Are we ALL descendants of jerks?

It's an interesting question.
Starting slightly off the main point, There was an idea expressed in this thread of natural selection, 'keeping a species strong'.. I feel the majority of our race has in fact, at least in much of the Western countries, has become weaker, perhaps both physically and mentally. Let me and try to explain myself..
How many of us take medicinal drugs to help us through pain? How many of us have had our shots to aid us fighting viruses? How many of us are advised to take pills to help our minds either 'calm down', help us to sleep well, or remove life threatening illnesses? Without these treatments, I wonder how many people would die from 'natural' causes. Wouldn't this be natural selection?
From this train of thought, I think we are defying natural selection. Both with our medicine, but also with a general support system and empathy for the 'weak' (Like the oddities or outcasts from society, like the elderly, like the always drunk angry dude you steer clear from on the street.)
So to try and answer the original question, Are we all really the descendants of jerks?
I don't know. There always have been jerks and then again there have been those who were not jerks (excuse the lack of eloquence, couldn't find a word for the opposite of jerk!). Doesn't change the fact- some of those jerks had children who defied their parents way of being jerks. Perhaps we're one of those children. But vice versa, some of those parents (not jerks) had kids to chose to be jerks.
Seems pretty yin-yang to be me...

(And one last thought sorry for the essay thing- if we go back far enough in our ancestry, when we might have been monkey people, would killing another monkey person who was trying to take your mate be jerk-ish? I would have thought we couldn't even apply the word jerk to our previous selves- we were 'just' animals.)

Sean... the writers of House MD have beaten you to the mark

While we will be influenced by our ancestors (parents, grand parents etc) we have the choice to be fully defined by them...

The character of who you are is not in your DNA, not wholly at least...

If my ancestors were murderers, and I have no knowledge either way, that does not mean that I will kill

So as V eluded to. We might be, but it doesn't matter because we have the choice to act for ourselves right now!

This is an interesting question.

An important thing to remember is that human kind has been around for a while (the first Hominidae diverging from the Hylobatidae about 15-20 million years ago), but competitive civilization has only been around for about 12,000 maximum (and that is debatable - while we do know that the first sedentary civilization has been around that long, the fundamental nature of that civilization isn't well researched - in fact, the first record we have of a civilization is when proto-writing was found between the Neolithic and Bronze Ages about 4000BC).

This means that the largest part of our evolution was done through simple fight or flight responses, with typical social tendencies but not necessarily with the conventional identification of dominance. In fact, it is only fairly recently that we even have begun to change our criteria for social dominance.

Think of it this way - there has always been the basic survival criteria; food, shelter, water, predators. For a large portion of our evolutionary history, these things were governed by physical identifiers: size, strength, stamina, durability. The thing that set hominidae apart was our ability to use tools to accomplish what our bodies couldn't. This allowed our intellect to become a valid evolutionary preference.

Once we had gotten far enough ahead of our natural predators through application of our intellect, we were faced with little that would continue to force evolution forward. We, however, developed currency, which then created a new evolutionary requirement for the species. Let me explain; as the basic survival criteria had changed (easy access to an abundance of food, permanent shelters that allowed sedentary herds, abundant water supplies in close proximity to our shelter and supreme elevation above our natural predators) we no longer had any reason to move forward. However, we had traded all the natural deterrents to successful survival for a system by which we could acquire more or less of the needed survival elements; money.

In this way, early on we adjusted artificially the requirements for survival. A subset if you will. We still have the same evolutionary ladders we had as before (size and strength, intelligence and guile) but now we had a much smaller, artificial environment with which to evolve into. It is at this point that the "jerk factor" entered in.

So you can see, this secondary evolutionary process was engaged at its oldest possibility about 12,000 years ago. Since significant evolutionary change will not occur until after about 1,000,000 years or so, it is safe to say that we have not yet isolated our ancestors to this 'jerk factor.' So take heart!

Some where in each of our family trees is a jerk, so yes.


As for all this other stuff, its all a natural process. Couldn't exist if it wasn't.

Vusuki wrote: It's an interesting question.
Starting slightly off the main point, There was an idea expressed in this thread of natural selection, 'keeping a species strong'.. I feel the majority of our race has in fact, at least in much of the Western countries, has become weaker, perhaps both physically and mentally. Let me and try to explain myself..
How many of us take medicinal drugs to help us through pain? How many of us have had our shots to aid us fighting viruses? How many of us are advised to take pills to help our minds either 'calm down', help us to sleep well, or remove life threatening illnesses? Without these treatments, I wonder how many people would die from 'natural' causes. Wouldn't this be natural selection?
From this train of thought, I think we are defying natural selection. Both with our medicine, but also with a general support system and empathy for the 'weak' (Like the oddities or outcasts from society, like the elderly, like the always drunk angry dude you steer clear from on the street.)
So to try and answer the original question, Are we all really the descendants of jerks?
I don't know. There always have been jerks and then again there have been those who were not jerks (excuse the lack of eloquence, couldn't find a word for the opposite of jerk!). Doesn't change the fact- some of those jerks had children who defied their parents way of being jerks. Perhaps we're one of those children. But vice versa, some of those parents (not jerks) had kids to chose to be jerks.
Seems pretty yin-yang to be me...

(And one last thought sorry for the essay thing- if we go back far enough in our ancestry, when we might have been monkey people, would killing another monkey person who was trying to take your mate be jerk-ish? I would have thought we couldn't even apply the word jerk to our previous selves- we were 'just' animals.)

I would argue that humans evolving to the point where they can use their intelligence to survive disease IS 'natural selection' at it's finest. Remember, those people who would survive based on their physical strength are still being born and reproducing so isn't any real loss to the gene pool and it's actually much more diverse as a result.

Banton_Feil wrote: This is an interesting question.

An important thing to remember is that human kind has been around for a while (the first Hominidae diverging from the Hylobatidae about 15-20 million years ago), but competitive civilization has only been around for about 12,000 maximum (and that is debatable - while we do know that the first sedentary civilization has been around that long, the fundamental nature of that civilization isn't well researched - in fact, the first record we have of a civilization is when proto-writing was found between the Neolithic and Bronze Ages about 4000BC).

This means that the largest part of our evolution was done through simple fight or flight responses, with typical social tendencies but not necessarily with the conventional identification of dominance. In fact, it is only fairly recently that we even have begun to change our criteria for social dominance.

Think of it this way - there has always been the basic survival criteria; food, shelter, water, predators. For a large portion of our evolutionary history, these things were governed by physical identifiers: size, strength, stamina, durability. The thing that set hominidae apart was our ability to use tools to accomplish what our bodies couldn't. This allowed our intellect to become a valid evolutionary preference.

Once we had gotten far enough ahead of our natural predators through application of our intellect, we were faced with little that would continue to force evolution forward. We, however, developed currency, which then created a new evolutionary requirement for the species. Let me explain; as the basic survival criteria had changed (easy access to an abundance of food, permanent shelters that allowed sedentary herds, abundant water supplies in close proximity to our shelter and supreme elevation above our natural predators) we no longer had any reason to move forward. However, we had traded all the natural deterrents to successful survival for a system by which we could acquire more or less of the needed survival elements; money.

In this way, early on we adjusted artificially the requirements for survival. A subset if you will. We still have the same evolutionary ladders we had as before (size and strength, intelligence and guile) but now we had a much smaller, artificial environment with which to evolve into. It is at this point that the "jerk factor" entered in.

So you can see, this secondary evolutionary process was engaged at its oldest possibility about 12,000 years ago. Since significant evolutionary change will not occur until after about 1,000,000 years or so, it is safe to say that we have not yet isolated our ancestors to this 'jerk factor.' So take heart!

I think you're hitting on what some would call "behaviour". Even currency is a type of behavioural thing. In that sense, lots of jerks have been rewriting history to make it seem like it's some kind of wonderful evolutionary feature of humans, when in reality it is just bad behaviour. One can follow the technology tree all the way back to hunter-gatherer societies and pretty much find the same thing as the modern native american culture. In those cooperative cultures, your behaviour was based on your tribe. If you were a jerk you got kicked out until you learned to play nice.

I feel we're moving further off topic, but i'm enjoying this anyway..
WHYTE HORSE QUOTE
Quote- I would argue that humans evolving to the point where they can use their intelligence to survive disease IS 'natural selection' at it's finest. Remember, those people who would survive based on their physical strength are still being born and reproducing so isn't any real loss to the gene pool and it's actually much more diverse as a result. (endquote)

(And just to throw out another quote for our better mutual understanding of one another and our words, that oh-so-great source- WIKIPEDIA,
[/quote]
Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. [/quote] )

I think I understand your reply Whyte Horse somewhat. However I think it is not (usually) the intelligence of the suffering human (who probably wants to survive their afflicting disease mental or physical), that can cure or aid their self but rather another human in a better physical and mental health. By saving this human, and assuming that this human reproduces, isn't he and his children likely to weaken the 'gene pool'? Perhaps this is, in another light and as you said, making the gene pool become more diverse.**

Further more, (I probably overuse wikipedia apologies),
[/quote] If the traits that give these individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. This is known as differential reproduction. Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any heritable advantage will become dominant in the population. [/quote] Replace the rabbits and algae with humans please.. But if this proves true, surely heritable weaknesses over many generations may give us all a disadvantage?

**(((I believe there's a debate out of that too, Diversity- Strength or weakness? Starting to get even more off topic APOLOGIES, my opinion on this is that too much diversity will bring about great conflicts between people, and very little consensus on group matters BUT too little diversity will bring about very little original creativity, very high prejudice against any minority and should one singular problem threaten the entire race, their lack of diversity might lead to the ruin of them all...)))

I don't think it's important if there is a jerk in my family, I either love them because they are family or say if they are an ancestor, it's like how I would treat a child of Hitler

I don't punish the child for the sins of the father, even if the father was hitler

Vusuki wrote: I feel we're moving further off topic, but i'm enjoying this anyway..
WHYTE HORSE QUOTE
Quote- I would argue that humans evolving to the point where they can use their intelligence to survive disease IS 'natural selection' at it's finest. Remember, those people who would survive based on their physical strength are still being born and reproducing so isn't any real loss to the gene pool and it's actually much more diverse as a result. (endquote)

(And just to throw out another quote for our better mutual understanding of one another and our words, that oh-so-great source- WIKIPEDIA,

Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. )

I think I understand your reply Whyte Horse somewhat. However I think it is not (usually) the intelligence of the suffering human (who probably wants to survive their afflicting disease mental or physical), that can cure or aid their self but rather another human in a better physical and mental health. By saving this human, and assuming that this human reproduces, isn't he and his children likely to weaken the 'gene pool'? Perhaps this is, in another light and as you said, making the gene pool become more diverse.**

Further more, (I probably overuse wikipedia apologies),
If the traits that give these individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. This is known as differential reproduction. Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any heritable advantage will become dominant in the population. Replace the rabbits and algae with humans please.. But if this proves true, surely heritable weaknesses over many generations may give us all a disadvantage?

**(((I believe there's a debate out of that too, Diversity- Strength or weakness? Starting to get even more off topic APOLOGIES, my opinion on this is that too much diversity will bring about great conflicts between people, and very little consensus on group matters BUT too little diversity will bring about very little original creativity, very high prejudice against any minority and should one singular problem threaten the entire race, their lack of diversity might lead to the ruin of them all...)))

well I'm no expert on this but in my experience diversity is what makes evolution work and species that lack diversity tend to die off. On a long enough time scale, a species with the most diverse genes will survive. People think that thalassemia is a weakness but it actually makes one resistant to malaria. Some people think geeks are unfit to survive natural selection but you never know... maybe it enhances survival?

My favourite evolution story is HIV. Many people believe that if we didn't intervene, only monogamous people would survive. In reality, only people who are promiscuous and resistant to HIV would survive and the monogamous people would dwindle away or take on the gene in future generations. So you might claim we are weakening the gene pool by intervening but we're not because those resistant people are still with us as well as the people who can cure or treat it.

People will be who and what they are love them or not. Be yourself and let them be them. love them or not is up to you. the world Jerk is just another label.