The general decline of society (INH Randon Train of Thought #1)

Posted by Powerful Kyurem on June 20, 2014, 2:12 a.m.

So, I was just relaxing tonight trying to ga all asleep contemplating, and since I can't seem to fall asleep, I might as well pass some time sharing my thoughts.

Now before I begin, I'm going to tell you my general opinion of the theory of evolution. Why is this relevant, you ask? I'll get to it. I subscribe to the theory of evolution in a difference sense. I believe that life forms can change into different variations over time due to mutations or environmental factors; however, I do not the general historical side to it. Now, I don't expect you to except my opinion, and you don't really have to in order to understand my thoughts. I just wanted to get it out there.

Anyways… So, back in one of the last major GMC jams, they had theme of evolution. I was in one of the irc chats talking to some of the regulars and a new guy asked for some help. Anyways, after him telling me about how in his game a crazy surfer goes around destroying a city, I decided that the cause of the surfer's rage could be the result of him learning about devolution.

So, what is devolution? Well, if evolution is life forms changing over time to become better, then devolution is a life form changing over time to become generally weaker or lesser. Most mutations lean towards devolution rather than evolution. Devolution can theoretically occur in a few circumstances:

* A group studied in a lab and genetically altered.

* A situation where a dominant life form has little or no risk of death within its group for many years.

The next part is somewhat controversial, and it ties in with society. Basically, most modern countries are in a situation where little or no people die, and if they do, it's mostly due to chance or the fault of other humans. People dying of major diseases nowadays are either voluntary (obesity and related heart issues), time to diagnosis based (most cancer), or chance based (happening to catch some major epidemic). In other words, dying of a disease is evenly distributed throughout the populist because it's mostly a matter a chance and taking precautions. As for other humans, it is mostly matters of greed, politics, insane people, war, etc., and seeing as getting killed by those is generally not inherited, they don't curb devolution. Well, maybe war, assuming the resulting baby boom wouldn't cause worse damage. This brings me to the question: society will devolve based on the current state of affairs, so what can we do about it?

NOTHING

If we kill people with lesser genes, then we are committing atrosities and genocide. If we worsen society to cause some people to die from true "survival of the fittest", then we are wrong for hurting society. The truth is that we can't practically, and /shouldn't/ do anything. Eventually, we will either devolve to the point that another species takes over, or a natural disaster will wipe out everyone, or WWIII might happen and kill everyone . No matter what, we are doomed either morally or to destruction. I'd pick morally any day. There is also the possibilty that with increasing technology, that we end up creating some kind of robotic AI to protect us similar to the one in Wall*E. Granted, the people in that were uneducated rather than legitimately retarded or mentally disabled.

Ok, so I'm getting tired. That's all I have. Don't me mentioning mentally disabled to say I'm prejudicial. I'm not, FYI. They function just fine, and to be frank, most are simply mislabeled and not taught properly IMO. Education generally sucks in public schools, nowadays. Anyway, before I go on another tangent, I'm going to cut myself off and go to sleep. I'll continue this train of thought later. For now, I'm adding a caboose and signing off.

INH

Comments

Pirate-rob 10 years, 6 months ago

Quote:
Later Days 64 Digits

Quote:
Later Days 64 Digits
…….

The gifs will come soon enough!

Iasper 10 years, 6 months ago

Quote:
however, I do not the general historical side to it.
Aaand what exactly is the historical side?

I don't think "devolution" is really a problem in our world now. While it's true we are no longer adapting to our environment and the rules of evolution don't really apply to us anymore, there's not much of a problem since, with the technology we have, we just adapt the environment to our needs (mostly). If something happens (say, global warming becomes so damn bad nearly everyone dies), the principles of evolution would once again go into effect. Whether humans can adapt quickly enough for them to get their position in the hierarchy of Earth again or whether they'll just go extinct is something else.

MMOnologueguy 10 years, 6 months ago

Quote: meh
People dying of major diseases nowadays are either voluntary (obesity and related heart issues)
Most obesity has to do with poverty; healthy food is expensive. Just from my own experience, and I am by few means very poor, transportation can cost almost $100 a week, food, if you spend just over $10 per day, is another hundred, and the cheapest rent in this city I've found (and for good or bad I have the luxury of living with my mother, so it's not a problem for me, although she kind of struggles herself) is about $100. When I was working full time back in America I was making about $250 a week in a city just as expensive as this, so already a massive portion of America has to make due with basic subsistence (if even that - some people have kids, or may run into accidents or medical emergencies - and good luck if you get fired). The Australian minimum wage, which I make just under right now, is twice as high, which is nice I guess, but that doesn't exactly cover adequately people with dependants or personal disaster. So to get by you have to take the cheapest of everything you can get, or literally just take (shoplift) what you need, which is risky business.

Quote: eww
If we kill people with lesser genes, then we are committing atrosities and genocide.
Define "lesser genes". You better not have bought into that IQ and the Wealth of Nations bullshit - not only was their methodology way off, and the idea of quantifying intelligence absurd, but IQ has been shown to have far more (probably entirely) to do with access to education or other means of mental development rather than with genetics.

And again, evolution didn't build civilization. We're barely any genetically different today than how we were before we even left Africa. We're still running on hardware developed before agriculture existed. 10000 years of settled society is less than a microscopic drop in the genetic bucket.

tl;dr: read Guns, Germs, and Steel, or if you have a lot of spare time, The Modern World System

Quietus 10 years, 6 months ago

Quote:
Are you asking to be banned? Do you think that's funny?
SAY WHAT AGAIN, I DARE YOU

Moikle 10 years, 6 months ago

"devolution" is still evolution. and it happens over millions of years, not the few thousand that modern(broad term) civilisation has existed

wtf you smoking?

Powerful Kyurem 10 years, 6 months ago

StevenOBrien: I legitimately couldn't remember where I heard it. I'm sorry. I'll remove it.

Quote:
Define "lesser genes". You better not have bought into that IQ and the Wealth of Nations bullshit - not only was their methodology way off, and The idea of quantifying intelligence absurd, but IQ has been shown to have far more (probably entirely) to do with access to education or other means of mental development rather than with genetics.

Not at all. Lesser was probably a bad way to put it. I simply mean genes that have mutated (or been lost) so that the trait is in what would be considered an earlier. While, yes, the most impacting one would be related to intelligence, I'd expect it to be more physical traits lost, such as a loss of the olfactory sense or not having wisdom teeth. I should also point out that I have no prejudice towards these people. I'm merely stating them as examples in a general trend that could be worrying.

Quote:
"devolution" is still evolution. and it happens over millions of years, not the few thousand that modern(broad term) civilisation has existed

That is true; however, there is something you forget.

Some general approximated figures to consider:

Random mutations have three categories(very approximate percentages included):

Instantly deadly (embryo never develops): about 50%

Makes an organism unsuited to their environment: about 40%

Gives an organism an edge in their environment: 10% (probably less)

This means that devolution has an edge over evolution, because most of the non-fatal mutations are devolutionary in some form or another. Based on mutations occurring at an even rate, devolution would occur 4X (or more) as fast as evolution. So, there's no way to tell how long devolution would take. Also, when you consider that we more carcinogens in our environment (chemicals that cause mutations at a cellular level generally resulting in cancer), devolution and evolution might very well be accelerated. Plus, as I started to elude and some of you stated, the general education level is horrible, so it's not just our physical traits that aren't necessary nowadays. With internet and knowledge so easily accessible we have no need for actual intelligence. Therefore, over the millions of years that we continue to progress, I would expect to see legit devolutionary of the mind. Granted, I doubt it will occur in our lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes. The solution would /not/ be eugenics. It would be to stress learning so that people are actively required to use their intelligence and not slack off and be lazy. As for physical attributes, I don't think there's any sane solution.

Quietus 10 years, 6 months ago

WHAT AIN'T NO COUNTRY I EVER HEARD OF, THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?

Powerful Kyurem 10 years, 6 months ago

Steven: I wasn't trying to imitate JuurianChi. I guess this is what happens when I wrote half-asleep. This was honestly just a controversial situation that I was weighing in my head, and I figured I'd write it down for other people to see. That's why it's disjoint in some spots. It was pretty much what I was thinking short of a couple fragments I fixed, and the explanation of my opinion at the beginning and end so nobody accused me of being prejudicial (which I'm not).

Powerful Kyurem 10 years, 6 months ago

Eugenics is not a solution… it's genocide and evil…

and why did I put image Jurrian? I must not have had good sleep. XP

Powerful Kyurem 10 years, 6 months ago

That is still wrong in my opinion, but that is your opinion to have.