How long is the span of evolution legitimate for? 

Ok, this is one of those opinions that people normally don’t like to hear, even though the evidence suggests it rather plainly. It will be part of a series in the future. 😀

The basic question is how long the forces of evolution act upon an individual or species in order to get its way. For instance, if my mother made poor choices in life and I am born poor (or with a birth defect), would we say this is evolution selecting me out? If not, why not?

Even not going so far as to have a defect, is it legitimate to say that evolution is at work in the human species? And if so, is it legitimate to say that poor people are those who evolution is picking out of the gene pool due to past decisions made by that individual or their ancestors?

So that’s the beginning, a pretty ugly truth I suppose, but let’s take it even farther. 

What if my grandparents move into an area that is plagued with tsunamis, and my family is killed in one? Is this evolution (those who lived farther uphill survived). Or what if my family didn’t sell their house before the neighborhood went bad and I got shot. Is that evolution? In harsher environments, the forces of evolution are stronger, they say…

What about alllll the way back. All the way back to coming out of the fertile crescent and going northwest verses northeast or southeast or southwest? Is this legitimate for evolutionary processes?

It seems like if one family split all the way back then, and one went northwest and one went southwest, those ancestors are likely to have very different outcomes in the present day. Is it legitimate to say that the situation of the world today is the result of such decisions?

If so… it basically excuses as a part of evolution the way that the world has come to be the way it is (inequalities and all). But is it? And how do we keep ourselves from falling into some sort of capitalistic dystopia?


I mean, the position sort of makes sense. If a group of individuals moves into a harder environment (say too hot or too cold), they will have to spend more time battling the elements, and less time getting ahead technologically. 

Over generations, this will add up, possibly, to one group having guns and ships that can cross an ocean, and the other not. But is it then legitimate to say that this is evolution removing those less successful individuals from the gene pool? It is not necessary to say that those in Africa are worse, but simply that over thousands of years, the extra time that they put into other things caused them to fall behind. Is there any doubt that they are ‘behind’? I don’t think so, but we can talk about it in the comments if you want.

Looking over time, we can see the dominant powers push themselves North and West (e.g., Egypt, Isreal, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, England, US, where next?).



What do you think friends? The ideas are pretty dangerous, but seems to be based in reality.

Also, find me at facebook.com/TheOmniopinedPsycholar for less ‘serious’ content.


A lot of the work is based in the Pulitzer prize winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.