vorro

Assuming a purely matierialistic universe, it would appear that humanity is getting weaker, that is to say, we are genetically deteriorating.

The adage of "survival of the fittest" isn't exactly true - random chance and dumb luck can kill the speciment best adapted to its environment just as it can let the less suited one live - but from a statistical standpoint, it tends to hold a lot of water.

However, it appears that humanity, since the beginning of civilization, has been circumventing evolution.

Just as a horse nowadays is almost assured destruction when it breaks a leg, anyone existing in the stone age could expect death if they broke one of their limbs. A broken bone entailed an inability to run from predators, less likelyhood of defending oneself, or simple death from infection.

While a broken leg is necessarily a product of evolution, it showcases how easy it was for humanity to die pre-civilization. Most animal and plant species have the same mortality rate today that they have always had.

The point is that it is becoming harder for us to die. When we die young, we fail to pass along our genes to the next generation. If a child is born with a genetic defect, it was likely to die. Nowadays, many of these defects are conquerable enough that the sufferer is able to live a happy, healthy life.

The only problem is is that the genetic code still remains within that person. If this defect did not render them infertile, then they still have the ability to pass their own genes onto their children, and they to their own progeny, and so on.

As a result, the genetic issues that would have eliminated themselves continue to flourish and propagate within our collective genepool.

Physical survivability, in whose realm evolution belongs, no longer seems to hold much relevance to humanity. Nowadays, survivability for us entails the ability to afford proper medical care, or living in an area with access to such care - a form of evolution not reliant at all upon genetics.

A condition such as hemophilia would have severely shortened the lifespan of a youth not even five thousand years ago - but nowadays such an ailment is treatable enough where hemophiliacs are able to pass the genetic defect along, thus increasing the chances that one's future partner is hemophiliac or is a carrier.

Where does this leave us? Modern technology and medicine allow the gene pool to stagnate. Humanity as a whole will not truly evolve unless something happens that causes us to evolve faster than our own technology can develop.

Ethically speaking, I have avoided placing ethical judgements in this, all the above has simply been a statement of fact. Please understand that this is by no means a rallying cry to rid the world of hemophilicas and other people who have genetic defects and disorders. In fact, I'm actually quite the liberal hippie type, sanctity of life and what-not.

However, this has always presented an interesting conundrum for me, and I've been wondering: where does humanity go from here? Is there a way to "clean" the genepool morally (that is, without infringing on anyones rights, including the right to procreate)?

KoKenZen

diversisty keeps humans alive thats why inbreed things are weaker because diversity is nessesary, the immune systems of the parents combine to make a new more complete system the genes of the parents make a better child. However by no means should everyone breed with every one they can we need to controle this population to controle our resorces but first we need to stop feeding grain to cows kill the cow and eat it and just eat the grain in the first place increase the resorces of the humans

vorro

I would agree that genetic diversity is a good thing, but mother nature tends to weed out those whose genes are a little too diverse - in other words, those who are unable to survive. This is why there is a very low incidence of albinos in nature - where an animal's fur or skin is its camoflague, to be pure white as snow is to be damned to a very short life indeed.

Where as the rest of the animal kingdom has the equalizer of nature, humanity has cancelled this out with civilization and technology - and the genetic diversity we would have in the state of nature, it seems, has been blown out of proportion.

Stare At The Sun

eventually, none of this will matter, because eventually, all humans will be genetically created, like it or not, if we survive for more than 1000 years from today, we will all be created in test tubes. Simply reality of the situation...

Stare At The Sun

actually, i should make my statement more clear. I think that because of the way technology is progressing, human genome project, cloning, etc, i think that we will be able to clone a human within 200 years, and after the next 800 years pass, i think that will become the norm. Im not saying a "brave new world" will ensue, however, i am saying that it is my humble opinion that eventually, all people will be created in a test tube. I dont see any escaping that. We will one day play god.

bermuDa

we've always wanted to, haven't we?

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

Easytiger

Relax. Our big brains aren't half as useful as our opposable thumbs. We're smart enough to make tools, but not smart enough to use them safely or well. We'll bring on our own big die-back within the next century or so, and then we'll be right back to some good old-fashioned natural selection again.

Omagus

If evolution is to be seen as some acentive path leading to a stronger and better adapted creature, and if that better adapted creature eventually becomes so stong and so capable that it takes control of its environment rather than being controled by its environment, then evolution as a force of nature will cease.

However, that is not the end of evolution, its just then end of evolution based upon environmental adaptability. Once a creature has the tools to change its world such that it is protected from nature, it's population should grow exponenaly (just like we are experencing). Though that population boom is dangerous, the collective inteligence also rises with the populace, leading the way to a creature which can think through its long term problems (like were starting to do now) and have enough collective research and talk to lead to solutions.

The big question right now, as we stand on this cusp, is will we figure out those solutions before, as Easytiger pointed out, we blow eachother away?

__________________
"Max i dont really love it [orthodox science], i just lust for it while i stalk it hoping its real boyfriend, Military Science, doesn't see me" -Proxy

Lebell

What I haven't seen mentioned is that physical traits are not the only factor that allows a person to contribute meaningfully to society/civilization now.

The most extreme example I can think of is Stephen Hawking. Physically he is so weak he would have died very young as little as 100 years ago, but he will always be known as a genius among humans, spoken of with the same reverance we use today when we speak of Galileo and Newton.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Fibrosa

Evolution is not about getting bigger and badder; it's about passing on one's genes. Whatever traits can assure a population to increase, are those traits that are passed on.

Here's an excellent guide if you are interested.

thechao

Not true. Hawking was a healthy, vibrant adult until well into his late twenties. Please see Hawking-ALS.
It is exactly because evolution encouraged "early-breeders" over the millenia that his degenerative disease had no impact on his early years - only happening later on.

Also, previously mentioned, cloning of a human is actually well within our capabilities (same complexity as a sheep or a cow).

In addition, quoting evolution as "survival of the fittest" is a straw-man tactic. Current evolutionary theory is much more complex and robust than that simple formulation. Given the current diversity of the human gene-pool the human species is actually considered more fit than most other species. Try looking up "evolution" at Everything2.com as a place to start reading about the theory.

vorro

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?

papermachesatan

We may not evolve as much in the traditional sense anymore but we'll advance through technology, etc.

Pennington

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, much like gravity or lightning. As humans, we are smart enough to control it, just as we can now create lightning and avoid gravity in space. Evolution happened purely by chance, but now evolution is inteligent. Through technology (which is a product of civalisation, which is a product of speech, which is a product of extended vocal range through enhanced vocal cords and a dangerously long neck, which are a product of evolution) we have reached a level above evolution. An analogy would be a bird whose only purpose in life is to fly up against gravity finally reaches space and no longer has to fight gravity. What does it do?

That is the point that we are at now. What do we do now that, evolutionary, we are perfect. Evolution can take us no further. Mutations will still happen, but whether they are good or bad is now irrelevent. Evolution no longer effects us, so what do we do?

We become more perfect.

Now, we strive to end suffering and to increase freedom. We use technology to increase pleasure. We expand our knowledge in hopes to one day apply it to better human life. In short, we maximize utility. The old purpose of life was to continue the species. The new purpose of life is to make life better. When we can make life no better, and there is nothing to make it worse, that, my friends, that would be heaven and hell.

[edit] - spelling

Johnny Rotten

I think the technology to extend human life or create it in a test tube is already being far outstripped by our ability to destroy. Survival of the fittest has pitted us against each other, and religious rifts and human nature are a huge barrier to our long-term survival. The old cliche: we are our own worst enemy.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

Fibrosa