Homo Sapiens Sapiens

MrFun · March 22, 2002, 23:15

I was just wondering and thinking about this myself lately.

We know how humans have incredible power to change their environment, and ultimately, their planet. No other animal ever had that kind of power here on Earth, for better or worse.

But, what about our own evolution as Homo Sapiens Sapiens??

Are we still naturally evolving along nature's course, or have we gained so much autonomous power over nature, that we are no longer within the bounds of natural evolution?? In other words, have we created and entered a new course, such as accelerated artificial evolution??

With the progress of genetic research and bio-technology, it's plausible, isn't it?

Perhaps Homo Sapiens Sapiens will evolve into an entirely new descendant species thousands of years earlier than it would have occured in natural evolution. Perhaps Homo Sapiens Sapiens will evolve into a new descendant species that would not have otherwise developed through natural evolution.

Accelerated artificial evolution is something I thought of, unless I coincidentally took a term that has already been used before in similar discussions such as this.

Any ideas, comments, thoughts??

faded glory · March 22, 2002, 23:24

The next step is Cyber-Humans. Half machine ; half man. Incredibly long life span. Organs and body parts replace bye Machine's that act like the persons own body.

Quote:

Are we still naturally evolving along nature's course

Yes and the fact that the survival of the fittest rule is no longer applied today.

General Ludd · March 23, 2002, 00:10

We'll die out soon enough.

ranskaldan · March 23, 2002, 00:17

Human beings, at least those in rich nations (which applies basically to any apolytoner), aren't really subject to natural selection any more.

SlowwHand · March 23, 2002, 01:25

You miss the obvious, amazingly. Homo Homo Sapiens.

Transcend · March 23, 2002, 01:26

Humans have almost reached the "self-evolving" stage. The brain, however, will take us sometime to understand.

Darsnan · March 23, 2002, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Human beings, at least those in rich nations (which applies basically to any apolytoner), aren't really subject to natural selection any more.

As a member of a "rich nation", I have to disgree with the above statement completely. I am reminded every time that I go to the supermarket that evolution, or "survival of the fittest", or "best adapted to their environment", is still at work: where I, as a relatively tall person, can reach the fruits and vegetables even at the tops of the tallest shelves in the supermarket, people who did not receive the same genetic blessing do not have the same opportunity to the diversity of nutrition that is available to me. Also, because of this same trait, females, who are typically shorter than I am, often ask me for assistance in obtaining items on the top shelves, or that are too heavy/ bulky for them to move. This is of course a natural lead-in for romantic discussion, which gives me an advantage, or , dare I say, "Leg Up", in assuring genetic dispersion of my progeny!

Evolution is alive and well, and will continue apace, depending on the environment available to it!

D

SlowwHand · March 23, 2002, 01:33

They put what they want bought at relative eye level.
Nothing to do with fittest.

DinoDoc · March 23, 2002, 02:06

We are merely placeholders for the next stage of evolution: Homo Sapien Superior.

Wonders if anyone will get the obscure reference.

Guynemer · March 23, 2002, 02:08

SMAC!

boo-yah!

DinoDoc · March 23, 2002, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
SMAC!

I wasn't aware that it was in SMAC as well. If you could provide me the quote in which it is mentioned, I would be most appreciative.

The Mad Monk · March 23, 2002, 03:13

Dino, you mean the entire phrase or just the end?

Either way, it sounds like something any number of people may have said in X-Men (the comic book, not the good-but-not-quite-there movie).

DinoDoc · March 23, 2002, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Dino, you mean the entire phrase or just the end?

Just the end. You got the correct answer either way.

MrFun · March 23, 2002, 03:54

I cannot help but consider the possibility that bio-technology and genetic manipulation will allow Homo Sapiens Sapiens to leave behind natural evolution, and move into accelerated artificial evolution.

Dis · March 23, 2002, 03:55

I think we are devolving.

MrFun · March 23, 2002, 04:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I think we are devolving.

elaborate

Dis · March 23, 2002, 04:09

smart people aren't reproducing fast or in many cases not at all.

but ignorant dumb people are reproducing extremely fast.

birth control has screwed natural selection all to hell

end result?

open to intrepretation, but I say de-evolution

MrFun · March 23, 2002, 04:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
smart people aren't reproducing fast or in many cases not at all.

but ignorant dumb people are reproducing extremely fast.

birth control has screwed natural selection all to hell

end result?

open to intrepretation, but I say de-evolution

What!?

Please don't tell me you're an elitist in your philosophical thinking.

The Mad Monk · March 23, 2002, 04:21

"Survival of the fittest" has never meant survival of the smartest, srongest, etc.

It means survival of the grandkids of the best adaption to the situation at hand.

In some (many) cases, it means trading brains, lifespan, and other traits we as individuals would consider as 'fit', for a reproductive system on overdrive. Bivalves, for example. Or roaches. Or rabbits.

Adalbertus · March 23, 2002, 04:23

Its only some part of the evolutionary process we have "disabled". This process is based on two steps:
1) A "randomizing" step which rather arbitrarily combines genes from existing individuals. This process is fully intact.
2) A "selection" process which makes that the fittest have the highest chance to multiply. This is partly intact, partly changed, partly disabled.
3) see 1)

Intact is the part of finding a partner, which is quite the same as with other animals and which is highly selective. Disabled is the part of selection due to physical abilities. The selection through diseases works partly. But in most cases we replaced physical things with brains. This is definitely a selection process. And it goes on: Those who are intelligent nowadays get the better jobs, have to work a lot are taken away from social life and have less chance to have children. And off we go!

So basically I think we follow different rules than in the past but evolution is still in progress, especially if you don't think of it as a purely genetic but also a cultural evolution. The fact that we have a tradition, that we can learn from our forefathers, is what made us so strong a species.

MrFun · March 23, 2002, 04:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Adalbertus
The fact that we have a tradition, that we can learn from our forefathers, is what made us so strong a species.

But all animals learn from their forefathers in a different way thans humans do -- it's called instinct, while humans learn from their forefathers through intelligent thought (usually).

Adalbertus · March 23, 2002, 05:03

Quote:

But all animals learn from their forefathers in a different way thans humans do -- it's called instinct,

This isn't exactly what I would understand as learning in the first place. Instinct is ROM, learning writing to RAM after booting.

(And yes, animals do learn, humans have instinct, but the importance of both is different).

Ethelred · March 23, 2002, 05:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
smart people aren't reproducing fast or in many cases not at all.

but ignorant dumb people are reproducing extremely fast.

There is a classic science-fiction story about that. I have only heard of it though. Unfortunatly I have never had a chance to read it.

The Marching Morons - By Henry Kuttner

Written after he and his wife and often his co-author, C.L. Moore had the misfortune of having a retarded child. I suspect the book is very bitter.

Evolution through natural selection has not yet stopped for humans. We still adapt to the environment. The enviroment isn't very natural anymore but our responce to it is inherent in biology.

Of course this may change in the future. Once people can control their own genes and choose to do so then natural selection will be replaced by genetic engineering and later perhaps by nano-tech.

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Except perhaps for isolated groups that don't have a large enough gene pool to survive long term. Any evolution is towards survival in the environment and if stupidity leads to improved survival than that is evolution in action.

So far though I see dumb people as having a harder time surviving. Having more children won't make up for the increased death rate.

Dis · March 23, 2002, 05:18

but they aren't dying.

our society (western society at least) is set up so nobody dies. Yes some stupid people die in accidents and so forth. But very few of them.

Ethelred · March 23, 2002, 05:31

So how come my parents are dead?

Everyone dies still. Dumb people die sooner.

If you don't think so perhaps this will change your mind.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Evolution in action is what I call it. Here is what they call it.

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of
the human genome by honoring those who accidentally
kill themselves in really stupid ways.

The Mad Monk · March 23, 2002, 06:34

There is no such thing as de-evolution. De-evolution implies that evolution has a specific course that de-evolution is drifting away from. Evolution has no set course; therefore, it is impossible to de-evolve.

The Mad Monk · March 23, 2002, 06:37

Quote:

Dumb people die sooner.

That dosen't matter if they produce more grandkids before they die.

Provost Harrison · March 23, 2002, 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
SMAC!

boo-yah!

Last one to the Ascent to Transcendence is a Miriam

Ethelred · March 23, 2002, 07:12

Big if. And it does matter the grandkids die before they reproduce because they thought sniffing glue was cool. That little item amplifies stupidity.

I once had a conversation with a teenager that had sniffed too much glue. Very sad. He actually knew that he once was smarter. My friends weren't quite stupid enough to find that one out the hard way. Of course some did other things. I was in high school in the late 60's so there was a lot strange stuff going around. Little of it though was as bad or as permanent as glue.

Fortunatly nerds and runners don't usually try that sort of stuff. Runners can't afford the lung damage. Especially with the way smog was in Southern California then. Sometimes it hurt to breathe so why make things worse than the air was allready doing.

Now occasionaly dumb people may manage to reproduce faster than they kill themselves off but if times get hard things change. They are more likely to be drafted and more likely to get dead once drafted.

Fortunatly a lot dumb humans don't actually have bad genes. Bad food and nutrition will do a good job of emulating inherent stupidity. This has actually been tested experimentally.

Of course nothing except drugs and booze can make a smart person stupid enough to get a Darwin award. Well maybe bad luck but only rarely.

Dauphin · March 23, 2002, 09:56

Evolution still shapes us, but I would think more at a socio-economic level than at a physical level. People who can survive modern society and raise a family are the new "elite" with the best adaptation to the environment.

Being tall, fast, strong, fit is not as important in modern days as being able to interact with the society within which you are a part.