This is not about wither or not we can be moral without religion. My views on that should be clear. This is about how does our species continue to evolve in the modern age. First I'll say that the modern age is so unbelievably short from an evolutionary view point that its effects so far are of little consequence. But as domestication and breeding show things can happen quite quickly if given the opportunity. The problem comes from the fact that the more educated people have fewer kids while those who are least educated are still reproducing at high rates. Now I know there might be better ways to look at this but I'm just thinking in very general terms, economics might have been a better route, it doesn't matter though as they are so closely related anyway. Actually I would like to compare birth rates to intelligence but I don't think that would be easy data to gather. You probably already see where this is going. By natural selection for humans who's only survival skill in unparalleled intelligence one would expect that increasing our intelligence would be beneficial. Yet it seems that by simply evolution we are going to get dumber and probably very quickly by evolutionary standards. I don't think any of this is anything that should shock anyone, it might offend some folks but even without any research at all I think people will agree with what I've said so far and I will point out that no where has race or and factors besides education, income, and intelligence been mention or implied I do not mean this a an excuse for racism in any manner.
Ok so now to the heart of the matter, what do we do about it? The question is are we morally obliged to maintain our species or the individual? I think the argument for the individual is easy and is shown by our basic morals so I'm not really going to bother with that. I'm going to look at the other side, just for shits and giggles. So if we want to do whats best for our species we need to improve the breed, or something like that. I'm not a Nazi so I don't plan on killing off anyone deemed inferior. I should also say that this really is a pointless though experiment I'm just bored at work. I guess one option would be to return to the state of nature, hunter gatherers and shit. But our social abilities are one of the great strengths of our species so I see that as counter productive. Ok as long as we are talking about a hypothetical lets say someone comes up with a way to simply turn off the gonads of either men or women or both. Which would be a better option could be its own fun debate. So now your sex organs (but not drive, gotta have fun ya know) are off but can be turned back on. Then someone decides that the government should be the one to decide who gets theirs turned back on. So now how do we decide who is allowed to reproduce? We could start with the easy choices, easy that is from an evolutionary standpoint, people with genetic diseases that would be passed to their children would not be allowed to reproduce. And because I'm not a total dick and we generally like children those deemed reproduction worthy will in vitro fertilize those who wish to have children but are not genetically advantageous.
Shit I'm just getting to the fun/controversial part and I'm outta time for the day. expect an update tomorrow, my only fear of this type of thought is the fundies saying that "darwinists" really think this way and want to kill of the undesirables. This might also be what social Darwinism was all about I'm not really up to date on my social Darwinism because I know its a croc of shit and is often used to bad mouth evolutionary thought. Anyway I gotta run.