The Future of Human Evolution

[Miraj]

There's been plenty of debate about our history as a species that belongs to the greater tree of evolution, but what about our future as a species?

Is the rise of technology, genetic engineering and better healthcare speeding up evolution? Is it screwing with it? Is it slowing it down? Are we eventually going to become totally different creatures due to these factors? Will we eventually be able to drastically "edit" our own genetics to give all our kids the chance to be supermen and cheat out of our collected hereditary traits? Will the future look something like Gattaca?

I'm deeply interested in this question, but have little expertise on genetics and evolution since I'm more in the engineering field. Please enlighten me on the latest theories on the future of our species.

[Pra]

I think that we aren't going to evolve as much mainly because we possess the ability to change our environment. A major ability for environmental change forcing evolution will then be left out.

That said, part of me is also a believer of 46+2 and a one day universal consciousness, but that is belief and religion.

Scientifically, I don't think we will evolve, as much.

We may though get to somewhere like in Gattaca, but a lack of variance in the population may lead to a unforeseen detriment.

[St Naffatun]

Evolution in simple terms is genetic adaptaion to environmental conditions, but we essentially control our environment. If the main driver of natural selection is basically DEATH (for those lacking particular attributes - or at least being precluded from procreation) I can't see where this evolutionary driver will come from. We have no natural predators or threats to our resources.

Maybe those with a resistance to the super bugs we'll continue to create by our overuse of anti-microbial medicines (a position partly caused by the needs of pharmaceutical giants. Once created they need sustenance and are there to stay.)

I guess another driver might come from selective mating.

Apparently if the gamma rays of a supernova hit earth just right, it could lead to a mass extinction according to some. Maybe some sort of cellular adaptation might help you survive this.

[Chaigidel]

evolution will now continue by our will rather than the will of nature; we will continue to evolve through our machines both organic, and mechanic; because all we are is machines as genetics has taught us we are just fleshy ones; the disasters that will occur as we blunder our way into the next evolution could very well drive us to extinction or it could drive us to fulfill the purpose we were set in the darkness for in the first place- ever onward until god is born.

[Copperknickers II]

Evolution can only exist when people fail to reproduce. the people who do reproduce obviously have an advantage over those who didn't, and that advantage is reflected in future generations. In theory, the only things that are being 'edited out' of humans by this method in any real numbers is people who are succeptable to malaria or aids. I don't forsee any physical changes, unless nuclear war breaks out any time soon.

[Broken Pope]

As I see it, in Western cultures at least, the course of human evolution tends to a regression to the mean. In the last two generations, a high percentage of able-bodied and intelligent young men have been killed in trans-global wars while their flat-footed, cross-eyed and cabbage-brained contemporaries have been left with the pick of the female pool.

To compound these difficulties, the social pattern that has emerged in the post-war years promotes reproduction amongst the poor and indolent. There is no longer a requirement that an individual can materially provide for his or her offspring. Infant mortality rates among the poor have never been lower,

Of course, not every poor person is less intelligent than their richer contemporary. In aggregate, however, this will tend to be the case.

Couples of higher social class tend to postpone and limit their reproduction for a number of reasons. They are more likely to go to university. Their females are more likely to have careers. As couples, they are less likely to consider it acceptable for the state too assist in the upkeep of their children; they will work until they are financially prepared to start a family.

Because they are highly taxed - (in part to supplement the raising of inferior children) - the better specimens in the western-liberal gene pool have less resources to commit to producing children.

On the balancing side of the equation, there is too small a class of 'wealthy' people for whom family-size is of no consideration.

Lots of you will look at these views as reactionary, bigoted or unsavoury. Please explain why.

Evolution itself is a theory of natural eugenics.

We are turning our back on reason and sense, and are destined (thereby) to abandon it.

[St Naffatun]

As I see it, in Western cultures at least, the course of human evolution tends to a regression to the mean.

Amusing but mainly as I'm also an incorrigible elitist pig +rep

If only my colleagues had the wit to see the contempt I hold them in. Beleive it or not but there are actually FEMALES close to my level of seniority at work haha! Just plain crazy. They're mediocre of course (which I'm secretly releived about).

oink oink