Evolution And Maladaptability.

This thread our focus of conversation shall be examples of maladaptability found in nature, human civilization, and evolution.This will be another ongoing project of mine.

Could former definitions of degeneration or de-evolution merely be an actual emphasis on maladaptability?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladaptation

Do you have any examples of maladaptation? I’m not wearing my trolling hat today, by the way, but I am wearing my badge.

How do you know if an adaptation is helpful or harmful? I mean, it could seem harmful but on a longer timeline end up actually being helpful.

Technology and modern lifestyle have led to the increase of diseases like heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure. People live longer but more and more are acquiring these diseases, especially with age. (though diabetes is getting younger now).

Nowadays, the responsibility of staying healthy is placed solely upon the shoulders (head really) of the individual. He is not forced to watch tv (or internet) all day and eat tasty junk food. Today, he has a choice - he has plenty of choices to choose from.

In contrast, the hunter gatherer HAD to go out into the elements to get food and risk being injured or dying. His life was likely much shorter and big part of it revolved around surviving (finding food and shelter). He had little to no choice in the matter - he had to go where the food was.

When man started to control nature (agriculture, domestication, adopting risk reducing strategies), he took the responsibility for his survival upon himself. Things have become a lot more complex with time, but that responsibility is still with him, so he has to deal with negative consequences and mitigate them. It is a process that has to be continuously corrected and fine-tuned.

You just want to return that responsibility back to mother nature.

jhunewsletter.com/2014/10/16 … -in-48141/

zocalopublicsquare.org/2010/ … vironment/

Could you just say what you are saying without the faff? Don’t get me wrong, it looks like there is potential for an interesting debate. Or/ maybe I shouldn’t smoke so much lols, but either way its hard going when posters keep lobbing blocks of c/p text on pages.

Well, I guess my interest in maladaption concerning biology, nature, and evolution is because I view all of human civilization as one giant maladaption.

This reminds me of my thread: “Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?” :wink:

Evolution is all about self-preservation.

The so-called “Neolithic Revolution” was a process of settling, husbandry (agriculture and stock breeding), urbanisation. This process has not ended yet.

For it to be a maladaption, at least to demonstrate it clearly, the species has to be wiped out. Not just some collapse where a few hardy individuals survive, but homo sapians end.

But then you can’t call civilization a maladaption, it would be whatever traits we have that lead us to civilize ourselves that would be the maladaptions.

But moreno, pretty soon all of humanity will be reduced to rubble when the pending economic collapse destroys civilization. I mean…didn’t you know that. I mean shit man, the chinese are manipulating gold prices and sometimes there are fluctuations in the stock market. All these things prove that civilization is going under.

Not necessarily, maladaption is merely evolutionary adaptions that are more harmful than beneficial. There is nothing regarding the subject that a species must kill or destroy itself first before a maladaption can be alluded to.

To be fair however it has yet remain to be seen whether humanity will destroy itself or not although there is a real likely chance it will.

Who can argue that modern civilization across the planet isn’t more harmful than beneficial? I would guess nobody.

The desperation of a man so readily to defend the status quo and his position within it is starting to show itself more with each post. So unlike you Mr Reasonable. You seem worried and sweating about some things.

By the way, humanity is destroying itself in many more ways beyond economics.

So, you’ll have to do better than that with your sarcasm meant to tear me down.

You’re playing to the wrong gallery. I believe stuff you would dismiss as conspiracy theory. But relevent to this topic HHH believes there will be survivors. If there are survivors then there need not have been maladaption.

But then it is very hard to judge. Even what we consider genetic diseases were useful in some times/environments, which is why they caught on. Right now there are more humans than ever before. So far reproduction is going well. If it is not reproduction, not the propagation of the species that is the measure of maladaption, then what is it?

If you want to argue that the lives we have are diminished, so the adaptions are bad, this leads to problems because SOME humans live extremely vital lives, even by neolithic standards Probably more than did then.

IOW by what value do you HHH decide that something is a maladaption.

I am reacting to you who 1) think that you and some others will survive the coming collapse. So the survival criterion is taken care of
2) has values that can be satisfied in a post-collapse society. IOW with humans who are physically and brainwise like they are now.

How are you maladapted?

If you are not maladapted, are you the only one?

If not then homo sapiens are still viable. Not all members of a species need to be strong/right from an evolutionary perspective, as long as a number keep on surviving?

Once we have the prefix mal we are judging. So according to what values are we judging

cause in terms of evolution, propagation is the only value, and we are propogating.

To answer the question in the opening post more precisely (and with a link too):

Yes, and instead of “maladaptability” one could also say “false-selection” or “negative-selection” or “dysgenics” … and so on and so forth ( viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393 ).

According to nature that may be true, but we have adapted to the things we have created. First we devised things from nature in prehistoric times, then came metals and we could now shape things however we wanted e.g. swords. We have continued to adapt to all the inventions through the industrial revolution and til now. I agree that that is a maladaption in terms of evolution and nature, then to a lesser degree so was the stone age. We are not the only animals which use tools tho.

The solution of that problem is that a disadvantage can later become an advantage then (and only then), if (and only if) the environment changes in a way that leads to the maladaptation-adaptation change. So the maladaptation can become an adaptation, more exactly: a postadaptation. A postadaptation does not mean that there was no maladaptation; the reverse is true: a postadaptation means that there was a maladaptation that has later become an adaptation due to the change of the environment.