Is learning counter-evolutionary?

[Gottservant]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

 

[TheBear]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

'Assumptions' are a dime a dozen. That's why we test, study, and research. This process eliminates the wrong 'assumptions'.

Also, there is no finish line in biological evolution.

 

[David Gould]

I think that you are under the misaprehension that people who think that evolution is true think that breeding for its own sake is good or something.

Further, you are also under the misaprehension that learning is passed on. In other words, just because ignorant people breed more than educated people does not mean that educated people will die out. Ignorant people can become educated people. Indeed, this is the only way that educated people come into existence. Every educated person was once an ignorant person ...




So there is hope for you.

 

[David Gould]

That should say, 'passed on via breeding'.

 

[arunma]

I think that you are under the misaprehension that people who think that evolution is true think that breeding for its own sake is good or something.

Further, you are also under the misaprehension that learning is passed on. In other words, just because ignorant people breed more than educated people does not mean that educated people will die out. Ignorant people can become educated people. Indeed, this is the only way that educated people come into existence. Every educated person was once an ignorant person ...




So there is hope for you.

A most excellent point. Aside from cases of genetically transmitted mental defects, intelligence seems to be more of an acquired trait than an inherited one. Now, it's true that educated people tend to have children who become educated. But my guess is that this has a lot more to do with upbringing than with genetics.

I suppose the case could still be made that the educated should have more children (either by birth or adoption) and that the uneducated should have fewer children. Then again, it could also be suggested that the poor ought to be sterilized, and we all know where that goes.

 

[plead]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

You are correct, studies show that more educated people have less children. Does this take away from evolution? Hardly! Did you know that just four hundred years ago the world had a population under one billion? Four hundred years ago we were not as well educated or technologically advanced as we are now. Guess what? Because of education, scientific and technological development the human population on Earth has absolutely skyrocketed to over 6.7 billion! And we are now, as a whole, more educated than ever before.

If it weren't for education and progression of knowledge we would not have nearly the amount of diversity that we have going for us today.

Furthermore, we are already begin to genetically modify ourselves. Right now that genetic modification (read: artificial evolution) is limited to curing certain diseases (google "gene therapy"), but if we continue expanding our knowledge exponentially as it is now, we will be able to evolve ourselves millions of times faster than natural selection in the near future. We will be able to make improvements to our DNA in a single generation, rather than over the course of hundreds of thousands or even million of years as it would occur in the wild (if the change we wanted would occur at all).

As it is now, natural selection has, for the most part, ceased to exist in industrialized nations (among humans). Our knowledge in medicine is strong enough to allow many to survive who otherwise would've died of complications during pregnancy, or due to some weakness soon after birth. Myopia is another example. In the wild, people with myopia probably wouldn't last too long. Thanks to corrective lenses they live long lives and have the opportunity to reproduce. But is that bad? Not really. So many with genetic defects, who would never have survived in the wild, have contributed so much to society.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate.

You're saying that educated people don't breed? I'll grant you, it certainly seems like that at times...

It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

It would seem that you're babbling incoherently -- you must be too busy propagating.

 

[Pesto]

A most excellent point. Aside from cases of genetically transmitted mental defects, intelligence seems to be more of an acquired trait than an inherited one. Now, it's true that educated people tend to have children who become educated. But my guess is that this has a lot more to do with upbringing than with genetics.

I suppose the case could still be made that the educated should have more children (either by birth or adoption) and that the uneducated should have fewer children. Then again, it could also be suggested that the poor ought to be sterilized, and we all know where that goes.

Disneyworld?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

Gottservant, I don't think you need to worry. You will be safe from any and all evolution AND any and all learning!

Keep up the good work!

 

[AirPo]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

The OP contains many assumptions that need not be made.

 

[RedAndy]

Is learning counter-evolutionary?

No, but Creationism is counter-learning.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Evolution would suggest that propagation is the way forward, with new adaptations leading to more survival. Learning takes time away from propagation and studies have shown that the more educated they are the less likely they are to propagate. It would seem that to hold evolutionary beliefs one must give learning second priority, but that is on the assumption that evolution is correct... that assumption need not be made.

If learning is counter-evolutionary, Creationists are evolving at a seemingly impossible rate.

 

[ENominiPatri]

If you are able to 'propagate' literally 24/7 then more power to you, I prefer taking breaks so I can work and study. Intelligence lends itself towards 'propagation' far more than you know: http://mysterymethod.com

 

[HumanisticJones]

Given the environment by which humans experience our selective presures, learning is in no way counter-evolutionary. Societal creatures that are better able to work within their society will have a better chance of reproducing and of their offspring surviving.

With humans we spend time learning so that we can function in human society and find a niche in our social environment from which we can gain resources and position. Those fit-enough to work the social system will find propagation easier.

Consequently this system's pressures select less on the adaptations that change external physiology and more on those that effect brain function and formation.

 

[MarcusHill]

Educated people have a greater tendency to understand, and therefore accept as fact, the theory of evolution. This is not a reason to believe that these people should feel an obligation to somehow try to guide human evolution by reproducing - that's the first step towards "social Darwinism". Evolution takes way too long to have any kind of noticable effect. It's much more efficient to "improve" humanity through non-evolutionary means, like actually educating people to a higher standard than their forebears.

 

[Gottservant]

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how great education is or how important it is to "evolution", but the statistics are clear. A quick search on google yielded this quote "On population, UNESCO will tell us that if a girl is educated for at least seven years, she has two or three less children than her sister who is uneducated." (http://www.unamn.org/Catherine%20Bertini.htm ). How can you argue with that?

 

[HumanisticJones]

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how great education is or how important it is to "evolution", but the statistics are clear. A quick search on google yielded this quote "On population, UNESCO will tell us that if a girl is educated for at least seven years, she has two or three less children than her sister who is uneducated." (http://www.unamn.org/Catherine%20Bertini.htm ). How can you argue with that?

The better educated sister with less children can better care for the few children she has and thus enable them a better chance at survival and health than the uneducated sister with more children.

Evolution isn't about the number of children, its about their survival. Humans don't face massive natural predation, so we don't require having 10-20 ofspring to ensure that just one makes it.

 

[Tomk80]

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how great education is or how important it is to "evolution", but the statistics are clear. A quick search on google yielded this quote "On population, UNESCO will tell us that if a girl is educated for at least seven years, she has two or three less children than her sister who is uneducated." (http://www.unamn.org/Catherine Bertini.htm ). How can you argue with that?

People who are educated also live longer are healthier and become more successful.

Taking your reasoning, evolution may just as well evolve an upperclass of rulers, and a lower class of industrial drones. I'll be happy to take my place with the rulers, while you produce my car for me.

 

[pinqy]

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how great education is or how important it is to "evolution", but the statistics are clear. A quick search on google yielded this quote "On population, UNESCO will tell us that if a girl is educated for at least seven years, she has two or three less children than her sister who is uneducated." (http://www.unamn.org/Catherine%20Bertini.htm ). How can you argue with that?

Because more children is not necessarily an advantage. IF infant mortality is high, and IF life expectancy is low, then it is necessary for a population to have a high fertility rate to sustain itself. But IF infant mortality is low and/or life expectancy is high, a population can sustain itself with a lower fertility rate, and a high fertility rate can be a disadvantage. Look what's happened with deer populations in areas where they now lack predators...the population becomes too high to be sustainable and many starve. Part of evolution, but not desireable.

Evolution is not "ggod" or "bad," it's just a description of what occurs. And just because something is natural through evolution doesn't mean we should duplicate it.

 

[Person7]

There was a movie made about this exact question. It was pretty stupid, but the idea was great. It was called Idiocracy. If you watch it keep in mind I did say it was very stupid.