posted
This seems like a fine SF thread topic (so I hope).
I've wonderered for a long time since learning about evolution and the development of technology that it would seem the human race is removing itself from the forces of natural selection (via medicine). What will the consequences of this be?
speculation is invited. I have no idea. Genetic drift becomes the driving force for human evolution? Technology takes over in some well-legislated form?
fallow
(edit: spell-checkers become obsolete in the midst of pheromone-based quorum-sensing?)
Not to mention the anti-biotic resistant viruses/bacteria. 'Tis only some time until we have a major outbreak.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
PS. Intrudes with science (prelim results). Following the sequencing of the human genome and comparison to that of the chimpanzee, it would appear that not a lot of "positive" (environmentally advantageous) selection has occurred in the human line, genetically speaking. Meanwhile, lots of "crap" has accumulated (and accumulates). (laying waste in lay terms to the science). Part of this "crap", as Phanto points out is increasing susceptibility to pathogenic organisms (partly host-born, partly technological/behavioral/social/medicinal selection). The other part is inherited disease.
posted
There was a bit on the news today about the rate of diagnosed mental illness in the U.S. being the highest in the world.
We don't euthanise or sterilize mentally ill people or leave them to fend for themselves as is done in some cultures. We diagnose them, count them, and treat them.
If mentally ill people survive to reproductive maturity more often in the U.S. than they do in other cultures because of cultural differences, have Americans removed themselves from natural selection?
Does behavior outweigh medicine when it comes to negating the effects of natural selection? Isn't behavior part of natural selection? Isn't the practice of medicine a behavior?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immediate effect is that sexual selection (the effect of those traits that effect how often a person gets to reproduce) has a greater effect than the survival of the fittest aspect of natural selection.
This allows preference (cultural and personal) to have a larger driving force on the evolution of the species than it does in most other animals.
It also means that if we lose access to technology, we're in trouble. Probably not extinction level trouble, but all my carefully acquired skill will amount to zip if we have to hunt or gather our own food.
posted
...and I thought this thread was going to be about the POW camp in WWII! (after all, the only thing you saw all weekend on AMC and TCM was war movies).
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think that ideas have replaced genetics in humans, as far as natural selection goes.
Don't discount, though, the idea that all of this nice "civilization" could fall at any moment. Then it would be a return to the physical jungle.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee has his/her finger on the pulse of the matter. Sexual selection is now favored as opposed to natural selection. Exactly.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as science and technology remove us from many factors of natural selection, they also add new selective presures. Sexual selection being one. But how about factors such as intellect vs. stupidity? I think they still exist, just in different forms. Technological and social advancement have created fabulously new and inivative ways to kill ourselves. Drugs, war, car accidents, and my personal favorite X-sports. For example: Those dumb enough to risk their lives but part-taking in needlessly dangerous activities can remove themselves from the genetic pool.
posted
But the risk-taking psyche might have other survival advantages, as would a person with the physical capabilities necessary to take part in some riskier activities (mountain climbing, not bungie jumping). Especially when participating in such activities helps in sexual selection.
This isn't to say you're wrong, just that the implications of any specific activity are far from clear.
posted
Quite true Dag. The implications of any specific activity, or trait, are far from clear. Especially in reference sexual selection because society rapidly changes what qualities are percieved to be ideal.
All that aside, my point was that even though technological advancement can save lives and remove some selective preasures, it adds others to replace them. Maybe not equally replace them... Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah. For example, there's some evidence that the industrial revolution made the world much more dangerous for left handers. That would be "natural selection" being triggered by a new, unnatural environment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure that x-sports or risk taking individuals and the outcomes of their lives would have much of an impact on the evolutionary direction of the population as a whole.
quote: I've wonderered for a long time since learning about evolution and the development of technology that it would seem the human race is removing itself from the forces of natural selection (via medicine)
Isn't the fact that we are using medicine to help prolong our life part of natural selection - survival of the fittest?
posted
the cool thing about an escape from natural selection is the rational selection of a body-2-be. a Choice. collective, sure, but a choice nonetheless.
posted
I'm really disappointed that this thread isn't about Steve McQueen. What's wrong with you people?
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
For example: Those dumb enough to risk their lives but part-taking in needlessly dangerous activities can remove themselves from the genetic pool.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
