I had a thought about if Doctors were harming evolution by keeping people alive that technically without technology's help wouldn't be alive today, we're talking in a very simple sense here of if nature wanted you dead your genes weren't successful if it didn't you were successful
Death is ceasing to exist, but it can also be seen as the signal for new life to start another generations genes to carry on and take over the place and hopefully be more successful than the previous ones.
The part I'm talking about is genes, these genes can be anything from things that help us being more successful at a problem in the current state of the world to survival things that apply to todays standards. Obviously theres lots of genes and I'm being vague because I'm not pretending to be an expert and list off specific ones but you should get the point.
800 years ago the life expectancy wasn't anywhere near what it was now and I presume millions of years ago it wasn't what it was 800 years ago. That meant that genes and the cycle of life was being renewed roughly every 30 years, successful genes were being passed on roughly every 30 years.
If in a 1000 years time the life expectancy moves up to 200 suddenly the time of renewal increases from 30 years, this means genes become staler the ones that were good at the time persist into another generation where perhaps they're not needed because the renewal rate isn't as fresh and does that as a result mean something negative for evolution and mankind?
If we can't adapt to new problems naturally do we have to give up on evolution and have technology take it's place instead?
Modern medicine supersedes the need for continued evolution. Given that evolution occurs over many thousands or millions of years, there isn't a point in letting people die for the sake of "bettering the human gene pool." If you wanted to make a better gene pool, a better alternative would be selecting the traits that human embryos have, or only letting certain people breed.
You can't "give up" on evolution. It'll happen regardless, but with the impact technology and intelligence have on our lives it may become far removed from longevity and problem solving.
The only thing I can see being "negative" for evolution is that our own designs and advances are probably going to mean our species doesn't follow a trend set by environmental culling and adaptation - environment hardly matters to us now. We could have widely varying mutations among our populations. I'm not saying we'll turn into different species, but biologically we're ending up with weird shit impacting our bodies in totally different ways to what was possible in the natural world, probably on a more individual basis given how free we are to choose what we consume or use. I guess in a far off world the field of medicine could be more complicated.
Nature doesn't want you dead, evolution doesn't want to go one way or another, and genes don't get stale in your body just because you live to 200.
As for your closing statement, it's pretty safe to say technology has already taken the place of evolution. We can't just let epidemics spread and say "well, the survivors will carry on because they're better". We fight them with research and technology, not evolution of our own bodies via random beneficial resilient mutation.
On February 01 2012 08:15 Hikko wrote: or only letting certain people breed.
Man this is a controversial idea hahaha
Necessary? Maybe.
I think eugenics could be smartly applied using science without the labels of bigotry and prejudice, although that word tends to involve negative connotation (::coughHitlercough:.
Advancements in the medical field are what contributed to the change in human life expectancy, not gene pools. We've reached the limitation in how long human bodies can sustain themselves (albeit unnaturally). Evolution takes millions of years, not thousands.
I think the idea of death being justified by the mention of inferior genes is a horrifying mindset to have. You're essentially saying that anyone who doesn't die naturally was an inferior being unfit to reproduce, and that is a fallacy. People die every day in freak accidents or are diagnosed with an illness they had no control over. I myself have personally been on the verge of death multiple times as a child. It wasn't the mysterious force of nature that saved my life, it was my family. I'm alive today because my sister was there when I needed her; I'm alive today because my mom was there when I needed her the most.
If technology and medicine were not at the level that they are today there is a good chance I would be dead. Does that mean that my genetic code is inferior and unfit to pass on, or does that simply mean that accidents happen?
Who cares about the "natural" evolution ? We are at the stage where we can already manipulate and enhance our own genes. We are also able to create tools to compensate our own weaknesses (clothes, glasses etc...) Also lol at thinking that because you have "bad" genes you can't have a successful life. We are not hunted by lions anymore lol. I mean take a look at Stephen Hawkins, he would have been canibalized during the Stone Age and now he is one of the most famous scientists.
Technology and human rights have evolved so far that even people with the "worst" genes are reproducing. Lazy people, stupid people, deaf people, antisocial people, migets (no offense, I just don't know the correct term) as well as people with various genetic weaknesses (susceptibility for diseases etc) aren't being culled naturally anymore.
If you look at the human gene pool as a whole, it is bound to deteriorate. Exceptions being that those who can contribute to a modern society wouldn't be able to survive in the old days. I'm speaking of highly intelligent people with corporal deficiencies. Take Stephen Hawking as an example. He'd have been sorted out, yet few people question his contribution to science and it'd be a shame to never have had him.
The real question however is: what is the consequence of that general observation? Do we want to somehow influence the human gene pool aka the evolutionary process to make us a "better" race?
The answer I can think of is twofold: For one, is there really a need to improve our gene status? Can't we just leave it evolve as it is? There are obvious problems with healthcare (ill and weak people need more support from society, health insurance, transportation for handicapped people, etc.): People with such weaknesses are a greater burden to society than others. This has to be considered and there might be an issue that wants to be solved.
The second part of the answer is the tricky one though: What is it we want to change about it? Not considering the slowness of the evolutionary process - change in evolution takes time and continuity and it'd take a huge effort to bring notable change - we have to ask ourselves the question if we want to distinguish between god and bad genes to the extent that we say that having one gene is more useful than another one? It's a problem of cultural value, of discrimation and of human rights. Is it right to consider one human less worthy to live or to reproduce for the simple reason of him having less productive genetic disposition? Are we going to allow only the best ones of each "vintage" to reproduce? Where does that leave those who want to have a family but can't because it's not productive for them to have children?
Any way to adress the issue is treading on thin ice. If we say that having gene A is better than having gene B, this stigmatizes person A as somewhat superior to person B. Which is not a good thing to do. A number of historic examples obtrude themselves which never led to a happy outcome.
I'd say the deterioration of the gene pool is not enough of an issue (yet) that needs to be adressed. It's gonna be a long time before it can become apparent that there is an actual problem (again, slowness of the evolutionary process) and only then, we'd have to question really hard if we want to actively influence it. In my eyes, it's not the right thing to do.
On February 01 2012 08:25 deesee wrote: The only thing I can see being "negative" for evolution is that our own designs and advances are probably going to mean our species doesn't follow a trend set by environmental culling and adaptation - environment hardly matters to us now.
This isn't even remotely true. Environment plays an extremely huge role on us. You can look at research about monochorianic twins to see just how huge of a role it is. There is also non-mendelian inheritance of traits...
On February 01 2012 08:05 Denzil wrote: That meant that genes and the cycle of life was being renewed roughly every 30 years, successful genes were being passed on roughly every 30 years.
If in a 1000 years time the life expectancy moves up to 200 suddenly the time of renewal increases from 30 years, this means genes become staler the ones that were good at the time persist into another generation where perhaps they're not needed because the renewal rate isn't as fresh and does that as a result mean something negative for evolution and mankind?
The "problem" isn't that people get older, it is that people are producing offspring later in life, if the "problem" is genetic turn-over.
It seems like a huge jump to say if people average 160 years instead of 80, then the average woman would have her babies when 60 years old.
Besides that, there are more people on this earth than ever before, that should indicate that a lot of genetic variations would be produced every year, if we double the population we could probably, statistically, be twice as slow as "individuals" to keep the genetic turn-over constant.
I think we're at the point where computer evolution has way more of an impact on society than genetic evolution. Perhaps they are even converging.
If you look at the scientific paradigms since the industrial revolution, you'll see that the social wealth provided by something like penicillin is profound.
Can you imagine a future where cyborgs and humans live together? The advent of "true" AI and quantum computing?
Obviously that's all science fiction, but for just how long?
On February 01 2012 08:25 deesee wrote: The only thing I can see being "negative" for evolution is that our own designs and advances are probably going to mean our species doesn't follow a trend set by environmental culling and adaptation - environment hardly matters to us now.
This isn't even remotely true. Environment plays an extremely huge role on us. You can look at research about monochorianic twins to see just how huge of a role it is. There is also non-mendelian inheritance of traits...
I rather meant along the lines of the very external.
I don't have any familiarity with what you reference to twins, and can't find any relevance to whether there was environmental cause for it, or environmental impact on the twins later in life. As far as I was aware (admittedly, b-grade documentary sources only) such twins actually retain greater similarity than just looking the same - wouldn't that argue environment is less an issue?
I also don't see what you mean to relate by inheritance of traits. If this is about the genesis of a new life being impacted by environment? Sure, I concede that happens - why wouldn't it? With the widely varied conditions we now find livable, though, wouldn't it be a) vastly different between each condition and b) vastly survivable given our technological capabilities?
Trait inheritance - Mendelian or not - seem to do far more there in the very beginning than it ever does in later life. For example my country frequently experiences high temperatures. Ordinarily heat waves can result in death and illness, but the advent of airconditioning means those who could fall prey otherwise do not. The traits we get seem less relevant to our survival.
Why didn't you know this before? It's fairly obvious that human society in general screws with evolution. No longer is there a "fight for survival" and the priorities for mating and having children in human society are different than what they are in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, the rapid changes incurred in human society prevent any long-term reinforcement of traits. Humankind is an evolutionary dead-end.
Evolution is not a normative concept. It's descriptive, not prescriptive, it's not something that we should "strive towards," it's just an account of how organisms happened to have progressed in the past. That fallacious logic is what you use to justify idiotic concepts like racial purity/superiority.
On February 01 2012 09:39 deesee wrote: I don't have any familiarity with what you reference to twins, and can't find any relevance to whether there was environmental cause for it, or environmental impact on the twins later in life.
It seems like you haven't done much indepth studying of biology, so instead of explaining all of this i will PM you a lecture that will cover a lot of the material and won't take much time to catch up. Once you watch it I will help you out some more if you have any questions.
I totally believe in the idea that medicine is hurting our gene pool as a species. Consider a world where there is perfect medicine and everyone has the same chance to have a child. What happens in 10 generations? I think the gene pool will actually be significantly worse instead of being exactly the same (as one might expect). The reason is that most mutations are bad, and after enough errors in copying genes between generations, it's going to turn into a pile of crap.
However, I also believe that technology will outpace the above 'de-evolution', so I'm not too worried about it.
EPT
. 
