Mankind's Trace would Vanish within 200,000 years

Originally posted by pepsi78

To predict something for that long of a time it's just imposible, there are just too many roads, not all lead to destruction of the species.

Hmmm. I don't think these guys are predicting destruction of the species.

...They're saying that IF civilization was destroyed, THEN all trace of our so-called "advanced civilization" would vanish within 200,000 years.

More like a wake-up call. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Originally posted by Long Lance
a superior trait should dominate and replace the inferior, right?

Right, so what happens is the people who are smarter and stronger (physically and mentally) tend to become leaders within a group of people. Others choose to follow them and even try to be like them because they are more successful. So this trait should replace an undesirable one.

Originally posted by Long Lance
So, let's think this example through, being above one's peers is an indicator of fitness, sooner or later we should all be leaders because the rest were apparently unfit.

I wouldn’t say we would all become leaders, but we would take on the same traits. If we didn’t our civilization would not have grown into what it is. One person or a few cannot build an entire city. In a sense we do all become leaders of our own lives.

Originally posted by Long Lance
PS: if going to war means being unfit, how many will voluntarily enlist ? ? sin't society demanding exactly the opposite of what your interpretation of Darwinsim would recommend? can you see how a society may pulverise into nothingness under this kind of tension?

I didn’t say the ones going to fight were unfit. They are younger and are stronger physically, but the leaders are chosen more for their discipline and mental capacity.

I do see what you are saying though. In a war the deaths are indiscriminant to whether someone is less or more fit. But don’t you think someone who is smarter and knows to keep his head down has a better chance of surviving in a battle?

Originally posted by skywize
a successfull peson to me is someone who does what inspires and make him/her happy. of course, those in power are those who have succeded in that particular field. not everyone wants power over other people.

Well that is your idea of success, but I was referring to people who are in power. They are in power because they were successful in achieving that goal, not that I think they are any better.

what is greater about the US than any other country in the world?

I think we are getting even more off topic, but I think the US has done more to advance the world in many areas of technology and medicine than any other, and up until Bush took over we were a very humane country and took care of our poor better than any other country. I will admit that I am biased though. Everyone thinks their country is the greatest.

Originally posted by Hal9000


I do see what you are saying though. In a war the deaths are indiscriminant to whether someone is less or more fit. But don’t you think someone who is smarter and knows to keep his head down has a better chance of surviving in a battle?

in a hierachical structure like the military, your survival depends on your leaders more than your ability to dodge bullets because if it comes to that you're pretty much screwed anyway.

patriotism demands that the individual surrenders his/her interests for the common good /survival of the whole and eg. fights wars because some higher echeolon said so, this is stupid according to your logic because no matter if you're an excellent survivalist, the best way not to get killed in battle is to simply not go there.

Conflict of interest, it's in MY best interest not to get cought in a war, otoh, it's in somebody else's (whoever gets to profit in one way or the other) these two views are diametrically opposed. why do people enlist? because they do no share your viewpoint. btw. do you think they'd appreciate your viewpoint?

PS: note that leaders tend to survive whether they succeed or not, a concept which does not fit well into the concept of Darwinian Selection.

Long Lance, I think your not getting my point. Let's try a different example other than the war scenario, though I think it still applies. Originally, I said that we are still driven by Darwinian rules, and I meant that we still use it to make choices of leaders and friends, ect. We still would prefer to have a beautiful wife or handsome husband, because they are more appealing, right? Why do you think that is? It is because instinctively we see them as more fit and would make a better mate.

Likewise with leaders, we would prefer to follow someone who is smarter and better looking. There will always be exceptions, I mean how smart is GW Bush? And how did Kim Jong Il become the leader of NK? I think these are exceptions, and they inherited their positions so to speak, but generally we choose our leaders. Also, when I mean we, I am referring to a group of people, which could mean the general population electing a politician, or the board of directors selecting a new CEO to run a company.

Does that help explain my point better? I know I didn't explain very well before, but can you see what I mean now?

BTW, good discussion.

Individual mating choice are but one aspect of life and while you may argue that better looking equals being fitter i think it's not fully relevant.

To prove a theory's validity, you need lots of examples and accurate predictions, to disprove it you need only one verified example. War being the example i chose, if you don't like to adress it, too bad it's still a valid concern, especially the underlying motivations and interests of affected individuals.


To be blunt, does your world around you look as if people were evolving? Just because natural selection is likely responsible for certain patterns of life, there's not reason to apply the priciple to everything, especially human societies. as the adage goes if all you ahve is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

PS: try the following example: either Civilisation conveys a selective advantage or it shouldn't even develop, at least not with regularity. history shows that cultures come and go, however. OR, it was initially advantageous and then degenerated into something which was then 'naturally de-selected' in which case devolution must have happened and all your arguments fly out of the window. what if we are all wrong? doesn't the selection principle apply to all of us, no matter how many we are?

Originally posted by Long Lance
Individual mating choice are but one aspect of life and while you may argue that better looking equals being fitter i think it's not fully relevant.

No, better looking isn’t the only factor. I also said that intelligence is another factor. I used this example as a basis to further my point, so it is relevant.

Originally posted by Long Lance
War being the example i chose, if you don't like to adress it, too bad it's still a valid concern, especially the underlying motivations and interests of affected individuals.

But I did address it, you just don’t agree with what I said.

Originally posted by Long Lance
To be blunt, does your world around you look as if people were evolving?

Actually, yes we are changing. I don’t have time, but do a little research of the average height of the population, and you will find we are getting taller. We are also becoming more obese, but that is because of our higher standard of living and because we eat to much.

Originally posted by Long Lance
PS: try the following example: either Civilisation conveys a selective advantage or it shouldn't even develop, at least not with regularity. history shows that cultures come and go, however. OR, it was initially advantageous and then degenerated into something which was then 'naturally de-selected' in which case devolution must have happened and all your arguments fly out of the window.

I would say that the fall of a civilization could be due to “natural de-selecting” as you put it. If anything, it supports my point.

Originally posted by Long Lance
what if we are all wrong? doesn't the selection principle apply to all of us, no matter how many we are?

I think it works both on an individual level in the choices we make and also on a larger scale as a general population in the leaders we choose.

The reason why I brought this up in the first place was to explain why we humans act the way we do. It wasn’t to prove anything. I responded to a post where the person asked why we as a race still treat each other the way we do. My original point was to explain that no matter how civilized we become, there will always be certain behaviors that are inherent to our nature. The reason why they are there is because these traits are competitive traits that also helped us aspire and create civilizations. Competition does serve a purpose and causes us to work harder and improve ourselves. At the same time though, if we beat our competition, we then look down at those that lost the competition.

I also said that Capitalism, which works on competition, works better for us because it matches human nature better than Socialism. This competition means that businesses are continually improving to reduce cost and gain market share. In Socialism everyone is considered equal, all businesses are owned by the government, and so there is no incentive to improve, and that is why it doesn’t work. Natural selection at work.

The problem that we have now is the corporations have also evolved and are too big and powerful. They now control the politicians so it doesn't matter who we elect anymore. I think this will eventually lead to our downfall as the only superpower, unless we figure out a way to change this. I’m not saying the entire country will collapse, but we are loosing our edge.

["I also said that Capitalism, which works on competition, works better for us because it matches human nature better than Socialism. This competition means that businesses are continually improving to reduce cost and gain market share. In Socialism everyone is considered equal, all businesses are owned by the government, and so there is no incentive to improve, and that is why it doesn’t work. Natural selection at work...HAL9000"]

Really? Considering that man is a communal animal like most of the other primates the exact same argument could be made for both socialism and communism. After all no single ape controls all the resources of any given territory, instead they are utilized by all members of the tribe. And you are wrong about socialism...it is not that ALL businesses are owned by the government, it is the key industries that are...there have been very few states that follow the strict Leninist model and most of them including the Soviet Union adandoned it eventually. There are several strong socialist states that are doing quite good for themselves...Vietnam is one, Sweden is another.

So could somebody tell me what all of this has to do with all traces of mankind erased after 200,000 years?

[edit on 22-10-2006 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Really? Considering that man is a communal animal like most of the other primates the exact same argument could be made for both socialism and communism. After all no single ape controls all the resources of any given territory, instead they are utilized by all members of the tribe.

Yes the general population is communal, but there are those that do become leaders much like a silverback is leading the group of apes. Even apes have a social structure with a hierarchy, so they are all not equal which is the same as with humans. We tend to put each other in classes, as much as we would like to think we are above that.

And you are wrong about socialism...it is not that ALL businesses are owned by the government, it is the key industries that are...there have been very few states that follow the strict Leninist model and most of them including the Soviet Union adandoned it eventually. There are several strong socialist states that are doing quite good for themselves...Vietnam is one, Sweden is another.

Would you say that there are more advances under a socialist society? No, I think you will find under capitalism with more competition, more advancements are made to improve our standard of living. I think this is better and should continue until everyone has a decent standard of living, even the poor. Maybe in the future, we can adapt to this type of social structure after everyone’s needs are met.

So could somebody tell me what all of this has to do with all traces of mankind erased after 200,000 years?

I agree this is off topic and I was just responding to questions, so after responding to you’re off topic post, I will now stay on topic.

Well it depends on the socialist society...Sweden's standard of living is one of the highest on Earth. How such a society fares largely depends on the forces lined up against it and the resources that it has to begin with.