Replies

That is STUNNING. Gore3000 stuns me sometimes with his idiotic posts, but at least yours are stunning on a higher plane. :-) By your logic, any mutation that extends a person's life past their reproductive years is a harmful mutation! That makes the very idea of a beneficial mutation just about impossible in principle!

Well, I am, unfortunately, a connoisseur of Excess -- probably all too often (I am trying to slow down, for my own good). I always aim to "push the envelope" -- intellectually most of all.

But you mistake my argument. I am not saying that a Life-Span extending mutation is harmful in principle. I am saying that Demographic Burdens must be taken into account.

Since you seem to be misunderstanding my argument, let's apply a good reductio ad absurdum to make the point. Let's say that some sort of "human genetic mutation" vastly extended the period of human physical deterioration after age 60, from an average of 15 or 20 years to an average of 300 years. An average of 360 years of life, but no increase in physical capability after age 60 -- just a vast extension of the "deterioration period" after age 60.

Pretty soon, the Human Race is burdened under a Dependency/Support Ratio of at least 5-to-1. FIVE non-working, non-reproducing indigent dependents for every Productive Worker, even defining "productive work" as ages 0 through 60 (which includes Child Labor).

Soon enough, you have a Race which is so burdened by its support of the elderly indigent, that it can't afford to support Offspring -- not even in terms of Socialism or Capitalism, though Socialism exacerbates the problem, but simply in terms of available work-energy.

In other words, a Race which is marked for Extinction, in terms of its own Replacement Ratio. It's interesting that you bring up the APO-AIM variation in regards to Italy, in particular... you're illustrating my point. Italy has the lowest child-birth rate of any European Nation besides Spain -- and therefore, the deepest Population Deficit in terms of their Replacement Ratio. The Italian birth-rate is in the neighborhood of 1.2, when they need at least 2.1 just to maintain their population.

Any additional increase in Population Life-Span WORSENS the Demographic Dependency-Support Ratio.

Here's the scoop -- even assuming that the APO-AIM variation extends average Life-Span among southern Italians, you are just PRESUMING that this is a "beneficial mutation". BUT IT ISN'T. Not in the Darwinian sense. By exacerbating the Dependency-Support Ratio, by increasing the number of elderly indigents requiring Care and therefore reducing the available work-energy available for new Offspring.

In the Darwinian sense, by exacerbating the Dependency-Support Ratio among Southern Italians (who, in terms of work-energy, need additional Offspring and simply cannot afford elderly indigents), this is not a "beneficial mutation" at all -- you are accelerating their Extinction.

In a strictly-Darwinian sense, there is no possible way to consider such a "mutation" as beneficial in the light of current Demographics.

Incidentally, this isn't much of a problem with Calvinism. The much-vaunted "Calvinist work-ethic" may be basically characterized as such:

Glorify God in your Work, and WORK TILL YOU DIE. Retirement? We don't need no steenkin' "retirement".

But aside from Calvinist Populations, the Dependency-Support ratio is a serious demographic consideration in most Human social groupings.

But Apo-AIM reduces the chances of heart disease. That's a life-enhancing mutation. Who wants to be an old person with heart disease, blocked arteries, etc.? I'd much rather be an old person without such maladies slowing me down. (BTW, I agree with the concept of working 'till you die. Or at least, being productive 'till you die. :-)

I disagree that a fully capitalist society (one not burdened by today's gov't. style Social Security & Medicare) would not be able to support 300-year old senior citizens. In a fully free market society most 300-year old retirees would be living sustainably off 401K's that have been growing more or less steadily for 270 years!

TTFN

In the Darwinian sense, by exacerbating the Dependency-Support Ratio among Southern Italians (who, in terms of work-energy, need additional Offspring and simply cannot afford elderly indigents), this is not a "beneficial mutation" at all -- you are accelerating their Extinction.

It interesting that jennyp attacks you for showing that according to evolutionary theory this is not a beneficial mutation! You have shown quite well that as far as the values placed on life by the theory of evolution, this is not a good mutation. It is absolutely hilarious for jennyp to oppose your statement by reminding you of Christian values!