Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4167
    MEMBERS
  • 80014
    MESSAGES
  • 20
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Will get you a Covid-19 vaccine if it’s mandatory?   The Healthy You: Health and Fitness Polls

Started 9/23/20 by Showtalk; 10679 views.

The distinction is - human activity doing the selection for a specific desired trait of the organism, versus an advantageous mutation in the wild that gives the organism a better survival skill - maybe less susceptible to a disease, better able to fend off predators, or more efficient at catching prey. Or even more efficient at extracting nutrients from eating things most other competing species can't. If it was in the wild, then it's natural selection.

So an animal with slightly longer tusks, making it more attractive to a potential mate, will likely reproduce more often, so the next and subsequent generations keep getting longer tusks. This happened for a long time with the African elephant, as a type of natural selection.

Then as more and more people using modern weapons began to kill elephants for their ivory, these large tusks became a survival disadvantage due to artificial selection. Poachers were far more likely to kill large bull elephants with large tusks, while tusk-less mutants and those with very small tusks were less likely to be hunted.

In only a few short decades, elephants with large tusks have practically vanished, and most baby elephants born these days either develop no tusks or very small tusks compared to elephants a century ago.

This was due to man-caused, or artificial selection, as bull elephants with no tusks became the surviving males to be able to impregnate females.

Artificial selection is observable in humans as well. This can be seen in men of British descent to this day. During two world wars, most of the fit young men joined the army or navy and went off to war. These wars killed a huge number of these young men, removing the genes for traits specifically desired for military service from the gene pool in disproportionate numbers.

A young British man with flat feet, with shorter than normal stature, or a variety of other physical conditions that tended to disqualify one from military service, had a much higher probability of living through the war and thus of producing offspring, as their competitors were buried on various battlefields.

As a result, the distribution of various physical traits among many British men to this day favor those deemed unfit for military service in those past wars, precisely because their ancestors, having been rejected for military service, survived to reproduce with far less competition from those who went into military service and then died on various battlefields.

This kind of selection can be seen in populations all around the world where many near genocidal wars were fought in the past few centuries.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Jan-18

And ours seems to be natural selection for a lot of unusual traits and behaviors showing up in the young.  The ability to do everything with a phone glued to their faces.  

It could also be a de-selection at work, as those technologies have not really been that conducive to successful procreation. Actually the social media sites and various other places have poisoned the whole social interaction process of forming actual physical relationships.

So they might be interacting a lot digitally, maybe even emotionally in the equivalent of a relationship, maybe even an intense one, but that doesn't produce offspring.

Throw in the $50k student loan debt with massive underemployment, or cobbling together enough income from 3 part time jobs to pay 1/5 of the rent of a place with 4 other roommates, and flopping into bed exhausted, to repeat again the next day - is not a lifestyle conducive to successful reproduction either.

So what's probably at work is a dysgenics phase that will last for a few decade of steep depopulation in the developed world, during which they will be displaced by other peoples who are not caught up in that kind of treadmill, such as immigrants from the Third World.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Jan-28

...Who then have children who grow up to be very different from their own parents. 

Oh, definitely. I know a few younger geek types from India, who have grown up very, very different from their parents.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Feb-13

Most of us probably did grow up different from our parents, not just people from any one country.

Showtalk said:

Most of us probably did grow up different from our parents, not just people from any one country

The reality today is so different than that of our parents, we all had to grow up different. And the younger folks are coming of age in a world totally alien to what I remember as a kid.

And their kids, if they can 1) afford to have them, 2) have not effectively been sterilized by the mix of previously unknown pollutants in the environment, and 3) were ever able to lower the shields enough to pair up with someone to have them; will grow up in some environment totally alien to what the GenZ and younger Millennials were immersed in.

Covid and the economic and social impacts just accelerated those trends.

As someone else once said, citing and pondering the Fermi Paradox, maybe the reason that we have not had a confirmed detection of an extraterrestrial civilization now that the number of known exoplanets has climbed well into the high 4 to low 5 digits, is maybe even if life springs up throughout the cosmos where conditions are favorable, intelligent life tends to quickly rise and even more quickly, self-destruct.

Thus, aliens out there most likely came and went long before we were around to notice, and the next ones to rise somewhere will be long after we are extinct. A mere 200 to 1000 years is the blink of an eye in geological or cosmological terms. The odds of two intelligent civilizations existing with enough overlapping lifetime for one to detect the other may very well approach zero, even if it has arisen millions of times in our own galaxy's history.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

Mar-12

Today's kids could not imagine listening to the radio as much or more as watching TV.

And the TV's we watched were Black and White... (I mean how racist can you get... {Chuckle})!

And we listened to LP's and 45's... today's kids thing a 45 is a gun!!!

Not to mention, we had no PC's, no internet, no portable phones, no electronic games or anything of the likes of kids today!

Helmets and pads were not required to ride a bicycle.

We played Jarts on our front or back yard lawns... currently outlawed game.

Merry go rounds and Jungle Jim's were standard park equipment.

We used sticks found in nearby woods to play Cowboys and Indians!

And probably many other things I don't readily remember.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Mar-12

It’s poetic justice as well as typical for humans, that the very children who cause so much upheaval to their parents generation have the same done to them twenty years or so later.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Mar-12

We had no social media!  That has been both the best and the worst cultural advancement.

TOP