Humans can't evolve.

[OutlawV]

Our next step in evolution will propably be the better use of abundant energy many of us have on our weist. I vote for more brain power

The brain evolving even more would be the worst thing possible for humanity. read a book called the Andromeda strain. Its talks of how inefficent the brain is and how greedy for the bodys energy it is. It makes a reference to humanity possibly becoming exctinct as ours brains become so engery hungry we can no longer support them with limited reasources in the future.

Who says that we will have limited resources in the future?

Well we are running out of oil pretty fast.....

Boy am I glad I had my brain converted to run on porn steam.

 

[beddo]

Since the current escapist fad is on gender and species I think this is fitting.

Humans can' evolve, we have too many people with too many random genes able to breed. Even when inferior humans would die off, medical science saves them so they can breed and spread their stupid throughout humanity.

The only way Humanity will evolve to be stronger, faster, smarter etc is to force the World's best and brightest to breed in an enclosed environment for several generations until we have a race of better people that can spread their favourable genes through out the gene pool. We already know that this will work because we have thousands of years of practice on dogs so all we need is public approval which won't happen, why won't the public approval?

The public won't approve because ethics and morals are geting in the way of progress; progress which could be easily made if we stop letting people breed with who ever they want rather than who is best for humanity.

I post this knowing full well that I will be flamed/banned but just know that when you whine your loss of faith in humanity, it is because you don't support forced breeding.

I think your point is contrived and poorly made. Your idea of 'controlled' evolution of the "best and brightest" results in a glaring oxymoron. To what end should they evolve? If the answer is to become better and more intelligent then at what point should they come out to breed with everyone else? At any point when they come out, according to your own ideas the population will stagnate at that level of evolution.

You have way too many assumptions about Natural selection, evolution, human understanding, human capabilities and our grasp of technology and science.

Firstly, we don't understand evolution. Why don't know why it happens, we're not even sure how it happens. As I'm sure you are aware we believe it's a consequence of natural selection. If a species cannot survive a certain environment then many member will die out. Those who adjust will survive and result in a species that is more able to withstand the dangers of its environment.

As we don't understand evolution how would we know which people should breed? You assume that being strong and smart are the way forward. What if in several generations time they come out and there has been a major change in the environment, such as extreme weather changes or a world wide influenza that they cannot cope with? The whole process will have been pointless.

Natural selection is far from a perfect process. It takes a phenomenally long time for these changes to occur. On top of all that there are so many external factors that can effect an environment in unexpected ways; meteor collisions, volcanoes, earthquakes which complex life cannot evolve for.


All this is a bit academic. Our technological, scientific and medical advances have raised us above the seemingly arbitrary natural selection and evolution. We have learnt to respond to environmental changes not through genetics but through technology. Not only can we deal with rapid changes we are learning how to actually control our environment.

Where there were once dangerous predators there are now entire cities with almost no wild life. We keep dangerous animal in captivity for entertainment and study. Many animals struggle to find water, we are able to transport it to where we want it. We don't have to hunt for food any more, we simply breed animal to kill, it's much more efficient.



It's completely ignorant to assume that forced breeding would be good for 'humanity'. Forced breeding would make us inhuman, both morally and ethically. I lose faith in humanity when people seek power over each other using violence or threats.

I lose faith in humanity when I hear about the horrific acts people do to one another. Murder and rape in society. Mass murder and horrific sexual abuse within war zones. Using white-phosphorous on civilians, shelling cities with children in. What you propose would just be another case of inhumane treatment of people for some misguided and arbitrary 'greater good' or 'advancement'.

 

[FuckYouDad]

I believe in eugenics, of a very special kind.

If you base your ideal world on high school biology fueled by the rage you feel whenever you see a pick-up truck, just throw yourself off a cliff.

 

[Uncompetative]

Stephen Hawking.

Ok. I'll explain, because you're all thick...

Hyperevolution has supplanted evolution with the onset of language, oral tradition and the development of writing.

Memes not Genes.

Case in point: if the OP's hypothetical Huxley-esque world held sway an amniocentesis of Mrs Hawking may have lead to an abortion, or a social segregation of Stephen due to his ALS. Yet, it is because we live in a just society that doesn't immediately give up on the disabled that we can be surprised to find that some are merely physically disabled and can generate memes (replicatable ideas) that lead to progress.

How many great thinkers have been deaf, blind, schizophrenic, manic-depressive.

I invite the rest of this forum to suggest some names...

They aren't doing anything for evolution until they make babies, until then they're just intelligent irregularities.

Others have correctly established that humanity's evolution is less dramatic than when we were all out chasing Mammoths. It hasn't stopped, it is just that the mutations in the gene pool find that there are far less environmental niches in which they are ill-suited (and die out), or are better adapted than a rival (and become dominant). You could advance an argument that there are a lot of tall Black men in the National Basketball Association, but it isn't evolution until sons of Basketball stars start shooting hoops. Therefore, it is reasonable to ignore evolution and instead recognize the importance of hyperevolution: the communication and natural selection of ideas rather than physical traits.

The earth isn't flat, nor is it at the centre of the Universe. Yet people held these ideas in their heads until new ideas supplanted them. This is how progress is being made. Philosophy. Science. Invention. Culture. Politics. These are all just a bunch of competing Memes, evolving our society so fast (and not necessarily in a 'good' direction, remember evolution is adaptive not progressive) that it deserves to be called:

Hyperevolution.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

The only way Humanity will evolve to be stronger, faster, smarter etc is to force the World's best and brightest to breed in an enclosed environment for several generations until we have a race of better people that can spread their favourable genes through out the gene pool.

You are making a huge error here. Desired traits have nothing to do with evolution. Faster, stronger, and smarter won't amount to shit if you're not out there spreading your seed like a bunny rabbit.

Any trait that increases the chances of one's genetics to carry on is a superior genetic trait, period. Using Superman as a template for genetics is arbitrary and irrelevant.

 

[OutlawV]

Stephen Hawking.

Ok. I'll explain, because you're all thick...

Hyperevolution has supplanted evolution with the onset of language, oral tradition and the development of writing.

Memes not Genes.

Case in point: if the OP's hypothetical Huxley-esque world held sway an amniocentesis of Mrs Hawking may have lead to an abortion, or a social segregation of Stephen due to his ALS. Yet, it is because we live in a just society that doesn't immediately give up on the disabled that we can be surprised to find that some are merely physically disabled and can generate memes (replicatable ideas) that lead to progress.

How many great thinkers have been deaf, blind, schizophrenic, manic-depressive.

I invite the rest of this forum to suggest some names...

They aren't doing anything for evolution until they make babies, until then they're just intelligent irregularities.

Others have correctly established that humanity's evolution is less dramatic than when we were all out chasing Mammoths. It hasn't stopped, it is just that the mutations in the gene pool find that there are far less environmental niches in which they are ill-suited (and die out), or are better adapted than a rival (and become dominant). You could advance an argument that there are a lot of tall Black men in the National Basketball Association, but it isn't evolution until sons of Basketball stars start shooting hoops. Therefore, it is reasonable to ignore evolution and instead recognize the importance of hyperevolution: the communication and natural selection of ideas rather than physical traits.

The earth isn't flat, nor is it at the centre of the Universe. Yet people held these ideas in their heads until new ideas supplanted them. This is how progress is being made. Philosophy. Science. Invention. Culture. Politics. These are all just a bunch of competing Memes, evolving our society so fast (and not necessarily in a 'good' direction, remember evolution is adaptive not progressive) that it deserves to be called:

Hyperevolution.

Ah ha! I see what you mean now. While we aren't evolving physically, we are in the realm of ideas. Still, our physical brains can only go so far. We shall see if we are overrun by our own creations in the end =)

 

[IndieRocker]

Look up "Idiocracy" a nice movie with a good explanation of what "Human Evolution" has become. If your too lazy I'll provide the description:

Thanks to science and such things as welfare even dumbest of the dumb can survive, and since they are dumb they reproduce like rabbits (more than 3 kids) without thinking of the impact a child will have on their life. Smart ones on the other hand limit their reproduction to a number that hey can support (1-3 on average). => Population of smart people will decrease with time and population of stupid will grow.

If your using this theory in 200 years earth will be rules by dumb, attractive (attractive because for obvious reasons ugly people arn't going to have as many children)humans

 

[Lukeje]

Why are we still talking about natural selection?

'Cos most people aren't aware that the theory of evolution has developed since Darwin originally formulated it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The earth isn't flat, nor is it at the centre of the Universe. Yet people held these ideas in their heads until new ideas supplanted them. This is how progress is being made. Philosophy. Science. Invention. Culture. Politics. These are all just a bunch of competing Memes, evolving our society so fast (and not necessarily in a 'good' direction, remember evolution is adaptive not progressive) that it deserves to be called:

Hyperevolution.

No, people just learn things. Evolution is a specific event that concerns the altering of a species. "Memes" is an unproven hypothesis which concerns itself with some concept of collective thoughts leading to fads. Yeah, fashions happen, and you get millions of people buying High School Musical DVDs even though it's crap. But that is hardly evolution and those fads never last more than a year or two.

Anyone remember Rubix cubes? Or those little rubber squids people used to wet then throw at walls and watch them crawl down? Or the Ninja Turtles? If "memes" are a relevant and real phenomena they are an afterthought of humanity. Todays cheap plastic and tomorrows garbage.

Why are we still talking about natural selection?

'Cos most people aren't aware that the theory of evolution has developed since Darwin originally formulated it.

At last! Evolution isn't natural selection, and natural selection has not been proven yet.

 

[Xelt]

I think, jumans can't evolve, due to the fact, if theres something we can't do, we attempt to build something which would enable ius to do it, therefore, removing the need of evolution.

 

[Lukeje]

And even if it did, evolution doesn't matter when you have civilization.

Source?

 

[Alex_P]

List of things that are exponentially quicker and more efficient than trying to breed "better" people:
- Artificially modifying our genes.
- Artificially modifying our bodies (without needing to muck with our genes).
- Creating machines that do shit for us.
- Better educational techniques (both for parents and schools).
- Better access to education.
- Better nutrition, especially during early childhood.
- A culture that just plain encourages learning.
... <- Here is there I got bored.

-- Alex

 

[Jandau]

Humanity is evolving as we speak. You just don't get to see the results in the few decades you get to be alive

 

[johnman]

Our next step in evolution will propably be the better use of abundant energy many of us have on our weist. I vote for more brain power

The brain evolving even more would be the worst thing possible for humanity. read a book called the Andromeda strain. Its talks of how inefficent the brain is and how greedy for the bodys energy it is. It makes a reference to humanity possibly becoming exctinct as ours brains become so engery hungry we can no longer support them with limited reasources in the future.

Who says that we will have limited resources in the future?

Well we are running out of oil pretty fast.....

Boy am I glad I had my brain converted to run on porn steam.

I hear that! Soon the human race will be dependant on tube 8 / coal

 

[FuckYouDad]

Yup, mankind is pretty much doomed for stagnation and extinction.
At least as long as christianity and socialism is around.

Again, let me point out that this is the time rapid mutations occur. When times are tough, mutations are normally killed off quite rapidly unless they are directly beneficial. Not sure what Christianity has to do with anything though.

Christianity and socialism both praise weakness and pity. There is no natural selection when people claim that everyone with genetic disorders and everyone who failed at life should live long enough to spread their genes and their treatment/social care should be paid for with tax money.
It's a road to nowhere.

Well, that's a pile of wank if ever I saw any.

You know what it is that Christianity and socialism really have in common? They both, at a fundamental level, believe that we're all in for the long haul together, and therefore we should all look out for each another. What you call praising weakness and pity, I (and I'd like to think most other people) would simply call doing the right thing. Human beings are not solitary animals like tigers or sharks. We made our way out of the caves and into civilisation by banding together and supporting each other. We are social creatures in every way, from the way we raise our families to the way we build our towns and cities.

Christianity does not praise weakness. At its core, it simply encourages its practitioners to show empathy and charity. That is not the same thing, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. It's simply a case of do as you would be done by. If you don't extend any help to the needy and less fortunate, then why should you expect any sympathy if one day you yourself are brought low? When you're living on the streets, scrounging for enough food to make it through the day, I bet those Salvation Army soup stations start to look mighty fine indeed.

To address the OP: Morals and ethics do not get in the way of progress. They are progress. The single greatest leap humanity ever made is when it looked and managed, for the first time, to differentiate between right and wrong. This is something that has become intertwined with every facet of our humanity. Every thought we have, every feeling of love, sympathy, anger, hate and pity is borne out of what we feel to be good and right, and what we feel to be wrong.


Everyone here is talking about evolution, genes, and all that crap, but at the end of the day I just see one thing on this thread. People using quasi-science to make themselves feel like part of the secret elite, not a member of the unwashed, uneducated masses. This isn't about the biology of evolution. It's prole-bashing. The OP himself uses the term 'inferior humans' quite happily. I'd happily bet money that every single person who argues that only the intelligent, the athletic and the worthy should be allowed to breed would also be the first to state how important it is that they themselves should be allowed to spread their seed. Those who argue we shouldn't waste money saving those with genetic defects never think about the possibilities that they may one day have cancer. They create a creepy fantasy that has no basis on fact or truth. Intelligent people can be born of stupid parents. Stupid people can be born of intelligent parents.

If you really want the human race to start improving, maybe it's time to stop all slamming all the cripples, the hobos, and the poor, and maybe start thinking about ways you yourself can make society a better place to live in.

Here here!

I was about to make a big care-post, but you beat me.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Okay I have two more things to add:

1. I can't state this enough. Evolution is not directional, there is not some grand scheme which it is pushing towards
2. Humans are not the height of evolution, just like the sun doesn't orbit the earth. Nothing is more evolved than anything else. Creatures can be more adapted to their environment, but we're actually relatively weak outside of our false environment and without tools, so we're not that either.
3. their are two mechanisms driving evolution. One of them is natural selection, the other is sexual selection. The grand objective is to reproduce, if you fail at this you automatically fall out of the gene pool, you play no more part in driving evolution. It's harsh but its true.

 

[Arsen]

Since having a disease makes you "idiotic"...

Seriously, people use the term "intelligent" subjectively. Information and knowledge can evolve, however human beings cannot.

 

[Lukeje]

And even if it did, evolution doesn't matter when you have civilization.

Source?

Here are the two biggest ones:

1) People having children despite not being the most fit examples of their species. And more importantly, it's okay.

This seems to be an opinion, not a fact. Until we know exactly what it is that humans look for in a mate, we can't say that those that are breeding aren't the most 'fit' examples of their species (I seem to remember reading an article a while back about how humans seem to pick mates that would allow for the greatest genetic variation; something to do with pheremones).

2) Modern healthcare

I'll admit that modern healthcare does allow people to have offspring when they shouldn't technically be able to (60 year-old women giving birth and so forth), but there's still evolution. Evolution =/= natural selection. We're on an 'evolutionary plateau' that allows for a massive range of genetic variation to be tolerated (and there's supposedly some evidence that our large brains developed exactly because of this plateau; when you don't have to 'compete' with nature any more, all the energy that would have been expended has to go somewhere...).

Who knows what the human race will be like in a million years time (although the likelihood of us not making it that far is depressingly large).

Edit: Finally Gone Gonzo! Wahey...

 

[Ace of Spades]

You sound a lot like Hitler. In theory, this idea would work, but you'd have to murder a crapload of people. Also, where is the cut-off between "intelligent" and "average"?

 

[Epifols]

I post this knowing full well that I will be flamed/banned but just know that when you whine your loss of faith in humanity, it is because you don't support forced breeding.

Oh wow! Look at you! A full out martyr, saving the world by spreading a message that will drastically change our entire way of life!

And this is a crap idea because the changed would not matter anyway. There are a million more efficient ways to improve our existence, such as altering our antibiotic usage. And besides, you would not be changing humans, you would only be changing the FREQUENCY of a certain trait. And over thousands of years, no one would care anyway.