If you are speaking of people who are overweight, that is not a genetic trait. If you are speaking of trailer park trash, I have a theory. In the wild, there are very few weak animals that survive, and those that do, and reproduce, their offspring would in theory be weak, and would not survive for long. We, however, do not live in the wild, but in a society that protects and enables the weak, to an extreme. While the liberal concept of protecting and enabling seems kinder and gentler, it weakens the society and drains those who would otherwise grow stronger, it is true for issues both physical and monetary.
2006-10-29 12:35:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by gtprinc1 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
"Seems " is correct. I see no overall decline in the gene pool. You seem to posit group or species selection. I do not think the genes care about your views on the matter, as they keep expressing themselves in the environment. It is just as good a strategy for the genes to be in the body of what you call the " genetically fit ", as it is to be in the "unfit " body, as long as both reproduce. Eugenics failed for a reason; both scientific and moral. I see no reason your purported, implied, program would work any better. As the eugenicist found, aside from simple additive effect, the effects of the genes are probabilistic and unpredicted. That does not even begin to address the moral issue. On the other hand; conscious choice. Did you not say, " I'm not having kids, by the way ".
2006-10-29 20:57:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no such thing as genetic fitness, the only acid test of evolution is to survive and reproduce.
Subjective aesthetic criteria are irrelevant. Athletic ability, intelligence, physical beauty, all evolutionarily redundant if they aren't needed to achieve high birth rates.
We don't have to do anything, there is nothing we can do that won't result in reduced genetic diversity. Reduced genetic diversity is an invitation to incidental extinction.
Social Darwinism or more accurately Spencerian social philosophy is the abhorrent 19th century pipe dream of over-monied WASPs and has no business in any legitimate discussion about biology.
2006-10-30 12:33:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by corvis_9 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I guess it depends on what is meant my "least genetically fit". If you are referring to humans that are in the lower socio-economic levels of survival then one can only speculate.
Our species has the capacity to reproduce year round, probably a survival strategy that compensated for high mortality in early humans. In modern times these mechanisms still exist. Populations with access to education and health care tend to reproduce at a lower rate than less fortunate folks. Perhaps having many children is not only due to ignorance but related to security. Having many mouths to feed is sometimes easier when you have many family members cooperating in survival. It's very complicated and who knows what the outcome will be in terms of how our species survives into the future.
2006-10-29 20:37:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by snorkelsc 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
You are answering your own question, actually. Genetic fitness/failure is really centered around the ability to successfully reproduce. If you are wondering why people/animals that seem superior in some way are not the ones to reproduce that is another interesting question. Your genes are just trying to reproduce themselves, simple as that. They do not care about other characterisitics that are not related to reproduction.
2006-10-29 20:30:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by garymdmd 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
In 1798, Thomas Malthus said essentially the same thing.
Here we are 200 years later and the least genetically fit have bred so much that the average lifespan has decreased drastically, hardly anyone can read, and birth defects from the poor gene pool are the leading cause of deaths.
Or isnt that so?
2006-10-29 20:30:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Steve A 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Humans are the only species that mate with genetically unfit partners, in the animal world its not so. But!!! men and women are attracted to visually stimulating partners, but, we use our brain to overcome our primal desire! well most of the time!
2006-10-29 20:32:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by aniMALuVA 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
these 'genetically fit' people have better things to do than just f*ck, and the 'geneticlaly unfit' love to drink and rock the boat
enjoy
2006-10-29 20:58:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by hayden160 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
bc they dont have anything else to do with their time
2006-10-29 20:30:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by someone_you_wish_you_knew 3
·
0⤊
0⤋