something for the sharper arbor!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Im sorry to those that are not interested in this thread, but I had to bump this up and add to it a little more as i have just spent the day at Alans "Nature scope" co enqiury and I am not about to give up!

[WeeDee]

Im sorry to those that are not interested in this thread, but I had to bump this up and add to it a little more as i have just spent the day at Alans "Nature scope" co enqiury and I am not about to give up!

 

Not about to give up what, Hama?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Answering some of the comments made regarding the "inclusional " approaches validity in what we do.

[WeeDee]

Yes - I see.

[arbclimber]

Hama,

 

Sorry i'm a bit of a Darwin fan personally. Interesting post though. I think the concept you are talking about is a revision of many other theories and has been brought about by many thinking we need to save ourselves from ourselves.

 

I'm also a little controversial in my thinking of such subjects.

As far as humans go I think we have gone past natural selection as we now modify our environment to suit ourselves rather than modifying ourselves to suit our environment. In a true natural selection sense the fat, lazy, stupid and weak should die out allowing the superior to re-populate. Not very politically correct but living in a county where fat lazy chavs survive on benefits supplied by those who do work, whilst popping out chavy kids once every year or so, has caused a downward spiral of the human race, IMO.

 

I do suppose that now we live outside the rules that all other living things live by, some kind of theory that could modify behavior may be the only chance to, in essence save the world from the human race.

I think ill leave it at that out of respect for forum rules. Reading it back I sound a bit 'Nazi race cleanser'. I'm not and I hope you see my point.

[skyhuck]

Hama,

 

Sorry i'm a bit of a Darwin fan personally. Interesting post though. I think the concept you are talking about is a revision of many other theories and has been brought about by many thinking we need to save ourselves from ourselves.

 

I'm also a little controversial in my thinking of such subjects.

As far as humans go I think we have gone past natural selection as we now modify our environment to suit ourselves rather than modifying ourselves to suit our environment. In a true natural selection sense the fat, lazy, stupid and weak should die out allowing the superior to re-populate. Not very politically correct but living in a county where fat lazy chavs survive on benefits supplied by those who do work, whilst popping out chavy kids once every year or so, has caused a downward spiral of the human race, IMO.

 

I do suppose that now we live outside the rules that all other living things live by, some kind of theory that could modify behavior may be the only chance to, in essence save the world from the human race.

I think ill leave it at that out of respect for forum rules. Reading it back I sound a bit 'Nazi race cleanser'. I'm not and I hope you see my point.

 

:congrats:

 

You are correct!!

 

I have been think the very same for years.

 

We have stepped out side of evolution, even thought it is done for the very best of intentions.

 

We saved the lives of 1000's of "hole in the heart" babies, many of those babies are know having babies and need a great deal of health care though their pregnancy, they are also far more likely to have a "hole in the heart" babies.

 

We help infertile couples to conceive, but they are much more likely to have infertile children.

 

We are in effect breeding a weaker and weaker human race, which will require more and more medical help.

[arbclimber]

:congrats:

 

You are correct!!

 

I have been think the very same for years.

 

We have stepped out side of evolution, even thought it is done for the very best of intentions.

 

We saved the lives of 1000's of "hole in the heart" babies, many of those babies are know having babies and need a great deal of health care though their pregnancy, they are also far more likely to have a "hole in the heart" babies.

 

We help infertile couples to conceive, but they are much more likely to have infertile children.

 

We are in effect breeding a weaker and weaker human race, which will require more and more medical help.

 

Obviously neither of us, for one second, would say its a bad idea to perform such operations on sick children etc but yes thats exactly as I see it too. If the human race as it is now was sent back a few hundred years many would probably perish. When strength, hard work and flexible thinking kept people alive the human race was still evolving. Now we give the stupid and the lazy handouts so they can stay at home reproducing we are going backwards fast.

 

You only have to look at the few remaining communities of tribes people to see what humans should be like. The Masai of Kenya are slim, strong, fast, intelligent and highly respectful people who thrive in their environment. Getting back to Hamas point they are also deeply respectful of their surroundings and their prey, so maybe they have had it right all along. Maybe we dont need fast cars and plasma tv's after all.

 

On a lighter note i've always thought that the African nations do so well in international running events as they evolved in a country where there are lions. If my ancestors lived in a place where there were lions i bet they would run pretty bloody quick too:laugh1:

[arbclimber]

Just to put my thoughts into context a bit. I mentioned many people would perish if the country was as it was a few hundred years ago then thought some may not agree as this wasn't actually long ago, so I thought i'd do a quick bit of research. I find that this is infact the case and in 1700 'natural selection' was still at work. In 1700 the population of the country was kept in check by such things as Flu and even failed harvests. People still fought duels over disagreements and people were hung or sent to the Americas for such crimes as theft.

Only 300 ish years ago but a very different place to live.

 

The only exceptions to the rules seems to be people born into power. They could be as fat, lazy and stupid as they like.:lol:d

[arbclimber]

Alan is one of those real deep thinkers, a genius, no doubt.

 

and dont forget Elanas work in those talks!

 

A genius? or a bloke with an idea?

[Albedo]

Can’t believe you like this guy hama.

 

Never heard of him till you mentioned him. just googled him. and he’s seriously heavy going isn’t he. Never seen such a case of academic verbal diorhea.

 

Now I’m not saying he’s right or wrong here as I still know nothing about him. I had to google ‘euclidean geometry’ to see what it meant.

 

I’m going to read more, which will hurt as his verbosity makes him very difficult to understand, but my guess is that he’s an academic, probably a mathemetician with an axe to grind. They all do this, they want their discipline to be the one that makes the world go round.

 

I may well have to retract this, but that’s my first impression, he starts by saying conventional science is all one dimensional, then goes into a load of flashy maths, --

 

not impressed at all.

 

What is it that you see in him, what am I missing here????

Edited April 12, 2010 by Albedo
edit: says dept of biology and biochem on the paper I looked at but the gist of my first impression still stands