Of course. Erosion has blunted the sharp edges but they can still be seen. The Rocky Mountains. The Himalayas.
Jan
I specifically referenced biology. I mentioned earlier that society is changing way faster that we are evolving. In case it isn't clear, I'm wondering how and when these changes will affect the evolution of our species.
Before modern society and technology, you had to be smart, strong, and lucky to even get the opportunity to breed. Nowadays, anyone and everyone that can fog a mirror can and does breed. And if you're incapable of effectively taking care of your kids, then the gubment steps in and helps you. And I'm not saying that taking care of disadvantaged kids is a bad thing either; in fact I think it is a moral imperative.
Society can and does ensure the welfare of everyone (in theory). I'm not saying this is a bad thing; I just wonder what consequences it will have over future generations. I even referenced domesticated dogs as an example of just how fast a population can evolve when the environment changes. I hope we can agree that domesticated dogs would have never evolved without us. And we can see what happens to domesticated dog populations when they're turned out in the streets. It happens fast too; over just a few generations. So I wonder just how much and how fast are we going to change as a species in response to our ever changing environment?
I second that Freddie. I am glad to see how well behaved all have been. This has been a good moment in my life to read these things.
Idiocracy is a funny and scary movie, at the same time. Need to watch it again.
As for idiots and kids, let's remember that Fast Eddie did say
It's just a silly statement that doesn't stand up to even the least bit of scrutiny. I won't hold Fast Eddie to it, because it's so silly, but it is the sort of statement we need to be wary of.
As for idiots and kids, let's remember that Fast Eddie did say
All the babies? All? So my niece and her husband who both have 6 figure jobs in Chicago are lazy and stupid? No. And my friends in Honolulu who have advanced degrees and work for the DOD are lazy and stupid. Nope. And all babies now being born have stupid and lazy parents? Amazing!
It's just a silly statement that doesn't stand up to even the least bit of scrutiny. I won't hold Fast Eddie to it, because it's so silly, but it is the sort of statement we need to be wary of.
You could argue that anyone who has a baby is stupid due to overpopulation, but I wouldn't go that far because reproduction is such a large part of our nature. What I will say IS stupid is burning fossil fuels because we know how the carbon cycle works and where the fossil fuels we are now burning come from.
Now I think you're a Poe.
I'm just relying my observations about where I live and see every day. You made assumptions about what I believe and twice completely avoided my point.
Do you deny that the conditions under which our species lives has changed over the last few hundred years? Yes or no. Do you deny that environment can affect the trajectory of a population's evolution? Yes or no.
That's my point. It's just that simple.
I'm just relying my observations about where I live and see every day. You made assumptions about what I believe and twice completely avoided my point.
Do you deny that the conditions under which our species lives has changed over the last few hundred years? Yes or no. Do you deny that environment can affect the trajectory of a population's evolution? Yes or no.
That's my point. It's just that simple.
Simple?
Are you telling me you didn't say
You said it. Either own it, or admit that's not what you meant. It's just that simple.
Are you telling me you didn't say
You say I'm avoiding your point, but how can I see past that elephant?
You said it. Either own it, or admit that's not what you meant. It's just that simple.
It's hyperbole, of course silly.
I know wealthy people, and upper middle class people, that have kids. They do not raise their kids. A nanny raises their kids. My colleague has three kids (two from a previous marriage) and sees his kids for about ten minutes every day. And he regrets that, but if he (and his big shot wife) are going to continue making the big buck$ then they don't have much choice.
My buddy of 50 years and his wife raise their grandchild. Their daughter and son-in-law are hot shot lawyers and never have time for anything but work. The boy is 5 years old and misses his mother constantly. Maybe some day they'll regret making this choice. I can attest that they're missing out on a lot because I hang out with my buddy and his grandson a lot. I still enjoy little boy stuff like going to the zoo and playing baseball. I can't see very well any more but it's still fun- baseball for the blind!
Middle class and working class people often let their kids raise themselves. I grew up like this in a working class family.
Responsible people plan their families. They do not have kids and then figure out how to raise them. Of course this goes too far in society nowadays; people wait too long. I waited until I was 30 and I wasn't ready. I thought 40 was going to be the right time but no - I had just bought a house. (Stupid excuse.) No excuse for not doing it by 50 right? Well my job didn't look so secure and sure enough they laid everybody off and left the US. And now? Maybe too late and I'm too much of a grumpy old bastard to do the whole family thing.
So now maybe you could address my point?
Last edited:
Of course hyperbole, of course he said it, we can all read back over the posts unless someone with more power than the rest of us has been doctoring things, or misquoting like I did to you Pano haha!
Wealthy people in the past habitually farmed out their child raising to their servants, I mean, wet nurses for God's sake! Now it's payback time.......
I really can't say, Eddie. I have not been on earth long enough to accurately judge whether people are changing in intelligence. If I had to pick, I'd say we are getting smarter overall - not because of breeding, but because of the insane soup of information we live in.
For Example: I like to watch old films and TV shows but find them to often be sooo slow and obvious. Like people just wouldn't get the point, the plot, the joke, is it wasn't slowly and obviously laid out for them. Films and TV today are so much more fast paced and complex. And we get it. Not much chance that's genetic, it's just training. Kids born this decade will be ever so much quicker than us - they'll think our media is slow and simple.
For Example: I like to watch old films and TV shows but find them to often be sooo slow and obvious. Like people just wouldn't get the point, the plot, the joke, is it wasn't slowly and obviously laid out for them. Films and TV today are so much more fast paced and complex. And we get it. Not much chance that's genetic, it's just training. Kids born this decade will be ever so much quicker than us - they'll think our media is slow and simple.
If you want. You may be disappointed by the (large) small print though Wet Nurse UK - Browse Breastfeeding Breastmilk Classifieds |
Define old, we went south somewhere in between, Rod Serling's scripts for "Patterns of Power" and "Requiem for a Heavyweight' are as literate as TV gets. Another Twilight Zone orgy for the 4th, Rod's scripts stand out (I can't see how he was not blacklisted). In the UK I could name dozens of script/actor combos from the 40's through the 60's that are more compelling than just about anything now.
Then you have "Lost in Space" and "Land of the Giants".
I must admit that I have a weakness for "but they killed my dog" movies.
Last edited:
I can't say either. Nobody really can.
Society's changed a lot; we haven't changed much at all. And what's "smart" is somewhat determined by society itsself. Some "smart" people (myself included) have done some pretty stupid things. I don't think I'm very smart when I look back at all the stupid choices I've made. But society says I'm "smart" because I'm good at taking "smart" tests 😉 and I was reasonably successful in my careers. But it's all for naught because these genes have not been passed on and barring trickery they never will be. As far as evolution is concerned, it wouldn't have made any difference if I was a drooling bus stop mumbler. Whatever my virtues, I'm a biological dead end.
Guns, germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies
a discussion of Diamond's ideas/presentation: Diamonds Ecological-Evolutionary Theory
http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Collapse.html was fun too - for me it inspired the image of an Easter Islander cutting the last tree of the the last species on the island that could grow to ocean going canoe size while chanting "jobs not trees" (although it was probably the human introduced rats eating the fruit and seeds)
a discussion of Diamond's ideas/presentation: Diamonds Ecological-Evolutionary Theory
http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Collapse.html was fun too - for me it inspired the image of an Easter Islander cutting the last tree of the the last species on the island that could grow to ocean going canoe size while chanting "jobs not trees" (although it was probably the human introduced rats eating the fruit and seeds)
Last edited:
And of course you're overlooking regression to the mean. "Smart" people can have dumb kids and often do. "Dumb" people can have extremely talented and "smart" offspring.
Does being "smart" increase your chances of survival? Not on the diyAudio Lounge certainly! Especially if you indulge in "hyperbole"
In the past (or in middle school) "smart" people, who often have annoying tics, probably stood out to be beaten to a pulp by "dumber" stronger people.
Read an interesting article where the premise was that dogs domesticated mankind. Not the opposite. Not on purpose of course, but dogs, which clearly benefitted by being appealing enough to be allowed to hang out around the campfire and eat scraps ( still one of their main goals!) gave man security so they could stay in one place, demonstrated companionship, and gave them the idea that other animals could be domesticated, etc.
Wow, so many "quotes"
Does being "smart" increase your chances of survival? Not on the diyAudio Lounge certainly! Especially if you indulge in "hyperbole"
In the past (or in middle school) "smart" people, who often have annoying tics, probably stood out to be beaten to a pulp by "dumber" stronger people.
Read an interesting article where the premise was that dogs domesticated mankind. Not the opposite. Not on purpose of course, but dogs, which clearly benefitted by being appealing enough to be allowed to hang out around the campfire and eat scraps ( still one of their main goals!) gave man security so they could stay in one place, demonstrated companionship, and gave them the idea that other animals could be domesticated, etc.
Wow, so many "quotes"
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.