I want your thoughts on something. Last night I was thinking about natural selection and how this mechanism has allowed for early hominids and animals to gradually become more intelligent over time. The way I understand it, humans are no longer evolving (or at least, evolving much slower rate) due to the fact that natural selection is no longer a big factor given we have no more predators to take us out and weed out the "less intelligent" specimens over time. Thus, it can be said that because we have reached this particular level of intelligence in which we are are capable of conquering all predators (either through technological advancement or by other means), there is really no need for humans to keep improving in intelligence. Furthermore, a random genetic defect which result in higher intelligence is no longer advantageous to survivability and thus does not necessarily increase the chances of that person producing offspring relative to a 'normal' person. Could this imply that there is a universal limit on intelligence, in which we make the assumption that as long as an alien species reaches the same level of intelligence, awareness and cognitive ability then it is implied that the alien species can conquer it's predators and thus halt the process of natural selection just as we have? Please note that I'm a Physics graduate, not an evolutionary biologist so I'll accept that my understanding of evolution is very rudimentary, but still, what are your thoughts about my little theory? :P Artificial selection can break this intelligence barrier if Aliens allowed only the smartest to mate and produce offspring but let's not talk about that just yet.
Pretty interesting there actually, I know nothing about this sort of stuff but I do like your theory of there being some universal limit on sentience/intelligence evolution.
Wouldn't that basically mean that if we want to evolve our species any further (imagining in the situation that this theory is true), we would have to completely restructure our morals that society or human rights are based on, and restructure even society as a whole to only let the most intelligent individuals procreate as you put it, in order to not make doing just that seem immoral - which would in my thoughts in turn cause a worldwide disturbance and systems would collapse because of the people not approving of this because of the morals that are being changed to allow it.
[I]I've no idea if that's even readable but I hope it makes sense.
Poor excuse: English isn't my first language[/I]
This is pretty interesting actually. Because today we cure deceases that would normally "weed out" those with less resistance to such things, and we allow people with unfavorable mutations to live, which could, over time cause a devolution. Though it most likely won't have much effect.
One thing that does have an effect is that fact that it is no longer an advantage to be intelligent when it comes to reproduction. And I think the average IQ has been dropping lately because less intelligent people tend to produce more children
there's still always augmenting intelligence using technology
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism[/url]
I remember reading an article a few years ago saying that even with modern medicine and technology natural selection is still happening.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647[/url]
It's a pretty interesting thought, yes, but it depends on lots of other things, as well.
For example; what if our society suddenly became nazi-esque, and decided to execute anyone who didn't reach a certain "intelligence" level?
Just watched Gattaca tonight for the first time, it explores one possible path we may take involving artificial selection. It's set in the near future where the "normal" process for conception is with genetic screening to filter out zygotes with genetic diseases, and to allow the parents to pick whatever traits they wish their child to have.
Genes that reinforce intelligence would probably be selected for, so we should hope to see average intelligence begin to rise at a faster rate than what natural selection would grant alone.
there's a biological limit to how smart we can get, higher inteligence generally leads to short circuts in the brain and all sorts of crazy, but we're actually evolving faster than ever before since we not only have a massive population, but also have no isolation, pockets of people that used to be seperated geographically have been able to connect, for example asians and native americans would never have been seen having children yet today its possible, also we have really good medicine.
however we are about to move above evolution, starting last year, gene theropy medicines were finally availible for mass market use, we are going to have genetic engineering of fetuses very shortly, and in the future we are going to be able to completely adjust our genes, as well we will be moving above biology eventually to merge with machinery to augment our biology.
[editline]1st March 2014[/editline]
also average inteligence has risen 10-15 points since the phasing out of leaded gasoline worldwide
[QUOTE=Flesh Wound;44090368]I want your thoughts on something. Last night I was thinking about natural selection and how this mechanism has allowed for early hominids and animals to gradually become more intelligent over time. The way I understand it, humans are no longer evolving (or at least, evolving much slower rate) due to the fact that natural selection is no longer a big factor given we have no more predators to take us out and weed out the "less intelligent" specimens over time. Thus, it can be said that because we have reached this particular level of intelligence in which we are are capable of conquering all predators (either through technological advancement or by other means), there is really no need for humans to keep improving in intelligence. Furthermore, a random genetic defect which result in higher intelligence is no longer advantageous to survivability and thus does not necessarily increase the chances of that person producing offspring relative to a 'normal' person. Could this imply that there is a universal limit on intelligence, in which we make the assumption that as long as an alien species reaches the same level of intelligence, awareness and cognitive ability then it is implied that the alien species can conquer it's predators and thus halt the process of natural selection just as we have? Please note that I'm a Physics graduate, not an evolutionary biologist so I'll accept that my understanding of evolution is very rudimentary, but still, what are your thoughts about my little theory? :P Artificial selection can break this intelligence barrier if Aliens allowed only the smartest to mate and produce offspring but let's not talk about that just yet.[/QUOTE]
The way evolution seems to work in a sufficiently advanced society is that since survivability is no longer a major concern we "shift focus" so to speak on ability to reproduce. Thus traits that make people desirable life partners would probably be the focus. This means that evolution at this stage depends on what society defines as desirable traits
I think you'd be interested in this video OP
[video=youtube;UkuCtIko798]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798[/video]
There's too much talk of rabbits and neural augmentations, which are all artificial ways of improving intelligence. Also note that although I agree that socioeconomic factors may drive evolution in interesting ways I'm not sure whether such a process has any significant longevity to drive evolution. After all, things like homelessness and poverty are super volatile and can change within minuscule timescales (I direct you to the homeless physicist YouTube video). The question was: Has a cap been imposed by evolution that limits a being's naturally attainable level of intelligence. One point of interest is that non-predatory threats play a significant factor as well, which is true. One particular threat which comes to mind is climate change. A trait such as intelligence is particularly desirable as this allows a species to adapt and cope with it's environment. An example being old world apes leaving central Asia thanks to India colliding with the Asian continent and giving rise to the Himalayas, causing drastic climatic changes. The result being a migration of apes to the African Savannah (while others went to south Asia). Could this then imply intelligent beings can only thrive on planets with unstable climates as this is a significant means of driving evolution apart from predatory threats? The only difference being that the climate cannot be conquered and hence this would always be a driving factor for intellectual improvement.
Unless you take sperm donor's into consideration. Natural selection is still happening.
The people producing the most offspring are likely the best adapted to their environment.
Its also noted that people with a low IQ produce more offpsring than people with a high IQ. So our evolution might be going in the "subjectively"wrong way.
With enough time homo sapiens as we know it will stop existing and become something new (if we can survive as a species). Evolution will just probably become more culturally directed and "weak" traits will more readily survive if we can maintain our current level of development.
Evolution? More like Singularity! Have you read about the awe aspiring global initiative to achieve immortality within the century? Given how rapid our technology is increasing human evolution will eventually rise to a new level through trans-humanism.
Interesting article back in August about trans-humanism;
[URL="http://phys.org/news/2013-08-world-itskov-futurists-convene-gf2045.html"]Part 1[/URL]
[URL="http://phys.org/news/2013-08-world-itskov-futurists-convene-gf2045_1.html"]Part 2[/URL]
[QUOTE=czarcasm;44100268]Evolution? More like Singularity! Have you read about the awe aspiring global initiative to achieve immortality within the century? Given how rapid our technology is increasing human evolution will eventually rise to a new level through trans-humanism.
Interesting article back in August about trans-humanism;
[URL="http://phys.org/news/2013-08-world-itskov-futurists-convene-gf2045.html"]Part 1[/URL]
[URL="http://phys.org/news/2013-08-world-itskov-futurists-convene-gf2045_1.html"]Part 2[/URL][/QUOTE]
I wouldn't want to be immortal, even if I could be. The whole thought of artificial evolution doesn't ring with me.
[QUOTE=Owenator;44106763]I wouldn't want to be immortal, even if I could be. The whole thought of artificial evolution doesn't ring with me.[/QUOTE]
True, and that's fine. I just hope that you and the people who believe that don't try to hold back the people that want to live forever.
And think of the possibilities of social implications with all the trans humanism, specifically in art and literature.
A man and a woman fall in love, they stay together for ~5ish years and it turns out one has opted for immortality, and the other is against it.
One of them will live to see the other die and forever live with the pain of losing that love.
In turn, that could be related back to the consequences of living forever, to see all the upsides, and the downsides of humanity.
The notion of immortality will open new frontiers for mankind. I myself would like to accomplish feats that would be impossible for the mere life span of our race. People will have various reasons to seek immortality both good and bad. The future will definitely be an interesting era to live in.
It does seem though that more intelligent people tend to mate with other intelligent people, so although we aren't actually killing the dumb people, maybe we'll have a small section of super intelligent humans.
[QUOTE=czarcasm;44107657]The notion of immortality will open new frontiers for mankind. I myself would like to accomplish feats that would be impossible for the mere life span of our race. People will have various reasons to seek immortality both good and bad. The future will definitely be an interesting era to live in.[/QUOTE]
Immortality would make us extremely dangerous.
Think about the cruelty and evil we can inflict on each other in just one lifetime, now multiply that by infinity. God forbid we achieve this [i]and[/i] start spilling out into the greater universe. The aliens from every hostile alien movie ever will be downright tame compared to humans.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;44110472]Immortality would make us extremely dangerous.
Think about the cruelty and evil we can inflict on each other in just one lifetime, now multiply that by infinity. God forbid we achieve this [i]and[/i] start spilling out into the greater universe. The aliens from every hostile alien movie ever will be downright tame compared to humans.[/QUOTE]
Not like we aren't dangerous as it is. Nature is down right chaotic.
[QUOTE=czarcasm;44111849]Not like we aren't dangerous as it is. Nature is down right chaotic.[/QUOTE]
nature is remorseless but it's also a balanced system that has the ability to correct itself and remain functional. we have gained the capacity to break it and make a whole planet uninhabitable.
[QUOTE=Falchion;44112305]nature is remorseless but it's also a balanced system that has the ability to correct itself and remain functional. we have gained the capacity to break it and make a whole planet uninhabitable.[/QUOTE]
that assumes we are somehow outside of nature and not part of it's balance
the monolith came down on the north pole and made all the apes smart, meanwhile garry was on the south pole and remained retarded
[QUOTE=Flesh Wound;44090368]I want your thoughts on something. Last night I was thinking about natural selection and how this mechanism has allowed for early hominids and animals to gradually become more intelligent over time. The way I understand it, humans are no longer evolving (or at least, evolving much slower rate) due to the fact that natural selection is no longer a big factor given we have no more predators to take us out and weed out the "less intelligent" specimens over time. Thus, it can be said that because we have reached this particular level of intelligence in which we are are capable of conquering all predators (either through technological advancement or by other means), there is really no need for humans to keep improving in intelligence. Furthermore, a random genetic defect which result in higher intelligence is no longer advantageous to survivability and thus does not necessarily increase the chances of that person producing offspring relative to a 'normal' person. Could this imply that there is a universal limit on intelligence, in which we make the assumption that as long as an alien species reaches the same level of intelligence, awareness and cognitive ability then it is implied that the alien species can conquer it's predators and thus halt the process of natural selection just as we have? Please note that I'm a Physics graduate, not an evolutionary biologist so I'll accept that my understanding of evolution is very rudimentary, but still, what are your thoughts about my little theory? :P Artificial selection can break this intelligence barrier if Aliens allowed only the smartest to mate and produce offspring but let's not talk about that just yet.[/QUOTE]
We are a super-intelligence as a whole first of all, we haven't even begun to reach our limit of capabilities and somewhere in the middle of that vast amount of improvement yet to come we may see a technology that artificially increases intelligence and makes natural selection a relic. You're thinking about this in the way that many great and also terrible people have thought about it, almost in a limited way. We have the capability to not only sway our own evolution, but actually grab hold of it and transform ourselves in ways we couldn't even imagine. I see our future as exponentially more fantastic with each generation, and I expect that most truly intelligent life in the incomprehensible expanse would do the same.
I think the intelligence of humans as a whole will never stop increasing because people are always looking for new experiences and knowledge. We could've stopped after the industrial revolution with the rise of machines making fabric and further developing agriculture, which essentially established our species' survival, but we didn't because people were curious about everything. We now know what a body exists of which was beyond the imagination of industrial revolution pioneers and I think the curious nature of humans will be a cause in investigating what can be done with that knowledge.
I think it's partially right in saying that natural selection no longer plays a significant part in our species, otherwise there would be no families with generations of diseases, but I think this existed in the medieval ages aswell, maybe we could even go further back and say that it existed in 0 AC/BC. But not allowing people to have sex because better genetics exist is rather immoral, and I guess not everybody cares or wants to know that they could produce a 'weak' child because the parents' genetics are 'weak' aswell.
[editline]7th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;44115721]that assumes we are somehow outside of nature and not part of it's balance[/QUOTE]
No, we're still part of nature, but we as a species have managed to best it and influence it to our will.
Human and chimp wont differ from each other that much, sense of humor wise: Both take a dump, grab it, throw at someone's face and laugh hysterically.
Only difference in this being, that human records this and uploads to youtube, where thousands of people laugh hysterically when seeing the video.
[QUOTE=Flesh Wound;44090368]I want your thoughts on something. Last night I was thinking about natural selection and how this mechanism has allowed for early hominids and animals to gradually become more intelligent over time.[/quote]
It didn't "allow" for people to become more intelligent over time. Rather, those with intelligence had a greater advantage when it came to reproduction. This allowed the genes which gave the advantage of intelligence to become more prominent throughout the population.
[quote]The way I understand it, humans are no longer evolving (or at least, evolving much slower rate) due to the fact that natural selection is no longer a big factor given we have no more predators to take us out and weed out the "less intelligent" specimens over time.[/quote]
Evolution hasn't slowed a single jot. Humans are still evolving just as rapidly as they were 10,000 years ago. Selection pressures are still happening, so traits which confer advantages to creating more offspring (and making sure they survive to create more offspring and ultimately make the gene common throughout the population) are still popping up and spreading.
For instance, some groups of humans have rapidly evolved to be able to metabolize alcohol, consume dairy products, have variations in bone and body structure, have an immunity to various diseases, alongside others. There are some contested ones linking intelligence to group differences, but neither side of the debate has conclusively shown what is responsible for the IQ disparity among racial groups.
[quote]Thus, it can be said that because we have reached this particular level of intelligence in which we are are capable of conquering all predators (either through technological advancement or by other means), there is really no need for humans to keep improving in intelligence.[/quote]
Not necessarily. As long as intelligence confers an advantage, it will continue to be present among the population.
[quote]Could this imply that there is a universal limit on intelligence, in which we make the assumption that as long as an alien species reaches the same level of intelligence, awareness and cognitive ability then it is implied that the alien species can conquer it's predators and thus halt the process of natural selection just as we have?[/quote]
Not really. We'd have to find out.
[quote]Please note that I'm a Physics graduate, not an evolutionary biologist so I'll accept that my understanding of evolution is very rudimentary, but still, what are your thoughts about my little theory? [/QUOTE]
Find me some evidence. It seems as though what you are essentially saying is "Increases in intelligence brings diminishing returns".
[QUOTE]Find me some evidence. It seems as though what you are essentially saying is "Increases in intelligence brings diminishing returns". [/QUOTE]
Cockroaches. They're thriving, while most intelligent mammals aren't. They've outlasted the dinosaurs and the Neanderthals, and it's quite likely that they'll outlast us. If you haven't noticed, we're wrecking the planet right now, which says something about intelligence and it's propensity for self-destruction.
We will evolve to be more smarter, stronger, etc, because mate selection prefers those types.
Either that or we'll evolve to survive the mess we're creating.
Someone who studies population genetics or evolutionary biology could perhaps explain it better, I focus on molecular genetics. But I'll explain what I know.
Evolution is a much faster, specialized and especially more random process than most picture it. Many picture evolution as though the species has "levelled-up", and has become absolutely better than it was before but this is not the case. Rather than a straight ladder going from one rung to another, each species is a perfect fit for the specific environment it lives in. This fit is not created on purpose by some outside force, but is more akin to a blind man finding the perfect block for the square hole by trying every single one he can.
In light of this, it's entirely possible that there is a perfect level of intelligence, or attractiveness, or some other trait and we will never rise significantly above this. This is not essentially a bad thing, as by definition this is the perfect level. However, the inherent instability of DNA coupled with the sheer variety of genotypes means we will always have outliers, individuals who have traits completely different from the average (eg. extreme intelligence). If our environment changes, then these outliers will then become the norm. They just fit better in our high-tech space future. Already you can see this happening as people become more social and more intelligent to cope with the amount of information and social contact we deal with every day in the modern world. The problem with this is that so far technology is developing to suit us, not the other way around. Scientists call this the Caveman Principle. We don't use video phones, we meet in person so we still have body language. We don't rely on artificial insemination, despite it being quite easy and hygienic, because we want to have sex. We make robots to build anything we can dream of, but we supervise them with humans. Everywhere technology adapts to please out inner caveman rather than forcing our evolution.
I'd also like to point out that eugenics is completely flawed because of "Regression to the mean". Basically, even if you separate those outliers from the main group the descendants of the extremist will eventually return to normal. Just look at Einstein. His intelligence was astonishing, but his descendants have been normal, successful people. If you really want to change the intelligence of humanity as a whole, you need to change the environment in which we develop. This means better nutrition, better parenting and especially better education. Eugenics is just a morally questionable quick-fix, and just can't compete. Sorry to spoil anyone's dreams of a cool rebel philosophy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
