Implications of Evolutionary Delay

[KeepTalking]

You think Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans?

Of course, if real.

That's a new one on me.

Hardly. When we were primitive in the cave, smoke from a campfire caused us to cough and choke, so we knew to stay enough away. Yet when people started smoking, they coughed and choked also, but since it supposedly had something extra about it, they kept experimenting with it until they got it so-called right. We are almost continually being warned of something, but practically only the wise realize to take heed way ahead of time.

And just a couple of days ago you said you had no belief in Global Warming.

Right, but I also said that it doesn't mean it isn't true either.

There are beliefs, and then there are crackpot theories...

Simple observation.

Do you understand what they word "intentionally" means, and it's implication when used in the sentence, "Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans"?

That would mean that humans at some point decided that the world needed to start warming up, and to do that we began emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. If that is your contention, then I want to know what YOU are smoking.

 

[sharon45]

Of course, if real.

That's a new one on me.

Hardly. When we were primitive in the cave, smoke from a campfire caused us to cough and choke, so we knew to stay enough away. Yet when people started smoking, they coughed and choked also, but since it supposedly had something extra about it, they kept experimenting with it until they got it so-called right. We are almost continually being warned of something, but practically only the wise realize to take heed way ahead of time.

And just a couple of days ago you said you had no belief in Global Warming.

Right, but I also said that it doesn't mean it isn't true either.

There are beliefs, and then there are crackpot theories...

Simple observation.

Do you understand what they word "intentionally" means, and it's implication when used in the sentence, "Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans"?

Yes, unless you mean it a court of law.

That would mean that humans at some point decided that the world needed to start warming up, and to do that we began emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. If that is your contention, then I want to know what YOU are smoking.

It amounts to cause and effect and denial. I gave the observation which would occur over the course of thousands of years concerning outright abuse of this planet and its utter denial. As I have said in another thread, I don't use that much energy, and don't have a large carbon footprint, but many others who actually believe in global warming, do have a comparably larger carbon footprint.

 

[untermensche]

If you are raised in a society you adapt to it.

The child like the young cat or dog will adapt to it's environment.

People can get too old to adapt anymore, but that is not universal. There are people in the eighties doing fine texting with cell phones. Many have degraded memory systems that don't allow much new learning however. That can occur at any age though.

We can adapt to a degree, but our underlying Nature will out. Our psychology is hard-wired for a tribal, hunter-gatherer existence. You can paper over it with a "civilized" veneer, but all it takes is a scratch and the inner ape will emerge.

Our underlying Nature is that we have this incredible capacity to adapt to many different environments.

Our Nature is we can adapt to many things.

We take on an arbitrary language wear arbitrary clothing obey arbitrary customs.

The things that make us up are an elaborate complicated adaption to incredibly arbitrary conditions.

 

[Trausti]

Human civilization domesticated humans.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201

 

[Bronzeage]

Popular scientific thought tells us that there is a delay in biological evolution. Most people today are hard-wired for life in the Savannah, hunting and gathering, and not a complex, modern world.

So what kind of implications do and will we see in our world due to being mal-adapted to the society we live in?

How would we know if there was a delay? Evolution doesn't have clock.

Besides that, what makes hunting and gathering on the Savannah less stressful than our "complex" modern world. Just a few minutes ago, I filled a cup with ice, and then filled it with water, exerting no more effort than it took to walk across the room. Three were no leopards or baboons to interfere with me. Over all, it was a stress free experience.

Later tonight, I will happily fall asleep with absolutely no fear of a mega-predator taking me or my wife in the darkness. If I were still a hunter gatherer, I would need to identify all the local plants and know their growing seasons, along with the migratory habits of the local animals. Given the choice, I would just as soon read ingredient labels on cans, if it were all the same. It's a much less stressful life and I feel quite well adapted to it.

 

[rousseau]

Popular scientific thought tells us that there is a delay in biological evolution. Most people today are hard-wired for life in the Savannah, hunting and gathering, and not a complex, modern world.

So what kind of implications do and will we see in our world due to being mal-adapted to the society we live in?

How would we know if there was a delay? Evolution doesn't have clock.

Besides that, what makes hunting and gathering on the Savannah less stressful than our "complex" modern world. Just a few minutes ago, I filled a cup with ice, and then filled it with water, exerting no more effort than it took to walk across the room. Three were no leopards or baboons to interfere with me. Over all, it was a stress free experience.

Later tonight, I will happily fall asleep with absolutely no fear of a mega-predator taking me or my wife in the darkness. If I were still a hunter gatherer, I would need to identify all the local plants and know their growing seasons, along with the migratory habits of the local animals. Given the choice, I would just as soon read ingredient labels on cans, if it were all the same. It's a much less stressful life and I feel quite well adapted to it.

It's not about stress, it's about a different set of conditions. In pre-history our primary challenges were much different than they are today. These new challenges today are very new in reference to the time it took us to adapt to the old challenges.

This isn't controversial science, most current scientists would agree.

 

[Bronzeage]

How would we know if there was a delay? Evolution doesn't have clock.

Besides that, what makes hunting and gathering on the Savannah less stressful than our "complex" modern world. Just a few minutes ago, I filled a cup with ice, and then filled it with water, exerting no more effort than it took to walk across the room. Three were no leopards or baboons to interfere with me. Over all, it was a stress free experience.

Later tonight, I will happily fall asleep with absolutely no fear of a mega-predator taking me or my wife in the darkness. If I were still a hunter gatherer, I would need to identify all the local plants and know their growing seasons, along with the migratory habits of the local animals. Given the choice, I would just as soon read ingredient labels on cans, if it were all the same. It's a much less stressful life and I feel quite well adapted to it.

It's not about stress, it's about a different set of conditions. In pre-history our primary challenges were much different than they are today. These new challenges today are very new in reference to the time it took us to adapt to the old challenges.

This isn't controversial science, most current scientists would agree.

Maybe so, but today's challenges are much less stressful than trying to out run a leopard.

 

[rousseau]

It's not about stress, it's about a different set of conditions. In pre-history our primary challenges were much different than they are today. These new challenges today are very new in reference to the time it took us to adapt to the old challenges.

This isn't controversial science, most current scientists would agree.

Maybe so, but today's challenges are much less stressful than trying to out run a leopard.

Depends.

Today we experience less imminent danger, but in many cases our lives are still very difficult. People like you and I might be biased as life comes easily to us, but for many people it can be very hard, and still stressful.

These days in North America the challenges are more about how to be successful in a market economy. Can I write a resume? Do I have anything to put on a resume? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I feed my kids? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I pay my rent? There is a significant proportion of people who find these things a real challenge when there isn't any manufacturing around.

I'd agree that in modern economies we're better off than we were in hunter-gatherer societies, but lack of ability is still a real problem when many of modern life's challenges require complex logic to understand. Logic that we, more or less, didn't need in the environment we evolved in.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe so, but today's challenges are much less stressful than trying to out run a leopard.

Depends.

Today we experience less imminent danger, but in many cases our lives are still very difficult. People like you and I might be biased as life comes easily to us, but for many people it can be very hard, and still stressful.

These days in North America the challenges are more about how to be successful in a market economy. Can I write a resume? Do I have anything to put on a resume? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I feed my kids? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I pay my rent? There is a significant proportion of people who find these things a real challenge when there isn't any manufacturing around.

I'd agree that in modern economies we're better off than we were in hunter-gatherer societies, but lack of ability is still a real problem when many of modern life's challenges require complex logic to understand. Logic that we, more or less, didn't need in the environment we evolved in.

I'm still not buying it. How many times a day, in the life of an ordinary North American, do we face imminent death. If anything, our past as a prey animal has over prepared for the corporate world.

All your modern challenges, with the possible exception of writing a resume, are as old as humanity. Whether we corner a bison and run at him with a sharp stick, or fill out job applications and sit for interviews, the goal has always been the same, which is to feed, clothe, and house, ourselves and our children. It's a distinction without a difference. Imagine the mental acuity required to remember everything important, which was critical for survival, without the aid of a written language. Every tree an rock are unique. I have friends who lose their cellphone and don't know their own phone number.

Back in the day, say 100 centuries ago, grown people who lacked abilities did not exist, at least not for long. The fact that it's now a thing is a testament to how much easier life is today.

 

[Jayjay]

The consquence is that societies where people are happy and get everything easily, will inevitably deteriorate, and societies that have much harsher competition between its members may actually thrive, even if they are shitty places to live in. "Happiness" is not something that either biological or cultural evolution selects for.

When agriculture came about, it created a class of people who were basically slave labor. But agricultural societies beat nomanic ones because they could support more people per square kilometer and could organize more effectively to kill their enemies and keep the poor in check.

 

[rousseau]

Depends.

Today we experience less imminent danger, but in many cases our lives are still very difficult. People like you and I might be biased as life comes easily to us, but for many people it can be very hard, and still stressful.

These days in North America the challenges are more about how to be successful in a market economy. Can I write a resume? Do I have anything to put on a resume? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I feed my kids? If someone doesn't hire me, how do I pay my rent? There is a significant proportion of people who find these things a real challenge when there isn't any manufacturing around.

I'd agree that in modern economies we're better off than we were in hunter-gatherer societies, but lack of ability is still a real problem when many of modern life's challenges require complex logic to understand. Logic that we, more or less, didn't need in the environment we evolved in.

I'm still not buying it. How many times a day, in the life of an ordinary North American, do we face imminent death. If anything, our past as a prey animal has over prepared for the corporate world.

All your modern challenges, with the possible exception of writing a resume, are as old as humanity. Whether we corner a bison and run at him with a sharp stick, or fill out job applications and sit for interviews, the goal has always been the same, which is to feed, clothe, and house, ourselves and our children. It's a distinction without a difference. Imagine the mental acuity required to remember everything important, which was critical for survival, without the aid of a written language. Every tree an rock are unique. I have friends who lose their cellphone and don't know their own phone number.

Back in the day, say 100 centuries ago, grown people who lacked abilities did not exist, at least not for long. The fact that it's now a thing is a testament to how much easier life is today.

See bolded.

You're still missing the point that both societies face different sets of challenges, and biologically we're prepared for the former, and not the latter. This doesn't mean life is more dangerous now, but it does mean that in many cases we're not prepared to thrive today.

We're still more successful in terms of reproduction but things like engaging in a democracy, saving money, investing, literacy, math, science.. and on and on are things that we are not well adapted for.

It's not a show-down with pre-historic man, it's just an essential fact that we spent millions of years evolving as hunter-gatherers, and only a few thousand evolving since the agricultural revolution, and so any novel pressures that the agricultural revolution introduced are things we're yet to adapt to biologically.

 

[SimpleDon]

Popular scientific thought tells us that there is a delay in biological evolution. Most people today are hard-wired for life in the Savannah, hunting and gathering, and not a complex, modern world.

So what kind of implications do and will we see in our world due to being mal-adapted to the society we live in?

The hallmark of human development over the last three thousand years of large scale civilization has been the conquering of the animal by human intelligence. I don't understand how anyone would think that this will stop even if evolution of humans is being delayed, which is highly questionable itself.

I would think that if anything, the opposite is true, that human intelligence has accelerated human evolution. The most obvious example is the discovery of fire and of cooking that allowed the consumption of the huge amount of calories need to sustain our large brains.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course, if real.

That's a new one on me.

Hardly. When we were primitive in the cave, smoke from a campfire caused us to cough and choke, so we knew to stay enough away. Yet when people started smoking, they coughed and choked also, but since it supposedly had something extra about it, they kept experimenting with it until they got it so-called right. We are almost continually being warned of something, but practically only the wise realize to take heed way ahead of time.

And just a couple of days ago you said you had no belief in Global Warming.

Right, but I also said that it doesn't mean it isn't true either.

There are beliefs, and then there are crackpot theories...

Simple observation.

Do you understand what they word "intentionally" means, and it's implication when used in the sentence, "Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans"?

Yes, unless you mean it a court of law.

That would mean that humans at some point decided that the world needed to start warming up, and to do that we began emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. If that is your contention, then I want to know what YOU are smoking.

It amounts to cause and effect and denial.

Then allow me to speak in those terms. In order for an effect to be intentional, the cause for that effect must have been set in motion with the specific intention that the effect comes about.

I gave the observation which would occur over the course of thousands of years concerning outright abuse of this planet and its utter denial.

No one knew of the existence of CO2 a thousand years ago. It was first identified by Joseph Black in 1750. Even at that, it was over 100 years later (John Tyndall, 1859) that it was first theorized that CO2 was one of several "greenhouse gasses" that could bring about climate change. So, before the mid-19th century, no one could have possibly done anything to intentionally cause global warning. Would you care to revise your claim, or continue to live in denial?

 

[sharon45]

Of course, if real.

That's a new one on me.

Hardly. When we were primitive in the cave, smoke from a campfire caused us to cough and choke, so we knew to stay enough away. Yet when people started smoking, they coughed and choked also, but since it supposedly had something extra about it, they kept experimenting with it until they got it so-called right. We are almost continually being warned of something, but practically only the wise realize to take heed way ahead of time.

And just a couple of days ago you said you had no belief in Global Warming.

Right, but I also said that it doesn't mean it isn't true either.

There are beliefs, and then there are crackpot theories...

Simple observation.

Do you understand what they word "intentionally" means, and it's implication when used in the sentence, "Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans"?

Yes, unless you mean it a court of law.

That would mean that humans at some point decided that the world needed to start warming up, and to do that we began emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. If that is your contention, then I want to know what YOU are smoking.

It amounts to cause and effect and denial.

Then allow me to speak in those terms. In order for an effect to be intentional, the cause for that effect must have been set in motion with the specific intention that the effect comes about.

Which is what has been happening over the last thousands of years. Grasslands have become deserts, but where are the deserts becoming grasslands unless you want to count golf courses in Palm Springs?

I gave the observation which would occur over the course of thousands of years concerning outright abuse of this planet and its utter denial.

No one knew of the existence of CO2 a thousand years ago.

They didn't have to, they easily felt its effect, but didn't care. Like some that live in much colder areas claim the planet could use some warming up for them.

It was first identified by Joseph Black in 1750. Even at that, it was over 100 years later (John Tyndall, 1859) that it was first theorized that CO2 was one of several "greenhouse gasses" that could bring about climate change.

The heating effect. It is obviously hotter in the sun than surrounded by trees.

So, before the mid-19th century, no one could have possibly done anything to intentionally cause global warning. Would you care to revise your claim, or continue to live in denial?

People have noticed that trees just don't seem to grow back quite as easy as we cut them down, or that pretending to plant thousands of pines after a forest fire, yet mainly have very flammable scrub grow back instead, is not a good idea, but many still live in denial.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course, if real.

That's a new one on me.

Hardly. When we were primitive in the cave, smoke from a campfire caused us to cough and choke, so we knew to stay enough away. Yet when people started smoking, they coughed and choked also, but since it supposedly had something extra about it, they kept experimenting with it until they got it so-called right. We are almost continually being warned of something, but practically only the wise realize to take heed way ahead of time.

And just a couple of days ago you said you had no belief in Global Warming.

Right, but I also said that it doesn't mean it isn't true either.

There are beliefs, and then there are crackpot theories...

Simple observation.

Do you understand what they word "intentionally" means, and it's implication when used in the sentence, "Global Warming has been intentionally caused by humans"?

Yes, unless you mean it a court of law.

That would mean that humans at some point decided that the world needed to start warming up, and to do that we began emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. If that is your contention, then I want to know what YOU are smoking.

It amounts to cause and effect and denial.

Then allow me to speak in those terms. In order for an effect to be intentional, the cause for that effect must have been set in motion with the specific intention that the effect comes about.

Which is what has been happening over the last thousands of years. Grasslands have become deserts, but where are the deserts becoming grasslands unless you want to count golf courses in Palm Springs?

I gave the observation which would occur over the course of thousands of years concerning outright abuse of this planet and its utter denial.

No one knew of the existence of CO2 a thousand years ago.

They didn't have to, they easily felt its effect, but didn't care. Like some that live in much colder areas claim the planet could use some warming up for them.

It was first identified by Joseph Black in 1750. Even at that, it was over 100 years later (John Tyndall, 1859) that it was first theorized that CO2 was one of several "greenhouse gasses" that could bring about climate change.

The heating effect. It is obviously hotter in the sun than surrounded by trees.

So, before the mid-19th century, no one could have possibly done anything to intentionally cause global warning. Would you care to revise your claim, or continue to live in denial?

People have noticed that trees just don't seem to grow back quite as easy as we cut them down, or that pretending to plant thousands of pines after a forest fire, yet mainly have very flammable scrub grow back instead, is not a good idea, but many still live in denial.