A rather fuzzy grasp of evolution makes most of your musing nonsensical as you've become lost in a tautology. Surviving + breeding === fitness--there is no moral dimension or teleology.
So to rephrase the quote above: if they don't survive does that mean they didn't survive?
My take on the broader meme of cultural extinction by being out-bred (by "the lower orders" or whatever) is that if these "tolerant" cultures had actually raised the standard of living around the globe rather than exploiting the differential for their own short-term material gain then the birthrates would have equalized and there would be no problem.
You better be careful with your creationist rantings. Saying that you don't understand the underlying selection mechanisms is fallous.
As for your equalization statement, it is profoundly off-base. There has been no equalization even among western nations. They are BELOW replacement levels.
When a trait in evolution is passed on and begins actually lowering the population of the species, it is considered maladaptive.
What you are literally advocating is passing on a maladaptive trait, whatever is making the population of western democracies decline, to the world at large.
If I didn't know better I would call it genocide.
If I suggested to you that I could insure there were 100 million fewer muslims in the world 50 years from now, who would you associate me with? Stalin? Hitler? Yet you advocate this view.
How about this? Perhaps nature, through evolution, is showing us the limits of our own attempts to mold society into whatever it is we desire.
How helpful will say abortion rights be if you have 200 million Americans (down from 275 million) 50 years from now trying to explain trying to explain to 1.5 BILLION chinese why they should adopt our model of elective abortion and women's rights.
Take this down the path another 50-100 years. Talk about being principled but ending up still wrong. You could have 150 million Americans trying to discuss labor law to 2+ Billion Chinese.
How helpful will say abortion rights be if you have 200 million Americans (down from 275 million) 50 years from now trying to explain trying to explain to 1.5 BILLION chinese why they should adopt our model of elective abortion and women's rights.
Erm, the Chinese presently have a policy of, um, "non-elective" abortion in order to keep their population growth down. That "one child per couple" thing and all. We don't have to lecture to their government about the merits of population control. More mouths to feed (or fail to feed) means greater social unrest, less money for their military and less capital for economic modernization. Though it might be nice for them to eventually be able to do it in a more personal-choice-oriented and less Stalinist way.
Europe will almost certainly have the problem of demographic senescence (that's a cute phrase, isn't it? I should copyright it) in 50 years, but as long as the US keeps accepting immigrants, it should avoid it. If you believe in realpolitik, support immigration to preserve our national power!
What you are literally advocating is passing on a maladaptive trait, whatever is making the population of western democracies decline, to the world at large.
Whatever is making the population of western democracies decline is not necessarily a maladaptive trait.
Erm, the Chinese presently have a policy of, um, "non-elective" abortion in order to keep their population growth down. That "one child per couple" thing and all. We don't have to lecture to their government about the merits of population control. More mouths to feed (or fail to feed) means greater social unrest, less money for their military and less capital for economic modernization. Though it might be nice for them to eventually be able to do it in a more personal-choice-oriented and less Stalinist way.
Europe will almost certainly have the problem of demographic senescence (that's a cute phrase, isn't it? I should copyright it) in 50 years, but as long as the US keeps accepting immigrants, it should avoid it. If you believe in realpolitik, support immigration to preserve our national power!
Towel, I do thank you for not leaping to conclusions. It is obvious I would not support non-elective abortions.
What I was just thinking outloud about is that it is interesting to think about the implications of some of these policies. Will China continue to be oppressive with regard to women's rights or will they suddenly become "enlightened" and declare that btw, we need your country and the land associated with it to support our enlightened policies.
It is interesting to consider isn't it? Thanks for letting me think out loud with attributing criticism and labels to it.
Whatever is making the population of western democracies decline is not necessarily a maladaptive trait.
In evolutionary terms it would be. It isn't as if we have natural predators thinning out the herd, though we don't know the full implications of SARS yet.
The tautology is that evolution = survival of the fittest = those that survive. It is this definition of evolution that is a philosophical tautology, but it not an accurate definition.
It is missing several important points (especially breeding since we all fail to survive eventually, living on only though our genes) that are explained later in the article, though not as well as they are in an article from the same site.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading. For one thing, survival is only one component of selection -- and perhaps one of the less important ones in many populations. For example, in polygynous species, a number of males survive to reproductive age, but only a few ever mate. Males may differ little in their ability to survive, but greatly in their ability to attract mates -- the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from the latter consideration. Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.
So the "fit" civilisations have no claim to be better, more civilized, etc. as you imply but merely have the "best reproductive output". Your question repeats itself without you realising and is therefore tautological (though not in the 'logical' sense).
The tautology is that evolution = survival of the fittest = those that survive. It is this definition of evolution that is a philosophical tautology, but it not an accurate definition.
It is missing several important points (especially breeding since we all fail to survive eventually, living on only though our genes) that are explained later in the article, though not as well as they are in an article from the same site.
So the "fit" civilisations have no claim to be better, more civilized, etc. as you imply but merely have the "best reproductive output". Your question repeats itself without you realising and is therefore tautological (though not in the 'logical' sense).
Actually you are getting to my point finally. Thanks, we've been here for a while and the water is just fine.
My point of ponder is that we consider ourselves pretty much better, more civilized, etc. However in natural terms we would not be the most "fit." That is what I said from the beginning and pretty much everyone else understood this.
Evolution says that those with the best reproductive output are the most fit. By that measure we would Western Civilization would be very "unfit" since we are pretty much non-reproducing ourselves into oblivion. I found the paradox interesting and wondered outloud about it.
You may now put your tray back in an upright position,
Keeping the population static in a world that's possibly overcrowded would be a good thing.
You are correct that it could, but that isn't what is happening. We have some populations not replacing themselves while others are dramatically growing.
You are correct that it could, but that isn't what is happening. We have some populations not replacing themselves while others are dramatically growing.
It's just that the populations that are slowing shrinking might be doing more to save themselves (and their culture) than the populations that are ever increasing.
but then look at the disease/health problems in said rapidly growing areas. it could be that they'll going to breed themselves into a massive onslought of disease. you get that many people packed together and it's just ripe for a nice new virus to tear through.
it could very well be that a trait that keep our population in the US from going over a certain number of people per sq. mile is a good one. (just random thoughts here).
for all we know, the trait could work so that as the population thins out, the desire to have more children increases. rather than being a trait to have less children all the time, it could be one that changes birthrate based on how crowded things are.
Evolution says that those with the best reproductive output are the most fit. By that measure we would Western Civilization would be very "unfit" since we are pretty much non-reproducing ourselves into oblivion. I found the paradox interesting and wondered outloud about it.
There is *no* paradox.
It is as paradoxical as perfect markets not being perfect or lite beer not weighing less.
The word fitness has a common meaning (which has positive connotations) and an esoteric one (that doesn't, though it is commonly misunderstood as such).
You confusing the two meanings does not make it paradoxical.
Don't have time to reply in depth to your thoughtful post, but there are a lot of people interested in the concept of memes, which as I understand them are kind of cultural/idea "genes" that spread around and live or die. I read a book called The Tipping Point a few months ago that reminds me of those ideas a lot, too.
I have read that book as well, "The Tipping Point." It was a good read. If you have any recommended reading on memes I would appreciate you listing it.
It is as paradoxical as perfect markets not being perfect or lite beer not weighing less.
The word fitness has a common meaning (which has positive connotations) and an esoteric one (that doesn't, though it is commonly misunderstood as such).
You confusing the two meanings does not make it paradoxical.
If you would care to address the post at hand then I will be happy to read and respond. If you care to argue about what the words I type mean to me, well you might as well go masturbate. You are welcome to post several more times about what fitness means to you and they will be ignored. I am discussing not just reproduction of genes, but also ideals.
Western cultures are not reproducing at rates to maintain themselves. Other cultures are reproducing at rates that not only maintain their population, but even dramatically grow it.
There is not a genetic trait that is keeping us from reproducing at replacement levels, it is likely cultural and ideological. I thought it interesting that we would consider our ideas, for example equality of the sexes, better than say men lording over women and establishing a society where they have no rights.
Ideologically we know which is better, but biologically, for now at least, our ideas create 1.2-1.8 children to carry on our ideological gene while their repressive society may create 6-8 children to carry on their own represseive ideological genes.
I obviously understand that ideals and cultures do not only have to be transmitted by birth. However consider the results of our ideas it might make them less likely to be open to considering them.
For example there were debates here about how many civilians were killed in Iraq. Say it ended up being 10,000 people killed. However suppose the new government with Western ideals changes the birth rate in Iraq so drastically that the population declines by 25 million over the next 50 years.
I consider these sorts of things because most people claim they endorse multiculturalism, but what they really mean is that they endorse nice displays of cultural artifacts while having everyone believe in western progressivism. If I briefly allowed myself to think of this from a different point of view, it could appear that western progressivism could, to some cultures, act much like a genocidal plague inflicted upon their societies.
I obviously understand that ideals and cultures do not only have to be transmitted by birth. However consider the results of our ideas it might make them less likely to be open to considering them.
For example there were debates here about how many civilians were killed in Iraq. Say it ended up being 10,000 people killed. However suppose the new government with Western ideals changes the birth rate in Iraq so drastically that the population declines by 25 million over the next 50 years.
The thing is, there's too many of us. 1 in 3 of us don't know where our next meal's coming from. We're all crowding into cities from the countryside where we live on top of each other and diseases are easily passed on, while the planet's inventing new and exciting ways to kill us off (SARS, AIDS, acronyms yet to be thought of.) Catastrophic famines and pandemics caused by overpopulation are more likely to bring a culture to its knees than a falling birthrate, surely?
population pressures are a two way street. if the population of a nation is too low to support itself in a manner that it has gotten used to then people generally reproduce more, or at least that is the theory...
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
A rather fuzzy grasp of evolution makes most of your musing nonsensical as you've become lost in a tautology. Surviving + breeding === fitness--there is no moral dimension or teleology.
So to rephrase the quote above: if they don't survive does that mean they didn't survive?
My take on the broader meme of cultural extinction by being out-bred (by "the lower orders" or whatever) is that if these "tolerant" cultures had actually raised the standard of living around the globe rather than exploiting the differential for their own short-term material gain then the birthrates would have equalized and there would be no problem.
Survival of the fittest = tautology
You better be careful with your creationist rantings.
As for your equalization statement, it is profoundly off-base. There has been no equalization even among western nations. They are BELOW replacement levels.
When a trait in evolution is passed on and begins actually lowering the population of the species, it is considered maladaptive.
What you are literally advocating is passing on a maladaptive trait, whatever is making the population of western democracies decline, to the world at large.
If I didn't know better I would call it genocide.
If I suggested to you that I could insure there were 100 million fewer muslims in the world 50 years from now, who would you associate me with? Stalin? Hitler? Yet you advocate this view.
Nick
How about this? Perhaps nature, through evolution, is showing us the limits of our own attempts to mold society into whatever it is we desire.
How helpful will say abortion rights be if you have 200 million Americans (down from 275 million) 50 years from now trying to explain trying to explain to 1.5 BILLION chinese why they should adopt our model of elective abortion and women's rights.
Take this down the path another 50-100 years. Talk about being principled but ending up still wrong. You could have 150 million Americans trying to discuss labor law to 2+ Billion Chinese.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How helpful will say abortion rights be if you have 200 million Americans (down from 275 million) 50 years from now trying to explain trying to explain to 1.5 BILLION chinese why they should adopt our model of elective abortion and women's rights.
Erm, the Chinese presently have a policy of, um, "non-elective" abortion in order to keep their population growth down. That "one child per couple" thing and all. We don't have to lecture to their government about the merits of population control. More mouths to feed (or fail to feed) means greater social unrest, less money for their military and less capital for economic modernization. Though it might be nice for them to eventually be able to do it in a more personal-choice-oriented and less Stalinist way.
Europe will almost certainly have the problem of demographic senescence (that's a cute phrase, isn't it? I should copyright it) in 50 years, but as long as the US keeps accepting immigrants, it should avoid it. If you believe in realpolitik, support immigration to preserve our national power!
Originally posted by trumptman
What you are literally advocating is passing on a maladaptive trait, whatever is making the population of western democracies decline, to the world at large.
Whatever is making the population of western democracies decline is not necessarily a maladaptive trait.
Originally posted by Towel
Erm, the Chinese presently have a policy of, um, "non-elective" abortion in order to keep their population growth down. That "one child per couple" thing and all. We don't have to lecture to their government about the merits of population control. More mouths to feed (or fail to feed) means greater social unrest, less money for their military and less capital for economic modernization. Though it might be nice for them to eventually be able to do it in a more personal-choice-oriented and less Stalinist way.
Europe will almost certainly have the problem of demographic senescence (that's a cute phrase, isn't it? I should copyright it) in 50 years, but as long as the US keeps accepting immigrants, it should avoid it. If you believe in realpolitik, support immigration to preserve our national power!
Towel, I do thank you for not leaping to conclusions. It is obvious I would not support non-elective abortions.
What I was just thinking outloud about is that it is interesting to think about the implications of some of these policies. Will China continue to be oppressive with regard to women's rights or will they suddenly become "enlightened" and declare that btw, we need your country and the land associated with it to support our enlightened policies.
It is interesting to consider isn't it? Thanks for letting me think out loud with attributing criticism and labels to it.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Whatever is making the population of western democracies decline is not necessarily a maladaptive trait.
In evolutionary terms it would be. It isn't as if we have natural predators thinning out the herd, though we don't know the full implications of SARS yet.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Survival of the fittest = tautology
The tautology is that evolution = survival of the fittest = those that survive. It is this definition of evolution that is a philosophical tautology, but it not an accurate definition.
It is missing several important points (especially breeding since we all fail to survive eventually, living on only though our genes) that are explained later in the article, though not as well as they are in an article from the same site.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading. For one thing, survival is only one component of selection -- and perhaps one of the less important ones in many populations. For example, in polygynous species, a number of males survive to reproductive age, but only a few ever mate. Males may differ little in their ability to survive, but greatly in their ability to attract mates -- the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from the latter consideration. Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.
So the "fit" civilisations have no claim to be better, more civilized, etc. as you imply but merely have the "best reproductive output". Your question repeats itself without you realising and is therefore tautological (though not in the 'logical' sense).
Originally posted by trumptman
In evolutionary terms it would be.
Keeping the population static in a world that's possibly overcrowded would be a good thing.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The tautology is that evolution = survival of the fittest = those that survive. It is this definition of evolution that is a philosophical tautology, but it not an accurate definition.
It is missing several important points (especially breeding since we all fail to survive eventually, living on only though our genes) that are explained later in the article, though not as well as they are in an article from the same site.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
So the "fit" civilisations have no claim to be better, more civilized, etc. as you imply but merely have the "best reproductive output". Your question repeats itself without you realising and is therefore tautological (though not in the 'logical' sense).
Actually you are getting to my point finally. Thanks, we've been here for a while and the water is just fine.
My point of ponder is that we consider ourselves pretty much better, more civilized, etc. However in natural terms we would not be the most "fit." That is what I said from the beginning and pretty much everyone else understood this.
Evolution says that those with the best reproductive output are the most fit. By that measure we would Western Civilization would be very "unfit" since we are pretty much non-reproducing ourselves into oblivion. I found the paradox interesting and wondered outloud about it.
You may now put your tray back in an upright position,
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Keeping the population static in a world that's possibly overcrowded would be a good thing.
You are correct that it could, but that isn't what is happening. We have some populations not replacing themselves while others are dramatically growing.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are correct that it could, but that isn't what is happening. We have some populations not replacing themselves while others are dramatically growing.
It's just that the populations that are slowing shrinking might be doing more to save themselves (and their culture) than the populations that are ever increasing.
it could very well be that a trait that keep our population in the US from going over a certain number of people per sq. mile is a good one. (just random thoughts here).
for all we know, the trait could work so that as the population thins out, the desire to have more children increases. rather than being a trait to have less children all the time, it could be one that changes birthrate based on how crowded things are.
who knows.
Originally posted by trumptman
Evolution says that those with the best reproductive output are the most fit. By that measure we would Western Civilization would be very "unfit" since we are pretty much non-reproducing ourselves into oblivion. I found the paradox interesting and wondered outloud about it.
There is *no* paradox.
It is as paradoxical as perfect markets not being perfect or lite beer not weighing less.
The word fitness has a common meaning (which has positive connotations) and an esoteric one (that doesn't, though it is commonly misunderstood as such).
You confusing the two meanings does not make it paradoxical.
Originally posted by BRussell
Don't have time to reply in depth to your thoughtful post, but there are a lot of people interested in the concept of memes, which as I understand them are kind of cultural/idea "genes" that spread around and live or die. I read a book called The Tipping Point a few months ago that reminds me of those ideas a lot, too.
I have read that book as well, "The Tipping Point." It was a good read. If you have any recommended reading on memes I would appreciate you listing it.
Nick
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Daw...-the-mind.html
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
There is *no* paradox.
It is as paradoxical as perfect markets not being perfect or lite beer not weighing less.
The word fitness has a common meaning (which has positive connotations) and an esoteric one (that doesn't, though it is commonly misunderstood as such).
You confusing the two meanings does not make it paradoxical.
If you would care to address the post at hand then I will be happy to read and respond. If you care to argue about what the words I type mean to me, well you might as well go masturbate. You are welcome to post several more times about what fitness means to you and they will be ignored. I am discussing not just reproduction of genes, but also ideals.
Western cultures are not reproducing at rates to maintain themselves. Other cultures are reproducing at rates that not only maintain their population, but even dramatically grow it.
There is not a genetic trait that is keeping us from reproducing at replacement levels, it is likely cultural and ideological. I thought it interesting that we would consider our ideas, for example equality of the sexes, better than say men lording over women and establishing a society where they have no rights.
Ideologically we know which is better, but biologically, for now at least, our ideas create 1.2-1.8 children to carry on our ideological gene while their repressive society may create 6-8 children to carry on their own represseive ideological genes.
I obviously understand that ideals and cultures do not only have to be transmitted by birth. However consider the results of our ideas it might make them less likely to be open to considering them.
For example there were debates here about how many civilians were killed in Iraq. Say it ended up being 10,000 people killed. However suppose the new government with Western ideals changes the birth rate in Iraq so drastically that the population declines by 25 million over the next 50 years.
I consider these sorts of things because most people claim they endorse multiculturalism, but what they really mean is that they endorse nice displays of cultural artifacts while having everyone believe in western progressivism. If I briefly allowed myself to think of this from a different point of view, it could appear that western progressivism could, to some cultures, act much like a genocidal plague inflicted upon their societies.
It is just interesting to think about..
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I obviously understand that ideals and cultures do not only have to be transmitted by birth. However consider the results of our ideas it might make them less likely to be open to considering them.
For example there were debates here about how many civilians were killed in Iraq. Say it ended up being 10,000 people killed. However suppose the new government with Western ideals changes the birth rate in Iraq so drastically that the population declines by 25 million over the next 50 years.
You lost me here.
Thse falling numbers are probably an advantage.