I'm reading a wonderful book, The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins at the moment. I will review it here when I'm done, but so far it receives a strong 9/10, if not a full 10, so if you don't want to wait till I finish it, go and buy/borrow/steal it and read it.

So, the question...

The basic principle of natural selection is that mutations in the genes of biological beings (in this case us humans) cause these genes to change. But genes that are beneficial to our survival tend to survive more than those that don't. There's a LOT more to it I've come to discover, but that's the basics.

I'm wondering whether humans (as the only species with 'medicine') are not messing with natural selection, and completely halting the process, or at least to a great extent.

Here's my thinking:

Let's say someone has a bad gene that ends up giving him serious heart conditions which normally would make him die by age 12.

Without modern medicine, this person's genes would not be passed on. And neither would the genes of the thousands of other people with the same defective gene. So natural selection would favour those people with the 'stronger' gene, and humans become better.

Now modern medicine intervenes, we fix the baby's heart valve (assuming that's the problem), so the baby grows up and old and happy, and has kids. And so do the other thousands with the same 'genetic' problem.

Humans end up NOT getting stronger, we just keep fixing something.

I'm not making an argument here, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

Heh...

Humans can't 'un-evolve'.

Doesn't happen that way. We're still evolving, just not in the 'bigger, better, faster' direction. Traits that are being selected for now have shifted based on cultural and societal memes, rather than genetic ones.

And yes, you are right, and this is one of the reasons why so many previously ailments which were confined to small portions of the population are now on the rise.

And this is why some people cheer for the viruses and bacteria. Rather than letting a few more people die each die, modern medicine is going to result in whole sale slaughter from a third party.


(edit to add...Great book. Read more of his work. I think everyone should.)

I think rather than unevolving it would be more accurate to say that the evolutionary factors are changed.

Disease is just one such factor.

In almost every biological model if you remove one limiting factor you'll find there is another that slots neatly into place.

So in the case of healthcare in societies where it is on a pay per use basis then the ability to pay for that medication becomes an evolutionary factor.

In a society where healthcare is universal and unprejudiced then other things like lifestyle, diet, etc. come in to play.

Haha just liked the provocative wordplay :)

We are evolving, you're right, into better people, we are socially evolving, but I'm talking strictly in the genetic sense. Without evolving genetically, we are not becoming 'stronger' species in the biological sense, while all other life on this planet does.

This could be a very powerful argument for genetic 'improvement' work too, not that I want to go into that discussion..

Oh, we ARE evolving genetically. The genome shifts a smidge with each generation. No stopping that, just the way the system works.

And of course, with ANY population, there isn't a goal in sight, it's suitability to the environment that counts. No longer does speed count, no longer do you have to be able to outwit predators.

Look at the portions of the population with the most children surviving to adulthood. They're 'best suited' to the current environment; their genes are the ones increasing in the population.

Evolution isn't, strictly speaking, confined to the genetic sense.


How are we not becoming stronger? In an evolutionary sense survival is key (once you're done with The Blind Watchmaker move onto The Selfish Gene). The ability to survive diseases and other abnormalities that would otherwise kill us does make us stronger.

Evolution includes our abilities, not just the length of our forearms.

I have a theory that we are evolving, maybe breeding, into stupidity.

I can use my own family as a reference.

My mother [spits] has 9 children. She has never worked a day in her life and does nothing apart from watching her TV shows all day, can't use a computer and even mobile phones confuse her.

Of her 9 Children, 2 of us, continued our education, work hard, have careers (of sorts) and have 3 children between us, (I have 2 my sister has 1.) The remaining brothers and sisters of mine have taken my mother as a role model. Left school at the earliest possible opportunity and proceeded to breed like rabbits.

Each of them has at least 4 offspring, none of them work and there is no hope or ambition.

Granted some of their children may continue with education and go on to provide some sort of service to the human race but on the whole I would imagine that the majority would take after their parents.

Give this time and the ratio of educated people who have careers but only one or two children will be outnumbered by the no-hoper's who have dozens of children recreated in their own s**t sodden lifestyles.

But taking my example of the heart problem, we will always have to FIX the problem. It will never naturally be better, because that gene does not get eliminated.

I agree by the way that at the moment social evolution is very important, and that we are evolving socially very very much faster than before. I was just thinking and pondering the genetic sense for this discussion.


And I know of course we are still genetically evolving, I just think we've slowed it down a whole lot.

Also note how sexual evolution is a b*tch.

(just look at the peacocks)

In which case it would appear that the welfare state has become an evolutionary factor.

In the very short term it may seem like this will facilitate the breeding of a whole society of overweight, square eyed mouth breathers, but the welfare state isn't sustainable in that mode forever. There is a tipping point where the dependants outweigh (pun intended) the workers supporting them and either the support dries up or the society collapses.

Given the number of once mighty, now fallen civilisations litter our history I'd place my money the second of those options.

And so one possible outcome of the direction in which our world appears to be heading is that only those equipped to deal with tough times, financial hardship and economic decline (i.e. those people with real skills and abilities) will be the ones who survive; people you might describe as the fittest.

It also doesn't threaten life, so it's not a problem. It's just been removed from the pot.

If it ever becomes a factor again (see what I said above) then it will once again be put on the table of things that are selected for or against.

And if it transpires that the genotype for this disease has become too widespread to sustain a viable population once the cure has been taken away then medical breakthroughs will be deemed to be an evolutionary mistake by the insect-people that rise up and take our place.

Alternatively this heart disease may become so widespread and the initial fix be too much of a chore that it might be a factor that drives research into gene therapy which in turn may lead to the genotype being removed from the population altogether in a matter of a few generations.

I have had this opinion for about 5 years now (I remember talking about it a long time ago). With the advent of modern medicine, we no longer are selecting out traits based on health and survivability. We are keeping people alive who would otherwise have died out, and people are breeding based on what traits are culturally seen as 'desireable'. We definitely still are evolving, there is no stop to that process. It's just that the natural process of evolution has been more or less supplanted by one that is guided by human intervention and what is socially accepted.

So, yes, that's why you see diseases and disorders that would have previously been confined to small groups start to come out and be more prevalent these days.

I never thought about it in terms of medicine, more in terms of other kinds of technology. Remember the people in Walle? How their bone density had diminished so much because they didn't ever do anything (and because they lived in space). I kind of think that we're slowly changing like that. How many of us could go out and successfully hunt down an animal with a spear?

More people wear glasses now than ever before, and more people are overweight now than ever before. We're definitely changing as a species, and I don't think it's for the better.

I have read the book in question, "The Blind Watchmaker", and agree that it is an excellent read.
An example I always give to people regarding how we are effecting how our gene pool is changing is, simply put, me. I am fairly near-sighted, enough so that when I remove my glasses I can't even read the large-LED clock on my night stand, let alone try to function successfully.
Now, in a truly "survival of the fittest" description of evolution, I wouldn't survive to procreate. Although I am at least relatively intelligent-- I have a college degree and run my own freelance website design company-- if I were left to fend for myself without the benefits of technology, I would have been dead a long time ago.

Just four things:

First: this discussion isn't valid for the whole human race, only for those people living in industrialised areas where these treatments are available for the general population.

Second: what this lack of pressure is doing is making it possible for the human race to be more varied. What if some disease comes along that is dangerous to everyone but people with some kind of genetic disorder which is uncomfortable in that it leads to something like heart disease that can be treated with modern medicine, but is not a barrier to reproduction. The 'healthy' people are in danger from the disease, but the 'bad' gene, by making the body less vulnerable to the disease as a side-effect, had some unforeseen benefits. After all, we never know what will come in handy in the mystery that is the future.

Third: I blame the people who chose to reproduce with the bum people. If they are fat and lazy and willing to bum off society, they are probably not going to be good for a relationship because of their already demonstrated selfishness and unwillingness to do their part, and they are fat so they don't look so good, so why would people want to reproduce with people like that? Of course, maybe the human race will one day need a fat lazy bum gene and a attracted to manipulative fat lazy people gene to survive.

Fourth: Survival also depends on cooperation; it is competition between genes, not individuals. Humans are more social than tigers and alligators, so it might be beneficial to take social organizations into consideration. Even people who are genetically 'weaker' might be able to survive in the post-apocalyptic wilderness if they specialized in tasks within their tribe, because not all of their 'weaknesses' will be the same.

I would have to say that our next step of evolution as human beings is going to be a technological evolution above anything else. Technology and our ability to manipulate and use it to our advantage is the next big step for human beings. I know it's probably cliche but the film and book 2001: A Space Odyssey really has a lot to say about this subject. Notice in the beginning of the film when the monkey finally uses a bone as a tool, a weapon. He throws it up into the air and the film jump cuts to the rotating space ship orbiting earth. What Kubrick is saying here still resonates today. The 1000+ year jump cut is symbolic of how human beings have evolved. It lays out our evolutionary path. It is our technology that will cure us, entertain us, and take us to the stars. What Kubrick is saying is that we invented tools to evolve. We are writing our own destiny, whether nature intended it or not.

However to play devil's advocate I must say that this next step for human kind is a dangerous one. By essentially "playing god" we have allowed ourselves longer lives, better health, and faster medicine. This all comes at the cost of over-population, deforestation, and urban sprawl. You see, you're all right in saying that by dabbling in genetics and fixing our own deficiencies we are eliminating the survival of the fittest. However, in the big picture, that is our evolutionary next step. We have the brain capacity to do these things. We were the chosen few who mutated to this level of understanding and advancement. My biggest concern for our future is, are we becoming tools of our own tools? As our natural defenses weaken and our bodies rely more and more on medicine and treatment, are we ever going to become better than our advancements allow us? Is our technology hurting us or bettering us? Will human beings be able to transcend our need for these things or will we become dependent on the very things that make us tick in our modern society?

Our society has allowed this to occur on a dangerous level. We all promote the very things we should stay away from, but can't live without. Are we un-evolving? No. But we are manipulating the natural course of things, which never bodes well for any species.

Probably some might say this is a little off topic, but that's only a part of the picture.

Take in the whole of that sequence and the bone/spaceship spinning crops up again as Floyd's pen slips from his pocket in zero gravity. This signifies that mankind has got to a point where he is no longer able to control his tools (as is then later mirrored again by HAL's behaviour, and HAL's physical aspect of The Discovery is significantly similar to that of the bone and the pen). Floyd himself is suddenly rendered helpless, being fed what resembles baby food and needing the assistance of the flight attendant to function again.

What Kubrick is saying here is that eventually our reliance on the tools will have to come to an end. It's Bowman who severs these ties when he shuts HAL down. In doing so, Bowman is able to take the next step and dramatically evolves beyond the physical realm as we know it, becoming the continuation of humanity in the form of the Star Child.

(As I said, it's a little off topic, but not that much).

Reading it on an extremely reduced level, one interpretation of 2001 is that to move forward we must ultimately leave our technology behind and once more rely solely on ourselves, but also that this same technology is essential in getting us to the point where where abandonment becomes meaningful.

My thoughts exactly ;). You hit the nail on the head pocksucket, as usual!

I didn't read "The Blind Watchmaker" (because it didn't have pretty pictures), but I did see "Idiocracy." Does that qualify me for this thread?

It seems that all these conversations end up with the idea that "People (THOSE PEOPLE) that are not as good as me shouldn't be allowed to breed."

Yes.

To give some more specific examples, the human race's average IQ has been increasing for 30 years now (discovered/named after some psychologist that I forgot the name of.)

And likewise thieves and beggars and socially inept people are getting less (especially in places like China).