A Weakening of the gene pool

[EternalOptimist]

In the olden days, we used to have survival of the fittest, if you could not compete, you were dead.
Nowadays, everybody survives(give or take), even if you are not 'fitted'

Will this result in a weakening of the gene pool ? or doesn't it matter any more

[NotAllThere]

Inevitably it results in a shallowing of the gene pool. The idiots will take over, unless we apply the final solution. ( March of the Morons ).

[RichardCranium]

Eugenics.

But the price, oh!, the price.

[expat]

In the olden days, we used to have survival of the fittest, if you could not compete, you were dead.
Nowadays, everybody survives(give or take), even if you are not 'fitted'

Will this result in a weakening of the gene pool ? or doesn't it matter any more

Misconceptions all round.

1. 'Survival of the fittest' is not a moral judgement. The 'fittest' are not more 'fit' in any sense except that they are better suited than others to survive in a given environment. Different environments could have lead to different survival factors and so to different 'fittest'. There is nothing special about one environment over another: ask the dinosaurs. They were the fittest in one environment, but not in another.

2. 'Weakening' of the gene pool? What do you mean? No really, do you mean anything by that? Because you are showing a lamentable misunderstanding of the mechanism of evolution by natural selection:
(a) variation in the range of inheritable characteristics comes from somewhere. It doesn't matter where from; as it happens it is normally chance mutations.
This gives the raw material for the second aspect:
(b) natural selection. The 'fittest' survive and pass on their genetic material more than others, so they come to predominate.
Now you say, does the gene pool become 'weaker' (or 'shallower', NotAllThere) if elimination by selection does not happen? No, the opposite is true! If there is no natural selection to make the 'less fit' extinct, more variety remains in the gene pool. The gene pool is deeper and more varied if it is not selected.

IMHO you do not mean the gene pool, you just make a moral judgement on the value of the set of surviving individuals; that is not the same thing.

3. Evolution is not so much the survival of an individual, but the survival of characteristics in individuals, and the passage of these characteristics genetically by procreation. This latter is selected not only by natural selection (i.e. the more likely you are to survive = the more likely you are to have offspring), but also by sexual selection (i.e. you have to be attractive to potential mates if you want to have any offspring).
Sexual selection will still be operative, so humanity will just get better-looking as time goes by......

[gingerjedi]

Would the human race be:

a) Better looking
b) Uglier
c) About the same

Had spectacles not been invented?

[Churchill]

Would the human race be:

a) Better looking
b) Uglier
c) About the same

Had spectacles not been invented?

Beer - Shirley?

[EternalOptimist]

Misconceptions all round.

1. 'Survival of the fittest' is not a moral judgement. The 'fittest' are not more 'fit' in any sense except that they are better suited than others to survive in a given environment. Different environments could have lead to different survival factors and so to different 'fittest'. There is nothing special about one environment over another: ask the dinosaurs. They were the fittest in one environment, but not in another.

2. 'Weakening' of the gene pool? What do you mean? No really, do you mean anything by that? Because you are showing a lamentable misunderstanding of the mechanism of evolution by natural selection:
(a) variation in the range of inheritable characteristics comes from somewhere. It doesn't matter where from; as it happens it is normally chance mutations.
This gives the raw material for the second aspect:
(b) natural selection. The 'fittest' survive and pass on their genetic material more than others, so they come to predominate.
Now you say, does the gene pool become 'weaker' (or 'shallower', NotAllThere) if elimination by selection does not happen? No, the opposite is true! If there is no natural selection to make the 'less fit' extinct, more variety remains in the gene pool. The gene pool is deeper and more varied if it is not selected.

IMHO you do not mean the gene pool, you just make a moral judgement on the value of the set of surviving individuals; that is not the same thing.

3. Evolution is not so much the survival of an individual, but the survival of characteristics in individuals, and the passage of these characteristics genetically by procreation. This latter is selected not only by natural selection (i.e. the more likely you are to survive = the more likely you are to have offspring), but also by sexual selection (i.e. you have to be attractive to potential mates if you want to have any offspring).
Sexual selection will still be operative, so humanity will just get better-looking as time goes by......

what I meant was this.
In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear.
for the sake of argument - a person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

[DimPrawn]

I'd suggest killing all ugly stupid people....but I'm too young to die.

[expat]

what I meant was this.
In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear.
for the sake of argument - a person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

I understand, and no it doesn't. It represents the continuation of a genetic characteristic that predisposes the bearer to a physical weakness. If you want to suggest that that means a 'weaker gene pool' I'd have to ask you what you mean by that, and I'd ask you in that sarcastic tone that implies that you don't actually have a rational meaning for it

1. from the point of view of evolution, the 'gene pool' is the total pool of genes available for selection. It is not an average or anything like that. It just means the total genetic material in existence (actually the use of the word 'pool' implies '... available for selection').

OK, so what would make that 'weaker'? What is 'strength' or 'weakness' in a gene pool?

2. what evolution does with that gene pool is not use it all, nor use some kind of average of it. What evolution does with the gene pool is select from it. Therefore it would seem that having more variety in the gene pool would not be a weakening, it would be a strengthening, because there is more to choose from.

3. IMHO you are not talking about a weaker gene pool, you are talking about a 'weaker' result of this new evolutionary selection. It's not a weakening if the gene pool, arguably it's a strengthening of it. It's not the abolition of evolution by selection, it's just a change in the parameters. And you are falling into the classic fallacy of imposing your own ideas of 'fittest' on evolution's selection process.


If people with genetic predisposition to a weak immune system now do not die when they would have before, all that is happening is that that genetic predisposition is no longer a cause of not being fit to survive. Who are you to say that those people are less fit? If evolution says so by eliminating them, I'd believe it. But the whole point is that they are not now unfit.

So no, there is no weakening of the gene pool. Just a shift in selection parameters. There is an increase in the number of people that you think are weaker. That's your opinion, nothing to do with evolution or gene pool.

[EternalOptimist]

I understand, and no it doesn't. It represents the continuation of a genetic characteristic that predisposes the bearer to a physical weakness. If you want to suggest that that means a 'weaker gene pool' I'd have to ask you what you mean by that, and I'd ask you in that sarcastic tone that implies that you don't actually have a rational meaning for it

1. from the point of view of evolution, the 'gene pool' is the total pool of genes available for selection. It is not an average or anything like that. It just means the total genetic material in existence (actually the use of the word 'pool' implies '... available for selection').

OK, so what would make that 'weaker'? What is 'strength' or 'weakness' in a gene pool?

2. what evolution does with that gene pool is not use it all, nor use some kind of average of it. What evolution does with the gene pool is select from it. Therefore it would seem that having more variety in the gene pool would not be a weakening, it would be a strengthening, because there is more to choose from.

3. IMHO you are not talking about a weaker gene pool, you are talking about a 'weaker' result of this new evolutionary selection. It's not a weakening if the gene pool, arguably it's a strengthening of it. It's not the abolition of evolution by selection, it's just a change in the parameters. And you are falling into the classic fallacy of imposing your own ideas of 'fittest' on evolution's selection process.


If people with genetic predisposition to a weak immune system now do not die when they would have before, all that is happening is that that genetic predisposition is no longer a cause of not being fit to survive. Who are you to say that those people are less fit? If evolution says so by eliminating them, I'd believe it. But the whole point is that they are not now unfit.

So no, there is no weakening of the gene pool. Just a shift in selection parameters. There is an increase in the number of people that you think are weaker. That's your opinion, nothing to do with evolution or gene pool.

Well some people might disagree with you there.
The fact that there was one person who had a genetic weakness, or disposition to a poorer immune system has led on to more , after breeding.
So we now have a group of people would are 'fit' only because they are propped up by technology.
do you understand how the 'screwfly principle' works ?