Evolution question

[ray245]

To put it simply, what I want to ask is this.

Are we the one influencing our evolutionary path will be like, or is it nature itself that 'decides' or affect what will we evolved into? (No, I am NOT talking about Intelligent design)

In short form, can we choose how our species will look like with our desire for more knowledge or is it determinded from the start ( for example, because humans was evolved to make full use of their brain to survive, it will lead to humans requiring certain changes to our body functions and shape because we are humans)

Tell me if anyone can understand what am I trying to say..it's rather hard for me to put my ideas into words.

[Lusankya]

To put it simply, what I want to ask is this.

Are we the one influencing our evolutionary path will be like, or is it nature itself that 'decides' or affect what will we evolved into? (No, I am NOT talking about Intelligent design)

The environment determines which traits breed more successfully. New traits (mutations) occur randomly, but it's the environment which determines how successful those mutations are. A mutation which causes an animal's fur to be thicker, for example would be quite successful in a cold environment, but not so successful in the tropics.

In short form, can we choose how our species will look like with our desire for more knowledge or is it determinded from the start ( for example, because humans was evolved to make full use of their brain to survive, it will lead to humans requiring certain changes to our body functions and shape because we are humans)

I guess humans could drive their own evolution, to a certain extent, since humans are one of the largest impacts on the environment at the moment, and if we really wanted, we could run large-scale eugenics projects to increase "desirable" traits, but the moral objections there are quite obvious, I would think.

[Shroom Man 777]

We can influence the environment, destroy the environment, or create our own environment. With medicine and healthcare, we've partially stopped natural selection from culling our infirm and weak. With transportation technology, there aren't really any isolated bits of humanity left - and doesn't evolution manifest itself quite drastically in isolated populations (like island mega/microfauna, etc.).

I wonder if this means we're causing our own evolution to stagnate. Without natural selection and isolation to produce interesting subspecies...hrm.

[Turin]

I'd imagine humanities pursuit of better standards of living has, over the millenia, already altered our evolutionary path. Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example. Because in the West the poor outbreed the rich, any traits they share that contributes to their poverty (genetic components of low intelligence, for example) will also increase in frequency.

But because evolution is decided by death (as DW put it in the Obesity & Evolution thread) actively pursuing a particular evolutionary path involves managed breeding and/or eugenics. The only other option, but one not yet available, is genetic engineering.

[Broomstick]

We can influence the environment, destroy the environment, or create our own environment. With medicine and healthcare, we've partially stopped natural selection from culling our infirm and weak. With transportation technology, there aren't really any isolated bits of humanity left - and doesn't evolution manifest itself quite drastically in isolated populations (like island mega/microfauna, etc.).

I wonder if this means we're causing our own evolution to stagnate. Without natural selection and isolation to produce interesting subspecies...hrm.

Arguably, being such a successful species and all, we don't need more evolving at this point, just some selective pruning to maintain the current successful model - and for all its flaw, the current human form IS quite successful

But remember, we do affect our environment. Take medicine, for instance. There are genetic traits that affect how one responds to certain drugs such as painkillers and anesthesia, and those that tolerate these chemicals better are more likely to survive medical procedures that enable them to live longer, reproduce, etc. We have poured lots of new chemicals into the environment, some of which can affect fertility as well as health. Again, those whose bodies deal best with these will leave more descendants. Granted you can't see these changes, but they are still there and that, barring genetic engineering, is where most of our current evolving in happening and not in major aspects of our external appearance. Evolution never stopped for the human race, nor is it likely to ever do so.

[Vehrec]

I'd imagine humanities pursuit of better standards of living has, over the millenia, already altered our evolutionary path. Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example.

Bingo. Dissease resistance, lactase tolerance, and insulin rebalanceing have all been major themes of recent human evolution that are tied to agriculture and urbanization. Don't believe me? Look and see how all three of these factors are missing from non or transitional agricultural societies like the American Indians. Our biochemistry is our fastest evolving component.
However, guided Eugenics still caries a strong stigma and is unlikely to ever occur in the form proposed in the early 20th century. Much more likely is the eventual appearance of designer children, complete with bizarre Anime hair colors and 180 IQ standard. I can only hope they will not hold us hostage with their bizarre powers.

[Broomstick]

I think the likely outcome of designer children will be super-intelligent, neurotic adults who rebel against their parents expectations and run off to live in the woods or become folks publishing poetry while working as garbage collectors to pay the rent on their trailers. At least some of the time.

Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't make them able to function well in society. There's more to being successful than being smart.

As for weird hair colors - I could just see a generation of kids with pink and green and blue hair going out and dying it all brown.

[Surlethe]

In fact, given that the human species now has nearly seven billion members (and growing!), it's going to be evolving more quickly because there will be more mutations in the total population. This will serve to increase population variation. Given how quickly we are shaping our environment, there are and will continue to be selection pressures; Broomstick mentioned some, and others that come to mind are tolerance for pollution, tolerance of living around many strangers, and resistance to antibiotic-resistant drugs.

Evolution is the way nature works. It's not going to stop, and it's not going to go away simply because "traditional" selection pressures, like disease culling the young and weak, are no longer relevant.

Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example.

IIRC, there's a gene present in most people of European descent that relates to resistance to the black plague. I've heard it speculated that when the black plague killed off a third of Europe's population, it selected heavily for that resistance. We'll also probably start seeing AIDS resistance in Africa, too, by the same reasoning.

[ray245]

In fact, given that the human species now has nearly seven billion members (and growing!), it's going to be evolving more quickly because there will be more mutations in the total population. This will serve to increase population variation. Given how quickly we are shaping our environment, there are and will continue to be selection pressures; Broomstick mentioned some, and others that come to mind are tolerance for pollution, tolerance of living around many strangers, and resistance to antibiotic-resistant drugs.

Evolution is the way nature works. It's not going to stop, and it's not going to go away simply because "traditional" selection pressures, like disease culling the young and weak, are no longer relevant.

Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example.

IIRC, there's a gene present in most people of European descent that relates to resistance to the black plague. I've heard it speculated that when the black plague killed off a third of Europe's population, it selected heavily for that resistance. We'll also probably start seeing AIDS resistance in Africa, too, by the same reasoning.

But surely we could 'control' over aspects of evolution, like our IQ for instance.

People with low IQ ( or retarded, I hate to use this word) will mean that they is a very low possibility of them actually being able to have children, thus humanity as a whole COULD ensure that the next human species will not 'devolve' in respect to our intelligent level.


There has been alot of science fiction novels where humanity was involved in nuclear war and end up being more stupid than our generation.

Evolution is simply finding a way for the certain species to surivie and adapt well to the enviroment, hence it may 'replace' intelligent with a better survival chance( like being more resistance to nuclear fallout) .
This is what I hate.

Will we really degrade in our intelligent to surivie a more harsh condition?

[Broomstick]

IIRC, there's a gene present in most people of European descent that relates to resistance to the black plague. I've heard it speculated that when the black plague killed off a third of Europe's population, it selected heavily for that resistance. We'll also probably start seeing AIDS resistance in Africa, too, by the same reasoning.

We've genetic-based HIV resistance in both Africa and Europe since the late 1980's. Interestingly enough, the African and European mutations are completely different (although at least one European variant is apparently related to resistance to Y. pestis, the Black Death bacteria).

[Alyrium Denryle]

re we the one influencing our evolutionary path will be like, or is it nature itself that 'decides' or affect what will we evolved into? (No, I am NOT talking about Intelligent design)

In short form, can we choose how our species will look like with our desire for more knowledge or is it determinded from the start ( for example, because humans was evolved to make full use of their brain to survive, it will lead to humans requiring certain changes to our body functions and shape because we are humans)

We are basically at the mercy of natural selection. The good part is, we can control our environment to a large degree and thus shape (but not completely control) it and thus shape selective pressure.

In other words, it is a bit of both.

we've partially stopped natural selection from culling our infirm and weak

That is actually not true. First off it begs the question of whether or not natural selection "should" cull off what we define as "weak" If there is no selective pressure then natural selection should not act upon particular traits.

All we have done is shift selective pressure more toward traits that influence social interactions rather than physical health. Though the later still exists.

With transportation technology, there aren't really any isolated bits of humanity left - and doesn't evolution manifest itself quite drastically in isolated populations (like island mega/microfauna, etc.).

There still is not that much gene flow between many populations. Smaller sub-populations yes, but not say, europe and the US.

I'd imagine humanities pursuit of better standards of living has, over the millenia, already altered our evolutionary path. Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example. Because in the West the poor outbreed the rich, any traits they share that contributes to their poverty (genetic components of low intelligence, for example) will also increase in frequency.

rich and poor should probably almost be treated as different populations.

Additionally, Also, the heritability of intelligence is a bit under half last I checked. But guess what, that just means "variation due to genetics" so a bit under half of the variation in intelligence is due to genetics, that is population wide. You would think that if "low intelligence" genes were increasing in frequency within the population some would go to fixation and there would be less than that due to genetics. But it simply is not true. There are a lot of clever poor people. One almost has to be clever if they want to survive in a violent world with few resources...

You mistake education for intelligence. Stop it.

rguably, being such a successful species and all, we don't need more evolving at this point, just some selective pruning to maintain the current successful model

Selection never stops ticking. All that happens is the pressures shift. For example, we primarily operate under sexual and kin selection these days.

People with low IQ ( or retarded, I hate to use this word) will mean that they is a very low possibility of them actually being able to have children, thus humanity as a whole COULD ensure that the next human species will not 'devolve' in respect to our intelligent level.

Echange theory kicks in. Stupid people tend to mate with stupid people. So unless you want to legislatively keep them from mating...

[Shroom Man 777]

We have poured lots of new chemicals into the environment, some of which can affect fertility as well as health. Again, those whose bodies deal best with these will leave more descendants. Granted you can't see these changes, but they are still there and that, barring genetic engineering, is where most of our current evolving in happening and not in major aspects of our external appearance. Evolution never stopped for the human race, nor is it likely to ever do so.

Yeah, we're still imposing natural selection on ourselves with all the chemical-alterations we're doing to our environment. Like cancer-rates, people who are susceptible to cancer, and people who aren't prone to it. I'm not really sure if cancer rates have increased with all the crap we've pumped into the air or if people have been dying of cancer ever since ever...but my mom works as a pathologist and she gets cancer samples all the time - breasts and ovaries removed from people and placed inside ice cream containers full of formalin, etc. Thinking about all those people who've had bits of them removed because they're getting tumors, man...

Maybe in the future cancer rates will decline after natural selection eventually leaves behind folks who aren't so sensitive to cancer?

(I know it's not that simple)

[Broomstick]

People with low IQ ( or retarded, I hate to use this word) will mean that they is a very low possibility of them actually being able to have children, thus humanity as a whole COULD ensure that the next human species will not 'devolve' in respect to our intelligent level.

You are assuming that most, if not all, instances of low intelligence are due to genetic reasons. They aren't. Yes, trisomy 21 has a very strong correlation with mental retardation, and there are a handful of other chromosomal and/or gene disorders that have that effect, but a LOT of people who are retarded are so for reasons other than genes. If such people marry and produce children (and that does happen) their children are just as likely as the offspring of normal people to have average or even above average intelligence. An early brain infection that leaves a person retarded doesn't affect their genes. Something that cuts off oxygen in the womb doesn't affect the genes.

Even if you prevented every mentally below average person from reproducing you wouldn't have a noticable effect on the next generation because there are still a multitude of environmental effects, new mutations, and so on.

There has been alot of science fiction novels where humanity was involved in nuclear war and end up being more stupid than our generation.

You have to be pretty fucking stupid to build the weapons of your own destruction and then use them. Most of those novels wind up with people being less educated, which is different than stupid.

Evolution is simply finding a way for the certain species to surivie and adapt well to the enviroment, hence it may 'replace' intelligent with a better survival chance( like being more resistance to nuclear fallout) .
This is what I hate.

Why? If high intelligence leads to nuclear war it's NOT a survival trait! Primate species tend to be more intelligent than other species, but the fossil record seems to indicate they don't endure as long as other species. That makes them less fit in evolutionary terms than, say, cockroaches.

Will we really degrade in our intelligent to surivie a more harsh condition?

Well, they ones that don't won't leave offspring, so I guess the answer is yes.

Evolution doesn't care what we like or value. That's why we have such things as sickle cell anemia. Evolution doesn't care that enabling 1/2 the population to resist malaria condemns 1/4 to a miserable existence and early death.

On the upside, evolution isn't against what we value, either. If intelligence leads to social systems and education that enable more of us to survive and leave descendants then evolution will favor more intelligence.

[Turin]

IIRC, there's a gene present in most people of European descent that relates to resistance to the black plague. I've heard it speculated that when the black plague killed off a third of Europe's population, it selected heavily for that resistance. We'll also probably start seeing AIDS resistance in Africa, too, by the same reasoning.

We've genetic-based HIV resistance in both Africa and Europe since the late 1980's. Interestingly enough, the African and European mutations are completely different (although at least one European variant is apparently related to resistance to Y. pestis, the Black Death bacteria).

Of course, keep in mind that while we're "seeing genetic-based resistance," this unfortunately doesn't get us out of the large amount of death that has to occur while we're waiting for said genes to spread.

I'd imagine humanities pursuit of better standards of living has, over the millenia, already altered our evolutionary path. Urban living over the last 6000 years has probably selected for disease resistance, for example. Because in the West the poor outbreed the rich, any traits they share that contributes to their poverty (genetic components of low intelligence, for example) will also increase in frequency.

rich and poor should probably almost be treated as different populations.

Additionally, Also, the heritability of intelligence is a bit under half last I checked. But guess what, that just means "variation due to genetics" so a bit under half of the variation in intelligence is due to genetics, that is population wide. You would think that if "low intelligence" genes were increasing in frequency within the population some would go to fixation and there would be less than that due to genetics. But it simply is not true. There are a lot of clever poor people. One almost has to be clever if they want to survive in a violent world with few resources...

You mistake education for intelligence. Stop it.

I'm not, actually, and I thought I'd worded that paragraph very carefully to avoid the impression that I was. I'm saying that people with genetic factors that reduce their intelligence are more likely to be poor (again, in the West), all other things being equal. Therefore, one would expect those gene frequencies to increase in poor populations in the future. I should point out, that we're probably not yet to the point today where this is the case. You said so yourself that you can effectively treat rich and poor populations as seperate. This will exacerbate any genetic difference over time.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not, actually, and I thought I'd worded that paragraph very carefully to avoid the impression that I was. I'm saying that people with genetic factors that reduce their intelligence are more likely to be poor (again, in the West), all other things being equal.

I am not sure that is necessarily true though. Do you have research that backs this up? The problem is uncoupling the genetic effects from the environmental ones. Our class system is such that only the very brightest can really escape poverty, so much of the variation within even a poor population remains, such that I am not sure that we would really find a statistically significant difference if we say, took the children of poor people and the children of rich people and raised them in the same environment.

Therefore, one would expect those gene frequencies to increase in poor populations in the future. I should point out, that we're probably not yet to the point today where this is the case. You said so yourself that you can effectively treat rich and poor populations as seperate. This will exacerbate any genetic difference over time.

Only if drift were the prime actor in the system. If selection is stronger, and especially with the large population (even if we discount gene flow the populations are big enough that drift will be weak) that will only happen if there is sufficient pressure on the population to become less intelligent (say, idiots enjoy a reproductive advantage). But given the environment they live in, if anything there is probably at least weak selection on becoming more intelligent (as opposed to more educated....)

[Turin]

I'm not, actually, and I thought I'd worded that paragraph very carefully to avoid the impression that I was. I'm saying that people with genetic factors that reduce their intelligence are more likely to be poor (again, in the West), all other things being equal.

I am not sure that is necessarily true though. Do you have research that backs this up?

After the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the APA produced a report (PDF) that demonstrated that

In the United States today, high test scores and grades are prerequisites for entry into many careers and professions. This is not quite the whole story, however: a significant correlation between psychometric intelligence and occupational status remains even when measures of education and family background have been statistically controlled. There are also modest (negative) correlations between intelligence test scores and certain undesirable behaviors such as juvenile crime. Those correlations are necessarily low: all social outcomes result from complex causal webs in which psychometric skills are only one factor.

Most of the rest of the document rebukes a lot of that particular book's position, of course. I'm not arguing from that viewpoint.

The problem is uncoupling the genetic effects from the environmental ones. Our class system is such that only the very brightest can really escape poverty, so much of the variation within even a poor population remains, such that I am not sure that we would really find a statistically significant difference if we say, took the children of poor people and the children of rich people and raised them in the same environment.

Just so that we're on the same page, when I'm referring to "rich" in this case, I'm not talking about the ultrarich top 1% category. I'd certainly count well-paid professionals like lawyers, doctors, engineers in this category. (Someone who doesn't consider that group "rich" has never lived in a real poor community, in my experience.)

That said, I think I'm seeing what you're getting at. If you're only "pretty smart" and poor, you'll still be poor, because you're not "very very smart." So the variation is preserved without additional selection pressure. Correct?

Therefore, one would expect those gene frequencies to increase in poor populations in the future. I should point out, that we're probably not yet to the point today where this is the case. You said so yourself that you can effectively treat rich and poor populations as seperate. This will exacerbate any genetic difference over time.

Only if drift were the prime actor in the system. If selection is stronger, and especially with the large population (even if we discount gene flow the populations are big enough that drift will be weak) that will only happen if there is sufficient pressure on the population to become less intelligent (say, idiots enjoy a reproductive advantage). But given the environment they live in, if anything there is probably at least weak selection on becoming more intelligent (as opposed to more educated....)

One could easily make an argument that more intelligent individuals will have the same tendency to reproduce less (or delay reproduction, which can have the same effect) that is found in the "rich" population. It seems to me that quantifying the forces of any selection pressure, the degree to which intelligent individuals drift out of the population, and the genetic "inertia" of the population are still open questions.

[Mayabird]

I'm not, actually, and I thought I'd worded that paragraph very carefully to avoid the impression that I was. I'm saying that people with genetic factors that reduce their intelligence are more likely to be poor (again, in the West), all other things being equal.

I am not sure that is necessarily true though. Do you have research that backs this up? The problem is uncoupling the genetic effects from the environmental ones. Our class system is such that only the very brightest can really escape poverty, so much of the variation within even a poor population remains, such that I am not sure that we would really find a statistically significant difference if we say, took the children of poor people and the children of rich people and raised them in the same environment.

Actually, it IS true that mental retardation is more common in the poor, but it's more a case of the cart being before the horse. They're not poor because they're retarded. They're retarded because they're poor. Cases of severe mental retardation, the ones that actually have genetic components like chromosomal anomalies are equally prevalent in all social classes. Lesser cases are more frequently seen in the poor because they're more likely to be sick, not get enough to eat, won't get as much stimulation, and so on.

You may have heard how with increasing levels of proper nutrition over the past few decades in many places, people are getting taller. People's IQs (as measured in tests) also rose for similar reasons. Nutrients go first to development, and if there's anything left, they can go to growth and brain development. Simply put, you can't get smart if your brain is starved when you're young. And it has nothing to do with genetics at all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In the United States today, high test scores and grades are prerequisites for entry into many careers and professions. This is not quite the whole story, however: a significant correlation between psychometric intelligence and occupational status remains even when measures of education and family background have been statistically controlled. There are also modest (negative) correlations between intelligence test scores and certain undesirable behaviors such as juvenile crime. Those correlations are necessarily low: all social outcomes result from complex causal webs in which psychometric skills are only one factor.

Ok, from what I read of this paragraph, and I still need to read through the entire paper (I have a few others to read right now... one on maximum thermal tolerance in harvester ants, another in predator avoidance by anuran larva, and yet another on adaptation from standing genetic variation, so this one is last on my list) but it seems self evident to me that smarter people, even when family background etc are controlled will have higher occupational status. What that does not do is is uncouple genetics from environment. So, it doesnt really tell me anything new

That said, I think I'm seeing what you're getting at. If you're only "pretty smart" and poor, you'll still be poor, because you're not "very very smart." So the variation is preserved without additional selection pressure. Correct?

Basically yes. It does not really matter how

One could easily make an argument that more intelligent individuals will have the same tendency to reproduce less (or delay reproduction, which can have the same effect) that is found in the "rich" population. It seems to me that quantifying the forces of any selection pressure, the degree to which intelligent individuals drift out of the population, and the genetic "inertia" of the population are still open questions.

Actually it would be very difficult to make that argument. The reason is that it is not intelligence that is correlated with delayed reproduction but rather wealth status and stability.

think of it this way.

When do organisms delay reproduction?
1) When the lifespan is long. With a long lifespan, an organism can afford to delay reproduction until conditions are optimal for said reproduction. In humans they can wait until they are established in life and have a good resource base.
2) When resources are dependable. If the resources are not present yet, but will be (such as when the organism is is young) they will delay reproduction.

Relatively poor people have shorter life expectancies, and resources are scare and uncertain. They cant afford to delay reproduction and this is independent of their intelligence. The smarter ones may well be better parents, able to instill a good strong work ethic, keep their kids off drugs, and create a stable environment but the point remains that humans have a lot of phenotypic plasticity and the behavioral syndrome (in the biological sense, not pathogenic by any means) that we see will shift in frequency with the environment even if the genetics do not change between populations.

It is basically the same with reduced reproduction. Organisms in unstable environments will often have more offspring they can definitely support as an insurance policy in case one kicks the bucket, and in the hope that they may be able to obtain the resources to provide for both. Organisms in stable environments (like a gated community ) dont need to do this and will have only as many offspring as they can comfortable support. This of course applies only to organisms with parental care.

Risky behavior in males is the same thing. The reproductive success of males is determined by status and power. Their genetics are only part of this, they determine whether someone is physically attractive, which does give them a significant leg up in achieving status and power on its own. However, when it comes to mate selection in social organisms physical attractiveness (good genes) often take a back seat to the ability to obtain resources and protect offspring. In impoverished environments, there are not enough resources to go around. To obtain resources males have to engage in risky behavior (like crime) and come into conflict with other males trying to do the same thing, they will also form alliances with other males 9I wonder if someone has come up with an evolutionary theory for street gangs?) Their relative success in these conflicts increases their reproductive success in their environment.

In stable, resource rich environments this sort of behavio does not exist nearly as often, and males obtain status and power through other means. , such as education, enteprise etc.

*pants*

[Turin]

Ok, from what I read of this paragraph, and I still need to read through the entire paper (I have a few others to read right now... one on maximum thermal tolerance in harvester ants, another in predator avoidance by anuran larva, and yet another on adaptation from standing genetic variation, so this one is last on my list) but it seems self evident to me that smarter people, even when family background etc are controlled will have higher occupational status. What that does not do is is uncouple genetics from environment. So, it doesnt really tell me anything new

I'm not saying it uncouples genetics from environment. My intent, for that article, was only to provide evidence for higher frequency of intelligence in richer populations -- per your request.

One could easily make an argument that more intelligent individuals will have the same tendency to reproduce less (or delay reproduction, which can have the same effect) that is found in the "rich" population. <snip>

Actually it would be very difficult to make that argument. The reason is that it is not intelligence that is correlated with delayed reproduction but rather wealth status and stability.
<snip for brevity>
It is basically the same with reduced reproduction. Organisms in unstable environments will often have more offspring they can definitely support as an insurance policy in case one kicks the bucket, and in the hope that they may be able to obtain the resources to provide for both. Organisms in stable environments (like a gated community ) dont need to do this and will have only as many offspring as they can comfortable support. This of course applies only to organisms with parental care.

This holds more-or-less absolutely for non-human animals, but does it really hold for humans? Ignore the wealthy for a moment and just focus on the poor/working-class. A more intelligent person in that situation is more likely to realize that having offspring can reduce their ability to create greater stability in their lives. Whereas a less intelligent person is more likely to have lots of offspring as a result of the biological impetus you've described.

Let's use a real-life hypothetical. In my neighborhood here in West Philly (predominately working-class with the exception of white professionals [i.e., me] and grad-student types), we have two hypothetical 18-year old women. Woman A is of average or below average intelligence, and has a relatively poor education. Woman B is of above average intelligence, but suffers from the same relatively poor education. Woman A gets knocked up twice in the next three years, by two different men (one of whom will statistically end up in prison), despite not having the resources to raise her offspring properly. Woman B realizes the importance of not having children while she is not economically well off, and so delays child-birth until she is in better shape. Because, statistically, her chances of actually ever "moving out of the neighborhood" are unfortunately pretty poor, she may delay reproduction for quite a long time -- long enough that her number of eventual offspring will be less than that of Woman A.

(And just so that you don't think you wasted your time on that point: I have no disagreement with you assessment of high-risk behavior. Very interesting insight.)

[Lusankya]

Since intelligence distribution is a bell curve, even if the best and brightest 10% of the poor stopped being poor, wouldn't there be over a 90% overlap in the distribution anyway?

[Mayabird]

Maybe we shouldn't be thinking of the poor in American terms, but more global terms. Think of Africa and the poverty there. Just about everybody's poor, and often the rich are total idiots (example: Mugabe's buddies who fell for the magic diesel rock). Life expectancies are short; in some countries they're starting to fall back below 40 because of AIDS. AIDS is a death sentence; 30% of a country's population being infected means 30% of the country's population will die within a decade. High death rates. These countries usually have high birth rates too, though with the parents dying and leaving orphans it's hard to say what will happen.

Which brings up the next thing. You leave kids alone, and are they going to make conscious choices about when they want to reproduce? No, they're going to start screwing because it's a natural impulse. There needs to be some outside factor to delay reproduction, such as
1) I need money in order to get married, which is the only way I'm getting laid, or
2) I have money and can afford condoms.

Of course, you also need to know what the heck is going on, which education can get you, and you're more likely to get education if you're richer. Intelligence isn't just some magic thing you have in your head. It has to be educated and trained. You might try to say, "But Maya, or Amy, or whatever your name is, shouldn't it be obvious that kids get born after sex, and isn't that a basic fact that people would be telling each other?" You'd think so, but considering some of the idiotic things I had to hear from my classmates, the answer would be no. It's rare to find someone who genuinely knows nothing about how sex leads to babies, but there's a good deal more to it than that and if you're ignorant about everything else...let's just say the "high" in high school stands for the pregnancy rate.

And despite all the mean things I say about Georgians, they're probably not that much more genetically messed up than most people. It's just that many other people get to train their brains better rather than being told it's sinful and that Jesus will hit them for thinking. There's not that much genetic diversity in our species, after all, and most of it is in sub-Saharan Africa anyway. Poverty is more likely to lead to conditions where people don't learn about things, don't get educated, and then just blindly do whatever their hormones tell them to do.

You might argue that smarter people are better able to control themselves. This may be true, but they would need to know to control themselves in the first place. Again, intelligence isn't just some magic thing sitting in the brain.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of point I'm trying to make here, except that all this stuff about intelligence and evolution and genetics and all is really complicated, and if it was really so simple as "RAR poor people are stupid and breed more and the species is getting stupider" than we would've known this more than a century ago when the eugenicists were screaming about it. That they're mostly discredited goes to show that things aren't very simple, especially with all the factors that go into being human.

I haven't even gone into culture here. Oh my goodness. There will be no delaying of reproduction when parents sell off their daughters at age 8 to some rich guy. And that's not by choice at all.

I'll probably have more to say tomorrow.

[Turin]

Maybe we shouldn't be thinking of the poor in American terms, but more global terms.

The reason I said "in the West" (ex, America) in the first place is because I assumed that any genetic contribution to intelligence that might influence poverty would be utterly washed out by the realities of history in the rest of the world.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of point I'm trying to make here, except that all this stuff about intelligence and evolution and genetics and all is really complicated, and if it was really so simple as "RAR poor people are stupid and breed more and the species is getting stupider" than we would've known this more than a century ago when the eugenicists were screaming about it. That they're mostly discredited goes to show that things aren't very simple, especially with all the factors that go into being human.

Oh, please don't misunderstand me. Obviously genetics is only a small fraction of the total contributing factors to poverty. I don't think AD and I are arguing over whether it might contribute, but whether the tiny amount it contributes has a potential to cause genetic change over time.

[Mayabird]

Sorry, Turin. I didn't mean to insult you or misrepresent you. I just get rambly sometimes and then I have no idea where my thoughts go. Some sort of stream-of-consciousness weird place, I guess.

And on topic, that tiny amount of possible contribution to genetic change probably gets swamped by our huge population and genetic drift from it.

[Justforfun000]

Actually, I want to ask some questions about the side issue you brought up with Hiv-Aids... I live in Toronto, Canada, and as some of you know it has a HUGE gay community. I personally know a couple dozen people who have been HIV positive since the mid 80's. Some of them still aren't on any medication and they are living the same as anybody else. Many drinking every day, and no serious medical issues to speak of.

Is this a general trend we can cautiously expect? Is the AIDS virus 'weakening'? Is there a serious chance that many people will be in the intermediate stage of virus evolution and potentially stay a chronic carrier, but not succumb to AIDS?

[Havok]

Actually, I want to ask some questions about the side issue you brought up with Hiv-Aids... I live in Toronto, Canada, and as some of you know it has a HUGE gay community. I personally know a couple dozen people who have been HIV positive since the mid 80's. Some of them still aren't on any medication and they are living the same as anybody else. Many drinking every day, and no serious medical issues to speak of.

Is this a general trend we can cautiously expect? Is the AIDS virus 'weakening'? Is there a serious chance that many people will be in the intermediate stage of virus evolution and potentially stay a chronic carrier, but not succumb to AIDS?

I certainly can't speak as an expert, but I know a few people in the Bay Area that have been HIV positive for quite sometime, but like you see, with no advancement towards AIDS what so ever and also not using the standard medical cocktails.

I seem to remember, and damn it to hell if I can remember where, reading or hearing about a study group that was trying to track down two men that they had narrowed down through some type of research that had not even contracted HIV even though they engaged in unprotected sex with men that had it and had even already died because of AIDS. Damn, the memory is so vague and out of reach I feel like I am making it up.