Re: The Future of Human Evolution


"Einstein" <paras1987@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dpvbq5$1ckj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In continuation to the thread "What is the effect of intelligence on
> evolution??"
> (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/3ef51a819546c68a),
> let us discuss about the future of human evolution.
>
> According to this
> article(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/print/1/displaymode/1098/),
> There are few likely scenarios:
> 1. Humans divide into two different species
> 2. Humans get replaced by Artificial Intelligence through natural
> selection
> 3. Humans merge with machines to give rise to cyborgs
> 4. Humans spread to different planets and stars
> 5. Humans modify themselves genetically and give rise to super-humans

Probably you did not read, or do not recall, my thoughts on the subject of
predictions of the future course of human genecology and history; so let me
hit a few highlights:

A. With a few very rare exceptions, predictions of future human history --
even by the most brilliant and perceptive of prognosticators, who were
capable of considering even the most state of the art information on hand
during their time -- have, for the very most part, missed the mark.

B. There is a false perception by some that a few individuals did a
magnificent job of it (Nostradamos, Sir Francis Bacon, et al). This is
primarily a result of there being much ado about the hits, as offset by, and
exceeded by, a preponderance of misses;

C. Attempts to predict the future are NOT a waste of time, UNLESS we get
the notion that we, of today, are somehow more in a position to know the
future than were prognosticators of the past. If we look at some facts,
however, they may suggest not only that we, too, will miss the mark but,
also, that we will miss it even more flagrantly than did our forebears;

D. Attempts at predicting future trends ALWAYS rely upon current trends.
And there are factors in place today which put us at an even greater
disadvantage than past predictors. The rate of change from millennium to
millennium and from century to century has been, by comparison to now, so
slow that the span of a single lifetime would hardly have allowed an
individual to see it. Oh, there were wars and revolutions and such... and,
as a result, some cultures imposed themselves upon (and to a greater or
lesser extent were assimilated by) other. National borders changed alright,
but warfare basically didn't, and political structures (while varying a
little bit from place to place) did not go through any quick or drastic
variations. Also, while quick and drastic changes did occur, after which
something in history did something analogous to what some people like to
call 'punctuated equilibrium,' these often resulted from pressures that had
been building long before such an event. Today, on the other hand, it not
only is true that "The Times are a Changing," but (shudder) the very rate of
that change is itself accelerating; and, as of that were not distracting
enough, the very directions of change are growing more various in their
nature and more frequent in whip lashing our best laid plans and
preparations;

E. But is there anything wrong with TRYING to predict? Probably not... so
long as we keep in mind that we are not psychic, that our batting average is
not going to be much less pathetic than for past generations of humans, and
that the game itself is going to change in ways that will not rest only upon
today's trends;

F. Just as with predicting the weather, we find that we can most certainly
predict some things in some ways, but not other things in any ways. We can
predict that there will be some rain in some parts of the globe, but we can
only say within very crude limits how much, or on what days... and, as a
result, we cannot predict whether farmers in any given area will have a good
year or not. We can predict that there will be new scientific discoveries,
but we cannot predict what they will be. We can even predict that entire
directions of searching will undergo drastic re-illuminations that take mass
thinking in new directions. There will be findings of science that will
take time to be accepted... and there will be some killings of the
messengers who bring to light things cultures are unready to believe... if
our past history of that phenomenon is a reliable guide;

G. My father's grandfather was sure that the damnyankees could not hit the
side of a barn and would be outshot a hundred to one by the rebel squirrel
hunters. My father's father was convinced, for a portion of his life, at
least, that if that if God had wanted man to fly he would have equipped him
with feathered wings. And I distinctly recall my father's insistence that
man would NEVER walk on the moon. And then, when the first man did, his
insistence changed to the stance that it was a useless waste. Maybe, if I
take those predictions into account I might be able to avoid making similar
predictions of what will NOT
happen. Oh, change will come all right. That seems pretty predictable.
But what changes, and when, and in what directions? Those kinds of
predictions have never proved very reliable;

H. But JUST SUPPOSING current trends will continue to play out in
historical straight lines (that in itself would be a helluva change,
actually). Where, in all of those lines do we find any currently
recognizable trend toward division into two species? We might divide into
two species, and we might not. We might populate other star systems, and we
might get invaded and wiped out by citizens who already have populated those
other star systems and to whom we look and smell so bad that they cannot
bear to let us stink up the Earth they might exercise THEIR concept of
"imminent domain" upon; and, on and on it goes...

I. Maybe this... maybe that. But my guess is that the primary thing that
is going to change the very very most, is going to be (so far as humans are
concerned) change itself.


g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unfalsifiable Tautology = Evolution
    ... "All humans have the same sex" ... Every other science makes non-random predictions. ... Evolution is not mature, makes no specific predictions, and thus ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New Howlers from Nelson
    ... imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, ... Designer - didnâ??t like humans very much and therefore decided ... Feel entirely and totally free to use all the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theories of lead and follow
    ... Not all the predictions that humans do ... I'll also add that a core skill of "scrambling" (running or fast walking up ... just a sore arm that became less sore ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: origin of hybrids
    ... unlikely the the first human to breed mules was the Cain of the ... You think all of history is ... Before the fall some animals could communicate with man. ... converse with humans as well as understand us. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THE BORN QUEEN, was Re: SMALL FAVOR
    ... but is full of cultural referents to Earth that wouldn't have ome from ... got Virginia Dare in its history and she came from elsewhere, ... Roanoke Colony. ... League wouldn't bother me if the humans in it hadn't come from a world ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)