Is technology making mankind a threatened species? Thoughts on technology, the future, and somwhere,

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Waylon Kenning, Oct 11, 2004.

  1. I note also that most people (at least most I know :) ) think that medical
    GE is fine. Most of the discusion on the merits or otherwise have been wrt
    food GE :)



    Bruce

    ------------------------------
    Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
    dying of nothing.

    -Redd Foxx


    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 13, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 14, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. It seems like Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:40:46 +1300 was when "Ron McNulty"
    Yeah, that seems to be the trend these days, work harder and longer.
    Apparently, it costs a lot of money to retire these days. However, I
    always thought that to retire to say Niue, fish, sunbathe, read a book
    or 4000, snorkel etc, wouldn't cost the world. Perhaps everyone's so
    focused on the cash, they forget about living.
     
    Waylon Kenning, Oct 14, 2004
    #23
  4. Waylon Kenning

    carl Guest

    see this is where I think you completely mis-understand evolution
    in fact I belive the oposite is happening.
    Evolution just means that the animal best suited to the enviroment
    prospers better.
    an example:
    if somebody had "bad" genes for eyesight, a dodgey heart and diabetes
    but for some reason there genes contained something that made thier
    brain much better than average at say mathmatics or computers, then
    previously most people would have thought they were genetically
    inferior but in fact now with modern medicine they would probably
    better able to thrive in a modern enviroment than somebody who was
    better physically but lacked the intelect.

    my point is that as nobody knows for certain what the future holds
    then nobody
    knows what genetic makeup is superior .
    most people make guesses on what looks healthy to them but who knows
    ?maybe
    there are people out there are superior at working with technology
    that hasnt been invented yet.
     
    carl, Oct 15, 2004
    #24
  5. Waylon Kenning

    nick Guest

    Human evolution stopped a long time ago since none of the attributes that
    you descibe affect survival to breeding age.
    An embryo from a human 5000 years ago implanted and raised today would be
    indistiguishable from his contemporaries in skills and physiology.

    The brain size of humans has decreased over the last 10000 years, the last
    200 years of technology has made no difference to human genes.
    Technology is not biological evolution, one of our big problems is that we
    have rock apes in charge of war machinery and social skills evolved for
    tribal societies being used for the governance of 6 billion of us.
    It doesn't scale that well :-(
     
    nick, Oct 15, 2004
    #25
  6. Waylon Kenning

    carl Guest

    but evolutionary advantage is not just surviving to breeding age it is
    how healthy and prosperous the person is.
    an example is grandmothers;
    originally most females only needed to grow old enough to have
    children
    but then some would have grown older than that.
    the children who had living mothers and grandmothers had an advantage
    that
    there were more people to look after them and so increased there
    prosperity and health giving them an evolutionary advantage.

    in the last hundred years or so infant mortality has dropped
    significantly because of the hard work of scientists and doctors so
    therefore
    a society that promotes this kind of research and development
    prospers.
    I belive that other interlectual persuits indirectly advantage
    children as well
    so slooooowly but surely (evolution takes a longer time than you can
    observe)
    these things will cause humans to evolve.
     
    carl, Oct 16, 2004
    #26
  7. Waylon Kenning

    nick Guest

    The rich choose to have less children
    No, it makes no difference to the genes passed to the next generation, it is
    not a biological evolutionary change.
    How will these technological advantages become genetic ?
    100 years is not a human evolutionary scale step, it's a microscopic blip.
    Modern homo sapiens dates from 100 000 years ago descended from homo erectus
    which dates from 1.6 million years ago, descended from Australopithecus 3
    million years ago.
    A human from the earliest recorded history is no different in evolutionary
    aspects to us today.
     
    nick, Oct 16, 2004
    #27
  8. Waylon Kenning

    carl Guest

    Yes but they invest a lot more in those children and the children have
    a much
    better chance of thriving than children whos parents are poor and who
    have many children.
    Great so that means you would ratherlet your children be educated and
    raised by cave men instead rather than an intelligent well off person
    from modern times.?
    I never said anything about technological advantages becoming genetic,
    its the intelligence behind that technology which causes the
    technological advantage.
     
    carl, Oct 16, 2004
    #28
  9. Waylon Kenning

    nick Guest


    Oh right its about me now ?

    LOL You will have to do better than that.

    Children educated by prehistoric humans like rainforest natives will know
    every single plant in their environment and how it can be used, every single
    bird and animal call, how to navigate without any aids, their innate
    ingenuity is just nurtured in a different environment.
    They are the ancestors that got us here and they didn't do it by evolving,
    they did it by teaching and learning.

    You need to learn more about evolution
    Evolution is a biological process the only information in evolutionary
    processes is recorded in genes
    Technical progress is not evolution.
    You might want to use biology as a metaphor for increments of technical
    progress, but that is not evolution itself



    Intelligence is not changed by the technology.
    Evolution in intelligence due to technology would take 100 000 years to
    appear.
     
    nick, Oct 17, 2004
    #29
  10. Waylon Kenning

    carl Guest


    well you have misunderstood me completly , I dont know if its on
    purpose but I dont think its worth my time explaining. end of
    discussion
     
    carl, Oct 17, 2004
    #30
  11. Waylon Kenning

    nick Guest

    You have misunderstood evolution completely so there is indeed mo common
    ground and its too OT for here anyway
    I have just pointed out to you that prosperity and health don't give an
    evolutionary advantage.
    Our population is getting browner, but its not because of the prosperity and
    health of brown people.
     
    nick, Oct 17, 2004
    #31
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.