digital angel
Well-Known Member
Are humans turning Darwinism on its head? Discuss.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129638953
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129638953
-
OK, it's on.
Unnatural Selection
- Thread starter digital angel
- Start date
Vrecknidj
Prolific Member
Nope. We're a product of natural selection, therefore what we do is a product of natural selection.
It's just revved up a notch.
It's just revved up a notch.
Linsejko
Ghost of עמק רפאים.
- Local time
- Today 10:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 603
^Yup.
Everything just gets behind another layer of complexity, but it'll all pan out.
Everything just gets behind another layer of complexity, but it'll all pan out.
Roni
Active Member
- Local time
- Tomorrow 3:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 163
oh no! .. pet hate! pet hate! ... can't stop myself ..
<pedant>
Darwinism, being an ism, is a philosophy. Specifically, it's Thomas Huxley's philosophy promoting scientific naturalism over theology.
The 'Unnatural Selection' article discusses both natural selection (which may be credited to Charles Darwin if you wish) and genetic mutation (which may not - Darwin knew nothing of this) which is evolutionary science.
Science. Not philosophy. Not an ism.
</pedant>
.. I'm so sorry..
Now, back to the discussion..
Humans (of sorts) have been modifying the environment to suit themselves for at least 125000 years, perhaps even 400000 years (when we were still Homo Erectus). We did it with fire - that kept us warm, protected us from predators and helped us digest meat.
We're not turning Natural Selection on its head. We're exhibiting it in our own, unique way - our ability to increase our evolutionary success by modifying the environment is a 'natural' part of our natural selection.
<pedant>
Darwinism, being an ism, is a philosophy. Specifically, it's Thomas Huxley's philosophy promoting scientific naturalism over theology.
The 'Unnatural Selection' article discusses both natural selection (which may be credited to Charles Darwin if you wish) and genetic mutation (which may not - Darwin knew nothing of this) which is evolutionary science.
Science. Not philosophy. Not an ism.
</pedant>
.. I'm so sorry..
Now, back to the discussion..
Humans (of sorts) have been modifying the environment to suit themselves for at least 125000 years, perhaps even 400000 years (when we were still Homo Erectus). We did it with fire - that kept us warm, protected us from predators and helped us digest meat.
We're not turning Natural Selection on its head. We're exhibiting it in our own, unique way - our ability to increase our evolutionary success by modifying the environment is a 'natural' part of our natural selection.
Dimensional Transition
Bill Cosbor, conqueror of universes
We're just part of natural selection. Other animals use tools and make homes too, we just do it on a way more destructive and massive scale. Being destructive in terms of "polluting"(This is just subjective, it's worse for some animals, and barely noticeable for others... Besides, earth itself doesn't care.) the environment and making species go extinct doesn't mean we're turning natural selection on it's head.
Jah
Mu.
Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Today 5:27 AM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
Transhumanism will screw that up.
I suppose the competition for "best design" will become a competition for "best design philosophy", for instance which is more important, modularity or performance?
(Just musing pointlessly now)
Personally I'd opt for highly specialized legs and make my arms modular at the forearm for the left and shoulder at the right (so my left arm would have a higher load capacity than my right) the idea being to most effectively compromise between functional flexibility and operational performance for the statistics that really matter (legs get used a lot for few things, whereas I use my right arm for many things, but I'd still like to have the strength in my left in case I need it).
I could go on, and on, and on, etc.
I suppose the competition for "best design" will become a competition for "best design philosophy", for instance which is more important, modularity or performance?
(Just musing pointlessly now)
Personally I'd opt for highly specialized legs and make my arms modular at the forearm for the left and shoulder at the right (so my left arm would have a higher load capacity than my right) the idea being to most effectively compromise between functional flexibility and operational performance for the statistics that really matter (legs get used a lot for few things, whereas I use my right arm for many things, but I'd still like to have the strength in my left in case I need it).
I could go on, and on, and on, etc.
digital angel
Well-Known Member
Somehow, I'm not surprised by the responses.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 4:27 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
Darwin called his theory "evolution by natural selection", for good reason. The concept of evolution was well-known in his day. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had proposed a type of evolution. Darwin had read similar ideas written by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. He chose the term "natural selection", because in his day, cross-breeding was called "artificial selection", and he was suggesting that the same thing happened, but in nature. So I believe that Darwin would also call this "unnatural selection".
As I've said before, we humans have a huge evolutionary adaptation, our big brains. We have yet to show that humans as a species have reasonably adapted to our environment. We are thus still learning how to use our big brains properly.
Eventually, we will learn to use our big brains properly.
In the meantime, we cull ourselves, through the indirect consequences of our own actions.
As I've said before, we humans have a huge evolutionary adaptation, our big brains. We have yet to show that humans as a species have reasonably adapted to our environment. We are thus still learning how to use our big brains properly.
Eventually, we will learn to use our big brains properly.
In the meantime, we cull ourselves, through the indirect consequences of our own actions.
Jah
Mu.
If we evolved naturally, as most of us would accept, then what we are doing is by definition natural.
It is a natural consequence of our evolutionary history.
The illusion of higher consciousness does not automatically predicate that we are removed from nature.
It's just an example of where we have formed a sub-category of nature, that is still contained within nature.
People still get eaten by tigres.
People still try to survive and procreate.
The fact that we have mobile phones to aid and abet us in our mission does not mean we're no longer selecting within our own group, nor that we are isolated from the rest of nature.
So,
Transhumanism will then be another example of how it will be an evolutionary advantage for some of us to evolve even more able minds.
I even consider the advent of Artificial Intelligence as a step in the natural progress of evolution by natural selection. (Though there are many paths, the one we are on, and indeed part of, will very likely lead to higher intelligences and extraterrestrial endeavors, In my opinion.)
It is a natural consequence of our evolutionary history.
The illusion of higher consciousness does not automatically predicate that we are removed from nature.
It's just an example of where we have formed a sub-category of nature, that is still contained within nature.
People still get eaten by tigres.
People still try to survive and procreate.
The fact that we have mobile phones to aid and abet us in our mission does not mean we're no longer selecting within our own group, nor that we are isolated from the rest of nature.
So,
Transhumanism will then be another example of how it will be an evolutionary advantage for some of us to evolve even more able minds.
I even consider the advent of Artificial Intelligence as a step in the natural progress of evolution by natural selection. (Though there are many paths, the one we are on, and indeed part of, will very likely lead to higher intelligences and extraterrestrial endeavors, In my opinion.)
smithcommajohn
Do not consume with alcohol
Lol @ George Carlin's Video
He also had another good line pertaining to this.
"We're saving entirely too many lives in this country."
He also had another good line pertaining to this.
"We're saving entirely too many lives in this country."
Dolph1983
An Inventor (sort of)
Nothing defies nature.
Humans will reach a series of natural selection events (within this century), the strong will survive and the weak will perish.
The selection events may be naturally occurring (asteroid, super volcano etc) but more likely they will be related to the unforeseen consequences of human technology.
The 3 main external problems we face as a species are :
Over population, energy crisis and climate change.
I foresee the 21st Century as being the most challenging we have faced as a species, by a hell of a long way.
The main internal problem is: we are all just jumped up monkeys who have gone nuclear. Our instincts demand we do things that will destroy us. Power, control, procreation, expansion of territory etc etc are animal instincts which dominate our
conscious minds.
Most greedy, stupid humans will be cut down to size soon enough, only then will they realise how much god does'nt love them!!! Could anyone really believe that a species which invented religion has what it takes to survive?!?!
Live life for today because there may be no tomorrow!!
Humans will reach a series of natural selection events (within this century), the strong will survive and the weak will perish.
The selection events may be naturally occurring (asteroid, super volcano etc) but more likely they will be related to the unforeseen consequences of human technology.
The 3 main external problems we face as a species are :
Over population, energy crisis and climate change.
I foresee the 21st Century as being the most challenging we have faced as a species, by a hell of a long way.
The main internal problem is: we are all just jumped up monkeys who have gone nuclear. Our instincts demand we do things that will destroy us. Power, control, procreation, expansion of territory etc etc are animal instincts which dominate our
conscious minds.
Most greedy, stupid humans will be cut down to size soon enough, only then will they realise how much god does'nt love them!!! Could anyone really believe that a species which invented religion has what it takes to survive?!?!
Live life for today because there may be no tomorrow!!
ZombieAtomico
Dedshirt
- Local time
- Today 11:27 AM
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 36
Given that survival of a species indicates adaptation to the environment, I'd say we're doing pretty damned good. Our numbers are doing anything but diminishing.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
... Altering our environment to better suit us is the same thing as adapting to our environment, evolutionarily speaking. We're just like bees. You think bees don't adapt to their environment simply because they always build their own hive? Not only do we adapt to our environment, we use the environment to our advantage! We're awesomely adapted!
lol,wut?
blarg
Muhahahaha. Ha. Ha.
So what if we seem to be slightly bending pure natural selection? It's still working, in a preventive sense. People born with genetic diseases won't dominate and out-select "normal" human beings.
blarg
Muhahahaha. Ha. Ha.
To a lesser extent. I'm not denying that evolution, competition, and natural selection take place among humans, but the effects of Darwinian selection have been minimized after the mental development of "genuine" altruism. Eugenics is frowned upon, and people with unsolvable hereditary issues are given care and their lives are much better than they would have been in a primitive world.
This has been covered in other threads. There's no universal purpose (though you can find your own). Feel free to commit suicide if you're stuck, but I really don't recommend it.
This has been covered in other threads. There's no universal purpose (though you can find your own). Feel free to commit suicide if you're stuck, but I really don't recommend it.
Okay. You obviously found your own. LIVING.
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
This is being purposely obtuse. Even Darwin started "Origin of Species" by giving examples of unnatural selection ("Variation Under Domestication").
By unnatural selection, in this threads context, it's obviously referring to anthropogenically purpose-driven "intelligent design" by the exercise of human will with the conscious motivation to modify presently existing naturally derived structures. Just because it's our natural inclination to do so doesn't mean it's not synthetic. It's just quicker and easier to say that it's not natural.
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
I understand that, my beef is with the term, not what has been said in the thread. I've encountered the term before, and it assumes we humans are somehow apart from nature and natural selection, that the things we do are not natural... an idea found in other places and contexts, and which I find to be silly.
AutumnTree
Redshirt
No matter if you should call it natural or unnatural, I wonder if this changing and removal of selection pressures is wise.
What we have essentially done is that we have removed the need for certain qualities we used to need to survive in earlier stages in our development. Then we needed (needed more than now at least) to be fast, perceptive, disease resistant, etc. to be able to reproduce. Now we need nearly nothing to be able to reproduce and spread our genes.
We are simply less "fit" now as a spices, I'd say.
Just for fun: Imagine a man running from a lion; he has to to fight to survive and is a good runner. He then finds a way to trap the lion. He no longer need to run and his shape deteriorates. This works fine as long as the lion is trapped, but what happens if it escapes? The man will no longer be able to outrun the lion and will die.
In the example above the lion is the dangers of living in our original habitat, the trap is civilisation and technology which saves us from the aforementioned things.
What we have essentially done is that we have removed the need for certain qualities we used to need to survive in earlier stages in our development. Then we needed (needed more than now at least) to be fast, perceptive, disease resistant, etc. to be able to reproduce. Now we need nearly nothing to be able to reproduce and spread our genes.
We are simply less "fit" now as a spices, I'd say.
Just for fun: Imagine a man running from a lion; he has to to fight to survive and is a good runner. He then finds a way to trap the lion. He no longer need to run and his shape deteriorates. This works fine as long as the lion is trapped, but what happens if it escapes? The man will no longer be able to outrun the lion and will die.
In the example above the lion is the dangers of living in our original habitat, the trap is civilisation and technology which saves us from the aforementioned things.
EditorOne
Prolific Member
"Could anyone really believe that a species which invented religion has what it takes to survive?!?!"
My vote for best quote in the thread.
An aside: It seems like the examples given of preserving disease-causing genes in the human population are half of what used to be "artificial selection." We mitigate the effects of debilitating genes but still allow their continuation in the gene pool. Not particularly smart. The immediate alternative, in the absence of any way to eliminate the gene itself from being transmitted to descendants, is pretty unattractive, but also pretty common in animal husbandry. It's like we can swallow making life possible for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to have life, but balk at preventive action aimed at keeping the problem from, literally, propagating itself.
An interesting ethical issue.
My vote for best quote in the thread.
An aside: It seems like the examples given of preserving disease-causing genes in the human population are half of what used to be "artificial selection." We mitigate the effects of debilitating genes but still allow their continuation in the gene pool. Not particularly smart. The immediate alternative, in the absence of any way to eliminate the gene itself from being transmitted to descendants, is pretty unattractive, but also pretty common in animal husbandry. It's like we can swallow making life possible for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to have life, but balk at preventive action aimed at keeping the problem from, literally, propagating itself.
An interesting ethical issue.
blarg
Muhahahaha. Ha. Ha.
Well, yes, I try to do that. But basically, you want to assign a purpose for yourself. Everybody has a different role, and people think differently from one another. I have discovered a sort of semi-purpose, but I can't really explain it. It's just...ultra-intuitive.