evolved people don't procreate

Post Reply New Topic

While it's clear that many stupid people over-breed this doesn't mean procreation is inherently bad.

Just to clarify, you are specifically referring to 'producing offspring' and not just to fornication?

There is a semantic error. You didn't define what you meant by "evolved" so people naturally defaulted to its biological use.

So....what do you mean by "evolved"?

I don't even necessarily have a problem with stupid people procreating, the problem is when you mix stupidity with a lack of wisdom, that gives a child all the circumstances required for evil to surround him or her.

Honestly, I bet without a doubt, you can trace all the woes of this world right back to stupid/foolish people having babies, which in turn grow up exposed to opportunist/nefarious elements which indoctrinates the child, and then you have evil festering through the turbulent years of adolescence, which just simmers and boils straight into young adult-hood, where an explosion is inevitable. The evil is then compounded if this person gets someone pregnant/becomes pregnant during these late years of childhood, which will no doubt extend its sorrow right into the next generation.

Looks like a bitter, frustrated, socially awkward guy with inferiority issues is attempting to denigrate others to compensate for his own fragile ego.

So say what the semantic error is then. As I said earlier, I think all kinds of evolution that you could think of are connected, and thus no clarification of what evolution is meant is necessary. I think they're all one. Biological evolution was preceded by evolution of minerals, some kind of physical but non-biological evolution. The transition from biological to technological was the same. If you were to zoom in really close there would be no boundary, it's all connected, in my view.

I don't see how there is a semantic error. "Evolved" means you have a lot of evolution behind you. Maybe evolution doesn't go on indefinitely but actually has an end, in which case you could say that when you reach the end you are finished evolving, you are evolved. I can compare it to a product being produced in a factory. During the initial steps of production the product is unevolved. When it is finished it is evolved, and doesn't need to be worked on anymore, and can leave the factory.

That's not how biological evolution works. It's an unending process. There's no such thing as 'more evolved' vs 'less evolved', only 'differently evolved'.

The semantic error is in using a term so vague that nobody quite knows what you mean.



You are using the term "evolution" in such a garbled way as to not communicate any concepts.



A concept emerges! However, I disagree with your claim that there is such a thing as "finished evolving". Using your own example, factory created products are not done evolving and continue to evolve long after they have left the factory. Consider the car. When Henry Ford created the Model T Ford, he thought it was done evolving and he continued to crank out millions of identical Model T cars with no improvements. Sales eventually flagged because there is no such thing as a product being "done evolving". He did eventually cave to financial pressure and created the Model A. As time has continued, cars continue to evolve, adapting to ever changing conditions such as the need to be more fuel efficient.

Likewise, life forms aren't "done evolving" but adapt to changing conditions. Some are remarkably similar to their ancestors. Some are quite different indeed. A visit to any natural history museum will show you how much change hominids have undergone. Our current incarnation is just a blink in time. It's rather premature to think we are "done evolving". When it comes to life forms, evolutionary change does not happen at the individual level. It happens through an accumulation of changes over generations--- through procreation, as other posters pointed out.

An individual may choose not to procreate. But since there is no such thing as a "more evolved" individual, the claim that "more evolved" individuals don't procreate is meaningless.

When something stops evolving, that something typically doesn't last much longer. The world around us is constantly changing, and you have to be ready to respond to those changes to survive.

Well, I think I get where the OP is coming from, and you could make a solid argument that the more highly evolved people are much more likely to realize we already have a serious overpopulation problem and are less likely to procreate. However this is way too much of a black-and-white blanket statement that's probably fueled by a lot of rejection from seemingly less evolved (yet perversely more successful) people.

I once heard an evolutionary biologist say that we're all equally evolved (and he didn't just mean humans, but all extant species) - because we're all here right now.

I'm not sure I agree with that, because some species haven't changed in millions of years. And call me speciesist, but I like to think that I'm better than an invertebrate. But given the adaptability and amazing features of many insects and even viruses - maybe I'm not more evolved.

So I reject your whole basic premise of an individual being more evolved. And I reject the idea of Aspergers being the next stage of evolution, which is what I think you're hinting at. Maybe there are associated genes to autism which confer an advantage to an individual, but maybe not. Not all genetic variation confers advantage. I'd think that anything that made reproduction less likely is probably not an evolutionary advantage.

We shall have to wait a few more centuries (millennia??) to find out if Asperger's is another step in human evolution.

Personally, living with it, I'd say it IS NOT. That's not to say that it's some genetic failure either though-- my guess would be more like "a basically normal part of genetic diversity that is rather a lot in disfavor these days, despite having useful applications." Sort of like ADHD. It has its uses, but thriving in the public school system and excelling in a cubicle aren't among them.

I do believe that smarter, more thoughtful people that are what we might think of as "more spiritually evolved" are more likely to look around this mess of a world and choose not to have children. Sometimes (often, actually) I look at the world, then look at my kids and think, "My loves, my God, what have I done?!" It's the line from the old Eagles song: "We have brought our children here. Who can save them now??"

Honestly, I think that's really and truly sad. It's a sad statement for our society, and does not bode well for our future. I can make references to that movie, Idiocracy. I haven't seen it, but a friend of mine has. If it reaches the point that it's mostly the thoughtless and irresponsible having children, how are they going to be raised?? What is the end product there going to be?? If the parents are thoughtless enough, and irresponsible enough, it then begs the question of who, exactly, is going to do the raising. Are we going to have to bring back the monastery, just to raise the children??

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. Fitness, as measured by evolutionary theory, is the ability to have grandchildren. Thus, a more fit individual (who is neither more nor less 'evolved' than the population of which she is a part) is the one who has the most children and grandchildren, and a less fit individual is the one who has the least children and grandchildren.

Evolutionary fitness does not necessarily have anything to do with traits that we humans in general, or westerners in particular, find attractive or desirable.

"There is no less evolved and more evolved, just differently evolved"

I wonder if that's true, or if it's the result of constant bombardment of egalitarian propaganda.

It's the consensus among those who study evolution. You're welcome to disagree with them, but you'll almost certainly be wrong.

I wouldn't go that far.

Meaningless sex without birth control is certainly for the un-evolved.

oh, nvm

Last edited by Toy_Soldier on 03 Nov 2014, 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.