They never said nor implied that
Dogyote
joined 1 year ago
You need to read a genetics textbook and then some evolutionary biology so you understand OPs question.
Pretty much everyone here either misunderstands how evolution works, or is willfully ignoring it to push their viewpoint.
Yes! Finally someone else who knows how...
Humans at this point have very little evolutionary pressure from natural selection.
Oh come on! Such a strong start but then you fell on your face. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It never lets up. It's more about reproduction than staying alive. Natural selection is happening every time someone reproduces more than someone else.
Survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you think it means. Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. So yes, the fittest of us do survive in the sense that their genes are passed on far more often than those that are less fit. For example, the overweight, nearsighted, diabetic car salesman with a lethal peanut allergy that has 16 children is more fit than most people on the planet.
Populations do not mutate. Mutations occur randomly within individuals, they do not occur to fit a changing environment, they only occur randomly. A mutation can spread through a population if nothing selects against it. Selection never waits, it's always there in one form or another.
Bro you did not understand anything he asked about
Thats understandable. Its not a obvious process to calculate out macroeconomic moves years and possibly decades into the future.
I can't help but detect a bit of passive aggression here. Do you calculate out macroeconomic moves decades into the future when deciding to buy a product? I definitely do, seeing as I'm the economic minister of a mid sized country it's more or less my job. But you? Are you an economic minister too? If you're not, it seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking much beyond your own personal finances, yes?
Here's something you may find interesting: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1776486765463048674
That analysis contradicts the BS your spreading. Here's some more for you to read: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/chinas-unfair-overcapacity/ China is outperforming the West in everything important for the future. Their economy fine. Their growth rates have been higher than the west's for awhile now.
Well the way things are at the moment, a Chinese car is one of maybe three affordable options, even with a 100% tariff. Plus they're making the type of car that I want, so I'm still failing to see the problem.
It's also a good move in regards to reducing global CO2 emissions. (I know a world with less cars would be significantly better, but our societies aren't ready to accept that yet). Is the Chinese government thinking along these lines? It would be funny and amazing if they had the ability to force a worldwide green transition through overproduction of green tech like EVs and solar panels. I guess they are overproducing EVs and solar modules, but is preventing the worst of climate change their main motivation?
Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.
I'm failing to see the problem
Why are you doing this?
Water can move freely across the membrane, but the stuff that's dissolved in the water cannot move across the membrane.
Weaker is in quotes, which suggests to me they don't mean weaker, just those carrying potentially deleterious traits. Plus, if those people are reproducing, those traits can't be that bad anyway.