Have we halted our own Evolution?

However, an argument could be made that some of the pressure from sexual selection has been removed, as well. Just as selective pressure for good eye sight has diminished due to the invention of glasses, less sexually desirable people have a number of recently developed cosmetic options available. There are breast implants for women. It is possible to stretch leg bones for short men (a la Gattaca, although I doubt anyone has done this for cosmetic reasons).

I have recently been thinking about addiction as a selective force. I was reading "Cracked" by Dr. Drew, and there was a tangential comment about how the same traits that make people more vulnerable to addiction give them tenacity that would aid in survival under harsh conditions. Assuming this is true, addiction could be one of the strongest selective forces in developed countries.Back in "the day" when we were first figuring out how to use bronze and iron, we didn't have things like alcohol and cocaine. This addictive nature/tenacity would only have aided in survival. With modern science we have developed all sorts of addictive agents that are wreaking havoc on some sectors of our population. A good example of this would be the prevalance of alcoholism among American Indians versus the European settlers. The old world cultures knew of alcohol for several thousand years, and as such had evolved a tolerance for it. American Indians hadn't come in contact with it, and as such had a much weaker tolerance.Thoughts? New thread, possibly?

Okay, not removed, but lessened. There isn't really a way to fake intelligence the way there is to fake some physical traits, but that assumes that intelligence is largely based on genetics. My comment was aimed mainly at physical traits, though.

Point taken, but the divorce of recreational from reproductive sexual activity is not 100%. I wouldn't put it anywhere near 100%. Yes. Smart parents --> smart kids. The question is, what has the greater influence, genetics or being raised by smart parents? I would say the latter has the greater influence, but won't discount the former.

I'm not sure that would be the best measure. I think a better measure would be to compare numbers of births due to "recreational" vs. "reproductive" intercourse. I'm not sure exaclty how we would draw that line, though.When I think about it, though, you are probably still right that most births result from reproductive intercourse, but it would be very interesting to get those numbers.This message has been edited by pesto, 04-12-2006 10:04 AM