To What Extent Do You Agree With This?

[Alceste]

Predators do overrun the world, us.

Rabbits, deer, antelope aren't the toughest, though I assure you they do attack when needed.

First, we are omnivores, not "predators". Second, our species has come to dominate the landscape primarily due to factors other than physical strength or a proclivity to violence. The technological progress that has allowed our population to explode is the result of cooperation, communication and intelligence. Aggression doesn't enter into it. Yeah, we will eat pretty much anything, but so will dogs.

 

[Me Myself]

First, we are omnivores, not "predators". Second, our species has come to dominate the landscape primarily due to factors other than physical strength or a proclivity to violence. The technological progress that has allowed our population to explode is the result of cooperation, communication and intelligence. Aggression doesn't enter into it. Yeah, we will eat pretty much anything, but so will dogs.

Ehhrr... depends on how you define aggression. We have extinguished more than one specie by now and many from indirect agressions.

 

[Alceste]

You can ask questions no matter how something is phrased.

It comes down to intentions, do you plan on weighing in or just making an attempt to draw out something objectionable?

I have a feeling you believe there are no superior or inferior people correct?

Intelligence
longevity
Disease
strength

Are not to be considered?

"Fitness" in terms of evolution means only the ability to survive long enough to pass on your genes. If stupid people are breeding at a higher rate than intelligent people, intelligence is an evolutionary weakness, not a strength (and some research indicates this may indeed be the case). As for longevity, disease and physical strength, they are only an evolutionary advantage to the extent that they increase the likelihood of producing offspring.

Evolution doesn't care a jot for the qualities you, personally, admire in your fellow humans. It cares only about making whoopee. If you don't make enough whoopee, or your whoopee is not successful in producing offspring, you are an evolutionary failure. Otherwise, anything goes.

 

[Alceste]

Ehhrr... depends on how you define aggression. We have extinguished more than one specie by now and many from indirect agressions.

In the sense of the OP, the unintentional environmental consequences of human overpopulation aren't the kind of "aggression" we seem to be talking about. It specifically references the strong preying on the weak. Humans don't wake up one day thinking "I think I'll go kill the very last wild black rhino on earth just for ***** and giggles!" They wake up thinking "I need me some money!" and the black rhino dies as a consequence.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Fitness" in terms of evolution means only the ability to survive long enough to pass on your genes. If stupid people are breeding at a higher rate than intelligent people, intelligence is an evolutionary weakness, not a strength (and some research indicates this may indeed be the case). As for longevity, disease and physical strength, they are only an evolutionary advantage to the extent that they increase the likelihood of producing offspring.

Evolution doesn't care a jot for the qualities you, personally, admire in your fellow humans. It cares only about making whoopee. If you don't make enough whoopee, or your whoopee is not successful in producing offspring, you are an evolutionary failure. Otherwise, anything goes.

You have reduced us all to breeders.

 

[Willamena]

You have reduced us all to breeders.

We're not evolution.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You have reduced us all to breeders.

As far as our effect on the evolution of our species, our success at breeding and passing along our genes is the only thing that matters. Or, do you think evolution is supposed to reflect or embody something more noble than a filtering process?

 

[Reverend Rick]

As far as our effect on the evolution of our species, our success at breeding and passing along our genes is the only thing that matters. Or, do you think evolution is supposed to reflect or embody something more noble than a filtering process?

Surely you have seen people that should not reproduce. :no:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Surely you have seen people that should not reproduce. :no:

Sorry, I'm failing to understand what your point is and how it relates to evolution.

 

[jarofthoughts]

As has been touched upon by others, it is important to see Evolution for what it is and not what we would wish it to be.
If we are to generalize, life on Earth consists of bacteria and other single celled creatures.
They are the winners both in terms of numbers and biomass.

Evolution has no obligation to 'breed forth' some kind of superior being, unless that superiority is based on the ability to reproduce and survive until reproductive age.
That is, I'm afraid, the long and the short of it.

Thus, if we wish to apply other terms of superiority we will have to look elsewhere, which means that almost no matter what standard we decide upon as the measuring stick, it will, to one degree or another be subjective and based on a human perspective of what is 'superior' and not.
If we are looking at a specifically human 'superiority', that would almost certainly be our ability to invent and apply technology, as far as I can see the only area in which we have all other species beat.
In that respect, scientists and inventors are the most 'superior' among us, although none of their work would have been possible were it not for our innate ability to communicate and cooperate.
Humans are social animals, and as such this is the basis for the near universality of morals we see in human societies; a disdain for murder, theft and rape.
And thus, in one fell swoop, we have an adequate explanation both for our success as a species as well as ethics and morality, without the need for some absolute standard for superiority nor the supernatural.
As talked of, at length, in his book "The Extended Phenotype", Dawkins makes a pretty good case for the evolutionary basis of not only human society but also for our prowess when it comes to technology.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, I agree. A pack of wolves are much more successful. They don't allow sheep to run with them however.

The difference with man is, we are not allowed to fail. If we can't provide for ourselves, someone else will provide for us.

This enables the weak to survive. Pretty soon the weak outnumber the strong and the caliber of man deteriorates.

This is cruel stuff, but life is suppose to be cruel for the strong to survive.

Not thinning the herd will be the destruction of the herd eventually as they stumble under their own weight.

You sound like someone who follows LaVey rather than Jesus.

 

[Alceste]

You have reduced us all to breeders.

Au contraire, I simply never elevated us above breeders in the first place.

 

[ChristineES]

I think it isn't necessarily the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable.