Darwin informs us that natural selection, i.e. evolution, has been the guiding force determining the course of biological change. Natural selection, i.e. evolution, operates far too slowly to compete with Technology in the present and future determination of biological change.
Just ask the Polar Bear!
Is Technology the “true” meaning of Intelligent Design?
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?
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.
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.
McLuhan was, I guess, the first to express the insight that technology is an extension of the human body.
These hand-held gadgets for communication might very well represent the end of ‘understanding’ for almost all citizens by 2050. I can see it already on the Internet discussion forums where communication is becoming a stream of consciousness without coherent grammatical or thoughtful content or construction.
I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.
Suppose we establish a knowledge-to-understanding ratio K/U, i.e. the amount we know divided by the amount we understand (i.e. need to create).
I would say that a frontier family might have K/U ratio of 20/1. As time passes and there is less need for understanding (creativity) and more need for knowing because the demands of the frontier diminish and ‘civilization’ encroaches I would say the K/U ratio might go to 50/1.
After one hundred years I suspect the ratio might easily move to 100/1; after leaving the farm and moving to town and going to work in the factory the ratio might very well go to 1000/1.
Today’s modern man or woman may very well have a ratio of 10,000/1. The person with a PhD might very well have a ratio 100,000/1.
I have heard college professors say that you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it. I suspect a PhD who is also a long time teacher might have developed an understanding of many things and thus dropped the ratio back to 10,000/1.
I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum.
There's only way reason that I can conclude that you could arrive at such a shitty and false idea:
(please log in to view the image)
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.
There are "prizes" for people who die in the most retarded way, so you're right
__________________ Kyuzo: Don't you see? A real sword will kill you. Mr. Earl Brooks: If I were here to kill you, you would already be dead. Mercedes: My mother told me to be wary of Fauns. Mr. Le Chiffre: No, I believe in a reasonable rate of return. James Bond: Now the whole world will know you died while you were scratching my balls!
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.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jul 16th, 2009 at 01:51 AM
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 14th, 2009 12:03 PM
