The Force: has Technology trumped evolution?

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.

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.