Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transhumanism vs. Natural Selection: Playing God in the post-Darwinian era?
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 1 of 33 (216484)
06-12-2005 8:14 PM


Topic Question

Are we heading towards or already in a post-Darwinian era -- where human natural selection is obsolete and the evolution of our species is completely up to us? If so, is this good or bad?

Exordium

Transhumanism refers to a philosophy in which humankind as we know it does not represent the end of our development as a species. This discussion should focus on the use of science and technology to vastly surpass the current conceptions of human limitations and what affect, if any, this has on our ability to evolve as a species through natural selection.

Expanded Discussion

We are currently curing disease with astounding precision, for the most part physical deformity and handicap is no problem and pregnancy is available to a very wide range of people who would otherwise be unable to reproduce. What kind of impact does this have on our future as a species?
Is fundamentally improving the human condition morally sound (what religions would it be or not be)? Through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities, we would no longer be constrained by the human characteristics in the Bible -- we would be post-human or super-human, if you will. Does this have any effect on our outlook as far as religion is concerned?
Are we on the road to immortality through neurotechnology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, *technology?
{ I suppose this could have a home in Biological Evolution since we're discussing the end of natural selection and BE will most certainly arise. Feel free to place where deemed appropriate though. }
This message has been edited by dsv, Sunday, June 12, 2005 08:47 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 1:34 PM dsv has not replied
 Message 4 by zyncod, posted 06-14-2005 3:24 PM dsv has not replied
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 10:40 PM dsv has replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 9:01 AM dsv has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 2 of 33 (216811)
06-14-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dsv
06-12-2005 8:14 PM


Just curious if this is being held or if I need to change something, et cetera. Happy to wait though, no worries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dsv, posted 06-12-2005 8:14 PM dsv has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 33 (216819)
06-14-2005 2:41 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (216829)
06-14-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dsv
06-12-2005 8:14 PM


It's less medical and hygenic advances that are slowing evolution in humans as it is airplanes. The constant travel and mixing of all different groups of humans is assuring that the gene pool is incredibly large and thus it is very difficult for change in any specific direction to occur (for any alleles to go to fixation). Also, the sexual selection for non-deterministic traits (ie, personality) is lessening the effect of biological evolution on humans.
Genetically speaking, we are one of the most healthy species on the planet. For most of our genes, we have a wide range of alleles that are now in almost constant reassortment. These variable alleles make us, as a species, more adaptable and less susceptible to infectious disease. And, as long as our numbers remain in the billions and no groups really isolate themselves, evolution will be very, very slow.
That being said, a trans- or post-human future is a definite possibility. Given our tendency toward egoism, I doubt that many people would consider this 'evolution' but I, for one, would. It's one of the two real futures I see for the human race (people have to get real about traveling to the stars). The other is some calamity (a plague, a meteor, more likely a nuclear war or drastic climate change) that kills most of the people on the planet. The attendant destruction that panicked people would visit on the earth makes it likely that most people remaining would eventually be pre-agricultural societies. And then evolution could proceed. But I think humans will survive, in one form or another, no matter what. We're pretty adaptable - like big cockroaches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dsv, posted 06-12-2005 8:14 PM dsv has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 33 (216982)
06-14-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dsv
06-12-2005 8:14 PM


where human natural selection is obsolete and the evolution of our species is completely up to us? If so, is this good or bad?
Have you looked at history?
Doesn't sound good.
Up to us? Who is "us"? Some political leader?
Some Nazi of the future?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dsv, posted 06-12-2005 8:14 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 10:48 PM robinrohan has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 6 of 33 (216985)
06-14-2005 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by robinrohan
06-14-2005 10:40 PM


"Us" would be the human race. No, Nazism is not a good thing but transhumanism is not Nazism at all.
The goal would not be to eliminate races and unnaturally cause a selection. Quite the opposite. The reason for the lack of natural selection would be because of keeping so many people alive -- specifically those that are weaker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 10:40 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 10:56 PM dsv has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 33 (216988)
06-14-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by dsv
06-14-2005 10:48 PM


"Us" would be the human race
The human race is divided into political divisions. Some have power, some don't.
If I have no power, then there will be people who do not like me because I have bad habits. Obviously I and my breed should be eliminated.
This is the "transhuman" idea as far as I can make out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 10:48 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 11:05 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 31 by dagon, posted 09-25-2005 4:06 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 8 of 33 (216991)
06-14-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
06-14-2005 10:56 PM


If I have no power, then there will be people who do not like me because I have bad habits. Obviously I and my breed should be eliminated.
Why is that so obvious? If I were in power I would not want to eliminate you.
Transhumanism really has nothing to do with eugenics. It's more of a humanistic worldview from what I understand. The modern medical community is already on a progress tract toward transhuman society. It's not much different in concept than what we're doing now, just much more advanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 10:56 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 11:14 PM dsv has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (216992)
06-14-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by dsv
06-14-2005 11:05 PM


"transhuman" sounds like the "superman" to me.
We are going to produce the best human in the world. We are going to breed ourselves. No more nature.
The only alternative to nature is the political.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by dsv, posted 06-14-2005 11:05 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dsv, posted 06-16-2005 1:17 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
bugeater
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (217031)
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


I would say it has already started, abeit barely.
Genetic counselling already exists, so couples that carry nasty regressive diseases understand the risks involved with having children (and may chose not too).
Children that otherwise would be born with various diseases are aborted.
Premature babies that naturally would have died are now surviving, though they often suffer lifelong consequences.
Infertile couples are having children with IVF, which often results in transmitting infertility to the next generation.
People that otherwise would have died in childhood are now surviving and reproducing thanks to medical science.
I'm sure there are many other examples. These can all affect the human genetic makeup in various ways. Though I think what you may be getting at is that human kind may get to the point where they can direct their own evolution. Designer babies would be central to this. As we learn more about biology I think that will happen, but I don't know when. I'm also not sure if it is necessarily a good idea. After all, what is trendy isn't necessarily useful to the long term survival of the species

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2005 2:33 AM bugeater has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 11 of 33 (217295)
06-16-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by robinrohan
06-14-2005 11:14 PM


It is super-human, we are already super-humans.
Of course, in the future the technological singularity will, in my opinion, give birth to a genuinely smarter-than-human awake machine. In order to facilitate computational demands, I believe we will more recently see the progression of human brain/machine development.
Along those lines, my point is as follows. We already have super-humans. Not only do they live among us, they are you and me.
What we have is a global network of information that can be accessed from anywhere. PDAs, wireless networks, cellular networks, etc. Everything basically connects to what I call the network; The global infrastructure that surrounds us and contributes to our lives. You and I are more in tune with the network because we live it and breathe it (I assume so because you’re reading this post on this forum which is full of information from all over the world, you probably read MetaFilter and browse Wikipedia as well) but in the future perhaps one will be connected, truly connected. At this point we have a connection to the network through our keyboards and monitors. The response time is extremely slow in comparison to a direct connection but in regards to the information capacity, we are still super-human.
Is there a human alive that can answer every Jeopardy question 100% of the time starting with Show 1 from Season 1 to present? What about get a 100% score on any history exam given from any university on the planet, 100% of the time? If they are connected to the network, the answer is yes, there is.
That sir, is super-human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by robinrohan, posted 06-14-2005 11:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 33 (217305)
06-16-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by bugeater
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


Already started?
We seem to get hung up on these few cases where we seem to be overcoming natural selection.
I think this shows a misunderstanding of what is going on. Each one of the 6 billion of us is a tiny experiment in selection. There are countless things going on that we don't see.
We think that curing an illness for a few million people will have a large, long term affect on the direction of the human gene pool? I thin k not. It is too big for that and too complex.
Everytime someone walks in a modern city selection may be happening out of our ken. Does one person survive because they are a bit better able to detect the noise of an approaching car in traffic? Did they fight off the virus they were exposed to in the elevator? Did they "get lucky" because they happen to have a pattern of speech which is popular in their local city? Who the hell knows?
We may well start to directly tinker with our genetic makeup. Then perhaps, at great peril, we might take a hand in our genetic direction. In the meantime I doubt that we will consciously be able to steer it by attempting to by pass the unseen hand of selection taking place all around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bugeater, posted 06-15-2005 2:11 AM bugeater has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by bugeater, posted 06-16-2005 4:37 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 06-16-2005 12:59 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 15 by EZscience, posted 06-17-2005 3:53 PM NosyNed has replied

  
bugeater
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 33 (217332)
06-16-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
06-16-2005 2:33 AM


Re: Already started?
Really it is all down to reproduction.
A good example is the fact that infant mortality has plummeted in the Western world over the last 100 years from about 1 in 10 to close to nothing. Most of this has been attributed to a serious reduction in infectious disease thanks to sanitation, antibiotics and vaccination. A child that survives has a lot higher chance of reproducing one that doesn't Susceptibility to disease has a genetic basis (in particular our MHC class 1 and 2 proteins). So genetically susceptible individuals are now surviving and reproducing that otherwise would not have. And that is just infant mortality; 1 in 2 children died before the age of ten until the 18th century.
We coevolve with our infectious diseases. Some of that coevolution is now gone. Is this effect large? Who knows? Will it affect our gene pool? Definitely. Is it conciously directed? No, rather it is a side effect of modern medicine and sanitation. Is this removing a source of natural selection? Yes, and quite a large source.
If antibiotics were available when the Black Death began, genetically we would be somewhat different (though some are now suggesting it was actually a virus). Some research is suggesting a particular mutation in CCR5, which helps people survive bubonic plague also provides resistance to HIV1. Its been shown that the mutation is more prevalent in regions that suffered the plague in the past and is absent from those regions that have not been exposed.
I don't think the effect disease has on our genetic makeup should be underestimated, though naturally it is only one of many determinants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2005 2:33 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 33 (217402)
06-16-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
06-16-2005 2:33 AM


Re: Already started?
I think this shows a misunderstanding of what is going on. Each one of the 6 billion of us is a tiny experiment in selection. There are countless things going on that we don't see.
That briefly touches on one of my pet themes.
"Will we recognize an evolved human?"
For example, if a new way of correlating input, a new way of thinking, arose that let someone outthink others, wouold we even realize that a significant change had happened? Or would we simply ascribe it to being smater or luckier than others?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2005 2:33 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 15 of 33 (217700)
06-17-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
06-16-2005 2:33 AM


Re: Already started?
The important distinction here is 'evolution' of the species as a function of its population genetics vs. the fitness functions of individual humans. The latter has very little to do with the former which requires lasting changes in the genetic macrostructure of the population.
Ned writes:
Each one of the 6 billion of us is a tiny experiment in selection.
The problem here is that the 'us' constitute genotypes and genotypes are dismantled every generation - they have zero heritability. It is only their constituent parts, the genes, that have heritability. So it comes down to what zyncod implied, allelic replacement is a low probabiltiy event with such a large 'effective' population size (tremendous gene flow over vast geographic areas). It is very difficult for strong, directional selection to act without population subdivision because its local effects will always be diluted by immigration. This will tend to greatly slow (natural) human evolution in the sense of species-wide biological or morphological changes. So we should not expect any observable character displacement in the human species any time soon.
Ned writes:
Does one person survive because they are a bit better able to detect the noise of an approaching car in traffic?
The problem here is there are very few genotypes carrying unique alleles that will be lost to the population even if they fail to hear the car coming. You and I might be unique individuals, but there is really nothing unique about our individual genes. People dying in traffic represent lost genotypes - but not lost genes. The only effect is on their individual fitness - not population genetics.
Ned writes:
Did they "get lucky" because they happen to have a pattern of speech which is popular in their local city?
Again, not likely much effect on population structure here either, even if the event results in progeny. There is comparatively little variation in reproductive success among humans, even in the developing world, so just because someone 'gets lucky' a lot, has little to do with their realized fitness function, let alone any lasting impact on population structure. In our society, reproductive success is likely more influenced by parental investment than by number of mating events. And besides, birth control has largely de-coupled sex from actual human reproductive consequences.
Ned writes:
We think that curing an illness for a few million people will have a large, long term affect on the direction of the human gene pool? I think not.
The fact that disadvantageous genotypes are medically enabled to survive and reproduce DOES increase the genetic load of the population, and will ultimately tend to make us more dependent on medical interventions to preserve the health of future generations. For example, I feel safe in predicting that the rate of premature births will increase significantly in developed countries over the next century as the current generation of 'pre-mees' begins to reproduce.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-17-2005 02:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 06-16-2005 2:33 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2005 4:30 PM EZscience has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024