If natural selection prefers beauty, health and fitness -
why are there so many ugly, unhealthy, and unfit people around?
As much as people might "disagree" about evolution and the origin of life, most people agree with natural selection and the whole "survival of the fittest" idea.
People think it's perfectly normal and natural for beautiful, fit people to have more dating/mating options, right? More people are attracted to them, so they have more losers people to choose from when selecting a partner. So why isn't everybody beautiful by now? (or are we?)
The answer may be "sexual antagonism" -- hot/fit/successful men will pass genes to their sons that make their sons hot/fit/successful too, but to their daughters, not so much - and the reverse for hot/fit/successful women and their daughters.
Here's a short and simple article about it. There are many more involved and technical articles about it on PLoS and google scholar.
Fascinatin'
makes me wish I hadn't dropped that sex differences biology class
Its more about who can make the most babies. And who makes the most babies? Stupid people!
Why? Well... because they cant really consider the results of their actions (sex). So they do stupid things (lots of sex, little protection) and end up with lots of babies.
Those babies are also stupid...and so they have lots of babies too!
Where as, the smart people have reasons for not making a lot of babies (cant support them, want to create better environment for them, use protection when not needing them). So smart people dont end up with lots of babies.
So... basically....stupid people spread faster and outbreed the smart people. Looks dont really come into it (ugly stupid people dont really care what their mates are like, they get drunk and go on their merry-making way).
These mass of stupid people are also the ones less likely to (again) think about the results of their actions (eating too much) so end up being more unhealthy and unfit...
And....yea.... thats how it goes :(
I don't know if I'm on the right track with this but here's my tuppence worth.
I am average as far as everything goes, but I work along side some very attractive young women....yet not one of them can keep a bf.....seriously I'm not being nasty, they are forever coming into work saying I've been dumped again.....why? if they are what is seen by today's standards as the ideal....
So I don't know the answer but I think there is something in the article.
Not sure I would say "stupidity" is the only reason people have more children (if you take into consideration circumstance and step outside the Western world for a second) ... but in many cases, I think those with fewer socioeconomic options don't see the point of NOT procreating, as being a parent gives them a role and purpose in life that they may not otherwise have - and one more mouth to feed once you get to a certain level does not make much of a difference.
But I was going to say that "beautiful" people often stay that way because their circumstances allow it. That is, any celebrity that is "OK" looking will take care of themselves, eat the right food, exercise, wear the right clothes, makeup, etc. So if you stood 100 celebrities next to, say, 100 homeless people - the chances are most of us would say the celebrities looked better. But who's to say the 100 homeless did not, at one point, look better - but now don't because their hair is a mess, their clothes are horrid, they have sores on their faces, and their teeth are missing. So circumstance has a lot to do with "looks".
As far as "Sexual Antagonism" - what if BOTH parents are ugly/beautiful? I don't foresee Brad/Angelina having too many ugly babies, male or female, although I suppose it can happen due to the tricks of the gene pool.
Not sure where this fits in, but there have been studies showing that people do tend to attract those they feel are "similar" to themselves in the beauty continuum ...
Hmmm ... I wonder what would happen if we started to judge people's beauty like they did the deer?
Original Post by loriklorik:
Its more about who can make the most babies. And who makes the most babies? Stupid people!
Ever see the movie Idiocracy? It is basically this concept, fast forward a few years.
My husband and I found it very amusing. We're waiting to have kids for a number of very responsible reasons, while everyone around us is popping them out everywhere! We're going to end up being the smart couple that never reproduces, killing our blood line. HAHA.
I'm not sure that it's anything to do with people being stupid, more that if the breeding/reproduction was down to mainly the upper class then the gene pool would become very limited because their numbers are fewer than the average working class person.....their numbers far outreach that of the so called elite so the gene pool is far more ranging and therefore stronger as a result.
Haven't read the links yet (will later, sounds interesting) but my immediate thought was less attractive/fit procreate with other less attractive/fit people. Our intelligence, and wide differences in physical appearances makes us far different than other animal species (where natural selection is much more present).
kaffwynn - I saw that movie, my bf and I still say some quotes from it 1.5yrs later (I like money - I can't believe you like money too!)
Original Post by loriklorik:
Its more then just survival of the fittest... (well, at least as far as looks are concerned)
Its more about who can make the most babies. And who makes the most babies? Stupid people!
Why? Well... because they cant really consider the results of their actions (sex). So they do stupid things (lots of sex, little protection) and end up with lots of babies.
Those babies are also stupid...and so they have lots of babies too!
Where as, the smart people have reasons for not making a lot of babies (cant support them, want to create better environment for them, use protection when not needing them). So smart people dont end up with lots of babies.
So... basically....stupid people spread faster and outbreed the smart people. Looks dont really come into it (ugly stupid people dont really care what their mates are like, they get drunk and go on their merry-making way).
These mass of stupid people are also the ones less likely to (again) think about the results of their actions (eating too much) so end up being more unhealthy and unfit...
And....yea.... thats how it goes :(
Seriously? And the woman who just wanted to have one baby and ended up having 6 simply because the injected her husbands sperm into her womb would be stupid? She should have known better?
I guess the fact that every birth control method known to man including the depo shots didn't work for me makes me stupid too huh?
The only stupid person I see here is the man who doesn't know when to shut his mouth on a forum that is more female than male and where there are a lot of Mothers.
I for one hope you never reproduce because your the kind of guy that gives men a bad name. How many poor girls have you left to deal with the pregnancy after you did the deed? Cause thats what you sound like. A total Jerk
Survival of the fittest as we know it in the animal world has been negated in the human population due to numerous societal changes. Empathy. A social safety net. Advances in medicine that keep non-productive and/or unwell people healthy enough to procreate. We have turned our back on natural selection. We see value even in the "un-fit".
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, aside from the fact that it slows, stops, or reverses our evolution.
And, FTR, I'm a mother of 2 who is not in the least offended by the "stupid people procreate more" comments.
Something to keep in mind, though, is that it is good for the economy to have those little consumers. Not good for the environment, of course. But, without a replacement birth rate very bad things will happen in the labor market, not to mention (in the US) our issues with SS and Medicare would be drastically compounded. So, it's a good thing that someone's having kids. The fertility rate in the US is hovering right at replacement level (2.1 births per woman). In places like Germany it is much lower and that's a problem.
People from counties with higher birth rates will just move there. Germany will be renamed Chindia.
Umm, im not saying that every woman who has more then X children is an idiot.... (my mother had 4) Im saying stupid people are going to be pumping out a lot more unwanted kids that they cant support. Those kids wont get educations (combined with genetics) and simply continue the line of ignorance and children.
"accidents" happen... its just that it happens to stupid people more (because a lot of the "accidents" could have easily been avoided with a LITTLE consideration of the consequences)
curse word warning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA
loriklorik, if you haven't seen Idoicracy yet, rent it. NOW. It is one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time (and sadly, I can see it happening, too).
Seriously, though, there are so many ugly, unfit, and unhealthy people around due to lack of natural predators, and due to medical advances. Also, because there are so many unfit, unhealthy people in the world, it's kind of impossible for them to be outbreeded by the fit, healthy, and beautiful people. And the unfit and unhealthy tend to pass on the unfit and unhealthy traits they've lived by their whole life.
It's an endless cycle, really.
Original Post by armandleg:
Seriously, though, there are so many ugly, unfit, and unhealthy people around due to lack of natural predators, and due to medical advances.
What does attractiveness have to do with survivability against attacking predators? "Oh, I better not eat her, she's too pretty". 
Original Post by p0nda:
Original Post by armandleg:
Seriously, though, there are so many ugly, unfit, and unhealthy people around due to lack of natural predators, and due to medical advances.
What does attractiveness have to do with survivability against attacking predators? "Oh, I better not eat her, she's too pretty".
I'm just using the words the OP provided to describe those who would be considered flawed human beings according to natural selection. =) The rest of my post I leave out the "ugly" because I don't feel that attractiveness is something that helps provide survivability in the "wild" so to speak.
All I could think of was Idiocracy. I'm glad other people saw that movie too. lol.
I really thought that movie was pretty straight-on though. Uneducated people statistically have more children than educated people.
Drink Brondo, it has electrolytes!
But to the OP, I haven't read the articles, but I will say the idea of what is beautiful has changed over the years, for one, and so-called "ugly" people would rather mate with another ugly person than not at all, in general.
But beauty in any species does not imply greater fitness, or better survival skills. The classic example is the peacock, whose feathers make it very visible to predators as well as females, but that trait has survived because females mate selectively based on the glamor of the tail feathers.
As to why there are so many unfit people, part of that is because medicine is saving people who would have died a long time ago, but most of it is because of the world we live in. Most people have the genes to be fit and healthy, but there's more food available than there ever has been before in human history, and most of us do much less physical labor than any other part of human history. It makes sense too. In the past, we would want to be able to store food effectively when food is plenty to better survive times of famine.
Can I do OA with Calorie Count?
Keeping food logs and counting calories is completely compatible with OA. Overeaters Anonymous (OA) advocates abstinence in-between... Read more
