Thread: Human Evolution

Time for some fun.

So, I have been thinking about all the new advances in medical science and how secure and protective our societies are becoming. Is it possible to hault human evolution? No mutation can become dominant because we are preserving them all instead of survival of the fittest.

What do you think? Have we haulted our evolution?

Also, I think we should come up with some ideas on how to help our evolutionary process. Obviously we can't just kill people because their genes aren't good. What about an arena. An initiation. At a certain age all your human atributes are tested with other people your age in a game of survival. Those who make it out alive are the 'fittest'.

O.k. Maybe that's not the best idea. Please add your own.

Also, consider that if we don't find our own way of dealing with population this may naturally occur, just not in a very controlled way. What if our advances in medication give us incredibly long lives; at the rate we are reproducing the world could run out of space very fast.

You fail to realize that people have different specialties. There are the strong who will allow humans to prosper on earth, and the smart who could take humanity much farther if there weren't limits (AKA, ethics departments, national funding problems, and Kansas-school-board types). An arena would certainly select for strength, but it would take a cunningly-designed arena indeed to test for smarts too...and then the two would still be off balance because the arena couldn't represent a perfect balance...

besides that, pitting two people against eachother in a death match (or disallowing the loser to reproduce) is still equally as immoral as flat-out choosing the people...

-Ajain

Well first of all it wouldn't be two people. It would be many. Also, to be honest (I know this is sad), I was thinking more along the lines of the movie. These people wouldn't be against themselves. Instead they would be on a team and many would be allowed to survive. In fact all would be if they all made it.

You are right. The complexty of such a game would have to be amazing to truly test all traits. Although, if it could you would end up with lots of well rounded people.

I'm not trying to sound like a psycho. It was more of an example to try to get accros what I am trying to say.

I have a theory about collective intelligence. The human has reach a point where the society evolve far more faster than the individuals.

Nobody is enough skilled to make a chip alone. Even nobody has the entire knowledge of how to design a chip : the knowledge is share between differents people. Most of the people has the global knowledge of the whole thing, but when it come to the precise knowledge, it is not widely shared.

You can't practice medecine, without the drugs industry, or the technical support that go along. If you bringed me back in the past, 95 % of my skills will be wasted.

Within the society the important point is the various differents skills needed to feed this collective intelligence.
An other point, is that this collective intelligence is at the service of individualities : no culture of sacrifice here. Unlike ants, whe are not ready to sacrifice for the sake of the vast majority.
Humans are individualists who need to live in society in order to prosper.

There is indeed a competition between various type of society in our world, but as it become globalised, let's expect that some people will understand that destroying others, is destroying all us.

that shouldnt be on a arena since intelligence have a greater survival chance than muscles. Therefor those who are intelligent enough should survive not those who are physical strong.

But also we simply geneticly manipulate them before they are born to eliminate the bad genes

Hmmm not quite sure how Stephen Hawking would fair in an arena against two Mafia assassins, or what that would do for the future of science..

the theory is that we are still evolving, both men and women are getting gradually taller, and women are slimmer and more muscular as a whole compared to 100years ago. Obviously the world wide obesety is clouding this issue

Hmmm not quite sure how Stephen Hawking would fair in an arena against two Mafia assassins, or what that would do for the future of science..

that would ruin science partly

Its impossible to 'stop' evolution, as long as people keep dying before having children (for whatever reason) then the causes of these deaths are selective pressures driving our evolution.

DABOB: you make a mistake in the assumption that evolution somehow has a preset goal which we are yet to achieve (stronger, faster, taller, smarter...whatever). I'd say that none of these phenotypes offer any significant improvement in reproductive success in the western world, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for generations of supermen to appear.

Also who is to say that one person is evolutionarily inferior, even if they are born with a debilitating illness?

Read up about sickle-cell anaemia. This is a genetic disease which is clearly a threat to the survival of sufferers. However, in certain regions of Africa the preponderance of the mutant allele in the population is huge. Two mutant alleles causes eventual death to sufferers but just one mutant allele (in 'carrier' people) causes few ill effects and actually prevents the malaria parasite from attacking the carriers red blood cells. This is an example of natural selection favouring a mutant gene and shows that survival of the fittest means survival of the MOST SUITED, not survival of the smartest/strongest.

I thought this might happen.

I love how you say " the western world". The western world has only been here a few houndred years and in all likelyness will not last too long. Somehow I fear that our 'new way' of evolving will not help us in the long run.

I guess I need to rephrase something. Instead of: is it possible to hault evolution? I shall say: Is it possible to hault the helpful effects of evolution?

It seems to me that these days many people (not in war) that die before they have children are 'random deaths'. By that I mean they had nothing to do with the person's fittness. Examples: being aborted or hit by a drunk driver (can't be good for evolution).

Also, I am not saying that any that anyone is inferior.

The poll was just to get people thinking. I'm not really serious about that. I just feel that this is an issue that needs to be adressed. I feel that we have so much more potential if we were only willing to reach it.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

the theory is that we are still evolving, both men and women are getting gradually taller, and women are slimmer and more muscular as a whole compared to 100years ago. Obviously the world wide obesety is clouding this issue

According to many experts, it's related to a better nutrition, and not to a genetical evolution

Maybe there should be two doors, one leads to death, the other to freedon, the question is "Do you believe in God".

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Also, I think we should come up with some ideas on how to help our evolutionary process. Obviously we can't just kill people because their genes aren't good. What about an arena. An initiation. At a certain age all your human atributes are tested with other people your age in a game of survival. Those who make it out alive are the 'fittest'.

We already do this.

It is called living.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Also, I think we should come up with some ideas on how to help our evolutionary process. Obviously we can't just kill people because their genes aren't good. What about an arena. An initiation. At a certain age all your human atributes are tested with other people your age in a game of survival. Those who make it out alive are the 'fittest'.

O.k. Maybe that's not the best idea. Please add your own.

An easier way to push our evolution in any directions that we might want would be to have the state decide which couples are allowed have children. This is not a popular idea though.

I think I already answered the question on whether it is possible to stop/halt our evolution. As long as people continue to die before having children then humans will continue to evolve. Of course its unfair when people are killed by drunk drivers, but in the bigger picture this has little effect on allele frequency in the gene pool because its essentially random.

Humans don't have the capacity for making the proper decisions made by nature (see Silkworm). There are just too many factors. And promoting genetic drift (as would occur with a mass genocide) is a good way to cripple the adaptability of your (our) species.

i dont think we have haulted anything. not now anyways. it tickles my mind thinking bout this. at first i jump to the conclusion that we have.

but then i remember, i dont expect to see any sort of evolutionary jump in my lifetime. the fact that our environment is gettin better means perhaps we dont need to evolve, yet.

as you said your self this way of living

in all likelyness will not last too long.

a time will come when we will need to adapt again. be it large or small scale, life will show us evolution is still churning away.

But we are really evolving, our only defence mechanism, our mind. We evolved to a high intelligence because our "claws" were a bit....bad and we continue to get smarter. i wonder what we'll look like when we all finally die?? If we can harness potential energy we may have a chance, or use the geothermal vents and launch the earth away from a growing red sun....etc, what ever, we can't go on forever!!...or can we..duududu

Up the Irish :P