Dan G Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Human's in a much earlier form did operate in the manner you were describing but at our present evolutionary state we don't necessarily need that particular trait as others are just as desirable. That might not always be the case though. Having said that, that sort of natural behaviour is still prevalent in some cultures just now.Human's might not always have what they have now. It's not a given that we'll always be blessed with the things that we have in abundance at this particular time so it's wrong to say that just because we've got warm homes now that we'll never need to be fat in a natural way. Who's to say that ants won't ever get fatter due to natural selection. Ant's aren't required to be fat at the moment but it doesn't mean that they never will be. You can't categorically say that there will never be a human with wings or supersonic hearing. If either of those things occurred naturally which they could do via natural genetic mutation (obviously it's not the sort of thing that is going to occur overnight) they may lend an evolutionary advantage and we may over time become a redundant sub-standard version of our species or a piece in our evolutionary map like Homo Erectus is in ours.The chimp thing is an obvious one in itself.You're right, I can't categorically say that there will never be a human with wings or supersonic hearing. But I can say with much certainty that there will never be one anywhere remotely near our lifetimes. So with possible re-incarnation issues aside, that is kind of irrelevant to me, yet still something I find fascinating....The reason evolution and genetic mutations have taken place over time is to allow the animals in question to adapt and survive within their chosen habitat. Those that couldn't adapt, died out.Genetic mutations take thousands/millions of years (as you will without doubt know). The humans that have evolved over that massive time frame have got more and more intelligent, and gradually learnt how to adapt our environment to suit us, instead of adapting to our surroundings. Especially over the last few thousand years, where other than a little bit of height and no more '70s boobs', we haven't really changed at all. So, great natural disaster withstanding, it's very likely that we have more or less plateaued in evolutionary terms as we don't need to evolve any further to survive and sustain ourselves. We can already do that perfectly and have absolutely no survivalist reasons or requirements to need to evolveIf anything, rather than gain wings or supersonic hearing, we are far more likely to lose qualities that we currently have due to lack of use and the ability to create something synthetic to aid us in that field. We're top of the food chain and can pretty much live wherever the hell we want on planet earth in it's current state. If in 100 or a 100,000 years time we are all fat, it's probably just because we can be, rather than for some major genetic advantages.I think it's got to the point where we are pretty on the same side of the argument. The difference is you're looking at the wider scale of things and how being fat may potentially have it's advantages, whereas I'm looking at the current climate and saying how at the moment, being morbidly obese does not have it's advantages... agree? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 a few points.I think the evolution/genetics debate is a side argument, and I'm not sure that we are on the same wave-length. As an avid Dawkins reader and having studied evolution im fairly certain my argument made sense. Maybe no - lets put that debate to bed.As for being mean to overweight people - its not nice to be mean to overweight people; true.But being disgusted by those with gunts is only natural.It is relevant to the discussion here though. I've studied evolution too you know...It's natural for you to be disgusted by "gunts", yes, but not for everybody. Yes you're entitled to an opinion on it like everyone else but sometimes you have to know when to say things and when not to say things and if your motivation for posting this thread was to be controversial and "cool" then you may have succeeded on the first aim but you failed miserably on the second which is a shame because having spoken to you before you seemed like a nice enough guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 agree?Yup, very much so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfer_Rosa Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The point I was trying to make was that the effect of "fat genes" can't have increased in the last century to such an extent to be the reason for the huge increase in obesity.But I agree that people who actually try to keep healthy despite the way their body deals with or craves food, don't deserve to have the piss ripped out of them. I think the problem is when there's stories in the media about obese people, their mostly like that one from a wee while back about that family living on benefits because they were too fat to work, but spent this money on junk food and never left their house. If people are dense enough to then tar every overweight person with this brush then you end up with poor attempts at humour like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kernel Loaf Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The point I was trying to make was that the effect of "fat genes" can't have increased in the last century to such an extent to be the reason for the huge increase in obesity.But I agree that people who actually try to keep healthy despite the way their body deals with or craves food, don't deserve to have the piss ripped out of them. I think the problem is when there's stories in the media about obese people, their mostly like that one from a wee while back about that family living on benefits because they were too fat to work, but spent this money on junk food and never left their house. If people are dense enough to then tar every overweight person with this brush then you end up with poor attempts at humour like this.Here's the story:Family who are 'too fat to work' say 22,000 worth of benefits is not enough - TelegraphFavourite quote:Emma, said: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 The point I was trying to make was that the effect of "fat genes" can't have increased in the last century to such an extent to be the reason for the huge increase in obesity.But I agree that people who actually try to keep healthy despite the way their body deals with or craves food, don't deserve to have the piss ripped out of them. I think the problem is when there's stories in the media about obese people, their mostly like that one from a wee while back about that family living on benefits because they were too fat to work, but spent this money on junk food and never left their house. If people are dense enough to then tar every overweight person with this brush then you end up with poor attempts at humour like this.No, but environmental factors such as the widespread availability and low cost of unhealthy food types only makes being obese more likely for people with that sort of genetic disposition. And there were a lot of very heavy people in the middle ages as well, it's not limited to our lifetime.Totally agree with your last point though. But common sense should tell us that not all fat people are spongers and stupid, there are just as many (if not more) skinny spongers as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 That's chloe from hollyoaks, Jake. It was the "larger-lady + strawberry-blonde-hair combo" that I was referring to. Funnily enough, and fuck knows what this adds to the debate, but she recently lost 11 stone, apparently by just eating better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfer_Rosa Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Totally agree with your last point though. But common sense should tell us that not all fat people are spongers and stupid, there are just as many (if not more) skinny spongers as well.Yeah, but common sense isn't as common as you'd hope. It's easily ignored that skinny folk who eat crap and sit on their arse all day still get heart disease, diabetes, etc, not just fat people.If this thread was called "lazy, unhealthy, hypocritical people" there wouldn't have been as bad a reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan G Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Funnily enough, and fuck knows what this adds to the debate, but she recently lost 11 stone, apparently by just eating better.Yeah I knew about that, good for her! I saw that she lost a lot of weight a while back, and remember her saying she didn't want to be known as' the fat one from hollyoakes' - so big respect to her for doing something about it. She was just the only fat ginger famous-ish person that came to my head at the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 FAT PEOPLE TO BE SQUEEZED INTO CAMPS - The Daily MashGood to see The Mash holding out iagainst the PC anti-fatists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelecasterSam Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 FAT PEOPLE TO BE SQUEEZED INTO CAMPS - The Daily MashGood to see The Mash holding out iagainst the PC anti-fatistsThe Daily Mash??I'm quite surprised that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would EVEN read that garbage !(no offence) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 The Daily Mash??I'm quite surprised that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would EVEN read that garbage !(no offence)We can't all enjoy the daily mail.(no offence) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelecasterSam Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 We can't all enjoy the daily mail.(no offence)none takenWho does read it????.... (I don't read the Daily Mail - sorry)only the EE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 none takenWho does read it????.... (I don't read the Daily Mail - sorry)only the EEYou read the evening express?? Dear god.(no offence) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TelecasterSam Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 You read the evening express?? Dear god.(no offence)Yea....local news and all that....and I love the double page of puzzles on a saturday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaseyBoi Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 So to sum up are we lovvin the fatties now?So i make itAlkaline: 1The internet: 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jf9tp2wd40 Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 So to sum up are we lovvin the fatties now?So i make itAlkaline: 1The internet: 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Zero Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 At least the cost of smoking (and drinking) to society is priced into the products via high duty tax. I saw some headline last week along the lines of 'smokers cost public billions' and it made me a little angry.I'm pretty sure the tax benefits the government and not the public it doesn't help the drain on NHS resources due to people contracting various diseases through smoking. So the headline was correct. Why did it make you angry? Are you one of these misguided 'I'm a smoker, I have that right, I don't whine when non-smokers don't blow smoke in my face' types are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cortezthekiller Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 What about Beth Ditto - she's bloody fat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootray Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 *shudder* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idol_wild Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 What about Beth Ditto - she's bloody fat!Is she even a person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootray Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 She is jelly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan G Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 This is her apparently.Dibs."Ditto is known for her noticeable stage dances and her unique and revealing image. She classes herself as a punk, and thus does not wear deodorant or shave under her armpits"Double dibs."Ditto, a lesbian, is well known for her outspoken support of both LBGT and feminist causes"Damn. Ah well. Old Chloe from Hollyoakes it is then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'm pretty sure the tax benefits the government and not the public it doesn't help the drain on NHS resources due to people contracting various diseases through smoking. So the headline was correct. Why did it make you angry? Are you one of these misguided 'I'm a smoker, I have that right, I don't whine when non-smokers don't blow smoke in my face' types are you?I don't understand what you're saying... the NHS is a public health-care service, paid for out of the treasury budget. A large percentage of those tax receipts come from duty on cigarettes.So, smokers do kind of pay their way as the duty on cigarettes is worth billions. I'm angry because the headline was misrepresenting the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I don't understand what you're saying... the NHS is a public health-care service, paid for out of the treasury budget. A large percentage of those tax receipts come from duty on cigarettes.So, smokers do kind of pay their way as the duty on cigarettes is worth billions. I'm angry because the headline was misrepresenting the truth.Isn't there tax on food as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.