From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 18:23:26 +0800
To: kent@songbird.com
Subject: Re: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to "court appointed attorneys")
In-Reply-To: <19970822224234.61793@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <199708230943.KAA00823@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 1997 at 12:53:08AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> > 
> > One doesn't.  But if one is not competent, one is likely to find out the
> > hard way.
> > 
> > There's precious little evolutionary pressures around at the moment,
> > the race could use some more.
> 
> The evolutionary definition of "competent" is "propagate your genetic 
> material".  A rough corollary is that those who raise the most children 
> to child-bearing age are the most competent.  In practice it seems to 
> be the case, however, that intelligence and "evolutionary competence" 
> are negatively correlated.  

I was going to rant about the negative evolutionary pressures, but I
kept it short.  I agree fully.

There are a few evolutionary pressures, but they are insignificant
compared to all the negative pressures.

Positive examples?  

- motorbike riding
- aggresive drivers
- manic depressives
- mountain climbers
- hard drug takers
- drug pushers
- DEA agents

A couple of those don't deserve the negative evolutionary pressures
they surely inflict upon themselves or inherit, a couple do.

There are lots of things around which will kill you slowly, or offer
you a measurable though small chance of dying young, but this usually
doesn't affect that persons chances of reproducing.  Examples might be
smoking, heavy drinking, overeating, etc.

> I think this goes a little deeper, in fact.  The kind of
> intelligence that leads to high technical achievement is not even
> necessarily a kind of intelligence that favors survival under
> difficult situations.  If society dissolves it is my belief that
> computer geeks, like us, are not the ones that will be most likely
> to survive....

So start collecting guns and doing target practice.  Intelligence
includes ability to adapt and forsee likely future events.

Not taking my own advice here owning no guns.  My wife is a crack shot
though from pistol target shooting.  Problem is they're trying to
outlaw most/all types of target pistol over here.

Have lots of children .. to counteract the welfare cases tendencies.
Mormon polygamy?  Harem?

(Again not following own advice, only two children ... so far).

The problem is that from a purely scientific evolutionary point of
view, the human race is surely regressing, the masses of negative
evolutionary pressures are certainly pushing this way.

Welfare cases in the UK are encouraged to hav children by the way the
system is structured.  A single mother is the highest priority case,
with pretty much guaranteed 16 years of preferential treatment, higher
payouts, higher on housing priority lists, and so on.  Female
divorcees with children often get more money, better accomodation, and
more extra fringe benefit handouts than they would ever have married.
Welfare is better than the minimum wage earners lot by a significant
amount.

The problem is what can you do about it?  Well I guess you could
negatively structure the welfare hand out system to discourage them.
You could scrap the welfare system.  They already offer free birth
control advice to teenagers and hand out condoms free without
questions etc.  Free abortions?

The real problem is that the pervasive bleeding heart
socialist/communist welfare system mentality will ensure that you'll
never manage it.

"The children" is a war cry which will ensure the continuance of state
funded negative evolutionary pressures.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`