I've been thinking...

[Dectomax]

Did Hitler have the right idea? Not as in kill, burn and cause harm to millions of people. But in his views of the Human race?

He wanted a master race, I wouldn't go that far, but his main idea to have a strong people I can understand. You look at the world now and technology is keeping some people alive, who would have died. I'm not saying that's bad. It's great, Stephen Hawking is a perfect example. How many people are alive today that benefit our race that may not have lived before? Yet, does that hold us back?

What I'm saying is that in the wild, it's survival of the strongest. That's how a species adapts and evolves. Would we have changed, at the very least biologically? Would we be immune to certain diseases because those who had them died? Only the people who were immune or resisted them would be alive and pass on their genes.

Please, discuss sensibly.

 

[Eggsnham]

I dunno, science and medicine have given us quite a bit and the way things are moving, there can be a couple of outcomes:

A) We blow ourselves to shit over stupid things.

B) We progress so much that aging and other diseases and conditions are no longer an issue.

That said, we wouldn't have those opportunities, both good and bad if we relied on survival of the fittest.

I'm rambling in circles aren't I?

 

[SilentCom]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

 

[Dectomax]

I dunno, science and medicine have given us quite a bit and the way things are moving, there can be a couple of outcomes:

A) We blow ourselves to shit over stupid things.

B) We progress so much that aging and other diseases and conditions are no longer an issue.

That said, we wouldn't have those opportunities, both good and bad if we relied on survival of the fittest.

I'm rambling in circles aren't I?

but would we have progressed further because the people alive, would have been naturally stronger and more capable? We've evolved over thousands of years to get to our stage from natural selection. Does our tampering with that hold us back slightly or is it an advantage?

 

[nukethetuna]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Being fit to survive in your environment isn't as important in human society as being able to put yourself in control of your environment via "hard work", or more commonly, connections and manipulation.

 

[Dectomax]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

 

[0mn1p0t3ntg6y]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

 

[Lilani]

The idea of having a strong people is nice, but who is one person to say they know exactly what constitutes a "strong" person, and who are they to take actions against another for that? That is essentially one person taking the role of God--deciding who will stay, who will go, and for what reasons.

As for survival of the fittest, that is more or less a natural process. Always has been. For one person to decide to regulate that is, again, taking on "Godly" responsibilities for personal gain. Is it survival of the fittest if I decide my roommate should die because she plays her music too loud? Does that truly make me the stronger of us both?

And if not, then what's to say someone else doesn't try the same thing? Like killing off anyone who can't eat with a spoon, or memorize their phone number, or deny that they worship the God of Abraham?

 

[MikailCaboose]

Well, one would argue that the technology that we create is essentially an extension of ourselves. Nature adapts to nature, we just adapted through external means.

 

[Dectomax]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

I agree. To an extent. He went about it the wrong way. As a general rule though, if only the strongest are allowed to survive and pass on their genes only the best of our genes will be passed on.

 

[SilentCom]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

 

[0mn1p0t3ntg6y]

What he did was the past equivalent of gene banks. In other words, he completely disregarded the purpose of natural selection. in his own attempt to play genocidal god. So in short, he was wrong, and if evolution deems it necessary for the survival of all other species, one can be lost in the process.

I agree. To an extent. He went about it the wrong way. As a general rule though, if only the strongest are allowed to survive and pass on their genes only the best of our genes will be passed on.

Then the same genes would be continously passed on, meaning that humanity would be destroyed from a weakened genetic code.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Human evolution is no longer biological, it's technological. Soon enough we will become part machine (literally, I mean) and eventually maybe even immortal. Think Ghost in the Shell, which aside from the nuclear war looks to be a pretty awesome future.

 

[Dectomax]

The idea of having a strong people is nice, but who is one person to say they know exactly what constitutes a "strong" person, and who are they to take actions against another for that? That is essentially one person taking the role of God--deciding who will stay, who will go, and for what reasons.

As for survival of the fittest, that is more or less a natural process. Always has been. For one person to decide to regulate that is, again, taking on "Godly" responsibilities for personal gain. Is it survival of the fittest if I decide my roommate should die because she plays her music too loud? Does that truly make me the stronger of us both?

And if not, then what's to say someone else doesn't try the same thing? Like killing off anyone who can't eat with a spoon, or memorize their phone number, or deny that they worship the God of Abraham?

I see what you're saying. It's not really what I was asking though. It wouldn't be things like that. I'm saying about disabled children and other unfortunate cases where a child will only survive because of technological help. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just asking what would happen if we didn't rely on that? If children who were born fine, lived and those with complications were left to die? ( As immoral as that is, would it benefit humankind? )

 

[Feralcentaur]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

Does that mean that Ants are immune to natural selection because they make their own colonies out of the ground rather than just adapting to live with no colony?
All you would need to keep the Human race strong is to not allow those with "inferior" genetics to mate... yeah, I seriously support the idea of taking away some people's right to have children, and yes I do realize how messed up that is and that any government trying to pass a law like this would probably spike massive outrage and riots...

 

[Dectomax]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

Does that mean that Ants are immune to natural selection because they make their own colonies out of the ground rather than just adapting to live with no colony?
All you would need to keep the Human race strong is to not allow those with "inferior" genetics to mate.

Ofcourse, that's an option. But how would you police that? Would it be worth it?

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

 

[Feralcentaur]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

Does that mean that Ants are immune to natural selection because they make their own colonies out of the ground rather than just adapting to live with no colony?
All you would need to keep the Human race strong is to not allow those with "inferior" genetics to mate.

Of course, that's an option. But how would you police that? Would it be worth it?

...I suppose that along along with what would be required to enforce such a law, the invasion of privacy, taking away of rights as an animal and massive outrage from the public makes my idea one of those things that sounds good on paper but doesn't work and is horrifying in the real world. Well I admitted I was wrong on the Escapist... I'm not sure if that's happened before.

 

[SilentCom]

Survival of the strongest/fittest doesn't apply to humans. The reason is that animals have to adapt to their environments to live while humans adapt the environment to suit us.

But we are still animals. We are Mammals.

Well then, I guess humans are the only animal out there that doesn't conform to nature and would rather control nature than merely survive.

Does that mean that Ants are immune to natural selection because they make their own colonies out of the ground rather than just adapting to live with no colony?
All you would need to keep the Human race strong is to not allow those with "inferior" genetics to mate.

Good point. I guess bees would have to be included to.

But anyways, my point is that to the OT, human beings should not be forced to conform to having to live a "natural" life like other animals by letting the weak die off. If anything, you could say that a strong point (or evolutionary tratit) of humanity is the ability to create things to help ensure our survival. If people haven't done so, then we probably wouldn't be around (at least not the same anyways). The reason why people are thriving is because we are willing to manipulate our environment rather than conform to the whims of natural selection. In short, screw natural selection, we select ourselves.

 

[Dectomax]

The reason we were able to become the dominant species on earth is because of our brainpower (well, that and opposable thumbs). So for humanity, sheer physical strength is not what defines the best of us. The 'perfect human' surely should be the smartest (and the one with the biggest thumbs).

By strongest, I mean in relation to genetics. surely those who live, with the best genes, stand the greatest chance of furthering our species. Those who, may have certain disabilities would not be here, meaning they couldn't pass on potentially faulty genes. Allowing only the best of each generation to live and survive to pass on their genes.