Evolutionarily speaking...not everyone is supposed to reproduce.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

Darwinism doesn't apply to human beings, even before modern times. No money? Have 12 kids, no love? have a kid, maybe he'll love you. Nothing going on but have bible in hand? Have kids, the Lord shall provide.

No better than rats really...

Not to mention that there are some married couples out there may be infertile despite being good decent people.

[ConeyGirl52]

Originally Posted by techcrium

This seems a little harsh but isn't what species do to survive and evolve?


I believe that in specific fish species, 90% of males die virgins and majority of females share the 10% of males with other females.


Thoughts?

An ancient Roman woman may marry of man of status - to gain or maintain her own status - but it wasnt unheard of for her to seek extra-marital liasons with a gladiator, who was someone she would see as physically (and maybe even mentally) more in line with the natural selection process.

The gladiator wouldnt be around for all that long naturally, and she would unwittingly refresh an otherwise stagnant gene pool.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by techcrium

This seems a little harsh but isn't what species do to survive and evolve?

I believe that in specific fish species, 90% of males die virgins and majority of females share the 10% of males with other females.

Thoughts?

1) Not all humans reproduce.

2) I wouldn't take any behavioral cues for sentient mammals (ie, humans) from fish; why would you? By that logic we are "not supposed to" cook food or wear corrective lenses, among a great many other things.

3) There's no "not supposed to" about it. There is no conscious entity directing that not all fish (or humans) reproduce. It simply happens, for a variety of reasons, that some individual organisms do not reproduce.

4) Evolution is simply about the change within a given gene pool. The basis of that change is irrelevant. To say, for example, that wolves were "not supposed to" have the morphology of domestic dogs misses the point; by havng those specialized morphologies specifically selected by humans, the types of wolves we call dogs are a fantastically successful, cosmopolitan species. That is evolution via selection.

There's simply no "not supposed to" about evolution at all.

[Phil75230]

About evolution and functionality.

1) EvoPsych is, at best, working out some of its rough edges; at worst, pseudoscience

2) In principle, evolution is about the good of the species, not the good of individuals. Hence mating partners may trade one set of "goods" in return for another that may be, in certain individuals mutually exclusive (e.g. trade strength for intelligence, non-cooperation for cooperation, famine survival for physical leanness and/or low cold tolerance). At this point I can also add,

3) The day-to-day physical environment very heavily dictates which traits are likely to win the evolutionary race.

4) Natural Selection tends to work all too often in the short-term preferences of the mating partner, not in the long term good of the species, and sometimes even the mates' own lives. In other words, it's very possible to select for a trait that is a strong turn-on, yet quite detrimental to the survival of the species (e.g., selecting unconsciously for traits usually associated with violence and aggression when the acts usually associated with those traits can potentially hurt the species as a whole. Alternately, ignoring or - worse - selecting against a trait that may not be attractive but nevertheless would be good for the society as a whole).

5) Evolution is just as much about selecting mates with traits insufficiently unattractive as it is selecting in favor of sufficiently attractive ones. A lot of needless confusion results from neglecting this angle.


In one sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed still happening in humans IF you count as DE as any kind of natural selection. It's just that because humans live and operate in a physical environment radically different from those of other animals (notwithstanding our pets, livestock, etc). From this, it's obvious to say that it's wrong to suppose that humans operate under Natural Selection in the wildernesss (i.e. pre-settled existence) sense of the term. Our physical environments are radically different from our ancestors back in 10,000 BC.

Given all I said, it's obvious that the precise rules of the evolutionary game have indeed changed for us humans. In this case, we developed many,many other ways to acquire food, land, security, etc. that does NOT involve us having to be more merciless, cunning, physically tougher, socially skilled, etc. than 95% of all other people. Many of our fellow humans' reptilian basebrains have yet to be aware of this notion, but that the rules of our survival do not involve us literally acting like non-human animals in a wilderness is indisputable as far as I can tell.

Also, our very brains allow us to transcend the other animals to a considerable degree - namely by giving us more ability to choose (admittedly within limits) what kinds of traits, behaviors, physical characteristics, etc. to select in a mate.

So in the end, how humans will evolve will depend on the extent or degree we encourage each other to look beyond traits that may be appealing on the surface and concentrate on traits that aid in at the very least not harming other people. Of course if a person has very appealing surface traits AND at least lack traits that are non-harmful to others, then that is IMO an evolutionary winner IF that person reproduces with a similar such person. I am being deliberately vague because our technology and thus day to day living environment change at light-speed in evolutionary terms (skills important even 4 generations ago are practically trivial now, and vice versa).

All of this means I find it impossible to predict how humans will evolve in the future. We are truly in uncharted evolutionary territory at this point.

[ConeyGirl52]

Well, all Psychology is viewed by some/many to be a psuedoscience.

When I speak about a natural selection process for mating and hooking up with a partner, I am not referring to Darwinism at all. Although he may have been on the right track, he missed the boat in long run as far as Im concerned. The man was clearly biased and bases much of his theories on a shade of skintone from what I have read.

Lets switch up to animals. Animals dont have issues with what color fur their mates possess in species where a color difference exists, like dogs, horses, and other intelligent animals.

Many dogs have been hardwired over time to scratch out their resting areas before laying down. It makes sense that they learned this over millions of years by accidentally laying down on ticks, spiders, snakes and small animals they didnt necessarily sense were already there causing them harm. Now, they will even do it on your couch or bed, when they have no reason to assume such creatures would be lurking there. They do it without even thinking about it, and although someone may have punished them repeatedly for it. That is a natural evolutional process. Its what has helped keep them alive and on the planet over the eons.

[TwoByFour]

This is an oddly posed question.

Evolution is mindless about everything including reproduction. Evolution is a game of chance - keep mixing and matching different gene combos and see which ones are the "fittest". Some combos will have more desire to reproduce than others. The phenotypes that are not inclined to have offspring are self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool, but other than that, there is nothing in evolution that has any bias towards or against reproduction.

[Zot]

Originally Posted by techcrium

This seems a little harsh but isn't what species do to survive and evolve?


I believe that in specific fish species, 90% of males die virgins and majority of females share the 10% of males with other females.


Thoughts?

The CDC says 2.1 children per women is replacement rate in the U.S. and we haven't been attaining that for over a generation.

As to fish, I've never questioned their virginity or lack thereof, though some are tastier than others. Besides don't many fish lay eggs and sperm over eggs in rows at the bottom of rivers? How the heck is my salmon having sex?