I posit that natural selection is without knowledge or understanding, it is without interest–it is a process of random events, random sequences, and random consequences that produce natural results. I posit that human beings are intelligent creatures able to make observations on their own existence and when in so doing human beings are able to make distinctions between what is beneficial and what is harmful. I further posit that science is a powerful tool that has provides human beings with the capacity to escape the process known as natural selection. With the advent of cloning, gene-splicing, genetics, and various other scientific endeavors and fields we are closer than ever to selecting our own evolution.
(a) What is the effect of human intellect on natural selection?
(b) How is one affected by the possibilty of unnatural selection?
(c) What are the dangers of unnatural selection?
(d) Which method of selection is safer?
(e) Potentially, which method of selection is more beneficial to humans?
(f) Does unnatural selection create a disbalance to natural selection?
Irrespective to the questions above:
Is unnatural selection an example of free will in action?
Conversely to the above, is natural selection an example of determinism in motion?
We’ve (the first world) pretty much already escaped natural selection, since most of the major causes of death occur after sexual maturity. The human population is reaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
Now, entering a new era of selection, you’re unnatural selection, that will be impressive. The only disadvantage I can see is making The Time Machine’s future a reality. . .
However, the nice thing about medical technology is that (given time) it really does trickle down. It’s about the only thing I can think of that does. Sure, for the first 50, maybe even 100 years we will have to accept a wider divide between the rich and poor. A pseudo-speciation, if you will. However, as long as the poor don’t become viewed as abhuman and totally denied any access to the technology, it will even itself out over a short bit of time.
Hopefully they will develop drugs that work for the poor rather than direct germ-line engineering . . . Well, they will develop drugs, hopefully the drugs will be cheap enough that (for the mere price of indentured servitude) that the poor will still be able to somewhat compete.
Personally, I think the bigger problem on the horizon is with genetic sequencing insurance will be a think of the past. Insurance is a form of gambling and it the rules are known, then a variety of diseases simply will not be covered. Diseases that need to be covered.
Its still a part of natural selection, via memes. And even if you don’t except memes, as a possible reality(which I strongly suggest you do), but except that we evolved via natural selection, then science would still be a product of natural selection. You can’t escape it our step out of it, intelligence is a product of selection, there are no skyhooks.
that would be nice, I hope it happens. Then I can stop wasting my time chasing money.
a) we can choose to change our dna for reasons other than having as many children as possible, natural selection cannot.
b) we can have a utopian society, “brave new world” style, by aldous huxley
c) we can have a utopian society, “brave new world” style, by aldous huxley. (created and run by people who arent completely altruistic)
d) i dont know how exactly humans go about modifying dna, but i think the only way nature does it is with radioactive particles or something getting jumbled in the creation of the zygote. considering the fact that virtually all mutations are bad for the organism, and it takes millions of years to find a good one, humans are probably better at it. theyre probably better at it because theyre actually trying to do it, instead of simply trying to follow the electromagnetic force wherever it may go.
e) natural selection will take too long to expect anything to ever happen.
f) they both create big unbalance. when the giraffe was born with a longer neck and his favorite tree hadnt yet developed the higher height, lots of those short trees were eaten and it was very sad and the environmental hippie giraffes protested but were too high.
if by free will you are referring to the predetermined decisions that humans make that are so complex they appear to be without specific cause, then yes, everything is.
all of the objects involved surely follow the laws of physics as far as we know, so yes. but so do humans.
i definetely think we should start working on a genetic caste system to alleviate the problems with capitalism and avoid the problems with communism. oh and also like diseases and stuff i guess, laser eyes and immortality. i definetely think that its entirely possible that we can be immortal by the end of the century. our kids. your cells commit suicide because of their genetic programming. did you know that? i think we can turn it off and live forever. and i dont think 100 years is too short a timespan to accomplish that. what would the inventor of the computer think about the world today? would he have guessed it only took 60 years?
It is all a matter of environmental stress. The real question is: “what is my environment demanding/preventing?”
“Nature” and “natural” are obscure words…
What an absurd assertion, we’re definitely not. Parts of the human population don’t meet any of the criteria.
In answer to Thrist’s original question:
It distorts the selection pressures, defusing the effects of some genes from what would previously have been a mortality inducing effect to a low or non-impact
Will mean nothing to me, it’s for the future generations its impact will be felt.
That one of two things happen, genes which cause worse and worse dehabilitating illness will become more frequent, increasing the cost of medical care or secondly that a world-wide recession/disaster could result in a mass death because the infrastructure to ‘defuse’ potentially harmful genes isn’t there any longer. As a very simple example, if there is a gene for chronic short sightedness which is easily cured by good optical care, then if this gene spreads and the care is suddenly taken away it could result in a lot of people being practically blind.
I don’t think the term safe can be applied to natural selection. Safe for what, the survival of the species?
Probably natural selection in the long run as it would make individuals less dependant on the state/corporations in ensuring their survival.
I think this is a confused question, there is still natural selection but the criteria are slightly different.
Not the present type of unnatural selection, we don’t even realise we’re doing it. If we can alter our own genes in the future and actually start doing that, then in a way, but it’s not free will for the individual involved but the parents/creators.
No, it just gives an individual a set of predispositions, so perhaps it is probablistically deterministic, but not strictly deterministic.
I disagree, let’s run through the assumptions:
Random Mating: In the first world there are almost no selective pressures and with the breakdown of old racists ideologies, very few overt phenotypic markers.
No Mutation: Well, it’s idealized, but most major genetic diseases are considered inhereted. Plus, given the size of our genome and how much junk is in it, the rate of mutation at 1x10^-6/cell division makes the chances of an actually damaging mutation pretty small.
No migration: Advances in modern transportation have made all parts of the first world (more-or-less) equally close. Aside from the occasional influx from the third world, there really isn’t anywhere to migrate to that could result in genetic divergence.
No Natural Selection: Modern technology has pretty much taken care of this. Sure, SCID or Fanconi Anemia patients are unlikely to reproduce, but most selectable factors aren’t being selected for. Check out how many people wear eye-glasses.
No Random Drift: A lot of the selectable markers like sight or skintone are polygenic so the chances of any random drift is pretty unlikely. I guess you could argue certain traits like left-handedness . . .
Avaialble time for children is now a selection pressure, I’m under the impression that those with larger families tend to be from poorer backgrounds. It could be a prejudice, but if it’s not, they’re outbreeding the richer and the two, certainly in the UK, don’t actually mix all that much. Certainly I’m already 27, as are most of my friends (or older!) and none of us have kids yet. That reduces the number I’m going ot be able to have! Although poverty itself is usually recovered in the UK, people generally pulling themselves out of it after a time, as far as I know it’s the opposite in the US because of poor social welfare.
Good looking men are also far more likely to sow their seeds, so calling it random isn’t very true!
I also still see a lot of pressure to breed inter-race, especially evident in the heavily racially biased areas of the UK. Racism is rearing it’s head again in the UK on a large scale, but this time it’s between Black and Asian, although there’s plenty of it in other sectors of the UK.
Anyway, isn’t it instinctive to go after someone similar to yourself? I don’t think this one is even capable of being met with our genetic makeup! Open-mindedness can only go so far.
I don’t know much about this, but as a ponder, if you assume a mutation would make a significant impact if it happens in the first 1,000 divisions of a new born child, then it turns into a 1/1000 chance? Or does it not work like that?
But there are pretty strict immigration laws in place in virtually all of those countries. So there is migration but in a small and controlled way, precisely the opposite of the requirements. And realistically what percentage of the populations of any 1st world country actually migrate or reproduce with another, I’m guessing it’s very small. I can still spot an Italian from a Fenchman from a Dutchman from an Englishman, Our regional specific traits are still very much apparent!
On the otherhand think of the people who suffer from obesity, heart attacks, alcohol addiction etc. all of which are said to at least be partially genetically determined, or speculated that they probably are. These all reduce the reproductive life of their sufferers and so are selection pressures. Remember it’s not that it has to kill before you reproduce, it is that it has to kill before or during the average sufferer’s reproductive time, and these things do!
I forgot about this one, I doubt there is anywhere that meets this, some small tribes in the middle of nowhere? If any exist anymore, one wonders. I think that realistically this is the only one that is met.
There is no such thing as “unnatural selection†unless one arbitrarily decides to differentiate between pre-existing environments and environments caused or produced through human intervention.
In that case you can label Natural any environment man had no hand in producing and artificial any environment directly linked to human meddling.
In so doing one realizes that Sexual Selection adapts to environmental conditions and favors certain traits over others, in accordance to what promotes survival and procreation within said environments.
In the case of Natural environments, selection is determined by a set of characteristics which have resulted in human beings and so have a track record of consequences and effects.
In the case of Artificial environments – as they are defined by memes – the full repercussions of human meddling have yet to materialize or be fully explored.
Despite this some preliminary consequences are evident and have begun being analyzed in philosophy, sociology, biology and psychology.
For one thing, human intervention, through morals and ideals, has created the need for further human intervention through technologies. Man shapes his environment and then attempts to cure the ailments the disparity between his previous evolution, in natural environments, and his current existence, within artificial environments, causes.
A variety of human physical and psychological diseases are related to this growing disparity and much of human discomforts and dissatisfactions can be attributed to his genetic inability to adapt to faster and faster memetic changes, which force a constant need for adaptation.
Exactly. So what you are all really talking about is how cultural evolution, interacts with biological evolution, but both processes are sub sets of Natural selection, and all lines as stated above are “arbitrary” .
I fully agree, but we always have to keep in mind that the definitions are arbitrary, especially concerning areas such as natural selection, since people are liable to run amuck with the idea, eg; the selfish gene concept has been wrongly applied in sociobiology many times, as Dawkins points out he could have called his book the Co-operative gene, while barely changing the text, and the book would still retain its full meaning. There really is no self, but then again there is a self. It all depends on what you are reffering to, if you are reffering to a cartesian theatre then the answer is no, but if you are referring to a solpsistic experience of agenthood, well then yes no one doubts that experience.
We must make bright lines, and in doing so we must clarify when those lines apply.
I’d worry more about the fact that poor genes are no longer removed from the gene pool (ie the end of natural selection). Continued medical treatment will result in a perpetuation of genetic disease and poor fitness.
Oooh, that sounded nasty; ah well, it’s factually true.
Natural selection produces the worst possible organism that survives long enough to produce offspring capable of reaching maturity. It is not a planned process.
Humans have had many recent advances (over hundreds of years), reducing environmental stress. This led to an increased lifespan and a population boom. Currently, deleterious mutations that aren’t immediately fatal will accumulate as well as the the beneficial mutations.
We have identified hundreds of genes as being the cause of an illness, disorder, etc. We will be able to fix/remove these deleterious mutations and even experiment to produce beneficial mutations. We will be able to prevent suffering caused by accumulation of deleterious mutations.
We will have to control the birth rate and genetic quality if man is to survive.
Unnatural selection will definitely be questionable, specifically from a religious point of view (tampering with God/Creation). It may cause unexpected or controversial results.
-Why does life strive to survive and continue to evolve?
-Is there a purpose to evolution (survival)?
-Would we be altering that purpose or are we intended to have control over it?
-Our struggle is purpose; Will the purpose ever be identified and achieved?
Otherwise, it would seem that we will continue to ensure the survival of life until either eternity or total catastrophe (complete extinction of all life).
There are actually quite a few theories on ‘free will’, in this case it could be a case of both, it’s all about your definitions.
For example suppose God, having only 1 question he did not know the answer to - what would happen if I ceased to exist? Decided to indeed, annihilate him/itself via the big bang we know of. The passing of time is the reconstruction of God’s body, first through random mutation towards progress and then into a controlled evolutionary path, evenutally resulting into some superAI type thing that would eventually learn all there is to know about the universe. During the ‘reconstruction’ free will exists but it is also a deterministic universe. The universe is god, who is to say that ‘chaos’ is not somehow a part of God? Like someone waking from a dream, you know they’re going to wake up… but you don’t know exactly how, or how long it will take.
Anyways, getting back to the topic, I have yet to come across anything that sums this topic up better than a quote i heard from a movie, I present it:
