Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

At this time I think the same as Wanabe about this question, (which I suspect I have not yet formulated properly) with the exception of W's usage of 'supernatural'.

[wanabe]

Belinda,

supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Nukes are a bit abnormal are they not? They are beyond nature are they not? Nuclear explosions on planets(not stars) isn't natural. Hasn't rained H-bombs, yet .

Of course the italics in my previous post are to show that the word is used with some restraint.

[Belinda]

No, I think nukes are natural because they are within the cicles of causes and effects. What would be supernatural would be some event that cannot under any circumstances be explained as within the circles of causes and effects.What are generally called 'miracles' come into theis category.

[Unrealist42]

I once read in some obscure geological journal, back when I was working with geologists, that there was some geological formation discovered that seemed to indicate at least one natural nuclear explosion in the Earth's distant past.

It would take some kind of extra-universal intervention to get into the super-natural and even with that I would not be so sure.

Then there is Ramen. I think Ramen noodles might be supernatural. Beloved sustenance with an indefinite shelf life available anywhere on planet Earth for a pittance. There is no other explanation.

[wanabe]

Belinda,
Natural to you then means: any thing that can be explained?(Making things like computers and cars natural)

The typical definition of natural is: existing in or formed by nature.

How do you justify this discrepancy?

It seems that your use of the word miracles is much better suited for what you mean, however that is not science...

[Belinda]

Wanabe, I think that you are using 'natural'as opposed to 'manmade' or 'artificial'. While this is common usage and is usually understood from context, I was intending 'natural' as opposed to 'supernatural' or 'transnatural'.This also is common usage though less common than the former usage, and tends to be limited to philosophical or theological discussions.

[wanabe]

Belinda,
Beside miracles, what would you say is super natural?

[Alun]

Hi Belinda,

I think so, yes. Of course part of the question here is what 'naturally' means, but I tend to think it means, "On the basis of features of the organism and its environment."

However, it is certainly clear that the parameters of selection have changed dramatically worldwide. In the early ages, it is likely that a human's ability to give birth without medical support, give breast milk, run, hide, hunt, forage, steal, rape, and murder probably had a much more positive influence on the likelihood of reproduction than they do today. In contrast, the memory, oratory, and mathematics skills that generally lead to the most material success in developed countries probably had much less positive impact on the likelihood of reproduction than they do today.

So to the second leg of your question: We still are selected, although not as often in the 'survival' sense, and more in the reproductive sense. Many people still do not have children, and often times this correlates to particular traits--thus those traits are selected against.

[Belinda]

Hi Belinda,

I think so, yes. Of course part of the question here is what 'naturally' means, but I tend to think it means, "On the basis of features of the organism and its environment."

However, it is certainly clear that the parameters of selection have changed dramatically worldwide. In the early ages, it is likely that a human's ability to give birth without medical support, give breast milk, run, hide, hunt, forage, steal, rape, and murder probably had a much more positive influence on the likelihood of reproduction than they do today. In contrast, the memory, oratory, and mathematics skills that generally lead to the most material success in developed countries probably had much less positive impact on the likelihood of reproduction than they do today.

So to the second leg of your question: We still are selected, although not as often in the 'survival' sense, and more in the reproductive sense. Many people still do not have children, and often times this correlates to particular traits--thus those traits are selected against.

Thanks, Alun. Yes, I think that we humans are still selected naturally(since one does not believe in supernatural events in any case).My original question was not well framed. What I was beginning to think is that culture works against the survival of homo sapiens in the long run and perhaps even in the short run.
For the following reasons:

We have partially destroyed the ecology upon which we live, and the signs are we will do so exponentially.

We are still warring, now with nukes, and culture often conspires to increase this reptilian tendency instead of decreasing it.

Genetic engineering of humans will inevitably decrease the gene pool.

Genocide decreased the gene pool in the past and it seems humans are still killing off whole tribes.

[Alun]

Belinda, there is certainly cause for worry, I suppose, although I honestly suspect the issue is more the widening of the gene pool. Traits which influence selection in the US are frequently pretty contingent, rather than useful for the survival of the species. For example, good looks between the ages of 16 and 26, entertaining character traits, and familial wealth.

More generally, economically successful people tend to have fewer children, whereas those who can only scrape by tend to have more; thus economic productivity is not favored. And yet, were humanity to continue trying to survive with this level of population, economic productivity would be in high demand. On the flip side, if our population is going to sharply decline, those who have most of the military might and engineering knowledge (and are more likely to survive e.g. an ecological disaster or nuclear fallout) also reproduce less frequently.

Of course this is pretty much how the story of any species may play out; natural selection in other animals is as short-sighted as in people. The dinosaurs favored huge stature reproductively--until they were wiped out because not one of them could live on the scrapings available in meteor fallout.

P.S.: I would never endorse eugenics or any other socially (rather than individually) determined genetic engineering.

[Belinda]

Alun, economic productivity, if is is caused by a gene cluster would occur in the same phenotypes as good looks, intelligence and material wealth in the reproductive years. This because wealth brings better health, better nutrition and economically successful men can attract the better looking more intelligent women to bear their children.

Economic productivity if it continues to go hand in hand with economic growth will use up the habitat unsustainably. The result will be that societies that are more successful economically will disappear and the meek will inherit the Earth after all.They will be smaller and less intelligent but still recognisably human I suppose.

There may of course be a sudden event such as nuclear bomb or volcanic action which will change the whole calculation.

I agree with your remark about individual genetic engineering but not eugenics as usually deplored since the Nazis anyway. It won't be long before the techniques already available, to the rich anyway, allow women to choose who will sire their child, or to abort an embryo unwanted because of its sex or other, heritable, characteristics.

[Alun]

It's true that economic productivity is statistically associated with good looks, probably because, as you say, the attractive women tend to go for the rich men. One other thought: there is a substantial distinction between the economic productivity that would be required to sustain our population long term and monetary success in our current economic climate, which I think rewards some fairly useless activities.

Of course the amount of speculation here is insane, but I still suspect we're selecting in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the species overall.

[PennyKay]

Humans, like all species are still evolving. However, I believe that humans have acquired the intelligence to evolve in a different way to how other animals do and how humans have done in the past. Although, the fact is, we still evolve by positive mutations occurring in the genes and DNA that carry on through the generations.

We still fight for territory and power, like all animal kingdoms do, we just call it war. The group who has the most power (the strongest group) will build a civilization whereby everybody receives an education, receives medical treatment, is able to mate easily. This is the group (civilization) who will survive the longest, reproduces the most healthiest babies, and carry on the civilization the longest, until a stronger group comes along and takes over. This is how evolution works.

The main difference between us and other animal kingdoms, is that we have medicine. Luckily in the UK, we have NHS, so all get free health care. However, most countries do not apply this method. So the majority of people in the world receiving health care will be the richest people. The people born into wealthy families, people with the intelligence to make their own money, or maybe just really really lucky people. These are the people who survive for the longest and who's genes are carried through the generations.

Then of course evolution occurs when miniscule mutations occur within a gene that creates a positive impact on the humans body. This mutated gene will survive through to the next generation. Eventually, over hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of years, these tiny mutations add up and create a new stronger species, that look and act differently to the species that they had evolved from.

[Matthewrolsen]

Apparently the first few of you don't get it. Natural selection is simply a concept that implies that nature selects the most advantageous traits for a given area at a given time. You are dissecting this saying that since rich, poor, and everything in between can survive all over the world that natural selection doesn't do a very good job? Maybe you should think about the billions of years our earth has been in existence. Maybe the idea that man has become the master of his environment shows that, as of right now, our traits have been selected to be most advantageous. However, in the future and in the past things have changed, as they always do and always will. For a science discussion, there is very little open mindedness and virtually no understanding of simple concepts.

[Dellaire11]

The human intellect is a product of the natural world; skyscrapers are not unnatural structures simply because they were brought about via human ingenuity. Nothing is unnatural. I think that it’s incorrect to draw an imaginary distinction between humanity and all of nature, when it was nature that brought about humanity in the first place.