Calling Darwinists Everywhere!

[Tone]

Today, the prospect of paradise-engineering still sounds weird, Brave New Worldish - and perhaps "unnatural". Yet the metabolic pathways underlying heavenly states of consciousness are neither more nor less "natural" than any other patterns of matter and energy elsewhere in space-time. Knowledge of these (hitherto) genetically maladaptive forms of mental life has mostly been impossible to emotional primitives like us. This is because of the pressure of natural selection. Cruelly, any genetic blueprint for naturally "angelic" minds [if evolved blindly via the mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variations] entails crossing dips in the evolutionary fitness-landscape. Such jumps are forbidden for reasons of neo-Darwinian theory. So truly beautiful minds never evolved; brutish Darwinian lifeforms were selected instead.

- David Pearce http://www.paradise-engineering.com/heaven.htm

[Subjugation]

Just about everything you do is a link somewhere, or you're quoting someone else. Too bad you don't have a personality of your own.

Perhaps when the nanobot implants take over, they can implant you with a personality so you can at least fake having social skills.

[Liquid Blue]

Maybe if I'm lucky I'll get the charming social skills and insight that tone has, he's a genius of our time.

[Pressure Drop]

natural selection does apply to humans, just very very little.

They're still a wealth of diseases out there that affect a persons ability to pass on their genes. It was nature that came up with that flawed DNA sequence and so in a way it still does exist. However the main pressures that force evolutionary change have been greatly relieved by our technologies so its very hard to see that a shift would happen in a benefical mutation in our populations genetics in one direction or another. However it could very well be that a thing like Bird flu hits bad and only those with a certain mutation will be able to surive so you can't rule out it ever happening by saying it doesn't apply to us.

We are a sociable creature by nature, in fact i'm pretty sure we display the most sociable charateristics off any animal. This means that we have an inbuilt need to help strangers in trouble. If you were walking down the street and there was only one other person there and they faint, you have a natural urge to go over and help. So off course we are going to have hospitals etc... Also disabled ppl can still offer alot to society you only have to look as far as one name "Stephen Hawking".

There is also a case in Africa where sickle cell aneamia offers protection from malaria and in a region rife with malaria the % off the population with these genes is very high compared to anywhere else. So where would you drae the line?



There is no real answer, are we geneticaly weakening our species ... perhaps. But would "artifical breeding" off a super race not also be nieve? When we do that with dogs and livestock it left them rife with genetic diseases, although our understanding of genetics is alot better nowadays it is still not complete as i posted my short lived epigenetics thread. Also something we lable as a disease like my sickle cell aneamia example may turn out to have unknown benifits and we could be weakinging ourselves by removing its gene from our population.

[Lucon]

While ceasing these things MIGHT improve the genepool somewhat, even though poverty is mostly based on environmental factors from the time of birth, there would still be uprisings, so it wouldn't be a viable idea anyway.

[Superted]

This reminds me of a crazy thread I made years ago; 'Bring back the Dinosaurs!'

[ZeUs!!]

Natural selection/survival of the fittest does not apply to Humans.

Natural selection/survival of the fittest does not apply to Humans any longer

[Kolar]

Natural selection/survival of the fittest does not apply to Humans any longer

Yeah that's what I was trying to say, it does not apply to modern man.

Even so if it did all of this would be in conflict with our moralistic frame work so anything like survival of the fittest in this day and age would be compared to what the Nazis did, they got mixed up by this idea... We are not effecting our gentics at that level Pressure Drop, maybe by producing medicine to protect against a sickness that would introduce new material into our population but I think eventually if science caused the problem we will always have the ability to fix it and the effect of any medicine would out weight any kind of genetic component.

Overall because being entirely physically fit to live and allow your genetic material to live on is not nessaray in this world, empathize is put on other things like social skills, physical appearence and knowledge to prosper thus the idea is invalid when applied to humans.

[K2Grey]

Look again at what jesus terrorist said and note that the biological definition of fitness is not the same as the popular culture one.

As long as different people have different numbers of offspring, there will always be people who are more 'fit' than others. Fitness has nothing to do with being incredibly intelligent or productive, it just has to do with reproduction. As such, natural selection has always had and still has effect on humans.

[AFPilot]

Natural selection/survival of the fittest does not apply to Humans.

You're completely wrong

I can think of three cases.

We have black people and white people. Having dark skin protects a woman's fetus from being killed by the sun. But having dark skin lowers the amount of vitamin D produced, which is important.

They have shown that the amount of genetic variation in an average population of humans, and the actual danger of being not of optimal skin color for your environment, means that if you took everybody from finland and moved them to the equator, in about 20,000 years they would have dark skin, and vice versa.

Another case is that Eskimos don't have cholesterol problems like most humans. This is because they almost nothing but Marine mammals which are extremely high in cholesterol and natural selection has made quick work of those who can't handle it.

Also, Blacks have higher incidences of sickle cell anemia which lowers oxygen efficiency, but provides protection against malaria. Africa has the largest exposure to malaria. This trait, which obviously would normally be selected against, is selected for when everybody else is dying of malaria.

Also to the original poster: you don't quite understand what evolution is about. We are not the final product of evolution, it does not exist to create something smart and what you think is physically fit. Humans are evolutionarily inferior to many things like cockroaches, who have resistance to radiation, and can mate for several days after their head has been cut off.

Also, thinking along these lines is what leads to things like Naziism. They were obsessed with this stuff. And modern-day Nazis still are. You can listen to Varg rant on about how women being in the workplace and not raising babies is making the population dumber as the smart women are working more. True or not, this is common discussion amongst Nazis.

[Kolar]

You're completely wrong

I can think of three cases.

We have black people and white people. Having dark skin protects a woman's fetus from being killed by the sun. But having dark skin lowers the amount of vitamin D produced, which is important.

They have shown that the amount of genetic variation in an average population of humans, and the actual danger of being not of optimal skin color for your environment, means that if you took everybody from finland and moved them to the equator, in about 20,000 years they would have dark skin, and vice versa.

Another case is that Eskimos don't have cholesterol problems like most humans. This is because they almost nothing but Marine mammals which are extremely high in cholesterol and natural selection has made quick work of those who can't handle it.

Also, Blacks have higher incidences of sickle cell anemia which lowers oxygen efficiency, but provides protection against malaria. Africa has the largest exposure to malaria. This trait, which obviously would normally be selected against, is selected for when everybody else is dying of malaria.

Also to the original poster: you don't quite understand what evolution is about. We are not the final product of evolution, it does not exist to create something smart and what you think is physically fit. Humans are evolutionarily inferior to many things like cockroaches, who have resistance to radiation, and can mate for several days after their head has been cut off.

Also, thinking along these lines is what leads to things like Naziism. They were obsessed with this stuff. And modern-day Nazis still are. You can listen to Varg rant on about how women being in the workplace and not raising babies is making the population dumber as the smart women are working more. True or not, this is common discussion amongst Nazis.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest is different from adapting to your enviroment. We are animals, no doubt about that but within 30,000 years no evolutionary changes have taken place in humans, and in a small amount of time our a majority of our civilization has changed to not rely on such things like hunting or relying on mating through winning competitions.

If the definition of survival of the fittest is: organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce. then I would propose that our enviroment now does not have hold over us as it once did. We abuse and control our world like no one ever has (excpet for the freaky space aliens or so Tone tells us). With changing nessities of this life and of our own eivroment I would say it does not apply, we are not in compeition with other creatures nor is anything tradionally stated as survival of the fittest apply to our current situation being that this is a knowledge economy, not a physical one, the social network allows for almost anyone to survive because we do take care of the sick and the poor because we have a a sense of ethics.
We're above the system as any 9th grade phy class text book will tell you but we are still at the will of evolution.

[K2Grey]

Evolution is not based so much on surviving as in reproducing. Someone who is homeless may be able to survive better in these days than in the past, but his chances of reproducing a child that in turn survives to reproduce, etc. is still going to be less than that of others.

[Tone]

Compassion is one of the major things that make humans, human.

Just about everything you do is a link somewhere, or you're quoting someone else. Too bad you don't have a personality of your own.

Perhaps when the nanobot implants take over, they can implant you with a personality so you can at least fake having social skills.

the mammalian brain evolved long after the reptilian brain and is responsible for higher emotions that mammals have and reptilians do not. the original purpose is parenting, mother child bond. The reptilian brain is still very dominant in humans and needs to be contented with an adaquate supply of dopaminergic transmission in the final pleasure pathways so that it does not flood the consciousness with negative feedback mechanisms to cause apthetic and brutal behavior and mindstates. after that an adaquate supply of specific serotongenic transmission is needed. the right serotonin receptors being active will cause increased empathy whereas the wrong ones will simply increase anxiety and dysphoria. This will cause mental super health by today's standards and change individuals which will in turn change society. Jesus=Terrorist and others will no longer be insecure assholes.

- Tone

[Lucon]

the mammalian brain evolved long after the reptilian brain and is responsible for higher emotions that mammals have and reptilians do not. the original purpose is parenting, mother child bond. The reptilian brain is still very dominant in humans and needs to be contented with an adaquate supply of dopaminergic transmission in the final pleasure pathways so that it does not flood the consciousness with negative feedback mechanisms to cause apthetic and brutal behavior and mindstates. after that an adaquate supply of specific serotongenic transmission is needed. the right serotonin receptors being active will cause increased empathy whereas the wrong ones will simply increase anxiety and dysphoria. This will cause mental super health by today's standards and change individuals which will in turn change society.

Oh.

[Sarien]

the mammalian brain evolved long after the reptilian brain and is responsible for higher emotions that mammals have and reptilians do not.

When's the last time you had a good conversation with a reptile in order to determine what emotions they have, shithead.

This will cause mental super health by today's standards and change individuals which will in turn change society. Jesus=Terrorist and others will no longer be insecure assholes.

Better believe when this super health-o reformation gets here that you blather on about, not only will people fight it, they'll fight it with violence, me included. I like being an insecure asshole just fine.

I'm wondering why my last entire post was largely ignored. It's a shame. There is natural selection for humans, it's just that it is behavioral selection for us now. We've got our opposable thumbs and big brains. It's a different kind of selection than growing longer fangs or gills. That doesn't mean it isn't present. Think 500 years ago the amount a person had to learn in school and from parents in order to be considered "functional" members of society. Now compare that today. In each generation geniuses and innovators become harder and harder to find, because the previous generations advancements and innovations become folded into the every day, the mundane. Behavioral selection. Whee.