Well, it’s been roughly a million years since the first ancestors of the modern man started to walk upright.
We’ve come a long way from using rudimentary tools, to harnessing energy in ways that could only be imagined 100 years ago.
All that has been due in part to evolution but mostly through passing on and collection(synthesis) of knowledge about the world in which we live.
But are humans still evolving as a species? Are we still adapting to changes in our environment or are we tailoring our environment to suit us? Sure the natural world knock us on our collective asses from time to time with a new virus here and a natural disaster there. But that seems to present an intellectual challenge for us rather than an evolutionary one. Or does it?
Have we stopped evolving in the traditional sense where survival of the physically fittest has become survival of the smartest. Look at Stephen Hawking. Doubtlessly a brilliant man. But even 100 years ago the chances of his survival would have been nil. As a result, the world would never know or benefit from his brilliance.
Is it safe to say that we have turned the course of human evolution from the environment dependent hunter/gatherer/farmer to an intellectually superior(though possibly physically inferior) type of human development. And if so, what are the possible implications?
Actually I strongly disagree with you. Our society clearly does NOT favor the survival of the smartest, but of the stupidest. Look around you…everything is geared toward the lowest (and dumbest) common denominator. Thousands of laws designed to protect people from the consequences of their stupid acts. Institutional (well, it seems that way) abuse of welfare, allowing some people who are too lazy to get off their collective asses and work to sponge off of the rest of us. (note that I’m attacking lazy and stupid people, not welfare itself. I believe it does serve a valuable purpose for many people)
All around us, we are fostering a thriving population of the lazy, stupid, etc.
From a purely evolutionary standpoint, we are diluting our genetic stock (don’t anybody even try to turn this into a racial comment–it’s NOT) to the degree that the only reason our society survives is that we pour more and more and more resources into support of our weakened population.
example: holding a restaurant liable, to the degree of over a million dollars, for a woman spilling coffee in her lap.
In real life, this woman would have to deal with the consequences of her actions and go on with her life, while gaining the additional valuable lesson that you shouldn’t pour coffe in your lap because it sucks.
Instead, we have a society that strives to remove any sort of negative reinforcement or consequences from any stupid action. And we wonder why kids run wild and do whatever they want to do. Their parents aren’t responsible for their own actions, so why should the kids be?
sigh <end rant>
I guess I’ll answer the OP now…
we are on a steep downward evolution.
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all,
but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.
– Demosthenes
You’ve no idea how often I share your sentiment during the average day. Perhaps I am feeling particularly generous towards the human race as a whole today. I hope you will pardon my momentary weakness.
Both physical and mental abilities can be considered survival skills. In nature, the tendancy that those with better survival skills leave more offspring is the key. In human society, poor people (and fat chicks) tend to have more kids than people who have more going for them. It’s hard to see evolution moving forward amid this trend.
Of course we’re still evolving, and not in any direction. A common misconception about evolution is that it’s directional - the pictures always show a straight line from monkeys to businessmen - but it doesn’t really work that way. Evolution is not progress; it’s survival.
So long as some people have kids and some don’t, we’re evolving. The fittest (usually smartest, best-looking, and most resistent to disease) survive better and reproduce. But we’ll evolve in whatever “directions” aid to our survival.
Your Quadell
P.S. It may seem like intelligence is not an evolutionary benefit, but I assure you it is. Statistically, IQ has an extremely high inverse correlation with accidental death rate, disease rate, likelihood of being murdered, and incarceration rate. IQ has a high positive correlation with life expectancy and financial assets. Our society may try to minimize this as much as possible, but it’s still there.
Well, the coffee was scalding, and served in poorly designed cups. On the other hand, the big corporation learned that they had to deal with the consequences of their actions: ignoring many previous complaints about burns caused by their coffee. Last I heard, that corporation was going on with its life. You’re not trying to remove negative reinforcement for their stupid action, are you?
Somebody else mentioned Hawking. Isn’t there a legend that Newton died a virgin? Einstein had a son who became a professor at Cal Tech, I believe.
The short answer is yes humanity is still evolving. As far as which direction…are you under the assumption that we (modern humans) are the result of a steady progression from single cell organisims? There is no direction in evolution, or at least there has not been for most of human existance.
We are now at a point where we are affecting what happens due to medical and genetic advances. People who would have died due to their illnesses in the past can now survive and pass on their genes. However, there is no way of knowing the effect this will have several hundred generations down the line.
Gee, I don’t think any of us expected him to say that.
Look, there’s cultural evolution, and there’s biological evolution. There are certain similarities, but it’s pure foolishness to suggest that we undo our cultural evolution because it interferes with biological evolution.
Cultural evolution is faster than biological evolution, although it works on a similar basis – the selection of those ideas that help our survival. Cultures that don’t adapt to new ideas and better ways of doing things are absorbed or defeated by those that do. And, new ideas lead to new opportunities, new challenges, and eventually new ideas. So, human societies will adapt to new niches through cultural changes much more swiftly than through biological changes. This is a good thing.
Looking at the past 30 years and thereby claiming that we’re undoing eons of biological evolution demonstrates a lack of rigorous thinking on the topic. And I don’t understand the bias towards biological adaptations over cultural ones. Are you arguing that cultural advances (like product liability laws) be repealed so we add dangerous products as a biological selective pressure? Frankly, that’s stupid.
And yes, Joe_Cool, I understand your anger at the McDonald’s coffee verdict, which has been discussed in another thread. I’ll assume that you’re right, and it reflects an abuse of our liability laws. If you want to argue for reform of those laws, fine. And there are plenty of sound reasons for tort reform. But arguing that they interfere with “survival of the fittest” is amazingly bad social Darwinism. You may as well argue that our laws against crime wrongly protect us from superior predator humans, and we should be forced to fend for ourselves against thieves and murderers. Hey, if you can’t protect your possessions or your life, you’re probably unfit, no?
If you don’t like the poor having too many children, or the uninsured collecting for car accidents, or old ladies suing because their coffee was much too hot, those are all valid beliefs, and there are good reasons for trying to fix those problems. But it grates on my nerves to see people come forward as defenders of the human species, trying to protect beloved natural selection. People only choose to defend the genome when it won’t inconvenience them.
The stupid will always find some way to kill themselves.
I am vying for option #3 a comet will kill everyone on earth and the earth will assume intelligence and start shooting lazer beams like the death star at anything that opposes it. Its far more likely
I don’t think anyone suggests that in this thread. My OP merely states that perhaps cultural evolution is leading towards a different type of biological evolution. Where-as, physical strength and moderate intelligence used to be sufficient to ensure high probability of survival. Now, a weakened physical condition does not necessarily imply low chances of survival or gene propagation. Is above average intelligence fast becoming a dominant factor in survival in our times? I starting to believe so.
Perhaps we are. Or perhaps we are unwittingly selecting a new dominant trait to get us through the current evolutionary challenge. Perhaps the fittest is now the most culturally advanced or adapted. Whatever that means.
Certainly not. But you’ve got to wonder, how big does the Surgeon Geneneral’s warning have to be on a package of cigarettes to successfully relay the dangers of smoking? How much do we have to do in order to attempt to save people from themselves?
But isn’t that part of biological evolution? Self preservation, I mean.
Anyway, I’m not looking to tear up your views on the subject. You make alot of sense. I’m only suggesting that evolution, from our narrow view of it, seems to be taking a sharp turn from the primarily physiological to perhaps something based more on the concept presented in the book Beggars and Choosers by Nancy Kress. For those not familiar with this SF book, it’s about a world in the future where the super-intelligent (few) use the moderately intelligent (more) and the un-educated masses (many) to perform sociological and physiological experiments.
I will agree that we’re adapting to our environmental challenges through our more swift cultural and technological changes than through strict biological changes.
It was our biological evolution that equipped us with the tools to make these quicker adaptations. In that sense, our technology is an expression of our biological fitness, not a turning away from evolutionary forces. I think the main difference between us stems from the view of evolution given in your OP, that survival of the fittest means “physical fitness” and that “survival of the smartest” is somehow different. “Fitness” is whatever adaptation that allows you to survive. That can, and always has, included intelligence (or instinct), even for animals. The finch that learns to use a cactus spine to catch hard-to-reach termites has an advantage over those that don’t – and that adaptation is just as valid as developing a spine-shaped beak to do the same thing. It is too limiting to only consider physical changes as adaptive.
That being said, I agree that humans are changing their environment more than they are being shaped by it. What are the possible implications? Well, I don’t anticipate any sudden changes, because the importance of cultural change over physical change has been a factor in all of human history. We’re not that physically different from our earliest human ancestors – all of our big changes have been cultural and technological. And that history has been one of rising intelligence, more widely distributed. If anything, we’re moving away from the model of a super-intelligent elite and uneducated masses. So, I wouldn’t worry about Morlocks just yet.
It used to be thought that we would evolve into something resembling a “grey” alien, big head, skinny body and highly intellectual. But all staticstics, show we are evolving into “Jabba the Hut” mentally and physically.
I could be wrong…It happend once before.
You’ve no idea how often I share your sentiment during the average day. Perhaps I am feeling particularly generous towards the human race as a whole today. I hope you will pardon my momentary weakness. 