The Evolution of Man

[Bijo]

Dear Backroom-goers, let us observe the evolution and general changes of humanity up until now. And let us speculate about the evolution of humandom (-- I like this word's sound --) regarding the future. Input any significant information, whether it be your speculations/thoughts, (scientific/medical/philosophical) articles, and so forth.

Questions to be asked (but input important ones if necessary) are:
* What humanoid crop has sprung from Earthly seeds planted long ago? | the past up to the present
* Will this crop -- humanity -- (significantly) evolve and within what time? | the present and further
* If man will have evolved, what changes will there be? | the (far) future result


---

When I would have to answer shortly, my answer would consist of this: man has changed little. Man has been able to increase technology levels, skills, and so forth, but man itself is still the same old beast as usual and we will most likely not significantly evolve regarding our human beings, nature, structure, physically and mentally, etc. It seems highly impossible.

[Warmaster Horus]

Not if war still exists...

Wipe that from mankind and you'll have evolution.

[Ice]

Questions to be asked (but input important ones if necessary) are:
* What humanoid crop has sprung from Earthly seeds planted long ago? | the past up to the present

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I'll attempt to answer it. Many human or human similar beings have existed in the past. To name them all now would be a choir.

* Will this crop -- humanity -- (significantly) evolve and within what time? | the present and further

Perhaps, if we don't destroy each other first we might evolve. Each generation of humans is evolving slowly. Each is slightly different from the past. For any major changes to take place, it will most likely take hundreds of thousands or even millions of year of evolution.

* If man will have evolved, what changes will there be? | the (far) future result

Humans will (are) getting taller. Things that we don't use anymore (tail bone and a few others) will most likely gradually disappear from future generations. I'm guessing the brain will develop more allowing future generations increased intelligence. Our bodies will adapt and we will become immune to certain diseases (not to say viruses and bacteria will also evolve)

This is just the short version of my answer. I could spend a whole month researching and answering this question.

[Suraknar]

Dear Backroom-goers, let us observe the evolution and general changes of humanity up until now. And let us speculate about the evolution of humandom (-- I like this word's sound --) regarding the future. Input any significant information, whether it be your speculations/thoughts, (scientific/medical/philosophical) articles, and so forth.

Questions to be asked (but input important ones if necessary) are:
* What humanoid crop has sprung from Earthly seeds planted long ago? | the past up to the present
* Will this crop -- humanity -- (significantly) evolve and within what time? | the present and further
* If man will have evolved, what changes will there be? | the (far) future result


---

When I would have to answer shortly, my answer would consist of this: man has changed little. Man has been able to increase technology levels, skills, and so forth, but man itself is still the same old beast as usual and we will most likely not significantly evolve regarding our human beings, nature, structure, physically and mentally, etc. It seems highly impossible.

Well,

* What humanoid crop has sprung from Earthly seeds planted long ago? | the past up to the present.

The Humanoid Crop, is called Hommo Sapiens, some aproximate of 300 thousand years of existance, with a 10 thousand years of civilisation and recorded history.

Thus largelly adapted to the prehistoric lifestyle still, we exist today with all our Technological advances, but equiped with pre-historic brains. We havent changed since first making our appearence.

* Will this crop -- humanity -- (significantly) evolve and within what time? | the present and further

Still equiped with prehistoric brains, hich largelly influence our present behavior and way of dealing with problems of the world or in our daily lives, I think we still have much to learn and much to understand about the world and our own selves before our nature changes to something else.

In spite of our apparent different lifestyle with our brethren of our pre-historic past, we are not really living in a different environment, we have same challenges we crave for same pleasures, we survive with same behavior, and we procreate like rats.

Therefore our existance is not menaced - even if there was a cataclysm that killed most of the population on earth, natural or man made, and brought a bunch of survivors back to the stone age, we are equiped to survive and rebuild - and our evolution albeit still hapening it is very very slow.

It is very difficult to predict the next evolutionary step, which would most probably start with our brain structure, a minmum of 20 thousand years still is most probably required.

We are really infants of the modern world we have made and live in, which does not warrant phisiological addaptations (which include mental changes) in any crucial manner.

An interesting change could be provoqued if...

Not if war still exists...

Wipe that from mankind and you'll have evolution.

No war involves drastic changes for humankind, it means no competition in all walks of life, a completelly different landscape from the realities we live in today and have lived up to today since our appearence in pre-history.

* If man will have evolved, what changes will there be? | the (far) future result

Highly speculative, and he possibilities can be endless, it will all depend of how we understand ourselves, the universe that sourounds us and our place in it, and it can go in many various directions.

Changes will most probably start hapening in the structure of our brains and synapses.

At this point any answer to that would be Sci-Fi.

[Papewaio]

Society is an environment and people still die before having children.

Teenagers dieing on the roads from drink driving.
Hardcore drugs.
Trainsurfing. etc

The survivors will be better suited to society... for instance just looking at drink driving...the next generation they don't desire alcohol so much, can handle the alcohol better, or are much better at drink driving (from those whose parents drink drived but survived).

[Fragony]

Houellebeque's latest plays with the idea, you just might like it Bijo.

[macsen rufus]

IMHO mankind is in suspended evolution right now - we are isolated from most real evolutionary pressures, with the possible exceptions of disease. Most changes witnessed (eg growing taller etc) are environmental rather than evolutionary - ie better and more abundant food, better health care etc. We are essentially the same species from the palaeolithic, only we've had more practice and have better toys

Also global travel means that one prerequisite for speciation - isolated populations - is missing and the overall genepool will keep mixing, diluting any drift.

re Pape:

for instance just looking at drink driving...the next generation they don't desire alcohol so much, can handle the alcohol better, or are much better at drink driving (from those whose parents drink drived but survived).

I have to disagree - drink driving seems to be cyclical. If your theory was correct we wouldn't be seeing it rise again amongst our young now. Sad but true.

An interesting scenario on these lines though can be found in "Darwin's Radio", by Greg Bear

[Moros]

Evolution is a wierd thing. There are a few conditions before and evolution can take place. First of all there needs to be a kind of mutation, which needs to be able to pass to next generations. Second of all it musn't die out, so it needs some luck and must be a benifit in the situation or enviroment the mutated creature is. Third the evolution can only be complete if the whole species evolve or if a isolated (or soemthing similar) group evolves next to the original species, or the others without the advantage must die out (if this happens quickly an evolution can take place rather rapidly.

Now Evolution doesn't need to be that slow. Recently a type of bird evolved in only 30 years. It's nozzle (is that the word?) became significantly smaller in that period as it got new competition of another bird, which ate the same food. Now the bird has changed it's diet and it's nozzle to survive:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

Anyway some other very interesting articles from National Geographic news:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

[Rodion Romanovich]

* Will this crop -- humanity -- (significantly) evolve and within what time? | the present and further

Human beings never learn the abract, high-level theoretical lessons but only the low-level lessons, after they have fought a war. Human beings never solve the causes of war, but at most only the causes of one war - the war they just fought.

People believe blindly in ethics systems that would work well and give peace to earth, if all human beings would follow the system, but these ethics systems are disadvantageous to its followers if some humans do not follow them. As a result, they must murder and forced-convert those who do not share their faith.

People seldom see further than 1 day ahead. Those who can see 1-5 years ahead are considered men of great wisdom, or even oracles or gods, when they predict the harvest, or the economical result of an affair, even though there were less than half as many possible outcomes, than there were persons who attempted a prediction. Those who can see 100-1000 years ahead, are ignored or ridiculed.

Chimpanzees, rabbits and cows are more likely to meet a great future, than are humans, until both rulers and the people who has the power to overthrow or support them, become philosophers.

[AntiochusIII]

Chimpanzees, rabbits and cows are more likely to meet a great future, than are humans, until both rulers and the people who has the power to overthrow or support them, become philosophers.

I'm quite certain Chimpanzees, rabbits, and cows don't have visionaries among them. And if humans blow up the world they'll be blown up too, poor things. Only the cockroaches (it's always the cockroaches) will survive. Probably.

In any case, Bijo, I'd like to add that with science going the way it is we humans might rely more on artificial evolution instead of a natural one. We've been playing with the genetics of our livestock and our crops for quite a long time, but the knowledge about the real stuff inside as far as timelines go is a very recent development.

[Moros]

I'm quite certain Chimpanzees, rabbits, and cows don't have visionaries among them. And if humans blow up the world they'll be blown up too, poor things. Only the cockroaches (it's always the cockroaches) will survive. Probably.

Yeah them cockroacher are some tough basterds. You can kill those things multiple times and they'll be walking around like nothing happened.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm quite certain Chimpanzees, rabbits, and cows don't have visionaries among them. And if humans blow up the world they'll be blown up too, poor things. Only the cockroaches (it's always the cockroaches) will survive. Probably.

Quite right, visionaries only cause trouble. And I think even if humans self-destruct, the other animals will have greater survival chances. We don't yet know the manner of our (likely) future self-destruction yet. The probability is not 1.0 that we will destroy ourselves in a way that destroys all other life.

In any case, Bijo, I'd like to add that with science going the way it is we humans might rely more on artificial evolution instead of a natural one. We've been playing with the genetics of our livestock and our crops for quite a long time, but the knowledge about the real stuff inside as far as timelines go is a very recent development.

A deliberate, artificial evolution would be morally equal to genocide. The only reason why not all disadvantaged by today's society structure run on killing sprees out of frustration is because society doesn't look the way it looks due to conspiracy or deliberate efforts, but as a semi-random result of several wills acting to further different interests, with some of these semi-random actions resulting in temporary synergistic effects that temporarily creates an advantage for a particular set of people who happen to have certain properties, with this set varying from time to time. If you would actually try to form a centralized, deliberately controlled version of this, do you really think that would work? How would you define who gets to belong to the group of untermenschen, how large percentage of the population would you dare to put into that cathegory without risking resistance (a minority as usual, I assume?), and would all cultures really choose their artificial evolution in the same manner? Would Muslim, Buddhist and Christian communities choose in the same way? Would a multicultural society not start to favor their own ethnical group, instead of looking solely on properties? Would an ethnic group tolerate it, if their group was found to have a weakness that would put all or most of those belonging to that group, in the untermensh cathegory? If current indeliberate artifical evolution is controversial and cause for war and other bloodshed, what do you think a deliberate artificial evolution would cause?

[Papewaio]

I have to disagree - drink driving seems to be cyclical. If your theory was correct we wouldn't be seeing it rise again amongst our young now. Sad but true.

a) It would take generations to take place.
b) It would have to be enough to effect the gene frequency.
c) I also noted that it would have several effects... some of which would drop the number of drink drivers, others making the drinkers able to handle more alcohol (mind you that takes many generations, just compare most European drinkers vs Asian ones... there is a genes and environment thing working in synergy that means most Europeans can drink more then most asians... again there are exceptions to the rule... I for one am not a heavy drinker and can easily be out drunk by my uncle in law).

[Ironside]

A deliberate, artificial evolution would be morally equal to genocide. The only reason why not all disadvantaged by today's society structure run on killing sprees out of frustration is because society doesn't look the way it looks due to conspiracy or deliberate efforts, but as a semi-random result of several wills acting to further different interests, with some of these semi-random actions resulting in temporary synergistic effects that temporarily creates an advantage for a particular set of people who happen to have certain properties, with this set varying from time to time. If you would actually try to form a centralized, deliberately controlled version of this, do you really think that would work? How would you define who gets to belong to the group of untermenschen, how large percentage of the population would you dare to put into that cathegory without risking resistance (a minority as usual, I assume?), and would all cultures really choose their artificial evolution in the same manner? Would Muslim, Buddhist and Christian communities choose in the same way? Would a multicultural society not start to favor their own ethnical group, instead of looking solely on properties? Would an ethnic group tolerate it, if their group was found to have a weakness that would put all or most of those belonging to that group, in the untermensh cathegory? If current indeliberate artifical evolution is controversial and cause for war and other bloodshed, what do you think a deliberate artificial evolution would cause?

I got the feeling that AntiochusIII focus more on genetical engineering than breeding. In that case, "all" you need to do is to accept engineeering of your children in some way. Or if the technology goes fast enough, change yourself.

What would be interesting is if you develop different strains of humanity, in that case you can easily get all this racism again, although this time much stronger, due to that there's clear genetical differences that preceeds the average variations.

Advanced genetical engineering is certainly a field were things can go either way, is hard to predict and unless something happens, a field humanity will go quite deep into.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I got the feeling that AntiochusIII focus more on genetical engineering than breeding. In that case, "all" you need to do is to accept engineeering of your children in some way. Or if the technology goes fast enough, change yourself.

If people can choose their children in this way, most would choose very identical genes in some fields, according to what is fashion at the moment, and not after what is good. Today, we have removal of <1% by ultrasound etc., this is to compensate for the increased rate of Down's syndrome etc. occuring because western women have children at higher ages, when the risk of these diseases are higher. However, if we were to increase the rejection percentage to perhaps 5%, or 50%, that would be very much like genocide IMHO. Additionally, if one person starts this, all others would have short term disadvantage out of not doing this, with the result that the value of human beings goes through an inflation. I don't think it's fantasy, to believe that it's likely these genetically engineered "ubermenschen" will soon feel like such, and try to get privileges over the normal humans. Additionally, does it really promote survival of the human species, if we replace the human species individuals with engineered machines that are, after a few generations, nothing like humans from a genetical perspective, and no longer willing to preserve/recreate the human species, but only to preserve what they have become, or what they're trying to turn themselves into?

What would be interesting is if you develop different strains of humanity, in that case you can easily get all this racism again, although this time much stronger, due to that there's clear genetical differences that preceeds the average variations.

A similar event took place in Rwanada, when from a single population people with certain properties were elected to become Tutsis, and others to become Hutus. Suddenly, one population group had become two "races", that took turns genociding each other. I don't know if we would see the same result from genetical engineering, but I wouldn't rule out the risk.

Advanced genetical engineering is certainly a field were things can go either way, is hard to predict and unless something happens, a field humanity will go quite deep into.

Genetical engineering has potential to solve some medical problems, but it is also a Pandora's box. Personally, I think it's one of the most dangerous field of research man has attempted since the invention of nuclear weapons.

[Ironside]

If people can choose their children in this way, most would choose very identical genes in some fields, according to what is fashion at the moment, and not after what is good. Today, we have removal of <1% by ultrasound etc., this is to compensate for the increased rate of Down's syndrome etc. occuring because western women have children at higher ages, when the risk of these diseases are higher. However, if we were to increase the rejection percentage to perhaps 5%, or 50%, that would be very much like genocide IMHO.

That is one of the uncertainy factors, it might not be needed at all if genetical repiaring or replacing bercome possible

Additionally, if one person starts this, all others would have short term disadvantage out of not doing this, with the result that the value of human beings goes through an inflation. I don't think it's fantasy, to believe that it's likely these genetically engineered "ubermenschen" will soon feel like such, and try to get privileges over the normal humans.

Also one possibillity and if combined with the future risk of getting too little jobs to get the entire population employed it could be a very violative one. It can also happen that choosing methods remains more or less as it is today, but that humanity itself is taking a great leap "forward".

Additionally, does it really promote survival of the human species, if we replace the human species individuals with engineered machines that are, after a few generations, nothing like humans from a genetical perspective, and no longer willing to preserve/recreate the human species, but only to preserve what they have become, or what they're trying to turn themselves into?

The question is are they human or not? If not, at what point did they stop being human? Are they then descandants of humanity? Would this be acceptable by natural human evolution, so it's only the rapid speed this changes appear that is scary? If you engineer the entire human race, is Homo Sapiens dead then? If you time-travel and doesn't really see any difference between you and these genetically engineered humans, does it matter?
Is it natually bad to change into something different?

A similar event took place in Rwanada, when from a single population people with certain properties were elected to become Tutsis, and others to become Hutus. Suddenly, one population group had become two "races", that took turns genociding each other. I don't know if we would see the same result from genetical engineering, but I wouldn't rule out the risk.

I would certainly not recommend creating different sub-species for humanity for the above reasons, but it would still create some interesting situations.

Genetical engineering has potential to solve some medical problems, but it is also a Pandora's box. Personally, I think it's one of the most dangerous field of research man has attempted since the invention of nuclear weapons.

I would say nuclear energy (including weapons), it can be a very powerful tool that can go horribly, horribly wrong.
The doomday scenarios is the doomsday virus and evolving beyond humanity for extiction, but social conflicts caused by genetical engineering can certainly be a causing factor (but that's indirect).


Oh and another possible human evolution field is the MMI (mind-machine interface, the cyborg style) that has about the same benefits and issues as genetical engineering, but also contains the part of being impossible(?) to have an easy passing through the generations.

[Navaros]

As stated by me in other recent thread, due to man having a sin nature, he will never evolve morally. The only thing about man that ever evolves is technology, that's it.

Morally, man is actually devolving in recent decades, back to a Sodom & Gomorrah type.

In terms of "evolution via apes having turned into humans over time", that never actually happened and nor in the future will humans magically turn into another species over time; so any "points" made retaining to that have no merit.

[Fragony]

In terms of "evolution via apes having turned into humans over time", that never actually happened and nor in the future will humans magically turn into another species over time; so any "points" made retaining to that have no merit.

According to the evolutiontheory we didn't come from apes but share an ancestor. The only possible evolution of man that is somewhat likely is the desexualisation of mankind, cloning.

[Ronin]

Morally, man is actually devolving in recent decades, back to a Sodom & Gomorrah type.

you have some kind of timeline on that?

I´m waiting man!....I´ve got the lube ready and everything!

[Ice]

Morally, man is actually devolving in recent decades, back to a Sodom & Gomorrah type.

That's the only part of the argument I'll answer. Why do you think so?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

from my limited knowlede of the area there are a few things that i think are often missed.

evolution will happen only if one area of the population is more successful at reproducing then the others, with modern medicine disease resistance and some mild genetic conditions do not damage reproductive sucess as much as they once did, but so i would not expect their frequency to change much maybe even slowly grow as mutations occur in successive generations (most mutations are either benign or harmful), but mutations that do help improve reproductive sucess would naturally increase in frequency.

also i think if genetic engineering in humans where introduced it wouldnt be as bad as you might think (although i wouldnt support it currenty) as i think most advantages come at a price, i have heard that increased cancer resistance works against general health (as the body is better at destroying dodgy cells more innocuous cells would be destroyed weakening the body, freindly fire if you will) so any ''superhumans'' we created would also have weaknesses (although i guess these could be chosen to be in line with the modern enviroment)

[KafirChobee]

Man can only evolve if the diversity of all men are acceptable, that the diversties are acceptable to the vast majority of man - many are not to those that have the "one true belief" (pick one). Therefore, another method of acceptance must be sought - if not compliance to accepting that all ideas are correct (be they political, social, racial, or religious), then the one common item all have in common must be expoilted, That is, survival. That is, regardless of all the crap one is spoon fed - they ought to recall we live on a rock in space. And the protection of that rock must be the primary goal for all that live on it.

As far as, EVOLUTION? Well, the dinosaurs ruled as far as time on earth; and I seriously doubt man can compete with their length of domination.
____________________
RANT ONLY
Assuming we get past Bush, I give us 50 years - max. Those that survive the next world war - wish y'all luck with finding someone to discuss the philosophic evolution of thought.Rule the world man! Good luck with that.

[Navaros]

That's the only part of the argument I'll answer. Why do you think so?

Let's take the 1950's for example. Back then, other than a few major issues like racism, people lived respectable lives and were not hellbent on living only to gratify their own evil lusts. Those who lived that sort of life back then were outcasts from society because they did not live respectable lives. This consensus of morality encouraged everyone to not want to live unrespectable lives and hence society as a whole had much fewer of such blights and thus was far better and more moral.

Starting in the 1960's and on, all that got flushed down the toilet in order for man to devolve back into "Life is only for gratifying the evil lusts of one's own heart, no matter how evil they may be". That is the same sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

For another poignant example in case any of you have watched the movie "The Ten Commandments", when Moses comes back down the hill and the people he is helping are all engaged in many manners of debauchery. Visually, what does that scene from that old 1956 movie resemble quite a bit? All the "gay pride" parades that have become a "standard feature" of "modern society."

[Somebody Else]

So long as we maintain a culture of caring for the weak, and giving benefits to the poor, we shan't evolve. We should just kill them off or something...

[ajaxfetish]

Biologically, humankind has been evolving very slowly and will probably continue to do so only at a near imperceptible rate. We do see some signs of it, such as the decreased occurrence of wisdom teeth, but at the same time we're doing things to actively hamper it. I, for example, have worn glasses for the majority of my life, and the same goes for everyone in my family. Back in the day, we would have been tiger food a few generations back and the people who survived until today would have fantastic eyesight. Modern medicine is also working to neutralize the advantages of natural disease-resistance, and many social systems work to neutralize the disadvantages of various physical or mental handicaps. So biologically we're evolving very slowly and in some ways perhaps even in retrograde.

Behaviorally, on the other hand, humankind has been evolving incredibly rapidly, and will probably continue to do so.

Ajax