Spontaneous Order

[Danoff]

Spontaneous Order

I don’t know a whole lot about spontaneous order, so in part, I’m looking for a link to someplace where I can read ore about it.

I do know a few things about spontaneous order and that I think I like the concept.

If I understand it correctly:

Spontaneous order is the idea that minds develop structure to solve for a system of greater efficiency. It is also the idea that organisms, through natural processes, develop order that works because nature is less forgiving on organisms whose structure is less efficient.

These concepts apply both to non-intelligent organisms and intelligent organisms, but in different ways. In the case of non-intelligent organisms it brings about evolution (which I don’t really prefer to discuss in great detail because it offends religious people). In the case of intelligent organisms (which I find fascinating), it yields government and economic structure. Let me ground this with a silly example.


Blizzard Entertainment created a videogame called Diablo II, which had huge online playability.

In Diablo II, you play different characters that go around killing bad guys and collecting items that help them kill the bad guys in level 2. Some of these items are mediocre, and some of them are highly desirable.

Now because all of this is taking place online, people can trade these items that they pick up. Spontaneously a monetary system developed. This happened without any help from blizzard… in fact… despite blizzards attempts to stop it. The monetary system allowed individual, generally useful (generally meaning to most players) items to symbolically take the place of the 100, 1000, and 1million dollar bill. (I use those digits because it was extremely difficult to get any wealth at all because it’s hard to come by the price of admission).

Not only is this evidence of spontaneous economic order (blizzard mostly took care of the governmental order), but things went on from there.

This currency that they players developed went up or down in value over time depending on how much of it was counterfeit. The whole thing was amazing to watch. Without any direct control over the economics of the system, not only was order and currency created, but inflation and deflation appeared.

Anyone have a take on this?

 

[milefile]

In Diablo II's case, although it appeared spontaneous it could be argued that it was merely a reproduction of the economic context the game already existed in, that there was nothing unique about the economy aside from the unit of measure, and that everybody did what they are already familiar with.

 

[Duke]

That's true, milefile, but it may go a little deeper than that. I'm not sure. It's an interesting topic, though, and I'm keeping my eyes open for other examples.

Well, here's one, though it's also open to the same weakness Milefile already pointed out.

I've been playing NationStates for almost 6 months now. Groups of like-minded nations, or "areas" have sprung up, which in itself is not that surprising. However, war is not simulated in the game, nor is actual trade. Roleplaying trade has sprung up independently of the game itself. But more interestingly, within the game, aggressive nations have found a way to invade other areas by exploiting the UN delegation system and by a method of declaring themselves founder of an existing region, then using that usurped power to eject nations from that area, forcing them to be refugees.

It's kind of interesting.

www.jennifergovernment.com

 

[Danoff]

In Diablo II's case, although it appeared spontaneous it could be argued that it was merely a reproduction of the economic context the game already existed in, that there was nothing unique about the economy aside from the unit of measure, and that everybody did what they are already familiar with.

I'm trying to get a feel for whether you're talking from experience. Blizzard did not set up an economic context within the game. If you're saying that people emulated what is going on in the outside world.... that's a tougher issue.

The economic development that took place in Diablo II is somewhat unique. I agree that it is a partial emulation of the trading system of the outside world, but there needed to be a standardized trading item that was mutually accepted throughout the community as money.

One issue that needed to be overcome was the fact that there was no good way to take a vote accross the community as to which item would be considered money. Also, there was no real way to get the message out to everyone.

But this wasn't necessary because nobody actually thought of the fact that they needed a system of currency. In fact, Blizzard worked hard to make sure that a system of currency was not needed (or even desired). The result was that without any orchestration on anyone's part, an item emerged as currency (others like it emerged evetually as larger bills), and the trading system then began measuring all other item's worth by how much of the currency should be traded for it. This occured without orchestration or even the means for orchestration.

I was amazed at this development (when I took the time to watch it instead of playing).


You might be thinking that even though nobody orchestrated the economic system, it is still an emulation of the real world system.

This is not quite right either. Although close.

Imagine if today's currency were Iron. You can use the currency. It can serve purposes other than trading. The market that developed on Diablo II is much more like the futures market, where real world useful items are traded both by people who don't want to use the items and by people who do.

The thing is, this system developed from a bunch of teenagers who have no idea how futures work.

 

[Danoff]

Duke is that an intended or unintended consequence of the game?

I think what we're seeing here is that in these online video game communities people run into problems like convenient trading and defense againts an uninteded use of force within a game.

The result is that the individuals playing pool together, completely independently, to solve their problem.

In the process of taking care of our own selfish needs, we end up providing a service for many other people... which results in an overall service offered to society and an economic system.

 

[milefile]

The first things that come to mind in considering the idea, as it has been laid out by danoff, are physical processes independent of intelligent influence, which comes from humans exclusively (an idea which presupposes chaos as the character of the universe and does not allow for a god). From there one may work their way up, if you will, to the more subtle and synthetic machinations of human order.

The single celled being, the dumb animal, and the physical phenomena that shape the universe are all indicative of an "order" that is engendered independently, without human intervention or invention, as was alluded to in danoffs introduction. These examples are easier to pin down and leave less room for interpretation and are, hence, easier to describe. Once the world of humans is analyzed in this way it can become very complicated. However, right off the bat I must take issue with one of danoff's assertions...

These concepts apply both to non-intelligent organisms and intelligent organisms, but in different ways. In the case of non-intelligent organisms it brings about evolution... In the case of intelligent organisms... it yields government and economic structure.

I have no quarrel with what was said there, but wonder if the implication that intelligent beings do not evolve is what you really think? You never said that, but by juxtaposing government and economies against evolution, it was implied.

Some people may already understand why I think that's important, namely that human beings' organizational structures and institutions, like government and economy (but not limited to them), do not preclude its evolution. Homo Sapiens very nature in this context is part synthetic, part natural, and characterized by synthesis. The very things we call "un-natural" are simply natural for us. In this way we emphasise the synthetic parts (institutions and ideas), forsaking our physical existence in the world, hence separating ourselves from our historical existence as mammals.

I'll stop there for now since I've only addressed spontaneous order indirectly, and still don't know what danoff thinks about the physical existence of humans as animals.

I also have to point out that discussing spontaneous order in any depth without exploring the concepts of evolution might prove impossible (at least if I'm involved). But I have no problem offending religious types. They offend me all the time.

 

[Danoff]

Looks like we might have some good discussion here.

I also have to point out that discussing spontaneous order in any depth without exploring the concepts of evolution might prove impossible

This is very true. I had decided that I would set out to attempt that, but I’ll stay on board if we end up discussing both - which I’m already giving in to in this post.

…and still don't know what danoff thinks about the physical existence of humans as animals.

I think that humans exist as animals but are distinguished by our intellectual capacity (eg: our ability to conceive of abstract concepts, our perception of self and order).

The very things we call "un-natural" are simply natural for us.

I can’t count how many times I have tried to tell people this very thing. I’ve had discussions about how roads and cars are completely natural and people lose their minds. Un-natural to me is impossible. Synthetic is natural.

…but wonder if the implication that intelligent beings do not evolve is what you really think? You never said that, but by juxtaposing government and economies against evolution, it was implied.

My juxtaposition of government and economics against evolution was probably more subconscious than anything. I do not believe that intelligent beings cannot evolve. I do happen to believe that human beings are not evolving physically (except perhaps in third world countries). Our medical technology has brought us to the point where we can keep an incredible number of people alive long enough to reproduce. The result is the lack of natural selection - which requires the unfit to reproduce much less than the fit. I would argue that human beings are evolving socially - which contributes indirectly to increased intelligence.

I’m happy to get in to a discussion about natural selection and it’s lack of applicability in developed countries, but at this point, I’m not certain that I have any resistance to that.

One small point that I’d like to make is that humans do not supply the only intelligent influence to the evolutionary process. We do, however, supply the vast majority of intelligent influence. I would say that it is the intelligence of lesser animals that allowed them to reproduce more effectively which resulted in humans who are intelligent enough to change the scope of the discussion. But the intelligence of non-human animals did contribute at some point.


Our social structure is undergoing evolution at this point, due I think to spontaneous order. Some of our current social structure, and some of our future social structure will be the result of engineering on the part of economists and legislators. I would argue, however, that that engineering could still part of spontaneous order.

 

[milefile]

Have you ever read The Hitch Hiker's Guide? There is a scene in there where a group of people decide to use leaves as currency. You could get as rich as you wanted by gathering leaves. But then winter came and everybody was broke. That would be the opposite case of what you are identifying in Diablo. The leaves represented wealth and nothing more. But the items in Diablo represent usefulness, daresay, necessity, and wealth is derived from that.

It has interesting implications for the value of paper money as opposed to commodities.

It appears to be based on value, and I suppose all economies are grounded by a definition of what is valuable. In different contexts that definition can be varied, manifold, and even relative. The constant is that people, through experience, discover what is necessary and assign value, whether it is to win a game, have financial security, or stay alive.

For instance, you need a PS2 to play GT3. But you need electricity to run a PS2, and you need a dwelling with electrical outlets to have any use for electricity. Any rational person would gladly sell their PS2 to pay the electric bill, if need be. And they would also allow their electric to be turned off to pay the mortgage, if need be. And that should demonstrate the relative nature of value depending on circumstances. Value is defined by what is necessary to achieve, maintain, or create something.

But order can be seen in so many other ways.

 

[Danoff]

The concept that order spawns from chaos amazes me - yet it is evident everywhere. Our current civilization is an example of order that spawned from chaos.

I think that it is important to point out that this spontaneous order does not necessarily need to be faught. Government structures and actions should take into account the order that societies bring upon themselves.

 

[westside]

This is a really interesting concept. All instances of government, society, civilization, etc are people coming together to create order from chaos. And evolution is the scientific equivalent.

So how does the government need to take this into account? Does this idea favor local control over federal because the local people can be trusted to bring order? Do you just mean the government should allow more freedom for people to create their own order/organization/whatever? It's kind of ironic that the government, which was created by this spontaneous order, could deter it with too many regulations...

 

[Duke]

Well, in terms of things even such things as urban planning, etc. I have always been in favor of strong local order and weak overall control.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
It's kind of ironic that the government, which was created by this spontaneous order, could deter it with too many regulations...

Indeed it is. That's the catch. Any order ultimately seeks to control things. Organization is control. Order is control. And to use Bill Burroughs too true words: Control is controled by its need to control. It always peaks and becomes over-grown and detrimental.

 

[westside]

Order isn't necessarily control. It can be, and humans definitely have a need to control things and get more control and power, but evolution, for example, is order that doesn't seek control.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Order isn't necessarily control. It can be, and humans definitely have a need to control things and get more control and power, but evolution, for example, is order that doesn't seek control.

But evolution isn't conscious. Conscious order is control.

 

[Duke]

True, but I think the broader topic under discussion is the nature of Order, concious or not.

 

[Danoff]

the order that I speak of applies only to organisms of course. Both to intelligent and non-intelligent organisms. Life is what is required. Rocks cannot create order out of chaos because they have no purpose.

Life, by definition has a purpose - to procreate. In fulfilling its selfish desires, life creates order.

westside:

I'm not sure yet. Let me get back to you. I know at it's heart my response will be that government structures should not fight its citizens' natural progression toward order by heaping burdens on its producers and pulling up its dead weight.

 

[Timmotheus]

I disagree. I think the best example of this is at the molecular level, rather than at the level of macro organisms. Complex moleucules had to "evolve" as well, and because they became more stable, created order out of chaos. The "rocks" do create order, because they provide a more efficient and structured (especially if they are crystalline) way of storing energy in chemical bonds.

It is fascinating to look at the complexity of humans at the molecular level, and think about how the individual cells have evolved not just in structure, but in process. i can keep myself occupied for days just thinking about it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
True, but I think the broader topic under discussion is the nature of Order, concious or not.

Originally posted by danoff
Life is what is required. Rocks cannot create order out of chaos because they have no purpose.

Let me know if I am taking the thread off topic but... In the physical world, i.e. lifeless world, there is an order; the physical world is absolutely efficient. A basic knowledge of goelogy or astronomy bespeaks an order that follows laws, as Newton first documented around three hundred years ago. In this way things became predictable, to the extent understanding allows. For instance we know how stars work. That kind of order has not as much to do with control, though, as say the organization of societies via economy and politics. But, I expect it will.

The reason I mentioned the dificulty in exploring order in its most general, conceptual sense while excluding evolution was because human evolution, which we only understand in retrospect, must still occur. In the future, every aspect of our species, including the physical, will evolve. But it will be a singular evolution not like that of other animals. The reason for this is technology. Homo Sapiens has been technological for a very small time in relation to the span of its historical existence. We no longer need so much of what we are. In a world where so many of us sit at desks and use only our eyes and hands, it could be expected that other things would be selected out of our biology, spontaneously ordered physiologically to maximize efficiency. We no longer need sexual intercourse as we can produce new humans in a lab. And do we really even need people to do this? This is starting to sound like The Matrix. Suffice it to say that we humans now control our own evolution in every sense, even though we can't know the outcome yet. It is the greatest experiment yet.

This topic is so rich. There are so many angles. I think maybe a definition of order is in order . . . ? So far the word "efficiency" has been used, and that's a good start. But as we have seen so far, "order" can be approached in different ways and can mean different things. As you already know, I find it difficult to talk only about human's sythetic machinations outside the context of "the world", wher counterparts and antecedents abound.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by milefile
Let me know if I am taking the thread off topic but... In the physical world, i.e. lifeless world, there is an order; the physical world is absolutely efficient. A basic knowledge of goelogy or astronomy bespeaks an order that follows laws, as Newton first documented around three hundred years ago. In this way things became predictable, to the extent understanding allows. For instance we know how stars work. That kind of order has not as much to do with control, though, as say the organization of societies via economy and politics. But, I expect it will.

The reason I mentioned the dificulty in exploring order in its most general, conceptual sense was because human evolution, which we only understand in retrospect, must still occur. In the future, every aspect of our species, including the physical, will evolve. But it will be a singular evolution not like that of other animals. The reason for this is technology. Homo Sapiens has been technological for a very small time in relation to the span of its historical existence. We no longer need so much of what we are. In a world where so many of us sit at desks and use only our eyes and hands, it could be expected that other things would be selected out of our biology, spontaneously ordered physiologically to maximize efficiency. We no longer need sexual intercourse as we can produce new humans in a lab. And do we really even need people to do this? This is starting to sound like The Matrix. Suffice it to say that we humans now control our own evolution in every sense, even though we can't know the outcome yet. It is the greatest experiment yet.

This topic is so rich. There are so many angles. I think maybe a definition of order is in order . . . ? So far the word "efficiency" has been used, and that's a good start. But as we have seen so far, "order" can be approached in different ways and can mean different things. As you already know, I find it difficult to talk only about human's sythetic machinations outside the context of "the world", wher counterparts and antecedents abound.

That is what I meant to say, I swear...

 

[Danoff]

Timmotheus

You have brought up an interesting aspect of this topic, and milefile hit the problem on the head... symmantics. You're thinking of order in terms of the laws of nature, in terms of physics... an aspect that I had not considered. I was thinking of order on a more controlled level. I was thinking of order imparted on a system that would not necissarily be ordered.

I undersand some astronomy and chemistry. I understand that chemicals and masses combine because of the respective forces acting on them. In a way, this can be considered order, since it combines rather than splits apart.... construction rather than destruction.... and it's a completely unintended consequence of this topic, but I'm happy take the conversation there. : )

I'd like to point out that (dealing with non-biological matter) while nature has a tendancy to construct in some cases, it also has an equal propensity for destruction. I would cite heat dissipation, light and sound diffusion, and explosive collisions as methods nature uses in the non-biological realm to promote general chaos.

 

[Timmotheus]

Don't forget entropy! While you are correct that life is the only process that truly slows entropy down, eventually, the world will not have any truly usable energy left! Life still increases entropy, contrary to comon opinion. It does keep more usable energy than the "unnatural" biological processes, but it still increases disorder!

 

[westside]

the future, every aspect of our species, including the physical, will evolve. But it will be a singular evolution not like that of other animals. The reason for this is technology.

Milefile: Do you really think humans are still physically evolving? Sure, our technology is evolving, and our governments and our socities...meaning that they change over time. But for humans to physically change over time, for mutations to spread and our gene pool to change, certain people have to not reproduce. Physical evolution of a species is tied directly to reproduction.

If a person dies before they can reproduce, they don't pass on their genes. If another person has some mutation that lets them survive longer, they reproduce and pass on their genes. But with our evolving medical technology, we can keep people alive who have all kinds of defects and diseases. We can even help them still reproduce. Technology is helping sustain weak genes in our population.

Mental capacity isn't really a factor anymore either, because lots of stupid people still have kids, unless they're so stupid that they kill themselves before they can have kids (like some of the Darwin award winners). But I bet stupid people have even more kids than smart people, on average.

So how are we still evolving? How are people with weak genes not passing those on to their kids?

 

[Danoff]

I was eluding to entropy when I talked about heat dissipation. I know this next statement goes against some basic thermodynamic concepts but I take issue with the idea that there will be no usable energy left in the universe. I’m going to have to strike this conversation up with a physicist friend of mine before posting further on the whole entropy decaying energy state of the universe topic.

I’d like to sidetrack even from the spontaneous order topic slightly to talk about the current state of physical and mental evolution of the human species.

For natural biological evolution to occur, reproduction must be limited by some kind of driving force. I’ll address that in a minute, but I want to be clear on the meaning of evolution that I’m referring to, since it is a vague word.

Evolution of course can refer to a natural progress over time. For example, one could consider their piano skills evolving as they practice, or the technological state of humankind evolving as we pile knowledge on top of itself. Progress would be a more accurate term for this than evolution, but the word does apply. When I speak of evolution here, though, I’m talking about biological natural selection. I’m talking about the evolution of species through their genetic code - which I am about to argue human beings who live in developed countries are no longer actively participating in.

Evolution is a reaction to an environment. People who live a region that consists of mostly land will be able to hunt and gather better, construct shelter better and live longer, more healthy lives if they are adept at using their legs for transportation. Those people who can walk and run over large distances to find food and shelter are therefore more likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and their children are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce because their parents are able to provide for them while they are young. In this way, the genetic code of a species over many years becomes tuned to its environment through reproduction. The fit reproduce, the unfit don’t make it that far.

Now, I know everyone who is reading this post already understood that concept. But I wanted to illustrate the importance of reproduction and limits imposed on reproduction to discuss ordered evolution (in other words evolution that benefits the species in its environment).

The problem with applying this principle to the humans living, say, in America, is that the people living in America and other developed countries are able to survive long enough to reproduce in almost all cases. We cannot be evolving as a species to become smarter because stupid people reproduce in large quantities. We cannot be evolving as a species to have longer fingers, because people with short fingers have no problem surviving and finding mates. Perhaps intelligence gets you and your children more money in America, but that doesn’t make you any more likely to reproduce… so as a species, we are not becoming more adept at learning (biologically speaking).

In America (and similarly developed countries), everyone except the most diseased or most deformed have the opportunity to reproduce and thus, pass on their genes. So the vast majority of the genetic mutations that we experience as a species get passed on…. and most of those mutations are bad.

The reason for our increased success at reproduction is, of course, because of our medical technology.

So as a species we are, in fact, de-evolving. Our genetic pool is getting less and less tuned to our environment and, I would argue, not any more intelligent or adept. The only way for a species of our intelligence and compassion to continue to evolve is through the genetic engineering of most individuals. If we were not hindered by our compassion we would simply restrict reproductive rights to those people who had genes that were desirable, but that wouldn’t be very politically correct.

 

[Danoff]

lol

sorry westside, I didn't see your post before I posted mine. Looks like we come down on the same side of the fence here.

 

[westside]

That was kinda spooky...we posted almost the same thing at the same time...

More about evolution, though. I was thinking about when it was that humans stopped, or began to slow down, evolution. Because obviously at one time we were evolving, and the stronger, faster, smarter ones lived long enough to have kids, and the others died first or couldn't care for their kids and their kids died...like we've been saying.

I think we stopped evolving (or slowed down our evolving) when organized society first began. Because at that point people could specialize their skills, and people didn't have to spend all day, every day trying to find food and survive. When a group of people came together to form a society, one would specialize and be a farmer and provide food for everyone--maybe that person was really strong and good at working in the field. Another would become a doctor--maybe he or she was smart, but not strong. At that point physical survival didn't drive reproduction and, therefore, evolution.

Societies allowed people to specialize their skills, and trade those skills for food (survival). Then slow, one-armed, dumb people could still reproduce if they could, say, tell a few jokes and earn their way.

Another irony: the spontaneous order of society halts the spontaneous order of evolution...

 

[Danoff]

Then slow, one-armed, dumb people could still reproduce if they could, say, tell a few jokes and earn their way.

Are you claiming that it doesn't take intelligence to tell jokes? I totally disagree.

Another irony: the spontaneous order of society halts the spontaneous order of evolution...

Fascinating. I'm going to have to spend some time digesting that and figuring out if it is true. Your argument appears to hold water.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by westside
Another irony: the spontaneous order of society halts the spontaneous order of evolution...

Ah. Perhaps society is evolving. Perhaps the human race has become smarter than it needs to be. Evolution is not necessarily improving intelligence, but perhaps it is making a species better suited to life. Just being devil's advocate. That is the only flaw I could think of on short notice, so, pretty good argument!

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Milefile: Do you really think humans are still physically evolving? Sure, our technology is evolving, and our governments and our socities...meaning that they change over time. But for humans to physically change over time, for mutations to spread and our gene pool to change, certain people have to not reproduce. Physical evolution of a species is tied directly to reproduction.

If a person dies before they can reproduce, they don't pass on their genes. If another person has some mutation that lets them survive longer, they reproduce and pass on their genes. But with our evolving medical technology, we can keep people alive who have all kinds of defects and diseases. We can even help them still reproduce. Technology is helping sustain weak genes in our population.

Mental capacity isn't really a factor anymore either, because lots of stupid people still have kids, unless they're so stupid that they kill themselves before they can have kids (like some of the Darwin award winners). But I bet stupid people have even more kids than smart people, on average.

So how are we still evolving? How are people with weak genes not passing those on to their kids?

Everybody understands evolution in the strictly Darwinian sense. But it's worth noting that Darwin only began the debate and by no means is his version the final word. For instance the idea of survival of the fittest may not apply to humans. And yet there is no reason why we would stop physically evolving.

A bias is uncovered. Evolution is seen as some kind of gradual ascent to a better state. This is only a bias. Evolution, or at least what the word struggles to identify, is change. If genetically weak and defective individuals reproduce, and these traits are passed on and carried out in the gene pool, then that is how we will evolve. However, what is considered weak now may not be at some future time. The computer geek is a perfect example. Once beaten and ridiculed, now exalted and envied.

I actually think humans are evolving very fast, and we are living in an evolutionary burst, exacerbated by technology. The Field Museum in Chicago has an exhibit of Medieval armour. These knights and warriors were on average just over five feet tall. Modern humans are new, and the physical evolution cannot be percieved in a lifetime. So we know that humans are larger than they were a mere five hundred years ago. Larger, more robust stature must have been beneficial. But in today's world there is no benefit to bulk in the most general sense, and mental and technical acuity is by far the most beneficial trait. I expect humans to become absolutely hairless, pale, thin and smaller. The faculties we use most will be enhanced, most of which have to do with cognition and perception. Eyes. Brains. Hands. We now construct the world to suit us, and we will evolve to suit ourselves.

This is an totally unfounded idea, and pure speculation: I have even entertained the idea that the popular "alien" that everybody knows on sight is possibly the future human form. That they are us returning to find something they lost in history. We do stand to loose so much.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff


Evolution is a reaction to an environment.

Not only. We evolved to create environments. We dictate our own evolution. I doubt that we are so powerful that we have halted a fundemental physical process.

The problem with applying this principle to the humans living, say, in America, is that the people living in America and other developed countries are able to survive long enough to reproduce in almost all cases. We cannot be evolving as a species to become smarter because stupid people reproduce in large quantities. We cannot be evolving as a species to have longer fingers, because people with short fingers have no problem surviving and finding mates. Perhaps intelligence gets you and your children more money in America, but that doesn’t make you any more likely to reproduce… so as a species, we are not becoming more adept at learning (biologically speaking).

But this is no reason to believe we are not evolving. Certain traits are still favored. Less fit people still die. Sterility is rampant. More and more people choose not to reproduce. Evolution must be considered in milions of years.

So as a species we are, in fact, de-evolving. Our genetic pool is getting less and less tuned to our environment and, I would argue, not any more intelligent or adept. The only way for a species of our intelligence and compassion to continue to evolve is through the genetic engineering of most individuals. If we were not hindered by our compassion we would simply restrict reproductive rights to those people who had genes that were desirable, but that wouldn’t be very politically correct.

That speaks to my assertion that evolution is not prgressive, but random, regardless of how technological development seems to contradict it.

 

[westside]

I expect humans to become absolutely hairless, pale, thin and smaller. The faculties we use most will be enhanced, most of which have to do with cognition and perception. Eyes. Brains. Hands.

But how would this come to be? Physical change in humans has to be tied to reproduction. So why would people who are small, hairless, thin, and pale reproduce more than others? Why would these people survive and proliferate? People with dextrous hands and those without are equally able to produce and pass on those genes.

For instance the idea of survival of the fittest may not apply to humans. And yet there is no reason why we would stop physically evolving.

If survival of the fittest does not apply to us anymore (which I agree), why wouldn't we stop evolving?

If genetically weak and defective individuals reproduce, and these traits are passed on and carried out in the gene pool, then that is how we will evolve.

This is true--if the weak are the ones that reproduce most, we will evolve in that direction. The important point is that evolution is tied to reproduction, which is why I don't buy your argument that we will evolve into small, weak, highly finger-dextrous people in the future.