Are humans the end of natural evolution?
Humans are on a track to destroy themselves. Conversely, humanity is also on a track to improve their lives greatly. Humans have been using technology for a long time. Using technology, humans have greatly improved the human condition. As such, it seems like humanity is taking the reins of their own evolution. Can we still say that nature is controlling our evolution? I would say yes, I simply think it is a new kind of nature. Remembering that the universe is determined, we know that we can never escape nature. Additionally, we are within nature, as such, we need nature to improve ourselves; the materials to do so come from nature. I would, however, venture to say that humans have evolved enough to break free of the unguided, by-chance, evolution and have instead taken up a self-directed natural evolution.
The technology required to do so will certain create problems in that, as we discussed in class, humans have the potential to survive and the potential to destroy themselves.
26 April 2012
Helping Others
Related to my last post, what about the possibility of assistance coming from another species?
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Imagine humans found a way off this planet, that is to say, before the sun becomes a red dwarf and swallows the earth, Surely we could consider them fit, largely due to their intellect and tool-using prowess, However, imagine then, that humans choose to bring along oysters and red pandas. Would this mean that if the sun swallowed the world, humans, oysters, and red pandas, would have been the most fit on earth? As with my last answer, I am not inclined to say that those animals are the most fit. This is another example of how circumstance unrelated to evolutionary adaptation could possibly influence the survival of a species.
Circumstances
What other factors, if any, besides natural selection contribute to the survival of a species?
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
I would say that chance, or rather, the circumstance for one species at any given time, contributes heavily to the survival of a species. We said yesterday, I think, that dinosaurs were incredibly "fit"; that is, they survived for a very long time. I do think it is only slightly unfair to call the dinosaurs unfit due to the unfortunate circumstance of the impact of the Chicxulub asteroid. Granted, a prime example of fitness if the ability to adapt to change of circumstance or to have already adapted to survive most anything (i.e the cockroach), though we can hardly blame dinosaurs for not adapting to such a sudden and drastic change. Similarly, I think it would be unfair to, after a nuclear fallout, call most animals unfit for survival. The deep-sea life would likely remain unaffected by the fallout almost purely because of their distance away from the surface. Is this because they are the most fit? I am uncertain about this.
25 April 2012
Seldom Deal In Absolutes
In response to Meghan - full post here
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I'm not calling you a Sith, I only used that quote because it's interesting and applies here. I would be cautious with absolutes. Remember that few things are absolutely black and white. As such, you ought not make such a sweeping generalization regarding human desires.
You said that no one wants to choose to be poor, and that no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck, and that everyone starts with a high goal. However, I think that, with a world population of over 7 billion people, you could find at least person who chose to be poor, at least one person who voluntarily lives paycheck to paycheck, and at least one person who started with a low goal or no goal at all.
It is likely the case that the majority of people do not choose poverty, or to live paycheck to paycheck - I am not sure about the high goals - so it would be fair to say that few people choose to do these things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)