BurningKrome said:
svnt said:
Oh, and another thing. Anyone else think that maybe all this medicine and medical research and such is weakening the human race? Did nature really intend for us to live into our 80s and 90s on a regular basis? Isn't rather anti-Darwin to try to fix all of these broken people? Then they take their weak genes and breed. That isn't good for anyone. I really think that is why people are getting dumber and fatter. I'm not calling for the extermination of the weak or anything like that. It just seems counter productive for us all really. What happens to survival of the fittest when Dr. Normal gives us all a magic crutch. Maybe we shouldn't cure cancer. Or allot of other diseases. Just a though.
Some would argue that it is actually a PART of the natural evolutionary process.
The human race goes through a short weakening period (you could argue, perhaps, 300 years tops out of at least 200,000 years of quantitative homo sapiens sapiens) which then presses medical technology to research the ensuing health problems until the genetic codes are cracked. Once cracked, genetic health issues become a thing of the past.
Research develops solutions only as fast as the problem presses itself. The problem with discussing natural evolution is we have no reference basis for what happens to a species once it becomes sentient. It could be quite normal for all sentient life to destroy their home world, move off-world, after which the pressure that forced them to save themselves also gives them the self-discipline to protect the new home. As natural as a bird being pushed out of the nest.
The problem is, we wont know until we encounter a number of other sentient species to use as a reference datum.
Regarding post 1:
I think the real issue is the definition of evolution over natural selection. The initial post suggested that we are no longer subject to "natural" selection due to our own interference.
However, will we continue to evolve through a "normal" path for sentient beings? Do all sentient beings go through a destructive industrial phase, just as all teenagers go through a rebellious stage...or are we the "retards" of the galaxy?
Regarding post 2:
Both, I think.
I suspect medical science will eventually discover a way to interfere with existing genes (that research is already well under way with the treatments of MD, and MS) as well as society accepting the involvement of genetic engineering in natural birth (either pre-conception manipulation, or after using the above interference techniques on an embryo.)
And lets not discount nano-technology...although it looks like it is going to be the big loser in the next century. Too many other technologies are surpassing it.