Now that is real faith

[Balerion]

When you put it that way, then yes, genocide is a form of natural selection. It doesn't seem to be natural, but that is a remnant of old theistic thinking. That we are somehow not part of nature, so anything people do is not really natural. But the reality is, we are part of nature, so if we do something it is natural. If we create weapons of metal it is because we have the ability to create and use them. Because we have evolved the ability to do so and as such use those abilities to our fullest advantage.

I stand corrected, as much as we do not want it to be, genocide is a means of natural selection. Unless a more logical explanation of what natural selection is can suggest otherwise, I have not an argument to refute your assertions.

What you're talking about here is social Darwinism, and I suggest you refrain from it, lest you embarrass yourself as Syzygys has with his/her disgusting comment about the Nazi murders of the handicapped and mentally retarded as "natural selection". It's the misconception that murder (or genocide) based on race or ethnicity or any other qualifier is natural and therefore morally neutral.

But it isn't. The practice of culling the population only puts us at a disadvantage, because the best hope for humanity's survival is to promote the widest, most diverse population possible.

[Neverfly]

What you're talking about here is social Darwinism, and I suggest you refrain from it, lest you embarrass yourself as Syzygys has with his/her disgusting comment about the Nazi murders of the handicapped and mentally retarded as "natural selection". It's the misconception that murder (or genocide) based on race or ethnicity or any other qualifier is natural and therefore morally neutral.

But it isn't. The practice of culling the population only puts us at a disadvantage, because the best hope for humanity's survival is to promote the widest, most diverse population possible.

To cut in and respond even though it's not directed at me, I said something similar so allow me to expand on the idea and clarify.

Evolution is not intelligent. That is, I think, the point being made.

What we do as semi-intelligent beings is another matter.

Since evolution and natural selection, is unintelligent, it plays no true role in what humans do- any more than what animals do.
We ARE natural. Everything we do is natural. Even what we abhor- consider bad- nothing we do or can do is unnatural.

What you said in response is agreeable. That we might behave in such a way is a disadvantage- heavily one, in fact. There is nothing to say we can only behave to our benefit- we will behave by selfish wants, first. Such as pollution and G.Warming. It's best to learn better ways to behave.
Carl Sagan liked to point out that the future has the uncertainty of whether we would destroy ourselves- well... I think we won't. But we do act stupid time to time.
And it well should be discouraged and to do so, to improve and discourage- will be natural

[lightgigantic]

Yes, it's fortunate that most don't follow what's promoted.

Then I guess you have just thumped the final nail in the coffin of your previous argument

[Syzygys]

I knew somebody is going to cry sooner or later...

What you're talking about here is social Darwinism, .....qualifier is natural and therefore morally neutral.

Natural in a way that anything what humans do is natural. I specially mentioned about the moral aspects of it, that it doesn't matter what we think of it, it still exists.

Google of nonexisting nations. In history hundreds of nations came and now gone through the centuries. Do you cry for the Avars? You probably don't even know who they were.

Here I will do it for you, with languages. Once the language is gone, so is the nation who spoke it, they either become completely extinct or melt into another nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_languages

Or just look into the Bible. How many nations/countries still exists mentioned in the Bible??? Just like species, new nations form and old nations disappear (for whatever reasons), and that is NATURAL...

[Syzygys]

We ARE natural. Everything we do is natural. Even what we abhor- consider bad- nothing we do or can do is unnatural.

Exactly, well said....

In Evolution, there is no just or lack of justice. The might is victorious, perhaps. That is all. It is a description of events, not supportive of any events. It merely describes it.
We live how we live.

Again, we are in agreement here. The DP is offtopic, so I am not going to address it here....

[Syzygys]

precisely the sort of thinking afforded by a godless world view

Obviously you never read the Bible. It is full of genocide (done by god himself) murder and killing.

For extra credit, I could even make a point that wars are necessary, to control population. See what happened since we haven't had a decent war in the last 60+ years? Population skyrocketed....

[lightgigantic]

Obviously you never read the Bible. It is full of genocide (done by god himself) murder and killing.

which brings you back to the argument that Neverfly has just thumped the final nail in

For extra credit, I could even make a point that wars are necessary, to control population. See what happened since we haven't had a decent war in the last 60+ years? Population skyrocketed....

who is talking about wars?
we are talking about "natural selection" as a convenient means of godless thought to bypass standard issues of morality

[Saturnine Pariah]

Figured this could relate to what you have all been fussing about.

[Syzygys]

who is talking about wars?
we are talking about "natural selection" as a convenient means of godless thought to bypass standard issues of morality

We are, because wars are part of natural selection in human history. Genetically speaking, here is how it works:

Winner ransacks the occupied area and rapes the women. Since the winner was obviously stronger, the new generation will be from the better sperm. Pretty much like in the animal world, the stronger breeds the new generation...

[Neverfly]

We are, because wars are part of natural selection in human history. Genetically speaking, here is how it works:

Winner ransacks the occupied area and rapes the women. Since the winner was obviously stronger, the new generation will be from the better sperm. Pretty much like in the animal world, the stronger breeds the new generation...

Uhh...no.

The winner in human combat has little to do with rapists having strong sperm. It often deals with who is better equipped, supplied and outmanned the other.

In which case the raping and pillaging can be done by an army of star trek nerds if there's enough of them.

[Syzygys]

The winner in human combat has little to do with rapists having strong sperm. It often deals with who is better equipped, supplied and outmanned the other.

Specially in the 14th century...(I picked that randomly)

But even if we talk about technology, we can assume that overall, the winners' collective brain capacity was better than the losers'. And it doesn't even have to be technology, but fighting strategy too. Bottomline is, either way, the "winner breeds better offspring" works...

And it doesn't even have to be a shameful thing, look at how many later rulers claimed to be descendants of Genghis Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

Also relevant part:

" The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection.Both due to the power that Genghis Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities."

[Syzygys]

In which case the raping and pillaging can be done by an army of star trek nerds if there's enough of them.

Sure, here is one, the famous "Seeder of Generations":

[Neverfly]

Specially in the 14th century...(I picked that randomly)

But even if we talk about technology, we can assume that overall, the winners' collective brain capacity was better than the losers'. And it doesn't even have to be technology, but fighting strategy too. Bottomline is, either way, the "winner breeds better offspring" works...

And it doesn't even have to be a shameful thing, look at how many later rulers claimed to be descendants of Genghis Khan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

Also relevant part:

" The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection.Both due to the power that Genghis Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities."

The victors bred.
That doesn't mean the victors bred better offspring.
Have Khans supposed descendents shown themselves superior in any way?
Are they superior? Well, a few generations may not be enough to say. But in all fairness, they are probably normal folks. Khan was not superior than the average person, but he may have had traits, like ambition, desire etc.

Besides, many of those descendants from Khans path could be descendents of his soldiers.

Lastly, traits of personality are much more subtle than traits like four limbs or extra height or altered ligament attachments showing greater strength. Personality traits that may have helped Khan succeed in his day, when the world was small, may not get him far in todays competitive market. Especially if he had a temper that made him lose job after job. Traits of personality are greatly influenced by experiences and environment. Khan could have bred fifty kids, that also bred fifty kids and out of all of them three generations later- it's plausible that 65% are mild mannered. Maybe 30% morbidly obese. And so on.

[Syzygys]

That doesn't mean the victors bred better offspring.

Depends on how we define better. But since humankind continuously has improved in the last few thousand years, we can assume it does.

Have Khans supposed descendents shown themselves superior in any way?Are they superior?

Yes and yes, after all they are the leaders, assuming those lineages in the article are correct. Timur Lenk, Wang Clan,Yuan Dynasty, etc.

Besides, many of those descendants from Khans path could be descendants of his soldiers.

That is alright, my point still stands. Soldiers in the winning army are still winners. It might just be that they were lucky, but it could be good positioning (brainpower) so they ended up on the winning side.

[Neverfly]

Depends on how we define better. But since humankind continuously has improved in the last few thousand years, we can assume it does.

Has it? That sounds like an assumption in itself.
We have shown political changes as the commoner became more educated and more powerful against the authoritarian governments, resulting in improved conditions, less cruelty and even less war. But was that due to BREEDING?
I rather doubt it.

It came from political change.

Yes and yes, after all they are the leaders, assuming those lineages in the article are correct. Timur Lenk, Wang Clan,Yuan Dynasty, etc.

I'll have to look it up and see if I can verify what you claim.
Some journalists article may o r may not be accurate.

That is alright, my point still stands. Soldiers in the winning army are still winners. It might just be that they were lucky, but it could be good positioning (brainpower) so they ended up on the winning side.

It could be either. Bear in mind a few strong breeders don't always sway a population, either. Ours is a diverse one, with lots of women sexually attracted to sensitive, sweet, caring, wouldn't hurt a fly men.

I shun those women and they shun me- But you get the point.

[Syzygys]

We have shown political changes as the commoner became more educated and more powerful against the authoritarian governments, resulting in improved conditions, less cruelty and even less war.

Check the list what Russian (communist that is) scientists (or the nazis for that matter) achieved and get back to me. You can start with the Sputnik. How are the Chinese doing lately? Pretty well, I say...

It came from political change.

As I showed it above, hardly, or not necessarily. Now my theory is also just an assumption, but it is more logical than yours...

[NMSquirrel]

Nightmares of Idiocracy..


I have met women that claim to be looking for the best sperm donor, "I want a stable man who is smart and makes lots of money"..

they end up with the wife beater..
<see I could have treated you %100 better><stupid women..>

[Neverfly]

Check the list what Russian (communist that is) scientists (or the nazis for that matter) achieved and get back to me. You can start with the Sputnik. How are the Chinese doing lately? Pretty well, I say...

Wow... really? The nation that had problems with being scientifically backwards and lost the space race to us non-mongols is your counter argument?

As I showed it above, hardly, or not necessarily.

Yes, that poor example left me speechless.

Now my theory is also just an assumption,

Yes, it is.

but it is more logical than yours...

No, it isn't.

NM Squirrel: Ironic, isn't it? Selective breeding may be selective, but it isn't always very smart.
The humans of the Future: Not too bright but have big butts.

[lightgigantic]

We are, because wars are part of natural selection in human history. Genetically speaking, here is how it works:

Winner ransacks the occupied area and rapes the women. Since the winner was obviously stronger, the new generation will be from the better sperm. Pretty much like in the animal world, the stronger breeds the new generation...

actually we are talking about genocide as ardently pursued by individuals/societies on the strength of it being natural in a godless universe

[Neverfly]

actually we are talking about genocide as ardently pursued by individuals/societies on the strength of it being natural in a godless universe

No, that's just you talking about that. Thanks for not shrugging. It's a refreshing change.