Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bossybabe

Natural Selection Stymied By Health & Safety?

Recommended Posts

Just watched the weather man on BBC tell everyone how to keep cool on this hot day. "Drink plenty of water..."

I reckon that in a couple of generations we'll have eliminated natural selection in the human race entirely. We're already experiencing precursors in the idiots we see and read about in the Wail. Poor old Darwin proved wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering there have always been plenty of idiots... The cotton wool wrapping, statements of the bleeding obvious and the constant "watch out!" that seem to be everywhere annoy the hell out of me though (although anyone reading my posts would probably come to the conclusion that everything does that).

It might stop the odd idiot getting themselves into trouble, but most of them are inventive enough in their stupidity to hurt themselves no matter what teeth-grinding measures and messages are put in place. Even if would help a lot I'd still not have to be exposed to over-cautious drivel all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the weather man on BBC tell everyone how to keep cool on this hot day. "Drink plenty of water..."

I reckon that in a couple of generations we'll have eliminated natural selection in the human race entirely. We're already experiencing precursors in the idiots we see and read about in the Wail. Poor old Darwin proved wrong?

No because it's ultimately self defeating. As every tiny risk of a scraped knee is labelled and taped off, we start hitting the point that you can't realistically live without ignoring warnings, and then you don't know what warnings are for genuinely dangerous risks. It's the old adage: "If you suspect everyone, you suspect no-one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural selection = survival of the fittest, meaning those that best fit

Darwin is still right. Stupid people are far better suited to modern economies. It's the intelligent that delay starting a family and wonder whether it's really all worth the candle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest killers on the roads is signage and street furniture. You know, those metal signs on sharp bends warning you of the sharp bend. Those street lamps to help light your way safely. etc In theory, warning signs could be creating even greater opportunities for natural selection.

One of the biggest killers on the roads are people so useless behind the wheel that they crash into things like signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural selection = survival of the fittest, meaning those that best fit

Darwin is still right. Stupid people are far better suited to modern economies. It's the intelligent that delay starting a family and wonder whether it's really all worth the candle.

Adapt or die then....

Buy that over priced slavebox!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest killers on the roads are people so useless behind the wheel that they crash into things like signs.

And feckers who emergency stop to let some gimp out of a side road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And feckers who emergency stop to let some gimp out of a side road

If you hate those b@astards, never, never come to the Isle of Wight. They do that all the time. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you hate those b@astards, never, never come to the Isle of Wight. They do that all the time.

That's yer yoof unemployment. Insuarnce fraud becomes a way of life!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. But it is complex.

Many of the geniuses I know (not many) are completely socially inept, and probably do need to be told to take a bottle of water with them*.

But then they're the type of people who design nuclear power stations, or sort out aircraft routing (so, this one guy has probably saved more hydrocarbons than everyone in the UK bothering to turn of standby just because he's clever enough to understand how to do routing and fuel management... but he's a social nightmare...**)

This is also the reason why you shouldn't do eugenics even if you're a complete Nazi and believe in it. If you do nice genetic selection to get fantastically smart scientists and engineers, who can all run a 5K in 20 minutes, who don't suffer from mental illness - what else do you get? Perhaps no artists, maybe no true geniuses (maybe you really do need a gene pool which will give you 10,000 idiots for every Einstein type genius), maybe the males will all be okay (say that's the bit you selected for in that particular batch) but the women will be sexual predators, maybe there'll be a planetary catastrophe (KT impact type) and the lack of substantial subcutaneous fat will result in everyone in the country dying out. You just don't know.

*Just look at Hilary Clinton - if no-one tells her to bring her water she goes into melt-down...

**luckily who doesn't use the internet as far as I can tell, let alone read HPC OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such people are unlikely to be going out. If they do and get into trouble, well, I'm afraid people need to be responsible for themselves, rather than have everything padded just to accommodate them. And the less you encourage that responsibility, starting in early childhood, the more people you'll end up with unable to exercise it, and a world that looks increasingly absurd and annoying to the rest. Some might say that's a price worth paying if the net result is fewer people winding up in trouble. I'm not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you hate those b@astards, never, never come to the Isle of Wight. They do that all the time. ?

If there's ever news coverage of an angry bast4rd smashing cars with a baseball bat, it will be yours truly.

No you old cant you're not being a Christian driver when you nearly cause a pile up behind you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's yer yoof unemployment. Insuarnce fraud becomes a way of life!

The island yoof aren't bright enough for insurance fraud - anyway, what's insurance??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. But it is complex.

Many of the geniuses I know (not many) are completely socially inept, and probably do need to be told to take a bottle of water with them*.

But then they're the type of people who design nuclear power stations, or sort out aircraft routing (so, this one guy has probably saved more hydrocarbons than everyone in the UK bothering to turn of standby just because he's clever enough to understand how to do routing and fuel management... but he's a social nightmare...**)

This is also the reason why you shouldn't do eugenics even if you're a complete Nazi and believe in it. If you do nice genetic selection to get fantastically smart scientists and engineers, who can all run a 5K in 20 minutes, who don't suffer from mental illness - what else do you get? Perhaps no artists, maybe no true geniuses (maybe you really do need a gene pool which will give you 10,000 idiots for every Einstein type genius), maybe the males will all be okay (say that's the bit you selected for in that particular batch) but the women will be sexual predators, maybe there'll be a planetary catastrophe (KT impact type) and the lack of substantial subcutaneous fat will result in everyone in the country dying out. You just don't know.

*Just look at Hilary Clinton - if no-one tells her to bring her water she goes into melt-down...

**luckily who doesn't use the internet as far as I can tell, let alone read HPC OT.

I've had the same experiences. I work with a ridiculously intelligent chap but I've never met anyone so hopeless at so many basic tasks. He earns his money for his brain on certain problems and allowances are made for almost everything else he touches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin was never right! Notions such as natural selection, fitness and adaptation remind us of an organised market economy because they were informed by Darwin's reading of Malthus (socio-economic Calvinism foregrounded by Augustinian predestination) and Adam Smith (the Invisible Hand) but these are not scientifically defined mathematical terms. The only genuine scientific motivation in Darwin's work came from animal and plant breeding which he falsely construed as 'artificial selection'. The true scientific basis of natural selection was established by Darwin's peer Mendel, who approached the problem of heredity via the isolation of cause and effect in the spirit of a physicist or an engineer. By way of contrast, Darwin and his fellow unsystematic tinkerers maintained an integrated or holistic view of heredity that made the understanding of genetics impossible. It was only after Mendel's reductionist discovery became widespread that biologists began to dislodge themselves from the teleological idea of organic evolution as progress directed toward a goal by a selector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin..? Soft as shite..!

Bet he never had a knee-trembler round the back of the Regal bingo..!

Evolution my árse...

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. But it is complex.

Many of the geniuses I know (not many) are completely socially inept, and probably do need to be told to take a bottle of water with them*.

But then they're the type of people who design nuclear power stations, or sort out aircraft routing (so, this one guy has probably saved more hydrocarbons than everyone in the UK bothering to turn of standby just because he's clever enough to understand how to do routing and fuel management... but he's a social nightmare...**)

This is also the reason why you shouldn't do eugenics even if you're a complete Nazi and believe in it. If you do nice genetic selection to get fantastically smart scientists and engineers, who can all run a 5K in 20 minutes, who don't suffer from mental illness - what else do you get? Perhaps no artists, maybe no true geniuses (maybe you really do need a gene pool which will give you 10,000 idiots for every Einstein type genius), maybe the males will all be okay (say that's the bit you selected for in that particular batch) but the women will be sexual predators, maybe there'll be a planetary catastrophe (KT impact type) and the lack of substantial subcutaneous fat will result in everyone in the country dying out. You just don't know.

*Just look at Hilary Clinton - if no-one tells her to bring her water she goes into melt-down...

**luckily who doesn't use the internet as far as I can tell, let alone read HPC OT.

So how did these people get to be around today then ?

Over the top H + S is only a very recent thing. Their genes have been passed on successfully over long periods without this 'safety net'. How did they survive ?

I do not know !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwin was never right! Notions such as natural selection, fitness and adaptation remind us of an organised market economy because they were informed by Darwin's reading of Malthus (socio-economic Calvinism foregrounded by Augustinian predestination) and Adam Smith (the Invisible Hand) but these are not scientifically defined mathematical terms. The only genuine scientific motivation in Darwin's work came from animal and plant breeding which he falsely construed as 'artificial selection'. The true scientific basis of natural selection was established by Darwin's peer Mendel, who approached the problem of heredity via the isolation of cause and effect in the spirit of a physicist or an engineer. By way of contrast, Darwin and his fellow unsystematic tinkerers maintained an integrated or holistic view of heredity that made the understanding of genetics impossible. It was only after Mendel's reductionist discovery became widespread that biologists began to dislodge themselves from the teleological idea of organic evolution as progress directed toward a goal by a selector.

Yet even today many biologists present every evolutional step as a 'design' fullfilling a 'purpose'. Which is why Dawkins coined the word 'designoid' for something that works as if it had been designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is the nonsense where people claim such things as 'people will be hairless in another 100,000 years' or 'we will have bigger brains'. The fact is, we do not know what evolutionary pressures will be placed on us in the future, and thus can't know what characterisics might be selected for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there is the nonsense where people claim such things as 'people will be hairless in another 100,000 years' or 'we will have bigger brains'. The fact is, we do not know what evolutionary pressures will be placed on us in the future, and thus can't know what characterisics might be selected for.

I'm going for gills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did these people get to be around today then ?

Over the top H + S is only a very recent thing. Their genes have been passed on successfully over long periods without this 'safety net'. How did they survive ?

I do not know !

Only a few of them ever got hurt. The H&S drivel is about protecting that few no matter how bloody annoying it is for the competent, non-bedwetting, non-shadow-jumping part of the population. There were always plenty who managed to get through life without a disaster.

What's a bit more annoying is, with some exceptions, that the basic H&S laws go back to (I think) the 70s, it's a rather more recent phenomena to apply them to such ridiculous extremes. The old scapegoat of litigation must come into it, resulting in things that the law might not actually say are required but it's become such a legal risk (no irony intended) that people play too safe. It isn't helped by such nebulous statements as "as low as reasonably possible", although that's the go back to the 70s part, since that effectively says something completely far-fetched has to be put in place if it's easy and simple to do. Throw in a society where quite a chunk have become so used to this that they struggle with the concept of not over-reacting to anything ("If it's not much hassle then why wouldn't you?" rather than "Don't be absurd") and you end up with the mess we're in.

And you'll struggle to find any group with their heads as firmly lodged in their backsides as the safety people (funny really, you'd have thought that their risk assessment would've identified the danger of suffocation from that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet even today many biologists present every evolutional step as a 'design' fullfilling a 'purpose'. Which is why Dawkins coined the word 'designoid' for something that works as if it had been designed.

It's a convenient analogy I suppose, as inaccurate as it is. The problem with the word "design" is that it implies a concious descision, but I don't think we've got the words for properly describing a set of emergent characteristics that produce an organism more capable of perpetuating itself, without it getting cumbersome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how did these people get to be around today then ?

Over the top H + S is only a very recent thing. Their genes have been passed on successfully over long periods without this 'safety net'. How did they survive ?

I do not know !

Genetics is complicated. It might be that the genes which give rise to the massively introverted mathematical genius are the same (in slightly different activation) as those for musical skills, or entertainment, or homicidal maniac (useful in those times past where there is quite a bit of war going on locally). You just don't know.

And, as I said in my post, it might be that those specific gene sequences usually code (99.99% of the time) for normal balanced average people - it is just a particular combination of input genes (ie from both parents) along with a little nurture occasionally give rise to genius.

It is kind of the same argument that goes with any supposed genetic predisposition to be male homosexual* - I mean, surely a 'gay gene' would automatically be driven out of the gene pool through relatively low numbers of offspring, right? But it might be that those 'gay' genes also code for things which are massively attractive to females, and it is a specific combination of genes that result in 'gay'. Then, most of the time you'd get a completely straight male who has children, only a specific combination of inputs would lead to the individual actually being gay.

*for the point of example - I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 'gay gene', and, even if there was, I'm sure it would be prevalent in the gene pool so even the most hardened gay bashers would be likely to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.