Please don't post about US Politics.
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Yes. Without the selection pressures to minimize disease, we observe more disease in the population over time. This reduces our fitness for any environment without the artificial benefit of modern medicine.
People don't want to understand because it is difficult and challenges their worldview. Is this an existential risk? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Yes.
There are already lots of great answers, I would like to point out that Natural Selection doesn't care about the individual at all, it cares about the population, e.g. internal gestation, do you think any individual enjoys carrying a baby inside them? Preventing them from doing anything during the gestation period, being an easier prey to predators, etc... Unfortunately for the individual, creatures that carry their unborn babies inside them are less likely to abandon them even temporarily while seeking food, they're also more easily kept warm, so for the species as a whole it's better that there be internal gestation.
In short more individuals = better, imagine you have two populations, one with only 10 strong individuals, and one with 100 individuals of which only 10 are strong, which do you think is more likely to survive? And that is even assuming a strong/weak deterministic position, which is not the case for anything.
It already has affected natural-selection.
I think a bigger threat to humanity is a LACK of modern medicine. Both because denying people life-saving medicine because you think they're "weak" is inhumanly cruel, and because of that plague we just had.
I think you have a point. We are making ourselves dependent on our technology. There will come a time where the constant fight our bodies deliver against disease and defects cannot be maintained without the technology created as a consequence of our highly complex society. If we continue on our current trajectory there might come a point of no return. If you want to return to monke now's the time, I guess?
I would say that the greater the population (in part thanks to medicine) the greater the chances of beneficial mutations occurring and entering the collective gene pool. I see medicine as a safety net. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but that's my professional take on it, as a musician.
Sexual selection usually takes care of problems like this. People with antisocial tendencies find it extremely difficult to find partners.
Unfortunately, not when they have money.
No. Human evolution is driven primarily by mate selection.
I think we've already demolished natural selection over here, modern medicine being the least of concern. Idiocracy was supposed to be humor, not foretelling.
This has been happening for a while now and the results of which are the voting populace of the anti-intellectual movement that is explained in the documentary film, Idiocracy.
Not necessarily the genes' fault:
natural selection does not choose whats best overall, just those that can reproduce. steinmetz was a hunchback cripple dwarf who was the actual intellectual powerhouse behind GE and responsible for much of our quality of life in the modern age.
steinmetz was a hunchback cripple dwarf
I never want to hear anyone say again that "nobody calls someone a 'cripple' anymore". Perhaps consider this somewhat less grotesque alternate phrasing: "Steinmetz was a person who experienced significant and debilitating disability".
natural selection does not choose whats best overall, just those that can reproduce.
That's not only an incorrect understanding of natural selection, i'd add that Steinmetz chose not to reproduce. If he hadn't been the topic of your next sentence, I wouldn't have felt the need to emphasise his personal agency. Or his existence as a person
I know he chose to not have kids and the phrasing I used has been used with him in particular forever to emphasize the extreme challenges he had to deal with. Its great you like a certain more generic phrasing which could be applied to anyone.
If you wanted to emphasise the challenges he dealt with, adjectives for his physical appearance were not a good choice. The challenges he would have dealt with may have included chronic pain, limited mobility and discrimination. You could even have said he suffered from kyphosis. But words which have been frequently intended to be derogatory don't do much to create a sense of empathy.
could be applied to anyone.
And it's nice to see disability being normalised, even if that wasn't your intent.
where do you get cripple is a physical appearance description? do video game thieves use differentialy abled strike? ten years from now you will have folks say using disability or disabled makes you worse than hitler. the words only have deragatory meaning to those who have decided they are such.
Even if we ignored the entire history of the word cripple, it still would be remarkable to not consider hunchback or dwarf as physical descriptions. Given that your next question references video games and then we fall down Godwin's slippery slope, I'm not convinced you're honestly engaging with the concept of connotation.
the words only have deragatory meaning to those who have decided they are such.
Yes, and when the people who have to live with the consequences of discrimination tell you that you're speaking in the same way as those who have discriminated against them, it's worth considering. Even momentarily.
Have a great day, I'm going to go be a cripple elsewhere now. Nah, just kidding, it will still be my couch. Just not this thread.
Yes as I said. Down the line disabled will be used such and because we cow tow to such people disabled will be such in a decade. Im not honestly engaging in the concept of connotation in that im not sure if that is what we are discussing as it is not a commonly used word so and not using them causes discourse to be rather limited. My god dwarfism is a thing as well and a dwarf implies a different condition than midget. These words actually have meaning outside of use as a derogatory which again is not their main usage. These words were not created as deragatories. Where I grew up in the middle of the block was a place called NSAR. I don't remember what it all stood for but the R was retardation. Now this place housed, fed, educated, and helped adult people with retartdation get jobs. Did they do this to troll them with their deragatory name. No, they did not collect and spend this money for their welfare in a secret mission to be jerks. On the other hand there has been a troll individual using the term in troll posts that I have reported and downvoted because they are just throwing it around as an insult. Due to such usage its now avoided, and it is a freakin medical term. We seen this with things like woke and pepe the frog and I have heard people use special or differentially abled to sarcastically insult someone. We can cede terms all we want but its not going to stop jerks from being jerks and maybe people consider me a jerk for feeling this way but I still feel the way one uses language by some should not have us just throwing things out of the lexicon.
