Smart world

[Agent101us 310]

Warning, could possibly be offensive.

What if natural selection happened more often in humans?

Would some dieseases stop from passing from 1 to another? Would "dumb" people be filtered out? People with bad choices would've filtered, maybe people without a permanent job would be too. This kind of world sounds sad, but imagine: everyone has jobs, maybe fewer dieseases, everyone strives to do their best, overpopulation would take longer than right now.

[Hate 5,582]

Smart world but with a great cost, I see. 

[skills_from_valid 113]

What? Hate replies to an off topic post that isnt immediately locked?

[Agent101us 310]

What? Hate replies to an off topic post that isnt immediately locked?

Are you blind? This is the off topic section

Smart world but with a great cost, I see.

Yes. With overpopulation, we need a maximum birth number to each couple. Or we will make the next generation suffer from food shortages. So yes, we are on our way to danger

[Hate 5,582]

 

Why would it be locked, fellow tanker? It is in the right section and topic is not a spam topic or anything irrelevant. 

[skills_from_valid 113]

Why would it be locked, fellow tanker? It is in the right section and topic is not a spam topic or anything irrelevant. 

You always have to ruin everyones fun  :(

[Hate 5,582]

 

Did I, well I do apologize if I ruined anything. >.

[Boeing_787 1,455]

In such a world, people like the OP would be among the first to be "filtered out".

[Zomblistic 74]

If Natural Selection had been imposed, we wouldn't have people like:

 

Stephen Hawking

Theoretical Physicist

Completely paralyzed,  unable to speak

Motor Neuron disease similar to ALS

 

Hellen Keller

Author, Political Activist and Lecturer

Deaf and Blind

 

Jean-Dominique Bauby

French Journalist, Author

Lock-In Syndrome

Completely paralyzed and communicated by blinking his left eyelid, the only part of his body that he could move. Despite his severe disability, he wrote two books, "The Diving Bell" and "Butterfly" by someone repeating the alphabet over and over. When that person hit upon the right letter, Jean-Dominique would blink his eyelid.

 

Beethoven 

Composer and Pianist

Deaf

 

History is full of people who were born with physical and mental disabilities who had very high IQs. Many of them were high contributors to medicine, mathematics, journalism, etc. Some were tinkerers who came up with inventions we think of as being common place today. 

 

Mental illness does not equal stupid. Nor does a physical disability equal incapable. 

[Agent101us 310]

If Natural Selection had been imposed, we wouldn't have people like:

 

Stephen Hawking

Theoretical Physicist

Completely paralyzed, unable to speak

Motor Neuron disease similar to ALS

 

Hellen Keller

Author, Political Activist and Lecturer

Deaf and Blind

 

Jean-Dominique Bauby

French Journalist, Author

Lock-In Syndrome

Completely paralyzed and communicated by blinking his left eyelid, the only part of his body that he could move. Despite his severe disability, he wrote two books, "The Diving Bell" and "Butterfly" by someone repeating the alphabet over and over. When that person hit upon the right letter, Jean-Dominique would blink his eyelid.

 

Beethoven

Composer and Pianist

Deaf

 

History is full of people who were born with physical and mental disabilities who had very high IQs. Many of them were high contributors to medicine, mathematics, journalism, etc. Some were tinkerers who came up with inventions we think of as being common place today.

 

Mental illness does not equal stupid. Nor does a physical disability equal incapable.

Why not have Beethoven? He made money of of his music? Disable does not = able. it means you can't do something or you need help to do it. The general population only knows Hellen Keller cause she was deaf and blind but she could communicate. But this topic is called "smart world" high IQs mean they are "smart"

[dilsharox 2,395]

nice but i like the world the way it is 

this fantasy if yours is too perfect 

[splitterpoint 10,986]

I'd be banned if I explained everything but the current society doesn't let natural selection happen as it should. So sooner or later we'll get striked with a massive disease that'll 'purge' the human race. The pharmaceutical industry is one big maffia sustaining this cycle until the inevitable happens.

 

Ofcourse no one wants to lose their loved ones. Our emotions are so much involved in this. but all aside; when we look at us as species... at the natural selection aspect I think we're doing some seriously wrong things.

 

If you'd let natural selection go just as it's designed to,- I think there will (already in this current state) be massive outbreaks of respiratory infections on a global scale because natural selection has been kept low due to the radical changes in medical equipment.

 

I have heart complications myself. My heart valve is leaking due to lack of elasticity. I also have what's called an S4 gallop. I am monitored by the doctors but I probably shouldn't be here if you'd see it from natural selection perspective.

Edited August 1, 2017 by splitterpoint

[mydoom.exe 5,154]

I agree with Zomblistic. Some people simply don't have the means to showcase their talents to society, and thus don't rise to the top, be it because they have a debilitating disease/disorder, or because their intellect doesn't reflect their other abilities.

 

If natural selection were simply allowed to happen, we would be no different than the rest of the animal kingdom. We care for those who aren't up to par with the rest of society, we understand that the world isn't fair as it is, and we have a desire to change that. The idea of natural selection is born out of good intentions, but ultimately, I personally think it would have the complete opposite effect. There will always be those who are weak and those who are strong - natural selection doesn't change that. Look at evolution and its millions upon millions of years of natural selection and name one species that was able to do as much as we did by ignoring natural selection.

 

Now for an analysis:

 

 

Warning, could possibly be offensive.

 

Understandable.

What if natural selection happened more often in humans?
Would some dieseases stop from passing from 1 to another?

 

Diseases adapt too. They aren't dumb organisms that can't change, but are sentient life forms that have been proven time and again to be able to counter naturally selected animal mechanisms designed to beat that specific disease. Disease is a constant in life, you can't change that.

 

Would "dumb" people be filtered out?

 

Define dumb". Would "dumb" people simply be people with a certain IQ or lower, like, say, 90 or below? Or would "dumb" be someone below the average intelligence of the general populace? If the former, then no, that can't be "filtered" out. IQ isn't something you pass on to your descendants, it's an ever-changing variable, and if those with lower IQs just die off, we would never be able to have kids. If the latter, then the same reasoning applies, but there's a special edge of "are you serious mate" with that. There's always going to be people with lower or higher IQs than the population, you can't change change itself.

 

People with bad choices would've filtered,

 

Everyone would die at a much younger age then. Think of one person over the age of 20 who's never done something completely idiotic in their lifetime. At all.

 

maybe people without a permanent job would be too. 

 

And how would this work? Are you saying that in your world everyone just stops caring for each other all at once? Because that's really the only way someone without a permanent job would just die off so easily. And how about those who get fired for a completely ridiculous reason? What about anyone who simply can't have a job, be it because they're too young or old, or because of chronic illness? Are those people just worthless to society?

 

This kind of world sounds sad, but imagine: everyone has jobs,

 

Natural selection =/= Job opportunities

 

maybe fewer dieseases,

 

No.

 

everyone strives to do their best,

 

You can't just make people "do their best" by giving them the choice to either do that or face death and abandonment. Look at the Soviet gulags and Nazi death camps. Those worked well, right?

 

overpopulation would take longer than right now.

 

Or, you know, we can colonize other planets, or maybe utilize the oceans/the skies instead of flat-out killing a whole bunch of our own kind. Look for other solutions.

 

Natural selection isn't the best way or the only way. Actually, it isn't a good way at all. You wouldn't fix any problems at all, except maybe "overpopulation", but then you would get rid of a large chunk of the world's work force, free thinkers, top scientists, and just about everyone else. Not a great price to pay.

[monkeyburn 13,525]

In such a world, mental degeneration would occur, ultimately leading to physical degeneration. This is not to state that we need tragedy and disease to grow. However, in the case of independent though, it is critical for the survival of any species to acquire knowledge from life experience, in any form. Conclusively, we guard ourselves from what we refer to as "mistakes of the past" by what we have learned. We strive to put an end to that which causes tragedy, and disease, not for perfection, but so that we can become more independent. Without such independent thought process, their would be exclusion. Every person in our world has something to offer. In turn, every person is important. We are not robots. We are greater than our own technology. 

 

You see what I did there. I stand to be corrected...(their/there). You have used your independent thought process. Is Goooood. :)

 

[Agent101us 310]

Ok how about this. Minimize birth limit to every country 2 per mother. Legalize abortions, costly but legal. So then we will have the population under control and we don't need to worry about over populated starvation. Cause some people have 10 babies and that's over the limit. If you can't afford them, then don't!

——------------------------------------------------------------------——

I'm just kind of mad because is taxpayers have to pay for someone's health care cause they can't afford it. Likely he/she made a bad choice (drugs, early father/mother) and I don't feel like paying for someone who is a drug addict and can't get a job.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Agent101us

[Agent101us 310]

In such a world, mental degeneration would occur, ultimately leading to physical degeneration. This is not to state that we need tragedy and disease to grow. However, in the case of independent though, it is critical for the survival of any species to acquire knowledge from life experience, in any form. Conclusively, we guard ourselves from what we refer to as "mistakes of the past" by what we have learned. We strive to put an end to that which causes tragedy, and disease, not for perfection, but so that we can become more independent. Without such independent thought process, their would be exclusion. Every person in our world has something to offer. In turn, every person is important. We are not robots. We are greater than our own technology.

 

You see what I did there. I stand to be corrected...(their/there). You have used your independent thought process. Is Goooood. :)

 

Hmm. "We are greater than our own technology....." Yes.

But some people are dumber than technology. The people who make smart tech are the smart ones, the ones who use it and play video games and movies all the time aren't

[monkeyburn 13,525]

Hmm. "We are greater than our own technology....." Yes.

But some people are dumber than technology. The people who make smart tech are the smart ones, the ones who use it and play video games and movies all the time aren't

 

 

[personia 4,036]

Ok how about this. Minimize birth limit to every country 2 per mother. Legalize abortions, costly but legal. So then we will have the population under control and we don't need to worry about over populated starvation. Cause some people have 10 babies and that's over the limit. If you can't afford them, then don't!

——------------------------------------------------------------------——

I'm just kind of mad because is taxpayers have to pay for someone's health care cause they can't afford it. Likely he/she made a bad choice (drugs, early father/mother) and I don't feel like paying for someone who is a drug addict and can't get a job.

You can't do that in many poorer countries because people's children work in their farms and such so that they can make food to eat, and they can't get the food to eat if they have no children, so they all die.

 

The problem with your idea is that you first have to remove other inequalities such as poverty, differences in education systems and other such things. Who's to say that the Africans who have never even heard of an IQ test, let alone taken one are dumb? Get them an education worth a damn and then we'll see how dumb they are. But I don't see you volunteering to pay for their education...

 

Secondly, if someone is dumb, but makes great art or music or something that doesn't fall into the typical category of smart, do they die? Are we all mindless drones with now art, music or creativity?

 

There are more things I could say, but I think you get the point and I have to go. The funniest thing about this is that do you think the dumb people would just happily go along with this? I know I wouldn't...

Edited August 1, 2017 by personia

[L.I.I3.3.I2.T.Y 820]

That wouldn't happen in today's society.

[falcosenna1 8,320]

I'd be banned if I explained everything but the current society doesn't let natural selection happen as it should. So sooner or later we'll get striked with a massive disease that'll 'purge' the human race. The pharmaceutical industry is one big maffia sustaining this cycle until the inevitable happens.

 

 

 

Ofcourse no one wants to lose their loved ones. Our emotions are so much involved in this. but all aside; when we look at us as species... at the natural selection aspect I think we're doing some seriously wrong things.

 

If you'd let natural selection go just as it's designed to,- I think there will (already in this current state) be massive outbreaks of respiratory infections on a global scale because natural selection has been kept low due to the radical changes in medical equipment.

 

I have heart complications myself. My heart valve is leaking due to lack of elasticity. I also have what's called an S4 gallop. I am monitored by the doctors but I probably shouldn't be here if you'd see it from natural selection perspective.

 

So are you pro or contra in terms of the medical evolution?

 

I'm a medical student and I, too, think the pharmaceutical industry is some sort of 'one big maffia' as you're naming it, nothing different from other big-money-companies. Though, I'd like to make a distinction between pharmaceutical research on the one hand and the production and sale of pharmaceutical products on the other hand, although inseparable from each other.

Edited August 1, 2017 by falcosenna1

[mydoom.exe 5,154]

I'm just kind of mad because is taxpayers have to pay for someone's health care cause they can't afford it. Likely he/she made a bad choice (drugs, early father/mother) and I don't feel like paying for someone who is a drug addict and can't get a job.

Birth. Control. And. Natural. Selection. Wouldn't. Do. Anything. To. Help. You. With. That.

 

Essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who makes a choice that leads them to become the "scum" of society should be executed, which is stupid and wouldn't help in any way whatsoever. If your idea were to be implemented, nothing would change. Drugs are extremely powerful, much more so than you'd think, and I have firsthand experience of that - addicts want nothing more than to stop, but they can't. The allure is too strong even for those with much more common sense than needed to know how harmful any sort of addictive behaviour can be to their well-being.

 

The fact of the matter is that you have to help your own kind, whether you like it or not, because if no-one helped anyone, everyone would be in the exact same dirt hole as the people you're describing.

 

 

Take ancient military supergiant Sparta for example. A quick browse through history shows that they only kept the strongest and fittest of children to survive their brutal training regimens. Look where that took them.

[L.I.I3.3.I2.T.Y 820]

Well, to add, the evolutionary pressure always changes, which makes the term 'superior' always dependent on time and place.

 

Society is all about progress, a smart world can only be ensured, when society complies with ideas of Dialectical Materialism.

Edited August 1, 2017 by L.I.I3.3.I2.T.Y

[Agent101us 310]

You can't do that in many poorer countries because people's children work in their farms and such so that they can make food to eat, and they can't get the food to eat if they have no children, so they all die.

 

The problem with your idea is that you first have to remove other inequalities such as poverty, differences in education systems and other such things. Who's to say that the Africans who have never even heard of an IQ test, let alone taken one are dumb? Get them an education worth a damn and then we'll see how dumb they are. But I don't see you volunteering to pay for their education...

 

Secondly, if someone is dumb, but makes great art or music or something that doesn't fall into the typical category of smart, do they die? Are we all mindless drones with now art, music or creativity?

 

 

if they make money off of art or music, them of course they can survive! You make money and your good. Well maybe poor countries should rethink their government and trade, that will help.

[mydoom.exe 5,154]

if they make money off of art or music, them of course they can survive! You make money and your good. Well maybe poor countries should rethink their government and trade, that will help.

It's not that simple - you can't just "rethink" your government and trade options, because oftentimes, there are no options apart from the one they currently have. Former African colonies are a big example of this.

 

"You make money and you're good" doesn't work either. To get money, someone has to give money, and in your world where only the best survive, nobody wants to give money. Actually, would money even be a thing if all that matters is being an extremely talented thief? That would work wonders.

[splitterpoint 10,986]

So are you pro or contra in terms of the medical evolution?

 

I'm a medical student and I, too, think the pharmaceutical industry is some sort of 'one big maffia' as you're naming it, nothing different from other big-money-companies. Though, I'd like to make a distinction between pharmaceutical research on the one hand and the production and sale of pharmaceutical products on the other hand, although inseparable from each other.

That's a great question! I guess it's in our nature to explore. We want to understand everything. The most brilliant minds come up with the most brilliant breaktroughs. I personally love science. I hate math alone but I find it really interesting when it's applied in biology for example. The medical evolution won't stop and the new technologies lead to some great stuff.

 

The ethical aspect of science is something else. And I have no idea how to put that but there's a limit in how far science can go. I don't think we'll do that as humans though because we always seek for some sort of explanation for everything. I am sure the societal acceptability of scientific research is an important and rather difficult topic in your study. You know more of that than me, I'm just saying what comes up to my mind currently.

 

Recently I've seen read something about scientist reversing age in mice with a protein called P53. An absolute radical breakthrough. The concept of it is rather simple actually and so is the medicine so there are already test samples being sold for a huge price on the black market.

Edited August 2, 2017 by splitterpoint