h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would say that the reason that there are so many people with no survival instinct is that via communications we have defeated evolution: almost everyone has had children by the end of their life whether through meeting someone naturally or by lonely hearts columns etc. This means that such flaws are increased in the human genepool, as are merits such as intelligence.

So you're saying that evolution has only stagnated not that we're getting dumber and dumber? That could be the case, of course. Also, it might just be that one can't fit enough human generations into the time frame in which civilised society resides for evolution to take effect. I find that more likely, but hey, what do I know about evolution? I'm a computer programmer for god's sake! I'm not trying to imply that I'm some sort of programmer/crusader combo or anything of the sort. Heck, I'm an agnostic for god's sake! There's an oxymoron for you.

Well, I'm hardly an expert either, but it would seem to be the case that society has diversified to a ridiculous extent - loom hard enough and you can find any type of person you want.

Looming gets you nowhere. Well, not in your case.

Evolution still occurs - the intelligent are (usually, in MEDCs) more prosperous, and thus can afford to improve chances of success for other intelligent offspring. Sociely is evolving very subtly - and remember that it is not just human species, but also its social systems that is in evolution.

No: you are talking about something bordering on Social Darwinism, but it's not actually evolution: the 'survival of the fittest'. In your reply, you said that society is evolving; true, but not what I mean - the intelligent tend to ascend to positions of power (though not in the case of G. W. Bush) but the race is not weeding off the weakest examples of humanity, merely giving them low status in society. We have defeated evolution because virtually every genetic strain succeeds and continues through the generations – virtually every type of human breeds, producing more of it’s own strain. Society is creating more and more intelligent humans, but counteracting it with more and more thick humans. I rest my case, lentils!

I find it fascinating that my strange Entry has attracted two persons and spawned an interesting conversation.

Listen, tempestuous, the thick get poorer and the intelligent have better life. What's wrong with a race of thickos? The intelligent can be happy with their intelligence, while the thick can enjoy the time that is available to those with less mentally demanding tasks. I don't see the problem.

Evolution still occurs, whether or not it is for the good ot the entirety of -everything- concerned. THAT was my point, not that it was totally beneficial - that was your interpretation.

Is there any evidence that people are getting less inteliigent and how do you measure intelligence anyway? The problem is that such a measure would be very subjective and influenced by many different things.

As Tempest has already pointed out, what you have said smacks of Social Darwinism and some very unsavory characters have tried to use that to support their wild theories about what we should or should not be striving for as a species, Hitler springs to mind for example.

As a species we have been able to defeat evolution by natural selction to a large extent. This is powered by individuals surviving long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation. With medical advances we can extend life and help individuals who would not normally have been able to reproduce. Additionally, we live in cooperative societies where we interact to provide food and other neccesities of life to each other. We no longer need to hunt in order to feed our familes, we can go to the supermarket for example.

So we have "weakened" the gene pool from a purely biological point of view. However as human beings we should not discout ethical and moral considerations.

Afterall, if we were all philospophers or great scientists how would we maintain our lifestyles with no-one to feed us, take care of us when we are ill, fix our leaking water pipes or central heating, get rid of our rubbish etc etc etc.

OK.
By defenition, evolution cannot stop. Yes, it looks like something slightly Nazi, but I'm not advocating enforcing that. There is no point doing something for Evolution's sake. If it is necessary, it will happen anyway. If not, then you're wrong, and you shouldn't

And even if we are getting thicker (not that I agree we are), who is to say that humans are not an evolutionary dead end? Since it is all speculation, we cannot try to affect evolution for the 'good' (NB: good for who?), but we must carry on doing whatever we wish to do. The race is not striving for anything. It is merely carrying out its programming - to reproduce itself (or a variant on), and this is what fuels evolution - whether physical, mental, social or political.

Alright, evolution is continuing. However, the only human strain that is being eradicated is the one that finds breeding repulsive, or the one that has social interaction problems (hint hint). This is the only type of human that will not continue to spread it's gene type, and therefore will die out. You're gonna be extinct, Lentils.

Fair enough.

Hmmm, 2 years too late for this conversation. A shame.

Question: Assuming that the intelligent generally breed with the intelligent and the dumb with the dumb (due to social status, or even likelihood of finding their mate attractive and interesting), is it possible/likely that at some time there will become 2 subspecies of the human race - that the separation between the 2 groups will become so large that you'd have to consider them different creatures?