Advancements in technology and medical sciences have changed the basis on which evolutionary dominance is measured. It used to be that more physical and social characteristics were dominant when labor was more physical and relationship communities were more stable. Abstract mental fitness (Especially in areas of mathematics, process dynamics, technology adoption, and forecasting) has become a much more important factor in society. At the same time, other factors that are less well considered are having an important impact on human propagation. For example, free-time and moral comfort lead to increased average birth rates.

War has discriminatly killed and ended the genetic branch of those who fit the military standards of physical and mental fitness. The result is that the desirable characteristics that the military has identified as valuable in the event of conflict are relatively diminished in the world population. Characteristics such as good vision, strong muscles, dexterity, endurance, focus, ability to learn languages, spatial intuition, coordination, and communication skills are less common than they naturally would be in people. That's not to say that the military or society had any choice when recruiting our finest to protect our way of life, but it should be in our minds when we make decisions about how we fight. Is it worth harming the evolutionary process of humanity when we could, albeit for additional financial cost, fight our battles with a far higher degree of safety for the innocent? Human evolution has been reversed by this process, and the genetic pool that perpetuates humanity has been damaged by the wars we could not keep ourselves from fighting.

Labels: brain in a jar, Public Policy