Hypography Science Forums: niviene - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

Well, don't murder me for posting without being any sort of well-read informed person on the subject, but I did take a couple terms of genetic anthropology many years ago, and it has since been something I cannot stop thinking about. A couple posts have mentioned it, too. I do think we have really done a lot to remove natural selection from the picture. I am constantly trying to decide which side of that fence I am on. What happens when natural selection is removed from the equation? The gene pool begins to become more and more tainted with genese that should not have naturally been passed on, rather than dying off. For example, sickle cell. It's been so long that I may be thinking of the wrong disease, sorry. But, I thought this disease was supposed to be fatal in the childhood stages, and today people live long lives with it. Naturally that would weed out the carrier before he was able to reproduce, but now that is not the case. Am I happy that we now have the technology to allow these people to live such long lives?

The other side of that is that we have such advanced technology that our numbers are getting to be beyond the planet's capacity (well, perhaps not today, but when is that tipping point?). One part of me believes that natural selection should be allowed to run its course. Messing with nature scares me - a lot. Millions of years of nature, couple hundred of us. On the other hand, forgive a personal insertion, but when my daughter was born prematurely, I would have given anything for her to live, and the machines that attempted to do so were all we had to hope for - screw nature, I want my baby. I think it's hard to really choose a side without personally having to be faced with loss versus the technology to force a life to begin or continue. Unfortunately ours did not survive, but even after that experience, I still am sort of leaning towards nature. I feel that if I am struck by cancer or some other disease, or an accident which leaves me a vegetable, I would prefer to let nature take its course. My loved ones might not agree. I can't help but continue to return to this desire whenever I think about natural selection and evolution on the grand scale. Am I nuts? Can I be the only one? Of course, there's always the joke about removing warning labels from everything and letting natural selection work its course... perhaps a win-win? <evil niv>

There are tons of reasons for language evolution. The biggest part is that there is no "language." Nobody has a set, perfect version of any one language. It's more like a rainbow of variations. Language is a broader word that covers tons of tiny pockets of dialects. Everything we do impacts our dialects, which can spread to the whole language or remain a dialect identifier (as in the example of how the word "wicked" is used in different areas, although I think these days that word in particular has become pretty common).

Languages/dialects are sort of like paint colors. Imagine Spain to be a blank slate, with a white background, and pretend just for this example that Spanish spoken in Spain is pure Spanish with no other influence. Then the moors come in. They leave their impact in pockets of Spain - we'll call their color blue. The blue shows up predonimantly in the areas the Moors settled and with whomever they traded. Later, the Goths come in. Their color can be red. Their language impact shows up similarly. Rinse, repeat. In the end, you have a canvas that is spread with lots of colors, which mostly blend in, but still have some pockets that are more vibrantly one color or another, where there is still a larger influence. Over time, these blend in with the rest. What you have left is what we call "Spanish," but has all kinds of influences within. The south-western borders of Germany have a mixed German-French language with dialects I couldn't understand even knowing both languages. In north-west south america, there are Quechua dialects and then some mingled with the Spanish spoken there, which make entirely distinct dialects that those of us who study Spanish and speak it fluently would never understand, but the people that live and interact with them do.

Languages are split up into prescriptive and descriptive parts: prescriptive rules are the ones your English teacher wants you to accept as "right." Descriptive rules are the ones that actually exist in the world. In a prescriptive world, the sentence "Ain't nothin' but a thang," would be non-grammatical and incorrect, but in descriptive worlds, it is a correct line because other people wouldn't look at you funny and think you were not a native speaker from this country, even though English profs everywhere will groan at you for using it. So the slang that kids and adults use, influenced by TV and technology (think of words we've developed that people actually speak now, such as "Lulz") has incredible impact on our dialects and our entire language - but, thanks to the TV and the net, these changes are happening more rapidly than ever before, and the impact is global. It's funny to sift through facebook posts by friends that speak some other language and see ramblings in some language I do not understand, but a slang word will be inserted, such as "noob."

I think the words that get borrowed into other language groups (or, what I'd call dialects that are so distinct as to be non-comprehensible by the other) are most commonly the ones that end up with the most surprising or unexpected meanings or usage.

My cat goes absolutely bananas whenever a raindrop even slightly taps on the windows in the house. However, not only will she sleep in the sink, drink from and play in the faucet, and stand in the shower with me at times and endure those droplets and sounds, she will also lay on the back deck several feet from the running lawnmower, yawning and disinterested. I find this fascinating

Hasanuddin, on 23 June 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

While I generally agree with you, and I guess you'll never read this because you left, I am always amused by people who say things like this. Do you ever read the legislative history of the laws before criticising them? I find that almost always, the people complaining have no idea. Since everything around us changes, the laws also have to change. Our legal system (not perfect, but pretty great, relatively speaking) would be ridiculous if the laws didn't change with the times.

Hasanuddin, on 23 June 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

Unfortunately, no matter where you are married, the IRS will not recognize any same-sex marriage for tax purposes under the Defense of Marriage Act. A load of BS, of course, and I can't wait until that goes away.

I am ashamed that so many people have issues with same-sex marriage. There is no reason to argue it. We have taken marriage away from being a religious act and have turned it into a legal act. The words alone "I do" are not speech - they are called a legal act; they are treated differently under the law, in courts, under the federal rules of evidence, etc. A legal act should not be allowed only for some people and disallowed for another group of people - equal protection should be jumping off the page here. I have never once heard an argument that made any sense as to why any two natural persons should not be allowed to enter into a legal relationship called marriage (there used to be a good argument for cousins getting married, I try not to giggle, but it's true - years ago in a genetic anthropology course, I learned that there is just as much chance of having a birth defect by mating with a first cousin as there is for a woman over 40 years old who gives birth; perhaps other relational blocks would make sense, but that's about the only thing I can think of). Nor have I ever heard a reason that the Defense of Marriage act should be allowed to override the marital status of two individuals in the state in which they reside; although it applies to federal taxation, all federal taxation is based upon the personal marriage status the individual has declared in his state of residence. Not to mention that any block on same sex marriage can be circumvented by a gender altering surgery, something which public policy should warn us not to push people into.

There is no need to revise any definitions anywhere of the word "marriage," except in those places that have changed the meaning to include genders. The biggest issue for me is that with so much horror and hatred in the world, why expend so much energy to stop one thing that is beautiful and good? Why attack people in love, for crying out loud? Legal acts must be uniformly applied. If a church has an issue with any particular couple, that's for the church to complain about, but the legal act itself should be available to same-sex couples as well (and recognized as such by the federal government if recognized in the couple's state of residence).

Tormod, on 20 August 2010 - 01:18 AM, said:

It worked.... you have summoned the niv.