I didn't make it!
In a roundabout way, he’s saying that we’ve stopped evolving, at least physically. Ok.. So.. Long ago, natural selection was a means that eliminated those who couldn’t meet the bar, or exceed it. You either survived the elements, or you didn’t. However now, thru social policies and programs. No one is left behind, or at least not as many, despite inherent or perceived weaknesses. So with those who wouldn't survive any other way, still here, and contributing to the gene pool. Have we usurped a species function?
What do you think?
Oh an please no debating whether or not evolution is true, save that for a different thread, in fact start it yourself, right now.
Maybe Darwin wise BUT WHAT ABOUT LAMARCKIAN EVOLUTION VIA COMPUTER IMPLANTS!!!??? I am cyborg. Hear me computer.
LEARN TO DE-EVOLVE SO YOU CAN EVOLVE AGAIN BUT DIFFERENT.
F*ck you, I want my mutant powers! :mad:
He has a point.
I've often wondered about this myself. There is possibly still the point that people with certain genetic deficiencies (severe developmental problems, for example) may be less likely to have children, which sort of "cleans up" the human gene pool, if you'll excuse the slightly insensitive term. But in terms of additional stages of evolution? The average human being can pretty much survive and thrive anywhere, so perhaps we are nearing an end, or at least until we see a major environmental change.
Another Pub thread posted in Spam? Tsk tsk.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
No, we haven't stopped evolving. He assumes that everyone gets to reproduce - and in more or less the same quantities. But that isn't true. Those who spend all their lives on the computer, or studying to get a decent job, or drugged off their tits... very rarely, if ever, reproduce. And evolution isn’t just about whether you get to reproduce or not, it’s also about what trait becomes prevalent in a population....
If I might step sideways for a moment though: As a species we've found a way to hammer our own reward buttons. From a reproductive perspective, it's a ... flaw ... in how we evolved, we're all cross-wired up there. As much as we've developed anything else, we've been developing - well let's call it art, though really I include drugs that directly hit your reward button - alongside our survival technologies.
In a way you might say that this art is a survival technology, since it exploits a flaw in our main enemy - i.e. other humans. We essentially attack each other with art: I sell you a bit of art or literature or whatever and you, as well as strengthening me with money, put your energy towards that rather than reproduction. And it goes beyond even that, I can include messages in art, a word choice - a bit of music. I can manipulate how you feel around certain bits of stimuli, like a picture of someone or a certain social situation....
If you think of humans as computers, then it seems to me that the analogy for art would be that of a virus. All art and beauty; every aria, every painting painted and story ever written, every sunset ever appreciated - has been, at least in part, a mistake on the part of the audience.
You look at standards of living and they're inversely correlated with the birth rate. Those who can resist doctored hyper-stimuli, or who aren't rich enough to run across it in the first place, are being selected for. We start getting artificial wombs and robot caretakers for our children, then we'll talk about evolution dead-ending. There are a number of ways a resistance to HS could go that occur to me offhand - upping the rewards of reproduction (i.e. making the experience of having a young child more rewarding - after all we’ve already found out how to have sex without getting children), or lowering the rewards of other activities.... or just severing the connection entirely, I suppose, and explicitly encoding reproduction as the behaviour to be rewarded. Heck we might even end up selecting for intelligence - since intelligence would suggest that, whatever your high order goals, you exercise a degree of diversity in your pleasures ( to maximise returns, expand your search space, be less easily manipulated and so on) - and that would serve as a degree of insulation to HS.
Bulbous heads in a couple of decades is and always have been bullshit, evolution just doesn’t function effectively with our sort of iteration rate in that sort of timeframe, largely regardless of the pressures. But no, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as he makes it out.
I am a fan of Michio Kaku.
I agree that humans will continue to evolve but at a slower rate due to the life or death pressure to perform.
To get drastic change a radical change would have to occur, something that could modify genes such as a virus or chemical or radiation mutation of genetic structure.
I remember reading a while back that Mice at Chernobyl were evolving I think it was 1,000 times faster than local mice outside the Radioactive zone.
Anlushac11;5589181I remember reading a while back that Mice at Chernobyl were evolving I think it was 1,000 times faster than local mice outside the Radioactive zone.
I think they call it mutating.