It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our contribution
to
the gene pool. Ignoring creationism for the moment, this truth is self
evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly the genes which they
carry) that were not good at contributing to the gene pool would obviously
die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was
uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment. Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast fungi
'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in the
fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests of the
entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these new
conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory test
tubes,
but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but is
actually
evolved to something closer to the African savannah, primitive Europe, or
East Asia.

Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized
animals
around him, much slower than those animals, with very poor defences, no
claws for defence or tree-climbing, teeth which are so far set back in his
head as no be almost useless for fighting, a lack of fur which would see
him
freeze to death in a single night in conditions which other animals would
thrive, and an incredibly fragile, and critical, organ on top of his head.

Mankind has been equipped with two things which help him survive (and
therefore reproduce) in a primitive world: dextrous hands, and a logical
mind. These, and these alone set this pathetic, naked and shivering biped
apart from all other animals.

Minds are much like computers, and run programs to tell them what to do.
But
man's mind was not programmed to maximize his reproductive potential - it
was merely a enhancement to the brains of the animals it evolved from. And
it was programmed to fill the basic animal needs - water, food, security,
shelter, sex, and social status.

And on the savannah this worked very well. And it adapted well to the cold
of Europe, and into Asia. A human who had water, food, shelter, sex and
social status did genetically better than humans who didn't have these
things.

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled man not
just to adapt to his environment but to change that very environment.
Formal
education, television, motor cars, nine-to-five jobs and international
trade
weren't on the 1492 agenda.

An animal's mind stuck inside the body of a man might be a plot for a
B-rate
sci-fi film, but in a sense all of us have the mind of a primitive in the
lifestyle of a modern man. Our desires have become somewhat divorced from
genetic advantage, and our choices are frequently not those which genetic
success would suggest.

A full belly is a desirable goal for a human on the savannah, but in the
modern world can lead to obesity, and premature death. A preference for
sweet food is a good thing if the sweetest available thing is ripe fruit,
but in an age of boiled lollies it will rot your teeth, and may make you
mal-nourished.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively
'cheating'
the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied sexual drives -
the electric motor and the color photograph (or more recently the video
internet download). Even when sex is with a partner, contraceptive
technologies (and the ability to abort) mean that sexual desires can be
met
without increasing genetic success. Frequent sexual activity in the
pre-industrialized time would almost invariably result in having children,
but in the modern age we often observe just the opposite. The swinging
bachelor recognizes that his sexual desires would actually be hindered by
the presence of children, and chooses not to have them.

So man has become equipped with a huge reasoning capacity, which has
evolved
because it gave him a genetic advantage in primitive times. But man is
still
using that reasoning capacity to meet the the goals which his ancestors
needed to meet in order to survive - goals which may not equate to genetic
success in the modern world. The mind is designed to maximize the number
of
descendents, but programmed to find food, shelter, sex and social status.

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too some
groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of the world
is
still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in rich western countries
is well below replacement level. This is not because of any lack of
freedom
to fulfill their genetic function, but precisely because they do have the
freedom to make their own decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about what
people's goals should be. Libertarians generally avoid making moral
judgements (beyond the obligation to not steal). Some racists and white
puritans seem to be very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

And what is the future? It depends on the world migration patterns, but
the
future does not look white or red - it looks to be a mixture of yellow,
black, and brown, and the poorer the group, the faster they are breeding.

Perhaps we should just bless the poor - for they shall inherit the earth.
Or
maybe the common element is not poverty but ignorance, and George Orwell
will be proven correct: Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, it's something for Homo Superior to ponder as you exercise your
free
will to prune yourself off the evolutionary tree.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment. Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our contribution to
the gene pool. Ignoring creationism for the moment, this truth is self
evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly the genes which they
carry) that were not good at contributing to the gene pool would obviously
die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment.

Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast fungi
'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in the
fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests of the
entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these new
conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory test tubes,
but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but is actually
evolved to something closer to the African savannah, primitive Europe, or
East Asia.

Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized animals
around him, much slower than those animals,

with very poor defences, no
claws for defence or tree-climbing, teeth which are so far set back in his
head as no be almost useless for fighting,

a lack of fur which would see him
freeze to death in a single night in conditions which other animals would
thrive,

and an incredibly fragile, and critical, organ on top of his head.

Mankind has been equipped with two things which help him survive (and
therefore reproduce) in a primitive world: dextrous hands, and a logical
mind.

These, and these alone set this pathetic, naked and shivering biped
apart from all other animals.

Minds are much like computers,

and run programs to tell them what to do. But
man's mind was not programmed to maximize his reproductive potential - it
was merely a enhancement to the brains of the animals it evolved from. And
it was programmed to fill the basic animal needs - water, food, security,
shelter, sex, and social status.

And on the savannah this worked very well. And it adapted well to the cold
of Europe, and into Asia. A human who had water, food, shelter, sex and
social status did genetically better than humans who didn't have these
things.

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled man not
just to adapt to his environment but to change that very environment. Formal
education, television, motor cars, nine-to-five jobs and international trade
weren't on the 1492 agenda.

An animal's mind stuck inside the body of a man might be a plot for a B-rate
sci-fi film, but in a sense all of us have the mind of a primitive in the
lifestyle of a modern man. Our desires have become somewhat divorced from
genetic advantage, and our choices are frequently not those which genetic
success would suggest.

A full belly is a desirable goal for a human on the savannah, but in the
modern world can lead to obesity, and premature death. A preference for
sweet food is a good thing if the sweetest available thing is ripe fruit,
but in an age of boiled lollies it will rot your teeth, and may make you
mal-nourished.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively 'cheating'
the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied sexual drives -
the electric motor and the color photograph (or more recently the video
internet download). Even when sex is with a partner, contraceptive
technologies (and the ability to abort) mean that sexual desires can be met
without increasing genetic success. Frequent sexual activity in the
pre-industrialized time would almost invariably result in having children,
but in the modern age we often observe just the opposite. The swinging
bachelor recognizes that his sexual desires would actually be hindered by
the presence of children, and chooses not to have them.

So man has become equipped with a huge reasoning capacity, which has evolved
because it gave him a genetic advantage in primitive times. But man is still
using that reasoning capacity to meet the the goals which his ancestors
needed to meet in order to survive - goals which may not equate to genetic
success in the modern world. The mind is designed to maximize the number of
descendents, but programmed to find food, shelter, sex and social status.

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too some
groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of the world is
still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in rich western countries
is well below replacement level. This is not because of any lack of freedom
to fulfill their genetic function, but precisely because they do have the
freedom to make their own decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about what
people's goals should be. Libertarians generally avoid making moral
judgements (beyond the obligation to not steal). Some racists and white
puritans seem to be very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

And what is the future? It depends on the world migration patterns, but the
future does not look white or red - it looks to be a mixture of yellow,
black, and brown, and the poorer the group, the faster they are breeding.

Perhaps we should just bless the poor - for they shall inherit the earth. Or
maybe the common element is not poverty but ignorance, and George Orwell
will be proven correct: Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, it's something for Homo Superior to ponder as you exercise your free
will to prune yourself off the evolutionary tree.

It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our contribution to
the gene pool. Ignoring creationism for the moment, this truth is self
evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly the genes which they
carry) that were not good at contributing to the gene pool would obviously
die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment. Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast fungi
'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in the
fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests of the
entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these new
conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory test tubes,
but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but is actually
evolved to something closer to the African savannah, primitive Europe, or
East Asia.

Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized animals
around him, much slower than those animals, with very poor defences, no
claws for defence or tree-climbing, teeth which are so far set back in his
head as no be almost useless for fighting, a lack of fur which would see him
freeze to death in a single night in conditions which other animals would
thrive, and an incredibly fragile, and critical, organ on top of his head.

Mankind has been equipped with two things which help him survive (and
therefore reproduce) in a primitive world: dextrous hands, and a logical
mind. These, and these alone set this pathetic, naked and shivering biped
apart from all other animals.

Minds are much like computers, and run programs to tell them what to do. But
man's mind was not programmed to maximize his reproductive potential - it
was merely a enhancement to the brains of the animals it evolved from. And
it was programmed to fill the basic animal needs - water, food, security,
shelter, sex, and social status.

And on the savannah this worked very well. And it adapted well to the cold
of Europe, and into Asia. A human who had water, food, shelter, sex and
social status did genetically better than humans who didn't have these
things.

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled man not
just to adapt to his environment but to change that very environment. Formal
education, television, motor cars, nine-to-five jobs and international trade
weren't on the 1492 agenda.

An animal's mind stuck inside the body of a man might be a plot for a B-rate
sci-fi film, but in a sense all of us have the mind of a primitive in the
lifestyle of a modern man. Our desires have become somewhat divorced from
genetic advantage, and our choices are frequently not those which genetic
success would suggest.

A full belly is a desirable goal for a human on the savannah, but in the
modern world can lead to obesity, and premature death. A preference for
sweet food is a good thing if the sweetest available thing is ripe fruit,
but in an age of boiled lollies it will rot your teeth, and may make you
mal-nourished.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively 'cheating'
the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied sexual drives -
the electric motor and the color photograph (or more recently the video
internet download). Even when sex is with a partner, contraceptive
technologies (and the ability to abort) mean that sexual desires can be met
without increasing genetic success. Frequent sexual activity in the
pre-industrialized time would almost invariably result in having children,
but in the modern age we often observe just the opposite. The swinging
bachelor recognizes that his sexual desires would actually be hindered by
the presence of children, and chooses not to have them.

So man has become equipped with a huge reasoning capacity, which has evolved
because it gave him a genetic advantage in primitive times. But man is still
using that reasoning capacity to meet the the goals which his ancestors
needed to meet in order to survive - goals which may not equate to genetic
success in the modern world. The mind is designed to maximize the number of
descendents, but programmed to find food, shelter, sex and social status.

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too some
groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of the world is
still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in rich western countries
is well below replacement level. This is not because of any lack of freedom
to fulfill their genetic function, but precisely because they do have the
freedom to make their own decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about what
people's goals should be. Libertarians generally avoid making moral
judgements (beyond the obligation to not steal). Some racists and white
puritans seem to be very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

And what is the future? It depends on the world migration patterns, but the
future does not look white or red - it looks to be a mixture of yellow,
black, and brown, and the poorer the group, the faster they are breeding.

Perhaps we should just bless the poor - for they shall inherit the earth. Or
maybe the common element is not poverty but ignorance, and George Orwell
will be proven correct: Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, it's something for Homo Superior to ponder as you exercise your free
will to prune yourself off the evolutionary tree.

It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our contribution
to
the gene pool. Ignoring creationism for the moment, this truth is self
evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly the genes which they
carry) that were not good at contributing to the gene pool would obviously
die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was
uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment. Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast fungi
'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in the
fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests of the
entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these new
conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory test
tubes,
but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but is
actually
evolved to something closer to the African savannah, primitive Europe, or
East Asia.

Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized
animals
around him, much slower than those animals, with very poor defences, no
claws for defence or tree-climbing, teeth which are so far set back in his
head as no be almost useless for fighting, a lack of fur which would see
him
freeze to death in a single night in conditions which other animals would
thrive, and an incredibly fragile, and critical, organ on top of his head.

Mankind has been equipped with two things which help him survive (and
therefore reproduce) in a primitive world: dextrous hands, and a logical
mind. These, and these alone set this pathetic, naked and shivering biped
apart from all other animals.

Minds are much like computers, and run programs to tell them what to do.
But
man's mind was not programmed to maximize his reproductive potential - it
was merely a enhancement to the brains of the animals it evolved from. And
it was programmed to fill the basic animal needs - water, food, security,
shelter, sex, and social status.

And on the savannah this worked very well. And it adapted well to the cold
of Europe, and into Asia. A human who had water, food, shelter, sex and
social status did genetically better than humans who didn't have these
things.

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled man not
just to adapt to his environment but to change that very environment.
Formal
education, television, motor cars, nine-to-five jobs and international
trade
weren't on the 1492 agenda.

An animal's mind stuck inside the body of a man might be a plot for a
B-rate
sci-fi film, but in a sense all of us have the mind of a primitive in the
lifestyle of a modern man. Our desires have become somewhat divorced from
genetic advantage, and our choices are frequently not those which genetic
success would suggest.

A full belly is a desirable goal for a human on the savannah, but in the
modern world can lead to obesity, and premature death. A preference for
sweet food is a good thing if the sweetest available thing is ripe fruit,
but in an age of boiled lollies it will rot your teeth, and may make you
mal-nourished.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively
'cheating'
the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied sexual drives -
the electric motor and the color photograph (or more recently the video
internet download). Even when sex is with a partner, contraceptive
technologies (and the ability to abort) mean that sexual desires can be
met
without increasing genetic success. Frequent sexual activity in the
pre-industrialized time would almost invariably result in having children,
but in the modern age we often observe just the opposite. The swinging
bachelor recognizes that his sexual desires would actually be hindered by
the presence of children, and chooses not to have them.

So man has become equipped with a huge reasoning capacity, which has
evolved
because it gave him a genetic advantage in primitive times. But man is
still
using that reasoning capacity to meet the the goals which his ancestors
needed to meet in order to survive - goals which may not equate to genetic
success in the modern world. The mind is designed to maximize the number
of
descendents, but programmed to find food, shelter, sex and social status.

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too some
groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of the world
is
still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in rich western countries
is well below replacement level. This is not because of any lack of
freedom
to fulfill their genetic function, but precisely because they do have the
freedom to make their own decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about what
people's goals should be. Libertarians generally avoid making moral
judgements (beyond the obligation to not steal). Some racists and white
puritans seem to be very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

And what is the future? It depends on the world migration patterns, but
the
future does not look white or red - it looks to be a mixture of yellow,
black, and brown, and the poorer the group, the faster they are breeding.

Perhaps we should just bless the poor - for they shall inherit the earth.
Or
maybe the common element is not poverty but ignorance, and George Orwell
will be proven correct: Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, it's something for Homo Superior to ponder as you exercise your
free
will to prune yourself off the evolutionary tree.

It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our contribution to
the gene pool.

Ignoring creationism for the moment, this truth is self
evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly the genes which they
carry) that were not good at contributing to the gene pool would obviously
die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was uniquely
and tremendously adapted to their environment. Then the Americas were
colonised. Since then, mass migration and technology have changed our
environment faster than our genetic ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast fungi
'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in the
fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests of the
entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these new
conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory test tubes,
but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but is actually
evolved to something closer to the African savannah, primitive Europe, or
East Asia.
Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized animals
around him,

much slower than those animals,

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled man not
just to adapt to his environment but to change that very environment.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively 'cheating'
the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied sexual drives -
the electric motor and the color photograph (or more recently the video
internet download).

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too some
groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of the world is
still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in rich western countries
is well below replacement level. This is not because of any lack of freedom
to fulfill their genetic function, but precisely because they do have the
freedom to make their own decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about what
people's goals should be. Libertarians generally avoid making moral
judgements (beyond the obligation to not steal). Some racists and white
puritans seem to be very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

It is generally agreed that we have evolved to maximize our
contribution to the gene pool.

Ignoring creationism for the moment,
this truth is self evident, if you consider that animals (or strictly
the genes which they carry) that were not good at contributing to the
gene pool would obviously die out in favor of those which were.

In 1492AD, each species on the planet, and each race of humans was
uniquely and tremendously adapted to their environment.

Then the Americas were colonised. Since then, mass migration and
technology have changed our environment faster than our genetic
ability to adapt to that environment.

The fact that 'we ourselves' caused the change is irrelevant. Yeast
fungi 'chooses' to produce the alcohol which eventually poisons it in
the fermentation process. Not all changes are in the genetic interests
of the entity that changed them.

Nor is this to say that the population has not exploded due to these
new conditions - yeast has not evolved to grow in sterile laboratory
test tubes, but its population grows very quickly in that environment.

So the human species has been thrust into the modern world, but
is actually evolved to something closer to the African savannah,
primitive Europe, or East Asia.

Mankind is an extraordinary creature - weaker than the similar sized
animals around him, much slower than those animals, with very poor
defences, no claws for defence or tree-climbing, teeth which are so
far set back in his head as no be almost useless for fighting, a
lack of fur which would see him freeze to death in a single night
in conditions which other animals would thrive, and an incredibly
fragile, and critical, organ on top of his head.

Mankind has been equipped with two things which help him survive
(and therefore reproduce) in a primitive world: dextrous hands, and
a logical mind. These, and these alone set this pathetic, naked and
shivering biped apart from all other animals.

Minds are much like computers,

and run programs to tell them what to
do. But man's mind was not programmed to maximize his reproductive
potential - it was merely a enhancement to the brains of the animals
it evolved from. And it was programmed to fill the basic animal needs
- water, food, security, shelter, sex, and social status.

And on the savannah this worked very well. And it adapted well to the
cold of Europe, and into Asia. A human who had water, food, shelter,
sex and social status did genetically better than humans who didn't
have these things.

But man's new cognitive abilities were so powerful that it enabled
man not just to adapt to his environment but to change that very
environment. Formal education, television, motor cars, nine-to-five
jobs and international trade weren't on the 1492 agenda.

An animal's mind stuck inside the body of a man might be a plot
for a B-rate sci-fi film, but in a sense all of us have the mind
of a primitive in the lifestyle of a modern man. Our desires have
become somewhat divorced from genetic advantage, and our choices are
frequently not those which genetic success would suggest.

A full belly is a desirable goal for a human on the savannah, but
in the modern world can lead to obesity, and premature death. A
preference for sweet food is a good thing if the sweetest available
thing is ripe fruit, but in an age of boiled lollies it will rot your
teeth, and may make you mal-nourished.

And many of the primitive desires can be satisfied by effectively
'cheating' the system. Two technologies in particular have satisfied
sexual drives - the electric motor and the color photograph (or
more recently the video internet download). Even when sex is with
a partner, contraceptive technologies (and the ability to abort)
mean that sexual desires can be met without increasing genetic
success. Frequent sexual activity in the pre-industrialized time would
almost invariably result in having children, but in the modern age
we often observe just the opposite. The swinging bachelor recognizes
that his sexual desires would actually be hindered by the presence of
children, and chooses not to have them.

So man has become equipped with a huge reasoning capacity, which
has evolved because it gave him a genetic advantage in primitive
times. But man is still using that reasoning capacity to meet the the
goals which his ancestors needed to meet in order to survive - goals
which may not equate to genetic success in the modern world. The mind
is designed to maximize the number of descendents, but programmed to
find food, shelter, sex and social status.

Just as the yeast changes its environment and poisons itself, so too
some groups seem to be dying out. The population in poorer parts of
the world is still growing exponentially, but the birth rates in
rich western countries is well below replacement level. This is not
because of any lack of freedom to fulfill their genetic function,
but precisely because they do have the freedom to make their own
decisions, and to control their fertility.

Should we care? To answer that would involve a moral judgement about
what people's goals should be.

Libertarians generally avoid making moral judgements (beyond the
obligation to not steal). Some racists and white puritans seem to be
very alarmed about this. Others don't really care.

And what is the future? It depends on the world migration patterns,
but the future does not look white or red - it looks to be a mixture
of yellow, black, and brown, and the poorer the group, the faster they
are breeding.

Perhaps we should just bless the poor - for they shall inherit the
earth. Or maybe the common element is not poverty but ignorance, and
George Orwell will be proven correct: Ignorance is strength.

Anyway, it's something for Homo Superior to ponder as you exercise
your free will to prune yourself off the evolutionary tree.