- 935
But we could adapt or purposefully mutate into that stage.
Spontaneous Order
- Thread starter Danoff
- 88 comments
- 2,380 views
But we could adapt or purposefully mutate into that stage.
- 10,832
Reproduction is a variable. Especially in our increasingly technological world. Things like attraction and sex are and will become even less important. What has been characterized as de-evolution, which I would call devolution, is a biased term. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But the physical stasis of a species has to be impossible. The fact that we control our environment and circumsatnces doesn't preclude mutation over time. Nor does it preclude intentional modification of our physiology, which is evolution in the sense that human's nature is unnatural.
Because "fittest" is variable and we have taken control of the definition.
In the future reproduction may very well be just production. Evolution is becoming (has become) a decision.
That's true--"fittest" no longer means what it used to, since it used to mean fast and strong and able to find food and able to protect offspring. Now that's pretty much irrelevant. But you didn't address my question--just because the definition of "fittest" has changed, or become irrelevant, how does that in any way mean that we are still evolving? Your original quote said,
I agree. And then it said,
How do you back up that statement? It doesn't follow from the first.
As for
I don't know what kind of evolution you're talking about. You mention "intentional modification of our physiology". Do you mean people intentionally working out, building muscle, learning to type faster, etc? These are intentional modifications to our bodies, to either look better, do work faster, whatever. But none of these "intentional modifications" relate at all to evolution. They are not passed on to offspring. They do not prevent or encourage reproduction.
Do you really think evolution is independent of reproduction? Give me an example of how that works. Keep in mind we are talking about the biological definition of evolution here, not the generic "change over time" definition that applies to governments and ideas.
- 10,832
I back up the statement regarding "fittest" as variable and it's irrelevance in terms of physical evolution by observing the fact that as long as humans are reproducing there will be change. I don't know how else to say it. Unless reproduction is planned and engineered it inevitably will result in physiological change over time based on what is fittest. And we may or may not know what fittest is and, I'm tempted to believe that we can only know this in retrospect. But that doesn't help us. You're suggesting that we are now absolutely fit and can't physically evolve because of it. Does that answer your question? If not, please rephrase the question or be more specific.
Intentional physiological modification, of couorse, must be reproduced to have effects. We do gene therapy. We create life in labs. We extend lives that would otherwise die, giving them a chance to pass on genes. We fertilize women who are unable or not inclined to mate with a male. In all these synthetic scenarios genes are passed on. The effects of this are, of course, not immediately evident. The body becomes less relevant.
Evolution is becoming a decision because we condition it. The fact that we can't predict it's effect doesn't make it not a decision. It is a decision in the grandest sense. Maybe it would be better to say decisive. All our little decisions to delve into the realm of genetics, technology, abd reproduction, in so many ways, is decisive for our future. We are making it right now. And it will change us.
Intentional physiological modification, of couorse, must be reproduced to have effects. We do gene therapy. We create life in labs. We extend lives that would otherwise die, giving them a chance to pass on genes. We fertilize women who are unable or not inclined to mate with a male. In all these synthetic scenarios genes are passed on. The effects of this are, of course, not immediately evident. The body becomes less relevant.
Evolution is becoming a decision because we condition it. The fact that we can't predict it's effect doesn't make it not a decision. It is a decision in the grandest sense. Maybe it would be better to say decisive. All our little decisions to delve into the realm of genetics, technology, abd reproduction, in so many ways, is decisive for our future. We are making it right now. And it will change us.
Of course not. Please do not impose opinions on me that I do not hold and have not asserted. You can ask, "Are you suggesting that...?" if you are unsure what I mean. To say, "You are suggesting that..." assumes you know exactly what I am thinking, which you clearly do not.
My argument is not that we are perfectly fit. It is that we have the medical technology and the societal support to allow individuals to reproduce even if they have deformities or diseases. My argument is that the gene pool is not being rid of weak/deformed/disease-prone genes because the humans carrying them are still able to reproduce.
If more weak/diseased/stupid people reproduce than smart/strong/healthy people, then yes, we will evolve in that direction. The point I am making is that evolution is directly tied to reproduction. So I do not think we are becoming healthier, stronger, or smarter, because those genes do not allow a person to reproduce, and not having those genes doesn't prevent a person from reproducing.
We can "decide" to evolve if we create humans in labs with certain genes or if we prevent certain people from reproducing. Are these the "decisions" you're referring to when you say we decide to evolve? I don't see any other way to "decide" to evolve, other than preventing certain people from reproducing, or creating humans in a lab.
- 10,832
I don't see how else to interpret it. Evolution is necessary for life. If it stops it has to have become unnecessary, the species in question has to have become perfect. The fact that the gene pool is not being rid of detrimental genes merely suggests those genes will remain in the gene pool. Beyond that nothig can be said about it.
Again. This merely suggests a direction the process could take. It does not affect the process.
Please refer to my substitution of the word "decisive". It means that we control it, even if we can't predict it's effects. We are still subject to nature because it is natural for humans to do this. Our man made world is absolutely natural because it is our nature to do such things. We are a species on earth competing like the rest. Now that we have dominion over every other species, i.e. they exist at our convenience, we only compete among eachother. It is all us now. We make it and nothing else. It is not a conscious decision you or I made. It is historical humanity's path, chosen in increments each moment.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
Milefile:
I think what Westside and I are both saying is that while the human species is not (and cannot be) in stasis we are not evolving to become better suited to our environment because we do not restrict or engineer reproduction in any way at the present time.
If you argue that de-evolution is evolution (which it is a case of) then I agree that we are still evolving. My point was that we are not evolving to become better suited to our environment.
Your claim that we will be frail hairless pale humans in the future requires some kind of dietary change or genetic engineering.
My point is this:
We are not evolving to become better suited to our environment because reproduction is not currently tailored to our environment.
I think what Westside and I are both saying is that while the human species is not (and cannot be) in stasis we are not evolving to become better suited to our environment because we do not restrict or engineer reproduction in any way at the present time.
If you argue that de-evolution is evolution (which it is a case of) then I agree that we are still evolving. My point was that we are not evolving to become better suited to our environment.
Your claim that we will be frail hairless pale humans in the future requires some kind of dietary change or genetic engineering.
My point is this:
We are not evolving to become better suited to our environment because reproduction is not currently tailored to our environment.
- 935
Well. Um.
*Trails Off*
- 3,425
In a thousand years from now we can all look back on this thread to see what has evolved.
it won't be me ..I'll be dead. But when my 300 yr old great grandson reads this he will at least know I could type ..somewhat.
If a species does not evolve it will die. Most noticable changes take many generations to appear and at the same time conditions are constantly changing forcing even more adaptation. So what exactly do ou use as a controll group ? Or can you even use a base year ? For what race ? For what climate ?
it won't be me ..I'll be dead. But when my 300 yr old great grandson reads this he will at least know I could type ..somewhat.
If a species does not evolve it will die. Most noticable changes take many generations to appear and at the same time conditions are constantly changing forcing even more adaptation. So what exactly do ou use as a controll group ? Or can you even use a base year ? For what race ? For what climate ?
- 3,425
In a thousand years from now we can all look back on this thread to see what has evolved.
it won't be me ..I'll be dead. But when my 300 yr old great grandson reads this he will at least know I could type ..somewhat.
If a species does not evolve it will die. Most noticable changes take many generations to appear and at the same time conditions are constantly changing forcing even more adaptation. So what exactly do ou use as a controll group ? Or can you even use a base year ? For what race ? For what climate ?
it won't be me ..I'll be dead. But when my 300 yr old great grandson reads this he will at least know I could type ..somewhat.
If a species does not evolve it will die. Most noticable changes take many generations to appear and at the same time conditions are constantly changing forcing even more adaptation. So what exactly do ou use as a controll group ? Or can you even use a base year ? For what race ? For what climate ?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
Not if it is smart enough to create technology to keep it alive. Which is my point - our technology allows us to not evolve (to become more adept at interacting with our environment) because we can keep everyone (even the most inept) alive long enough to find an (inept) mate with which to procreate.
Biological adaptation to environmental conditions occurs through premature death (before reproduction). A second type of evolution (not geared toward being more adept at interacting with our environment) occurs in many ways, but lacks direction and may not result in a meaningful outcome. I would not characterize this second type as adaptation.
This issue is beside the point. Humans have evolved to become more skilled at interacting with their environment in the past, but now, it is a non-issue. Why? Medicine. (if you have more questions about this, read some of what I have already written).
It is quite possible that humanity will have evolved in that amount of time. I doubt, however, that it will have anything to do with natural selection. It would most likely be the result of some form of genetic engineering or dietary control.
So . Back to social spontaneous order? Or should we keep discussing physiological spontaneous order? Or does someone want to question the idea of altogether? Perhaps it is God that is causing all of this seemingly spontaneous structure ..
- 10,832
This is exactly what I disagree with. The fact that we have technology to keep us alive will not preclude physiological evolution.
All this does is shift the necessity of the body, which will only redefine "fit". The less necessary the body becomes in reproduction, the necessary it will become to the species and to our suvival.
Everybody would agree that our brains are our most valuable asset. It is what has gotten us this far. It would be reasonable then to expect that our bodies would evolve into a device of the brain, the part that makes us fit becomeing amplified.
What is being suggested, that humans can no longer physiologically evolve, is, for lack of a better word, arrogant (that's not name calling). It contradicts the nature of humans to be unnatural by suggesting that we can alter-by-seizure the basic character of life on Earth with technology.
Technology is evidence of rapid evolution and not the opposite. The fact that we created it has nothing to do with what it's long-term physiological consequences will be.
There several things off the top of my head that are totally unecessary and will be selected out over time due to superfluousness. Life likes necessity and efficiency. Hair is inefficient. We will loose it all. Size and bulk are no longer efficient. We will become smaller now that we don't have to see over the grass anymore. Big noses for cooling or heating air are almost now, and in the future will be, unnecessary. They will become inefficient and disappear. There is no reason to beleive that human physiological evolution is about "survival in the big bad world" anymore. It lacks the desperation. It is a process of fine tuning. It requires reproduction, and that changes nothing. Reproduction is like air. It's simply necessary and will always be the condition.
We are also ignoring th fact that evolution can be sponteneous and random.
There is little evidence either way. Modern humans evolved out of intelligence being most fit. As a result we ended up a rather deminutive animal, essentially helpless in the world without technology. This can be carried much further. There is more than just Life. There are also kinds of life. Technology has given our physiology the luxury of evolving to accomodate the very big-brained technology that allowed this luxury to occur at all.
And in Life there is no stasis, no mere maintenance.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
Milefile
Go back and re-read. I was not claiming that we are in stasis or not evolving because we have technology. I claimed that if a species does not evolve, (only possible in a specific definition of evolution to follow) it will not necessarily die.
In this last sentence I am not talking about evolution in the most general sense. I am talking about (because I assumed that ledhed was talking about) evolution tailored to environment resulting in a species that is overall better suited to interact with its environment. This does not preclude the de-evolution that I have been referring to.
It is in fact not possible for a species to remain in stasis. So Im not even concerning myself with the kind of random, non-directional de-evolution that human beings are undergoing right now. Im only discussing evolution that results in a species more adept in its environment.
So when ledhed claimed that a species would die of if it did not evolve, I assumed he was referring to natural selection (which we are not participating in). The reason I assumed this is because if he was not referring only to natural selection, no species on the planet could fit the description of not evolving, which renders the conclusion (that the species would die) pointless.
A clearer form of my statement is the following:
Danoffs Definition: Natural Selection The Evolution of a species resulting in an altered species more adept at interacting with its environment.
A species not undergoing natural selection (eg: Humans) would not die if it had the technology to preserve itself.
Note: A species that had the technology to maintain its body could still undergo natural selection. Therefore, technology does not preclude natural selection or imply natural selection. Medical technology does, however, imply the possibility of a lack of natural selection.
In order to buy this conclusion, and my argument against ledhed, the key point that must be accepted is the idea that human beings are not undergoing natural selection. I have already made a case for this, but I will summarize. The reason we are not undergoing natural selection is because nearly everyone in the developed parts of the world is capable of reproduction. If this is true, there are very few genes being weeded out, meaning, our genetic code is not refining itself -> No natural selection is occurring.
Go back and re-read. I was not claiming that we are in stasis or not evolving because we have technology. I claimed that if a species does not evolve, (only possible in a specific definition of evolution to follow) it will not necessarily die.
In this last sentence I am not talking about evolution in the most general sense. I am talking about (because I assumed that ledhed was talking about) evolution tailored to environment resulting in a species that is overall better suited to interact with its environment. This does not preclude the de-evolution that I have been referring to.
It is in fact not possible for a species to remain in stasis. So Im not even concerning myself with the kind of random, non-directional de-evolution that human beings are undergoing right now. Im only discussing evolution that results in a species more adept in its environment.
So when ledhed claimed that a species would die of if it did not evolve, I assumed he was referring to natural selection (which we are not participating in). The reason I assumed this is because if he was not referring only to natural selection, no species on the planet could fit the description of not evolving, which renders the conclusion (that the species would die) pointless.
A clearer form of my statement is the following:
Danoffs Definition: Natural Selection The Evolution of a species resulting in an altered species more adept at interacting with its environment.
A species not undergoing natural selection (eg: Humans) would not die if it had the technology to preserve itself.
Note: A species that had the technology to maintain its body could still undergo natural selection. Therefore, technology does not preclude natural selection or imply natural selection. Medical technology does, however, imply the possibility of a lack of natural selection.
In order to buy this conclusion, and my argument against ledhed, the key point that must be accepted is the idea that human beings are not undergoing natural selection. I have already made a case for this, but I will summarize. The reason we are not undergoing natural selection is because nearly everyone in the developed parts of the world is capable of reproduction. If this is true, there are very few genes being weeded out, meaning, our genetic code is not refining itself -> No natural selection is occurring.
- 10,832
Remember when you said (I think it was You) that highways and cars are natural for humans? This is why it's hard for me to accept that you don't seem to recognize that technology directing our physiological evolution is totally natural. Our unnaturalness is totally natural. If earth ended up 100% paved that would be natural. We are incapable of being unnatural, no matter what some people beleive.
So anyway, do you see why I said that? Or am I way off mark?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
To illustrate where we are disagreeing, I thought Id pick on this statement a bit. Our technology has not given our physiology the luxury of evolving at all, it has given our physiology the luxury of not evolving in a particular direction, because it eliminates natural selection.
Here is an example:
Cave person Bob is not a very fast runner (and not that smart). Bob manages to get only a meager portion of food for himself on a regular basis. So bob finds a cave chick eventually, but bob cant get her enough food - and so bob doesnt have any kids (or he does but theyre not quite right). So bobs kids dont end up reproducing and bobs crappy running and thinking genes die right there.
Modern man Bill is not a very fast runner (he also happens to be not that smart). But modern man Bill can still find food at the grocery store because he lives in a modern world where food is grown with really cool technology (making it cheap). So Bill goes through life without the luxuries that some people had (because hes slow brained - not slow legged). Bill has no problem finding himself a modern chick because there are lots of them. Bill and his modern chick have kids who arent as privileged as some of the other modern couples children - but theyre not disadvantaged enough to die (the modern world wouldnt like that) and they procreate. So they pass on their dads slow running, slow thinking genes.
There is, in fact, nothing in our society that really prevents people from procreating (aside from rare deformities). Modern medicine keeps so many people alive, and modern farming provides so much food, that nearly everyones genetic code stays in the loop. So natural selection isnt occurring anymore.
We might still be evolving, but its not going to be in a natural selective way. It could be due to diet. The only case where natural selection would come back into play is if a major disease popped up and started killing off millions. But that hasnt happened recently.
So technology affords us the luxury of not undergoing natural selection because it allows nearly everyone to reproduce (which is where natural selection happens).
General evolution is a different story. We are evolving, due it a changing diet and a weaker gene pool.
Engineered evolution is another different story. We could prevent some people from reproducing, or genetically engineer babies.
- 10,832
I don't know if I said "better". If I did I didn't mean it. I think I remember pointing out that evolution need not be a linear ascent with a goal in mind. But the consequences of the way it is going now really can't be forseen. The situation we find ourselves in is unprecedented in natual history. But if nature is absolutely efficient, and order is inevitable...
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
I get better from your claims that we will have longer more dexterous fingers, and things like the following statement
Evolution in general does not need to accomplish a goal. But natural selection is accomplishing the goal of tailoring the species to fit its environment.
I agree with this statement. I disagree, however, with the notion that the way things are going will be generally beneficial.
Agreed.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,021
- Mile High City
Spontaneous order has not only brought about the development of our species to its present physiological state through evolution, it has also brought about our social structure. If you conceptualize government structures as organisms, who grow and develop over time, perhaps even mutate, and die off leaving behind smaller child governments that spawned from the original. You can track governmental evolution over time in much the same manner as an organism.
The cause of the finite lifespan of governments is the lack of hindsight and presence of overconfidence in its current controllers. In the case of the American government the controllers are the citizens themselves who have forgotten the past, and who consider themselves the prime authority on what is right and wrong, and how everyone else should live their lives. It is because of the fact that Americans have decided that they can no longer trust their fellow man that we have socialist elements to our government.
Perhaps that last sentence seems like a leap of logic. American culture allows us all to think that we are our own creative geniuses who know everything. If we each decide that we are the foremost authority on everything, then we cannot trust our neighbors to make decisions for themselves better than we could make decisions for them. Since we are the geniuses and we like our neighbors and want the best for them, we must make their decisions for them. Theyll be better off with our choices - theyll thank us for it.
Since we are the controllers of our government, we now (knowing everything, trusting no one to be competent) push for legislation that allows everyone to conform to our way of thinking. In this manner freedom is removed and the response is always (in America anyway) the following:
Who cares if freedom is removed, everyone benefits!
For example, who cares if there is a law banning smoking? Smoking is bad for you. Who cares if there is a law making you wear your seatbelt? Not wearing your seatbelt is bad for you. Who cares if there is a law preventing you from failure? Failure is bad for you.
Without freedom (to succeed and fail) for the masses there can be can be no more spontaneous order. One might argue that spontaneous order caused the lack of freedom for the masses. This is true, the phenomenon of spontaneous order has the ability to stamp itself out. Only when many minds are making decisions can it take effect. If humans try to control the intricate social and economic interactions of other humans, they will fail miserably because one individual is not better at this direction than many individuals working together but independently.
I am saying that because non-engineered order is (and has been proven in the past to be) good, humans should not seek to control each other more than the absolute bare minimum allowable for a functioning civil society. Our government structure was originally intended to be a framework within which order could be spontaneous and good. Over time, with arrogance and distrust of each others decisions, our government structure has become one which attempts to engineer that order, the result is the chocking of a strong nation. The result is a nation with huge potential that is held back by its own arrogance. The result is the squander of productivity and genius in the name of compassion. The result is the compromise of the ideals that this country was founded upon.
The cause of the finite lifespan of governments is the lack of hindsight and presence of overconfidence in its current controllers. In the case of the American government the controllers are the citizens themselves who have forgotten the past, and who consider themselves the prime authority on what is right and wrong, and how everyone else should live their lives. It is because of the fact that Americans have decided that they can no longer trust their fellow man that we have socialist elements to our government.
Perhaps that last sentence seems like a leap of logic. American culture allows us all to think that we are our own creative geniuses who know everything. If we each decide that we are the foremost authority on everything, then we cannot trust our neighbors to make decisions for themselves better than we could make decisions for them. Since we are the geniuses and we like our neighbors and want the best for them, we must make their decisions for them. Theyll be better off with our choices - theyll thank us for it.
Since we are the controllers of our government, we now (knowing everything, trusting no one to be competent) push for legislation that allows everyone to conform to our way of thinking. In this manner freedom is removed and the response is always (in America anyway) the following:
Who cares if freedom is removed, everyone benefits!
For example, who cares if there is a law banning smoking? Smoking is bad for you. Who cares if there is a law making you wear your seatbelt? Not wearing your seatbelt is bad for you. Who cares if there is a law preventing you from failure? Failure is bad for you.
Without freedom (to succeed and fail) for the masses there can be can be no more spontaneous order. One might argue that spontaneous order caused the lack of freedom for the masses. This is true, the phenomenon of spontaneous order has the ability to stamp itself out. Only when many minds are making decisions can it take effect. If humans try to control the intricate social and economic interactions of other humans, they will fail miserably because one individual is not better at this direction than many individuals working together but independently.
I am saying that because non-engineered order is (and has been proven in the past to be) good, humans should not seek to control each other more than the absolute bare minimum allowable for a functioning civil society. Our government structure was originally intended to be a framework within which order could be spontaneous and good. Over time, with arrogance and distrust of each others decisions, our government structure has become one which attempts to engineer that order, the result is the chocking of a strong nation. The result is a nation with huge potential that is held back by its own arrogance. The result is the squander of productivity and genius in the name of compassion. The result is the compromise of the ideals that this country was founded upon.
- 10,832
I agree totally. But I have a question. Regarding the area in red: Why do you suppose the opposite hasn't occured as a result of this? Why doesn't our society produce individuals with faith in other individuals and themselves? Why do they think they know best for others, and that others know what's best for them. It would seem that the perspective could have promoted the opposite effect. But it hasn't. Just curious what you think.
If you have not you should read William S. Burroughs. I am reminded of Cities of The Red Night. I always feel the betrayal of the American dream in his writings. The promise and the disappointment.
Two of my favorite quotes of his, from his Thanksgiving prayer...
"Thanks for a nation where nobody's allowed to mind their own business."
"Thanks for the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams."
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Most of my afternoons are the same length.
Anyway, I finished it several hours ago, and yes, it was vedy interesting... kinda takes Eric's predictions on how the human race will evolve many steps further. Not to be a spoiler if any of you haven't read the book yet, but it's a fictional account where in the year 800,000, the human race has evolved into two species, one of which feeds off the other. And in the appendix (hey Doug, does that ring a bell?), there's a version of a chapter where in the year some million and something, humans have "de"-evolved into mega-arthropod like creatures and rabbit like creatures.
Vedy interesting.
I don't have an answer for this, but I have an example from a news story on tv yesterday.
You've probably heard about that boat that capsized off the Oregon coast, killing eleven people. The news station was interviewing one of the survivors, who was describing how when the boat turned over, the people who were inside the boat cabin (now standing on the cabin's roof watching water pour in) got out the life jackets and put them on. He said that the people outside the cabin when the boat turned "didn't have a chance to put on their life jackets."
Of course, they had that chance before the boat went out, and before the wave tipped them. The survivor even described how they waited to go out because the waves were so big and dangerous...yet when they set out, no one put on a jacket.
So the news reporter of course asks if the survivor thinks there should be a law requiring everyone to wear a life jacket at all times on a boat (currently the law only applies to children). The survivor said definitely yes, that it would have saved lives in this sad accident.
Give me a break. What he's saying is that because he and his friends were so stupid that they didn't put on their life jackets in bad weather, everyone else should be required to at all times, in all weather, all ages, all boats. He's saying that if that law had been in effect, he and his friends would have been wearing their life jackets--which I doubt.
Why should their stupidity mean everyone else loses the freedom to ride without a jacket? I'm sure they were boating without jackets because the jackets are bulky and uncomfortable--but now everyone should have to wear them at all times?
It's just another example of someone assuming they know what's best for everyone else, and the government (possibly, if they pass this law) protecting you from yourself and taking away your freedom to boat dangerously and comfortably.
Milefile, you asked why people tend to act this way instead of acting with faith in everyone else. I don't know why. I wish I knew why--maybe then I could better argue against it. It's a good question. Are we instinctively arrogant? Compassionate (as in, wanting to protect others from danger)? In the case of government, is it wanting more power? more control?
- 3,194
I believe we need to evolve further, for example:
- Lose the pinky finger
- Lose the finger nails
- Lose the hair
- Nose will shrink
- Our body will become more fragile
- We will develop (in some form or another) mental telepathy
JMO
- Lose the pinky finger
- Lose the finger nails
- Lose the hair
- Nose will shrink
- Our body will become more fragile
- We will develop (in some form or another) mental telepathy
JMO
