Discussion Why do negative traits exist in humans if nature and evolution wants us to survive?

[Painless_end]

Aren't we all supposed to be geared automatically towards reproduction and a healthy life as part of being living beings who have been born after millennia of evolution in human beings and the natural world around us?

Why do negative traits exist in the first place? Why are children born with congenital birth defects or mental issues?

Why does murderous or psychopathic evil exist if the goal of entire human race should be geared towards survival and reproduction of themselves? Why do non-helpful issues like mental or untreatable physical health issues exist at all in humans?

I am talking of those that occur naturally, not the ones brought on artificially because of external factors like pollution, wrong nutrition, or anything else.

I know this is a vague, but I hope you can try to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Georg]

Nature only wants mammals with good genetics to survive and reproduce. If you are constantly struggling in life for whatever reason, nature basically wants you to ctb.
But pro-life fuckers don't want us to leave peacefully bc they "invented" god and morals. Nature doesn't give a shit about either of these.

 

[Pluto]

The simple answer is that nature doesn't want humans to survive, it wants itself to survive. For most of human history, which dates 200,000 years, the population of the species was constantly held back by disease and predators. Only once technology started to ramp up did humans begin to dominate, and even become a source of harm to the ecosystem.

As individuals, we do not matter at all except if we can contribute something towards evolution. The same is true of the human species.

Of course, this is merely a reductionist/Darwinist viewpoint that does not account for more profound perspectives that are difficult for the rational mind to perceive.

 

[chocolatebar]

You don't have to think about nature as an entity, or a being. It often leads to confusion and misconceptions.

Living beings, somehow got formed. Imagine a living being that got formed, lived a wonderful life and died, but didn't reproduce. There won't be other beings like that one. Reproduction is what makes the life "models" be copied for new generations.

now comes the tricky part. When we look back, it my seem like there's something pushing living beings into that direction, when it's the other way around. All the other possibilities who didn't make copies of themselves weren't pushed into any direction.

I don't know if I'm using the proper words to transcribe my thoughts, but I'm trying my best.

Now, comes the effect of several generations, and the observations that have led to darwinism. The ones who aren't most adapted to live into the environment, as it changes, tend not to reproduce, and, therefore, tend not to perpetuate their "models". Reproduction is the only parameter, so, it doesn't matter if the beings have positive or negative traits in general, as long as they reproduce. In fact, some animals in nature live some miserable lives, but their species keep existing merely because they manage to reproduce themselves.

Another factor to keep in mind is that natural selection will work along several generations, so there might be situations in which selection is happening, and some traits will stop being copied in the long run.

There's also a strong influence of mere chance in all this, but I already wrote too much and don't want to mess it all up.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think for the main part- because we've bypassed natural selection. We don't actively shun the 'weak' in our societies. In fact- we do what we can to support them. Sometimes- they are given more assistance to succeed in life. Plus- it would likely be viewed as eugenics if people with congenital health conditions were told they weren't allowed to have children. Put it this way- if a lion was born lame- it likely wouldn't survive in the long run. If a human is born lame- it will be given assistance medically. We've been taught not to discriminate against people with disabilities. Nature tends to kill off animals with disabilities before they can reproduce.

It's easier to survive as a human (in the western world anyhow.) Even with pretty severe health conditions- availability of food, shelter, medicine and disability benefits means that lots of us survive into reproductive age. We may have all sorts of issues now- especially mental illness. Still- does that REALLY affect our survival rate?

What does puzzle me is- Why do humans become depressed, anti-natilist and suicidal? They certainly seem to be at odds to what is 'good' or, natural for us. I suppose I think that part of us isn't all that natural anymore. I think our primal brains are still a part of nature- with their strong survival instinct. Yet- maybe our conscious, sentient brains have moved away from nature now- so- maybe those rules don't apply.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't for the 'greater good.' This world is struggling to cope with the 8 billion people inhabiting it. Perhaps it's good that a percentage of people are gay and don't want children, are anti-natilist and- even want to leave early via CTB.

Plus- I hate it but a part of me wonders whether the narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths do really well in this kind of world. They make life a living hell for the rest of us- but- they sometimes do really well in life. Maybe- if there is still natural selection at play- this kind of dog eat dog messed up world favours them.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

Not everyone is suppose to be equal. There will be losers, ugly, and talentless people to balance it out and prove that life is luck based.

 

[LifeQuitter]

It makes no sense at all.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

(If I am wrong about anything here, then I apologize for that. This post is not very well-written, but none of my posts are, so...

Also, I'm trying best to simplify some of this too (which I am not good at). Evolution is a complex subject and I'm not great at comprehending or explain these types of things, so bear with me.)

Evolution doesn't strive for perfection. Many evolutionary traits may come with certain trade-offs, for example. Along with that, there are certain deleterious alleles that may exist in a population for a long time due to them being recessive, since dominant alleles typically don't become fixed. Certain "negative" traits may also be useful. A good example of this is with sickle cell anemia and malaria. The population within some countries where malaria is more prevalent have higher rates of the allele associated with sickle cells since heterozygous individuals with that recessive allele fare better when it comes to dealing with the disease. This is despite the fact that this means that said population is at higher risk for sickle cell anemia. Another thing to note is that certain diseases, where the symptoms only start to onset later in life, can escape being selected against. A good example of this is Huntington's disease, which, despite being the result of a dominant allele, wasn't able to be selected against because of it occurring later in life.

Along with that, because of advancements in medicine, people who would have died early in life in the past, due to certain genetic conditions, are now able to survive up to and past the age of reproduction. It's not that surprising. A lot of people like to assume that in the past, back when we were hunter-gatherers, that we would just abandon the sick, the weak, and the disabled, but that's far from the truth. At least from what I know, most of the evidence points to humans back then caring for those people and they would even give them proper burials when they died. It's honestly very sweet.

At the end of the day, evolution is a process with no particular end point in mind. Even with natural selection, negative traits will always exist within each generation of a population, with the ones negatively impacting survival and reproduction usually being selected against. Even traits that seem negative now, like aggression, may have served a purpose in the past. That actually goes into something else that I should have mentioned, which is the fact that our man-made world has evolved faster than evolution can keep up with. This means that certain traits that may have aided in our survival in the past now negatively impact us.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

(If I am wrong about anything here, then I apologize for that. This post is not very well-written, but none of my posts are, so...

Also, I'm trying best to simplify some of this too (which I am not good at). Evolution is a complex subject and I'm not great at comprehending or explain these types of things, so bear with me.)

Evolution doesn't strive for perfection. Many evolutionary traits may come with certain trade-offs, for example. Along with that, there are certain deleterious alleles that may exist in a population for a long time due to them being recessive, since dominant alleles typically don't become fixed. Certain "negative" traits may also be useful. A good example of this is with sickle cell anemia and malaria. The population within some countries where malaria is more prevalent have higher rates of the allele associated with sickle cells since heterozygous individuals with that recessive allele fare better when it comes to dealing with the disease. This is despite the fact that this means that said population is at higher risk for sickle cell anemia. Another thing to note is that certain diseases, where the symptoms only start to onset later in life, can escape being selected against. A good example of this is Huntington's disease, which, despite being the result of a dominant allele, wasn't able to be selected against because of it occurring later in life.

Along with that, because of advancements in medicine, people who would have died early in life in the past, due to certain genetic conditions, are now able to survive up to and past the age of reproduction. It's not that surprising. A lot of people like to assume that in the past, back when we were hunter-gatherers, that we would just abandon the sick, the weak, and the disabled, but that's far from the truth. At least from what I know, most of the evidence points to humans back then caring for those people and they would even give them proper burials when they died. It's honestly very sweet.

At the end of the day, evolution is a process with no particular end point in mind. Even with natural selection, negative traits will always exist within each generation of a population, with the ones negatively impacting survival and reproduction usually being selected against. Even traits that seem negative now, like aggression, may have served a purpose in the past. That actually goes into something else that I should have mentioned, which is the fact that our man-made world has evolved faster than evolution can keep up with. This means that certain traits that may have aided in our survival in the past now negatively impact us.

Nice to know you're not going to all your lectures on shrooms ;)

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Nice to know you're not going to all your lectures on shrooms ;)

Oh, don't worry. I'll make sure to do another very annoy lecture on shrooms very soon.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

A lot of negative traits about humans are simply features, not bugs. They were also developed for humans thousands of years ago and not for modern civilization.