Are the end times really near?

[Danoff]

So we're perpetually getting physically weaker and yet smarter.

Are we getting smarter? I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure we're getting perpetually weaker either - maybe as a species on the whole but that's only due to de-evolution.

If everyone survives then - without wishing to sound harsh and Nazi - humanity is physically weaker as a whole. That's still evolution, though it may not be forwards by any logical definition.

Right.

I'm not so sure that humanity is really going anyplace besides a slight slide backward. Can you tell me why it is that we would be getting smarter on average? I'm not talking about amassing knowledge, I'm talking about raw intelligence potential.

 

[Famine]

The Descent of Man shows a constant reorganisation of musculature alongside a corresponding increase in cranial capacity - we don't need to waste energy making muscles because we're smart enough to snare food in other ways - through our ancestor species. Each successive progenitor species has been physically weaker but more intelligent than the last - for a quick test, give an orangutan a Sudoku puzzle to try out, then steal his food*

It seems logical to conclude that the next level of human would follow this pattern - though the mechanisms do deserve some discussion.

What might confer an advantage to being physically weaker? Well... nothing - but then again there isn't anything that would confer an advantage to being physically stronger. I'm stronger than my next door neighbour (I can pick up her shed, she can't). Does that offer me any advantage for food-gathering or procreational purposes? No - she can get into her car, with power-assisted steering and hydraulic assisted brakes and head down to the supermarket with at least as much proficiency as I can (though I'd get their first - my car is quicker). My physical advantage is no advantage at all - and in fact I need MORE food to sustain me than she does because I have more muscle to feed.

Does my physical advantage confer any significant improvement in my procreational chances compared to her? No - because she wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole, whereas I'd bone her without even thinking about it. But that's besides the point. We don't tend to pick our partners on the same level as animals do - biggest and strongest males get a brood of females. There's an issue of that in there, maybe, but other factors affect us which don't seem to affect animals on the same level. More on this later.

You can see that physical advantages in humans are not really advantages when it comes to gathering or procreation. We have so many labour-saving devices today compared to even one generation ago too - why waste energy washing at the river, when we can have a machine do it? Why waste energy walking to the shops when our car can do it? In fact why waste energy pressing the brake pedal, turning the wheel or changing gear when we can use the car to do it for us? While none of these labour-saving devices confer an advantage to the physically weaker, they also give no advantage to the physically stronger - who need more resources just to survive.


Now let's move onto intelligence. Does being smart carry an advantage to being stupid for resource gathering? Yes - clearly. We live in an essentially capitalist world. Smarter people get better-paid jobs and can afford more or better resources. So intelligence gives better survival prospects.

How about procreation? Do smarter people have a better chance of procreating than stupid people? Well, while there's a case to be made that men do like to screw the odd dumb blonde it can be generally said that people like a long-term partner to be on a par with them insofar as intelligence is concerned. Long conversations with yourself about the meaning of the universe can be unproductive and annoying.

Further points on this issue - what's the average IQ of prison populations compared to "average"? Now what's the average for those convicted of violent crimes likely to carry longer sentences, as opposed to "intelligent" crimes - and what's the average age group of the two? Murderers are more likely to be educationally subnormal young males - they have removed their low intellect from the breeding population before they can do much damage. Fraudsters tend to be of above-average intelligence and middle-aged - they've already passed on their smarter genes.

Further further point - when was the last time you felt horny looking at a picture of a Downs' Syndrome woman? Okay, that's harsh, but you get the point.


So intelligence confers a definite advantage for both survival (resource gathering) and procreation. That is, those people whose learning potential is higher than average have a better chance to pass on that ability to the next generation.

Physical ability confers no advantage for either survival or procreation. That is, those people who are physically strong do not have a better chance to pass on that ability to the next generation. Cases in point - Albert Einstein porked Marilyn Monroe, Bill Clinton wasn't necessarily strong but still got his rocks off and Stephen Hawking is on his second wife already - and she was his NURSE... That said, George Foreman isn't renowned for being smart, but has 5 sons. And, in testament to his lack of smarts, they're all called George...

Evolution has shown us that traits which offer no advantage are "selected out" over many successive generations (I'm actually interested in where we're going with breasts - men like big tits, due to a maternal link, but we're artificially creating them in women who have small knockers, giving flat-chested women a procreational advantage), since they are inefficient. Physical strength gives no advantage in humanity and so will, logically, disappear. Intelligence, however, gives a distinct advantage in humanity and so the ability to learn more - raw intelligence potential - will be selected for.


So we will continue the trend of our forebears - getting smarter but weaker. Unless your ice age occurs, of course.


I should add that our amassed knowledge is a massive factor in artificial selection compared to other creatures. We don't have to learn new things by doing them. We can see what thousands of years of humanity has already done and learn even newer things to add onto the end for the next generation. We have a non-genetic genetic memory, if you will...

*DON'T try either of these things.

 

[Danoff]

It's a good essay Famine. I like the part about you boning your neighbor.

Physical strength gives no advantage in humanity and so will, logically,
disappear. Intelligence, however, gives a distinct advantage in humanity and so the ability to learn more - raw intelligence potential - will be selected for.

In order for physical strength to be selected out, it would have to put people at some sort of disadvantage for procreation. To date - physical strength does not hinder procreation - so I don't see how it will be selected out.


On the flip side, it's arguably the stupidest of our species that do the majority of the procreating - while the intelligent (women at least) say things like, "I don't want to have kids because it will hurt my career."

Now let's move onto intelligence. Does being smart carry an advantage to being stupid for resource gathering? Yes - clearly. We live in an essentially capitalist world. Smarter people get better-paid jobs and can afford more or better resources. So intelligence gives better survival prospects.

Survival prospects? Who is dying? Who in our capitalist world is having trouble putting food on the table? How does being able to purchase a mercedes help you procreate... well... actually...

But seriously, you get my point. Resource gathering ability has little to do with whether you procreate these days. Just about everybody can have a kid or 5. The stupidest people in my high school class were the FIRST to have two or three kids.

Further points on this issue - what's the average IQ of prison populations compared to "average"? Now what's the average for those convicted of violent crimes likely to carry longer sentences, as opposed to "intelligent" crimes - and what's the average age group of the two? Murderers are more likely to be educationally subnormal young males - they have removed their low intellect from the breeding population before they can do much damage. Fraudsters tend to be of above-average intelligence and middle-aged - they've already passed on their smarter genes.

Are the murderers really putting themeslves in prison before having kids?

Further further point - when was the last time you felt horny looking at a picture of a Downs' Syndrome woman? Okay, that's harsh, but you get the point.

That's true. The very sick or deformed among us do have a harder time having children.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

The end times, will probably occur from an asteriod hitting the moon and making the moon crash into the earth, resulting in the earth flooding, and the cracks from the moon crash will make underwarer volcanoes explode everywhere and new land will form, but humans will be dead, so then dolphins and deep water creatures will arise and adapt to land. But there will probably be one or two humans who will survive and they will do it even if they are men and men, but then the dolphins will rise up and eat them. There that's what's going to happen, and it's only one sentence!

 

[Famine]

It's a good essay Famine. I like the part about you boning your neighbor.

Me too. She's not so keen.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

That was quite a post Famine. I was going to skim over it, but it’s not that heavy going really However I do want to pick over a couple of your assertions.

You can see that physical advantages in humans are not really advantages when it comes to gathering or procreation. We have so many labour-saving devices today compared to even one generation ago too - why waste energy washing at the river, when we can have a machine do it? Why waste energy walking to the shops when our car can do it? In fact why waste energy pressing the brake pedal, turning the wheel or changing gear when we can use the car to do it for us? While none of these labour-saving devices confer an advantage to the physically weaker, they also give no advantage to the physically stronger - who need more resources just to survive.

I totally agree that we no longer need strength like our animal cousins who have to run hunt hide etc just to survive, our technology and supermarkets mean we have very little to do physically to survive. However, evolution is all about breeding, and women still desire a strong physique in a man, just as much as men desire a fit girl. We are animals after all and these desires are primitive and strong. I doubt we will ever lose them.

Now let's move onto intelligence. Does being smart carry an advantage to being stupid for resource gathering? Yes - clearly. We live in an essentially capitalist world. Smarter people get better-paid jobs and can afford more or better resources. So intelligence gives better survival prospects.

Yes intelligence is the most important factor these days, just look how far it has come from those first tiny mammals that worked out if they were quiet and kept out of site they could sneak in and eat the eggs of a huge dinosaur without it knowing...easy life, and it didn't have to fight anyone. I just want to point out tht intelligence comes in all kinds of forms, raw intelligence is actually a disadvantage. ie. Autism.

How about procreation? Do smarter people have a better chance of procreating than stupid people? Well, while there's a case to be made that men do like to screw the odd dumb blonde it can be generally said that people like a long-term partner to be on a par with them insofar as intelligence is concerned. Long conversations with yourself about the meaning of the universe can be unproductive and annoying.

Your dumb blonde may not be academically smart, but don't think she is dumb. She knows just how to manipulate men, and is extremely good at networking and socialising. These are abstract skills that require intelligence. Gathering resources and providing security for your children plays a huge part in our lives. Blondes are good at it

Evolution has shown us that traits which offer no advantage are "selected out" over many successive generations (I'm actually interested in where we're going with breasts - men like big tits, due to a maternal link, but we're artificially creating them in women who have small knockers, giving flat-chested women a procreational advantage), since they are inefficient. Physical strength gives no advantage in humanity and so will, logically, disappear. Intelligence, however, gives a distinct advantage in humanity and so the ability to learn more - raw intelligence potential - will be selected for.

Yes traits that are of no use are selected out, like our tails and our fangs, and our claws, even our fur. I don't agree that strength has no advantage, as we love sports. There is a beauty to be admired on a high level in a top athlete as well as their obvious physical prowess. Top sportsmen can make millions and that means resources and security for children, they are VERY attractive to women, and men. So there will always be exceptional physically developed humans.

You mentioned George Foreman as not being very smart, not academically I agree, but stupid boxers don't make champions.
There are tactics to learn, you anticipate your opponent and learn techniques.
In a fight, the number of neurons firing and the calculations the brain makes about balance, where to move, were you will be when that punch moves are comparable to a chess master. No I'm serious
I'd suggest that the performance of G Foremans brain and its speed in terms of processing power (to use a computer analogy) when he was a boxer, would have been well above average.
Some computer scientists I know on the other hand, may well have a BSc Hons but don't know the first thing about people, and can act incredibly stupid in social situations.

To sum up Intelligence is a very strong element in our evolution, but I think as animals, we will always desire the physical. Advanced as we are, 90% of our decisions are driven by physiological urges.

btw Famine you are hard to quote with all your /b /color

 

[Danoff]

However, evolution is all about breeding, and women still desire a strong physique in a man, just as much as men desire a fit girl.

Tacet,

That doesn't really matter for evolution if the unfit and the weak procreate anyway. Just because they might not have gotten their top choice doesn't mean they don't procreate. Does being fat, weak, or ugly prevent people from getting married and having children? I don't think so.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Does being fat, weak, or ugly prevent people from getting married and having children? I don't think so.

Of course not, what I'm saying is that we haven't moved away from the physical. They will always be desireable attributes.

A very rich man in his 60's..*cough Trump*, will always choose a fit young pretty wife.

Given the choice, and lets say they are both of equal intelligence, would you marry the fat one or the strong fit one?

So long as we have sports, there will always be strong humans. The ancient Greeks are renowned for their romantic portrayal of the human form, ok 3 and half thousand years is not long in evolutionary terms, but we haven't changed a lot.
Back then Plato may have been sitting with friends, chatting over some wine, saying, by the year 300AD we will have outgrown the need for our bodies and rely only on our minds...

Super intelligent aliens are always depicted with massive heads and frail wasted bodies, I don't think this is very likely our fate

 

[Danoff]

Given the choice, and lets say they are both of equal intelligence, would you marry the fat one or the strong fit one?

Of course you know the answer...

But lets say you weren't given a choice. You might lower your standards and hook up with a really ugly person - especially if you were ugly yourself. Hell maybe after look at my own ugly face in the mirror for decades my idea of attractive would be somewhat warped and I'd be willing to accept some imperfections.

 

[Touring Mars]

Excellent points Famine and Tacet, very interesting reading... ! 👍

I recently read a book by Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) and it gave me a much better understanding of evolution than I had previously - maybe you guys should be in the science communication business too? 💡 In the book, he mentioned the concepts of genes co-evolving - where the genes that give the male of the species a certain property (i.e. a long tail), and they will coevolve with the genes in the female that give her the preference for that property... is this why bright guys prefer bright girls, and why gorgeous blondes always choose to go out with neanderthals?

 

[Famine]

Oddly, I'm currently reading "The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch".

 

[Earth]

Things on this planet will change dramatically in the future

Whether it be by God or nuclear war or something else. The way humans are going ensures disaster.

It is something that most thinkers now acknowledge

 

[ZAGGIN]

we are already in the 'end of days' - we are already witnessing the destruction of the reality that we have become accustomed to. dont confuse the end of time with the end of OUR time. time is infinite, our time is not. look around youin your real world life. have you noticed that there has been an increased rate of mortality. personally, i have never know a time where more people i know or have known have been passing away. have any of you noticed this? it is often said that during the end of days

our existence on this earth has often been likened to a blink of an eye, well i think the eye has just blinked. nothing lasts for ever my friends, our empire over this earth is slowly drawing to a close.

many might be sceptical about the 'end of days' theory, but what proof do you need before you realise that it is not a myth but an imminent possibility? first we had a tsunami, then hurricane katrina. the disasters keep coming, and at an increased rate. what will happen next, and where? how many will lose their lives? none of us know, but i like you am bracing myself for the next one.

i strongly believe that the world is going to end next year. if i am wrong, then, i will be completely happy knowing that i was wrong. but if i am right, i fear we have a little over 10 months left before the beggining of the end of our civilisation.

 

[Danoff]

we are already in the 'end of days' - we are already witnessing the destruction of the reality that we have become accustomed to. dont confuse the end of time with the end of OUR time. time is infinite, our time is not. our existence on this earth has often been likened to a blink of an eye, well i think the eye has just blinked. nothing lasts for ever my friends, our empire over this earth is slowly drawing to a close.

many might be sceptical about the 'end of days' theory, but what proof do you need before you realise that it is not a myth but an imminent possibility? first we had a tsunami, then hurricane katrina. the disasters keep coming, and at an increased rate. what will happen next, and where? how many will lose their lives? none of us know, but i like you am bracing myself for the next one.

It's as though this was the first hurricane or tsunami in history.

 

[PS]

Why is this thread back?

 

[Earth]

It's as though this was the first hurricane or tsunami in history.

2001- 9/11 4,000 killed

2002- Iraq War - Number of total violent deaths since beginning of war estimated at 100,000+

2003- Bam Earthquake kills 43,000

2004- Tsunami Kills 250,000

2005- Hurricane levels modern city, thousands feared dead

I will say this ,

If another disaster, war or natural, happens within the next year, this is the end of days, without a doubt.

 

[Grand Prix]

Sorry Earth, it's looks like they're going to invade Iran. Everybody better start building your fall out shelters!

 

[sukerkin]

Where do you get that from Grand Prix?

Who are "they"?

Invading Iran is probably not the smartest of moves, unless it's pre-emptive of something. The Islamic world is not fond of the West at the moment, so giving them even more reason to be 'unreasonable', beggars belief.

Just to clarify my ignorance, I very rarely watch the news anymore as the activities of my fellow man in his continuing dismemberment of his 'brother' saddens and sickens me too much.

 

[Solid Fro]

Invading Iran might not be the smartest of things, but it will be necessary if Iran continues to disobey the UN and sends aid and terrorists into Iraq.

 

[Pupik]

i strongly believe that the world is going to end next year. if i am wrong, then, i will be completely happy knowing that i was wrong. but if i am right, i fear we have a little over 10 months left before the beggining of the end of our civilisation.

2001- 9/11 4,000 killed...2005- Hurricane levels modern city, thousands feared dead
...
If another disaster, war or natural, happens within the next year, this is the end of days, without a doubt.

You seem to have a very limited view of history, Earth (I can't beleive I'm saying this to someone named "Earth")...Ever heard of the Bubonic Plague? Humans survived that, and were still here. We're not going anywhere. But if you'd like to leave by means of rapture, some of us would be perfectly fine with that.

Natural disasters, wars, diseases, famines, plagues, and perhaps even cosmic issues like asteroids and metors are going to continually threaten human existence. Through knowledge of our environment, knowledge of ourselves, and knowledge of the reactions of masses we will thwart just about anything that comes our way. It may not always be pretty, or predictable, but human beings can overcome just about situation.

Don't write us off just yet.

 

[PS]

2001- 9/11 4,000 killed

2002- Iraq War - Number of total violent deaths since beginning of war estimated at 100,000+

2003- Bam Earthquake kills 43,000

2004- Tsunami Kills 250,000

2005- Hurricane levels modern city, thousands feared dead

I will say this ,

If another disaster, war or natural, happens within the next year, this is the end of days, without a doubt.

Um, good job...but, no.

Millions of people a year die of starvation, and that hasn't stopped our planet from doubling its population every 20 years. And all that adds up to is 397,000. Which is nothing in terms of world population (6,250,000,000). That's 0.006% of the world population, in the last 4 years.

Interesting, but hardly makes any difference, at all.

 

[Swift]

Um, good job...but, no.

Millions of people a year die of starvation, and that hasn't stopped our planet from doubling its population every 20 years. And all that adds up to is 397,000. Which is nothing in terms of world population (6,250,000,000). That's 0.006% of the world population, in the last 4 years.

Interesting, but hardly makes any difference, at all.

Mattew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Matthew 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

This is what Earth is talking about. Jesus was talking about his second coming and what would be going on in the world. That very much sounds like what's happening right now.

 

[PS]

Earthquakes, wars, civil differences, tsunamis, volcanoes, and other natural/man made disasters have been happening since the dawn of time and history. It means nothing.

 

[Swift]

Earthquakes, wars, civil differences, tsunamis, volcanoes, and other natural/man made disasters have been happening since the dawn of time and history. It means nothing.

not all in close proximity like this world powers making alliances, Europe coming together under one type of money, people getting microchips sewn into the skin. Nope hasn't been like that before.

 

[PS]

not all in close proximity like this world powers making alliances, Europe coming together under one type of money, people getting microchips sewn into the skin. Nope hasn't been like that before.

Oh, your sarcasm is welcome here. Nice to see you've thawed out a bit.


And what's so surprising about any of that? Besides, it was the Christians who started preaching chips and barcodes sewn into the skin in the '70s. If anything, you're the ones creating the end of the world.

 

[Swift]

Oh, your sarcasm is welcome here. Nice to see you've thawed out a bit.


And what's so surprising about any of that? Besides, it was the Christians who started preaching chips and barcodes sewn into the skin in the '70s. If anything, you're the ones creating the end of the world.

Yeah, your just an innocent satanist-like Canadian huh?

Edit: Man, you know we both should relax with the sarcasm because it isn't helping any.

 

[PS]

Yeah, your just an innocent satanist-like Canadian huh?

Edit: Man, you know we both should relax with the sarcasm because it isn't helping any.

I am pretty innocent. I don't steal or cheat people over and I've never cheated on a girlfriend. Can't think of any more examples, but I'm a pretty law abiding citizen.

 

[Swift]

I am pretty innocent. I don't steal or cheat people over and I've never cheated on a girlfriend. Can't think of any more examples, but I'm a pretty law abiding citizen.

Do you lie? or have you ever lied since you've been an adult.

 

[PS]

Do you lie? or have you ever lied since you've been an adult.

Yes. Have you? If you say you've never lied, that'd be a lie. Because everyone lies. It's innevitable. And sometimes, it's ok.

 

[Swift]

Yes. Have you? If you say you've never lied, that'd be a lie. Because everyone lies. It's innevitable. And sometimes, it's ok.

My point is lying makes you guilty. So, you're not innocent. Unless you just excuse yourself. I find forgiveness in Christ. Where does your forgiveness come from?