Humans Finally Outwit Natural Selection
- Baby Boomers Appear to Be Less Healthy Than Parents
As the first wave of baby boomers edges toward retirement, a growing body of evidence suggests that they may be the first generation to enter their golden years in worse health than their parents. While not definitive, the data sketch a startlingly different picture than the popular image of health-obsessed workout fanatics who know their antioxidants from their trans fats and look 10 years younger than their age
And what we'll end up with is a much weaker genetic pool. Unhealthy people are not being weeded out and are living to pass on their genes when in the past they would not. Granted, I happy about this as someone who substandard, but I wonder what it means in the long term?
son of parnas
April 25th, 2007 10:17am
And they're fatter, too. Possibly correlated.
April 25th, 2007 10:21am
"Unhealthy people are not being weeded out and are living to pass on their genes when in the past they would not."
Oh, dear. I would not expect somebody named "SonofParnas" to be making a social Darwinism argument.
Who are these so-called "unhealthy people"? You've concluded it's entirely GENETICS that makes them unhealthy? And who the fuck are you to be deciding who's "unhealthy", or who should be allowed to "pass on their genes" or not?
And why do you conclude "in the past they would not"? Has there been a genetics board operating somewhere I've been unaware of?
Sorry to be so emphatic, but I respect you, and when YOU start spouting evil rhetoric I feel I must say something.
April 25th, 2007 10:26am
And I believe there's nothing in the article that suggests Social Darwinism, either. There's little there that can't be explained by a more sedentary life-style than previous generations.
After all, we're becomming the children of people who've had Television all their lives. It's much more likely the lower life expectancy is part of the Couch-Potatoing of America than it is genetics.
April 25th, 2007 10:29am
> be making a social Darwinism argument.
Oh my, I would expect someone to be dismissive using this sort of vile baseless attack.
Selection is reality. Social darwanism, oh why bother.
son of parnas
April 25th, 2007 10:30am
Is there some evidence the boomers were unhealthier in their breeding years than their parents' generation? Because the article doesn't mention it if there is.
Humans eliminated most of the selectors a long time ago.
April 25th, 2007 10:49am
> Humans eliminated most of the selectors a long time ago.
Humans are still undergoing active natural selection.
son of parnas
April 25th, 2007 10:50am
Well, I suppose it's not entirely eliminated. Those caught in the tsunami who could swim really really well -- or were smart enough to head inland, survived.
April 25th, 2007 11:11am
Yes, SoP, most does not mean all.
What is being selected out of the human race?
April 25th, 2007 11:15am
son of parnas
April 25th, 2007 12:02pm
"health-obsessed workout fanatics"
I've never seen baby boomers this way. I see them as fat smokers who do drugs, participate in risky sex, and eat highly processed food. So now they are in bad heath? Surprise surprise.
April 25th, 2007 12:18pm
>>the first generation to enter their golden years in worse health than their parents
>>they tend to describe themselves as less hale and hearty than their forebears did at the same age. They are more likely to report difficulty climbing stairs, getting up from a chair and doing other routine activities, as well as more chronic problems such as high cholesterol, blood pressure and diabetes.
um, maybe they're just whinier than their parents?
April 25th, 2007 2:43pm
There aren't too many unhealthy 60-year olds passing on their genes.
Natural selection doesn't care what their health is at this point (with very small exceptions). The selection question is how much money this generation is passing onto their progeny.
The whole 'outwitting mother nature' bit is a bit of a red herring (purposefully so, I'd guess). Humans have been outwitting natural selection at least since they invented fire and changed their digestive process. One generation's health (good environmental fit) is another's out-fit.
April 25th, 2007 2:45pm
>> I've never seen baby boomers this way. I see them as fat smokers who do drugs, participate in risky sex, and eat highly processed food. So now they are in bad heath? Surprise surprise. <<
That's the Eloi.
The Morlocks are the ones that eat healthy.
April 25th, 2007 5:18pm
April 25th, 2007 6:12pm
Fuck natural selection.
We've been nature's bitch for thousands of years. Finally we're starting to turn the tides back and define our own destiny and you're going on like it's a bad thing?
April 26th, 2007 12:22am
>That's the Eloi.
>The Morlocks are the ones that eat healthy.
the morlocks ate the eloi...
April 26th, 2007 5:47am
While 'evolution of the fittest' in terms of being eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger because you're short-sighted may no longer be operating, sexual selection is still operating fine and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
April 26th, 2007 6:46am
So Britney Spears is highly evolved because she's hot?
There goes that theory.
April 26th, 2007 2:41pm
Hmm this is why so many chicks are insane. We've come to worship particular aesthetics so we've not been filtering for sanity.
April 26th, 2007 3:49pm
As further proof, I've never met an ugly crazy chick.
April 26th, 2007 3:50pm
You need to ride the bus more.
April 26th, 2007 4:47pm
It is clear what is being selected out of the human race today:
It is sensible thinking and having few children, versus an inclination towards extremists religions and large families.
Large families (and lots of survivors) will evidently out compete small families.
That is all there is to selection: number of surviving children.
All the research indicates that if you reduce infant mortality and poverty then people choose to have smaller families
April 27th, 2007 10:07am
Except for the religious extremist.
It is personal interest above genetic interest, but evolution follows genetics.
Large families decide the future, as long as they can place the burden of overpopulation equally on others' shoulders.