Do you feel that changes in your generation, are taking you back to being a monkey, or forward?

[Shemjaza]

At what speed does it operate? And what do you think I claimed?

Because you are describing evolutionary change as if it operates on the scale of decades or centuries.

When did I make this claim? Europeans peaked genetically around 1800 and have been slow decline since. The vast majority of the recent decline has been cultural, not genetic. But the genetic decline will continue for another century and by then the majority will be genetic. This has happened before for declining civilizations.

That's a bizarre assertion given the scale of improvements socially and technologically since the barbarism of the 1800s.

This is part of the problem - no natural selection.

So why change?

If there isn't a significant biological pressure there isn't a justification for a biological change.

And is there was some kind of force of genetic decay, then there would be a pressure.

I agree. The issue is that genetic decline is much harder to reverse than culture decline, so genetic decline should be avoided at all costs. And it is happening now without any resistance.

That's an assertion, but I fail to see a justification for believing it is real.

This is a silly argument. I am not comparing human variation to animals. My point is that what you may consider to be small variations in genetics can have a big impact on human intelligence and can make the difference between a successful society and a failed society.

But you'd have to demonstrate a justification for it's existence and why on Earth it would be increasing.

I won't support my assertions because the measurable signs of decay always lag behind behavioral decay which liberals ignore. For example the increased divorce rate. You will say it doesn't matter and I will tell you to read enough original source material to get a feel for what rising and declining cultures look like. For a great introduction to this topic, read the Old Testament.

The rise in divorce is solely due to the reduction in social and legal consequences for divorce.

Personally, I feel it's one of the signs of social improvement. I believe that long term stable and happy relationships is a better option than relationships breaking down... but relationships breaking down is a vast improvement on people being trapped in unhealthy and destructive relationships.

If you are going to use the Old Testament as a blue print for healthy societies, can you be specific? My concern is that the societies depicted there all seem to suffer from being civilisations of their time, and so full of nightmarish behaviors like slavery, genocide and execution by torture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is an assertion without an argument, so there is nothing to respond to.

It's the truth: social and societal changes are not biological evolution. Evolution, specifically the type that Gottservant thinks he is talking about, only affects genetics in populations. Not societal trends and beliefs.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]
In addition I also dispute your core premise that the modern world is in general more stupid and immoral. Despite the many problems we still have, in many places crime, violence and ignorance have gone down.

Perhaps that is a sign, that the most 'evolved', are the most "amenable"? Socially speaking?

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps that is a sign, that the most 'evolved', are the most "amenable"? Socially speaking?

If there was a genetic trait that made you more cooperative it would probably be an advantageous trait... but it would probably also leave the population more vulnerable to selfish individuals.

 

[Gottservant]

If there was a genetic trait that made you more cooperative it would probably be an advantageous trait... but it would probably also leave the population more vulnerable to selfish individuals.

You say "cooperative", I say "amenable".

How do we decide as a species, which is going to survive (cooperative, or amenable)?

I think the amenable reserve the right to participate in their own way, the cooperative expect a particular outcome - true?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Hi there,

So this is something we can easily and lightly discuss, right?

If the evidence was in a cocoon, you could tell, right? So what is it, now that the changes were in you already, as you say (it not being about individual, but the species)? Or has Evolution hit us dead on, in terms of selection pressures, leaving us nowhere to evolve further?

You see that this is really a simple question, of how luck you believe we were? I am not asking, how likely a particular Evolution would be, just how far in what direction have we travelled? The current species, you say is irrelevant to the individual?

Go really slow. Are we trending quickly back to being a monkey or fish? Or are we trending slowly to something different? However slightly? What would be necessary to simple keep the position we've got - to tread water, as they say - ?

I hope you have some answers!

You know, sometimes I wonder if we haven't surpassed evolution with our technology. I mean genetic disorders that used to kill now can be somewhat managed. Have we maybe evolved past evolution? I would love to hear an expert weigh in.

 

[Gottservant]

You know, sometimes I wonder if we haven't surpassed evolution with our technology. I mean genetic disorders that used to kill now can be somewhat managed. Have we maybe evolved past evolution? I would love to hear an expert weigh in.

Sure, if we have developed a response to the selection pressures that were there - but now there are none - then Evolution is a moot point.

We don't say Creation is a moot point, because we are always looking for ways to reinvigorate the word, in our hearts and minds (for example).

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Sure, if we have developed a response to the selection pressures that were there - but now there are none - then Evolution is a moot point.

We don't say Creation is a moot point, because we are always looking for ways to reinvigorate the word, in our hearts and minds (for example).

I wouldn't say there are none but they are greatly reduced I think. Here's a thought. Let's say we one day make it to other habitable planets. I bet evolution will be even more rapid because of the different environments such as lower or heavier gravity, radiation, less or more oxygen, etc., After a few thousand years new species of humans will evolve. I read a lot of science fiction and that's a common theme, especially for humans that live on the moon or in the asteroid belt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You know, sometimes I wonder if we haven't surpassed evolution with our technology. I mean genetic disorders that used to kill now can be somewhat managed. Have we maybe evolved past evolution? I would love to hear an expert weigh in.

It's impossible to surpass evolution, unless we start radically changing the human genome at a whim and we certainly haven't reached that point in science yet.

 

[Shemjaza]

You know, sometimes I wonder if we haven't surpassed evolution with our technology. I mean genetic disorders that used to kill now can be somewhat managed. Have we maybe evolved past evolution? I would love to hear an expert weigh in.

We haven't surpassed it, just radically changed the pressures and environment that we are adapting to.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

It's impossible to surpass evolution, unless we start radically changing the human genome at a whim and we certainly haven't reached that point in science yet.

Thank you Warden.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

We haven't surpassed it, just radically changed the pressures and environment that we are adapting to.

Thank you Shemjaza.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Our personal reference time frame is far to short to make any such judgement.