Where is evolution taking us?

[Kharakov]

I read a sci-fi short story quite a while ago that addressed this question. In this story human intelligence had progressively declined to the point that most of the human race were basically idiots only capable of menial tasks, eating, and reproducing. The small percentage of humans still mentally astute worked at producing and distributing food and maintaining the cities to provide food and shelter for the rest. I took the story as a comment that we have reached the point that natural selection no longer weeds out the stupid, weak, and infirm.

Yes and no. *IF* the current situation continues for long enough this would happen. (Think H. G. Wells, The Time Machine.) However, it won't happen. Our current tech level is not sustainable, either we advance to one that is or we collapse. If we advance I can't imagine it not also including the tech to modify genetics--we won't be relying on chance for genetics anymore. If we don't advance we collapse and the morons can no longer survive.

You're all morons. Watch  Idiocracy by Hulk Hogan.

Anyway, before I started searching for a thread to read and picked this one out of the choices, I started to listen to "For Whom The Bell Tolls" by Metallica. Coincidence Keith?

 

[Musing Man]

Watch  Idiocracy by Hulk Hogan.

What Hulk Hogan, my man? Idiocracy is by Mike Judge. Unless you were ironic in a sense that eludes me...
The opening sequence of the movie is epic, illustrating perfectly why stupid will rule the Earth (what's left of it anyway - but it will have electrolytes).

 

[West]

I can't believe anyone would even ask the question where is evolution taking us.

Evolution is taking us absolutely nowhere. Our level of intelligence and technology has reached a point that we decide where evolution takes us, if anywhere. Roles have been reversed.

It is very obvious that the key mechanism of evolution, ie, natural selection, does not apply to humans any longer. In other words, any human living in the western world can easily obtain adequate supplies of food and water and reproduce their kind.

We are not animals.

Mutation will continue but the absence of natural selection in a population of billions will mean it has no effect.

 

[bilby]

I can't believe anyone would even ask the question where is evolution taking us.

Evolution is taking us absolutely nowhere. Our level of intelligence and technology has reached a point that we decide where evolution takes us, if anywhere. Roles have been reversed.

It is very obvious that the key mechanism of evolution, ie, natural selection, does not apply to humans any longer. In other words, any human living in the western world can easily obtain adequate supplies of food and water and reproduce their kind.

We are not animals.

Mutation will continue but the absence of natural selection in a population of billions will mean it has no effect.

We are animals; and we are also part of the environment in which other humans evolve.

In order for evolution to stop, each of us would need to have the exact same probability of reproduction, regardless of our genetic makeup.

Even discounting, as outliers, the obvious genetic influences on reproductive success that lead to a higher chance of illness, deformity or death before the end of our reproductive lives, there are plenty of selection pressures for evolution to work on; something as simple as gentlemen preferring blondes would be more than enough to ensure that evolutionary change will continue.

Natural selection includes unconscious selection by humans. Even if it did not, conscious and deliberate selection will drive evolution just as effectively. Just because selection CAN be natural does not mean that it MUST be.

Evolution works fine on mutation plus selection, whether or not those processes are natural.

The entire distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' is, in itself, rather artificial.

Artificial mutagens can accelerate evolution; and so can artificial selection - just ask a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. Why would the choices of humans with regards to dogs make such an impact, but our choices with regard to other humans make none?

 

[West]

I can't believe anyone would even ask the question where is evolution taking us.

Evolution is taking us absolutely nowhere. Our level of intelligence and technology has reached a point that we decide where evolution takes us, if anywhere. Roles have been reversed.

It is very obvious that the key mechanism of evolution, ie, natural selection, does not apply to humans any longer. In other words, any human living in the western world can easily obtain adequate supplies of food and water and reproduce their kind.

We are not animals.

Mutation will continue but the absence of natural selection in a population of billions will mean it has no effect.

We are animals; and we are part of the environment in which other humans evolve.

In order for evolution to stop, each of us would need to have the exact same probability of reproduction, regardless of our genetic makeup.

Even discounting as outliers the obvious genetic influences on reproductive success that lead to a higher chance of illness, deformity or death before the end of our reproductive lives, there are plenty of selection pressures for evolution to work on; something as simple as gentlemen preferring blondes would be more than enough to ensure that evolutionary change will continue.

None of this will have any effect in the western world where survival rates have been close to equalised for entire populations made up of billions of people.

 

[bilby]

We are animals; and we are part of the environment in which other humans evolve.

In order for evolution to stop, each of us would need to have the exact same probability of reproduction, regardless of our genetic makeup.

Even discounting as outliers the obvious genetic influences on reproductive success that lead to a higher chance of illness, deformity or death before the end of our reproductive lives, there are plenty of selection pressures for evolution to work on; something as simple as gentlemen preferring blondes would be more than enough to ensure that evolutionary change will continue.

None of this will have any effect in the western world where survival rates have been close to equalised for entire populations made up of billions of people.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

 

[West]

None of this will have any effect in the western world where survival rates have been close to equalised for entire populations made up of billions of people.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

 

[bilby]

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

For the most part, they are choosing not to.

Women in the developed world average less than 2 children each. Those that have children (and their chosen mates) contribute to our descendants' gene pool; the rest do not.

That is all that evolution has ever required. Why do you think it is no longer sufficient?

 

[West]

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

For the most part, they are choosing not to.

Women in the developed world average less than 2 children each. Those that have children (and their chosen mates) contribute to our descendants' gene pool; the rest do not.

That is all that evolution has ever required. Why do you think it is no longer sufficient?

Well in that case you have just agreed with me, that evolution is taking us nowhere, humans are deciding for themselves where evolution goes.

Also you have shown me no evidence that large sections of the population in the western world are not contributing to the gene pool.

And even if we are having fewer children, you have shown me no evidence of any type of selection at work that is going to have an effect on a population of billions.

 

[bilby]

For the most part, they are choosing not to.

Women in the developed world average less than 2 children each. Those that have children (and their chosen mates) contribute to our descendants' gene pool; the rest do not.

That is all that evolution has ever required. Why do you think it is no longer sufficient?

Well in that case you have just agreed with me, that evolution is taking us nowhere, humans are deciding for themselves where evolution goes.

No, I really haven't.

Also you have shown me no evidence that large sections of the population in the western world are not contributing to the gene pool.

Birthrates are below replacement level, and have been falling for some time. The details are on google.

And even if we are having fewer children, you have shown me no evidence of any type of selection at work that is going to have an effect on a population of billions.

Evolution has been going on for thousands of millions of years. If you want to claim that it has stopped, then the burden is on you to support your extraordinary claim.

While there are differences in rates of reproduction that are driven by genetic factors, there is evolution. It is trivial to identify at least several such differences that exist in the developed world today; so your hypothesis is exploded.

 

[repoman]

I read a sci-fi short story quite a while ago that addressed this question. In this story human intelligence had progressively declined to the point that most of the human race were basically idiots only capable of menial tasks, eating, and reproducing. The small percentage of humans still mentally astute worked at producing and distributing food and maintaining the cities to provide food and shelter for the rest. I took the story as a comment that we have reached the point that natural selection no longer weeds out the stupid, weak, and infirm.

Yes and no. *IF* the current situation continues for long enough this would happen. (Think H. G. Wells, The Time Machine.) However, it won't happen. Our current tech level is not sustainable, either we advance to one that is or we collapse. If we advance I can't imagine it not also including the tech to modify genetics--we won't be relying on chance for genetics anymore. If we don't advance we collapse and the morons can no longer survive.

My thinking is that the morons will have a hard time, but so will the neurotic over-thinkers.

In a fight situation in a post-collapse future trying to reason with a more vicious, impulsive person could be deadly.

 

[ryan]

I am too lazy to look it up, but whatever the top, say, 5 ways people die before they procreate is is probably going to be what combination of genes will become less and less. And the combinations that generally are able to procreate will continue to increase the variety in the gene pool of all humans. But this assumes that things stay similar to the way they are now for a very long time.

This question is particularly hard in the case of humans because we live in so many different kinds of environments and habitats and have so many different kinds of behaviors. Furthermore, our various behaviors are not only different from culture to culture, but they seem to change every few decades; new cultures emerge and old cultures vanish.

 

[West]

Well in that case you have just agreed with me, that evolution is taking us nowhere, humans are deciding for themselves where evolution goes.

No, I really haven't.

Also you have shown me no evidence that large sections of the population in the western world are not contributing to the gene pool.

Birthrates are below replacement level, and have been falling for some time. The details are on google.

And even if we are having fewer children, you have shown me no evidence of any type of selection at work that is going to have an effect on a population of billions.

Evolution has been going on for thousands of millions of years. If you want to claim that it has stopped, then the burden is on you to support your extraordinary claim.

While there are differences in rates of reproduction that are driven by genetic factors, there is evolution. It is trivial to identify at least several such differences that exist in the developed world today; so your hypothesis is exploded.

You clearly don't have a clue about evolution.

People choosing to have fewer children has got absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

Your argument is so bad there is nothing in it for me to even refute, it's just obliterated.

And then there was the nonsense about gentlemen prefer blondes. LOL.

Evolution is ongoing and as I have already said, we can take evolution where we want, it is not taking us anywhere.

Your argument is so bad I'm not even going to bother to reply any more.

 

[Togo]

We're selecting for social skills, primary mental skills, long concentration spans and large buttocks. The people with no children are the homeless and destitute and the socially awkward (unless they're also very bright).

 

[bilby]

No, I really haven't.

Also you have shown me no evidence that large sections of the population in the western world are not contributing to the gene pool.

Birthrates are below replacement level, and have been falling for some time. The details are on google.

And even if we are having fewer children, you have shown me no evidence of any type of selection at work that is going to have an effect on a population of billions.

Evolution has been going on for thousands of millions of years. If you want to claim that it has stopped, then the burden is on you to support your extraordinary claim.

While there are differences in rates of reproduction that are driven by genetic factors, there is evolution. It is trivial to identify at least several such differences that exist in the developed world today; so your hypothesis is exploded.

You clearly don't have a clue about evolution.

Then I really did waste all that time studying Molecular Biology. I had suspected as much.

People choosing to have fewer children has got absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

Well that rather depends how you define 'natural', 'selection' and 'choosing'. But as you haven't defined any of those words, it is hard to say.

Your argument is so bad there is nothing in it for me to even refute, it's just obliterated.

An irrefutable argument is not the worst thing I have ever been accused of presenting.

And then there was the nonsense about gentlemen prefer blondes. LOL.

Sexual selection is no joke; ask any peacock.

Evolution is ongoing and as I have already said, we can take evolution where we want, it is not taking us anywhere.

Really? Most people are not even in control of their own destiny, but you think humanity as a whole is in charge of its long term genetic future?

Your argument is so bad I'm not even going to bother to reply any more.

I cannot begin to say how unhappy that makes me.

 

[George S]

People choosing to have fewer children has got absolutely nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

Evolution is ongoing and as I have already said, we can take evolution where we want, it is not taking us anywhere.

Let us suppose that "we can take evolution where we want." People wanting and thus choosing for themselves their heritage. For example, choosing to have fewer children. Wanting to have no children is not artificial selection in any way. There is only selection.

We're selecting for social skills, primary mental skills, long concentration spans and large buttocks. The people with no children are the homeless and destitute and the socially awkward (unless they're also very bright).

Natural selection is the only kind of selection there is. All that natural adds is that there is no supernatural selection.

Evolution in the small is readily understood. Animals breed true. Whatever erases some but not all selects.

Any small simple system may be understood. Every large interacting system has complex emergent patterns that become impossible to understand (or even model with math) in all details. Generalities and probabilities become the rule.

Evolution in the large is about inter-species interactions as much as environmental. Life is natural, not supernatural, and all selection (extinction) is natural. From Dodo bird to Passenger Pigeon to Bison to breeds of horses and dogs. To bacteria (some we promote with probiotics and some kill with antibiotics) to mold to fungus (some we grow, like mushrooms), to yeast (food or infection) to viruses like small pox and polio.

Feedback selection happens in other species too. Lions are programmed to take over another lion's pride by combat. He then kills all the cubs. The females seem to be content with "Let's you and him fight and the winner gets sex and I get powerful sons like the winner (to defend our territory) and good hunters like my sisters and me."

 

[PyramidHead]

I could conceive of sexual selection exerting changes in highly provincial areas, but they would need to be isolated from other populations for a very long time. That's becoming less and less possible as the planet effectively "shrinks."

What about the idea that racial differences will eventually smooth out into a homogenous tan? I think that would require many, if not most people to put aside the ancient preference for racial similarity in choosing a mate. But it doesn't seem totally impossible.

 

[Shake]

I think that humanity will merge with technology at some point in the future (if technology doesn't take over).

This is precisely what people like Ray Kurzweil are thinking. Having been following technological advances for some time now, I feel like there's a good chance that he's right. Since his book, The Singularity is Near, came out in 2006 technology has continued its pace of acceleration by leaps and bounds as he predicted. The only snarl I can see with his predictions is that we've since found out that the brain is far more complex than we thought. This may slow down his timeline a bit, but there's no reason to believe it's a show-stopper. I think we may well create the next step in our evolution. Global climate change may also force some changes in our path. That remains to be seen.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'd say that survival plays a role in evolution, but bilby is correct: evolution is about reproduction.

And shit ... I've lost my train of thought wherein I was going to piggyback on what bilby said. Ah well, he's probably got a better response anyway. If I think of it, I may post it.

 

[West]

This is precisely what people like Ray Kurzweil are thinking. Having been following technological advances for some time now, I feel like there's a good chance that he's right. Since his book, The Singularity is Near, came out in 2006 technology has continued its pace of acceleration by leaps and bounds as he predicted. The only snarl I can see with his predictions is that we've since found out that the brain is far more complex than we thought. This may slow down his timeline a bit, but there's no reason to believe it's a show-stopper. I think we may well create the next step in our evolution. Global climate change may also force some changes in our path. That remains to be seen.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'd say that survival plays a role in evolution, but bilby is correct: evolution is about reproduction.

And shit ... I've lost my train of thought wherein I was going to piggyback on what bilby said. Ah well, he's probably got a better response anyway. If I think of it, I may post it.

So you haven't heard of the term "survival of the fittest" then.

I mean, how difficult do you think reproduction is? Let me assure you that if you put a male and female animal in a room together they will very quickly copulate and you would soon have hundreds of thousands of offspring and their descendants (think rabbits, mice, etc.).

The only thing preventing these animals from reproducing is natural selection and predation.

The definiton of evolution is as follows-

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974). The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).

Natural selection deals with allele frequency changes brought about by differences in ecology among heritable phenotypes; evolution includes this as well as random effects and the origin of these variants (Endler 1992: 221).

As for Bilby having any better of a response, no chance.

 

[Kharakov]

My thinking is that the morons will have a hard time, but so will the neurotic over-thinkers.

FIFY: My thinking is that the morons will have a hard time.