PDA

View Full Version : Are Humans Still Evolving?



Northern Paladin
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Are humans still evolving? Your thoughts please.

If your answer is no explain what factors are "halting" evolution.

And if they are still evolving what direction do you think they are evolving in?

What changes are occuring?

Your guesses,hypothesises,ramblings,theories, please.

Scoob
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 08:22 PM
Are humans still evolving? Your thoughts please.

If your answer is no explain what factors are "halting" evolution.

And if they are still evolving what direction do you think they are evolving in?

What changes are occuring?

Your guesses,hypothesises,ramblings,theories, please. The answer to this depends on how you think evolution works, and what humans are doing.

I think that humans are currently mixing disparate types and developing culturally and technologically. I think that we will not evolve until some catastrophic event selects a few key humans of a specialized type.

In other words, I think evolution works largely through punctuated equilibrium - things are smooth and steady and progress/degenerate easily only as intermissions between cataclysmic events, larger or smaller. Possible cataclysms could be a new ice age as in "The Day After Tomorrow", massive pollution, atomic wars, catastrophic plague, massive famine, etc.

Allenson
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 09:01 PM
Big and difficult question to answer....

Evolution is likely occuring on some levels but perhaps has been slowed or halted on others.

I can't help but wonder if our 'comfortable' life-styles and all the modern medicines are actually slowing our progress as organic beings. People, who even 100 years ago would have died before reaching reproductive age, or not yet found a mate before they died, are now able to live longer and 'better' lives due to our advanced medical care--and subsequently are choosing mates, reproducing and passing along their 'flawed' genes. This sounds more like devolution to me. :-O

Also, different races came to be in different sets of environmental conditions. With people now living all over the place and in many cases outside their 'ideal climate' for their race, things might get interesting--not to mention the misegenation going on...

Tough question.

Agrippa
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:58 PM
At the moment there is mainly just degeneration but no progression.

The social and economical system is highly contraselective and the (almost) worst features are good for reproductive success, at least in all liberal societies.

With Eugenic there could be progression without brutal forces of nature and man.

But for now we just see that the progress made in the last thousands of years since sapiens exists and before the Neolithic revolution is destroyed and will be destroyed even further step by step...

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 12:49 AM
All animals are constantly evolving. Since there are no natural culling effects in motion in modern populations, humans are evolving more towards an organism that places less reliance on intelligence and discipline, and more on rapid maturation and reproduction.

Skando-naivian-Girl
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 01:29 AM
In other words, I think evolution works largely through punctuated equilibrium - things are smooth and steady and progress/degenerate easily only as intermissions between cataclysmic events, larger or smaller. Possible cataclysms could be a new ice age as in "The Day After Tomorrow", massive pollution, atomic wars, catastrophic plague, massive famine, etc.I think that cataclysism would be rapid population growth. As we all know the population of the earth is growing exponentially. The interesting thing is the less developed countries are the ones doing all the population growth. By 2050 the developing world will have 3.5 times the amount of people as in the developed world. That in my opinion is what is going to lead to (war,famine,diease).

//www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm


The social and economical system is highly contraselective and the (almost) worst features are good for reproductive success, at least in all liberal societies.

With Eugenic there could be progression without brutal forces of nature and man.But it is those who reproduce sparingly,that are in charge in these "liberal" societies. They are the one that form the governing body the body of "elites". Ultimately a large population of "undesirables" in a country will result in one thing "massive" poverty because there simply aren't enough resources to go around. This seems to be happening in America right now due to massive immigration and the high reproduction of those who already are in poverty. In a way nature itself "eugenical". The way I see it euginics will always be brutal whether done by man or nature. Since nature is blind to pain and suffering but only seeks to create a "better" adapted more "efficient" organism. Yes I believe Eugenics may be a problem to the societal problems that plague our modern society. Especially in regard to those who are born physically or mentally disabled.

I think Captalism/free market is the driving force behind the liberalism. There seems to be no end to the amount of people willing to betray their Race and Culture for $.


All animals are constantly evolving. Since there are no natural culling effects in motion in modern populations, humans are evolving more towards an organism that places less reliance on intelligence and discipline, and more on rapid maturation and reproduction. This will no doubt lead to war. Where intelligence an discipline mean everything.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 01:57 AM
All animals are constantly evolving. Since there are no natural culling effects in motion in modern populations, humans are evolving more towards an organism that places less reliance on intelligence and discipline, and more on rapid maturation and reproduction.

Exactly. Thats what I call contraselective. Its in fact against most things which made humans so successful.

Its quantity against quality and that on a planet which will not grow and in societies which will need more and more intelligent and disciplined people to survive on a high level...

George
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 03:43 PM
Yes, actually I think that we are evolving and devolving. We are evolving to better cope with diseases, to avoid being run over by cars or falling down stairs and suchlike.

On the other hand modern medicine and the welfare state have nullified or reversed natural selection and caused people who are too stupid and weak-willed to provide for their families to have more children than people who are, and people who are too sickly or clumsy to manage by themselves to survive, and so on.

I think that we might send each child at the age of 14 to a testing centre, where he would undergo tests on his eyesight, intelligence, general robustness, etc. The lowest-scoring 5% of children would be sterilised. With that system in place we could probably still have a small welfare state and save a lot of people's lives from their poor health or constitution and still evolve and not significantly devolve.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Yes, actually I think that we are evolving and devolving. We are evolving to better cope with diseases, to avoid being run over by cars or falling down stairs and suchlike.

On the other hand modern medicine and the welfare state have nullified or reversed natural selection and caused people who are too stupid and weak-willed to provide for their families to have more children than people who are, and people who are too sickly or clumsy to manage by themselves to survive, and so on.

I think that we might send each child at the age of 14 to a testing centre, where he would undergo tests on his eyesight, intelligence, general robustness, etc. The lowest-scoring 5% of children would be sterilised. With that system in place we could probably still have a small welfare state and save a lot of people's lives from their poor health or constitution and still evolve and not significantly devolve.

With such means you do not reach as much as if you would use praenatal diagnosis + selection of people which has not just some defects, but are a defect in itself. Of course the main thing is that they dont reproduce themselves. They can still live and have a decent life.

Every person, even the most progressive and phenotypically absolutely healthy person can have weak and diseased children, just the possibility is somewhat smaller.

So praenatal diagnosis or in some cases artificial insemination with the best methods is the first choice.
More human, more effective and better to coordinate and to organize than anything else.

And do not forget, with such measures you can take the best of certain even diseased individuals AND eliminate their defects. F.e. Stephen Hawkings has just one big defect, maybe just one sequence in his DNA, but he is a "good book" with just, lets say one big, and maybe 2-3 other smaller defects. But his other features are quite progressive+valuable.

Eugenik will be, at least if modern civilization will not totally collapse, be the future, the question is just: Who will use it first and most effectively and for which purpose?

Short time thinking in the categories of the liberal-capitalistic system will not lead to more perfection but maybe just maladaption if not other values are implemented as well.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 06:37 PM
With such means you do not reach as much as if you would use praenatal diagnosis + selection of people which has not just some defects, but are a defect in itself. Of course the main thing is that they dont reproduce themselves. They can still live and have a decent life We are evolving to better cope with diseases

Once scientists develop the Ability to read all the Sequences in in the Human Genome I feel at that moment Eugenics will be more plausible. For now there are still many unknowns and mysterious genes that have to be investigated.


Short time thinking in the categories of the liberal-capitalistic system will not lead to more perfection but maybe just maladaption if not other values are implemented as well.

It seems that the Consequences of the "liberalism" of the Capitalistic system hasn't caught up yet. There wouldn't be a change in "liberalism" unless people experience first hand the negative effects of it. To me those consequences are going to be inevitable with the way things are headed now. High Immigration, High birth rates of the less productive members of society, this will do two things, strain Public Services and endanger the Middle Class.

I imagine if Eugenics was used to it's Fullest Potential this would result in profound changes. I feel that there can only be positive benefits when it comes to Eugenics, that even if there are negative aspects the benefits have them easily outweighed.

Eugenics will make a Society less "Stratified" and make people more Homogeneous creating a close to Utopia like society where the tensions caused by over "Diversity" are no more. Public services will be vastly improved as Every member of society becomes a contributing and capable member of Society. Not to mention all other aspects of what makes a country great, Robust Economy/Military/.

But I feel more than anything that if one day Eugenics is empoyed "Full Scale" the most important thing this country is lacking will be gained and that is "Unity" a sense that everybody belongs.

Agrippa
Tuesday, June 8th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Once scientists develop the Ability to read all the Sequences in in the Human Genome I feel at that moment Eugenics will be more plausible. For now there are still many unknowns and mysterious genes that have to be investigated.

So far I speak mainly about well known defects like Trisomy or Anaemy etc., not about if someone has exactly this or that "healthy" feature. Such healthy features you can really breed even without genetic means, but the defects are a problem you can just solve with infanticide or genetic means and nothing else.



It seems that the Consequences of the "liberalism" of the Capitalistic system hasn't caught up yet. There wouldn't be a change in "liberalism" unless people experience first hand the negative effects of it. To me those consequences are going to be inevitable with the way things are headed now. High Immigration, High birth rates of the less productive members of society, this will do two things, strain Public Services and endanger the Middle Class.

I often call this Neoliberalism or in my own words (like real Socialism) real Liberalism to distinguish this social and ideological reality from older ideals which were not always that bad.
Of course this ideal Liberalism had its function in the 19th century and is now destructive only anyway.


I imagine if Eugenics was used to it's Fullest Potential this would result in profound changes. I feel that there can only be positive benefits when it comes to Eugenics, that even if there are negative aspects the benefits have them easily outweighed.

Thats for sure. It might have been somewhat in question in the 30's, but with modern means and genetic knowledge it will have, if used with responsibility, only have positive effects, especially on the long run.


Eugenics will make a Society less "Stratified" and make people more Homogeneous creating a close to Utopia like society where the tensions caused by over "Diversity" are no more. Public services will be vastly improved as Every member of society becomes a contributing and capable member of Society. Not to mention all other aspects of what makes a country great, Robust Economy/Military/.

Right. But the highest level would be best if the technological development goes on as well because certain jobs, today done by the lowest classes or unfortunate people might be mainly in the "hands" of machines in the near future if the technological development will go on.
We have just to look that humans are capable of using so much power and proper and with responsibility, not just for the own group but for the whole species and ecosystem as well.

Higher developed humans might be more able to do so than what we see today even in our best individuals which are to an high extend, even with good education, still too often egoistic, corrupted or emotional in the wrong situations.


But I feel more than anything that if one day Eugenics is empoyed "Full Scale" the most important thing this country is lacking will be gained and that is "Unity" a sense that everybody belongs.

There is a positive and a negative diversity. Defects and asocial behaviour, people with a low potential and high destructive energy are never good, but certain types with their own specialization are good in different parts of society and jobs.

F.e. I have the impression that the geneticist is on average another personality type than the average physician.
And thats good so because they have different preferences both useful for the collective.
Of course physical homogenity in general is something good for the spirit of the collective, and in certain regions there are just one or two types which fit in best.