My theories on Nature, Man and Evolution

[Sabretooth]

I don't know how, but these theories just got into my head out of nowhere. I needed some opposition, so here goes.

 

NOTE: Content below may be unsuitable for Creationists - seriously, entire argument relies on Evolution.

 

Man is Nature

I've heard plenty of statements that say that man is defiling, betraying, raping, playing with and killing nature. But look at it this way:

Man came when nature accidentally(?) implanted a larger brain in an ape (or at least something along that line). Opposing thumb comes into the picture, as does a suitable body structure. Man becomes intelligent enough to modify his environment to suit his needs. He advances, inspired by his environment, himself and driven by his intelligence and creativity. Man makes cities, vehicles and all that you see around you that is "ruining nature".

 

We divide the world into two parts: natural and artificial. Natural is stuff that has been existing in nature - artificial the stuff man modified out of natural substances and elements to suit his wants and needs. The computer you see right now was made by man, who wanted a powerful calculator. Nature didn't give it to you - you have it because man chose to make it, and because you chose to buy and use it.

 

Everything that is artificial exists because man chose it, as opposed to it having occurred due to natural forces of adaptation, evolution etc. But, who chose man's intelligence? Nature is neither a conscious, nor a singular entity (although it is referred to as one) and cannot choose man's intelligence. Therefore, it can only have happened as a result of natural processes of adaptation, mutation and evolution.

 

Therefore, isn't man a part of nature? And if he is, isn't everything he makes a part of nature, too? When a dung beetle makes a ball of dung, is that considered unnatural? Or when a bird builds a nest, is that against nature? It is considered to be a part of nature, then why is man discriminated for his intelligence (which he did not choose either)?

 

Natural Selection

Darwin says that only the fittest survive. Weak species die and strong species live. The law is brutally simple. Man has proven himself to be the strongest animal species, with his large brain. Man has proven his ability to master every animal on the planet, and is the only animal to have the potential to destroy every other animal on the planet.

 

If Natural Selection is applied here, that indicates that Mankind is the most dominant species and hence, triumphs over all others. Therefore, all other species must die. Even if you try to save them, the ultimate reality is that they will all be wiped out, because man has conquered them all - it is nature's way.

 

Man's Evolution

They say that cloning, bio-modification etc. are bad because you are playing with our body - something we don't fully understand. Truth is, man's advancement is a race for survival. You can argue that man already has the necessities for survival, but man will continue to trudge to the way where survival is the most convenient, easy and luxurious (a stage that will never come). Therefore, man's advancement in science is inevitable.

 

Man modifies himself consciously, thereby proceeding in this advancement. This says that man's ultimate "messing" with genes is entirely natural, and in fact, necessary. It is a part of evolution, and the next step in evolution cannot come from adaptation, since according to my previous conclusion, other flora and fauna should technically not exist now.

 

And we can take into account cyborgs, and ultimately robots and what we call "AI". Inadvertently, man transforms into metal machines - something that man would find ghastly and horrid right now - about as much as any species before its eventual evolution. These robots may come from man, but according to Conclusion I, they are entirely natural. They are the next logical step in evolution.

 

This is because there is no force on Earth that can completely destroy man. Evolution requires a species that is more powerful than man - such a species can either be extraterrestrial (currently unlikely) or made by man itself. Therefore, "robot-rule", the tyrannical representation in Terminator be end up real, but not as apocalyptic or sudden. It will be a gradual change.

 

Already, you can take a look at your local supermarket. Cosmetic products to enhance your attractiveness, health products to make you healthy - the obsession with maintaining weight and exercising, the constant gadgets and objects man uses to make his life easier. Things will become less implicit later, with biomodification as described in Deus Ex not very far off.

 

This will continue to the point that humans will no longer be the sort of humans you and I are - they will be far more superior, advanced and powerful. They will be what Homo sapiens evolves into.

[Achilles]

Man is Nature

Perhaps it is sufficent to say that it is natural for many species to create artificial things. I don't know that we benefit by getting hung up on what is natural vs. artifical. All of your examples are apt.

 

Natural Selection

I don't share your conclusion that natural selection = all other species must die. Generally speaking we only talk about natural selection when organisms compete for resources. Since human don't compete for dung, there is nothing inherently requiring us to wipe out dung beetles, to borrow from your earlier example.

 

Man's Evolution

What about viruses? They seem to kick our asses pretty regularly. They evolve too. I think it might be safe to say that we aren't quite the top of the food chain yet.

 

On a side note, you might find Ray Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near a fascinating read. Enjoy!

[DeadYorick]

People are already working on robotic limbs and a simpler form of bio modification. So I agree with you saying it may not be that far off

[El Sitherino]

I don't really understand the idea of calling it bio-mechanics. It essence, we are nothing more than bio-machines ourselves, any living creature is. We contain many elements such as metals, our bodies run on electronic impulses, etc. We're fleshy-bots, robots are simply us but with superior skin.

 

That is once "AI" is perfected. However once we reach what we classify as true "AI" it's no longer artificial, is it? Eventually these things will be capable of self-replication. This is what I think scares people, is the concept that we're creating life slowing destroying the idea of God as some super-being.

[Totenkopf]

That perhaps, and just the usual fear of the unknown. Afterall, no matter how far man seems to progress, I doubt people will ever completely abandon the idea that there is something still more powerful out there.

[Sabretooth]

I don't share your conclusion that natural selection = all other species must die. Generally speaking we only talk about natural selection when organisms compete for resources. Since human don't compete for dung, there is nothing inherently requiring us to wipe out dung beetles, to borrow from your earlier example.

Space is the most important resource of all, and looking at the way of things, it won't be long before the dung beetles have to die to make living space for the ever-growing human population. Already you can hear the WWF crying out for species getting extinct dur to habitat destruction.

 

What about viruses? They seem to kick our asses pretty regularly. They evolve too. I think it might be safe to say that we aren't quite the top of the food chain yet.

They may now, but we will find a way around them, sooner or later - I have faith in that. Many diseases that are almost non-existent today were terrifyingly uncurable in the Middle Ages, or even only 300 years ago - this goes to say a lot about scientific progress (whose rate is also increasing). Remember, that I talk about humans in an eventual state of scientific temparament, and not bound down by incompetence or religion - I'm talking about the ultimate human.

 

On a side note, you might find Ray Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near a fascinating read. Enjoy!

Thanks, I'll definitely look into it.

 

I don't really understand the idea of calling it bio-mechanics. It essence, we are nothing more than bio-machines ourselves, any living creature is. We contain many elements such as metals, our bodies run on electronic impulses, etc. We're fleshy-bots, robots are simply us but with superior skin.

True, but bio-mechanics holds with it the general meaning that man's technology and gadgets, used for entirely external and augmentation purposes are invading the body - a natural part of us that we don't fully understand (or think we don't). As I said before, they are afraid that we are messing with something that a "God" or "Nature" gave us, however unreligious they are.

 

That is once "AI" is perfected. However once we reach what we classify as true "AI" it's no longer artificial, is it? Eventually these things will be capable of self-replication. This is what I think scares people, is the concept that we're creating life slowing destroying the idea of God as some super-being.

True, but nothing goes to say that the term "Artificial Intelligence" becomes invalid when the level of intelligence reaches parallel or superior to man. It was made by man, and is hence artificial - and in our words it will remain that (at least for now, to distinguish). But this "AI" is the very future of humanity, because it will be superior and take over humanity, the latter getting extinct. End result is, that humans have evolved into robots.

 

That perhaps, and just the usual fear of the unknown. Afterall, no matter how far man seems to progress, I doubt people will ever completely abandon the idea that there is something still more powerful out there.

Yep, but then people will also always be taking risks and doing wierd **** forever.

[Achilles]

Space is the most important resource of all, and looking at the way of things, it won't be long before the dung beetles have to die to make living space for the ever-growing human population. Already you can hear the WWF crying out for species getting extinct dur to habitat destruction.

Regardless, what you are describing is not "natural selection".

 

Also, humans kill off all sources of food and then? Seems that we'd "natural selection" ourselves to death in your scenario.

[Sabretooth]

Also, humans kill off all sources of food and then? Seems that we'd "natural selection" ourselves to death in your scenario.

Not an expert on the topic, but with atomic and sub-atomic chemistry within our grasp, we can in the future, synthesize our own food, or find an alternative to nutrition. Turning into cyborgs, for example, all we will need is electricity to survive, as opposed to energy from food.

[RobQel-Droma]

Turning into cyborgs, for example, all we will need is electricity to survive, as opposed to energy from food.

 

I can almost hear the chanting right outside my door. "...Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated...."

[Sabretooth]

I can almost hear the chanting right outside my door. "...Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated...."

The difference being that you will be voluntarily becoming one of them.

[Totenkopf]

Maybe in the beginning.......

[Darth InSidious]

Good post!

 

An interesting argument, particularly your questioning of our thinking on what is natural and artificial. Since everything we have is an adaptation of the 'natural', how can it be 'artificial', in the sense of removed from nature? This strikes me as a very interesting question which I shall have to give some thought to.

[DarthJebus05]

Yes, I agree with DI. It is a very interesting question.

[Jvstice]

Space is the most important resource of all, and looking at the way of things, it won't be long before the dung beetles have to die to make living space for the ever-growing human population. Already you can hear the WWF crying out for species getting extinct dur to habitat destruction.

You've made a couple of errors in your assumptions. Most biologists would say that survival of the fittest is true, but would qualify that much more to say "Survival of the fittest for a given environment."

 

If you start inserting genetic traits or making cybernetic adaptations to people to address some of these envoronmental issues to make the whole world colonizable and all resources usable, you run into another problem. You create new species of humans who do not have the benefit of being all interbreedable Homo sapiens. We already can't get along with one another, when we're all one species of human. Do you really think that will improve if we have a water breathing variety of human, a type of human that can digest and absorb cellulose so as to not need meat, a type of human capable of thriving in artic and antartic conditions, as well as a variety of human that thrives in low water conditions? It's quite possible that the added genes would make each of these varieties totally unable to copulate with one another, and thus different species. Add cyborgs and fully autonomous A.I. and you run into another human fear.

 

The fear of obsolescence, and of being replaced.

 

 

They may now, but we will find a way around them, sooner or later - I have faith in that. Many diseases that are almost non-existent today were terrifyingly uncurable in the Middle Ages, or even only 300 years ago - this goes to say a lot about scientific progress (whose rate is also increasing). Remember, that I talk about humans in an eventual state of scientific temparament, and not bound down by incompetence or religion - I'm talking about the ultimate human.

 

We have been successful in the last century to such a degree that our greatest threats in fatal communicable diseases take around 10 years to kill you (HIV and Hepatitis B & C). Supposing that you're correct, that mankind does eliminate all bacteria and viruses that are capable of causing a fatal infection there's still a matter of double recessive genetic diseases that in the heterozygous state give a genetic advantage. Sickle cell is eventually fatal in those who get both recessive genes for it, but the heterozygous condition protects against malaria. Tay Sachs is another genetic disease that in the heterozygous condition gives a profound benefit to resistances against infectious diseases.

 

How do we know that there's not some other benefit to another heterozygous effect that doesn't relate to protection against communicable diseases, but the survival benefit is so strong that it might be better to leave the gene as part of the human genome, even when we were to wipe out all communicable diseases like you're predicting? I could see this being especially relevant in regards to brain chemistry with traits such as creativity or intelligence. There have been links found between high intelligence and depression. What if in eliminating the gene for depression, we permanently limit humanity from further intellectual development and set ourselves back before square one?

 

 

True, but bio-mechanics holds with it the general meaning that man's technology and gadgets, used for entirely external and augmentation purposes are invading the body - a natural part of us that we don't fully understand (or think we don't). As I said before, they are afraid that we are messing with something that a "God" or "Nature" gave us, however unreligious they are.

 

True, but I really think that's only a part of it. I really think that there's a huge resevour of fear of people growing obsolete. Why haven't we introduced more robots into our factories and manufacturing plants than we currently have?

 

True, but nothing goes to say that the term "Artificial Intelligence" becomes invalid when the level of intelligence reaches parallel or superior to man. It was made by man, and is hence artificial - and in our words it will remain that (at least for now, to distinguish). But this "AI" is the very future of humanity, because it will be superior and take over humanity, the latter getting extinct. End result is, that humans have evolved into robots.

 

 

The future of humankind or our competitors. You assume that everyone jumps in the same direction at the same time, or is willing to jump at all. And among those not willing to jump, you just assume that there won't be a violent backlash. That's an equally possible outcome if people see thier future survival at stake or way of life in danger.

Yep, but then people will also always be taking risks and doing wierd **** forever.

I have no doubts of this either, but there has always been, and will probably always be an anti science anti knowledge counter movement that you have to take into consideration.

[Ray Jones]

Yesterday I saw an excerpt of an interview with Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu, a biologist and author, about his and Patrick Gries' book "Evolution".

 

Being asked where he thinks human evolution will go, he came up with this interesting thought about human evolution, or some kind of lack thereof. The main point was that the principle of natural selection, which is pretty much *the* driving factor in "evolution of animals" became less/least important to "human evolution".

To summarise - while the short sighted lion has less chances than the average lion and will be a less successful hunter, probably failing to create offspring eventually, the short sighted human, although unable to be a successful hunter, has still abilities to invent something clever for instance, thus making him a successful, contributing, reproducing member of the community.

 

He also stated that evolution itself has no path and is not predictable or has trends. Evolution is merely tinkering around with what's there, and what fits best, is used most, until it becomes useless and vanishes. He said that there were species with horns that used to grow without ever stopping, they would grew until they came back to the skull, breaking though it, killing the animal eventually and in pain. Evolution does not "care" about such things because as long as that creature is able to reproduce, everything is fine, and at the end of the day it would die anyway.

[Jvstice]

He also stated that evolution itself has no path and is not predictable or has trends. Evolution is merely tinkering around with what's there, and what fits best, is used most, until it becomes useless and vanishes. He said that there were species with horns that used to grow without ever stopping, they would grew until they came back to the skull, breaking though it, killing the animal eventually and in pain. Evolution does not "care" about such things because as long as that creature is able to reproduce, everything is fine, and at the end of the day it would die anyway.

A lot of biologists and sociologists have argued just this for most of the last century. Of course genetic engineering has the potential to throw a monkey wrench into the whole intelligence as a natural check on humans evolving, as well as cybernetics.

 

In the case of genetic engineering, people simply delete or replace bad genes with ones they find better. Insert it either accidentially or intentionally in germ lines and it becomes a hereditary trait. Right now there are no reputable scientists that say that it should be used for anything other than getting rid of genetic diseases. But what happens when you use it over the long term. What if you have almost all humanity physiologically incapable of being physically weak? Do you raise your simply redefine what abnormally weak is? Do you mandate it into law, like they did in the movie Gattica?

 

And what about genes that affect multiple things, like I'd said before, about depression and intelligence or other mental illnesses? Biologists no longer say one gene one enzyme. Project genome did away with that axiom of biology. Get rid of the mental illnesses, and you will risk destroying much of humankind's creative capacity. Or what if a regime of government wants to make sure that their citizens are happy in whatever role of society they're in, no matter how hopeless their future looks? Would it not be simpler for them to engineer much of their citizenry to be incapable of being dissatisfied with their lot in life?

 

Cybernetics also changes this equation, because at least for a while, people won't get cybernetic enhancements except as a last resort. When they do, they most likely find (like with everything else) that some people have an inherant disadvantage to using these devices than other people. It's not unreasonable that this would make some cyborgs more fit in the darwinian sense than others so that when cybernetic implants actually reach a point of being at least as efficient as their human counterpart organ or limb, that there will be a strong selection pressure on those that get them, or that people with who pass on a birth defect to their heart or limb might simply have their children follow in their footsteps if the solution worked well for them.

[Samuel Dravis]

On the distinction between natural and artificial, I found an interesting quote from - who else? - Wittgenstein!

 

"It is very remarkable that we should be inclined to think of civilization - houses, trees, cars, etc. - as separating man from his origins, from what is lofty and eternal, etc. Our civilized environment, along with its trees and plants, strikes us then as if it were cheaply wrapped in cellophane and isolated from everything great, from God, as it were. That is a remarkable picture that intrudes on us."

Good for perspective.

[JediMaster12]

They may now, but we will find a way around them, sooner or later - I have faith in that. Many diseases that are almost non-existent today were terrifyingly uncurable in the Middle Ages, or even only 300 years ago - this goes to say a lot about scientific progress (whose rate is also increasing). Remember, that I talk about humans in an eventual state of scientific temparament, and not bound down by incompetence or religion - I'm talking about the ultimate human.

That may be true that we have found cures to diseases that were fatal then such as smallpox and polio. Funny thing is our laboratories have frozen, active forms of diseases such as these in the fridge and use them in their lab experiments.

 

As to finding a way around it sooner or later, that is unlikely. Like any other living organism, viruses mutate, a form of evolution. Viruses are bits of coded DNA encased in a coated shell that latch onto a host and inject the DNA in it. Key word is DNA. Basic building block of all living organisms. It can mutate in two ways: deletion of a nucleotide or a wrong coding that produces an extra nucleotide. Viruses and bacteria have been around longer than we have so I think they know a thing or two about survival.

 

As to human evolution, big brains didn't distinguish us, it was bipedalism. Big brains developed over time. Good ole Lucy was 3ft tall and her brain cavity help about a cup and a half of liquid brain. Look at A. Afarensis, brain cavities are even smaller and more ape like but the distinguishing feature is that they walked upright. Our big brains may have enabled us to survive the longest but what allowed us to develop that was our bipedalism.

[Arcesious]

Actually, what distinguishes us is the way we learn compared to apes and monkeys is more the way we learn, and not the way we travel. Apes and monkeys lack something humans do in intellgence- Triangular learning instincts, and the instinct of understanding what it means when a human points to something with a finger is also something apes and monkeys lack. Bipedalism may play a good part, but apparently the problem with apes and monkeys is that they are held back by the trinagular learning instincts they lack. They learn by imitation, wereas humans can learn from things that are not imitation. What's even weirder, is that dogs have the triangular learning instinct and know what it means when a human points to something, but dogs aren't as smart as apes. Apes may make spears to hunt, and do/have done other various amazing things, alone and by the teaching of humans, but they are held back mentally by lacking certain inborn instincts humans have. Also, they are held back by the instinct of greed, and the inability to control their emotions fully, as they often have trouble controlling their insitnctive emotions, which makes coordinated teamwork almost impossible for them. (I saw all this on an episode of that Nova science show)

 

Edit: Lol, I'm a creationist, but as you see I'm open to a lot of things...

[Ray Jones]

As to human evolution, big brains didn't distinguish us, it was bipedalism.

Bipedalism is not a human invention and it was there long before us.

 

Our big brains may have enabled us to survive the longest but what allowed us to develop that was our Bipedalism.

What allowed us to develop the way we did was our ability to adapt to environmental changes better than other pre-humans. The fact that we are what we are is 60% due to being at the right spot at the right time and 30% due to outstanding adaptivity (including brain/erected walking) and 10% diet.

If we haven't been forced to change our diet, and had not changed it to being omnivorous and protein rich, we surely would share fortune with some of our bipedal ancestors, who went extinct because they took the wrong turn and stayed herbivore, for instance.

 

 

Actually, what distinguishes us is the way we learn compared to apes and monkeys is more the way we learn, and not the way we travel.

Learning always happens the same way - by imitation or by experimentation.

 

Apes and monkeys lack something humans do in intellgence- Triangular learning instincts, and the instinct of understanding what it means when a human points to something with a finger is also something apes and monkeys lack.

Untrue. Many primates communicate this way.

 

They learn by imitation, wereas humans can learn from things that are not imitation.

Yes, that would be experimentation, and I doubt primates do not experiment.

 

What's even weirder, is that dogs have the triangular learning instinct and know what it means when a human points to something, but dogs aren't as smart as apes.

I think you need to be clearer on what you mean by "triangular learning".

 

Apes may make spears to hunt, and do/have done other various amazing things, alone and by the teaching of humans, but they are held back mentally by lacking certain inborn instincts humans have.

Please specify what instincts we have that primates don't? Pointing fingers is hardly an instinct.

 

Also, they are held back by the instinct of greed, and the inability to control their emotions fully, as they often have trouble controlling their insitnctive emotions

Aaah, all attributes not in any form common to the human species. I wonder why there is murder, rape and pillage among the human race then?

 

which makes coordinated teamwork almost impossible for them. (I saw all this on an episode of that Nova science show)

I then insinuate the nova science show is misinformed. Primates *do* have in fact complex social behaviour, and have very good teamwork skills. They hunt, for instance, with precise tactical manoeuvres.

 

 

In the case of genetic engineering, people simply delete or replace bad genes with ones they find better.

There is no such thing as good gene/bad gene.

 

Insert it either accidentially or intentionally in germ lines and it becomes a hereditary trait. Right now there are no reputable scientists that say that it should be used for anything other than getting rid of genetic diseases. But what happens when you use it over the long term.

Don't know for sure, but I'd say the same thing as if nature removed/changed that gene for whatever reasons? The point is, long term issues are a problem not solely connected to genetics.

 

What if you have almost all humanity physiologically incapable of being physically weak?

Weak compared to what? I doubt lifting a ton will become normality. All your scenario means is basically just that all human are given the same strength, health, brains, sexual endurance. So what? Taken the fact that like everybody is whining about someone he knows is ill or unable to do this and that or whatever, the whining at least cannot get worse.

 

Do you raise your simply redefine what abnormally weak is? Do you mandate it into law, like they did in the movie Gattica?

Oh, you mean we could like treat "weak" humans bad, second class and inhumane?

 

And what about genes that affect multiple things, like I'd said before, about depression and intelligence or other mental illnesses? Biologists no longer say one gene one enzyme. Project genome did away with that axiom of biology. Get rid of the mental illnesses, and you will risk destroying much of humankind's creative capacity.

And you remove that group of creativity and mental illness genes for all mankind in one move how?

 

Or what if a regime of government wants to make sure that their citizens are happy in whatever role of society they're in, no matter how hopeless their future looks? Would it not be simpler for them to engineer much of their citizenry to be incapable of being dissatisfied with their lot in life?

Oh those bad bad governments. Of course, everybody is dissatisfied with their lot in life anyway.

 

It's not unreasonable that this would make some cyborgs more fit in the darwinian sense than others so that when cybernetic implants actually reach a point of being at least as efficient as their human counterpart organ or limb, that there will be a strong selection pressure on those that get them, or that people with who pass on a birth defect to their heart or limb might simply have their children follow in their footsteps if the solution worked well for them.

And this means?

[JediMaster12]

Ray Jones: Big brains aren't a human invention either. They are part of the evolutionary sequence that leads to modern humans. Evolution is a process that takes many years. I am sure you are aware of micro and macro evolution. What we know still has big gaps because if you think about it, organic evidence that old...not really existing.

 

Actually illnesses do have genetic component in that they have their own DNA and such. Bacteria can reproduce and mutate faster than it is for a human to change say its nose or something.

[Jvstice]

Regarding your discussion with JM12, that's true. Some pre Homo sapien ancestors of our genus had larger average brain size than we did but not as specialized as us. Why else would it take our ancestors (or indirect ancestors over 100,000 - 200,000 years to move beyond the technology for hand axes or not start varying the design, yet they kept a level of skill in making them that perhaps 6 people alive today could reproduce their level of skill in making them.

 

Evolutionary psychologist Steven Mithen, and ethnologist Dean Falk each argue that it was the facility for symbolic language, and as a direct result the ability to combine concepts in new ways rather than using a musical protolanguage like our ancestors that made the success of Homo sapiens possible.

 

Weak compared to what? I doubt lifting a ton will become normality. All your scenario means is basically just that all human are given the same strength, health, brains, sexual endurance. So what? Taken the fact that like everybody is whining about someone he knows is ill or unable to do this and that or whatever, the whining at least cannot get worse.

 

Oh, you mean we could like treat "weak" humans bad, second class and inhumane?

That's my exact point. We already discriminate based on race, gender, and genetic disease. Who decides what society's ideal is? There area already people who were born blind, and militant about not wanting a cure, or a preventative inserted into their genes. There have been people who have already talked about "curing" homosexuality with gene therapy. The pentagon even researched the possibility of using a "gay bomb" on enemy troops in the late 70s and early 80s.

 

What usually happens when a new technology is introduced into a society if it is a practical one to make cheaply if mass produced: First a technology (usually with labor saving devices, but this could apply to things that might make you a social pariah if you don't use them) is introduced as a luxury for the rich and well off. Then there's a clamor to make it more cheaply so that people can stay competitive with their neighbors. Within a generation or two, its' assumed that everyone will have the new technology, and in labor saving devices that much more is expected of people's time, thus giving them less free time than when they started.

 

There have already been people who argue for cloning humans so that we have servants who are legally not human. Also cloning whole humans for medical spare parts. Would an altered clone have the same rights as the original their genetic template is taken from? There are no laws to this effect now in any country around the world that I've ever heard of.

 

And wouldn't prejudice against either altered humans or people who didn't want the treatment simply increase once all genes become options? That is consistent with human behavior and talk all over the globe. What makes this a unique case that people would suddenly not find new divisionsto hate and exploit each other over?

 

And you remove that group of creativity and mental illness genes for all mankind in one move how?

I didn't say that we were at the technological point where we could know how, or even know that we were doing it at the time. Just that a correlation has been discovered between a certain minimum level of intelligence and depression, also that depression does tend a) run in families, and b) have certain proteinomic markers. It's not unreasonable to think that a company might step forward with something advertised as a cure for depression, or a political movement with the public health in mind (desiring the common good and more productive workers could pass a law mandating it use) and make such a thing nearly universal. Of course there would be the odd ones at the margins of any society who would resist this change like any other

 

Oh those bad bad governments. Of course, everybody is dissatisfied with their lot in life anyway.

I never said people as a whole don't get the governments they deserve, but if you're not vigilant against your government then you deserve what happens to you and your family. And of course they're bad. They're made up of 1) people and 2) people in large groups. Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

 

And this means?

Simply that among certain subsets of of the human population, it's entirely possible and probable that selective pressure is going to be operating whether there's genetic manipulation of human germ lines or not. If cybernetic implant interface with the brain, the ones who are made more fit and not less will reproduce more, so both the genetic deficiencies that led to the need for the implant, and the superior ability of using the implant will be inherited within certain families. Considering that the average person doesn't need or want to replace perfectly fine natural arms and legs with artificial legs and arms that can crack a brick without too much strain or outrun an automobile in 2nd gear, that could very easily lead to human speciation.

[Arcesious]

Ray jones, what you mentioned that i was not specific about the Nova show here can explain quite well, and it's not misinformed, I think i just didn't explain the learning problems Apes have well enough, but I believe the show itself will:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/

[Ray Jones]

Ray Jones: Big brains aren't a human invention either. They are part of the evolutionary sequence that leads to modern humans. Evolution is a process that takes many years. I am sure you are aware of micro and macro evolution. What we know still has big gaps because if you think about it, organic evidence that old...not really existing.

The point is neither brain development, nor bipedalism, nor bodily attributes were the driving factor for our development.

 

 

Evolutionary psychologist Steven Mith en, and ethnologist Dean Falk each argue that it was the facility for symbolic language, and as a direct result the ability to combine concepts in new ways rather than using a musical protolanguage like our ancestors that made the success of Homo sapiens possible.

I think at the end of the day it is the sum of all given factors that made our development possible. However, our ancestors also had those prerequisites within them already. And they gave these to all their successors. What kicked us off eventually was a significant change in out diet.

 

That's my exact point. We already discriminate based on race, gender, and genetic disease. Who decides what society's ideal is? There area already people who were born blind, and militant about not wanting a cure, or a preventative inserted into their genes. There have been people who have already talked about "curing" homosexuality with gene therapy.

But these are not problems of gene technology, nor are they caused by it.

 

What usually happens when a new technology is introduced into a society if it is a practical one to make cheaply if mass produced: First a technology (usually with labor saving devices, but this could apply to things that might make you a social pariah if you don't use them) is introduced as a luxury for the rich and well off. Then there's a clamor to make it more cheaply so that people can stay competitive with their neighbors.

You know, things become cheaper, usually because their production becomes cheaper. The more developed and stable a technology becomes the less it costs. Not because people demand it because they need to keep up with their neighbours.

 

Within a generation or two, its' assumed that everyone will have the new technology, and in labor saving devices that much more is expected of people's time, thus giving them less free time than when they started.

I am sorry, but I think I am not able to abstract what you intent to say here.

 

There have already been people who argue for cloning humans so that we have servants who are legally not human. Also cloning whole humans for medical spare parts.

Maybe one day that can be fixed with some kind of gene therapy.

 

Would an altered clone have the same rights as the original their genetic template is taken from?

Considering the fact that children ususally get the rights as their parents (and thus genetic templates) I don't know why they should not.

 

There are no laws to this effect now in any country around the world that I've ever heard of.

There are no laws about sub-lightspeed space travel either, and yet no one complains.

 

And wouldn't prejudice against either altered humans or people who didn't want the treatment simply increase once all genes become options?

I don't know. Ask the oracle! On the other hand, there has been prejudice against all kind of stuff throughout human history.

 

That is consistent with human behavior and talk all over the globe. What makes this a unique case that people would suddenly not find new divisionsto hate and exploit each other over?

Nothing. However that didn't stop Viagra, silicon boobs, face lifting, body builders, etc.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that a company might step forward with something advertised as a cure for depression, or a political movement with the public health in mind (desiring the common good and more productive workers could pass a law mandating it use) and make such a thing nearly universal.

At the same time these "people in charge" could "supply" us with the cartoon gene, making us perceive everything in classic b/w Mickey and Donald style. A giant coup against the colour tv industry!!

 

Considering that the average person doesn't need or want to replace perfectly fine natural arms and legs with artificial legs and arms that can crack a brick without too much strain or outrun an automobile in 2nd gear, that could very easily lead to human speciation.

A normal evolutionary process. I am not concerned about things like that. I mean we are but *one* human species left out of several who existed next to each other and with us.

[Jvstice]

I think at the end of the day it is the sum of all given factors that made our development possible. However, our ancestors also had those prerequisites within them already. And they gave these to all their successors. What kicked us off eventually was a significant change in out diet.

I've never denied that, but it was the capacity for symbolic thought and communication and the options in problem solving that allowed us to become prolific to a degree unattainable to any other primate now or in history.

 

 

But these are not problems of gene technology, nor are they caused by it.

 

No, but they will have to be addressed if we are to gain in our use and proficiency of it.

 

You know, things become cheaper, usually because their production becomes cheaper. The more developed and stable a technology becomes the less it costs. Not because people demand it because they need to keep up with their neighbours.

People don't look to invent something that they don't percieve either a demand for or a need for. You're suppositioning that people waste their time just for the heck of it when they invent things.

 

I am sorry, but I think I am not able to abstract what you intent to say here.

 

Some specific examples then? Ok. The washing machine and dryer, the dish washer, the automobile, the fax machine, the internet, the kitchen stove, the electric iron, the telephone were all devices that were originally largely billed as machines that would give their owners a lot more free time, and that making each of these things saved hours in tasks that normally took a large portion of the day. I'd hardly say that the pace of life been slowed down by all the extra time we've saved by the invention of these devices.

 

New expectations of what to do with the freed up time always get thrown in so that in the long run a technology may work for increasing the freedoms of people, but as it comes into common usage, in many ways it restricts people's freedom.

 

Maybe one day that can be fixed with some kind of gene therapy.

Actually that is my hope but most scientists I'd heard speak on the subject seemed to think that cloning whole people was an unavoidable step in developing the technology to cloning individual parts. That could have changed in the last few years, but it seemed to be the consensus as of the late 90s.

 

Considering the fact that children ususally get the rights as their parents (and thus genetic templates) I don't know why they should not.

 

Should, in the right and wrong sense of things can be very different than what actually develops when people don't plan for the worst case scenario and take steps to prevent it from coming to fruition. Governments exist to preserve the rights of their citizens to exist, and have what they need to survive. A lot of attrocities have been done in human history because various groups of people weren't recognized as being people in the eyes of the law.

 

There are no laws about sub-lightspeed space travel either, and yet no one complains.

 

Actually there are laws stating that human clones have to be destroyed / killedin various countries and can't be brought to term, so it's not so irrelevant as your comparitive example seems to indicate you think it is. There are no laws anywhere recognizing their right to to exist if they actually should be brought to term as thinking human beings. If the politicians of various countries had time to deal with one issue regarding cloning humans, then they should take the time to include a clause stating that if they are brought into existence than they are people in the eyes of the law. It's a very basic thing that should be done before someone somewhere does develop the technology and a small population of them already exists.

 

I don't know. Ask the oracle! On the other hand, there has been prejudice against all kind of stuff throughout human history.

Well it's something that would need to be addressed for your vision of humanity's future to come to fruition.

 

 

Nothing. However that didn't stop Viagra, silicon boobs, face lifting, body builders, etc.

True, but those decisions just affect the one who decides for the procedures. None of those products have repercussions that could affect all of a person's descendants in addition to just themselves. And since the only way to really know about some of the efficacy of these things is trial and error, and they will come into widespread use before we know all the plusses and minuses in some cases it does present some unique problems

 

At the same time these "people in charge" could "supply" us with the cartoon gene, making us perceive everything in classic b/w Mickey and Donald style. A giant coup against the colour tv industry!!

Actually I was arguing based on something with both a tangible pro and a con with at least some evidence of at least a slight genetic connection. Greater mental health in the individual vs greater mental capacity in the individual. You reply with a non sequiter.

 

A normal evolutionary process. I am not concerned about things like that. I mean we are but *one* human species left out of several who existed next to each other and with us.

Other human species coexisted that's true, but where are they now? Did we simply out evolve them? Even the apes go to war and commit genocide on their own, and perform have been seen to eat both their own species as well as those of various monkeys in which they may be in close contacts.

 

What makes humans different in this regard is scale. Also that a lot of people hold back knowing that we're all humans, that our genes will eventually mix back into the same gene pool and that there will come a day where who was descended from what side in a conflict will be lost in the mists of history. What modern Romans really know or care whether their ancestors were citizens or plebians back during the Romand Republic and Roman Empire? If you have actual speciation that changes things because "sides" of a conflict can't really be lost in the mists of history.