The Evolution of Man

[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