Theory Of Multi-Track Evolution

[petrushkagoogol]

Postulate : Within the human domain all people of different economic, social or racial backgrounds feel equally motivated to have offspring. (multi-track means across different strata of society)

 

Proof -

 

* Success means different things to different people

* The physiological indicators of happiness (Success) are a euphoric state characterized by endorphine and dopamine release

 

Conclusion - All people of different economic and social backgrounds feel equally motivated to multiply because the indicators of success are bio-chemical. (not material). Also there is no clear benchmark of success.

 

Evolution within the human species propagate as a multi-track development, with people of different backgrounds on different tracks, but the goal is the same.   

 

QED

 

Is then the model of multi-track evolution within the human species an assurance that all segments of the human population get an equal chance to have progeny ? (not restricted to the uber class).

Edited December 12, 2017 by petrushkagoogol

[Maine farmer]

 

Postulate : Within the human domain all people of different economic, social or racial backgrounds feel equally motivated to have offspring. (multi-track means across different strata of society)

 

Proof -

 

* Success means different things to different people

* The physiological indicators of happiness (Success) are a euphoric state characterized by endorphine and dopamine release

 

Conclusion - All people of different economic and social backgrounds feel equally motivated to multiply because the indicators of success are bio-chemical. (not material). Also there is no clear benchmark of success.

 

Evolution within the human species propagate as a multi-track development, with people of different backgrounds on different tracks, but the goal is the same.   

 

QED

 

Is then the model of multi-track evolution within the human species an assurance that all segments of the human population get an equal chance to have progeny ? (not restricted to the uber class).

 

One glaring flaw in your logic is that a state of euphoria can be achieved by many methods which will not produce offspring.

[exchemist]

 

Postulate : Within the human domain all people of different economic, social or racial backgrounds feel equally motivated to have offspring. (multi-track means across different strata of society)

 

Proof -

 

* Success means different things to different people

* The physiological indicators of happiness (Success) are a euphoric state characterized by endorphine and dopamine release

 

Conclusion - All people of different economic and social backgrounds feel equally motivated to multiply because the indicators of success are bio-chemical. (not material). Also there is no clear benchmark of success.

 

Evolution within the human species propagate as a multi-track development, with people of different backgrounds on different tracks, but the goal is the same.   

 

QED

 

Is then the model of multi-track evolution within the human species an assurance that all segments of the human population get an equal chance to have progeny ? (not restricted to the uber class).

 

This post is entirely misconceived. 

 

- There is no evidence that people of different social background are equally motivated to have children. In fact the decline in birth rate with increasing affluence, seen in many countries, strongly suggests it is untrue.

 

- Success is not at all the same as happiness. Individuals define success for themselves in a multitude of different ways, but most are more to do with a sense of fulfilment than the shallow goal of happiness. Happiness when it occurs is generally a result of fulfilment rather than a goal in itself.

 

- Happiness cannot be reduced to physiological measures of "euphoria". Many unhappy people induce euphoria by various means in order to gain respite from their unhappiness, but that does not make them happy. 

 

- There is no "goal" for evolution. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by exchemist

[petrushkagoogol]

One glaring flaw in your logic is that a state of euphoria can be achieved by many methods which will not produce offspring.

 

 

This post is entirely misconceived. 

 

- There is no evidence that people of different social background are equally motivated to have children. In fact the decline in birth rate with increasing affluence, seen in many countries, strongly suggests it is untrue.

 

- Success is not at all the same as happiness. Individuals define success for themselves in a multitude of different ways, but most are more to do with a sense of fulfilment than the shallow goal of happiness. Happiness when it occurs is generally a result of fulfilment rather than a goal in itself.

 

- Happiness cannot be reduced to physiological measures of "euphoria". Many unhappy people induce euphoria by various means in order to gain respite from their unhappiness, but that does not make them happy. 

 

- There is no "goal" for evolution. 

 

What I am trying to say is that janitors are as desirous of perpetuating their existence (through sexual reproduction) as rich business tycoons are .The brain experiences the same effect of neurotransmitters for all individuals, irrespective of their economic or social antecedents. This is necessary because -

 

• Everyone cannot be King
• A janitor whose previous generations had been janitors, might get lucky at  some point of time. :vava:

[exchemist]

 

What I am trying to say is that janitors are as desirous of perpetuating their existence (through sexual reproduction) as rich business tycoons are .The brain experiences the same effect of neurotransmitters for all individuals, irrespective of their economic or social antecedents. This is necessary because -

 

• Everyone cannot be King
• A janitor whose previous generations had been janitors, might get lucky at  some point of time. :vava:

 

Well that is very different indeed from what you actually said. 

 

And again, what you now say is also misconceived (if you will pardon the pun). 

 

- You appear to be conflating sex drive with desire for self-perpetuation. The two things are not in the least the same. I suggest to you that very few acts of sexual congress are motivated by desire for self-perpetuation.

 

- Sex drive competes with other interests for human attention. It was Alastair Cook who observed that there are only two true aphrodisiacs: youth and boredom. Your janitor, if poor and poorly educated, may not have access to the range of pursuits of someone more wealthy. Sex also provides comfort and reassurance to someone in need of it, so may have greater attractions for somebody whose life is unsatisfying in other ways. So sex may become more frequently the way he or she chooses to spend an hour or two, compared to someone better off. Birth rates are indeed generally higher among poor people.  

 

- Profession, or trade, or even social class are quite obviously not hereditary, whether through genetics or social rules. Monarchy, however, most definitely is. 

 

If your real point is that sex drive is broadly the same for all social classes, then I suppose that may be true. But so what?     

[Maine farmer]

. It was Alastair Cook who observed that there are only two true aphrodisiacs: youth and boredom.

 

Now nearly everyone under the age of 35 is probably asking " Who is Alastair Cook?"

[exchemist]

Now nearly everyone under the age of 35 is probably asking " Who is Alastair Cook?"

My fault, perhaps, for mis-spelling his name. I should have written Alastair Cooke.

 

There is an Alastair Cook in the UK news from time to time, but he is a cricketer. 

[petrushkagoogol]

Well that is very different indeed from what you actually said. 

 

And again, what you now say is also misconceived (if you will pardon the pun). 

 

- You appear to be conflating sex drive with desire for self-perpetuation. The two things are not in the least the same. I suggest to you that very few acts of sexual congress are motivated by desire for self-perpetuation.

 

- Sex drive competes with other interests for human attention. It was Alastair Cook who observed that there are only two true aphrodisiacs: youth and boredom. Your janitor, if poor and poorly educated, may not have access to the range of pursuits of someone more wealthy. Sex also provides comfort and reassurance to someone in need of it, so may have greater attractions for somebody whose life is unsatisfying in other ways. So sex may become more frequently the way he or she chooses to spend an hour or two, compared to someone better off. Birth rates are indeed generally higher among poor people.  

 

- Profession, or trade, or even social class are quite obviously not hereditary, whether through genetics or social rules. Monarchy, however, most definitely is. 

 

If your real point is that sex drive is broadly the same for all social classes, then I suppose that may be true. But so what?     

 

If you treat people of different economic strata as different, then they have their own methods of adapting to circumstances, and even the most penurious of people are desirous of offspring as a kind of compensation. As you rightly pointed out poor people produce more offspring, which is counter-intuitive, (poor people sire more offspring than is justified by their means) if you pause to think a bit. There appears to be a multi-track path of evolutionary adaptation, which is the subject of the OP.  :vava:

Edited December 14, 2017 by petrushkagoogol

[exchemist]

If you treat people of different economic strata as different, then they have their own methods of adapting to circumstances, and even the most penurious of people are desirous of offspring as a kind of compensation. As you rightly pointed out poor people produce more offspring, which is counter-intuitive, (poor people sire more offspring than is justified by their means) if you pause to think a bit. There appears to be a multi-track path of evolutionary adaptation, which is the subject of the OP.  :vava:

You have made no case at all for any form of evolutionary adaptation. You have merely attempted to draw a number of unwarranted conclusions about people's sex drive.

 

If you want to make a point about evolution, you need to explain what form of environmental pressures a population of organisms is subject to and how evolution might be able to cause adaptations in the population that would lead those with the adaptation to have more offspring than those without it. 

 

I see none of this, so far.

Edited December 14, 2017 by exchemist

[petrushkagoogol]

You have made no case at all for any form of evolutionary adaptation. You have merely attempted to draw a number of unwarranted conclusions about people's sex drive.

 

If you want to make a point about evolution, you need to explain what form of environmental pressures a population of organisms is subject to and how evolution might be able to cause adaptations in the population that would lead those with the adaptation to have more offspring than those without it. 

 

I see none of this, so far.

 

The logic for the OP is - (=> refers to is implied by)

 

Economic inequalities => economic pressure => social inequalities => social pressure => social tension => internal stresses at the individual level => need to relieve tension => need for a zero-cost solution to relieve stress => SEX

 

P.S. The poor can't afford luxury holidays.  :vava:

[exchemist]

 

The logic for the OP is - (=> refers to is implied by)

 

Economic inequalities => economic pressure => social inequalities => social pressure => social tension => internal stresses at the individual level => need to relieve tension => need for a zero-cost solution to relieve stress => SEX

 

P.S. The poor can't afford luxury holidays.  :vava:

 

Which has, literally, ****-all to do with evolution. 

[petrushkagoogol]

Which has, literally, ****-all to do with evolution. 

 

It is more a societal evolutionary paradigm, which can be stated as -

 

The frequency of sexual intercourse (and thereby the chance of having offspring) is inversely proportional to the level of disposable income.

[exchemist]

 

It is more a societal evolutionary paradigm, which can be stated as -

 

The frequency of sexual intercourse (and thereby the chance of having offspring) is inversely proportional to the level of disposable income.

 

Or to put it simply and removing the obviously wrong mathematical statement: poor people have more babies.

 

Which would still say nothing whatever about evolution.

[petrushkagoogol]

Or to put it simply and removing the obviously wrong mathematical statement: poor people have more babies.

 

Which would still say nothing whatever about evolution.

 

Maybe the title was a misnomer ....

 

I would re-christen it as "Multi-track evolution (of human society based on economic strata)".   

[Buffy]

Let's go to Teh Google:
 
 

Some scholars have recently questioned the assumption that economic development and fertility are correlated in a simple negative manner. A study published in Nature in 2009 found that when using the Human Development Index instead of the GDP as measure for economic development, fertility follows a J-shaped curve: with rising economic development, fertility rates indeed do drop at first but then begin to rise again as the level of social and economic development increases while still remaining below the replacement rate
 
In an article published in Nature, Myrskylä et al. pointed out that “unprecedented increases” in social and economic development in the 20th century had been accompanied by considerable declines in population growth rates and fertility. This negative association between human fertility and socio-economic development has been “one of the most solidly established and generally accepted empirical regularities in the social sciences”.[15] The researchers used cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to examine the relationship between total fertility rate (TFR) and the human development index.


 

Source: Wikipedia; Income and Fertility

 

 
This is obviously at country levels, and what you really see is that that decline is more due to the country's level of wealth and that poor people in rich countries basically drop their birth rates along with the rich folks.

That doesn't mean they're not screwing their brains out, just that their income in a wealthy society is not closely tied to how many kids they have (in fact, more is a drain), and also the availability of birth control.

What I thought you were proposing in the OP was that rich folks don't get laid as often as poor folks, and I don't think that's true. At least not in my experience.


Strollin' in the park, watching winter turn to spring, walkin' in the dark, seein' lovers do their thing, :phones:

Buffy