Re: The impact of technology on human evolution




You said "there is no chance these traits will go away". I disagree.

There are no predators killing the `weak individuals/groups', while
the people who continue to select for battle skills (especially violent

criminals, which extends to violent countries I guess) continue to
slaughter eachother. Therefore the violent tendencies will destroy
themselves. Perhaps even augmented by acts of self-defense of the
peaceful against the violent.



That is interesting idea about there being a "moral problem"
with evolution. I think most biologists would quickly dismiss such
an idea. I think, however, the idea has legitimacy. If one posits
Darwinian evolution is no longer adaptive to the human species and if
left unchanged will result in the death of the species, I do think a
moral argument can be made for genetic engineering.


First you'd have to proof that `moral behaviors' are genetically
encoded. Personally I'm sceptical, but who knows. I think that besides
biological inheritence, there is also psychological inheritence, and
this might be more important here.

Ragland: I recently ordered Darwin's "Descent of Man" and should be
getting it in a week. It deals largely with morality. I could be
mistaken but my initial impression is Darwin thinks morality is a
product of natural selection (which would be genetics) and
acquired habits. You take a commonsense approach that man
is more than just his genes but if you look at the field today it is
extremely gene centric. Our genetics determine who we are. Of
course, people are a result of their environment and genes. Having
said that, however, I believe there are instincts
(biological-evolutionary)
which override the environment. For example, as long as man has
existed there have been wars and genocides. That isn't going to
stop.

J:
Then there is also the issue of "attractiveness", a second leg of
evolutionary pressure besides deaths. Once our species concludes that
"peace and solidarity" are more succesful for survival then "ware and
hatred" (which once were crucial), then mates may be selected on the
basis of these traits. That in turn makes these traits highly desirable

for anyone whishing to have children, whether encoded in genes or not.

Ragland: You're making assumptions here. Our species is incapable of
concluding that "peace and solidarity" are more successful for survival
than
war and hatred. This introduces the idea of free will. Do people really
possess it? I would grant the idea of free will is not a chimera and
individuals do exercise it but for the species we are like an
automaton,
driven by Darwinian evolution. Buddha stated most people spend their
lives asleep. Another thing to conceptualize is that the terms peace,
solidarity, etc. exist within the framework of Darwinian evolution. I'm
not
saying they are exclusively a product but they operate within that
context. Peace by inference conjures war, solidarity conjures division,
etc.
If the human species was 'peaceful and in solidarity' and there was no
war, division and hatred don't you think 'peace and solidarity' would
mean something else? In other words, you seem to think peace and
solidarity can be evolutionarily successful and adaptive without
genetically changing people. I don't believe that.

J:
Women a few hundred years ago, would have selected for any male
who would emerge strongest in a fight over her love. She preferred
battle skills over all else. These days, fighting over the love of a
female rarely happens.

Ragland: Physical fighting is less common but fighting for females in
other forms is quite common. It is called sexual selection.

J:
If it does, the loser might walk away with
the female. Females do no longer on average prefer physical battle
skills. They have caught on, good for them, and us. Why do females
these days think battle skills are not desirable to the extend they
first decided they were ? This might be an example of the evolutionary
changes through technology, right under our noses.

Ragland: The world has a lot of different cultures and places. I would
not regard it as an evolutionary change but a cultural change.

J;
So, that is already 2 ways why violence in the technological world,
would feel a negative evolutionary pressure into extinction, the second

(attractiveness) the result of the first.

Ragland: Not following you here. Clarify.

J:
I'm not against genetic engineering, and I suspect nobody really is.
What people are afraid off, is who will control these experiments, and
to what end will they be carried out. The world being what it is,
abuses
seem likely and potentially dangerous, who knows what can be done.

Ragland: Most people are against genetic engineering for a host of
various reasons, including the one about who the genetic engineers
will be, who will be in control of the experiments, etc. I'll be
honest, as
bad off as the world currently is and the worse it will get, I see
genetic
engineering as the only solution to species survival. Sure I'm
concerned
about the issues you raise and think they should be addressed in the
future. Undoubtedly, there will be mistakes and possible misuses. But
I think genetic engineering is the only solution and time is running
out
of the hour glass. Unfortunately science moves at a pace. I can't wave
a
wand and presto. Sorry, but I can't resist bringing up the idiot and
his
clique invading Iraq. What a debacle. On television just a few days ago
was treated to the two factions who have been blowing up each others
mosques and all the hundreds dead within a short period of time. Talk
about how Iraq is on the brink of civil war.



J:
I would suggest this theory to take the place of religion, because
knowing why is more powerful then believing what. The goals of science
and religion are both better served then either religion or `non self
aware' evolution theory can.

Ragland: You're theory doesn't have much to go on. You wrote, "Many
species, including prehistoric humanity are preyed upon. Many species,
including humanity preys on other species. These two facts mean
that those species need `battle skills'. Species that `do battle'
over mating rights, territory etc, will internally select for
`battle skills'." What you are "basically" describing is Darwinian
evolution. Technology doesn't change this.


J:
But it does.

You cannot dismiss out of hand without argument, that technology is
irrelevant to human evolution. Look at the world, compare it with
100.000 year cave men. We dominate the globe, even to the point of
destruction, through our technology. It is a big thing. It changes the
evolutionary pressures humanity is faced with, it changes the pressures

on lots of animals, and may therefore alter what our behaviors would
be that stimulate our survival.

Ragland: Technology is relevant to human evolution in two ways, one
positive
and one negative. It is positive in that it provides a better standard
of living
for many, provides medical care and offers the possibility in the
future of
being able to become a self designing race. It is negative because it
is
a medium for destroying the earth and the animals on it and ourselves.
As
far as evolutionary pressures we are operating on the same evolutionary
pressures i.e. natural selection that we did in our evolutionary past.
We have
new non-Darwinian evolutionary pressures and technology is certainly a
part of this but
we are not adaptive.

J:
The range of behaviors in humanity
is great, from people that sacrifice their lives to save another, to
people who for joy torture others to death. If peaceful people are
more succesful then violent, then this will probably show, because
both exist.

Ragland: Depends on how you define successful. I see a lot
of dum assholes in the world.



I assume modern science is suffering from an objectivity problem.
Scientists generally have a high wage, higher then say, a cleaner,
higher then average. To discover that humanity has grown beyond battle
with itself, beyond the need to establish domination hierarchies,
is to declare your own wage, if high, a sign of obsolete behavior and
psychology. This might have delayed the discovery of the above
argument,
which is more then a little obvious, isn't it ?! (please correct me
when you feel I'm wrong!)

Ragland: You are wrong. Humanity has not grown beyond battle with
itself and establishing domination hiarchies. You sound very insulated.
I think you should know the truth so if ever the proverbial nightmare
descends upon you then you will be at least a little mentally prepared.


J:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

Ragland: Good!

J:
I realize humanity has not
yet grown beyond internal battle.

Ragland: Then we're on the same ***.


.

Quantcast