Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nataraja · 10-19-2002, 05:17 PM

De-evolution, my ass. I say implant the infertility gene into everyone, so the only way they end up having children is through fertility drugs. The infertility gene could be our savior.

Nataraja · 10-19-2002, 05:19 PM

Who came up with that term, anyway? Evolution with "negative" effects is still evolution.

Albion · 10-19-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

I quite agree, but even though we don't "devolve", we certainly are evolving in a direction of increasing reliance on drugs and technology. Now that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a path that requires great wisdom on our part. This path requires us to face challenges such as dwindling natural resources, pollution, and farther down the road, the very real possibility of thinking machines that just may decide to stop serving us.

Well, what you've described seems to me to be the way a species WOULD evolve that was relying more and more on mental rather than physical strength. Now, if we can just keep those robots in line...

Liquidrage · 10-19-2002, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nataraja:
Who came up with that term, anyway? Evolution with "negative" effects is still evolution.

Obviously someone that believed evolution has a goal.

I would actually think a majority of people would consider the term valid despite it's obvious oxymoron to anyone who's taken some time to learn the basic concepts.

lunachick · 10-19-2002, 07:29 PM

Okay, so de-evolution is an incorrect term. But aside from the semantics, do you think some of us are evolving rather weakly. I appreciate the arguments regarding our not really needing physical strength as much as mental strength, etc, but many are becoming 'dumbed down', and physically unable to support their own life without the aid of technology and drugs. Surely this must have a negative impact on our overall well-being as a species.

Liquidrage · 10-19-2002, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick:
Okay, so de-evolution is an incorrect term. But aside from the semantics, do you think some of us are evolving rather weakly. I appreciate the arguments regarding our not really needing physical strength as much as mental strength, etc, but many are becoming 'dumbed down', and physically unable to support their own life without the aid of technology and drugs. Surely this must have a negative impact on our overall well-being as a species.

I dont think anyone can predict that.
In some ways, it could push us to rely on technology even more. Which could be a good thing.
And we are also at a point where we are beginning to alter genes. It might come to a day where we do breed only the smartest and strongest, only instead of selective breeding it comes from gene altering. Something I would support.

Are we getting "dumber" or "weaker on a whole? I don't think so. I think so much has happened so quickly that we may get a wrap on the whole thing before sufficient time would have passed for those things to occur.

lunachick · 10-19-2002, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:

In some ways, it could push us to rely on technology even more. Which could be a good thing.

Why do you think that could be a good thing?

Quote:

And we are also at a point where we are beginning to alter genes. It might come to a day where we do breed only the smartest and strongest, only instead of selective breeding it comes from gene altering. Something I would support.

I have to admit that I have reservations about genetic engineering. I can't really explain why - perhaps it's my lack of education, I dunno. It just doesn't quite sit right with me, especially with regard to what we eat - perhaps it's the corporate aspect of it. I don't trust big corporations, and there involvement in something as fundamental as food and genetics gives me the willies.

Quote:

Are we getting "dumber" or "weaker on a whole? I don't think so. I think so much has happened so quickly that we may get a wrap on the whole thing before sufficient time would have passed for those things to occur.

Things are definitely happening at an accelerated rate. Perhaps we will become victim to drugs and technology, genetic engineering and the like, rather than enhanced by them? I dunno...

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: lunachick ]

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: lunachick ]

Liquidrage · 10-19-2002, 07:57 PM

It could be a good thing because it could advance in ways that are beneficial to humanity, or even possibly life in general, the universe and everything.

We have plenty of examples of both good and bad uses of technology from our past.

lunachick · 10-19-2002, 08:00 PM

Hmmm. I have to cook dinner now, but I will ponder on this some more.

Thank you for your replies, folks.

lpetrich · 10-19-2002, 08:57 PM

One counterargument is that some sorts of evolution are not taking place very fast, such as adaptation to eating diets heavy in sugars and saturated fats and cholesterol. If we were well-adapted to such diets, we would not be gaining weight and having heart attacks and diabetes as a result.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2002, 05:17 PM	#11
Nataraja Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NC Posts: 433	De-evolution, my ass. I say implant the infertility gene into everyone, so the only way they end up having children is through fertility drugs. The infertility gene could be our savior.

10-19-2002, 05:19 PM	#12
Nataraja Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NC Posts: 433	Who came up with that term, anyway? Evolution with "negative" effects is still evolution.

10-19-2002, 07:29 PM	#15
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	Okay, so de-evolution is an incorrect term. But aside from the semantics, do you think some of us are evolving rather weakly. I appreciate the arguments regarding our not really needing physical strength as much as mental strength, etc, but many are becoming 'dumbed down', and physically unable to support their own life without the aid of technology and drugs. Surely this must have a negative impact on our overall well-being as a species.

10-19-2002, 07:57 PM	#18
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	It could be a good thing because it could advance in ways that are beneficial to humanity, or even possibly life in general, the universe and everything. We have plenty of examples of both good and bad uses of technology from our past.

10-19-2002, 08:00 PM	#19
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	Hmmm. I have to cook dinner now, but I will ponder on this some more. Thank you for your replies, folks.

10-19-2002, 08:57 PM	#20
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	One counterargument is that some sorts of evolution are not taking place very fast, such as adaptation to eating diets heavy in sugars and saturated fats and cholesterol. If we were well-adapted to such diets, we would not be gaining weight and having heart attacks and diabetes as a result.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.