Natural selection doesn't work like that. It has nothing to do about the most fit or strongest. I mean, every species is drawn to the healthiest specimens for breeding, but the healthiest specimens can still die and fail to pass on their genes while 'weak' ones survive. It's ba
So in the case of humans, natural selection is still at work because some of us breed, and some don't. The criteria by which we breed is different than in other species, sure, but it still works. It always works.
All animals have feelings and emotions. Right now, in this part of the world anyway, we have food in our stomachs and a warm place to sleep (most of us anyway) which has given us the ability to feel this empathy towards those who may not have as much as us. Once society collapses you will see natural selection take it's course.
The subject at the ba
Also, humans do have feelings and emotions, but in context of the whole human experience than one must consider that those feelings and emotions evolved through a process of "natural selection" in order for us to have them.
As well, there is a general consensus that there is an underlying force, or field, or consciousness which religion tries to monopolize, but is never the less there (this God thing....) and which is being "discovered" and defined more and more by modern physics which seems to be very much a part of the experience of "human being-ness." which probably should be nested into this equation....
AAnndddd, this "personality" thing to which you refer, is a function of Ego, which can be created out of Fear or Love, but regardless, is a reaction to the environment in which we live as each moment is passing. As such, it can be significantly at variance with who we really are and any personality we might be using.
And which can change as we grow and mature or not mature. And what if Natural Selection only applies to animals and not humans?
And after all that, than you might want to reformulate the question.... :-) :-D :-p
Hence the problem with Natural Selection when applying it subjectively.
I would really like to know the real question you're asking, what is it on your mind that you are grappling with? Because between the heading to your question, and the question you have posted under it, there are a dozen questions and answers between the two. :-) And they all seem to be about this "human-ness" and living with another human being... (Ever notice that the noun "human being" is an action verb in disguise?? We are humans "be-ing... As in we are souls be-ing human???)
Peace and Blessings my friend. It is questions like this that can bring understanding and compassion into this Universe of being "Human."
And by the way, GREAT Question. Kudos.
It may not work in a purely mechanistic sense, but we probably have our own version because of our emotions.
The Mad Hatter describes the Nazi eugenicists as cold and unemotional. If that were so they would be easier to understand (NOT condone!!), but the chilling aspect is that they had the same emotions as anyone else. They were human after all, not robots; humans are capable of acting inhumanely, and it is easier than you may think to warp a civilised person into becoming extremely cruel. I recall a former Greek prison officer under the military junta (1960s?) on the radio describing how he was slowly turned from humane guard to torturer.
The Nazis did not invent eugenics, but they adopted it. Despite its cruel and illogical premise, eugenics was quite widely accepted at the time.
Actually we did branch into strains ("races") as we diffused around the world from our tropical origins. The most obvious being the loss of melanin as we moved to cooler climates so didn't need so much protection from the sun. I wonder if a more subtle form of selection had equipped the Inuit, Sami and others living in the far North to thrive on a largely meat & fish diet.
Actually what you describe is a form of mating selection, natural selection is that only the strong survive. Which with all the safety regulations is impossible because everyone survives.
Feelings and emotions and falling in love are all part of natural selection. No education required. As for intelligence, natural selection isn't about becoming more intelligent, it's about the species adapting however it can to survive. Any preference or desire you have for people to become more intelligent is, ironically, also part of natural selection and people often do fall in love with a person's intellect as much as any other characteristic.
Good question....don't have an answer for that, let me think.......
Feelings and emotions ARE part of natural selection...they are part of the chemistry that is hard-wired into our brains and linked to sight/scent/psychology...(I've been reading about the scientific foundations of love).
My brother feels that when we keep people alive who pass on diseases to their children, we are adversely affecting the gene pool. He has a cold attitude, but I suppose makes the point that modern medicine adversely affects natural selection. I would hate to agree with him.
Natural selection is when idiots do retarded things and get killed..
But I see your point, but everyone's different.. some people can't or just don't handle feelings and emotions the same way.. those with zero personality..
that's exactly the logic of Nazi Eugenicists ... a world full of logical robots with no feelings ...
That's not necessarily true. If you closely examine married or committed couples, they often balance each other out. It's the nature of humans to seek qualities in a mate to offset our shortcomings in order to produce more well-rounded offspring. This doesn't fly in the face of natural selection at all.
Besides, natural selection is ba
Natural selection ceases to fully function in modern societies due to IVF, double income households, etc. You would think it was still operational in third world counties, but we still find sick and feable people being born. the idea of natural selection is nice but is not very effective overall with humans.
Not to step on your toes, but I don't think your argument using IVF has any correlation at all concerning Natural Selection in the question posed. Double Income households?? as opposed to what??? Have you lived in a third world country for an extended time?? And what is the distinction in humans which categorically prevents the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Natural Selection in them? This is not even a sophomoric argument, maybe JHS??? Learn before you think and speak, ey?? To give misinformation or wrong information is injurious to yourself and other living animals, uhhhhhh
I appreciate your kindness. I'll be brief, if women have to use IVF in order to become pregnant, how does not directly interfere with natural selection? Under normal circumstances, they would not pass along their genes.
I am not aware of the current statistics, but the percentage of women using IVF to become pregnant would be rather small and disproportionate as part of the percentage of women in the +/- 7 billion humans populating Earth. Plus, those that use their own eggs do pass on their genes. And further down this thought, with a pool of +/- 7 billion, it gives pause to wonder whether within that pool those genes might be there to eventually appear in some combination at some time (I know I'm using the "if 100 monkeys begin hammering on 100 typewrites for infinity all the literary works of man could eventually be written" argument... not the best, ey?) might not be a valid viewpoint.
and thanks, for making me think and be clear. I appreciate it.
Who you calling a human? lol