[Closed] Evolution, where are we going...?

have you watched wall-e?

[img] [/img]

We are going round in a big circle.

have you watched wall-e?

Aren't we there now?

I suspect that we will become generally sicker, because in evolutionary terms we are allowing people to survive and breed who would otherwise not do so. Let me stress that this is a purely scientific approach, and I'm not suggesting eugenics.

crikey - Member

I suspect that we will become generally sicker, because in evolutionary terms we are allowing people to survive and breed who would otherwise not do so. Let me stress that this is a purely scientific approach, and I'm not suggesting eugenics.

Generally yes, but not always true. For example I believe the prevalence of sickle cell is much higher amongst people who live in areas with high instance of malaria because it offers an element of protection against the disease.

I read somewhere that we will split into two races, one tall, thin, smart the other shorter squatter & better at menial tasks

Not sure when though, however I am encouraging my kids to think tall - just in case

I suspect that we will become generally sicker

I guess it'll be a constant battle with medical science. I suppose we'll live much longer lives too, as our living conditions get easier and medical science advances.

I wonder given birth rates and increases in average age of the population when we'll end up with more people than the planet can support? I guess farming technologies (GM foods etc.) will be a factor in this.

I read somewhere that we will split into two races, one tall, thin, smart the other shorter squatter & better at menial tasks

Looking around my office I think this has also already happened.

Evolution happens in much bigger steps and in more stressful circumstances that people like to imagine. Just because a population does more of something it does physically change to adapt to that activity. A population being driven almost to the point of extinction - whole generations dying in childhood - and just a handful with a specific trait surviving is the way it works. Its not something you'd hope to be a part of.

mrblobby - Member

Saw that program with Alice Robert's bum in it the other day

could someone please explain what this means?!

I read somewhere that we will split into two races, one tall, thin, smart the other shorter squatter & better at menial tasks

Not sure when though, however I am encouraging my kids to think tall - just in case

Aldous Huxley.

evolution is NOT driven by 'survival of the fittest'.

it's driven by 'removal of the least fit'.

'fitness' is determined by breeding success (number of kids).

and 'removal' means death. - nothing will stop you having kids quite so effectively as being dead...

(you don't have to be the fastest lion to catch a zebra, you just don't want to be slower than the slowest zebra)

(you don't have to be the fastest zebra to escape from the lions, you just don't want to be the slowest)

and remember, there is no 'momentum' with evolution, humans may have got taller/more intelligent over time, but that's no reason to think we will continue to get taller/more intelligent.

for evolution to have a 'direction' - you need constant selective pressure.

So, in a nutshell; what's killing us before we have kids? - we'll adapt to suit that.

I read somewhere that we will split into two races, one tall, thin, smart the other shorter squatter & better at menial tasks

Probably in HG Wells 'The Time Machine' - a metaphor for the upper / lower class upstairs/downstairs culture in the late 1800s - quite an amusing punchline in that too.

Or you might have been reading about the Belgian origins of the Rwandan genocide.

could someone please explain what this means?!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/ ]This...[/url]

Population has got to a level that we're due a pandemic soon which will reduce the population hugely.

The resultant gene pool left will steer evolution in a specific direction.

The problem is that we are not removing the least fit, and are therefore altering the standard way that evolution works. The number of medical conditions with a familial or direct genetic component will influence humanity in as yet unknown ways. Interesting..

A population being driven almost to the point of extinction - whole generations dying in childhood - and just a handful with a specific trait surviving is the way it works.

Read somewhere that it can actually happen fairly quickly if there is enough stress on the population. This is why I was wondering about maybe a big extinction event (maybe another meteor strike or a massive volcano) leaving only small pockets of humanity struggling to survive. I guess the direction of evolution in those conditions would depend very much on adaptations that are advantageous to survival in those conditions.

(maybe another meteor strike or a massive volcano)

If you are referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs - the 'sudden' extinction took about 40,000 years to play out. It was only sudden in geological terms.

😯
#shuffles off to stockpile food and weapons in a bunker in the woods#

The problem is that we are not removing the least fit

Thats because we're not under stress - I think in the event of the kind of pressure that would drive an evolutionary change - Universal Healthcare and Social Safety Nets (and Charity Fun Runs) are the sort of thing we might let slip.

Population has got to a level that we're due a pandemic soon which will reduce the population hugely.

The resultant gene pool left will steer evolution in a specific direction.

I suspect the only thing that prevents us from solving much of the diseases and illnesses out there is a lack a investment (or return)... and maybe ethical issues blocking research. If those blockers were removed then I do wonder what could be achieved.

Wings and wheels, hopefully.

double

The thing is with diseases and viruses are that they are constantly evolving as well and becoming resitant too, e.g MRSA

If you are referring to the extinction of the dinosaurs - the 'sudden' extinction took about 40,000 years to play out. It was only sudden in geological terms.

Well, yes. It would be something that would dramatically (in geological terms) change the planet. Probably impacting our food sources and reducing the habitable area of the planet. If it happened over this sort of time period I'd imagine we'd have the technological capability to adapt to the environment.

Antibiotic resistance is a massive, massive timebomb. Bacteria and viruses have been around far longer than humans, and are far better evolved to do what they do than us. The 'war on infection' is not one we can ever win, and as globalization continues, we will see many more problems with essentially untreatable infections.

(you don't have to be the fastest lion to catch a zebra, you just don't want to be slower than the slowest zebra)

(you don't have to be the fastest zebra to escape from the lions, you just don't want to be the slowest)

You don't have to be the [b]cleverest[/b] lion to catch a zebra, you just don't want to be more stupid than the [b]most stupid[/b] zebra (etc, etc).

Lions aren't quick, they are clever and have learnt to work in a pack and use tactics to trap their pray. Perhaps you should have used a cheetah and a gazelle in your metaphor as they have both evolved to be the quickest they can be to catch/escape their natural prey.

Sadly.

[img] [/img]

Have you seen the number of fat kids huffing about?

So is the NHS counter-productive for the evolutionary process?

So is the NHS counter-productive for the evolutionary process?

Yes - but thats a good thing, evolving isn't something you'd hope to be a part of.

I don't think it's counter-productive, I think it is changing the way that evolution will happen because of an effect on the population who can reproduce. In the same way, antibiotics have affected the bacterial population, becoming an external evolutionary pressure which changes the natural way that evolution works.

I read somewhere that we will split into two races, one tall, thin, smart the other shorter squatter & better at menial tasks

Where, in Uncle Adolf's Big Book Of Biological Determinism? 😆

Truth is, as increased mechanisation and advances in housing and heating and stuff has meant there is no longer much need for particular body types according to physical environment, the Human Race will eventually homogenise somewhat and there will be less physical difference between people. Of course, there will be mutations and stuff along the way, but places like Brazil show us a glimpse of the future of Human evolution.

Dwindling food resources, which will result if we continue to breed and keep ourselves alive and pollute the planet, will mean that the more energy efficient body types will prevail; many Asian ethnic groups and some Africans are well suited to a meagre diet and heavy workloads. Many Yerpeans and Merkins are big and tall due to an abundance of food, more than anything else. This will not be the ideal body type if there's not a lot of food to go round, no matter how many wars there are.

Personally I think it's more likely we'll blow each other up long before any of that happens anyway really. 🙂

Just looking within the UK for a minute...

Are there any stats on population growth by socio-economic groupings?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the gene pool is becoming weaker as we artificially ensure the survival of the weakest? Like prevelence of certain diseases or learning disorders?

(I believe whole hearedly in the welfare state BTW)

My hands are starting to curl all of the time into a grip like shape, and my feet are turning into spinny axles. Soon I'll be able to interface with my cranks more directly for more power.

Next, I suppose I'll grow an extendable bottom, to reduce the need for an uppy downy seatpost...

[i]Is there any evidence to suggest that the gene pool is becoming weaker as we artificially ensure the survival of the weakest?[/i]

No, because the time scale needed for such a change is probably in the 2-3-4 million year range.

Where, in Uncle Adolf's Big Book Of Biological Determinism?

and [url= http://www.****/sciencetech/article-489653/Human-race-split-different-species.html ]The Daily Mail[/url] - same thing really.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the gene pool is becoming weaker as we artificially ensure the survival of the weakest?

It always has been - we're not a very genetically strong species compared to our near relatives - unlike other apes we'd die if we could only eat raw food indefinitely - removed from even the most basic of our technologies - fire - we don't have enzymes to live successfully without the means to cook.

but having fires means we need smaller stomachs, making us lighter and faster.

My hands are starting to curl all of the time into a grip like shape, and my feet are turning into spinny axles. Soon I'll be able to interface with my cranks more directly for more power.

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/why-does-a-bike-fall-over-much-easier-if-it-is-not-moving/page/2 ]Next, I suppose I'll grow an extendable bottom, to reduce the need for an uppy downy seatpost...[/url]

[i]we don't have enzymes to live successfully without the means to cook.[/i]

I'm not sure that that is accurate.

If it is based on who reproduces and who doesn't, and if celebrity culture and a love of porn continues, surely everyone will get better looking.

we're not a very genetically strong species

Really... we've done quite well then!

he means that we're not very diverse...

(there isn't much genetic variation between humans, compared to other species)

Didn't read it in the Daily Mail, possibly Uncle Adolf but he had a different view, pockets of civilization populated by tall, blond, blue eyed, intelligent people with lots of workers outside. Always struck me as odd that he was short, brown haired who appeared to believe in inbreading which would not help much.

Anyway back to the point above something bad will happen, probably biological, maybe caused by us, maybe not. Mankind will get over it and adapt - or not.
If we do get over it chances are it will be the outer edges geographically who do so we may all look like pacific islanders or amazonian indians. At least if its the former there will be good rugby and nobody about calling others mongs 🙂

We do have a very shallow gene pool. Its been suggested that there is more genentic diversity between two groups of chimpanzees in the same forest then the entire human race.

Apparently it due to a near extinction of humans around 50,000 years ago, we are all descended from a very small breeding population.

Not sure what this means for the future of human evolution though.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the gene pool is becoming weaker as we artificially ensure the survival of the weakest? Like prevelence of certain diseases or learning disorders?

Well, I'd say that the increased level of care we give to those with 'learning difficulties', mental and severe physical difficulties, means we can more closely monitor their behaviour and activities. I remember ages ago talking to someone who worked in Sexual Health for the local health authority, and she said they had a programme of supplying contraception to such people, and what a difficult task it was, more because of various groups arguing the case for Human Rights and stuff. A very tricky issue. But everyone likes to have sex, and the 'problem' is that the rest of us able bodied and minded folk know the difficulties faced not just by the individuals, but by their families, carers etc. There was an issue of 'consent' to be administered with contraceptive drugs, and also over the far more ethically fragile issue of sterilisation. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Sweden ]Indeed it was only in the last 40 years or less, that nations like Sweden stopped the enforced sterilisation of those deemed to be 'unviable individuals'. [/url]

Thing is though, we can and do apply the science we now have, which will ensure a certain amount of possible prevention of certain genes prevailing. Also, modern medical technology allows us to determine certain aspects of the health of unborn babies. More and more people are able to make a choice as to keep their babies or not, if it's know that they will be born with certain issues. Yes, it's Eugenics in action, but mainly done for 'practical' reasons. An ethical minefield, and I'm not at all saying what is 'right' or 'wrong', just pointing out that the technology and science we now have allows us to have greater control over such things, and allows us greater choices.

Future medicine may well enable us to be able to eliminate 'defective' genes from the beginning, thus decreasing the chances of children being born with major difficulties. Maybe advances in genetics will allow us to 'tweak' our unborn children, so that they are born with the 'right' physical attributes.

Science gave us the Atom Bomb. No reason why it shoon't deliver us the Master Race....

there was an 18th century philosopher that predicted war, famine, and death for the human race, if you look at the figures for population growth, you dont have to be a genius to figure out that food and water will become our biggest priorities.

We are not removing the least fit

You miss understood what fitness means.

The least fit are being removed all the time.

For instance those who decide that the world has too many people already and it would be best if they did nt have children are constantly being removed.

Really I dont think you should give reasons for the direction of evolution as it just happens.

 

This is an intersting SF story on the theme. If all the clever folk don't have kids and all the thick ones do..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

[i]Really I dont think you should give reasons for the direction of evolution as it just happens.[/i]

There are reasons for the direction, but I would say that they are not negative or positive, they just are.

Apparently it due to a near extinction of humans around 50,000 years ago, we are all descended from a very small breeding population.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory ]Toba go bang[/url]

lazybike - Member
there was an 18th century philosopher that predicted war, famine, and death for the human race, if you look at the figures for population growth, you dont have to be a genius to figure out that food and water will become our biggest priorities.

Malthus? Who couldn't have been more wrong in his predictions.

aye aye capt thats the fella, hope your right, lots of people in futures markets like to mention his name..

This is an intersting SF story on the theme. If all the clever folk don't have kids and all the thick ones do..........

This totally depends on your definition of clever though doesnt it.

It would seem pretty stupid not to have kids to a lot of people.

If you look at Cheetas, i believe the current research is that the population is now so inbreed that the species is almost certain to die out.

That is the ultimate fate if the gene pool is too small.

Best case is that the popualtion will cease to be black and white and more coffee coloured.

However the problem will be when the current system breaks down, and to be fair evey system mankind has yet tried has eventually failed.

The current political system works on today with little to no thought for tomorrow, which is why the UK may have issues with food, water and power in the not distant future.

Throw in a good few pandemics, which tend to be more prevalent in over populated locations. Think the emergence of a new plague, the medevial plagues were pretty effective and that was without the speed of transport offered by air travel.

That woman on the TV the other night was talking out of her ass too.

We're not designed for long distance running !.
She only considered the mechanical/structural design/evolution of our bodies.
And omitted to acknowledge the biochemical direction our evolution has headed in.
Looking just at our skeletal and muscular development in isolation is rather a poor show, imo.

As for evolution ?.
Well, you could consider what has driven human evolution for the last 4 millions years.
However, one might argue that the evolutionary context/environment we evolved within, has now changed somewhat, since we [i]got smart[/i].

Personally, I do not believe we will evolve as we once did, because since gaining dominion over this planet, we have pacified our evolutionary driver of outright survival in competition with the rest of the species of this planet.
Now we need to survive ourselves.

😯

thats the thing with these discussions...it always gets deppresing..maybe we'll evolve into pure consciousness..we'll have no need for bodies and just travel around the universe at the speed of thought...ssssssssshhhhhhh.... man thats some good shit...

This thread has evolved in such a way, that it now needs a...

[img] [/img]

😆

Evolution is a very slow process, and mankind's time on earth is now nearing the end (lack or resources, climate change-natural or not).

Personally, I do not believe we will evolve as we once did, because since gaining dominion over this planet, we have pacified our evolutionary driver of outright survival in competition with the rest of the species of this planet.

Yes, do wonder through technology and social structures whether the traditional drivers for evolution are still valid, unless there's a major shake up. Didn't someone do a telly program about this a while ago? Maybe Dawkins? And it's impossible to tell how those social structures and technology will advance over evolutionary timescales.

I suppose in the short term the only difference is that we'll all end up a sort of caramel colour.

Now we need to survive ourselves.

It is slightly worrying that we now possess the technology to pretty much rid the planet of ourselves (and probably much else) and that technology is only going to become more capable and prevalent. Especially as the demands on food, water and natural resources becomes even more stressed by an exploding population.

I can't ever see us getting to the point where we all put aside petty bickering and get together to go explore the universe in peace 🙁

maybe we'll evolve into pure consciousness..we'll have no need for bodies and just travel around the universe at the speed of thought...ssssssssshhhhhhh.... man thats some good shit...

8)

Unless we get our heads out of our ar*es we'll end up here..

[img] /[/img]

Malthus? Who couldn't have been more wrong in his predictions.

there's wrong, and there's wrong.

he predicted that the human population would be constrained by the natural limitations of water, land, food, wood, resources, etc.

he thought this would happen quite soon, but instead we invented the industrial revolution, and made him look a bit foolish.

but i reckon he got the basics right...

Humans will split, divide and sadly rejoin making a complex mixed species of being.

There will be the one's that advance forward into an improved adaptation coping well with the changing world, fighting disease and climate change.

Others will devolve, taking a backwards step from where we are now, their high dependency on medicine and technology will make them more prone to disease, sickness and other ailments, And their bodies will weaken without the need for physical use, whilst their brains will lose the ability to problem solve and think for themselves.
These will become slaves to high society.

Sadly both will on occasions merge and mate, creating a species of the confused human, caught between a living and existing. Becoming power hungry business men, primed ready to rape and piledge all and everything.

Greed and poverty will play a large part in this divide.

Devolution will become more common place than the evolution of mankind.
Those advancing will live out improvised lives away from high society, which will appear to others as primitive compared to the devolved drones feeding and fueling the greed and corruption around them. Inter breeding will cause a very weak and unstable being, which will be kept alive to carry out it's role in society well into it's elder years.

This is all in the next 200 years, however, the greed and disease ridden inbreds, drones and such like, will fall into an abyss of death and extinction, an education to the next generation.

Those hiding out in safe improvised natural colonies have been learning, breeding and getting better. They are armored from the physical and mental disease of the now extinct species of sub human.

They grow their own food and make everything they need to live a life in a free and happy way, eating and exercising well. Healthy bodies and souls. Not dependable on the outside world. They've learnt from previous over population issues, but due to the elders not living beyond a useful age and the others that are injured, sick and otherwise, are humanly put to rest by request of themselves or family.

Religion as we know will become a a thing of the past, everyone will be equal.

[i]Humans will split, divide and sadly rejoin making a complex mixed species of being.

There will be the one's that advance
[/i]

Blah, blah, blah.

Evidentally, your ass has evolved to the point of posting here on your behalf.

[img] [/img]

Religion as we know will become a a thing of the past, everyone will be equal.

Not a chance, look at animals there is always a pack leader. The question is how control will be enforced, in the past religion, weapons, money have all been used, going forward i suspect then same will continue to be used.

Sharki:

Humans will split, divide and sadly rejoin..

😯

Religion as we know will become a a thing of the past, everyone will be equal.

Religion regrettably seems to be making a major comeback.

Everyone needs something to beleive in.

Everyone needs something to beleive in.

I don't.

oh no its going religous.....

there was an 18th century philosopher that predicted war, famine, and death for the human race

Curiously we thrive as a species in circumstances where you'd least expect it - war for instance is a driver for medical advancements. In the first world war - although it was massive exterminator of europes breeding age men the trickle down of medical breakthroughs from the frontline back to civilians meant massive advances in the survivability of accidents and illnesses - in the midst of all that killing Europe's population actually increased quite dramatically.