Our gene pool is getting worse, we have ignorant celebrities informing the stupid, plus people are living that in a survival of the fittest world would not be. The week and the sick are thriving and killing off the strong and intelligent. The same has happened with the animal kingdam becuase of hunting. hunters seek out the trophy animals leaving behind the weeker and romoving the strong from the gene pool. This has led to chronic wasting disease amungst the deer population and numerous problems with other speicies. In natural selection the sick and week are removed from the gene pool, except for humans all other hunting animals follow this. Advances in medical technology have kept the sick and week alive and allowed them to reproduce thus entering infeior genetics to the human race. The compassion for the present has greatly hurt the the future of mankind. So now what is more compassionate thinking long term to allow man to thrive or thinking short term for selfish reasons?
2006-12-13 07:11:10 · 31 answers · asked by Ryan R 2 in Environment
Sterilize Britney Spears.
2006-12-13 07:31:05 · answer #1 · answered by Andalusia 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I cannot agree on everything you stated. The concept of "survival of the fittest" is a crazy human view. That is one reason why humans hunt climax species and apex predators. They feel that they are at the top. The ones with superiority. Do you see the problem? True, each species has an alpha male and female but it is to help organize and maintain their group or population. As for the sick and weak, I'm not so cruel. I do understand that medicine has helped people but at the same time it has caused our population to rise. I do not wish pain or death on anyone but disease is a density-dependent factor. The bigger the population, the easier it is for that species to get sick. It is one way a species population is controlled. At the same time, medicine is also keeping our immune system down. Instead of our genetic resistance improving, we are used to that an artifical substance will cure us. I do want to point out that I do not hate the people in the medical field. I do commend them for the tremendous job they do! The concept on thinking for the long term is a good one. It is better to think of the survival of a species as a whole rather than every single individual. Though, that doesn't mean that caring and loving should leave us. I hope I'm not passing off as an ugly uncompassionate person, because I do care. Lastly, I don't think anyone is stupid. Many people who have mental disabilties are the result of our pollution. The so-called smart people who have made substances like Agent Orange and DDT are the ones who were causing the problems. These substances are not easily voided by the body and can persist in someone (which can cause diseases like cancer). That means their children are affected. I know Agent Orange and DDT are now banned but others have taken their place.
2006-12-13 07:53:58 · answer #2 · answered by meteorology81 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok Dude, before we go any further with this you gotta use spell check.. It's "weak" not "week", "amungts" other things in your statement. Ok now lets get to it. FIrst off, I'm sincerely hoping that your statement is to be taken figuratively and not literally. You are all over the place here and it's hard to decipher what you're insinuating. I'm not sure what you mean by "chronic wasting disease", I'm not a naturologist but I would question the integrity of that term. The strong and intelligent still rule the vast majority, however what makes stupidity so prevalent these days is not so much how much there is, it's where you find it. For example SMART - Stephen Hawkings. DUMB - President Bush. Now obviously the President gets more media attention but therein lies the problem. Those that are stupid are so because they chose to be ignorant. The ignorant are blissful because they ride the coat tails of the intelligent. It has been that way for centuries. Smart people are facinated with stupidity, it's what provides most of us with ambition to be more than what we are. Now then Hitler, there is no Smart Pill. Never has been, likely never will be and it sure as hell isn't genetics. Do you think Einstein's parents were well respected philosophers? How about Mark Twain's folks? List goes on. Instead of genecide on the stupid and weak, how about we start with the incompassionate and hateful. Then maybe it will leave us realists on earth enough incentive to make things better for ourselves through our own initiatives instead on relying on YAHOO ANSWERS to solve our problems.
2006-12-13 07:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by Denny M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, we could start with those people who call others stupid but can't spell words like weak, kingdom, or remove.
How do you figure that the weak are surviving and the smart are dying off? Did you miss the black plague in the history books? There were actually some people who didn't get it because they had a genetic resistance to it. If that's not an example of the weak being "removed" then I don't know what is.
The advanced medical technology is just trying to keep up with evolving strains of many of the same diseases we have always had. Those viruses/bacteria have to develop newer better strains to overcome the resistance developed by (you guessed it) "stronger" humans who were not eliminated by the weaker strains of the diseases.
Perhaps you should educate yourself before you call others stupid and before you try to educate others in the general population. People are ignorant for two reasons: first, they are misinformed or second, they are uninformed. Please stop adding to the problem of people being misinformed!
2006-12-13 08:10:52 · answer #4 · answered by greta 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that you're correct that medicine has drastically helped to increase the weaker of the species to thrive, but I think the main problem we need to worry about isn't necessarily improving the gene pool. Even though he can barely move and function, Steve Hawkins is by no means a weak link in the pool of genetics that is the human race!
A big difference between our species and others such has deer is the diversification we have. Wasting disease isn't much of a problem for us because we have become a species of specialists. I think we're more like bees in this way because we're all doing different tasks and have different strengths and weaknesses. This is a wonderful thing and it shouldn't be over looked!
Species perfection can be a dangerous thing. Previous creatures in the animal kingdom have attained this kind of perfection but then because they'd so perfectly integrated themselves into their landscape they weren't able to adapt. Our differences as a race ... the weak, the strong, the sick, the healthy, the smart and the stupid (to overly simplify) ... are what enable us to thrive.
Besides...if we were all perfect and identical, it'd be a boring and monotonous world!
2006-12-13 07:44:54 · answer #5 · answered by Maggs 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Natural Selection is alive and well. Think about it. You're attracted to someone and get married. You have kids. You have reproduced and the Human Race goes on! Natural Selection will work the same way if the bird flu is as bad as the doom sayers predict. Most of us won't get the meds and many of us will die. Those that are hardy enough will survive and pass our genes on to the next generation. It is a fallacy to think that Natural Selection always chooses the biggest and strongest. It chooses what works best at that moment in time. Being a carnivore like T-Rex was advantageous until the plant eaters died off. The runts (mammals) had the advantage when the dinosaurs were gone and were "selected".
2016-05-23 19:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The “week” and sick ? Animal “kingdam” ? "Becuase" of hunting? Leaving behing the "weeker"? “Romoving” the strong ? “Amungst” the deer population? “Speicies” ? ENTERING “Infeior” genetics TO the human race?
High standards begin with you, my friend, and I'm sure you don't mind compassion when you're at the receiving end of it. If everyone’s starting point was self-improvement, we wouldn’t have to worry about the gene pool, would we?
2006-12-13 07:56:17 · answer #7 · answered by Chitra R 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe the problems in the world can be blamed on human genetics being on a downward slope. There may be a strong point however in your theory of humans hunting the stronger animals out of there habitat. Perhaps that should have been the main question...but as for us humans...it's far more intricate than that. More people than it sounds like you realize, are thinking with all thier might about where we as mankind are headed. A more spiritual outlook on life is a start. An enormous amount of people shy away from any debates with there friends or family about the TRUE spiritual nature of life itself. I've read a series of books that i think everyone should read, You who posted this question in particular. Humans will pull out of this "stupid" era, once we really understand WHY it was neccessary. True, it's getting a little out of hand in recent days. To answer the question more specificly...Personaly i think EvERYONE should read "The Celestine Prophecy" with a true desire to understand. There are 4 books that go deeper and deeper into what some (including myself) believe to be the TRUTH behind the great mystery of why humans do what we do...and why we do it the way we do it...and most importantly, how we can live in perfect harmony and peace together, and as one. IF only for your curiousity...READ THOSE BOOKS!
2006-12-13 07:54:52 · answer #8 · answered by James 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It took a while to get here but here goes. After traveling the world (44 countries) I would say that the best way to stop the distruction of the human gene pool is to stop the breeding and the exporting of Indians. 1,000,000,000+ people who still rely on aid that they miss use and contribute nothing positive to the world but are now starting to demand that their views not only be considered but also excepted is not a good thing
2006-12-13 07:46:56 · answer #9 · answered by beentheredonethatnoteeshirt 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who gets to chose who should be able to breed? Maybe we should get all the smart people out there (who see this problem) laid unexpectedly, so there's no chance for those smarties to use birth control.
The unfortunate thing is that no one, not even the smart people have enough time to think about the future and how what they are doing effects the future. And if they do, they have become disheartened that they can't make a difference anyway. I've chosen to not have children because I can't afford them, this is something that smart people think about before becoming a parent. If it was possible for a single person to raise a child emotionally and financially I'd be all about, and do it well but that is not the reality for me. I've chosen to take care of those unwanted/ uncared for/ disheartened children to hopefully stop the cycle. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, why not be proactive rather than sit around and ***** about how bad the world is. Get off your *** and do something about it!
2006-12-13 07:58:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋