Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Apparently so. If or when The Island of Dr. Mearau or Jurassic Park becomes real, then technology will trump evolution.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Apparently so. If or when The Island of Dr. Mearau or Jurassic Park becomes real, then technology will trump evolution.

Not really, because evolution will always run its course. Can humanity even through its own actions escape the natural evolutionary process? If the human stops changing and remains as it is now...could it not be argued that this is simply the culmination of the evolutionary process?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not really, because evolution will always run its course. Can humanity even through its own actions escape the natural evolutionary process? If the human stops changing and remains as it is now...could it not be argued that this is simply the culmination of the evolutionary process?

If we ever create transporter technology, then, yes, we will fully circumvent evolution in it's entirety. Entropy's sting will be lost.

Evolution in humans has been slowed to a crawl because society creates a sheltering role towards humans who don't "measure up" to their fellow men in intelligence, strength, or otherwise, and they thus spread their genes equally to the greater humans.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Evolution in humans has been slowed to a crawl because society creates a sheltering role towards humans who don't "measure up" to their fellow men in intelligence, strength, or otherwise, and they thus spread their genes equally to the greater humans.

Indeed. I've said this before, on many occasions.


We are weakening the human race.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I've said this before, on many occasions.


We are weakening the human race.

Not true. We are slowing it's evolution, that is not even remotely the same thing as a (totally subjective) weakening.

I'm not going to say if it's good or not. Just stating the facts.

Transhumanism, folks. Bring technology far enough, and we'll be controlling our own evolution rather than watching passively as it reacts slowly to our lifestyles and cultural trends.

Originally posted by Digi
Transhumanism, folks. Bring technology far enough, and we'll be controlling our own evolution rather than watching passively as it reacts slowly to our lifestyles and cultural trends.
I don't see how we could "control evolution" in the biological sense... eugenics?

lol

at what point did humans stop being part of the environment?

adaptation has always been in relation to the impact of other animals on a species' habitat.

Originally posted by inimalist
at what point did humans stop being part of the environment?

That's always been my problem with "natural" vs "unnatural".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. We are slowing it's evolution, that is not even remotely the same thing as a (totally subjective) weakening.

There's only way reason that I can conclude that you could arrive at such a shitty and false idea:

http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories/fun/imagedump/demotivational_posters/ysoab.jpg






Because of modern medicine, those that would normally die, can now reproduce.


The shitty genes they have that were the cause of their "would have died 200 years ago", allow them to further degrade the evolutionary progress humans were making by simply reproducing. If we stagnated our technology and our numbers, we would eventually pollute the human race with so much genetics that we would eventually shitty ourselves way the **** up eventually beyond our ability to mitigate any further. Fer realz, dawg.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Not really, because evolution will always run its course.
There are "prizes" for people who die in the most retarded way, so you're right

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because of modern medicine, those that would normally die, can now reproduce.


The shitty genes they have that were the cause of their "would have died 200 years ago", allow them to further degrade the evolutionary progress humans were making by simply reproducing. If we stagnated our technology and our numbers, we would eventually pollute the human race with so much genetics that we would eventually shitty ourselves way the **** up eventually beyond our ability to mitigate any further. Fer realz, dawg.

Evolution isn't "progress". The ability to survive a disease isn't weakness.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution isn't "progress". The ability to survive a disease isn't weakness.

Both of these are irrelevant to my point. No where do I imply or say that evolution is progress. No where do I say or imply that surviving a disease is weakness.







You missed the opportunity to make another, actually relevant point, to my post. I created a scenario that stagnated human progression, to make a point. This point, which I intentionally made as a flawed point, is not applicable to reality and serves no illustrative point. I was hoping that you would respond or retort with something about human progress reaching the point of actually changing the genetics for the better. Then I could say, "exactly" and then direct to a post where I already made this point already...quickly ending the conversation with both of us in complete agreement.




Edit - Digi already touched on it, in this thread.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both of these are irrelevant to my point. No where do I imply or say that evolution is progress.

Except right here, unless I misread:

Originally posted by dadudemon
evolutionary progress

Originally posted by dadudemon
You missed the opportunity to make another, actually relevant point, to my post. I created a scenario that stagnated human progression, to make a point. This point, which I intentionally made as a flawed point, is not applicable to reality and serves no illustrative point. I was hoping that you would respond or retort with something about human progress reaching the point of actually changing the genetics for the better. Then I could say, "exactly" and then direct to a post where I already made this point already...quickly ending the conversation with both of us in complete agreement.

Well this is where we disagree. For my money there are really very few "better" genes simply because evolution doesn't head towards anything. You could use genetic manipulation to upgrade people but in the long run that strikes me as potentially worse than stagnation since it could quickly trend toward increasing homogeneity.

That said, I think heading towards transhumanism by genetics or cybernetics is a good thing, it has the potential to help a lot of people. I just suggest being wary of considering anything (normal evolution or outside modification) "better" unless you can see the future.

There is a clear divide between good and bad genes: Good genes increase their lifeforms odds for survival and reproduction whereas bad genes do not. This is the objective criteria.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is a clear divide between good and bad genes: Good genes increase their lifeforms odds for survival and reproduction whereas bad genes do not. This is the objective criteria.

And you can't know any of that unless you can accurately predict the future, which was what I said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And you can't know any of that unless you can accurately predict the future, which was what I said.
Well given it could take countless generations for a gene to totally disappear you should have plenty of data on the relative odds for survival based on past experience. It is simple to tell when some genes are superior: when exposed to a disease one gene will contribute death while another could help weather through the illness.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It is simple to tell when some genes are superior: when exposed to a disease one gene will contribute death while another could help weather through the illness.

No, the basic criteria are simple. Testing for them is tremendously more difficult, genes can have all sorts of effects in different in environments when they're with different genes etc etc etc. Figuring out what's a good gene and what's a bad gene is only "simple" if you cut out all of the science.

Well obviously genes are only superior in context. An smallpox resistance does no good when infected with AIDS. But it doesn't matter because even if they were superior in every environment, our society creates a coddling influence that preserves life in those that would ordinarily die.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except right here, unless I misread:

Out of context. Thanks, though, for trying.

There's a reason that it shows up in quote tags every-time you read, "Evolution is not "progress'" because it really is progress, just not always an improvement on the current genes...but an adaption to the current environment. But, thanks for splitting hairs and missing the point. I've just wasted all that time on this very much b.s. debate.

You been talking to Bardock too much lately?





Here's what he argument is really about:


The humans evolved so far that most environments don't even play a factor anymore as we can adapt to almost any environment with our current set. However, we can degrade our abilities to function in those environments...you already know why. Sure, those "lessers" can still function, just not as good as they could have.


Now, some will argue that they gain different insight through their congenital diseases that makes their intellect that much better. Great...but b.s. or else the vast majority would not seek to improve their condition.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well this is where we disagree. For my money there are really very few "better" genes simply because evolution doesn't head towards anything. You could use genetic manipulation to upgrade people but in the long run that strikes me as potentially worse than stagnation since it could quickly trend toward increasing homogeneity.

Logical fallacy:

This presumes that relatively uniform traits are a bad thing.

Correct conclusion:

Some traits are universally "good" and should be heavily pursued.

Can you think of anything that would be universally appealing?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That said, I think heading towards transhumanism by genetics or cybernetics is a good thing, it has the potential to help a lot of people. I just suggest being wary of considering anything (normal evolution or outside modification) "better" unless you can see the future.

The counter to that is:

I suggest you be wary of not considering anything (normal evolution or outside modication) "better" unless you can see the future.




What is inevitable is messing with genes and cybernetic enhancements. That is unavoidable. It should be done with intelligent caution which also means that the caution does not occur excessively to the point of the detriment of discovery.