Are we slowing down our own evolution?

Question

If natural selection is based on survival of the fittest, does society do the right thing in helping everybody survive to sexual maturity? Would it be better long term if weak genes were allowed to die out of a population? Does society practice a sort of reverse eugenics? NB- This is just a question, not a political manifesto!

Answer 1

.From an evolutionary point of view, you are correct but remember ethics. We cant allow people in disadvantages to perish, its inhuman.

Answer 2

The survival of the fittest is obviously keyed to fitness for a particular environment. We aren't selecting any more for survival outdoors, but some would argue we're selecting for skill with technology, ability to survive pollution and reproduce, ability to make friends in a society of strangers, etc. In other words, we're still selecting, we've just changed the environment. Survivalists expect a global war with a return to the need for outdoor survival skills, and if they're right, our gene pool will be maladapted for those conditions. We won't be able to replace eyeglasses, without dentists we'll find strong teeth will matter again, our immune systems will matter more than our physician accessing abilities, our physical strength will leap in importance, etc.

Answer 3

You have to consider what is meant by "survival of the fittest", which was probably a bad choice of phrase.

A lame zebra is more likely to be caught than a "fit" one, but a polar bear will do better in the arctic than a lion, because the polar bear is better fitted, or suited, to it's environment.

In that case, there is no such thing as a weak gene. As evolution is not directed, who knows what mutations may or may not be best fitted to the environment in the future.

Answer 4

Evolution is a wide and many varied process effecting not just physical characteristics. It also effects behaviors and internal processes. In addition, much of evolutionary development is based upon isolation of sub populations.

Given global travel and immigration and the lowering of barriers to marriage across tribes, cultures and religions, we are most definitely slowing down evolution of many obvious physical characteristics like skin color, hair style and facial features.

With regard to less visible mental and internal physical processes, evolution appears to chugging along at the same rate as ever. People still make decisions about mates and allies based on judgments of trustworthiness and reciprocity. They also must deal with regional situations like malaria or the use of MSG in the diet.

The problem with your proposal as well as with all earlier efforts at eugenics is that we are infallible beings making judgments about "fitness" based upon incomplete and biased data. Despite all the advanced in genetics we are still no where near having any real insight into how the whole process works together. Trying to "tune" humans remains a fool's errand.

Answer 5

Yes, I think this is a major problem. Idealy, where people thought logically instead of emotionally, we could do this as a species. We are diluting our gene pool, but at the same time, what would be considered 'weak' genes are changing with society and each induvidual's role. The big issue is, how do you decide which traits do you select against?

Answer 6

Yes we have slowed down our own evolution by reducing natural selection. Ironically, this has led to extreme overpopulation of the planet which is, in the not too distant future, going to lead to mass extinctions of human populations (war, plague, starvation). This in itself will serve to clean up the human gene pool and will have the additional benefit of allowing other species to progress without human intervention.

Answer 7

1

Answer 8

You are quite correct.
By legislating things that are plain to any intelligent person (mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles and seat belts for cars) we are allowing those people too stupid to recognize the merits of these things to survive.
We are, quite literally, dumbing down our gene pool.
And no good will come of it.
And any subjective assessment of "morality" be damned. What good will morality be when over half the human population is incapable of thinking for itself?

Answer 9

Man now has virtually stopped evolving. We shall remain more or less as we are now, until one day we destroy our species probably through over population and atomic war.

Answer 10

We didn't evolve to begin with. www.reasons.org