RE: If you could, would you live forever?
04-05-2013, 06:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2013, 06:59 PM by Jacquerel.)
Do we need to evolve further, if we are already the dominant species on the planet? There is nothing inherently unhealthy about not evolving, and more evolution does not equate to "smarter people" !
Evolution is purely about survival and we already do that, and much better than basically anything else considering we have healthcare and as a result of our evolution have invented the exact things that you say are preventing our evolution. Many winning evolutionary strategies care very little at all for the organism's well-being or quality of life past that they have kids and "more smartness" is also very far from the only route it takes.
Creatures like ants, seals and slugs haven't "failed" evolution because they are less intelligent and control smaller areas of land than we do, arguably you could say that most insects are actually more successful as they vastly outnumber the species of mammals.
I think this really stems from a misunderstanding of how the evolution of species works to be honest.
It is not a function by which every organism is striving to be supreme masters of the universe, it is merely the natural effect of competing organisms trying to fit better into the situation in which they were placed, and out-breed their opponents. If we've "stopped" evolving (as if we've really been aware of it over a sufficient timescale to tell) then it is because we've finished. Traditional "natural selection" (there's actually nothing natural about just picking people who can't have kids) can't help us any more, because if it could then it would already be happening.
Given then that this would have to be a human-driven project rather than one based on our environment (meaning it isn't even evolution in a traditional sense) who arbitrates what are and aren't desirable human characteristics?
I can't think I'd really trust anyone at all to do that.
Evolution is purely about survival and we already do that, and much better than basically anything else considering we have healthcare and as a result of our evolution have invented the exact things that you say are preventing our evolution. Many winning evolutionary strategies care very little at all for the organism's well-being or quality of life past that they have kids and "more smartness" is also very far from the only route it takes.
Creatures like ants, seals and slugs haven't "failed" evolution because they are less intelligent and control smaller areas of land than we do, arguably you could say that most insects are actually more successful as they vastly outnumber the species of mammals.
I think this really stems from a misunderstanding of how the evolution of species works to be honest.
It is not a function by which every organism is striving to be supreme masters of the universe, it is merely the natural effect of competing organisms trying to fit better into the situation in which they were placed, and out-breed their opponents. If we've "stopped" evolving (as if we've really been aware of it over a sufficient timescale to tell) then it is because we've finished. Traditional "natural selection" (there's actually nothing natural about just picking people who can't have kids) can't help us any more, because if it could then it would already be happening.
Given then that this would have to be a human-driven project rather than one based on our environment (meaning it isn't even evolution in a traditional sense) who arbitrates what are and aren't desirable human characteristics?
I can't think I'd really trust anyone at all to do that.