Are Humans done evolving?

As long as humans survive and environments change, humans will be in the process of evolving. Also, think in terms of 100's of thousands of years. About everything you know now, will not exist in just one 100,000 year period.

 

I have no doubt that this pattern will persist. Unfortunately, every new thing seems to have negative consequences that its early pioneers did not envision. For example, Einstein regretted much of his life's work after he saw the rise of nuclear weapons. Early Internet proponents focused on the benefits of easier open communication, not on child pornography that destroys innocent lives, or world-wide recruiting efforts by hate groups, or exponential growth of lies and rumors on every possible subject.

If we are getting smarter, why can't we learn from experience that every powerful tool is going to be horribly misused?

Sometimes, I wonder if the human race ever really makes choices at all. It seems that most of us simply do everything that is possible; fuck the consequences.

 

Unfortunately, every new thing seems to have negative consequences that its early pioneers did not envision.

Very true. Good point. That's no doubt the case here also. That's why I think the debate on bio-engineering should be focused on controlling and managing the technology and not on stopping it. It's already too late for that anyway.

For example, Einstein regretted much of his life's work after he saw the rise of nuclear weapons.

Funny you should bring up Einstein. I just finished reading an expansive biography of him. He was a hardcore pacifist who played a passable Mozart on the violin, and who regretted the fact that he was the one who urged Roosevelt to give the go-ahead to develop nuclear weapons.

By his "life's work", I assume you mean relativity. He didn't regret relativity, which as I understand it changed the science of physics forever. Relativity wasn't responsible for nuclear weapons. That would be like saying the chemistry of gasoline is responsible for speeding tickets.

But he just happened to be the biggest name around that the President was sure to listen to, and he was persuaded to write to Roosevelt and urge that nuclear weapons be developed. It was believed at the time that Germany was close to developing an atomic bomb, and if the US didn't make one first, Germany would.

Sometimes, I wonder if the human race ever really makes choices at all. It seems that most of us simply do everything that is possible; fuck the consequences.

It sure looks that way most of the time, doesn't it? Climate change is another good example.

 

I think that's true if you just consider natural evolution. But artificial evolution, through bio-engineering, doesn't need to wait for environments and other natural conditions, which is why there's such an economic push for it.

We're not talking hundreds of thousands of years anymore to make genetic changes in the human species ... instead we're talking a couple of generations.

Whether or not that's a wise thing in the long run remains to be seen. All I'm saying is that it's going to happen. We can be ready for it, or not.

 

I agree with what you are saying and accept your concern for the near future (next 1000? years). These are the things we should be concerned about in our lifetimes. But going to the original question of whether humans are still evolving.

Bioengineering requires a certain environment and it is our evolved ability to adapt to new circumstances, that you point out, will cause us to accept it. But, "natural" evolution does not stop because "artificial" evolution is introduced. Like gravity, it will continue to influence during bioengineering and it will continue after bioengineering. As long as humans and our known universe exist.

 

Personally, I think a lot of this discussion is actually moot anyway, because I think the biggest limiting factor in human evolution isn't anything physical ... it's psychological. The great scourge of modern human existence, in my opinion, isn't so much cancer or AIDS or widespread famine, it's unhappiness.

Who wouldn't trade their extra 10 years of lifespan for a shorter life, but one that was essentially free from mental illness, divorce, delinquency, substance abuse, domestic abuse, crime, and ultimately, the spectre of global human-caused catastrophe?

In my opinion, human civilization peaked in the pre-urban Stone Age, and it's been all downhill since, the reason being that human psychology is designed to live in small bands of extended family in a clan structure, not vast cities where you have to watch your back every second.

Sure, clustering together in towns and cities was a boon economically, but it ended the tightly-knit clan system forever, and resulted in all the societal ills we see everyday ... alienation, discontent, depression, stress, unhappiness.

The reason for this is simple enough ... if you live in a Stone Age band of 25-30 people, all related by blood or marriage, there's no opportunity for crime, for instance, because everybody knows what everybody else is doing. Everyone knows their role and their place, and anyone who refuses to fit in is simply run off, which is tantamount to a death sentence. And since everyone is related, there is strong motivation to take care of each other.

But the problem is that, despite our urban existence, the clan psychology is still there, embedded in our psyches, and so we have an "us vs. them" mentality about almost everything.

It's a myth that Stone Age life was horrible, with no medical care and the threat of starvation constantly hanging over your head. The truth is that most Stone Age people were generally healthy, well-fed, and actually had more leisure time than we do today. It is an irony that in order to acquire all our modern time-saving and labor-saving conveniences, we have to work harder and longer than did the Australian Aboriginals or the Trobriand Islanders or the Cheyenne of the American plains.

I'm aware that I'm in danger of rose-colored thinking here. Not all of Stone Age life was so good. The Yanomamo people in South America are famous for their misery ... a constant daily grind of warfare, betrayal, child abandonment, drunkeness, and the like. But they are the exceptions. Most Stone Age people had a happier life than we do today in the psychological indexes.

It's interesting to see what extremely wealthy people have to say about life as they approach the end of it. Time and again, they comment to the effect that what really matters, in the end, is family and friends. Not their vast business empires. Not their Rolls Royces or fancy vacation homes. None of those things really made them happy.

What made them happy are the same things that made human beings happy in the Stone Age.

 

You may be right, but I'm going to go way out on a limb here and assert that some from our generation have had it best of all, and the best may be yet to come. If I had the chance to travel back in time to the Stone Age and gain all of the advantages you list, there are too many things from this present time that I would not be willing to give up. The trade simply doesn't look like a good deal to me.

For starters, I would not want to give up access to modern medicine. I accept that I would have fewer health problems in the Stone Age, but that number would not go to zero.

Neither would I want to give up modern transportation or communication technology. I could have never seen the Grand Canyon or Niagara Falls or the Florida Keys, or even Grandfather Mountain (NC) and the New River Gorge (WV) in my lifetime. I love being able to communicate easily with people all over the world. I don't take it for granted.

I would not like living with no education and no real understanding of the world around me, being forced to worry about the whims of an army of invisible gods. In that earlier era, I would have been an ignorant person, and superstition always rushes in to fill the void. Without modern civilizing influences, I would surely be a racist and a sexist, and every other negative thing that goes along with being backwards and isolated.

This brings me to my number one reason for prefering the present over any time in the past. Although it varies greatly from one place to the next, tolerance and intellectual freedom has never been better than it is right now, worldwide. Having no right to my own opinion would be a kind of psychological death sentence. I would only have the right to live someone else's life, not my own.

In some small Southern US towns, they still expect you to be an ultraconservative, angry, right-wing christian, but you can move away, or you can simply ignore them in the short term. You can even tell them to go fuck themselves. How much is that worth? Giving that up would be like selling my soul.

I certainly don't live in an area with a zero crime rate, but there are many places that I go, including my house, where I rarely have to think about crime or do anything differently because of the risk.

That's something that we have to work on, in terms of social evolution. Education helps. Forums like this help.

Another area with real chance for improvement. This economic downturn has made a lot of people think long and hard about what they spend money on, why they spend it that way, and at what personal cost they are earning it. I'm working less and spending less, and I love the trade-off.

Go back in time? I wouldn't even go back to last week. I would have to carry out that same bag of trash again. ;-)

 

For starters, I would not want to give up access to modern medicine. I accept that I would have fewer health problems in the Stone Age, but that number would not go to zero.

Isn't this the thing responsible for this entire discussion in the first place? If it wasn't for modern medicine and its ability to keep people alive who wouldn't have lived in the past, we wouldn't be talking about the "end of evolution". Don't get me wrong ... I'm certainly not advocating letting people die if you can save them, but it's ironic that we have come around full circle to this.

People often point to our increased lifespan as a demonstration of what modern medicine has accomplished for our benefit. But the "extra" years we get are tacked on at the end of our lives, resulting in a gray class larger than at any time in history. So how weird is it that in most of the industrial nations of the world, older people are ridiculed, joked about, disregarded, and shuttled off to full care facilities?

And anyway, if you discount infant mortality, which skews the lifespan statistics, our lives aren't as much longer as it would appear. Infant mortality in all species is staggering. Infant mortality is where the evolutionary rubber meets the road. A wildebeest calf born with the slightest deficiency in its ability to keep up with the herd is quickly found out by the hyenas. Genetic deficiencies that don't affect the ability to make it through the child-bearing years don't matter to evolution, or at least not as much. But you gotta make it through the gauntlet in the first year of life.

Darwin didn't sit down and design it that way ... that's just how it works. Any creature, humans included, who makes past the first year of life has a much greater chance of making it to child-bearing age. Infant mortality in humans is considerably lower than in the past, at least in industrial societies, but it's still a factor and it skews the lifespan statistics, the same statistics that are used to bolster modern medicine as an indicator of our progress.

Again, I'm not for a second suggesting that babies should be allowed to die in order to satisfy the dictates of natural selection. No one with a heart would think such a thing. But it's the reason why evolution in the "natural" way has essentially stopped for humans, and any future evolution will have to be accomplished artificially.

tolerance and intellectual freedom has never been better than it is right now, worldwide

Well, the women who have acid thrown on their faces for committing the "crime" of going to school might disagree with you. And on a larger scale, I could ask you a simple question .. why are wars fought? Without getting embroiled in the politics, haven't most all modern wars been fought over "tolerance and intellectual freedom", ultimately? And we're still doing it.

there are too many things from this present time that I would not be willing to give up. The trade simply doesn't look like a good deal to me.

Well, ok. I'm suggesting that the trade was a devil's bargain. Hey, I love seeing the Grand Canyon too. I love listening to Mozart. And how cool is the ability to do what we're doing right here ... discussing really interesting questions with someone who lives 2,000 miles away?

But at what price? Seriously ... what have we paid for these things? We traded them for drive-by shootings, gang violence, pandemics of communicable diseases, divorce, schizophrenia, juvenile deliquency, global warming, terrorism, hatred, unbreathable air, undrinkable water, domestic abuse, substance abuse, stress, alienation, discontent ... the list goes on.

Did the devil get the better part of the deal?

I think you might still be carrying out the same bag of trash we've all been carrying since we gave up our tribal way of life.

 

Again, I agree with you in many ways, even that humans could be better off living as nomadic tribes, but I still want to disagree that evolution has ended for humans. It could be a definition difference, and then we only need to come to a mutual understanding of terms.

If a small mammal evolves the ability to jump into the lower branches of trees to avoid its main predator, it may achieve (at least temporarily, a much lower rate of infant mortality as mothers jump with their offspring out of danger. This is not unnatural. Because we evolved a certain kind of thinking we are able to lower our infant mortality (temporarily in some places). This is evolution working.

So I argue, we are not yet outside nature yet. If/when we get into large scale gene manipulation or step outside of individuals (through sex) choosing birth/gene mixing then the discussion of whether it is the end of natural selection becomes more arguable.

 

Again, I agree with you in many ways, even that humans could be better off living as nomadic tribes, but I still want to disagree that evolution has ended for humans.

I didn't say it's ended ... only that it will be accomplished artificially in the future.

Bio-engineering does the same thing that Darwinian natural selection would do, it just does it a zillion times faster, and it's controlled, at least in theory. In that sense, it's more akin to selective breeding with animals. Instead of carefully selecting just the right animals to mate in hopes of combining their genes to get what you want, you just diddle with the genes directly.

Since most people, myself included, would consider selective breeding with humans to be utterly abhorrent, bio-engineering will win out. That's my prediction, anyway.

 

Oh my. So much good stuff. Muy caliente material. Where to begin...

You're right, decreased infant mortality does skew the lifespan statistics. For those who make it through childhood, I wonder what the true lifespan increase has been. Do you happen to know the number?

I have long been more interested in quality of life issues than quantity of life. In the American South, I have seen drastic improvements on both fronts. All four of my grandparents outlived their parents by decades. They grew up with horse-drawn wagons, outhouses, and one-room schoolhouses. If the farm had a bad year, they went hungry. In their comfortable, air-conditioned old age, they did not romanticize the traditional lifestyle one bit.

Quality of life improvements have been more or less continuous here, for three or four generations. Many changes seem related to better lifestyle choices, such as less tobacco use, better diet, more exercise, more education, and also better financial resources (not a choice).

Like two of my four grandparents, I plan to truly live until the last day, if at all possible. I had one elderly grandmother who died while planning her second big trip out west, and an even older grandfather who was driving his own car up until the last eight days of his life. They loved their golden years. And they didn't even have access to Viagra!

I did say that there is considerable variation in tolerance and intellectual freedom. The overall trend is positive, but some have been left behind. The example that you cited serves as a grim reminder of how bad things used to be in Western countries, a few generations ago. The improvements in the West and parts of the Far East have been drastic and widespread.

As much as I hate to see us stuck in the Middle East, somebody really needs to stand up to groups that treat women that way. I need to keep reminding myself of that.

In the Middle East, most are fought because of intolerance. Elsewhere, the majority of wars have been motivated by economic gain and/or political ambition (excessive testosterone). Wherever religion dominates, you have problems with over-the-top intolerance. I speak from experience.

Cheers. :cheers2: To the devil! Speaking of beer, this does remind me of conversations I used to have in a men's dorm, late at night, in a hallway where the carpet always smelled like beer and piss. This is a step up.

I have to say no, but not an unqualified no. Damn, there's a lot of stuff on your list. Terrorism (especially nuclear) and global warming have tremendous potential as game-changers, but nobody knows what the outcomes will be.

The other listed problems are things that many Americans can tolerate for a while, avoid completely, or reduce to a tolerable risk level. It has worked out that way for me. You would likely get a different reaction from someone trapped in an impoverished area where urban problems are acute, but that isn't a reason to give up on all of Western civilization. It's a reason to be pro-education. Give them a ladder.

But if nuclear terrorism or global warming make the planet uninhabitable, then...

I don't know. I am almost painted into a logical corner. Rationally, I can't support a philosophy that leads to human extinction, and I can't support ignorance as a lifestyle, for all the reasons I went through yesterday. Every cell in my body loathes and despises ignorance, but its opposite seems to set in motion a long line of dominoes that pushes us all into the abyss.

I will have to think some more about this. Over a double shot of tequila. The good tequila, tonight.

 

I will have to think some more about this. Over a double shot of tequila. The good tequila, tonight.

I make a mean margarita.

 

So many good ways to make one. I know at least five different hurricane variants also. I hate to start drinking so early in the day, but some goddamn brainy female online got me into some serious thinking, when all I wanted to do was talk about sex. Do you know anybody who would ever do a thing like that to a guy?

Seriously, we don't have much of a choice about the direction that any of this stuff is going. The genie is completely and permanently out of the bottle.

I don't know if you have read about some of the more bizarre twists and turns that social evolution has taken along the way, mostly headlong down dead-end roads.

For example, there was a tribe in an isolated part of Peru where it used to be socially acceptable for adults to fuck each other at random, in public. Anyone and everyone. No discussion needed. The funny part about it is that they weren't particularly good at it. Not much foreplay, and no creative positions. Just basic sex, in the open, like it was no big deal. Nobody had any idea who their father was, or cared.

The Peruvian government eventually had to wipe out the whole tribe because of another of their ancient customs - cannibalism. That would have ruined their tourist appeal anyway.

There are still tribes in the Western Pacific that have ongoing practices that are pretty far out there. In one location, when a young man reaches puberty, a tribal elder jacks him off in a ceremony. In another case, the whole group believes that there is great value in semen (as in the infamous Liz Phair song), so the older warriors suck the younger men off before going into battle. This is the only homosexual activity that they practice.

All that makes me wonder how a few small cultures manage to come up with standard practices that are so far out of line with those of everyone else.

But the world is changing fast, mostly because of human activities, and we may have to intervene in the evolution of animals in a greater way, if they have any chance of survival. Natural evolution is nowhere near fast enough to keep pace with the effects of global warming.

For reasons currently unknown, panda bears are now being born prematurely almost 100% of the time, resulting in an astronomical infant mortality rate in the wild. The real problem is that the mothers do not recognize what they have given birth to as a baby bear, because they are hairless, and they reject the otherwise healthy cubs.

The Chinese have no genetic solution ready, but they have found a behavioral method that works in captivity. Expectant mothers are shown video loops that show pink, hairless cubs morphing into cute and cuddly black and white baby pandas, thereby teaching the mothers that the two are equivalent. The mothers learn this through repetition and accept the cubs, fully expecting them to eventually turn into pandas that look like pandas.

Nothing like this will work for less intelligent animals, or plants. Does science have time to become efficient at this type of genetic engineering before global warming wipes out scores of important species? Maybe; maybe not. Most of their attention is currently directed at humans. I understand why, but we actually need it less in the short term, since we rely more on intelligence and less on genetic makeup for adaptation purposes.

 

That Stone Age is looking better and better all the time, eh? .. lol

 

Well...in terms of the women, the pictures I've seen have not been impressive. As a guy, I have to keep that near the top of my priority list.

 

The women didn't look any different than they do today. A little less makeup and hairstyling, is all.

And don't forget the Wodaabe people of West Africa, who are said to have invented the concept of the beauty pageant. Their women are stunningly beautiful, although in the Wodaabe system it's the men who use makeup and fancy clothes to attract the women.

Their version of "express dating" consists of the elaborately-costumed and made-up men lining up in rows and being inspected by the women, who walk down the rows and choose the man they want.

And by the way, unmarried Woodabe women are free to have sex with whomever they choose, anytime they want, and indeed are expected to gain lots of sexual experience prior to marriage. And again, the men go to great lengths to attract a woman and be one of the "chosen ones".

 

yes I believe the same. The way you said it sounded so much better than the way I would have said it though.

 

The ladies probably also looked a bit more athletic, on average. There was plenty of manual labor to do. Getting fat was an unattainable luxury.

The Wodaabe appear to be our new role models. American guys think we are in charge, but we aren't.

 

Evolution as sold by Darwin is merely a theory that is simply accepted as fact, and really it goes along with an elitist view of humanity, where those at the top have the natural right to rule over those they see as lesser. This is the belief system that has been used to justify the slaughter of countless millions in wars throughout history.

This is complete poppycock. Have you actually studied any of this? Do you understand what "natural selection" is and how it works? Evolutionary science says nothing about "slaughtering countless millions". Who told you that?

I simply believe that the complexity of human emotions and intellect cannot be explained by science alone.

Well, ok. But can you explain why certain types of brain injuries or diseases cause loss of emotions and intellect? I don't know what you mean by "science alone", anyway. Science by definition covers the entire natural world. Are you saying the human brain isn't part of the natural world?

If you mean that science don't understand exactly how emotions and intellect work inside the brain, well that's no revelation. No one understands those things. That doesn't mean they're not potentially understandable, however.

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as evolution unless it's being guided by the people behind the scenes, who give us our culture through the media and tell us what to think and believe.

Are you saying that millions upon millions of fossils and other physical evidence are fabrications of the media? Are you saying that dinosaurs were invented by the media??? Are you saying that the prehistoric cave paintings of Lascaux are fakes???

Are you saying that species don't really go extinct as a result of changing environmental conditions??? Are you saying that faster, stronger, more fit animals don't really live longer and have more offspring???

Are you saying that thousands of biologists and paleontologists from every corner of the earth, from every country and university in the world, working independently over the past century or more, are all part of a vast conspiracy to lie to you about how species evolve over time? Are you saying that every one of them has joined a secret society and they all sit around and make up elaborate stories, just to try and fool you?

And who are these "people behind the scenes", anyway? Politicians? Are you trying to tell me that you really think George W. Bush spent eight years working "behind the scenes" just to perpetuate lies through the media? Well, ok ... he did .. but it wasn't about evolution, for petes sake.

Your statements are terribly misguided and ill-informed. I encourage you to study this a bit more before making such pronouncements.

 

Just as different people interpret religious writings in different ways, people interpret Darwin in different ways. Look for yourself or seek trusted as unbiased as possible sources.

There is no superiority of one animal over another in evolution there is natural selection leading to survival and filling niches. For some, playing possum is better than running fast, smelling bad works for some, being weak can work better than being strong, light better than heavy, bright or dull looking can work better in different situations and environments . On and on it can seem counter intuitive. and if humans end up destroying a large part of it, dumb could seem better than clever.