im guessing we humans are the first species in earth’s history to be aware of the fact there “there is something called evolution going on” and all its profound implications.
we usually speak only in terms of environmental pressures …and… mutations (externaly induced)and such… as factors shaping the process of evolution.
This phenomenon - of being aware that we’re evolving - would this have any say with regards to what/how humans would evolve ? what do u guys think… should this have any say ?
im not sayin that the pre-historic apes evolved in to humans “coz they wanted to”. Im sure they didnt have a say in their evolving…they didnt even have a clue that they were ‘evolving’, but we seem to be different - we seem to be conscious of the fact that we’re evolving.
I doubt it. But maybe it is possible to influence evolution. Maybe someday we will be born with no foreskins, wisdom teeth, tonsils, etc. I don’t think knowing about evolution would have a subconsious effect though…
Yes, mankind now “has a say” in what happens to it (in terms of long-term changes)
No, this isn’t “evolution”, as the word is usually taken to mean.
I’d say, in fact, that the cultural and technological changes we have been undergoing for the past few millenia – “The information revolution” – are actually the manifestation of an almost-Lamarckian “pseudo-evolution” – we create new, more relevant to our lives, information and we pass it on to our descendants. This process is far faster than Darwinistic evolution could ever be, and so has done far more to shape mankind as we see it today.
And this process continues, overshadowing biological evolution – biological evolution in humans is probably a moot issue, given the number of different environments many humans are likely to encounter during their (reproductive) lives.
I’m sure someone will be along shortly with some real knowledge to impart…
P.S. Your implication that Mankind, as a group, is in fact wholly cognizant of the fact of evolution is, unfortunately, wildly optimistic IMO
Hi seetha, and welcome to the Straight Dope boards. Interesting question, but since you ask whether we should have a say, rather than just whether we would/could this question doesn’t have a factual answer and will probably get moved form this forum. So don’t be surprised if this thread suddenly vanishes, it just means it has been moved somewhere else, probably to Great Debates.
As for the question “would it have any effect?”, almost certainly. There have been countless suggestion that we should ‘direct’ human evolution one way or another almost from the day that Darwin published “Origin of Species”. Many of these attempts were misguided and almost certainly couldn’t have worked, such as Nazi attempts to produce a superior race of people. Other suggestions are probably less flawed from a practical standpoint., such as suggestion for introducing genes for darker skin types into tropical area colonized by Europeans. The other effect that the knowledge of human evolution has had has been to help in quashing many idea that could have had evolutionary consequences, such as beliefs in racial superiority.
And of course the knowledge that humans are an evolved species has also had ramification for medicine, which is in itself a large evolutionary modifier for humans currently and will doubtless be so again in future
However the knowledge of evolution has been too recent in origin for any effect to be discernible yet, but it’s hard to see how that knowledge could fail have effect on our genetic development in the coming millennia.
As for whether we should have a say, I really can’t see how any participants on these boards are going to be able to say no. Having a say is simply the result of being informed, or to put it another way it’s an inevitable result of a successful fight against ignorance. That doesn’t address what we should say, but it certainly seems to clarify that we should have a say. Willing informed consent is always better than acquiescence forced through ignorant, even if all that we consent to is to let nature take its course.
Yes, and it’s even been given its own name: memetic evolution, as opposed to genetic/ Darwinistic evolution.
That’s highly debatable. Most people still fail to reproduce primarily due to environmental factors rather than blind chance. And the number of ‘environments’ encountered is probably neither higher nor lower than it has been at any time in our history.
Just a friendly FYI if you intend to hang around here.
In general we don’t use IM-style shorthand here at theStraight Dope. We write “you” & “thanks”, not “u” and “thanx.” Generally, folks consider the use of shorthand to be a sign that the poster is real young, immature, ignorant, or illiterate. That tends to get your questions ignored or answered flippantly
The subject of your question indicates that’s not your situation, but your shorthand is detracting from your image.
We do use a few of the common abbreviations such as IIRC, AFAIK, IANADoctor, but that’s about it.
This is meant as a friendly suggestion, not a slam. Here’s hoping you take it the right way and we see you and your contributions for a long time to come.
All of this technology is part of the environment that we are adapting to. When, for example, the population continues to grow and petroleum gets relatively scarcer and more expensive the marginal uses of energy, such as keeping the elederly and premature infants alive, we become harder and harder to justify. In that case biological factors such as genetic faults will begin to exert more control upon who lives and reproduces than might be the case now.
The biggest factor* is going to be genetic engineering. It’s conceivable that at some point in the not too distant future designer babies will be a reality. It’ll be expensive, of course, so there will still be billions of “regular” humans around, but some of these genetic changes could make the designers unable to breed with those that are not designed. Of course, technology can most likely overcome that problem, too.
*assuming there isn’t some sort of environmental disastor or new killer disease that wipes out large parts of the human race.
While I agree the genetic engineering is and will be important at some point in the near to mid-term future you need to realize that humans have been distorting the evolutionary process for one hell of a long time already. In effect, we’ve been ‘having a say’ for ages.
Corrective lenses place people who’s poor eyesight back in the reproductive pool who would, under normal circumstances, not have the opportunity (as an average) to reproduce. I speak as a man who’s eyes went off the charts pre-pubescence here.
Insulin therapy for diabetics allows such to reproduce.
Hell, all manner of medicine allows what would be, under wilderness or ‘non-civilization’ settings, fatal genetic flaws to be passed on.
So it’s not a question of ‘should we have a say’ but ‘we’re already having a say…how far should we extend that’?
Well, no. Petroleum provides a minority of our energy needs, most of it comes from a combination of coal, wood, nuclear and hydro. Even if all the petroleum ran out tomorrow there would be no need at all to decrease energy consumption in any way for several millennia at the very least. The idea that petroleum, which is used primarily for transport anyway, has any influence on medical choices of this nature is obviously erroneous.
You may have misread the topic. It’s not asking whether human technology can potentially alter the evolutionary path of the species. It’s asking whether knowledge of evolution can do so. Eyeglasses aren’t in any way a result of the knowledge of evolution and were around several centuries before the theory of evolution was even concieved of.
OK. My point though is that ultimately our biological evolution, when carried out for a long time, fits us to whatever our environment is. As your say petroleum does provide the majority of the fuel for transportation. I don’t think our highly technological manner of living is possible without such a transportation mechanism. And of course, sooner or later all the named sources of energy will become scarcer and scarcer relative to the population if current trends continue.
It seems clear to me that the present path is unsustainable over the long run, When the technological base can no longer be maintained then natural forces will again determine who lives and reproduces and who doesn’t. I know that people have predicted a collapse for a long time and it hasn’t happened. Forever, though, is a long time and I think we both know that an exponential growth just doesn’t go on idefinitely without some sort of blowup.
I’m not losing any sleep over it and maybe future generations will figure out a method for reaching and maintaining sustainable population and resource usage. In that case our present degree of control over our biology can at least continue.
This is a total hijack, but of course it is. We simply use nuclear energy, which we have in abundance, to manufacture gasoline or diesel from coal or plants or directly form the atmosphere. The amount of hydrocarbon available for our transportation use is in now way linked to how much is in the ground. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resources, gasoline and diesel are infinitely renewable.
Sooner or later the sun will burn out. Shortly after that the universe will suffer heat death. Almost certainly before any of these things happen our species will have ceased to exist. The Buddha was right when he said that all things are impermanent. What exactly does that have to do with evolution?
Firstly, by the time the resource base can no longer be maintained we will no longer be H. sapiens sapiens, assuming we have even left any descendants on this particular rock.
Secondly medicine is a a natural technology force. It’s every bit as natural as a dog licking its wound or a bird preening its feathers.
That is an understatement. Raving Babylonian prophets-of-doom were doing it over 6000 years ago, but that’s just the oldest written records. People have probably been predicting a collapse since we first started to speak.
Firstly there is not going to be infinite exponential growth. Exponential growth stopped about 10 years ago. The population will begin a dramatic decline within the next 50 years.
Secondly, nothing lasts forever. Nothing we can do will prevent the sun from burning out or the universe form expanding and freezing. And nothing we can do will prevent resources from becoming exhausted. The only choice we get to make is how we live our lives between then and now, whether it’s grubbing for tubers in the mud or exploring the stars.
There’s no maybe about this, the last generation already figured out how to reach a sustainable population and resource usage.
You seem to have some quaint notions about the state of the world and the way the universe works. If you want to discuss the facts feel free to start another thread, please don’t hijack this one any further.
Given time, the knowledge of biological evolution would likely have an impact. We know that the mating choices we make affect not only our lives and the lives of our children, but potentially the entire human species. One possible reaction is that society might eventually turn against the idea of allowing individuals to make their own reproductive decisions. The various movements that advanced this idea have had limited impact thus far, but our knowledge of evolution is less than two centuries old at this point. A strong motivation for eugenics through government control of mating decisions certainly exists, and I would be very surprised if it would never succeed anywhere in the millennia that lie ahead.
I speak hypothetically because this issue is irrelevant for all practical purposes. We’re just not playing that game anymore. Evolution by natural selection is a process that creates noticeable change over thousands to millions of years. Even an intense program of selective breeding can take dozens of generations to produce significant results, and selecting narrowly for a single trait can result in the proliferation of other undesirable attributes. Genetic engineering can potentially result in noticeable and targeted change in a single generation. We need not even wait for any possibility to arise through random mutation.
This means that future changes in the human gene pool will almost certainly be completely dominated by direct and purposeful manipulation. Even if the application of genetic engineering is rare over a historical timescale, its effects will completely swamp the slow drift by natural selection that would otherwise occur.
Natural selection and even intense artificial selection alter phenotypes through a process that works at second remove: environmental forces advance or inhibit reproduction based on exhibited traits, which results in changes in the population of genes that produce these traits, which alters the traits themselves in succeeding generations. By contrast, technological genetic engineering works at first remove: changes in genes produce changes in phenotype. This is a completely new process, different from any that cam before in the history of life on earth.
Thus, not only do we have a say in our future evolution, but that say should soon become the sole effective force that drives what we become. Because this is unprecedented it is largely unpredictable, and hence potentially dangerous.
You took the words right out of my mouth. And I think before our species disappears it will have evolved by biological means probably into a smallish creature living hand to mouth.
My only point is that I think we can temporarily keep alive and reproducing those who wouldn’t make it without our technology but that is only temporary.
I came across this word “conscious evolution” when i was googling around after reading the replies…
not much of a ‘scientific’ concept… still, i was surprised pleasently to learn that people have thought about the issue and have actually written books on it.
