Are we, as mankind, devolving?
- Thread starter Buddha 3
- Start date
Still on a tablet, but here's a quick hint at the flaws in your point Bam.
The runt of the litter usually doesn't make it to adulthood. His food is taken off him and in fact, he often becomes the food...
The runt of the litter usually doesn't make it to adulthood. His food is taken off him and in fact, he often becomes the food...
No worries
I'll enjoy the write up for sure, no matter when it comes.
Again, working on the assumption that food is limited. The problem with infanticide is that, especially in primates (and even moreso humans), it's very rarely for a quick meal; it's only for food when resources are becoming very thin on the ground, or if the parent(s) don't have the capability to look after both themselves and the child.
Otherwise, it's not usually the biological parents themselves who do the killing. That's left very much up to the new 'alpha male' (in species to which that term applies to - which it doesn't always). It's more social than it is anything else in these situations, and certainly isn't done for food. Lions are the very best species to observe this in, as soon as a new alpha takes control, all of the previous alpha's offspring get killed immediately to make way for his own. In humans, it's usually the stepfather.
And anyway, infanticide is most common (for food, or otherwise) in species that have large litters; rodents, felines, pack animals, so on and so forth. It doesn't apply so much to species that have one child at a time, such as us. It's much rarer as we don't have the children to spare, so to speak.
Generally speaking, we've evolved a conscience about that stuff - not many of us would ever consider it acceptable to kill/eat another person, let alone a child. It's illegal to show harm to a child in any western film, and some of the most successful charities are based upon helping feed/protect children. There's a reason they always show children on those African aid adverts - we're evolutionarily designed to care, especially about children. It's the way our social circles have evolved, we take care of everyone in it, even if they're not biologically related to us, which is the most confounding thing to an evolutionary biologist (though it is explainable).
Sorry, I'll stop. It's not fair when you haven't had your say
I'll enjoy the write up for sure, no matter when it comes.
Again, working on the assumption that food is limited. The problem with infanticide is that, especially in primates (and even moreso humans), it's very rarely for a quick meal; it's only for food when resources are becoming very thin on the ground, or if the parent(s) don't have the capability to look after both themselves and the child.
Otherwise, it's not usually the biological parents themselves who do the killing. That's left very much up to the new 'alpha male' (in species to which that term applies to - which it doesn't always). It's more social than it is anything else in these situations, and certainly isn't done for food
. Lions are the very best species to observe this in, as soon as a new alpha takes control, all of the previous alpha's offspring get killed immediately to make way for his own. In humans, it's usually the stepfather.And anyway, infanticide is most common (for food, or otherwise) in species that have large litters; rodents, felines, pack animals, so on and so forth. It doesn't apply so much to species that have one child at a time, such as us. It's much rarer as we don't have the children to spare, so to speak.
Generally speaking, we've evolved a conscience about that stuff - not many of us would ever consider it acceptable to kill/eat another person, let alone a child. It's illegal to show harm to a child in any western film, and some of the most successful charities are based upon helping feed/protect children. There's a reason they always show children on those African aid adverts - we're evolutionarily designed to care, especially about children. It's the way our social circles have evolved, we take care of everyone in it, even if they're not biologically related to us, which is the most confounding thing to an evolutionary biologist (though it is explainable).
Sorry, I'll stop. It's not fair when you haven't had your say
I am not talking about infanticide, rather, if at all, fratricide.
But actually killing the runt was brought forward more as an extreme example and I was not talking about humans per se. But, and this is undeniable, the runt will have his food taken away. While this is not actually directly killing it, it will result in its death. In the extreme hypothetical situation we are talking about of course.
But actually killing the runt was brought forward more as an extreme example and I was not talking about humans per se. But, and this is undeniable, the runt will have his food taken away. While this is not actually directly killing it, it will result in its death. In the extreme hypothetical situation we are talking about of course.
Interesting... I just saw an interview with Chris Stringer, Britains's leading anthropologist, during which he stated that yes, mankind is getting dumber.
Wow a world away and the same problems as here. Maybe the world really is going to hell in a hand basket. Lol. The intelligent contributor to society is going to become extinct in future generations. While we all work, learn, and build our cultures, the lazy and stupid sit at home and procreate, complaining how hard life is. This can be applied on what ever scale you want to, by city, nation or the planet. The contributors reproduce at less than 2 to 1 not even replacing ourselves, while the parasites many times that. Eventually we will run out of people to push society forward, and the slackers will have to fight each other for scraps. Not in our lifetime, but in the foreseeable future.. They have the numbers, simple math.
Wow that is depressing, think I am going to go and get drunk and have a bath with my toaster.
Wow that is depressing, think I am going to go and get drunk and have a bath with my toaster.