Human evolution - What's next?

[penguin]

Supposed this could have gone under '09 Theme, but it's not a time limited question...

"They" say that the little toe is next to go, which would suck for doing "This little piggy..."

What do you think is next for the human race (biologically speaking)?

Loss of distance vision (the computer screnn is only a foot in front of us)?

More fingers (for faster typing)?

Biggers butts from all the sitting?

What's next for the future generations?

[dr.placebo]

What's next is that we take control over the direction rather than leaving it to random chance or subtle supernatural intervention. In other words, fasten your seat belts, we're in for a bumpy ride!

I think that a purple tail would be stunning. What do you wish for?

[Simon of the Playa]

eugenics.... dressed up, dusted off, and ready to party!

[Ugly Dougly]

Evolution is an illusion. we adapt to changes. Or die.

So the mutated freak with six fingers has more children than you do.
?

[theCryptofishist]

People who study these things with much more focused attention that I do, say that we are not currently evolving. For any actual change to occur there'd have to be seperation of populations. Others say that we have been evolving the whole time, and offer the development of a lactose tolerent gene in northern europe.

I don't htink it will be anyhting like losing toes. Horses did that, but by growing out other toes and changing their method of locomotion.

[gyre]

Thumb use is different now.
I wonder about all the people born with two thumbs on each hand.
Maybe it could be useful?

Most likely we are de-evolving at this point.

One lesson is that animals evolved for plenty die off in hard times.

That's how we got here after all.
We were the leftovers still alive.

[Mister Jellyfish Mister]

"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"

[youtube][/youtube]

[penguin]

People who study these things with much more focused attention that I do, say that we are not currently evolving. For any actual change to occur there'd have to be seperation of populations. Others say that we have been evolving the whole time, and offer the development of a lactose tolerent gene in northern europe.

I don't htink it will be anyhting like losing toes. Horses did that, but by growing out other toes and changing their method of locomotion.

I'm not sure I'd agree that we are not currently evolving (but since I'm not someone who studies evolution what do I know) -- though I do have a feeling that we have suspended natural selection -- it's no longer survival of the fittest, it's more like survival of the richest.

But even that's not entirely different than it always has been -- just these days the so-called "negative" traits (and I'm not calling them negative in a negative sense) are much more likely to survive a generation than they were 50,100,500,etc years ago. Until fairly recently a "deformed" person, a "stupid" person, a "weakling", etc. were much more likely not to survive long enough to breed than they are today.

Since evolution is "change", and it doesn't say that that change needs to be for the "better" I'd say we are still evolving (changing). Of course the REAL KICKER is going to be genetic engineering that's going to really screw up the natural progression of things.

Now that I've rambled on long enough, I think I might have a better question to ask than the original one I posed..

What have we as humans done to change the course of our "natural" evolution, or better to what extent has what we've done changed things?

Doctors keep people alive that otherwise would have died.

Vaccines the same.

WMD kill lots of people at once that otherwise would have lived.

Artifical insemination allows people whos genes should have naturally left the "pool" to continue.

Abortions take genes out.

Etc.

Are all that we are doing helping us to evolve into something better, or have we doomed ourselve to extinction?

Me personally, I think we're close to the line that unless something drastic changes soon we're going to end up screwed by ourselves and we won't know it until its too late.

[Tiahaar]

Are all that we are doing helping us to evolve into something better, or have we doomed ourselve to extinction?

Hiya penguin that is a great question. Whether or not the increased survivability of people in general enriches the gene pool or dilutes it and leaves the species vulnerable to catastrophe is yet to be seen.

Caught a news article a few days ago where one fellow believes a new species of human, Homo Evolutis, is on the horizon because of our newfound ability to manipulate genetics (not that we can do much yet but still...) link here: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/200 ... olutis.ars

I personally am rooting for WRAETHTHU!! GO WRAETHTHU!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wraeththu

[Badger]

We know how the science of Creationism trumps anything that those arrogant and pesky evolutionists can come up with. Now comes a theoretical ally in the fight against science and other silly, logic based bolderdash that threatens America and her youth.

Behold: http://www.unicornmuseum.org/

[Gearrob]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children. Since evolution is more concerned with who successfully reproduces the most, as opposed to who lives the best, it would seem that we will be evolving toward the trailer park.

[Simon of the Playa]

yes, but the more evolved will have double-wides.

[Dork]

Personally, I want photosynthesis. I want green skin, and to be able to pop a vitamin and go sunbathing for lunch. Gills could be interesting as well, assuming I could still process normal air as I do now.

One process that is happening is the weeding out of certain unwanted genes. Prenatal tests for really nasty genetic disorders are easy to sell. Over time, more will be added to the list as the genome is mapped. Perhaps it will even move on to probabilities - some combination of genes gives a 60% chance of heart problems or autism or addiction. We won't realize the positive aspects of these genes on the individual or the society until they're long gone. We'll just keep having fewer children with less genetic diversity.

[penguin]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children. Since evolution is more concerned with who successfully reproduces the most, as opposed to who lives the best, it would seem that we will be evolving toward the trailer park.

I agree in part, I've heard the same about the number of children -- my "survival of the richest" comment was more to the fact that you no longer have to be "fit" to survive and pass on your genes. You just need enough money to buy education, food, shelter, medicine, etc (you can even "buy" a mate with money). However on the flip-side, it isn't really about how many offspring, it's about the preservation/reinforcement of positive traits. Think about it, it doesn't matter how many offspring the horse and the donkey have -- that's still the end of the line for that branch (unless of course we get a mutation thrown in on the fertility side).

Of course one also has to wonder how much is evolution and how much is environment -- like the fact that western european types are tending to grow taller and live longer than they used to -- is it all due to better food and medicine, or are we also moving that way genetically?

[Elderberry]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children. Since evolution is more concerned with who successfully reproduces the most, as opposed to who lives the best, it would seem that we will be evolving toward the trailer park.

There was a movie out awhile back "Idiocracy" that had this theme as its focus. Definately a good rental pick.

JK

[theCryptofishist]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children.

And what kind of eugenisist is spreading that garbage?
Teasing apart the relationship between "drive" and "intelligence" and number of offspring is hard. And there's a huge bias, as the people who do this sort of thing are typically of the professional classes and likely to regard themselves as "intelligence" and with "drive" and to pathologize the poor and "lazy," and "stupid".
In this country, the poor have conciderably less access to birth control and abortions. They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.
And in emerging nations, children, especially sons, are the only form of social services.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I know I spoke of this before but it may be that viruses may actually control evolution.

But why and for what reasons? Is it just a simple cause and effect of biology?

May it be that they are more complicated then what we can see?

Are we just some form of Life Bot for them?

Only the future research will tell.

Oh, I hear my Viruses telling me to have another Mocha and Rum!

Bye!

AIIZ

[Elderberry]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children.

And what kind of eugenisist is spreading that garbage?
Teasing apart the relationship between "drive" and "intelligence" and number of offspring is hard. And there's a huge bias, as the people who do this sort of thing are typically of the professional classes and likely to regard themselves as "intelligence" and with "drive" and to pathologize the poor and "lazy," and "stupid".
In this country, the poor have conciderably less access to birth control and abortions. They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.
And in emerging nations, children, especially sons, are the only form of social services.

Actually you are both right. More educated people tend to plan, for whatever reason and less educated (hence usually poorer) tend to have more kids--for what ever the reason.

but the result is the same and it has nothing to do with eugenitics.

JK

[Ugly Dougly]

We're all going to learn how to fly and live forever.

[penguin]

We're all going to learn how to fly and live forever.

Okay, the flying parts easy -- anyone can learn to fly... well, except maybe certain people of middle eastern descent who've not quite legally entered the US (or at least they're not SUPPOSED to be able to learn to fly anymore).

I just want to know how we could actually know if we've learned to live forever? I could see maybe eliminating the possibility of death by "natural" causes, but I think the suicide rate would quickly approach 100% long before anybody actually got to 100. Just image what state you'd be in after 2, 300 years of Golden Girls reruns

Personally I have a feeling that something like Logans Run is more likely to be in our future than eternal life is.

I'm really beginning to wonder if we've not already reached the "peak" of physical and mental abilities... industrial societies have reached a point where people no longer have to use their muscles (including the grey-spongey one) much any more -- we've got calculators and computers to think for us; cars and other machines to work for us -- I think the future is going to be semi-intelligent blobs.

[theCryptofishist]

Actually I'd heard that there was some concern that the most "successful" people , especially in the industrialized world tend to limit the number of offspring they have, while those with less drive or intelligence are still having many children.

And what kind of eugenisist is spreading that garbage?
Teasing apart the relationship between "drive" and "intelligence" and number of offspring is hard. And there's a huge bias, as the people who do this sort of thing are typically of the professional classes and likely to regard themselves as "intelligence" and with "drive" and to pathologize the poor and "lazy," and "stupid".
In this country, the poor have conciderably less access to birth control and abortions. They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.
And in emerging nations, children, especially sons, are the only form of social services.

Actually you are both right. More educated people tend to plan, for whatever reason and less educated (hence usually poorer) tend to have more kids--for what ever the reason.

Um. First off, intelligence <> educated. Educated is much more closely corrolated with class than intellegence.
2nd? I would say that poorer people probably plan as much, perhaps more, than wealthier people, they just have less power to bring their plans to fruition.

[Cassidy]

I tend to agree that we've evolved as much physically as we're going to, naturally anyway. Kinda like the ancients, when they learned how to farm, they didn't have to spend as much time hunting and gathering and thus started to use their brains and do a LOT more thinking. So my first theory is that since we've 'mastered' farming, under pretty much all conditions, and physically, we've got lots of meds and genetic manipulations to help us live a long time, we've only got our brains to work with. If (in my perfect world) we all got along and stopped fighting and had more of a local community structure, kinda like Burning Man, then we could really focus on what our minds are capable of. These ideas are ones I was introduced to when I read Ishmael and have also begun to find more frequently expressed in books like The Four Agreements and The Secret and in movies like What The Bleep Do We Know?. Spiritual Enlightenment, if you will.

OR

...have you seen Wall-E? yeah. that's my other theory. In that one we depend on computers to do everything for us and overindulge in all our sloth, lust and greed and become fat and lazy (and maybe happy) weebles.

[Gearrob]

And what kind of eugenisist is spreading that garbage?
Teasing apart the relationship between "drive" and "intelligence" and number of offspring is hard. And there's a huge bias, as the people who do this sort of thing are typically of the professional classes and likely to regard themselves as "intelligence" and with "drive" and to pathologize the poor and "lazy," and "stupid".
In this country, the poor have conciderably less access to birth control and abortions. They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.
And in emerging nations, children, especially sons, are the only form of social services.

Actually you are both right. More educated people tend to plan, for whatever reason and less educated (hence usually poorer) tend to have more kids--for what ever the reason.

Um. First off, intelligence <> educated. Educated is much more closely corrolated with class than intellegence.
2nd? I would say that poorer people probably plan as much, perhaps more, than wealthier people, they just have less power to bring their plans to fruition.

Cryptofish, I'm sorry you found my comment so objectionable. It was prompted by Penguin's "survival of the richest" comment. I guess I am an eugenicist in as far as I do support more access to sex education and birth control for the poor. Beyond that I have too many moral problems with the way eugenics has been practiced in the past.
You're right when you hold that there are many smart and industrious poor and many lazy and stupid rich. We haven't evolved a social/economic structure that perfectly rewards those traits, and perhaps we don't really want to as there are other traits to take into account. However, recognizing the imperfections of the model, if we are looking at this through the lens of Evolution, rich=fittest in as far as they are the individuals that demonstrate the ability to gather and control resources. But they are not the ones reproducing the most due to man's ability to control the number of offspring they have. I suspect the same is true of the other measure of evolutionary fitness, health. I've seen a number of Discovery Chanel specials that argue that physical beauty, considered across cultures, is most closely linked with health and fertility/virility. How many more children is Heidi Klum likely to have? I doubt she and Seal have more than the one they are raising. That's a fair ways from the 14 the octo-mom, who I don't consider either bright or attractive, is raising. The main point I was trying to make is that although in most species, when you try to consider what the next step in evolution might be you look at the individuals best adapted to their environment. With humans, those who are most successfully adapted to our environment, while they may have the most access to sex, are not the ones who are necessarily reproducing the most.
This is admittedly an adaption to a very specialized environment(modern industrialized society) and you can certainly argue that someone like my grandfather, a poor farmer with a 6th grade education, might be more resourceful when it comes to making do with limited physical resources.

[Elderberry]

And what kind of eugenisist is spreading that garbage?
Teasing apart the relationship between "drive" and "intelligence" and number of offspring is hard. And there's a huge bias, as the people who do this sort of thing are typically of the professional classes and likely to regard themselves as "intelligence" and with "drive" and to pathologize the poor and "lazy," and "stupid".
In this country, the poor have conciderably less access to birth control and abortions. They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.
And in emerging nations, children, especially sons, are the only form of social services.

Actually you are both right. More educated people tend to plan, for whatever reason and less educated (hence usually poorer) tend to have more kids--for what ever the reason.

Um. First off, intelligence <> educated. Educated is much more closely corrolated with class than intellegence.
2nd? I would say that poorer people probably plan as much, perhaps more, than wealthier people, they just have less power to bring their plans to fruition.

You could say that, but you would be wrong, as far as procreation is concerned.

JK

[gyre]

In the usa, the main corollary to being poor is having health issues of some kind.
Also the primary reason for bankruptcy, contrary to propaganda.
Disabled people are usually poor too.

[theCryptofishist]

With humans, those who are most successfully adapted to our environment, while they may have the most access to sex, are not the ones who are necessarily reproducing the most.

Apart from everything else, we don't get to decide what "fitness" is. Evolution does. If, for instance (and this is complete nonsence, in terms of the example I'm positing--deliberately so) the ozone hole in the southern hemisphere continues to grow and the one in the north catches up to it, and if we all spend all our time outdoors (um, we forgot how to build houses), and if there is a new mutation that has lifeguard zinc grow under the skin (we just aint going to touch the mellanan issue) and protects some of us from the new much more deadly skin cancers, then it doesn't matter if the parents are octomom or any other sort of lobotomized cattle that's what the fitness is.
Now, I happen to have done a fair amount of reading up on Evolutionary Biology, and I gotta say that from what you said about the Discovery Channel that they are making the rather common mistake of oversimplifying the issue and gluing the current social prejudices on top of a potentially interesting approach. Besides, it's easy to be attractive when you're rich, and have access to personal trainers and plastic surgery and if you only have one kid. Six pregnancies is likely to leave you somewhat unattractive, no matter where you started. Especially if you're being photographed less than a week after a c-section.

[Sail Man]

Biggers butts from all the sitting?

That's already happened, I know, I have to pick them up when they fall down, go boom. And lets not talk about carrying them. I've had a 950 pd patient, and a few "lightweights" at only 750 pds. Makes my back whimper just looking at them.

They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.

Sex isn't entertainment?!?

[theCryptofishist]

They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.

Sex isn't entertainment?!? :shock:

Of course it's entertainment. It's also cheap entertainment.

[penguin]

They also have fewer dollars to spend on entertainment, so they fall back on sex.

Sex isn't entertainment?!?

Of course it's entertainment. It's also cheap entertainment.

It ain't as cheap as as you thought when the sequel comes out nine months later...

[Sail Man]

Sex isn't entertainment?!?

Of course it's entertainment. It's also cheap entertainment.

It ain't as cheap as as you thought when the sequel comes out nine months later...