If half of everyone collided at 60 mph once in their life...

[swbluto]

If half of everyone who was born collided with a brick wall at 60 mph, do you think the human race would eventually get better at surviving a collision with a brick wall at 60 mph?

Of course, you don't want to force everyone at a brick wall at 60 mph, because no-one would have yet developed the traits necessary to survive that situation and the human race would go extinct. If half of those born died from said collision, then you can bet the birth rate would go up to offset the increased death rate so that the population wouldn't trend towards extinction. Eventually, I'd think some people with traits to survive 60 mph would be "selected" and those traits would spread among the gene pool. Or maybe 60 mph is just a bit too much and the change in human morphology would be too much to call it "human".

If that happened, then maybe humans could survive "heavy vehicle + whatever-else" accidents more often. It seems human bodies weren't designed/selected for that...

 

[tycreek]

The gene pool could certainly use some adjustment! Survivors of 60mph brick wall crash gene would not be my choice of genetic fostering. It is however a very clear gene type target and could prove effective as a prison sentence replacement.

 

[John in CR]

swbluto,

I'm already evolved to there as proven by surviving a 60mph head-on with another truck going 50-60 the other way. Had I gone out the other window instead of where the fire was I would have gotten through it without a scratch, so add fire resistance to your list.

If you want to improve the gene pool more rapidly, just make it mandatory to pass a fair test to be able to have kids. That won't be a good idea though until things become much more automated. Someone has to do those jobs.

 

[liveforphysics]

Something similar has been tried... Cambodians didn't become any more resistance to bullets.

 

[purplepeopledesign]

If I were to guess, I would think that nature would more likely reward the individuals that can avoid a potentially fatal situation. But if the environment is such that 60 mph impacts are the norm, then, yes... over several millenia, there might be changes in the gene pool that improve survivability. The problem is that natural selection is much slower than an environment that is fatal to half the population. We could attempt to breed our way out of it, simply by taking any survivors (regardless of brain viability) and having them produce many offspring, who would all be subjected to the same impacts. But even then, you're still talking hundreds or thousands of generations before improved survivability may be noticeable.

That said.. nature is selecting the ones that avoid the 60 mph collisions... and selecting again those that experience those impacts but use protective gear, such as parachutes, seat belts, helmets and air bags.

Now out of the current situation, you could actually improve the human race simply by removing all the automatic safeties, forcing people to "switch on" their self-preserving methods. An example would be to remove the legislation require airbags in cars. Nature would immediately reward those intelligent enough to wear seat-belts vs. those that did not. Moreover, it would also reward those individuals that chose airbags as an option and/or those manufacturers that installed them as standard equipment.

ensen.

 

[John in CR]

Now out of the current situation, you could actually improve the human race simply by removing all the automatic safeties, forcing people to "switch on" their self-preserving methods. An example would be to remove the legislation require airbags in cars. Nature would immediately reward those intelligent enough to wear seat-belts vs. those that did not. Moreover, it would also reward those individuals that chose airbags as an option and/or those manufacturers that installed them as standard equipment.
ensen.

A far better improvement would come from removing the safeties all together. Then those intelligent enough to avoid the accidents all together are the survivors, not those who only think they're smarter by using them.

 

[swbluto]

Something similar has been tried... Cambodians didn't become any more resistance to bullets.

Patience is key. Just wait another epoch or so.

Of course, the lethality of our weapons will likely develop more quickly than our natural defenses. It seems like it has thus far.

 

[swbluto]

If you want to improve the gene pool more rapidly, just make it mandatory to pass a fair test to be able to have kids. That won't be a good idea though until things become much more automated. Someone has to do those jobs.

"Someone" will do anything if the reward is right / price is high enough. The fact that laborers are so cheaply used today has a lot to do with the quantity of the unskilled laborers, especially those who don't have skills required of more skilled work.

But if someone would have to be paid more to do a "nasty job" in a generally more intelligent society, that wouldn't really matter because a more intelligent worker is often more productive on average, meaning there would be greater wealth in the economy from the greater productivity and rate of research / development. So getting paid more in a more bountiful, productive society would be expected regardless of occupation.

Of course, someone can bring up examples of intelligent lazy people, but I can come up with even more of stupid lazy people. Averages are key.

 

[John in CR]

I wasn't necessarily referring to nasty jobs, but there are many jobs where intelligence has little bearing on productivity. There are lots of hard working stupid people in the world that are productive assets to society. The lazy ones snatch up the government jobs, which is the single biggest strike against big government.

 

[swbluto]

I wasn't necessarily referring to nasty jobs, but there are many jobs where intelligence has little bearing on productivity.

This is true. But, then again, I think the job spectrum more reflects the capabilities and skills of the population. So, if people were more intelligent, there'd be "more intelligent" and "more" intelligence-rewarding jobs in the economy based from the likelihood that the research and development rate would be higher. When computers became more powerful, they displaced number crunchers and numerous other jobs, but at the same time, they increased the amount of smart computer jobs and jobs requiring more skill. If people were more intelligent, there'd be more of that kind of productivity enhancing technology that would increase the general skills level and total productivity of society.

For sure, you don't have to look too far to see that America is more productive than South Africa and that the "smart jobs" are far more plentiful in the States. Also, the average educational level and IQ is a bit higher in America.

 

[amberwolf]

If that happened, then maybe humans could survive "heavy vehicle + whatever-else" accidents more often. It seems human bodies weren't designed/selected for that...

I think it would be more likely that craftiness would be the only real improvement in the gene pool from this experiment. Because those crafty enough to prevent being selected to perform the test would all survive it, and at least some of them will breed....

 

[Evoforce]

I think if we had only been offered a choice... Collide at 60 mph or... swim with volcanic fire god!

 

[purplepeopledesign]

If that happened, then maybe humans could survive "heavy vehicle + whatever-else" accidents more often. It seems human bodies weren't designed/selected for that...

I think it would be more likely that craftiness would be the only real improvement in the gene pool from this experiment. Because those crafty enough to prevent being selected to perform the test would all survive it, and at least some of them will breed....

Crafty is also a form of intelligence. The ultimate in clever would be for the smart encouraging the dumb to throw their lives away. Instead, we are a society that has been rewarding the stupid by saving them from the consequences of their actions. To wit... drunk drivers that get life-saving first aid, speeding tickets that only result in fines, rather than suspension (which usually has the added burden of affecting a career).

It just occurred to me that the one way to double the reward (or penalty) would be for airbags to only arm themselves when the seatbelts are in use. That way, we know that the gene pool is not remaining stupid.

ensen.

 

[Evoforce]

May people continue to forgive you for your mistakes. Without at least forgivness from people who care about you, You would have amounted to nothing but a completely broken person. Purple, some people don't have to physically hit the wall in order to act as though they did. And when you presume that you haven't acted stupidly whether physically hitting the wall at 60 or not... Start by going and asking your parents, then your teachers, then your other half, etc... how they have enjoyed your being a perfect person. My feeling would be you should more likely instead thank them for putting up with you and humble yourself and ask them if there is anything you can do for them. At least it sounds like good advice that I should take myself.. Because as stupidity goes, we have all been there. Actually hitting the wall and surviving is more to do with luck, family, equipment and professionals who care, that take an oath that everone is worth putting together after a 60 mph wall tag. So to be, or to evolve to be, perfectly logical and maybe more intelligent we may have lost or loose other skills to cope with what reality really is...caring about each other(that trait) is more important than intelligence. The old saying, "Its better to be lucky than good", really does apply! Ok, let's try to look at it this way, a long long time ago...It was your turn to face hitting the wall and your friends and family spirited you away and protected you from it (maybe against your will) and let's say they made your whole family face the wall twice because of it. Would that make you more smart because you may have had less brain damage and never have to face the world the way most everyone else does? Or is your family smarter because they delt with the world as it really is, shielding you from it, so you would suffer less, possibly saving your life. But maybe you feel that because you didn't do what everyone else was doing, you might be ostricised by others, so you go out and run yourself into the wall, just to fit in. Or maybe not. Instead maybe you have to always look over your shoulder trying to hide and never are able to live a life of more meaningfull intellegence other than how to survive from day to day on the run. Or maybe...

 

[swbluto]

So to be, or to evolve to be, perfectly logical and maybe more intelligent we may have lost or loose other skills to cope with what reality really is...caring about each other(that trait) is more important than intelligence. The old saying, "Its better to be lucky than good", really does apply!

There's nothing mutually exclusive between intelligence and caring. A person can be a caring AND intelligent, caring and stupid, uncaring and intelligent and uncaring and stupid. I've personally met all types.

If it were me, I'd say "All of the above!". I'd personally prefer intelligence being more rewarded, but I think that may have slowed down in the recent past due to lack of resource constraints and modern medical technology, but I don't think the direction has changed. A majority of females continue to prefer "strong", confident, resource-wealthy, intelligent mates.

(Btw, luck has nothing to do with trait distributions in a large gene pool. It may influence one person's chance of future parentage, but it equals out in the group (There are more unlucky than lucky ones) so a trait's distribution isn't influenced by individual luck, except perhaps in particularly small gene pools. But, trust me, the human gene pool is not particularly small.)

 

[Gordo]

Hell, I don't even understand the title. Which half of a person is supposed to collide with the wall? The top half, the bottom half or one side? After having a 40mph head on while riding a motorcycle, I did a lot of searching. IIRC the odds of surviving hitting a stationary object at 25 mph are 50% and at 50 mph they are very near to ZERO. As far as improving the gene pool, our dark skinned brothers are way ahead of us in this feature. Their brains are far better suspended in their skulls than the rest of us. This is why they are more successful at boxing. After being knocked down 16 times, by age 21, I decided to find out if I should continue this line of "sport". The obvious answer was confirmed from many medical papers. NO!
One other factor you might not know;
According to research from MIT, the hardness of the surface you impact has a direct relationship to your survivability. The duration of the shockwave passing through your brain is what causes the damage. This research was prompted by aircraft crashes when it was found that aircraft that came straight down onto a hard surface had more survivors than those which landed in soft dirt. The slower the shockwave passing through brain tissue, the greater the amount damage.

 

[swbluto]

Hell, I don't even understand the title. Which half of a person is supposed to collide with the wall? The top half, the bottom half or one side?

Lol. That's a joke, right?

 

[Evoforce]

Luck or (lack of luck) can make all the difference. It IS the variable. Are you kidding? Or are you just tryin to look...at the world differently?

 

[swbluto]

Luck or (lack of luck) can make all the difference. It IS the variable. Are you kidding? Or are you just tryin to look...

It's easy as this. Let's say we have a bag of 6.3 billion marbles, and this incredibly simple population has only two traits: blue and red. It's either blue or red. Let's say half is blue and half is red.

One marble is named marley, one marble is named joe, another is named tom and so on.

So, we decide to start plucking out marbles one by one. Today, marley was unlucky and got plucked out. Too bad for her. We pluck out joe, but it slips through our fingers, so what a lucky marble! We then pluck out tom.

After doing this over, say, 3 billion marbles, how many marbles are red and how many are blue?

You guessed correctly, half and half!

Despite luck being present, it's still half red and half blue. Thus, trait distributions aren't affected by luck in large pools.

 

[Evoforce]

So you could have been born the most intelligent person in the world, but a tree fell on your hut during a storm and you died. You were the missing link... The next leap for humanity, er um... I forgot, you died hitting the wall at 60 mph, because you tried a new theory of what angle to hit. Well after all, the smartest mind said it was only a theory...LOL

 

[Evoforce]

Yes, Gordo. There is all kinds of value besides sheer intelligence. And super intelligent people (please no offence intended) often lack other life coping skills. And absolutely none of us know more than a smidgen of what knowledge that there is out there.

 

[Evoforce]

To bad life doesn't resemble just red or blue. We then could predict, with precision, what was going to happen in our lives today, and everyday, for that matter. You over simplify the great complexitys of real life. However your mathmatical example does hold weight, but cannot be applied in this much more complicated equation...

 

[AussieJester]

I hit two lampost as 65km/hr, wasn't a dead stop, although i was clinically dead a couple of times on the road

so i have done my bit...your turn swbluto

KiM

 

[Evoforce]

Allthough I have never been hurt as badly as you AJ, I definately cringe at the thought of what you had to go through and what you had to endure. I am truly sorry for the suffering you had to go through. I am sure you are a testiment of what sheer human will can get you through. As well, I am sure, many other careing people helped also. I am glad you are still among us. Sincerely... Ed

 

[swbluto]

but cannot be applied in this much more complicated equation...

The point of the simplicity is so that the dynamic could be understood more easily. All of a sudden you add "complexity"(i.e., multiple traits of varying degrees and so on), and all of sudden the dynamic is dismissible.

Sure, you take six different quarks and the different leptons and demonstrate the electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravitational forces between them by the way of bosons and that's all pretty simple. You might object that something so simple could explain anything so complex. But, alas, there's the universe...

Of course, if you are the only person in the whole universe with a certain trait, then the small numbers statistics intervenes and luck matters. But, in a population of 6.3 billion people, what's the likelihood a given person is the only person with a given trait that apparently confers some significant godly advantage and what's the luck they'll die before reaching parenting?

Pretty much damn near zero if you ask me. "The only person" = 1 out of 6.3 billion. A significant godly advantage = 1 out of 1,000,000 (Maybe). Chance of death before parenthood = 1 out of 100 in the USA. Probably 1 out of 10 worldwide. Now multiply those together...

And it says nothing of the kinds of traits that everyone has that we're discussing. If some super-genius dies by sheer unluckiness, that doesn't stop the direction of intellect in the gene pool. The same is true if a super-dumb person dies. Or, for that matter, if by luck they happened to live through a potentially lethal ordeal.