Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote:Technical manipulation and control is not evolution, a genuine evolutionary step for man would be a change in his nature, an expansion of his consciousness, becoming less insensitive to the natural world, less greedy and warlike, etc. Technical knowledge will not take him there and in fact has become a crutch to support the negative traits I mentioned.

You misunderstand me (though I acknowledge I was very vague). I am referring not to knowledge and technology per se', rather that we are no longer selecting against disadvantageous physical traits. For example, in the past, poor eyesight might mean a human might never make it to breeding age. Nowadays, technology (like glasses) allows disadvantageous traits to have an over-representation in the gene pool (compared to the past). So as a group we are moving towards lousier physical attributes. In addition (but separately) since individuals with lesser means and level of education tend to have more children, we are also selecting against those genetic traits associated with financial and academic success.

This sort of genetic drift over time IS evolution, BTW.

Greta wrote:I agree that it's optimal for maturity to accompany empowerment, but I differ from the vast majority of observers who assume that what is happening is problematic or anomalous.

It may be that the biosphere is on the way towards reproduction (spreading its "seeds") and that humans are on track regarding the biosphere's reproductive phase, fulfilling a role in the biosphere that's akin to that of imaginal discs in insect metamorphosis. That would seem more in accord with the way nature operates than the idea that humans are an anomaly that somehow got lucky and is now wrecking the joint with bizarre, unnatural behaviour.

Well, it seems to many of us that mankind is not living a sustainable life in general, and that if things continue in the general direction they are going, mankind will become extinct. And I think most of us might call that 'problematic'.

I agree that the species is supposed to evolve into something else, i.e. that that would be the ideal scenario (apparently). And my opinion is that that evolution corresponds to the evolution of the Universe in general. But no evolution is guaranteed, and it would appear that in this corner of the Universe this universal evolutionary process might be reaching a dead end, like a withering branch on a tree....

I am referring not to knowledge and technology per se', rather that we are no longer selecting against disadvantageous physical traits.

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:47 pm to add the following --

Re: the above quote from LuckyR

I don't think that we are sufficiently intelligent (mentally/emotionally) or unbiased enough to make such decisions. The Frankenstein monster was a product of the selection of preferred physical traits.

Felix wrote:I am referring not to knowledge and technology per se', rather that we are no longer selecting against disadvantageous physical traits.

-- Updated Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:47 pm to add the following --

Re: the above quote from LuckyR

I don't think that we are sufficiently intelligent (mentally/emotionally) or unbiased enough to make such decisions. The Frankenstein monster was a product of the selection of preferred physical traits.

Oh, it isn't happening by decision, it is happening by accident or at best as a circumstance. But that fact doesn't detract that it is an evolution and a very negative one, in my opinion.

Atreyu wrote:

Greta wrote:I agree that it's optimal for maturity to accompany empowerment, but I differ from the vast majority of observers who assume that what is happening is problematic or anomalous.

It may be that the biosphere is on the way towards reproduction (spreading its "seeds") and that humans are on track regarding the biosphere's reproductive phase, fulfilling a role in the biosphere that's akin to that of imaginal discs in insect metamorphosis. That would seem more in accord with the way nature operates than the idea that humans are an anomaly that somehow got lucky and is now wrecking the joint with bizarre, unnatural behaviour.

Well, it seems to many of us that mankind is not living a sustainable life in general, and that if things continue in the general direction they are going, mankind will become extinct. And I think most of us might call that 'problematic'.

I agree that the species is supposed to evolve into something else, i.e. that that would be the ideal scenario (apparently). And my opinion is that that evolution corresponds to the evolution of the Universe in general. But no evolution is guaranteed, and it would appear that in this corner of the Universe this universal evolutionary process might be reaching a dead end, like a withering branch on a tree....

I agree that "no evolution is guaranteed" just as life and its concomitant developments are not guaranteed. One may be destined to become one of the great geniuses and be run over by a bus as a child.

Consider the state of a caterpillar en route to becoming a moth. The animal's imaginal discs dissolve all of its other innards. The "dying" caterpillar's system identifies its own imaginal cells as threats and has an immune response, but the phagocytes end up being dissolved too. In time, all that remains is the caterpillar's skin encasing imaginal cells plus a mush of broken cellular material. The mush is used by the imaginal cells to form the adult moth body parts. From the perspective of the caterpillar's other cells, the imaginal cells' activity is abusive and unsustainable, with continued dissolving and absorption surely resulting in death (hence the phagocyte response).

Now consider that same dynamic, with humans as imaginal discs and the rest of nature as the caterpillar. The caterpillar must "die" to make way for the moth or it won't breed and its genetic line will end. I am far from the only one to suspect that this dynamic is occurring in the biosphere on a large scale. To make this scenario a little clearer, it would seem that underprivileged humans face the same fate as other species. There's no rule that says life need be kind or fair. A "more mature form" of humanity has the best chance of bringing those desirable attributes into being but that's in the future and not guaranteed either.

Greta, The voracious caterpillar, not the imaginal disc, seems to be a better analogy for humans. In which case Nature's "imaginal disc" will eventually dissolve us. It is only hubris that has humankind believing they cannot go the way of the dinosaurs.

Felix wrote:Greta, The voracious caterpillar, not the imaginal disc, seems to be a better analogy for humans. In which case Nature's "imaginal disc" will eventually dissolve us. It is only hubris that has humankind believing they cannot go the way of the dinosaurs.

If so, then our "imaginal discs" would be AI. However, humans are far from unique in nature in their voraciousness, only in empowerment to act on their desires.

The situation is that humans are functioning very much like imaginal discs - breaking up their surrounds and using the material as resources in order to create new forms.

So, if nature is doing so well.... then why did intelligence appeared? What is its purpose?
My personal answer is that intelligence is meant to be the next step for expanding life. Understanding first and manipulating later.
Thankfully with intelligence also comes ethics (eventually), and if we can mix everything together right, maybe we have a chance...

Based on our short sojourn on the planet so far the answer to that question should be obvious.

Humans are responsible for their own evolution, humans are controlling the environment and the environment controls evolution. Evolution is the adaption to survive in the existing environment. Science can manipulate genes all it wants, but if those manipulations don't enhance the ability to reproduce, they will not effect evolution.

BardoXV wrote:Humans are responsible for their own evolution, humans are controlling the environment and the environment controls evolution. Evolution is the adaption to survive in the existing environment. Science can manipulate genes all it wants, but if those manipulations don't enhance the ability to reproduce, they will not effect evolution.

Sure they can. Improved ability to reproduce was essential when breeding was left to chance. In the future breeding may be more thought out worldwide, as it can be in the Industrial nations today.

LuckyR wrote:

BardoXV wrote:Humans are responsible for their own evolution, humans are controlling the environment and the environment controls evolution. Evolution is the adaption to survive in the existing environment. Science can manipulate genes all it wants, but if those manipulations don't enhance the ability to reproduce, they will not effect evolution.

Sure they can. Improved ability to reproduce was essential when breeding was left to chance. In the future breeding may be more thought out worldwide, as it can be in the Industrial nations today.

Do you really think anyone is controlling the breeding of the poor people in the ghettos? They are breeding like rabbits and no one is controlling them, there is the next generation of humanity, not the college professors who choose to not bring children into the world as it is.

BardoXV wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Sure they can. Improved ability to reproduce was essential when breeding was left to chance. In the future breeding may be more thought out worldwide, as it can be in the Industrial nations today.

Do you really think anyone is controlling the breeding of the poor people in the ghettos? They are breeding like rabbits and no one is controlling them, there is the next generation of humanity, not the college professors who choose to not bring children into the world as it is.

Who said anything about "controlling"? I said: "more thought out". No wacky Big Brother theories required, thank you very much...

LuckyR wrote:

BardoXV wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Do you really think anyone is controlling the breeding of the poor people in the ghettos? They are breeding like rabbits and no one is controlling them, there is the next generation of humanity, not the college professors who choose to not bring children into the world as it is.

Who said anything about "controlling"? I said: "more thought out". No wacky Big Brother theories required, thank you very much...

"Thought Out" is useless unless it can be applied, and so far the only ones thinking about it are those who produce few or no offspring. The ones producing offspring are those who do not think about it but reproduce without any control at all. The point is that reproduction is not thought out in the industrial nations at all, the majority of reproduction is done without any consideration of the consequences. Breading is mostly to chance as it is, there is little thought being applied to the process.

BardoXV wrote:

LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Who said anything about "controlling"? I said: "more thought out". No wacky Big Brother theories required, thank you very much...

"Thought Out" is useless unless it can be applied, and so far the only ones thinking about it are those who produce few or no offspring. The ones producing offspring are those who do not think about it but reproduce without any control at all. The point is that reproduction is not thought out in the industrial nations at all, the majority of reproduction is done without any consideration of the consequences. Breading is mostly to chance as it is, there is little thought being applied to the process.

Wow, speak for yourself... oh wait, I guess you already are! The rest of us consider with whom we breed and how many children we have (and when) in quite some detail.