|
I guess a distinction needs to be made here.
I wasn't assuming any kind of objective "grand scheme" forward evolutionary movement.
In a natural setting, devoid of civilization, our mortality rate would be considerably higher, and metaphorically speaking, there would be a tighter sieve on the genepool, that is, who would live to breed and who would not is a bit more in peril. Outside of our natural settings, this sieve is gone, and people who wouldnt live to breed in a purely natural setting might live to pass on their genes, potential mutations and all. We might percieve that as a backwards motion subjectively.
I hope that makes my distinction more clear. Any forward motion I speak of, I speak of in purely subjective and human terms.
My point (and question) was: is it up to us to give ourselves any kind of (subjective) forward progression? is there an ethical way to overcome the stagnation of our collective genepool due to technological advances outpacing human evolution?
|