Re: Evolution In Humans

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 08/01/04 

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC)

Michael Ragland wrote:
dkomo proclaimed...
Biological evolution takes place on the time scale of hundreds of
thousands or millions of years, so in our case I think it has little
relevance.

Strider:
A fair comment. But assuming that the human race doesn't destroy itself
(which doesn't look likely) then where would it take us?

Ragland:
Just out of curiousity why do you think it doesn't seem likely the human
race will destroy itself? In the ancient evolutionary past there were
events such as asteroid collisions which caused or contributed to mass
extinctions of animals. Aside from these "natural" disasters i.e. not
manmade there has arguably never been a more dangerous period in human
evolution than currently. In other words, the possibility and capability
of the human species destroying itself is greater today than ever before
in our short evolutionary history.

dkomo:
Disagree. The 20th Century just passed was the most dangerous period.
Mankind was sorely tested.
And we PASSED THE TEST! :-)
That augers well for our future success.
We managed to avoid four terrible possibilities in the 20th Century:
worldwide fascism, worldwide communism, nuclear holocaust, or a
permanent world economic depression. That's pretty significant. The
forces of light did defeat the forces of darkness.

Ragland:
You are an optimist! Yes, the 20th century was to date the most "trying"
century which threatened the human species. We passed the test but that
was just one test. Going back further in human history we can see there
were other tests such as being able to emerge out of the Dark Ages.
There will likely be other tests my friend. They won't be identical to
those faced in the 20th century but they may be just as severe or worse.
Just something to consider.

dkomo:
And the trend over the past 50 years has been upward. We've had
innumerable small crises in that time, and bounced back smartly each
time. We've had the war in the Balkans, several recessions, an oil
embargo, many terrorist acts, "The Asian Contagion", the collapse of the
Japanese economy, the Gulf War, rampant inflation, the War in Vietnam,
the attack on the Trade Center, several severe stock market crashes, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera (as the King of Siam said in the "King and
I").

Ragland:
Yes but 50 years is a drop in the ocean.

dkomo:
All of which leads me to think that if human civilization is viewed as a
complex system, it is a system that has built-in self repair mechanisms
and a strong ability to maintain homeostasis. It's a system that can
take a licking and keep on ticking.

Ragland:
You seem to have a strong argument there but remember I didn't become of
fan of Stephen Hawking's "non-physicist" thoughts overnight. I thought
years about it. I thought about the idea of removing aggression through
genetic engineering years before I read Hawking's comments. And then
when I finally did read them it was a watershed event for me. That a
person of his stature and brilliance could advocate what I myself had
briefly thought about so many years before. Don't get me wrong. I don't
think Hawking is perfect. In fact, he recently backstepped on his theory
of blackholes and now supposedly states that information can escape from
them which can tell us something about the nature of the blackhole.

You state, "All of which leads me to think that if human civilization is
viewed as a complex system, it is a system that has built-in self repair
mechanisms and a strong ability to maintain homeostasis. It's a system
that can take a licking and keep on ticking." So far that has proved the
case. The question is, however, can we continue to wait up for Darwinian
evolution to advance molecular evolution in the face of increasing
cultural evolution i.e. science and technology? I've maintained we
cannot and Hawking has stated genetic engineering of humans is going to
happen whether people like it or not. Even you yourself have conceded
this much so I'm wondering where are differences lie. Is it that I see
the urgency of genetically engineering humans as soon as possible and
pushing science strenously in that direction whereas as you are more
"casual" and take the position these developments will happen "due
course". Here's the so-called litmus test: Can the human species "wait
up" for Darwinian evolution i.e. without genetic engineering? If you
answer "yes" than fundamentally we have no major differences here except
that I'm more pessimistic than you are about the near human future.

Ragland:
The reason for this is while the
human species has culturally evolved by leaps and bounds (and I'm
referring specifically to the ability to write, the printing press,
science and technology) its biological evolution has lagged far behind.
I'm not trying to be funny but in many ways today's humans are modern
caveman equivalents...decorated and trimmed with science and technology
which cultural evolution has made possible. Can you see the enormous
danger in that?

I consider it the "GREATEST" of all "IRONIES" that nature allowed us as
a species to culturally evolve and yet at the same time kept us bound,
as all animals are, to the principles of Darwinian evolution. As dkomo
states, "Biological evolution takes place on the time scale of hundreds
of thousands or millions of years, so in our case I think it has little
relevance." Any biologist, unless they are a crackpot, will tell you the
same thing.

A FURTHER IRONY is that precisely at the same time the field of human
genetics has really started to get underway and it is a "certainty"
eventually genetic engineering will be applied to humans, the human
species seems likely to destroy itself. I recently made a post on this
subject so I don't want to be redundant. But there are short term
threats to us a species which could wipe us out such as nuclear weapons

dkomo:
I think this has roughly the same probability of wiping us out as an
asteroid strike.

Ragland:
I don't know. I do know that alot of horrible things in the human past
such as slavery, genocide, disease, famine, etc. are recurring phenomena
and given human nature are bound to continue. And in the case of Nazi
Germany it showed a so-called culturally and technologically advanced
society could descend to the worst forms of human barbarism. There can
be hell on earth without the probability of us being wiped out as a
species. The 20th century proved that. We may not be so lucky in the
21st century and by accident or design put an end to us as a species.
I'm going to be selfish here dkomo but rather than living through
another infernal century where hundreds of millions of people are killed
I'd rather see the whole fucking thing flushed down the toilet.
Unfortunately, I probably won't get my wish.

Ragland:
(although Mr. Tyler is confident a nuclear winter wouldn't result or if
it did it wouldn't result in our extinction) and this would be a mere
delay in our evolutionarily bouncing back. I explained to him it was not
at all certain we could survive a nuclear winter and that even if we did
that without genetic engineering of the species we might end right back
up at the drawing board again.

What I specifically mean by that last statement is aggression and the
genes which are responsible for controlling and mediating it and the
need to use genetic engineering to modify this complex set of traits.
When I say "modify" I mean to remove these aggressive instincts which
were imprinted on our DNA by Darwinian evolution.

Another possibility of the human race becoming extinct is through a
genetically engineered virus. Scientists have already created such
deadly genetically engineered viruses on other animals and the results
are the entire population is wiped out. I could be mistaken but I
thought this was in relation to research done with mousepox. I could be
wrong. If such a deadly genetically engineered virus was either
accidentally let loose or purposefully released there would be no
vaccine for it. If it was a real killer and highly contagious it could
kill millions within a relatively short period of time. If a vaccine
wasn't developed in enough time it could theoretically wipe out much of
the human race..perhaps all of it.

dkomo:
And who will genetically engineer such a virus? It would take
significant scientific resources to be able to pull it off and only a
few countries in the world have such resources. Certainly a bunch of rag
heads in some mountain hideaway are not even going to come close.

Ragland:
Al-Quaeda are not just a bunch of ragheads. They've proven themselves
very sophisticated and dangerous and they have even tried to get ahold
of blueprints for a nuclear bomb. Rogue countries such as North Korea
might be willing to sell some nuclear material to them. Certainly, I
don't think it is possibly beyond them to initiate a biological weapons
strike on a major U.S. city. Yes, it would take signifigant scientific
resources for terrorists to carry out a plan of unleashing a deadly
genetically engineered virus. It is not likely but it is not impossible.
The danger here is just as the world was concerned a scientifically and
technologically advanced nation such as Nazi Germany might build atomic
weapons in the future political circumstances could arise where a
scientifically and technologically advanced nation might develop a
deadly genetically engineered virus to exterminate millions of
'designated target' people. Remember "past is prologue". That isn't just
some vague meaningless adage but the truth. Except this time around
there will be more scientific and technological developments to kill
people.

Ragland:
On the more long term causes of our possible extinction as a species
there is the ravaging of the human earth by rampant development, noxious
emissions in the atmosphere, greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc., etc. If
we as a species don't begin to genetically engineer ourselves and
eventually develop the capacity for permanent long term space travel
then if we do end up destroying the earth and making it uninhabitable we
will have signed our own death warrant.

dkomo:
Aggression is not the driving force behind environmental destruction.
Selfishness, stupidity and greed are. Do you propose genetically
engineering these away as well?

Ragland:
I think aggression is related to selfishness, stupidity and greed.
That's not to say every human on earth is selfish, stupid and greedy!
There are varying levels. LOL!

dkomo:
We will have either destroyed ourselves or transformed ourselves into
Homo Superior (a distinctly different species) through our science and
technology long before then.

Strider:
You're saying you think we've made natural selection obsolete in
ourselves?

Ragland:
Question isn't addressed to me but I'll take a shot at it. Obviously, at
this time in our evolution natural selection is still very much apart of
our evolution. But with future advances in science and technology such
as genetic engineering it will be possible to "intervene" in Darwinian
evolution. As time passes we will increasingly modify our evolution. Now
these advances in genetic engineering won't happen overnight and it will
take time before their effects show up in the population. Compared,
however, to biological evolution (read Darwinian evolution) which takes
hundreds of thousands to millions of years to show effects, these
genetic engineering advances and their application to populations will
likely be upon us within 200 years. Some genetic engineering advances
such as removing certain diseases may occur sooner. Of course, this is
contingent upon the human race not ending up destroyed or flung into
another Dark Ages. I'm not sure at all that the latter may not
happen...even in my lifetime.
It's hard being human. I look into the mirror and I know I'm looking at
a dinosaur. And it doesn't matter whether the human race destroys itself
or ends up genetically engineered into a different creature. I'm still a
dinosaur. But as a friend pointed out even dinosaurs have uses.

dkomo:
We've got more upside than dinosaurs.
  
Ragland:
I know. That's what makes it so dangerous.

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value."
Stephen Hawking

Loading