In man's early history, harsh conditions weeded out stupid people, well in Europe anyways...?

Question

Do you think the lack of natural selection is making mankind stupider and more inferior as time goes on?

Answer 1

I don't know....in Canada we use to make them our Primisters. Not weeded themout.

Answer 2

Harsh conditions never weeded out stupid people, unless it was a preclusion to survival. Scientists suggest that our intelligence hasn't changed appreciably in 200,000 years. Our education, language and communication have broadened considerably, however. Anyone with the ability and means can become educated to their potential. But it was only up until recently that people became generally literate. 1000 years is nothing in evolutionary terms.
As another respondent stated, medicine has given us longevity, but longevity, while it may have an inherited component, is not an evolutionary trait. Heart disease treatment by a great margin helps only those who are beyond child bearing years. As does cancer treatment. Most recipients have already had all their offspring.

You may also be ignoring sexual selection as a driver of evolution. Many people choose mates for appearance and strength, not intelligence.

Answer 3

the theory of natural selection ,believe it or not was rascist. what year was it 17somtin. at the time a whole lot of self proclaimed scientist appeared and defined all sorts of scientific scenarios. slavery was relatively new,and as you know white people are not really all devils,but their gov't and religion at the time needed to justify the treatment of blacks,ie not the fittest ,hence the reason for white domination,and evil treatments.the harsh conditions were perpetrated by the white enslavers ordered and sanctioned by gov't and church to justify slavery and lift the conscious of society. so the same old system still in place has people every where stupider ,not realising that the science of the time was and still is wrong.

Answer 4

When you say "lack of natural selection" you mean the interference of medicine to extend life of people who would normally survive infancy and (today) adolescence to procreate, right? Once you reproduce the parent is pretty much useless, from a genetic and evolutionary perspective. Og not see many childhood genetic diseases that are simultaneously (a) related to intelligence and (b) being addressed by medicine. Sure doctors can repair more traumatic injury (not think Og knew that word, did you?) and muscular dystrophy is getting attention and maybe spina bifida but they don't really affect intelligence.

Happy hunting.

Answer 5

Natural selection is certainly still in operation. Intelligence, needed in the modern world to be successful, brings money and women and therefore children. There is no question that the average IQ in the US and some other countries has risen steeply in the last 75 or so years.

Answer 6

Inferior to what? And how do you define "intelligence"? Many people think intelligence as having the ability to do well academically, but straight A's in algebra are not very helpful under harsh (environmental) conditions.

And then there are people like Stephen Hawking, who is physically disabled and a genius. No way would he have survived in Ye Bad Olde Dayes.

Answer 7

Not stupid. Immature, out of shape. Loves the Internet, hates face to face meetings. Master of the remote control. We are very bright. However we would perish without an ATM or a supermarket. Plus , we no longer question authority. As a race ( Caucasian ) we are doomed.

Answer 8

Yes, apparently this is the case - based on the entirely incoherent and poorly written question. I would refer you to standard texts of English grammar and syntax to establish if the terms: "weeded", "stupider" and "more inferior" are illustrative of regressive evolutionary states.

Answer 9

It never weeded out people who aren't smart. That's social Darwinism and it's been disproven many times.

Answer 10

Actually, natural selection weeds out those who can't or don't procreate.