
I don't want this to give the impression that the rich have better genes. Among the very wealthiest, very often they do have better genes adapted to financial and business success, but in many other respects their genes are often inferior, because their wealth has allowed them to continually propagate down genes that may have been difficult to if they did not have those financial resources (lack charm, not a very good articulate speaker, lack of confidence in the dating scene, physically disabling medical problems, etc) Take a rich person, take away their money, and many wouldn't be able to survive, or would have some serious challenges being able to get a reproductive partner with half-decent genes. It's no coincidence that the population struggling to eek out a living in the ghetto tends to be so charming and articulate with the ladies, quite often genetically prone to being more muscular, with a natural propensity for higher rates of happiness too. Take a look at the bodily coordination difference between a family that has worked three generations in a warehouse and a family of middle class engineers, going back three generations. Well no coincidence that people from working class families tend to be better at athletics than upper middle class families. I've also read numerous studies that the rates of asthma are higher in middle class families than poorer families (except those living in areas with very high levels of air pollution).
If you believe that, then you don't understand evolution. Can you show me evidence of "the gene pool" being affected by helping people meet there potential? Survival of the fittest, at least in the terms you're using it, has NOTHING to do with evolution. Fitness isn't physical, or mental. If there were a nuclear war and only cockroaches were to survive, then they would be considered to have the greatest "fitness". But fitness is measured against the environment, not against artificial constraints like the availability of dollars. From ThoughtCo...... "The phrase “survival of the fittest“, which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood. For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness – variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution. What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi. What we see in the wild is not every animal for itself. Cooperation is an incredibly successful survival strategy. Indeed it has been the basis of all the most dramatic steps in the history of life. Complex cells evolved from cooperating simple cells. Multicellular organisms are made up of cooperating complex cells. Superorganisms such as bee or ant colonies consist of cooperating individuals." - Source
Your confusing behavior and lifestyle with genes. Though anecdotal, One of my teenage girls best friends is a girl who was adopted from one of the poorest areas of China. Her parents lived in absolute squaller. Today she is at the top of her calls. Fluent in English. Her "genes" have nothing to do with her capacity to meet her potential.
That's only because the Chinese have been held back for so long due to their circumstances. It is highly competitive in China, people had to be hard working and responsible just to survive.
Again, that's really beside the point. We have all reached the same point in our evolution. If you go back 40 generations we are all, quite literally, related.
I believe the effects of natural selection (or "evolution", if you prefer) can be seen over the course of only a few generations. And to say we statistically have one relation going back 40 generations does not in any way imply that the genetic pool is similar. That's 2 raised to the 40th power, which would make these two different populations 0.000000009094947 % related, if we want to be mathematically accurate. That's pretty miniscule.
I would not say they are poor because of their evolution but because they have been crippled by liberal programs that liberals inflict upon them to create and secure a loyal dependent voting constituency.
The weak and infirm have always been protected by the tribe; thus, they are more likely to procreate and inherit the Earth.
wrong, looking at liberal ghettos like Chi-raq that liberals have controlled for 50 years conservatives see it as an issue of deadly and stupid near genocidal liberal programs.
I've seen no evidence of that. Ghengis Khan is related to 75% of humanity. In Islam the most desirable men get the most wives leaving the others as frustrated jihadist bombers going to heaven to find 42 virgins. if the tribe or bacteria does not improve the gene pool at the fastest possible rate the tribe and bacteria will be conquered.
Two thoughts. 1) Your beliefs about evolution don't really concern me unless you are, for example, an evolutionary biologist. Otherwise, you're beliefs are just that, what you believe. 2) Even if you are correct, now you have to point out, specifically, what is it that you believe is evolving and how it relates to our discussion.
Wierd, Photobucket crapped out on the image...Anyway, this is the image I posted from the OP which I can no longer edit: It is with a sense of irony that we get this as a follow-up. .... /boggle
If being poor is due to a genetic disorder, yes. Genetic engineering will arrive before we have an opportunity to benefit from evolution via poor slaughtering. Plus we need poor people because they produce all the children. We would go extinct without them.
the issue is do you support evolution or work against it with liberal programs the emcourage least fit to reproduce the most, not whether you think a post is presented with irony. Ever see conservatives or libertarians who have to run from debates.
we should not encourage the least fit to reproduce the most because we understand basic science. Why are liberals anti science?
Believing in the science of Darwin is not the same as practicing eugenics. Do you understand trying to reverse evolution is something that stupid people and liberals would attempt. Once again Darwin was not a eugenicist. Is this too subtle for you?
