IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Evolution and Environmentalism

Tracy Maurer tmaurer at ameritech.net
Thu Sep 4 02:22:56 EST 1997


man is no different than any other animal, from  a natural selection
point of view, other than the fact that survivability traits are no
longer being naturally selected for (ie, individuals that would normally
die before being able to reproduce - or who would otherwise be unable to
reproduce - now live and birth children with genetic defects, thanks to
modern medicine).

this is a relatively recent phenomenon, if you look at the entire
history of our species - it's impossible to say just yet what the
outcome will be, but we can hazard some guesses:

1. we'll become less and less resistant to disease
2. we'll accumulate more and more genetic defects

is intelligence a survivability trait? do people with higher iq's have
more or less children than people with lower iq's? (fewer, by a sizable
margin.) is economic status a survivability trait? do the wealthy have
more or fewer children than the poor? (fewer, again by a sizable
margin.)

we are also relying on fewer and fewer staple crops for the majority of
our food: take away wheat, rice or potatoes due to disease or mold or
insect/rodent predation and a sizable portion of the planet's human
population will starve.

so my take on the entire situation is that human beings are setting
themselves up for extinction. mammals typically only have a 2 million
year run. presto! we're there. and we're due for another ice age, too -
as a proportion of its history, earth is usually mostly covered with
ice. this relatively lengthy warm patch that allowed our entire species
to flourish is not typical of earth's weather cycle - it's a glitch.

to say our technology makes us immune to any of these factors is
nonsense. what technology? developed by whom? who pays for it? where do
the raw materials come from? who has access to it? 

we are just one more cog in a machine that replaces its cogs with new
ones pretty regularly. there is nothing whatsoever about us to suggest
we are particularly well adapted to lasting longer than we already have.
it's pretty cocky for a species less than 2 million years old to decalre
itself grand master of creation. many dinosaurs lasted 30 times that
long.

dda




More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net