Skip to main content

View Diary: Top Comments - Future Evolution of our Species (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But, I think we evolve for survival of fittest. (8+ / 0-)

    Seems like a direction.

    An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. ~ Ben Franklin

    by jim in IA on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:48:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's the way nature has always done it. (7+ / 0-)

      But in some respects, already, nature 'reacts' to human factors. So it seems to me it could in chosen evolution, as well. But that is just my hypothesis. I can't prove it.

      "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

      by BeninSC on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 07:49:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only Half the Story. Full Story Is We Diverge. (7+ / 0-)

      As circumstances gradually evolve, so do we. However, at any given moment, only some of our divergence matches the direction of gradual change.

      Periodically however, major shit happens, for which only a fraction of us happen to be randomly, without preplanning, adapted. We survive and a new order arises.

      Mammals are not more fit than dinosaurs or insects; all survive to this day. Jesus taught "Consider the dinosaurs of the air...."

      Absent discontinuities it would be survival of the fittest. In a solar system with comets, asteroids and a planet with a double core and plate tectonics however, the rule is survival of the fittest and the lucky.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:03:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I should have been more clear (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeninSC, blueyedace2, cohenzee, gizmo59, Noddy

      Not a chosen one, or one that has anything to do with what we want,  unless you're tinkering with the genome.  Gooserock nailed it.  Fittest, but the environment is not a constant, especially not in deep time, and we're basically pond scum whose puddle could alter very fast or go away.  

      Chickens were deliberately chosen, as they have a bit of t.rex in them, by some studies.  And now being fit is reproducing in numbers to be your are not fitter than a bacterium, or a squirrel, except by dint of local conditions that will surely change in deep time.

      But when we hit gene hacking and eugenics level manipulation, I'm pretty sure we'll just be pushing toward each parent's vision of fit.  No more gay people, to the extent nice heterosexual folks can order up straight kids.  Minimum levels of ability.  I don't think we hack ourselves into better people, though surely into more expedient ones.  And the end result may well be a huge shrinking in variation, making even a future as giblets and gravey less likely.

      Mileage varies.  Bedtime.

      ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

      by jessical on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:13:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  People have tried this sort of thing before (4+ / 0-)

        with eugenics schemes.  Yes, less was understood in those days, and the methods incredibly crude, but despite our new-found sophistication, I doubt the results of a new program to consciously improve on the human species will succeed any better than past efforts.  In fact, it will probably lead to more spectacular disasters, and then we'll got back to the old-fashioned way.

        -5.13,-5.64; If you gave [Jerry Falwell] an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox. -- Christopher Hitchens

        by gizmo59 on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 09:43:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site