Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Everyone is", ,"We all know they just want", well buddy her we go again, a poster claiming to KNOW what EVERYONE else thinks and wants!
Why do people believe in god? Why do people not believe in god? What predisposes men to believe certain things and not others?
People believe what they want to believe. An oil-exec is going to believe a lot of things, and he will even convince himself, but we all know why he believes it. No one believes something that "hurts".
Beliefs really fall into two categories, purely selfish beliefs(things that directly benefit us), and what I would call "paternalistic" beliefs(things that you believe benefit other people). These paternalistic beliefs might feel altruistic, disinterested, and empathetic, but you'll notice that all of these paternalistic beliefs also benefit the person being paternalistic. And since we like to imagine ourselves the "good guy", and because we need others to agree with us, we try to paint our beliefs as wholly benevolent, that they are out of genuine concern for others. Not only do we lie to others, we even lie to ourselves.
Why do you think equally-intelligent and equally-educated people can see things so differently? Is it a lack of knowledge? No. Our differences of opinion have nothing to do with knowledge, but self-interest.
It is impossible to see it in yourself, but it is obvious in others. Look around you, look at these "Americans", what drives them? Why do some become Republicans? Why do others become Democrats? Or libertarians, or communists, etc.
Now, just because our beliefs are "corrupted" by self-interest, doesn't necessarily make them wrong. And some people are less corrupted than others. Most of the people on this forum are EXTREMELY corrupted. You can call these people "partisan hacks".
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
Look how people vote. That will tell you who is looking out for what.
I think some is more obvious than others. For instance, someone might vote for same-sex marriage even if they don't care about it. They might just be supporting their party(for other reasons entirely), or they hate religion, or conservatives, or whatever.
Never listen to what people say, look at who they are.
In the 'ancestral environment' those who preferred sweets & fats were better off physically than those who did not. It should be noted back then getting enough calories was a serious issue for most, & when malnutrition & starvation were common. Those who were physically healthier tended to live longer, lived to produce more healthy offspring, & passed on their genetically influenced preference for sweets & fats. Over thousands of generations to the present day.
We were "hunter-gatherers", and what do you think we were gathering? It was mostly berries and nuts and other fruits. When you found a stash of ripe berries you ate them until you hurt, because most berries only ripen for a short time out of the year, and not in winter.
As you said, obesity was not the problem until fairly recently, malnutrition was, starvation. Not only was food often scarce but it took a LOT of energy to get it. These people were walking for miles, climbing trees, digging things up, and just exerting a lot of energy. Your ancestors ate more calories a day than you do, but they burned them off.
And your ancestors didn't eat three meals a day. Some days they might feast, and others they would fast, not by choice, but because there was nothing to eat. The reason we're so fat these days is because we evolved to basically gorge ourselves when there was food available, especially high-calorie foods. But feasting is no longer counterbalanced by fasting and exercise.
Moreover, some people have genes which cause them to store calories as fat more. In one of the videos I linked earlier, he said that there is one gene that if you get a single copy of the gene, you are on average 6 pounds heavier than someone with no copies. And if you get two copies of the same gene you are on average 12 pounds heavier. And that is only one of the genes we know about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Personally, I still think it's the nature v. nurture debate although with an evolutionary framework. I also think we are still evolving. That might seem like a 'stating the obvious' type remark but sometimes I wonder? Do some folks think we stopped evolving at some point?
A lot of people think we stopped evolving a long time ago. But it seems to be that if we're still evolving that means we aren't equal, we would have diverged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Consider racism as one of the maladaptive preferences we are holding onto with no benefit in the present day.
I don't think racism is necessarily maladaptive for individuals, but it is maladaptive for groups. For instance, Amy Chua wrote a book where she talks about the "most-successful groups in America". She argues that the three ingredients for success are a superiority-complex, insecurity, and impulse-control. She says these things explain the success of Jews, Mormons, and the Chinese, among others.
A superiority-complex drives people to behave superior ways. They have higher expectations, they don't accept failure, they don't "give up" as easily, and they have higher standards for themselves and for the people around them. Moreover, if they are a part of a group who feels insecure for whatever reason(like the world is against them), they need to find a way to become more secure, and this is mostly achieved through money. The Jews for instance need money to feel secure, because they are a tiny minority surrounded by many people who hate them. And the Jews have a huge superiority-complex, they are "god's chosen people". These things drive them to be very successful.
To the extent these things are maladaptive is more the fact that successful people usually have fewer children. Evolution has basically reversed.
We also need to differentiate people who are openly racist vs people who hide it. If you want to be successful in America, you cannot be openly racist. And businesses will make far more money if they don't care what color their customers are.
But in your personal life, being racist is actually advantageous for numerous reasons. I remember reading an article talking about Pakistan that discussed "consanguineous-marriages"(cousin-marriage). In Pakistan, people who marry their cousins tend to be richer than people who don't. I think the same is true in the United States. Not necessarily with cousins, but anyone who marries within their "group" is far more likely to be successful than people who don't. The vast majority of interracial marriages result in single-mothers living in poverty.
The main problem with being a racist is that it drives you crazy when you live in a country like America. And having high-expectations(superiority-complex) often leads to depression and suicide. And just as before, successful people have fewer children.
While racists rant constantly about the need to have "white babies", successful white women usually have jobs and careers and don't want to spend their whole lives pumping out babies. And if they want to live a "successful" middle-class life(IE to be superior) both parents pretty much have to work.
The future of America is basically the underclasses mixing and outbreeding the upper classes. Is that evolution? Is that adaptive? Maybe.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 09-04-2020 at 12:47 AM..
We were "hunter-gatherers", and what do you think we were gathering? It was mostly berries and nuts and other fruits. When you found a stash of ripe berries you ate them until you hurt, because most berries only ripen for a short time out of the year, and not in winter.
As you said, obesity was not the problem until fairly recently, malnutrition was, starvation. Not only was food often scarce but it took a LOT of energy to get it. These people were walking for miles, climbing trees, digging things up, and just exerting a lot of energy. Your ancestors ate more calories a day than you do, but they burned them off.
And your ancestors didn't eat three meals a day. Some days they might feast, and others they would fast, not by choice, but because there was nothing to eat. The reason we're so fat these days is because we evolved to basically gorge ourselves when there was food available, especially high-calorie foods. But feasting is no longer counterbalanced by fasting and exercise.
Moreover, some people have genes which cause them to store calories as fat more. In one of the videos I linked earlier, he said that there is one gene that if you get a single copy of the gene, you are on average 6 pounds heavier than someone with no copies. And if you get two copies of the same gene you are on average 12 pounds heavier. And that is only one of the genes we know about.
A lot of people think we stopped evolving a long time ago. But it seems to be that if we're still evolving that means we aren't equal, we would have diverged.
I don't think racism is necessarily maladaptive for individuals, but it is maladaptive for groups. For instance, Amy Chua wrote a book where she talks about the "most-successful groups in America". She argues that the three ingredients for success are a superiority-complex, insecurity, and impulse-control. She says these things explain the success of Jews, Mormons, and the Chinese, among others.
A superiority-complex drives people to behave superior ways. They have higher expectations, they don't accept failure, they don't "give up" as easily, and they have higher standards for themselves and for the people around them. Moreover, if they are a part of a group who feels insecure for whatever reason(like the world is against them), they need to find a way to become more secure, and this is mostly achieved through money. The Jews for instance need money to feel secure, because they are a tiny minority surrounded by many people who hate them. And the Jews have a huge superiority-complex, they are "god's chosen people". These things drive them to be very successful.
To the extent these things are maladaptive is more the fact that successful people usually have fewer children. Evolution has basically reversed.
We also need to differentiate people who are openly racist vs people who hide it. If you want to be successful in America, you cannot be openly racist. And businesses will make far more money if they don't care what color their customers are.
But in your personal life, being racist is actually advantageous for numerous reasons. I remember reading an article talking about Pakistan that discussed "consanguineous-marriages"(cousin-marriage). In Pakistan, people who marry their cousins tend to be richer than people who don't. I think the same is true in the United States. Not necessarily with cousins, but anyone who marries within their "group" is far more likely to be successful than people who don't. The vast majority of interracial marriages result in single-mothers living in poverty.
The main problem with being a racist is that it drives you crazy when you live in a country like America. And having high-expectations(superiority-complex) often leads to depression and suicide. And just as before, successful people have fewer children.
While racists rant constantly about the need to have "white babies", successful white women usually have jobs and careers and don't want to spend their whole lives pumping out babies. And if they want to live a "successful" middle-class life(IE to be superior) both parents pretty much have to work.
The future of America is basically the underclasses mixing and outbreeding the upper classes. Is that evolution? Is that adaptive? Maybe.
Re: bold: some folks don't believe in the theory of evolution period full stop. Who are the "lots of people that think we stopped evolving a long time ago". Frankly, that makes less sense than not believing in the theory of evolutionary processes altogether.
What does it mean "if we're still evolving, it means we aren't equal & we would have diverged?"
What does it mean "if we're still evolving, it means we aren't equal & we would have diverged?"
If humans are still evolving, there is no reason to believe evolution is happening exactly the same for every population. Some evolution is going to the left, while other evolution is going to the right. From the perspective of the egalitarian it is much more comfortable to believe that there either hasn't been any evolution in the last 50,000+ years, or that there has been very little. The less evolution that has occurred, the more similar human populations must be. The more evolution, the more different they must be.
The egalitarian tries to downplay differences, while the racist wants to exaggerate them. So who is right?
As for evolution, the average human has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. This mostly has to do with fertility-rates being much higher in some countries and among some races/ethnic groups. Africa's share of the world population is going to continue to grow. In fact, Africa will grow to be nearly the same population as all of Asia by the year 2100.
And that is only Africans in Africa. Africans will continue to stream into Europe for the foreseeable future. And there are plenty of blacks in the Americas, who have a higher fertility-rate as well. Over the next 100+ years the average human will continue to get blacker, and blacker, and blacker.
200 years ago there were about 3x more Europeans in the world than Africans. By 2100 there will be about 7-10x more Africans in the world than Europeans.
I guess that is evolution in a sense. Although not necessarily as most people think. Had these things happened in isolated populations, as they had before the advent of civilization, distant human populations would have continued to diverge to the point of speciation, just like humans and neanderthals.
But in a globalized world, the future belongs to people who have lots of children, and whose children have lots of children. People who don't adapt well to this "new world", especially who have mental-illness, or in the most extreme cases kill themselves, will not pass on their genes. While the people who seem most capable of embracing and thriving in this new world, will pass their genes on to their children, and evolution will continue.
So let me ask you, do you have any objection to what is happening or what will happen? Does it make you happy, sad, or don't care?
If humans are still evolving, there is no reason to believe evolution is happening exactly the same for every population. Some evolution is going to the left, while other evolution is going to the right. From the perspective of the egalitarian it is much more comfortable to believe that there either hasn't been any evolution in the last 50,000+ years, or that there has been very little. The less evolution that has occurred, the more similar human populations must be. The more evolution, the more different they must be.
The egalitarian tries to downplay differences, while the racist wants to exaggerate them. So who is right?
As for evolution, the average human has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. This mostly has to do with fertility-rates being much higher in some countries and among some races/ethnic groups. Africa's share of the world population is going to continue to grow. In fact, Africa will grow to be nearly the same population as all of Asia by the year 2100.
And that is only Africans in Africa. Africans will continue to stream into Europe for the foreseeable future. And there are plenty of blacks in the Americas, who have a higher fertility-rate as well. Over the next 100+ years the average human will continue to get blacker, and blacker, and blacker.
200 years ago there were about 3x more Europeans in the world than Africans. By 2100 there will be about 7-10x more Africans in the world than Europeans.
I guess that is evolution in a sense. Although not necessarily as most people think. Had these things happened in isolated populations, as they had before the advent of civilization, distant human populations would have continued to diverge to the point of speciation, just like humans and neanderthals.
But in a globalized world, the future belongs to people who have lots of children, and whose children have lots of children. People who don't adapt well to this "new world", especially who have mental-illness, or in the most extreme cases kill themselves, will not pass on their genes. While the people who seem most capable of embracing and thriving in this new world, will pass their genes on to their children, and evolution will continue.
So let me ask you, do you have any objection to what is happening or what will happen? Does it make you happy, sad, or don't care?
Re: bold: when you say "If" does this mean you personally are questioning? Nothing wrong with that, imho, after all the idea or concept of evolution didn't originate with Charles Darwin. In his Origin of Species, he wasn’t announcing the fact of evolution, he was trying to make sense of the fact.
Consider again, the concept put forth by Evolutionary Psychology: The Savanna Principle. Basically, it points to two important observations about Humanity's evolution:
Evolution happens very gradually (very slowly over time).
Natural Selection requires a stable, unchanging environment to which it can respond.
I tend to agree with this. What this means to me, is that there are countless factors that come into play, mostly because our time here has definitely not been stable & unchanging. Not then, not now.
When you say "there is no reason to believe..." you are attempting to make sense of the data.
Your last 2 questions to me sortof dovetail into or amongst the above.
I am above all, curious, I'm only a guest here & entertain possibilities, I guess I could say I'd like to know how it all turns out.
I don't. Most evolution was actually from rather abrupt events, such as the Mount Toba eruption. Which reduced human populations dramatically and put intense pressure on "beneficial traits".
Secondly, most of the "evolution" that happened in non-African groups was less the byproduct of mutations and natural selection, but rather two phenomenon that can cause rapid changes. The founder-effect and genetic drift.
Founder-effect means everyone outside of Africa is basically related to a relatively small number of people who left Africa. Either by going up the Nile or by crossing islands in the Red Sea during the last ice age. But I find genetic drift the most interesting.
Imagine Genetic Drift like flipping a coin. If you flip a coin a thousand times, you'll likely get heads pretty much 50% of the time. But if you only flip a coin a few times, it is very likely that you'll get heads every time. In fact, it is rare to get heads exactly 50% of the time even flipping a coin only 10 times.
Imagine blue eyes and brown eyes. Let's pretend that you have brown eyes and your spouse has blue eyes. In this case you are Bb, and they are bb. That means your children has a 50% chance of being Bb(brown eyes) and 50% chance of being bb(blue eyes).
Let's say you have 10 children. On average half would have brown eyes and half would have blue eyes, but if you've ever flipped a coin 10 times, most of the time you don't get 50/50. You get 6/4, 7/3, 8/2, and in very rare occasions you might even get heads 10 times in a row. In that rare occasion even though you have the dominant brown-eye gene(B), you might only pass your blue-eye gene(b), and every single one of your children will have blue eyes.
This is possible when you're dealing with small populations, but incredibly unlikely in larger populations. Basically, the odds of flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads each time is much higher than flipping a coin a million times and getting heads each time.
But let's say you flipped it and you got a 7/3 split, which is very common. Then 7 of your children might be brown eye(Bb), while only 3 are blue eye(bb). If you were to repeat this another time, and if the outcome was a 7/3 split again in the same direction. After just two generations you would have gone from 50% "brown eye genes" to just 9%. And at that point it is practically impossible for them to ever get to 50% again.
These things as well as "sexual selection" are why even people of similar environments(IE similar evolutionary pressures) still drift away from each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I guess I could say I'd like to know how it all turns out.
No one knows exactly how it will turn out, but we can certainly make guesses. Can't we? I mean, we should be able to look around us and see who is having children and who isn't. Right?
I don't know what the exact proportions the future world will be. But so long as we live in a globalized world, over a long enough period of time it will become completely amalgated. And natural selection will cease to function as it did in the past because the world will likely become more-or-less post-scarcity.
The genetic advantage will go to people who accept the world, and have lots of children. While the people who for whatever reason hate the world, fight it, and refuse to have children because of their hatred for it, will die off. And whatever genes might have made them feel that way will eventually disappear, and only the genes which make you more accepting of "society" will remain.
I knew this black guy who had more than ten children, none of which he was raising. Evolutionarily he succeeded many times over, I failed.
The question to me is not what is happening or what will happen, it is whether I should care about it. As I said, you have all these white racists trying to encourage people to have "white babies". But what for? Does it actually change anything in the end? Why bring more people into such a garbage world?
Having white babies doesn't solve anything, it just tortures more souls.
I don't. Most evolution was actually from rather abrupt events, such as the Mount Toba eruption. Which reduced human populations dramatically and put intense pressure on "beneficial traits".
Secondly, most of the "evolution" that happened in non-African groups was less the byproduct of mutations and natural selection, but rather two phenomenon that can cause rapid changes. The founder-effect and genetic drift.
Founder-effect means everyone outside of Africa is basically related to a relatively small number of people who left Africa. Either by going up the Nile or by crossing islands in the Red Sea during the last ice age. But I find genetic drift the most interesting.
Imagine Genetic Drift like flipping a coin. If you flip a coin a thousand times, you'll likely get heads pretty much 50% of the time. But if you only flip a coin a few times, it is very likely that you'll get heads every time. In fact, it is rare to get heads exactly 50% of the time even flipping a coin only 10 times.
Imagine blue eyes and brown eyes. Let's pretend that you have brown eyes and your spouse has blue eyes. In this case you are Bb, and they are bb. That means your children has a 50% chance of being Bb(brown eyes) and 50% chance of being bb(blue eyes).
Let's say you have 10 children. On average half would have brown eyes and half would have blue eyes, but if you've ever flipped a coin 10 times, most of the time you don't get 50/50. You get 6/4, 7/3, 8/2, and in very rare occasions you might even get heads 10 times in a row. In that rare occasion even though you have the dominant brown-eye gene(B), you might only pass your blue-eye gene(b), and every single one of your children will have blue eyes.
This is possible when you're dealing with small populations, but incredibly unlikely in larger populations. Basically, the odds of flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads each time is much higher than flipping a coin a million times and getting heads each time.
But let's say you flipped it and you got a 7/3 split, which is very common. Then 7 of your children might be brown eye(Bb), while only 3 are blue eye(bb). If you were to repeat this another time, and if the outcome was a 7/3 split again in the same direction. After just two generations you would have gone from 50% "brown eye genes" to just 9%. And at that point it is practically impossible for them to ever get to 50% again.
These things as well as "sexual selection" are why even people of similar environments(IE similar evolutionary pressures) still drift away from each other.
No one knows exactly how it will turn out, but we can certainly make guesses. Can't we? I mean, we should be able to look around us and see who is having children and who isn't. Right?
I don't know what the exact proportions the future world will be. But so long as we live in a globalized world, over a long enough period of time it will become completely amalgated. And natural selection will cease to function as it did in the past because the world will likely become more-or-less post-scarcity.
The genetic advantage will go to people who accept the world, and have lots of children. While the people who for whatever reason hate the world, fight it, and refuse to have children because of their hatred for it, will die off. And whatever genes might have made them feel that way will eventually disappear, and only the genes which make you more accepting of "society" will remain.
I knew this black guy who had more than ten children, none of which he was raising. Evolutionarily he succeeded many times over, I failed.
The question to me is not what is happening or what will happen, it is whether I should care about it. As I said, you have all these white racists trying to encourage people to have "white babies". But what for? Does it actually change anything in the end? Why bring more people into such a garbage world?
Having white babies doesn't solve anything, it just tortures more souls.
Re: bold: consider the 2nd basic observation. The Mount Tuba eruption is just one example of Humanity living in un-stable ever changing environments over our long existence here.
The Savanna Principle: Basically, points to two important observations about Humanity's evolution:
Evolution happens very gradually (very slowly over time).
Natural Selection requires a stable, unchanging environment to which it can respond.
The rest of this post is basically your a priori convictions. Such convictions tend to create convicts as opposed to free persons. Break out of your self-imposed prison.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 09-05-2020 at 10:38 AM..
Not really. Self segregation and self preservation is normal. You hangout with people you relate to.
Go to any public middle school and see who is sitting with who.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
