ak at muc.de wrote:
>> "James Sharman" <james at exaflop.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > It is not necisary for the superiour to kill the inferior. The basic
> > premise of natural selection tells as that the superiour will eventualy
> > replace the inferior. Even an incredibly small increase in proberbility of
> > servival of the superiour humans will (given enough generations) evantualy
> > result in the replacement of 'homo-inferious'
>> But the 'homo-inferious' can still catch on by simply having more children.
> I think he has good chances.
The basics of natural selection aren't towards "better", they are just
towards "more" (individuals). The first derived principle is "just good
enough" (every "feature" developed to the point where better doesn't
mean significantly more reproductive, but because of tradeoff
considerations "worse is better"), the second is that environments
stabilize, and other than periodical fluctuations, there are no changes
(and almost no development), except if secual preference selects
ridiculous secondary sexual attributes. Since the most important
secondary human sexual attributes are already borg-style (cars, money,
...), there is not much place for genetical superiority.
"Late answers are wrong answers!"