Is evolution going backwards?

quote:

---

No, Contracycle, no. We only eat other species. We need resources like water, energy, minerals, etc. We don't get these from other humans. We get these from the environment, and we compete with other humans for them. It's amazing to me that this distinction is so totally lost on you.

---

Gee, and people accuse me of being rude.What I said in the paragraph you quoted was the KILLING humans is fundamenatl to many societies, not EATING them. But my argument is the "killing a cow" to "get its leather" is not a million miles away from "killing a human" to "get its cow". That is, human-on-human homicide is and has been a basic mode of resource acquisition since the developement of agriculture. Herdodotus, spekaing of the Greek city states, even says "As piracy increased, and capital reserves came into being...". Of course we need minerals and carbohydrates and all that, and indeed often compete peacably, but that is not the question I'm raising: I'm specifically trying to construct an analogy about the effects on fitness of endemic and permanent warfare.

quote:

---

Predation specifically refers to the killing and eating of another organism. We predate cows. We don't predate other humans because we don't eat them!

---

But my argument is that functioanlly, the relationship between peoples locked in endemic warfare is much the same as predation. Seeing as I have already agreed that I am DELIBERATELY conflating predation and competition, resort to pedantry seems innapropriate.

quote:

---

Look if you want to define words however you see fit, why should I bother? My patience is at an end with you because you refuse to use terms in the way that they've already been defined.

---

Yes of course, heaven forfend anyone propose a new concept, we should exlcusively study the Old Masters who knew everything.

quote:

---

That's every single species. Literally, every single one. That's how evolution works in a stable population - the more fit outcompete the less fit, and the gene lines of the less fit are extinguished. That's how mutations become fixed in a population - literally any stable population whatsoever.

---

Yes but as I have repeatedly pointed out, you are describing two different processes. "Absolute" fitness is determined by effectiveness of resource extraction. Proportional fitness against others of my speciies is determined by my proportional efficiency in bagging prey or whatever. These are two different things.In humans they become a single operation. In animals predating other species, what I am referring to as "absolute" efficinecy is an answer to the question "can I catch my prey"? Obviously if the question is no, the animal does not survive. Proportional efficiency only comes in after this point, where the question is "Can I catch my prey with such efficiency that I am recognisably superior to other members of my species, and thus a good mate choice".Now it seems to me that in humans there is often only one question, not two.

quote:

---

It's precisely accurate. Predation is the killing of another animal and eating it. Competition is the killing or rivalry of another animal for resources. Again, if you feel absolutely free to redefine the terms as you see fit, then I don't have time for this.

---

Look, if all you can do is read out of the book, and simply cannot think any thought that has not been prescribed for you, then fine, don't bother. But th

quote:

---

But killing each other isn't the only way we allocate resources, though in our history it has played a large part. For instance, instead of killing the owner of the cow, I might become the leader of a government and simply tax cows. Or we might gamble for the cow, or engage in ritual, non-lethal combat. Or arm-wrestle.

---

Sure. These things can happen WITHIN A SINGULAR SOCIAL GROUP. But there is a sizable history of human groups treating all other human groups as non-human; as valid subjects for predation just like any other animal. And that to me is the key distinction: almost none of our competition with non-human rivals results in human fatalities (with the notable exception of diseases). And is on that basis that I draw a parallell with predation. Whteher the resource desired is the victims own meat, or the meat the victom socially owns, there is still a dead victim.

quote:

---

I absolutely disagree. Throughout human history the majority of resources have been allocated non-lethally, just like every other species. You're simply engaging in circular definitions - the only competition you find significant is the lethal competition; as a result you conclude that all significant human competition is lethal.

---

No, I am trying to discern the effects of lethal human competition. My proposition is that it is analogous to predation. By simply asserting that predation has a dictionary definition you are not enagaging with my proposition. The discussion of non-lethal competition is not relevant to my point at all.The only similar thing I can think of in the animals world is frex the practice of male lions taking over a pride, in which they kill and eat the offspring of the previous pride leader. But that is a very much smaller proportion of all their competition than endemic warfare has been humans.

It's not a million miles away. But we have a word to describe the first situation - "predation" - and a word to describe the second - "competition."Why won't you use them? No, they're functionally different, because the people are not being eaten. Hence, this is competition, not predation. Again, these are specific words with specific meanings meanings that clearly perfectly apply to the situation, and it boggles the mind that you don't see it. But why on Earth would you bother? All it does is confuse the issue. God, why on Earth would you want to make things more confusing? What's wrong with you? Again with the confusing word redefinitions. I thought we were talking about evolution and biology, not Contracycle's Private Dictionary.But, in fact, these are not two differen things. Biologically both are simply a question of competing for resources. Mates are a resource. "Can I catch food"? is fundamentally the same question as "can I attract a mate?" There's only one question, and it's "what do I have to do to get the resources I need to continue my genetic line?" I'm not the one stubbornly insisting that his ideosyncratic nomenclature is superior to the terminology developed over 200 years of ecological research. You're an ideological slave to your idea that human society is so fundamentally worse than literally any animal organization; you're obsessed with the idea that humans suck so fucking bad that we have to pervert legitimate terminology to describe it. I've already engaged your point, and refuted it. The situation you describe is most analogous to interspecies competition, because that's exactly what it is. There's absolutely no need to make an analogy to predation because we already have a word for this exact situation.I'm at a loss, Contra. If you can't see the utility in the use of standard definitions for terminology, then there's simply no way to discuss with you.

quote:

---

It's not a million miles away. But we have a word to describe the first situation - "predation" - and a word to describe the second - "competition." Why won't you use them?

---

Becuase they imply things other than the situation I am describing. If you apply a COMPETITION model, it will not display the same frequency of fatality. Thats why it is innapropriate.

quote:

---

No, they're functionally different, because the people are not being eaten. Hence, this is competition, not predation. Again, these are specific words with specific meanings meanings that clearly perfectly apply to the situation, and it boggles the mind that you don't see it.

---

How can you honestly claim you DO see it? You are setting yourself up here. Would you then claim that a lion who kills prey animal, but is driven off the kill by another animal, did not engage with predation but with competition? You COMPETE WITH your peers; you preduate upon your prey. The main difference between the two is that competition does not NECESSARILY produce dead bodies, and predation does.To render the disinction between comeptition and predation as purely what happens to the body afterwards is surely absurd. It fundamentaly fails to describe the significance of the act.

quote:

---

But why on Earth would you bother? All it does is confuse the issue. God, why on Earth would you want to make things more confusing? What's wrong with you?

---

And again, here *I* am with a reputation for rudeness, for fucks sake.Look crash, I have tried to explain it. Our layers of rationalisation of social conflicts are, I argue, concealing a fundeamentally predatory relationship. Or at least so a I speculate by asking if there is any example from the natural world of the main source of a species deaths being the direct acts of other members of the species. Thats very odd - it does not accord with either the competition model or the predation model when stripped of our cultural excuses.I am proposing we look at the actual behaviour, ratehr than trying to fit the actual behaviour into comfortable, pre-established categories.

quote:

---

But, in fact, these are not two differen things. Biologically both are simply a question of competing for resources. Mates are a resource. "Can I catch food"? is fundamentally the same question as "can I attract a mate?" There's only one question, and it's "what do I have to do to get the resources I need to continue my genetic line?"

---

Of course thats the case - thats the entire basis of my argument. Thats why the eating of the body cannot be the defining characteristic of a predatory RELATIONSHIP. I am well aware of the orthodox meanings for these terms which is precisely why I asked you to apply your expertise to looking at human relationships in the same light as animal relationships, to look at whats outside the box.Again I ask: are there any animal specieis in which the proportion of individuals killed by other individuals of the same specieis is so high? Every time I ask this you come back with mutliple species.

quote:

---

I'm not the one stubbornly insisting that his ideosyncratic nomenclature is superior to the terminology developed over 200 years of ecological research. You're an ideological slave to your idea that human society is so fundamentally worse than literally any animal organization; you're obsessed with the idea that humans suck so fucking bad that we have to pervert legitimate terminology to describe it.

---

What? Oh for fucks sake. I didn't say anything was superior, I tried to offer you a new term that did not carry the same connotations as the existing terms as a thought experiment. And I most7 ceertainly have never said or veen thought,m frankly, that human society is "worse" than animal socieites, that is just lunacy.I'm trying to ASK YOU what you preofessional expertise would conlcude are the likely effects of human endemic warfare. Thats an honest question and I simply do not understand why you respond in such a hostile manner.

quote:

---

I've already engaged your point, and refuted it.

---

But you have not, becuase every exmaple you give of "competiton" involves multiple species and only the probabalistic decrease in another individuals fitness - not their actual death. Warfare cannot be described as competition on these terms. I am asking you "what are the effects of such a high level of human caused fatality" and you keep defaulting to wholly innapropriate analogies of multi-species competition or non-fatal competition.

Says who? I know you haven't done any research on competition models. Fatal competition is quite frequent in the natural world, and it's certainly not as frequent in the human species as you have been arguing.Competition is the most accurate model of the entire scope of human resource allocation. And when you consider the entire scope of human affairs, competition doesn't necessarily produce dead bodies. You're artifically restricting your scope to human warmaking, instead of looking at the whole picture, which is one of occasionally fatal competition, and occasionally nonlethal competition. You're proposing that we look at a small category of human behavior and ignore all others. I'm proposing that this is stupid.

quote:

---

Main Entry: predation
Pronunciation: pri-'dA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English predacion, from Latin praedation-, praedatio, from praedari
1 : the act of preying or plundering : DEPREDATION
2 : a mode of life in which food is primarily obtained by the killing and consuming of animals

​

Main Entry: 1prey
Pronunciation: 'prA
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural prey also preys
Etymology: Middle English preie, from Old French, from Latin praeda; akin to Latin prehendere to grasp, seize -- more at GET
1 archaic : SPOIL, BOOTY
2 a : an animal taken by a predator as food b : one that is helpless or unable to resist attack : VICTIM
3 : the act or habit of preying

---

It's clear to me that, in fact, the eating of the body is integral to the situation described as "predation", because if it isn't, then the situtation falls under "competition", and then we'd have two words for the same thing. Probably not, but not because we kill ourselves more than other animals, but because we are killed by other factors less. You're asking a loaded question. Are there other species whose competition is often lethal? Yes, almost all of them. You haven't explained to my satisifaction how the connotations of the old terms are undesirable or inapplicable; I've tried to explain how the connotations of your terms are precisely ill-suited. I'm sorry but I will continue to use the old terms. Well, I'm no professional, just a guy. And I'm no historian, and I can't see the future. But our genes appear to have very little to do with success on the battlefield, because the victor is usually the group with the resource superiority. But in our species, having superior resources generally means a negative growth rate. Being rich and white is not generally a recipie for successful gene transmission. I don't know. But it doesn't appear to have anything to do with genetic fitness.

This is RELATIVITY on a Human Basis. "...in the eye of the beholder." Darwinism wasn't invented by Darwin. Hebrews were the "Chosen People." Hitler had his 'superior races.' Most 'Sub-Humans' were killed or escaped into their less desired territories.
We have religious WARS, "purging," and we FEAR those "detestable" Hybrid Humans. We don't like our females to have hairy faces or legs, or butts! -so SHAVE! Hairy males are -starting- to be phased out, too - with TV, and females getting their 'say-so.'DD

There's absolutely nothing subjective about the biological concept of "fitness." Organisms who possess genes that expand throughout a population are more fit. Organisms whose genes decline in the population are less fit. Fitness, if you will, is merely a measure of how many grandchildren you have.

If you're the Hairy Gorilla-type that gets selected against, in the Human/non-jungle World, you'd better get into the Jungle where you ARE the 'fittest' and can possibly pass on your genes - anyway! -
-- even if your kids come out as Hairy Gorilla-types.
But -- If the girls ain't yo' species -- They're probably gonna be sterile, or your kids will be, or some weird kind o' Hybrid.
-Eh? And, she better be willing! No Orangutan Rapes allowed!DD

I don't understand a word of what you're saying.

What I have found 'telling' is that Sewell Wright used the phrase "phase of matter" when discoursing to/from Lotka/Volterra equations. He also spoke of 'supplementary space and time information' which I took as supplemental phase by phase, per competition fit or not.

Sorry,
I was trying to make light of how one not being 'fit' in one area, might have to try to be 'fit' somewhere else. (backward/forward)
-a rye comment toward Speciation. You guys are talking Psychological, and I talk Physical, as in "Hair."
-no offense.DD

This:

quote:

---

Competition is the most accurate model of the entire scope of human resource allocation.

---

and this:

quote:

---

Competition is the most accurate model of the entire scope of human resource allocation.

---

... show exactly how the question I am trying to ask gets categorised away.
I'm asking, what are the effects of endemic warfare specifically on human genetics? You then say, well warfare is a form of competition, butnnot all competition is violent, therefore it must have no special effect.OK, let me try again then. Are there any specieis which engage in unnecessary competition with a high death rate? Especially among individuals who usually have not yet reproduced?

quote:

---

You're artifically restricting your scope to human warmaking, instead of looking at the whole picture, which is one of occasionally fatal competition, and occasionally nonlethal competition.

---

Yes thats exactly right, that is the question I have proposed.
And I point out that I consider the claim that warmaking is a form of competition to be ideological; that is, I consider that to be an apologetic for warmaking which is in fact distinct from other forms of competition.

quote:

---

You're proposing that we look at a small category of human behavior and ignore all others. I'm proposing that this is stupid.

---

Really? Then all of science must be stupid, and only the hippies who try to grock the whole intuitively have any chance of success.

quote:

---

1 : the act of preying or plundering : DEPREDATION

---

quote:

---

It's clear to me that, in fact, the eating of the body is integral to the situation described as "predation", because if it isn't, then the situtation falls under "competition", and then we'd have two words for the same thing.

---

Note the term PLUNDERING; thats is the concept I was trying to advance. I wish yo would stop playing word games; if you can't be bothered to address the question just tell me to fuck off.

quote:

---

Probably not, but not because we kill ourselves more than other animals, but because we are killed by other factors less. You're asking a loaded question. Are there other species whose competition is often lethal? Yes, almost all of them.

---

No thats not equivalent at all becuase they are usually competing with other species; that is not equivalent to intra-species "plundering". In other words, BECUASE we are killed by other factors less, I would expect that warfare in humans would have a pronounced effect that is fact NOT selection by fitness.Look, gangs of chimps will drive each other out of their territory. That is simply not the same as competing with a leapord. In our specieis, that gang confrontation reaches the point of nuclear weapons. Is it really so unreasonable to think that the change in scale in lethality has an effect on us?

quote:

---

Well, I'm no professional, just a guy. And I'm no historian, and I can't see the future. But our genes appear to have very little to do with success on the battlefield, because the victor is usually the group with the resource superiority. But in our species, having superior resources generally means a negative growth rate. Being rich and white is not generally a recipie for successful gene transmission.

---

Look, it is BECAUSE our genes are largely irrelevant to battlefield conditions that the question arises of what effect all this observable lethality has. Even that has been progressive, becuase being tall and strong still have their uses, but less so today than in the bronze age.Your second conlusion I find silly I'm afraid; a species with many young is not necessarily any more likely to pass on their genes than a species with few, cared for young. Its a trade off, and the same applies in human popoulations. Being rich and white is definitely better for passing on your genes, as it is much more likely that your genes will actually be passed on. A feature not missed by certain AfroCentrists.

I can't see that there's any effect whatsoever. I don't see a relationship between genetic traits and an ability to survive warfare. Define "unnecessary". Presumably, all competition in every species could be unnecessary if the conspecifics all played nice, and restrained their population growth. Look, you're the one that started it. What you consider "word games" is just me trying to untangle your tortured terminology. No, they're usually competing among themselves, because only their conspecifics occupy the same precise ecological niche. Right, because the first is competition, and the second is predation - the leopard predates the chimps. I don't see the process as selective, however, so from a biological perspective its no different from a mudslide wiping out one large segment of a population. At best its genetic drift. There's no selective power to warfare that I can see. Look at the facts. The populations of industrial nations are declining. The populations of the nonindustrial nations are increasing. If you weren't blinded by the fact that you live in the former nations, you would find my conclusion obvious. Even with the advantage in child care, that "strain" of humanity is on the decline. And what I'm telling you is, the advantage of cared-for young isn't cutting it in the face of readily-avaliable contraception.

quote:

---

I can't see that there's any effect whatsoever. I don't see a relationship between genetic traits and an ability to survive warfare.

---

No no no - in relation to the thread, is evolution going backwards? Precisely BECUASE there is no relationship between personal fitness and being a military casualty, military casualties eliminate the fit and thee unfit both. What effect does this have on our genotype overall? Becuase we have thousands of years of endemic warfare, I would have thought it should be accounted for in any model of human genetics.

quote:

---

Define "unnecessary". Presumably, all competition in every species could be unnecessary if the conspecifics all played nice, and restrained their population growth.

---

Unnecessary as in not compelled. IMO, the term "competition" carries many undue connotations under capitalist ideology; many different conflicts are subsumed under capitalism. If an animal species has free rein in an environment in which it has no predators, such as rats imported to Tasmania, the population booms, but I am not aware of an increase in mortality in regards internal competition within that species. If mate competition was non-fatal before it will stay non-fatal. I think the human situation is different in that we too have no predators but our level of intra-species fatalities arise from social conflicts of one form or another. Even if the rats in Tasmania reached carrying capacity, the only effective sources of mortality are still only failure relative to other members of the specieis or outright failure in the hunt of other species.This is what I mean by unnecessary. Very few of us in the developed world NEED to compete with any risk of death with other humans. But the developed world still engages in wars, and so humans still die at human hands, despite the fact that this is not usually immediately necessary for the survival of the populations involved.

quote:

---

No, they're usually competing among themselves, because only their conspecifics occupy the same precise ecological niche.

---

Right, but not directly and fatally. Fatalities are direct externally, even if a member is so ineffective that they are unable to find enough food to live. They are seldoim killed by members of their own species directly.

quote:

---

Right, because the first is competition, and the second is predation - the leopard predates the chimps.

---

You missed the point. As above, competition has many meanings - what I was referring to is the compeition between chimps and leapords FOR prey, not the direct predation of one on the other. That is, any success by a leapord might reduce the available prey for chimps, hence they can be in indirect competition.This is not the same as group conflicts between chimps in any way. But the group conflicts between chimps are not much like human warfare because it generally does not reduce the gene stock directly.Hence, the best model for human-on-human warfare is similar to the relationship of direct predation between leapords and chimps, it seems to me. And it is definately nothing like the indirect competition when EITHER a chimp OR a leopard might take the only available prey.

quote:

---

I don't see the process as selective, however, so from a biological perspective its no different from a mudslide wiping out one large segment of a population. At best its genetic drift. There's no selective power to warfare that I can see.

---

Right. This is a good model and I'd be happy to abandon predation/plundering and instead make an analogy to self-inflicted disasters of this magnitude.I'm not sure it is the case though that warfare has no selective pressure - it actually makes those best at conducting war LESS fit by often curtailing their breeding careers. Thats one of the apparent contradiction I want to examine.That said though I agree for the most part casualties of war are not selected in any meaningful way, which is why I ask what effect that has on the genepool, precisely because it does not act like a selective, competitive pressure. Depsite that it must have some effect because whole gene lines can be wiped out in this manner.

quote:

---

Look at the facts. The populations of industrial nations are declining. The populations of the nonindustrial nations are increasing. If you weren't blinded by the fact that you live in the former nations, you would find my conclusion obvious. Even with the advantage in child care, that "strain" of humanity is on the decline.

---

Actually, I find your conclusion silly becuase I have lived both in the developed world AND the undeveloped world, you will recall.Its well known that wealth reduces the pressure to breed, becuase we are not reliant on our childrens productivity ; but this is also a consequence of a high infant mortality rate. It seems to me that a much higher proportion of individuals genes are likely to be carried into the future in the developed world than the the undeveloped. The high reproduction rate in the undeveloped world is symptomatic of dire distress, not success.

quote:

---

And what I'm telling you is, the advantage of cared-for young isn't cutting it in the face of readily-avaliable contraception.

---

Its still a trivial effect by comparison to aids, industrial diseases, slave labour and warfare. The many-children strategy is a response to the unlikelihood of passing your genes on to the future, not a symptom of better prospects.

Absolutely none, because its not a gene-selective influence. It's like a mudslide wiping out the eastern half of a population - it's not a selective force, because you can't breed for "not being in the way of mudslides." There's no reason to, if its not a selective force. ?Well, I guess it could be not compelled if all the animals agreed to play nice, and restrict their reproduction. Not likely, though. I'm sorry; economics is off-topic in this thread. Conspecific competition is density-dependant; it doesn't really become a limiting factor until the populations reaches K. At such time as resources become scarce for that species, intraspecific competition will increase. It will have to. Which has been true of human warfare for most of history, too. Chimps don't compete with leopards for prey, as their diet is largely vegetarian. Though instances of organized hunting or even cannabalism are not unknown. How do you figure? Chimps engage in lethal conflict, just like humans. Ok, well, lets say that you have a kettle full of two colors of M&M's, and its 90% green and 10% red, and completely mixed. If you scoop out two double handfuls and eat 'em, what is the likelyhood you've drastically affected the ratio of colors? It's not very likely, because the elimination process you employed was not selective.I mean, yeah. You might wipe out entire gene lines. But you're not doing so based on the content of those gene lines, so there's no adaptive effect on the gene pool. I'd say the situation we're describing would be best identified as "genetic drift", and there's considerable dispute about the degree to which genetic drift shapes a species. It's not the proportion of individuals that is significant, however. It's the raw number of genes passed on; it's the fact that the genes of the third world constitute an increasing section of the human gene pool, and the genes of the first world constitute a declining section.It's not the likelyhood of this individual or that passing on his genes that is significant. It's the fact that the third world's population is growing siginficantly faster than the first's; their genes constitute an increasing segment of the total human gene pool.Think of it like a pie chart. Their slice is getting larger, ours is getting smaller, and the whole pie is getting bigger. I'm not trying to raise an "alarm" or something about this, or suggest that this is a situation that we need to change; I'm just trying to present the reality of genetic change in the human species.

quote:

---

Absolutely none, because its not a gene-selective influence. It's like a mudslide wiping out the eastern half of a population - it's not a selective force, because you can't breed for "not being in the way of mudslides."

---

Correct, that is my argument.

quote:

---

There's no reason to, if its not a selective force.

---

Ecept, how certainly do we know this? Has there been any study to determine whether it is or not?Anyway, the initial proposition I made is that this might account for the lack of variation in human genes. Does that sound reasonable? [quote] Well, I guess it could be not compelled if all the animals agreed to play nice, and restrict their reproduction. Not likely, though.[/qupte]Please stop with the ridiculous caricatures.

quote:

---

I'm sorry; economics is off-topic in this thread.

---

Of course but then I am entitled to challnege yourt obfuscatory use of the term "competition", and reject its dogmatic application.

quote:

---

Conspecific competition is density-dependant; it doesn't really become a limiting factor until the populations reaches K. At such time as resources become scarce for that species, intraspecific competition will increase. It will have to.

---

In what form?Remember, my initial proposition was exactly that - at the point that humans developed farming, we exceeded K and intraspecific competition in the form of warfare became more intense.Buy the problem is the active elements in warfare are not biologically related so it has the impact of a mudslide even if it is conducted as auto-predation. What effect would that have?

quote:

---

Which has been true of human warfare for most of history, too.

---

Yes - in low density, low agriculture societies. That is why I have specifically limited my argument to the 6000 years of actual civilisation.

quote:

---

Chimps don't compete with leopards for prey, as their diet is largely vegetarian. Though instances of organized hunting or even cannabalism are not unknown.

---

Umm, indeed - but this confusion has arisen because of the multiple meanings of "competition".

quote:

---

How do you figure? Chimps engage in lethal conflict, just like humans.

---

In lethal conflict, sure - just like humans, no. Where is the chimp standing army, professional warrior, general? Where is the ideology of warfare or manifest destiny? Lethality does not indicate war; my argument is that in humans such fatal conflict is much, much more proportionally significant.

quote:

---

I mean, yeah. You might wipe out entire gene lines. But you're not doing so based on the content of those gene lines, so there's no adaptive effect on the gene pool. I'd say the situation we're describing would be best identified as "genetic drift", and there's considerable dispute about the degree to which genetic drift shapes a species.

---

But I didn't ask about ADAPTIVE effect, I actually asked about the truncation of genetic variuation in humans.My argument is something like this: if you had 90% yellow M&M's, and 10% red M&M's, although most of the time an extracted handful will be in those proportions.But perhaps not. It might be that the actual handful is extracted comprises almost entirely an unlikely but feasible conctration of red M&M's, which will thereby change the proportion disproportionately.This is potentially even more specific if it is say the yellow M&M's who are purposefully booting the red M&M's out of the container. That is, human groups have themselves exterminated whole ethnicities.

quote:

---

It's not the proportion of individuals that is significant, however. It's the raw number of genes passed on; it's the fact that the genes of the third world constitute an increasing section of the human gene pool, and the genes of the first world constitute a declining section.

---

I think it must be significant - otherwise the whole process of sexual reproduction is pointless. That is, the very system of combining two sets of genes to create a new set counteracts inherent data replication errors in the DNA. What happens to a group that does not get infusions of new DNA but keeps copying the same DNA over and over - should this not be expected to induce errors and hence reduce fitness? Or trigger speciation?