|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Jun 9, 2008 20:36
We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
happiness.
The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
|
| |
|
| | 22 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jun 9, 2008 21:05
On Jun 9, 8:36 pm, "Scott H" wrote:
> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>
> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
> happiness.
>
> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
If Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable
traits become more common in successive generations of a population of
reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less...
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Jun 10, 2008 04:19
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:36:40 -0400, Scott H wrote:
> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest.
> We see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
Do not go to the virus camp with this. You will be laughed over to the
bacteria guys who will send you to the mold spores.
If strength = survival maybe a readjustment is needed here.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jun 10, 2008 06:33
Scott H schreef:
> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>
> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
> happiness.
>
> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
>
>
It's quite logical that a species like the humans will split someday
into those who get taller, and those who do not. But actually getting
smaller is something that does not happen. Human dwarfs may replicate
more succesfully and inherit the earth. Eeven smaller dwarf may be still
more succesfull. But the bigger humans will sureley demand their space. ...
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 10, 2008 20:03
ZerkonX wrote:
> Do not go to the virus camp with this. You will be laughed over to the
> bacteria guys who will send you to the mold spores.
>
> If strength = survival maybe a readjustment is needed here.
Ad hominem. Try again, tough guy!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 10, 2008 20:05
Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
> Eeven smaller dwarf may be
> still more succesfull. But the bigger humans will sureley demand
> their space.
The first thing your sentence reminds me of is "force of selfishness."
What if this is the wrong direction? What if competition would ultimately
result in death of the species?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jun 10, 2008 22:51
Scott H schreef:
> Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
>> Eeven smaller dwarf may be
>> still more succesfull. But the bigger humans will sureley demand
>> their space.
>
> The first thing your sentence reminds me of is "force of selfishness."
>
> What if this is the wrong direction? What if competition would ultimately
> result in death of the species?
>
>
It could be. A split between reasonable humans and less reasonable
humans is possible too in evolution.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jun 11, 2008 02:25
On 10 Jun, 04:36, "Scott H" wrote:
> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>
> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
> happiness.
>
> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
Let me guess - you are short?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jun 11, 2008 02:33
On 10 Jun, 14:33, Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
> Scott H schreef:> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
>> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>
>> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
>> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
>> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
>> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
>> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
>> happiness.
>
>> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
>> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
>
> It's quite logical that...
|
| Show full article (1.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Leon HoeneveldLeon Hoeneveld Date: Jun 11, 2008 04:39
chazwin schreef:
> On 10 Jun, 14:33, Leon Hoeneveld wrote:
>> Scott H schreef:> We are used to hearing about the selection of the biggest and strongest. We
>>> see it drawn everywhere as big fish eating little fish.
>>> But what if the proper direction of evolution were toward *decreased* body
>>> size? Think about it: smaller men imply a bigger world. Earth may even
>>> approach the size of Jupiter relative to the new men. That would mean more
>>> food, more land, and more resources. Smaller men may achieve new population
>>> heights. That would mean more connections, more advancement, and more
>>> happiness.
>>> The likelihood that being small would decrease our ability to feel pleasure
>>> doesn't seem high to me, but counterarguments are welcomed.
>> It's quite logical that a species like the humans will split someday
>> into those who get taller, and those who do not. But actually getting
>> smaller is something that does not happen. Human dwarfs may replicate
>> more succesfully and inherit the earth. Eeven smaller dwarf may be still
>> more succesfull. But the bigger humans will sureley demand their space.
>
>
> It is highly unlikely that humans will "split". Due to technology. ...
|
| Show full article (2.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
