With the advance in life expectancy over the last few centuries natural selection has taken a battering as a huge proportion of the population lives long enough to have children, and what happens to them after that is of course irrelevant from a natural selection perspective. Is that a good or bad thing, who knows? Personally I’m hoping to see the re-emergence of pterodactyls at some point (mostly because of their fab name) but not holding my breath.
Reply to your post is inline, below: QUOTE="virtusa, post: 5470580, member: 517719"]The so called "survival of the fittest" is already a long time replaced by the "survival of the smartest". Actually, the word “Fittest” is inclusive of “Smartest”. Survival or prospering goes to those who are able to identify and extract resources from our environment more efficiently than their competitors. As far as whether taking or not taking a vaccination is the “Smarter” decision, that is, or at least should be, up to that individual or that individual on behalf of their children, not the Government when facing viruses of only moderate impact. In my opinion, it is sound public policy to not over sell vaccines for viruses of only moderate impact, especially to low risk individuals, because there may be long term risks of having the entire population getting two to three jabs per year for an extended period of time. Where I live we have several mandatory vaccinations from the day we are born. The results are clear and undeniable: we have less people that die from the day they are born, and we all live longer. Take away these vaccinations and the numbers of victims will go up again. I’m not going to let you suggest I’m anti-vaccination. I received mandatory vaccinations prior to entering public school and don’t regret it. I went to receive a tetanus vaccination after stepping on a nail that went almost all the way though my big toe. However, I am anti-mandates for vaccines related to viruses of only moderate impact. I have no problem with anti vaxxers that die, as it is the result of the "survival of the smart". As they are not smart, they still follow the "survival of the fittest". I accept and agree with this statement. Are you willing to sign a petition with me challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates in the US so “More anti-vaxxers can exercise their right to die”? It is a natural selection which leads to less votes for Trump. Maybe a sign send from God? I accept and agree with this statement. However, are you willing to acknowledge that Biden’s approval rating are dropping significantly among dependents, direction of country polls are declining, and consumer sentiment indicators are dropping? Will you also agree that part of this drop is related to Covid-19 mandates? Anecdotally, look at this thread’s poll: As I write this post, 8 out of 10 respondents feel “Current Covid policy grossly misrepresents the long term interests of our society”. This is hilarious. A truck driver that is expert in science and calls out real scientists. While I tend to respect professionals, true professionals, I can think for myself and have no hesitancy to call out those who inappropriately use their position to unfairly influence policy, especially when conflicts of interest are involved, such as pharmaceutical companies directly or indirectly funding studies, some of which get news coverage. An even greater moral hazard is when studies are “Curve fitted” based on “Unsatisfactory results” of prior studies. A definition change here, a timing change there, greater controlled study conditions that are not realistic in real world applications, and a citable basis for public policy can be created that can effectively amount to “Fake science”. I am not looking to add even more controversy to our already full plates, but I’ll be God-Damned if my freedom is to compromised by Covid-19 vaccine mandates. This is a perfect example of someone stupid who thinks he is smart. Oh, the stories I could tell you. From David and Goliath type stories to stories where I get my well deserved comeuppance! Do you have any education in any form of science? No. Formal, post high school science education, no. Informal science education, yes. I am a critical thinker who can often identify bullshit or glean in-depth insight into a subject. If you are feeling adventurous, read the introduction and perhaps the first chapter of Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time and get back to me. While this book is about physics, the applicable part of this book for this discussion is the modern framework in which scientific research is conducted in certain countries. I can give you context, if needed, should you read it and want to discuss it. But you clearly think you have. Or you might even think you are smart enough and don't need any education. Education, knowledge, can be acquired in different ways, formally and informally. A test of where I stand in that regard is whether I can hold my own in conversations with those with formal educations, and professionals. Now, where would you say I stand in that regard? Copying and pasting from internet articles that for 99% are to difficult for you to understand is a typical phenomene with stupid people.[/QUOTE That is an unfair statement. After all, given the typical length of my posts, am I not often the source? I define the issue, support my statements with reasoning and or occasionally other sources, and state my conclusions based on the content of my post. Thinking on your own has advantages. Hopefully, you will try it more often.