It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science and technology. Side effects include: de-evolution!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Have we reached an evolutionary climax? In the animal kingdom, things are, for the most part, about life or death; about survival. With the human race, our motivations in life have steered more towards or other things; like money, fame, etc. Not to mention with our advances in science and technology, our advanced physical evolutionary states are becoming less useful every day. Will the things we don't use have the same fate as our ancestor's tails did? Back in the day people had to be physically able to do things like hunt and gather; if you weren't physically able, you died. This left only the strongest to survive and procreate. Today you can be the weakest person in the world, even be handicapped, and still survive for a long time.

Our immune systems don't have much need to evolve because of medicine and surgery. There was a time when if the human race was plagued by a virus or disease, all the people whose immune systems couldn't fight it would die off, leaving the people with stronger immune systems alive to procreate and pass on those genes. Today we attack the viruses and diseases by artificial means. Sure it helps those of us alive today, but in the grand scheme of things, is all we're doing is weakening future generations? Is our advanced state of science and technology going to lead to a de-evolution of the human race?

[edit on 29/11/06 by an3rkist]




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Funny I was thinking about this (almost) exact same thing last night. Let's assume that evolution is a fact. (Debate in this forum if you wish) I don't think you could say that evolution was working to our advantage if we're spending a huge portion of our resources to nurture and care for the most sick and weak. If you think about it that way then helping anyone with a disease is a step backward because we're ensuring the survival of the weakest. Perhaps we've reached the climax of human civilazation.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Yeah, I think evolution has pretty much stopped in humans.

Actually the more successful people tend to have fewer children than the more successful people. The U.S. is pretty much just at replacement level fertility and most of the other developed countries are below replacement level, while third world nations' populations are mushrooming.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I'm sad to admit it but science and technology have dumbed down and de-evolved the human species. IT removes natural selection, which would have prevented the stupid ones from procreating. Case in point. Dumb a j walker gets hit by a car. Back in the day when his ancestors were walking the sarangeti(sp) and they walked directly in the path of a charging rhino. they got killed, science wasn't there to treat the wounds. It was a good thing actually, the dumb ones get knocked off.

No there is no natural selection keeping the species fit. Science isn't really to blame nor technology, they only make things easier for us, but we don't take the time to learn how things work (to learn about the science), and without that peopel don't think and thats where we get into trouble.

I argue people who refuse to think or learn aren't really human since thats our one outstanding trait. besides who can sympathise for someone who is too lazy to even concider their own safety. Not a machanism that perpetuates the species.

Humans need to learn that it's not just the laws of man that need to be reasonably headed, but the laws of physics, which must be undertood and respected.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Human de-evolution is thanks to things we call "mercy". We're too afraid to allow the weak to perish. This won't be our demise, rather it will merely lull our progression.

I will explain.


It is true that we do not have any means of natural selection anymore.
Weather, disease, combat, nourishment... all of these have artificial replacements or artificial repairs. The weaker side of our race is not forsaken, rather, intense attempts to keep them alive are made.

Technology is not the cause, rather, it's the tool of which we hold back our own evolution.

Technology however, is also the tool of our next evolutionary step.
With advancements in DNA, and augmentations. Anything that we leave out in our evolution will be taken over by these augmentations.
At some point, these augmentations won't be used to repair or replace what we are missing, rather they will become the starting point of our lives.

Eventually, with enough augmentation going on over the years, our bodies will evolve to the point where they will be ready to accept these augmentations at birth.

We will cease to be human at one point, many versions of our race will be out there, for many purposes.

Desease itself will eventually be a redundant thing, as the predicted path of augmentations will involve an automated system to weed foreign objects out of your body directly from your bloodstream.
Nano technology will take care of the rest, including physical damage to be mended.

Essentially, at some point, the DNA we are born with will play no other role other than forming the fetus within the womb, technology will take over from there and direct the body to grow and function as we tell it to.

It's a scary thought, most of you will probably say, "I would never allow MY kids to... blah blah blah."
Every generation of parent has said that about some form of technological influence on their children... and if they actually didnt allow their kids to be affected by it, then we wouldnt be in this damned evolutionary stall now would we?

Technology was the tool we got into this with, now that we're in it, we will have to go all the way, or face extinction. We are to become that which we have created.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Evolution, if true, can never be called de-evolution, as it continues to adapt to the enviroment. However, now that our enviroment is 'evolving' faster than evolution can it seems that evolution has now been usurped. We are now designing our enviroment to be more ergonomical, so we are actually using technology to adapt the enviroment to our current level of evolution. Evolution will reach a standstill rather than causing a devolution.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Yes, I would agree that evolution through natural selection is probably nearing an end.

I think maybe part of the reason things appear to have slowed down a bit lately is that we are still coming to terms with the fact that the next stage of our evolution may involve a more 'hands on' approach on our part, and not one based on survival of the fittest.

While I would like to hope that it would be a shift of consciousness, or social epiphany, i'm betting on technology/science being the driving force.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by glastonaut]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Evolution will never stop, we will simply speed it up through different technologies. When we alter our DNA, genes or anything else will still evolve us but we simply have control of the direction we want to evolve in.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by Lecter]



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I think it's interesting how many people think it would be in the best interest of the human race to let the weaker, and weaker-minded, die off. I can see a presidential address in the not-too-near future: "For the good of the human race and to ensure its longevity, we're making some changes: If you get sick, you will not be helped. If you want food, you better get it yourself. If you have an accident and need surgery to survive, you will not receive it. If you are deemed stupid, you will not be allowed to procreate."

I think it's interesting to note that we are not only weakening our immune systems by using treatments, but we are also strengthening the things that our immune sytems are trying to protect us from. The more people use drugs, the better chance that the virus or whatever that the drug is trying to fight will end up evolving into a stronger virus that not even the drug can fight. So the issue is twofold: The same process that is weakening the human race is simultaneously strengthening it's enemies. Wow, this is getting more and more interesting. We are weakening ourselves and helping our enemies to evolve. Oh, here's a link to a quote about how bacteria built up a resistance to Penicillin:

mednews.wustl.edu...


"Penicillin, one of the first antibiotics created, killed many of the bacteria that existed during the last century," says Mellinger. "But over time, bacteria have built up resistance to penicillin. Now, it is really only prescribed for streptococcus, the organism that causes strep throat, and a few other select infections."




[edit on 29/11/06 by an3rkist]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut
Yes, I would agree that evolution through natural selection is probably nearing an end.

I disagree, and I believe the consensus among biologists supports my view.

In this post on another thread, I try to explain why human evolution hasn't stopped, and won't stop until we become extinct.

Mind you, that could happen next week.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by glastonaut
Yes, I would agree that evolution through natural selection is probably nearing an end.

I disagree, and I believe the consensus among biologists supports my view.

In this post on another thread, I try to explain why human evolution hasn't stopped, and won't stop until we become extinct.


Nice page! Good 'real-life' examples in your third paragraph that show natural selection as it may appear today. However, I disagree with one of your core premises on that page


Originally posted by Astyanax
I think these points should suffice to show that differential selective pressure (the force that drives evolution) has not been removed from the human equation -- and therefore, neither has evolution.


Evolution is not driven solely by this process, when the technology becomes available to undermine the natural selection process it very quickly becomes an irrelevance. My argument is that evolution will continue, but with this process as an exponentially decreasing contributing factor. Your point is valid from a biologists point of view but it doesn't tell the whole story.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
i think physical evolution in humans will hault unless there is a drastic change in environment such as heat and uv changes or something of the sort, i think evolution for humans now lay on the mental plane our brains are the only thing we have not conquered, we only use 10 percent of it and as civilization speeds up and our way of life, it will require faster, keener thinking, as the school curriculums become more advanced and challenging each generation becomes smarter and us more complex. higher brain fuctions could come active. We in our careers and way of life constantly are having more strain and stresses placed on us as civilization reaches for more, and better, we get less time for sleep so as example, our brains may evlove to require less sleep. Another theory i like to entertain is that slight changes in human anatomy might occurr as result of demand. for example lets say more women are increasingly drawn to other females sexually rather than males or more females prefer men with no body hair, nature may make it so that more men are born with feminine features resembling women and less body hair, or darker skin etc...



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Before I start, is it possible for a sentient being to evolve when it uses it's mind to adapt itself to it's environment?


Originally posted by prestige8
i think evolution for humans now lay on the mental plane our brains are the only thing we have not conquered, we only use 10 percent of it and as civilization speeds up and our way of life, it will require faster, keener thinking, as the school curriculums become more advanced and challenging each generation becomes smarter and us more complex.


I don't agree that the general population are getting smarter, I just think that some people who are standing on the shoulders of giants appear to be more intelligent than anyone's ever seen. Knowledge is becoming less important for the mass population, 200 years ago people would know how everything in their houses worked, now you'd be hard pushed to find someone able to explain everything in their homes.

Now, if you were in charge of the world and your aim is to stay in charge would you want:

a) A highly intelligent populace capable of doing most things for themselves.
b) A populace of stupid people who need help to do almost everything.

A less intelligent populace may have the appearance of devolving, whereas they may be evolving into the creatures that the 'leaders' want: mindless consumers.


Originally posted by an3rkist
"For the good of the human race and to ensure its longevity, we're making some changes: If you get sick, you will not be helped. If you want food, you better get it yourself. If you have an accident and need surgery to survive, you will not receive it. If you are deemed stupid, you will not be allowed to procreate."


I don't see any President or Prime Minister saying this unless they don't want to lead anymore.
If you get sick - the leaders want to sell you drugs.
If you get hungry - the leaders want to sell you rubbish food, which will probably make you sick, meaning you buy more drugs.
If you are stupid - your exactly what the leaders want.

Evolution??? Devolution???
We need a revolution...

Edit: My soapbox has been put back under the bed and I promise I won't bring it out again for a while.

[edit on 30/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I've posted about this in a vew threads. I used to be an evolutionary bio guy....

What we've taken away (to a large extent) is natural selection. How - modern medicine.

People that would have been killed off thru childhood diseases or other ills in later life are now allowed to breed. That is the major problem - people with problems are passing them on down the line - causing a never ending spiral of more and more people needing medical care to just stay alive.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I agree with the poster who wrote about humans evolving into specialized sub species, and that evolution never stops but always keep adapting.

I think that humans will fall into 4-6 catagories in about 1000 years maybe even less.

Humans who evolved naturaly over centuries to their new environments. Ie.. space faring humans with little to no gravity in their ships might have their legs evolve to be shorter and the feet could turn into an extra pair of hands. No need for feet since you are effectivly hovering, but extra prehensile hands would be a great help. Some might get better night vision cause their plant colony lives on a dark world. Some might get stalky short and seriously buff due to high gravity planets.

Humans who are genetically enhanced

A combination of naturally evolved humans with genetic enhancements.

Humans that have chosen to cyberize parts of their body.

ANd humans who have chosen to do all of the above.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I still think its the persons fault who is crossing the street 90 percent of the time who gets hit by a car. We have 5 senses in which to observe our environment and make decisions to protect our lives. How can you miss the car if you aren't really looking? You forfit your own health when you take chances like indulging in our legal rights and forgetting about the laws of nature and physics which are the only real laws. like look both ways dummies...literally. We need to use our other senses besides our sense of entitlement.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut
My argument is that evolution will continue, but with this process as an exponentially decreasing contributing factor.


That is TERRIBLE waste of evolution. Do you understand how very little small this contribution factor decomes? You are like driving a car,wanting to get ahead as fast as possible, but still pushing the break all the time!

Why do we keep thinking that exponentially decreasing contribution factor is good enough? It might be something, but it's definitely nothing compared to another future scenario where this contribution factor grows - perhaps EVEN EXPONENTIALLY!

Please, my friend, think about what I said.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Ganesh Baba]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I agree with both Astyanax AND the OP. Evolution in the classical sense is over. There is indeed no need to pass on genes solely for survival alone. However, there IS a need to pass on genes for people in specific locales. For instance someone in the mountains in Canada needs different physical characteristics as someone in the African Sahara. This isn't an over-arching "survival of the fittest" but more a "survival of the environment." We will continue to evolve to whatever the environment around us becomes (whether by natural causes or our own advances/mistakes).

There is one thing that can throw a wrench in those gears however ... a "melting pot" country like our very own USA. There is documented evidence that there are more multi-racial/ethnic babies being born today in the US than ever before. There are more multi-racial/ethnic couples. What happens when genes from these people start combining and others are tossed away? Will only the genes that have an effect with regards to the current enviornment in the US (weather, altitude, technological advances, etc.) be passed on? Or will simply the more dominant genes survive? Will there ever be a point when the vast majority of people in the US (or the planet for that matter) will be the same ... a mix of a thousand different races and ethnicities?

And this is all assuming there is no DNA or nano-tinkery (hrm I like that word) in our future with regards to gene selection. All I can say is that I believe evolution will continue but it will be because of scientific tinkering or as a response to our environment, not because of survival of the species.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
There's evolution of your real body which is your soul and there's evolution of your third dimensional body.
The human race had DNA which according to alien communication and channeling was munipulated by certain Reptilian controlling groups from 12 strands to only 2 strands. And people wonder why we only use about 10% of our brains.
Our knowledge through technology has increased way beyond what should have happened naturally. This happened because the government traded alien abductions for advanced technology with the aliens. Now, technology seemed to hinder many peoples "natural growth of consciousness"(evolution of the soul).

People are also too occupied in doing things to actually pursue the answers to questions for themselves. Many don't even think much about the real meaningful questions for us as a race. The questions that pop up in their busy brains are usually just questions for their little worlds. If people would finally find their little lives as irrelevant to the contribution to life in general and focus on the human race as a whole, humans mindset would evolve much faster. Power, greed, racism, wars, religious mind control, and problems in general would be significantly reduced!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
That 10% of our brains statement is a total myth. Please visit this site which is designed for 'children' faculty.washington.edu..., it explains it all.

We have reached a standstill in evolution, mainly because of tech and medicine. While the effects of technology on our genes may not be all that bad, the effects of medicine certainly are. There was a point in history, where humans and viruses were in an ongoing battle of evolution each one struggling to out survive the other. Now that battle has shifted between virus's and medicine. Our immune systems no long have to evolve, medicine does it for us. Only problem is, we have to create medicine, our immune systems were designed to do it automatically. Keeping up with virus evolution is proving to be a real issue for scientists and doctors.

Instead of technology making life easier, it seems to be making it quite harder. With all this extra thinking required, I can however see our brains evolving more in the future for speed and multitasking.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by Toasty]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join