De-Evolution?

[quantumsoul]

I'd hardly call it de-evolving. Humans are merely evolving to be more dependent on our own technology, eventually to the point we can't survive with out it. It's our new environment and we're adapting accordingly.

 

[DRes82]

Just wanted to point out that this isn't necessarily the case. Your math was a little off in the original post (your children only have a 1 in 4 chance of getting PKU).

As for the OT: As many people have said there is no such thing as de-evolution and evolution does not always move into larger more complex organisms. That being said, our ingenuity is allowing us to alter our environment in such ways that evolution will produce different adaptions then what you would normally consider.

You'll have to forgive me, its been years since I studied punnett squares and all that. I think that what I'm getting as a consensus here, is that humanity will cease to evolve but continue to adapt. That to me seems strange. Instead of nature determining how we will turn out, we have become nature.

We now shape our evolution with our technology. We can't de-evolve, because we won't allow it. But we don't move forward naturally. So we pretty much determine how we turn out from here. So how do we shape our evolution? Do we become completely resistant to all diseases? Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Just wanted to point out that this isn't necessarily the case. Your math was a little off in the original post (your children only have a 1 in 4 chance of getting PKU).

As for the OT: As many people have said there is no such thing as de-evolution and evolution does not always move into larger more complex organisms. That being said, our ingenuity is allowing us to alter our environment in such ways that evolution will produce different adaptions then what you would normally consider.

You'll have to forgive me, its been years since I studied punnett squares and all that. I think that what I'm getting as a consensus here, is that humanity will cease to evolve but continue to adapt. That to me seems strange. Instead of nature determining how we will turn out, we have become nature.

We now shape our evolution with our technology. We can't de-evolve, because we won't allow it. But we don't move forward naturally. So we pretty much determine how we turn out from here. So how do we shape our evolution? Do we become completely resistant to all diseases? Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

Oh no, we're still evolving. It's just that the environment we're adapting to isn't entirely natural; your example of PKU being a treatable disease is a perfect example of that. Since it's treatable, it's not really a maladaptive trait anymore, so those who have it can carry on. There's other examples too, though -- for example, women are starting to express a preference for less-hairy men than their ancestors did -- something that men did in regards to women a century or two back. If the trend keeps up, expect to see a lot of men with lighter body hair three or four generations from now.

Edit: The whole body hair thing wasn't a perfect example, because men are just as capable of getting a bikini wax as women are. The thing is, some of us are hairier than others. For example, me; I'm so hairy that any attempts at fully depilating me would be met with new growth a day or two later. If I had to be completely free of body hair in order to mate, my genes would not be passed on to the next generation.

 

[crudus]

Eh, I'd argue that evolution does "need" to be helpful.

Depends on your definition of "helpful". It really is just what the environment dictates needs to stay. If suddenly people with arms die off (a lot) more rapidly than people without arms, then we will slowly evolve without arms. I wouldn't call that "helpful".

This is just one example of us beating natural selection.

No, that is an example of removing an element of a hostile environment. Imagine a different scenario. Let's suppose there jaguars attacked a village regularly and that there was a gene that allowed a human to kill a jaguar 90% more often(as opposed to dying horribly). Naturally people with that gene would prosper. Now, lets supposed that people either moved or built a fence. The people without that gene would prosper again, but so would the people with the gene. This is effectively the situation you described. It isn't "circumventing natural selection"; it is still adapting to the environment(depending on how you want to define your terms, of course). We are just doing it with medical means.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Can't de-evolve, blah blah. It's all been said several times before. I'll just add my own bit to the pot.

While certain traits certainly seems 'harmful', so long as they help the carrier be successful (i.e. live to pass on their genes) then they are useful. Due to increasingly easier lifestyle in first world nations, thanks to technology, those who may not have made it millennium ago are surviving and passing on their genes. While this may seem like it 'weakens' the gene pool over all by keeping 'weaker' genes, it may actually be an advantage. Will we have as a robust body in the future if this trend continues? Nope. Will we need to? Also nope. Which could prove to be actually useful.

Take for instance the different species of eyeless fish that live in underground bodies of water. Now in most cases we'd consider lack of sight to be a major drawback for these species. Thing is, in the environment they live in, lack of eyes is an advantage over fish with eyes. Why? First off because they don't need it. Wouldn't that put them on an even level with eye-d fish then? Nope, because the fish with eyes have to put extra energy into growing and maintaining those delicate organs which are also more prone to infection then regular skin. Which means that the eyeless fish aren't wasting any energy nor risking infection on useless organs.

Now apply this idea to humans. Why have a body that can run 5 miles when you can drive 60 in less time? Why have a body that can fight off diseases when you can simply cure them once you get them? Why have a body that can fight to get food when you can simply buy all you need or want at the local grocery store? Why have a body that can survive the elements when you can simply move into a climate-controlled building? Growing and maintaining a body that can do so much is actually a drawback when you don't need to. Sure it turns us into a species specialized with a very particular environment, but the same can go for many species. Mind you, specialization can usually lead to fragility in how well the species does due to it needing a very specific environment to survive at all. But unlike other species, we have the mental capacity to figure out ways to overcome our bodies' weaknesses. It was through technology that humans spread across the face of the Earth to all sorts of environments and while it caused us to be reliant up technology to prosper so much, we still have our mental capacities that would help us should our technology suddenly fail us. And yes, we do have our mental capacities, even many of those we might consider stupid. Because think about how much more people have to understand in today's first world society compared to only a couple centuries ago? Is it a case of the 'stupid' slipping below the bar or the bar simply being raised over their head?

Not to mention, while technology may affect our development as a species in first world nations, there are still plenty of areas elsewhere which would not be much affected. There are still people out there who make their living with the hoe or the bow. These people surely won't be 'crippled' by the advances of technology.

Anyway, that's what I feel like adding. I wouldn't be surprised if someone proved me wrong, but for now, I'll stand by what I said.

 

[Nimcha]

Well, I think we're talking about weakening the human race as an animal. Not as the society we are, but as a mere beast. Think of it this way. Throw DRes82 on a desert island for a year without his medicine or the aid of a doctor (I'm assuming based on the description of his genetic defect that he requires medicine on a regular basis). How long will he last? You don't count that as weakening the human animal? I'm actually quite happy that he's alive (we might not be having this discussion otherwise if nothing else) but I think the question that he was posing and that I was arguing is that we are making ourselves weaker as a species without taking modern medicine or treatment into account. Modern medicine is less human evolution and more human adaption to our environment.

Which is exactly what evolution is.

And keep in mind that natural selection isn't the only kind of selection pressure in evolution.

 

[McMullen]

Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

All those things are expected causes or results of a concept called the Singularity. Basically, the idea is once we create artificial intelligence, we will then learn how to augment our own intelligence. Once we do that, our augmented intelligence can figure out even better ways to improve our intelligence, and so on and so on. Along the way, we'll be able to, as Mr. Coulton says, engineer away the things that make us weak and strange. Evolution will, for us, cease to be a biological function and will become a technological one, and will become far more rapid as a result, possibly becoming an exponential progression of whatever we consider to be improvements at the time.

Of course, hollywood writers and journalists on the Escapist will probably do their best to scare people away from this. So, even if it becomes possible it might not happen for the same reason that people used to refuse to use MRI machines; their original name was NMRI machines, where the N stood for "nuclear". And we all know that anything with the word nuclear associated with it will either vaporize you or make you grow extra arms, right?

Considering the hostility of the universe towards life, and how temporary and delicate any habitable place is in the grand scheme of things, it is likely that the singularity will be necessary if human civilization is going to persist for more than a couple thousand more years.

 

[NightHawk21]

Just wanted to point out that this isn't necessarily the case. Your math was a little off in the original post (your children only have a 1 in 4 chance of getting PKU).

As for the OT: As many people have said there is no such thing as de-evolution and evolution does not always move into larger more complex organisms. That being said, our ingenuity is allowing us to alter our environment in such ways that evolution will produce different adaptions then what you would normally consider.

You'll have to forgive me, its been years since I studied punnett squares and all that. I think that what I'm getting as a consensus here, is that humanity will cease to evolve but continue to adapt. That to me seems strange. Instead of nature determining how we will turn out, we have become nature.

We now shape our evolution with our technology. We can't de-evolve, because we won't allow it. But we don't move forward naturally. So we pretty much determine how we turn out from here. So how do we shape our evolution? Do we become completely resistant to all diseases? Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

Oh no, we're still evolving. It's just that the environment we're adapting to isn't entirely natural; your example of PKU being a treatable disease is a perfect example of that. Since it's treatable, it's not really a maladaptive trait anymore, so those who have it can carry on. There's other examples too, though -- for example, women are starting to express a preference for less-hairy men than their ancestors did -- something that men did in regards to women a century or two back. If the trend keeps up, expect to see a lot of men with lighter body hair three or four generations from now.

Edit: The whole body hair thing wasn't a perfect example, because men are just as capable of getting a bikini wax as women are. The thing is, some of us are hairier than others. For example, me; I'm so hairy that any attempts at fully depilating me would be met with new growth a day or two later. If I had to be completely free of body hair in order to mate, my genes would not be passed on to the next generation.

Pretty much was this person said.

Do we become completely resistant to all diseases? Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

Resistance to all disease is almost impossible because microbes also have the ability to adapt. In fact diseases are stronger then ever now because they are becoming more and more resistant to standard antibiotic treatments. Tailor defects (on a genetic level) is probably already possible, but the process is morally questionable to some people. Integrating with machines is another possibility and I personally think it will happen, but probably not very soon. As for immortality, well lets just say science is working its ass off on this one.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Evolution is not an 'onward march' sort of affair. I can appreciate that it's difficult not to get mired in teleology, though. Language doesn't seem to be especially well-equipped to talk about it in a truly objective sense.

De-evolution does not exist. Hell, the fact that even our most sickly specimens can live long enough to reproduce could be taken to imply that we have evolved [memetically, I guess] to be able to adapt to natural selection. The selection-pressure of natural selection has led to the evolution of traits that allow us to disregard it, in a way.
I may just be spouting all kinds of nonsense, of course.

On a more moral level.. I mean, we're conscious of the process, which means we can [and arguably should] do our best to work against it. It's what makes us different, it's what makes us worthwhile, it's why Stephen Hawking is still writing books.

 

[Aizsaule]

This can be solved by penalizing the spreading of bad genes such as OP's, sounds like a dick move but in the long term its for the best.

 

[Nouw]

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

are we de-evolving? no, as stated above rather gratuitously, no.

Are we becoming a dumber, more technologically reliant species? yes!

is this a good thing, god no, so many idiots runnin rampant that should be dead from natural causes but we keep em alive for What? to act as a further drain on our available resources and clog up out social systems with whiny needy people slowing down progress and advancement at every level.


I don't think we can solve that though...

 

[Esotera]

We now shape our evolution with our technology. We can't de-evolve, because we won't allow it. But we don't move forward naturally. So we pretty much determine how we turn out from here. So how do we shape our evolution? Do we become completely resistant to all diseases? Do we tailor out any and all defects? Do we integrate with machines? Do we become immortal?

We can't de-evolve because evolution doesn't have a direction...just clarifying. As for your point I'd say that in the next 50 years or so we'll probably develop treatments for a lot of diseases that are a lot more effective than our current drugs, but won't really find anything to fix the actual genetic cause. Healthcare will be a lot more holistic, telling us to eat well & exercise.

Then maybe after that period we'll start genofixing embryos, to get rid of undesirable traits. There's too much of a hangup about it now because of the relatively recent holocaust; playing God is inevitably going to cause some controversy, and also we don't quite have the technology. But to be honest I would have preferred to have been born without mental health issues; nearly everyone with a physical health issue probably wouldn't have wanted it that way, and genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis.

Evolution will continue, as our species will continue to change over time...but the result will be very different due to many more people surviving to reproduce than would have otherwise.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

Ah, the idea that evolution necessarily means positive progress...

 

[Agow95]

natural selection still applies, because the people with defects affecting life-span and physical appearance are still unlikely to live to the age where they reproduce or attract someone to have children with, but it is less relevant, what I like the idea of is that a few thousand years down the line,we, Homo sapiens sapiens, will have evolved, in Africa they may evolve to deal with heat and disease common to their area, in Europe I believe it will be less drastic/more slow, but it is an eventuality nonetheless.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

No, we're becoming measurably taller and more intelligent. Unless intelligence eventually leads to some species wide madness, I'd say we're making progress.

As for the interference of modern medicine. Well, in a few years we'll be able to create a human with no genetic defects. One day, it might be considered criminally negligent to allow a child to be born with crippling conditions. There does exist an opportunity of abuse here though, as the rich would obviously have access to the best genes.

The only real worrying development is of bacteria becoming increasingly resistant to anti-biotics, but that's not a fault of human evolution.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Evolution isn't a process that occurs purely on a biological/genetic basis. Whilst 'survival of the fittest' may not apply to humanity as rigorously as it once did, there's certainly a technological and cultural component to evolution that's taken precedence in the last couple of centuries.

Although looking at cultural change, it seems occasionally you could argue the case for devolution, yes.