• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Human evolution

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Since the monkeys, we have come pretty far, depending on how you look at it. Some have come farther than others, of course. As is the case with all species, and we are nothing but relatively intelligent animals, despite how much we try to think of ourselves as the very pinnacle of evolution.

I think there will inevitably be a point in time where something evolves from being human into something so entirely different that even if it is humanoid, it will not be a homo sapiens.

I think a major problem in viewing this is that many people get hung up on racism and other things. The whole race thing will probably not be that big of an issue when this change comes. Besides, no matter the skin color, intelligent people will always have more in common than they will with stereotypical hillbillies and vice versa. Besides, humanity will probably speak chinese in a few hundred years. I'm not implying white supremacy. Fuck that.

It's a guess of mine that in these days, where there is more and more intellectual stimulation, and people with a higher understanding seek the company of like-minded, eventually there will be such a gap between dumb people and intelligent people that it will be impossible to bridge.

Maybe what we are seeing in the world today, the enormous poverty, starvation and such are only the effects of evolution?

Should we work against it or let nature take its own path?

Could we work with evolution and engineer ourselves to be better?

What hazards does this hold? What would the benefits be?





This thread is general, however, derail it as much as you want as long as it stays on the subject of human evolution.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
isnt there a movie called idiotacracy? this dumb ass goes into the future and then is suddenly considered brilliant! the idea is that because dumb people have more children, eventually they will win out hahaha. i think in the movie he like teaches them to not use gatoraide on grass or something... i cant remember...
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
Honestly, if we do things like that, it won't have much of an impact on human evolution at all. You have to consider that evolution is a huge process over an extremely long period of time. If we try to help poverty, even if we get a ton accomplished, then it will have no effect on human evolution.
 

Prototype

THREADKILLER
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
855
MBTI Type
Why?
I think there will inevitably be a point in time where something evolves from being human into something so entirely different that even if it is humanoid, it will not be a homo sapiens.

Inevitably?... You really think our species will last that long eh?
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
Maybe what we are seeing in the world today, the enormous poverty, starvation and such are only the effects of evolution?

Naw, those aren't the effects of evolution, but rather could accelerate it, but we're talking about such a small time scale that such a notion isn't applicable.

Should we work against it or let nature take its own path?

I'm all for improvement of the human species through genetic selection, however, what traits would be selected and why? We could breed specialized humans for a variety of purposes. This may lead to conflict though, because it could lead to the systematic sterilization of most of the world's population that would be found with undesirable traits, very reminiscent of an Arian concept that we're all too familiar with. I would not support a measure that goes that far for obvious ethical reasons.

Could we work with evolution and engineer ourselves to be better?

Yes, but if speciation occurs it is no longer "ourselves" is it? I can also imagine that were we to isolate certain genes to create improved humans, these people may find themselves as superior to the "weak-gened", or the "weak-gened" may lash out against the improved humans for a number of reasons, a new sort of class conflict of genetic nature could emerge.

What hazards does this hold? What would the benefits be?

I covered this in the other responses without seeing that this question would be asked! :p Basically we would have to be very careful in how we went about making improved humans and to what extent we would push.
 

AOA

♣️♦️♠️♥️
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
4,821
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Attempting to know evolution, doesn't necessarily benefit our position(s) next to evolution itself, whether evolution is true or false.

... but I agree on some criterion you've pointed out.

It appears off real-time evidence that each and every one of us prefers to be with like-minded people of comparative intelligence. True intelligence, in my opinion, is the functioning of a person, based on... survival. Again, speculating around the term 'survival' pays no impact on the natural process of survival. In my world-view, God has his ways...

Therefore, given also the fact that we have no means to accurately assess how non-like minded individuals 'view' their lives up to what gratitude, the sublimed attempt to (in your own words), go against your version of the evolutionary process bears NO hope whatsoever in mankind's fate. Saving poverty, spending millions, devoting soldiers to a cause... all of this is drama are an apologetic approach to mankind's benefits. It bears no fruit, but on a personal level.

I say, each and every one of us concentrate on our positions where we stand now, let the natural 'every day' matters take place and move forward like that. Who knows... tomorrow may well be different to today, in the political sense.
 

Jeremy

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
426
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
I'm all for improvement of the human species through genetic selection, however, what traits would be selected and why? We could breed specialized humans for a variety of purposes. This will lead to conflict though, because it would require the systematic sterilization of most of the world's population that would be found with undesirable traits, very reminiscent of an Arian concept that we're all too familiar with.

WHAT? No. "Systematic sterilization of most of the world's population." You want human beings to die out completely? Can't you see how that could go wrong? Not to mention how horribly barbaric that is. "Breed specialized humans for a variety of purposes" - yeah, make a dumbed down laborer class and then watch the revolts as they realize what everyone else did to them.

Never let "intelligence" let you become so logical that you forget that there are actual people living in poverty and what some would call "ignorance" (I find that "ignorant" people know more about life and happiness than most self-proclaimed "intelligent" people do, but that's besides the point.) A lack of "intelligence" doesn't always involve your genetic code. More often than not, it's a result of who you were raised by and how your culture surrounds you. Biology / Genetics is not the only science out there; take a look at Sociology and Psychology too.

If human beings "evolve", then I would assume it would happen as a species. I don't think we can evolve though. Nothing is around to "pick off the lower species" as there is in nature; no global pandemics are wiping out those without a certain gene or anything of that nature. And to suggest that humans do it to themselves.. that is just barbaric. We should not toy with forces beyond our comprehension, and messing with our own DNA is something that humans should avoid, or risk losing what it is that makes us human.
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
isnt there a movie called idiotacracy? this dumb ass goes into the future and then is suddenly considered brilliant! the idea is that because dumb people have more children, eventually they will win out hahaha. i think in the movie he like teaches them to not use gatoraide on grass or something... i cant remember...

I see. *takes note*
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
WHAT? No. "Systematic sterilization of most of the world's population." You want human beings to die out completely? Can't you see how that could go wrong? Not to mention how horribly barbaric that is. "Breed specialized humans for a variety of purposes" - yeah, make a dumbed down laborer class and then watch the revolts as they realize what everyone else did to them.

Never let "intelligence" let you become so logical that you forget that there are actual people living in poverty and what some would call "ignorance" (I find that "ignorant" people know more about life and happiness than most self-proclaimed "intelligent" people do, but that's besides the point.) A lack of "intelligence" doesn't always involve your genetic code. More often than not, it's a result of who you were raised by and how your culture surrounds you. Biology / Genetics is not the only science out there; take a look at Sociology and Psychology too.

If human beings "evolve", then I would assume it would happen as a species. I don't think we can evolve though. Nothing is around to "pick off the lower species" as there is in nature; no global pandemics are wiping out those without a certain gene or anything of that nature. And to suggest that humans do it to themselves.. that is just barbaric. We should not toy with forces beyond our comprehension, and messing with our own DNA is something that humans should avoid, or risk losing what it is that makes us human.

Hmm, perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do not support the systematic sterilization of people to select traits. When I mentioned that such a measure would be reminiscent of Arian ideas I was trying to say that it was bad.

I will edit my post for clarification
 

Jeremy

New member
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
426
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Hmm, perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do not support the systematic sterilization of people to select traits. When I mentioned that such a measure would be reminiscent of Arian ideas I was trying to say that it was bad.

I will edit my post for clarification

Alright.. I was worried there for a second. But the fact that it seemed like someone could support that was somewhat scary.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
All fun thoughts and I've had similar. Watching what happens and trying to make sense of it.

In my world view the wheel spins. And we spin with it.

Control is an illusion.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Naw, those aren't the effects of evolution, but rather could accelerate it, but we're talking about such a small time scale that such a notion isn't applicable.

This is really worth highlighting. Evolution is the process by which traits get passed down.

The time scale is sufficient depending on the severity of the "pruning". If a certain segment of the gene pool is unable to reproduce, the required timescale is very small (a good example in human evolution is when we were nearly driven extinct - theory goes that we were down to the tens of thousands).

Although the OP isn't an example of a population bottleneck, it's not entirely impossible for a massive evolutionary shift in a very short amount of time. Humans just aren't diverse enough right now for the starvation angles to really play a part.

(So I agree, but giving a bit more context :D aka, rambling)

I'm all for improvement of the human species through genetic selection, however, what traits would be selected and why? We could breed specialized humans for a variety of purposes. This may lead to conflict though, because it could lead to the systematic sterilization of most of the world's population that would be found with undesirable traits, very reminiscent of an Arian concept that we're all too familiar with. I would not support a measure that goes that far for obvious ethical reasons.

But this ignores that evolution simply happens. It doesn't need to be directed. If it turns out that higher "IQ" people in modern society have fewer kids (which is a new issue - previously, higher IQ people rose social ranks and their kids had a higher survival rate), then IQ is being selected against. The problem with the ethical argument is that it is ok for nature to do it, no matter what the consequences... but not ok for humans to do it, even if it would benefit all.

This isn't to advocate that certain traits are better than others - my ethical argument is that humans aren't capable of making such a choice, while nature takes into account factors way beyond what we can predict - but to point out that it doesn't take humans to start a descent into extinction. Nature's evolution is extinction. It will happen to us, eventually. Every step we take to diversify works with nature to cause branching - creating non-"human" species, which is the point of extinction. It doesn't matter if that means islands, continents, planets or solar systems. It's pretty much all the same interactions.

Of course, humans are somewhat unique in that we can break evolution by engineering it - least, we are getting pretty close to that. I fully suspect that is exactly what will happen, and what it will mean to humanity is... unpredictable.

Yes, but if speciation occurs it is no longer "ourselves" is it? I can also imagine that were we to isolate certain genes to create improved humans, these people may find themselves as superior to the "weak-gened", or the "weak-gened" may lash out against the improved humans for a number of reasons, a new sort of class conflict of genetic nature could emerge.

Cross breed humans with dogs. Happy willing servants. Want to give odds that the future will involve building self-reproducing biological work forces that are happy to work? I give it about a 90% probability in the next 500 years.

Right now we call them animals. We breed them, eat them, work them. We talk about ethical issues for humans while we kill, prune and drive species extinct. We are already building "better" animals.

The class conflict already exists. It's just framed in a way that makes us dominant, right and ethical. The "ethical risk" you talk about is nothing more than elevating animals to a higher standard where they could fight back.

I covered this in the other responses without seeing that this question would be asked! :p Basically we would have to be very careful in how we went about making improved humans and to what extent we would push.

The question is if we can introduce incentives better than nature can. A simple example: charge a large amount of money for a license to have a kid. Pseudo-eugenics, but blind to the traits that allow people to accumulate money. I don't actually advise this, to be clear. Even ignoring the ethical implications, this would just drive down the birth rate.

I use that example because that's exactly what existed historically, except it was nature that did it - children of poor families had a very poor chance of surviving. Those that had money had more of a choice in mates. And so forth.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Evolution is the process by which traits get passed down.

This is called Lysenkoism.

And it certainly can't be found in Darwin's, "Origin of Species".

And it can't be found in Watxon and Crick's understanding of DNA.

In fact it is the propaganda of a brutal and murderous regime in the old Soviet Union.

Lysenkoism has the same truth value as Creationism, or Astrology, or MBTI.
 

mibnelius

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
13
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
I think there will inevitably be a point in time where something evolves from being human into something so entirely different that even if it is humanoid, it will not be a homo sapiens.

I agree, assuming that our species survives long enough.

Besides, humanity will probably speak chinese in a few hundred years. I'm not implying white supremacy. Fuck that.

As much as I hate globalism, I have to agree with you.

...people with a higher understanding seek the company of like-minded, eventually there will be such a gap between dumb people and intelligent people that it will be impossible to bridge.

Have you seen scientists, politicians and "normal people?"

Maybe what we are seeing in the world today, the enormous poverty, starvation and such are only the effects of evolution?

Social Darwinism is not a new concept. Most forces which work against (or for) mankind are not evolutionary forces, they are simply the environment attempting to balance with its human occupants who so often overwork the land.

Should we work against it or let nature take its own path?

Unless you enjoy how much things suck around here now, I would suggest working with it.

Could we work with evolution and engineer ourselves to be better?

Yes, and all for the better in my opinion. If we have the power to better ourselves with the power of nature, why not?

What hazards does this hold? What would the benefits be?

It would be beneficial as long as the things we actually need are improving. We could improve our immune systems, increase longevity, breed for more protective bodies, increase brain sizes, and many other desirable traits.

On the other hand, we could find ourselves plunged into genetic genocide and cause a schism across humanity as we divide ourselves into genetic "haves" and "have nots." We could also become almost a genetic collective, where the creation of another superior generation was more important than individual achievement or the advancement of anything but the species as a whole, which would lead to stagnation in other areas.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Social Darwinism is not a new concept.

Oh I forgot.

Social Darwinism can't be found in, "The Origin of Species", nor in Watson and Crick's DNA.

In fact Social Darwinism was the propaganda of predatory 19th Century Capitalists.

And Social Darwinism has the same truth value as Lysenkoism, Creationism, Astrology and MBTI.

It seems gullibility is infectious.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
But what is really interesting is that the Capitalists and the Communists both used evolution for their own purposes.

The Capitalists invented Social Darwinism and the Communists invented Lysenkoism.

Social Darwinism and Lysenkoism have no basis in evolution at all.

They were created because they gave a patina of status to both Capitalism and Communism.

We can see now, from a distance, that they were two systems competing with one another.

So it is not surprising they came up with similar propaganda.

What surprises me is how successful they were, as their propaganda is still being repeated today.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
as victor has commented on...

evolution has nothing to do with social issues. evolution is the change in the gene pool over time. nothing less, nothing more. We need to better understand evolution not to save us in the future, but to save us TODAY. HIV is the the monster it is, BECAUSE of evolution and the fact that WE CANT STOP EVOLUTION nor direct evolution in our favor. If we could stop evolution, then HIV would of been 'cured' by now.
 

Valiant

Courage is immortality
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
3,895
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It could also be said that humanity is too squeamish to fix the problem. When the various plagues harried and tore apart the world, there were quarantines. Now we let sick people walk about and spread it, because it is inhuman to contain them. On top of that society hands out medicine to slow the progression of the symptoms. It would indeed be inhuman and non-democratic to use the only damage control there is, but in my opinion it's even more inhuman to let the HIV sick walk about spreading it. And then there's also the little problem with religion in many African countries... No condoms etc? Great idea when every third person in some places has a deadly STD! :doh:

I'm such a fascist sometimes. Oh... Wait... Always. :happy:


as victor has commented on...

evolution has nothing to do with social issues. evolution is the change in the gene pool over time. nothing less, nothing more. We need to better understand evolution not to save us in the future, but to save us TODAY. HIV is the the monster it is, BECAUSE of evolution and the fact that WE CANT STOP EVOLUTION nor direct evolution in our favor. If we could stop evolution, then HIV would of been 'cured' by now.
 
Top