Is technological advancement a natural or artificial progression?

There is no such thing as Darwinian stagnation. Evolution is not a linear process from single-celled organisms to Man, to Superman, to Energy Beings, despite what science fiction may tell you. Evolution is simply the adaptation of animals to their environments for the sake of survival and reproduction. Those who are more well adapted live and pass on their genes, those who are less so eventually decrease in number and die out.

Technology and tool use are simply another tool Man uses to this end. There is no hard fast line between an undersea wall of corral or a beehive vs the city of New York or Los Angelas.

Technological devices do not cause biological 'stagnation', the only thing that causes that is when an animal is very well adapted to its environment and its environment does not change for many millions of years [as a result, most 'living fossils' live in the ocean].

Being that technology is constantly altering our environment, its arguable that it is in fact a catalyst for further biological changes, even leaving out the possibility of eugenics and genetic engineering.

Bur there are none. Humans generally don't breed based on traits that are markers of success. The lowest common denominators always have more children than their successful counterparts and random chance is only a 50% influence on the outcome of a child's natural ability. Mongoloids are therefore much more likely to produce mongoloid offspring, and the cycle continues.

Technology could only have a regressive impact on human evolution. Unless you believe humanity is destined to become bound to mobility scooters and addicted to instant gratification, there's no evidence behind your insinuations. Evolution is propelled by a struggle to survive and that struggle is all but nonexistant in current year (unless you're going to cherry pick the few remaining hunter gatherer tribes).

There is no biological necessity for human evolution anymore; if anything, our hylerinflated population has become so excessively demanding of the Earth's finite resources that a biological mechanism has kicked in to ensure that we lose some numbers before we're left with a barren planet.

>our
>"humans"
>are genetically identical

That is not how evolution works. Evolution isn't something that stops or starts, its a constant process. Unless the environment is stagnant, change WILL occur.

So the real question is, what does the current environment select for? What traits are most likely to get passed on in an urban technological environment?

There are selective forces at work here, and evolution is occurring. You'd have to be dense to think you could put a tribal hunter-gatherer species in agrarian and urban environments and expect them to stay the same. New environments mean new selective pressures.

>stagnation of evolution
>evolutionary regression
>devolution
Literally a meme. Evolution does not stop, nor is it linear. You should probably go to Veeky Forums to ask your question because humanities majors are not allowed to take real classes

If we're discussing evolution as a progressive phenomenon, I don't see how any positive traits can be promulgated in an urban environment. Let me know if you can come up with any, I'm really curious.

Smokers often live well past the point that they become infertile, and the same can be said for even the worst junkies. Welfare mamas pop children out 5 times a decade for "muh benefits" and middle to upperclass families are reproducing below the replacement rate, yet somehow you still think "urban" """evolution""" has a progressive nature. Maybe you're trying to be an edgy devil's advocate but your half baked logic only further proves my point.

Liberal arts majors are generally better at discussing topics with dead ends than engineers. It takes them far longer to realize that their egos alone can't win an argument.

There is no such thing as progressive or regressive in evolution you unscientific prole. Evolution is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a linear process.

Mice are disgusting, ugly, and weak, and yet they have a successful evolutionary strategy of pumping out a billion babies.

Evolution is the adaptation of species to their environments through the process of natural selection, it is not a linear process whereby rats turn into monkeys turn into people.

Man evolves to be strong and intelligent because strength and intelligence were useful for living in the environments prehistoric man found himself in. It is entirely possible for a new environment to arise in which those traits are less useful, or in which certain other traits of man are less useful, and for the descendents of man to develop along that new path to fit the new environment.

As long as you're still talking about regression, progression, stagnation, and so on, you are ont talking about evolution as biologists understand it.

>evolution as a progressive phenomenon
Read this and understand that you possess a very outdated conception of the biological world and your place in it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

>t. wiki warrior
Did I say that some humans could evolve into a higher species? Successful traits are no longer sought after in a mate; tits and ass have become far more important than an individual's propensity for survival, and because of modern technology's penchant for providing the basic necessities to those that are less biologically gifted, the weakest links are able to survive and promulgate their negative traits.

I stated that humans are no longer "evolving", not that we have become inefficient at reproduction. Obviously as long as we're perfect capable of popping children out, there isn't any impetus to selectively breed based on positive traits.

There is no such thing as positive or negative traits, there is only traits that aid in survival in the current environment.

Also, large breasts and asses have always been desirable, it indicates a healthy female.

There are so many factors of how technology intersects with evolution and you don't seem to grasp any of them.

>There is currently no biological impetus for the human organism to change.
>It's the opinion of many that we've encountered an evolutionary plateau.
>What biological incentives do you feel act on us currently?
>Evolution is propelled by a struggle to survive
>There is no biological necessity for human evolution anymore

My god. You are uneducated in the subject. From the very begining Darwin points out that greatest part of the evolutionary process is intraspecies rivalry (rivalry between individuals in the same species). This is where greatest evolutionary pressure lays: in the fight of the most similar. It's because they fight for the same niche. Example: lions don't really rival in the evolutionary sense with gazelles (a bit of oversimplification to better show my point), lions use gazelles. Lions rival with other predators that stalk the same prey: gepards, hyenas etc, but with whom lions rival the MOST? With other lions! It's because they fight for the exacly same niche in the enviroment. We observe it very directly by seeing how often male lions commit infanticide after conquering the pride.

Not to put this on humans. We aren't some great monument of human species. No! We are myriard different genetic lineages that fight with each other for the supremacy. Since bottleneck event our greatest rivals were always other human beings! Evolution hasn't stopped, it's still strong going. It's going on every street, in every school, whenever one person get's the girl, or when the girl mets the boy, whenever someone build successful family or someone knocks someone in the backalley, some genes are propagated at the expense of others. It's quite complicated process but it is this in the nutshale. I will try to explain further if someone have more question, but it's all there in the works of Darwin, Spencer and the like. You just need to pick up book and read.

>Not to put this on humans.
NOW to put this in the human terms, sorry.

>I stated that humans are no longer "evolving"
We are. Ofcourse we are, we are evolving to "best" use avaliable resources. Since resources are abundant, people that reproduce the most with little care for actual ability are the ones that are living bigest evolutionary imprint and they posterity will constitue the bigest part of future humanity.

>Obviously as long as we're perfect capable of popping children out, there isn't any impetus to selectively breed based on positive traits
"Humanity" is NOT a one enitity in evolutionary sense. Humanity is the great number of groups that fight with each other for which will leave most children.

>positive traits
Trait is only as possitive in evolutionary sense as it lets most number of children reproduce themselves. Promiscuity, which would be bad trait in the times of famine (because you don't have strong family to better protect against hardship) is a good (evolutionary speaking) trait in the times of great abundance, because it generally make the individual have more children.

Over 80% of humans reproduce (different for male and female but the figure is significant nonetheless). Your beloved Darwin's hypotheses on this topic are dated, and though they might have held true 150 years ago, they lack credibility in the age of opulence and state insured survival.

We cannot, nor should we ever be compared to lions or lesser species. Our status on the hierarchy of all things living is the greatest phenomenon to ever occur on our planet.

Your antiquated beliefs on evolution completely ignore the fact that our own technological advancement has far outpaced evolution and nature itself.

Dude, shut up you clearly don't understand this subject at all.

You are laughable. You hold the beliefs faaaaar more "dated" than mine. You stay in line with the people that argued with Darwin.
>We cannot, nor should we ever be compared to lions or lesser species. Our status on the hierarchy of all things living is the greatest phenomenon to ever occur on our planet.
Yea, right. And I have OUTDATED beliefs. HAHAHA!

>age of opulence and state insured survival
Evolution still holds sway. The ones that are most well fited to use the opulence and state insured survival will leave bigest evolutionary inprint. It doesn't matter that you belive them "weaker", "less desirable" they are more fitted to enviroment at hand than how did you say it? Middle class people that only just reproduce at a replacment (or below) rate.

>Over 80% of humans reproduce
Maybe, but it only shows that the game today is about who can reproduce most. Someone have 2 children and they manage to survive? Well his neighbour gonna have 12 and make state care for his offspring. Guess what? In evolutionary sense this promiscous, 12 children neighbour is far more successful than the 2 children, replacment rate middle class person. Promiscous, carefree genes are victorious in this scenario. It's just a question in what direction our evolution is heading. Are we on the verge of great collapse or is this just fitting ourself to our new niche? But we as hell can be sure of one thing evolution works full time, this is no question.

Jesus you're horrible at spelling. If natural selection existed you wouldn't have hit puberty.

We aren't evolving to efficiently use our resources and those that have the best access to all things necessary certainly don't reproduce and outpace the bereft.

It's another argument completely but all advancements in "efficiency" have no impact on usage of scarce resources.

What a fantastic end to your argument. Tally another win for the guy that can call someone an idiot.

It's truly sad that you're clearly a native English speaker and yet hold only an elementary grasp on basic grammar. I'm going to spare myself the headache and not bother to read your post. I honestly tried though, so give me some credit.

>If natural selection

Natural selection doesn't mean "Hurr weak animals get punked", if it did bugs and mice wouldn't exist you troglodyte. Nor would any of the pussy animals who exist only by eating and having lots of babies.

The evolutionary race is not to the strong or the swift, but to the survivor. Learn science before you spew bullshit.

If you have a race of 6'2 Aryan supermen with big muscles and IQs of 160, but they only have one child per couple, and then a race of 5'2 subhumans who has 8 kids per couple, guess which one is more evolutionarily fit?

The ugly subhumans. Because they prospered and survived in the environment they lived in. Just because they are 'inferior' doesn't make them less 'evolved'.

Fucking A.

>Jesus you're horrible at spelling.
Well, english is not my first language, hell it's not even my second language. I wonder in how many languages you can comunicate? I guess I'm "evolutionary" superior to you. Jackass.

>We aren't evolving to efficiently use our resources
Huh. Still with the "we". There is no "we" as the human race in the evolutionary race (a pun!). Get that idea out of your head. Your whole argument is flawed because of it.

And even disregarding that, how do you know? What great species spanning research have you done?

>those that have the best access to all things necessary certainly don't reproduce and outpace the bereft
Yea, this is evolution at work, if they don't someone else will reproduce more and will "outreproduce" them. Because those who are suited to "achieving" resources aren't always best suited to "using" them. In short, those most successful in the financing, scientific aspect are probably better suited for the harsher times when their ingenuity would make them ONLY ones to surivive. But they are ill suited in the aspect of using the resources. It's so very much ironic that this ingenious people create scenario in which they are evolutionary disadvantaged.

>It's truly sad that you're clearly a native English speaker
HAHAHAHA. Jokes on you, english is my THIRD language! Thanks for the compliment though.

Gene therapy is a thang nigga!

>rampant reproduction is a positive evolutionary trait
Do some research on algae growth in small, contained bodies of water.

I applaud your efforts on this post. I've read and graded the papers of many basketball Americans and I just noticed many similarities with your grammar. But this is readable.

I won't comment on your hypothetical, but note the comment on algae growth. The distinction with humans is that our population has yet to see the boundaries of its growth, and absent any war, plague or natural phenomenon, our evolutionary path will continue to stagnate.

You might consider these occurances inevitable, but they are nevertheless phenomena and thus don't refute my argument that humans no longer need to evolve.

Did you not read about all the medical advances in gene therapy?

Shit. Designer babies are 25 years away.

>I've read and graded the papers of many basketball Americans
Well, probably because you are so retarded, they won't let you anywhere near good student in the fear that they might be dumbed by you.

Why do you think I write on Veeky Forums? It's an language exercise for me.

Algae growth? Haha, this is like, elementary school stuff. And oh no. The distinctions are many, many more. You are really simpleton, aren't you? Arguing on the subject on which you know next to nothing. I would advice you to read about Dunning–Kruger effect. Because you really exhibit it. And you spoiled a nice discussion because, despite the fact that OP asked his question in very flawed way, it is nevertheless very interesting question: "where does the human evolution point as a whole? Are we on the step of great extinction, because stupid people reproduce at a higher rate than smart ones? How technology fits in the evolution?" etc. Sadly I guess it must be asked on another day, maybe I will give it some though and try to formulate it better for the next one because I fear this thread is unsalvageable.

Ikr. Babies finna be comin out the womb swagged out in Gucci diapers yerd?

>they might be dumbed by you
I was nice and even complimented you in my last post. Aggravation shows doubt my friend.

Let me exercise you. Never use "an" before a word that starts with a consonant.

Also I am OP. Given I'm a slightly more drunk OP but I'm still here. And I haven't swayed from my original argument yet. We've been discussing why the promiscuity of the lesser gifted has brought about an evolutionary plateau this entire time, but if you'd like we can chalk up your confusion to your poor grasp on English.

To give your postulation thought, without technology, nature is a dead end street. Eventually, life will be exterminated on a single planet due to solar radiation, asteroid, or eventually due to the sun destroying the planet.

In order to spread beyond the solar system to escape eventual extinction life needs technology.

Maybe this is natural. Maybe not.

Either way its necessary otherwise life goes out eventually.

>I was nice and even complimented you in my last post. Aggravation shows doubt my friend.
Haha. Nah, I would say, that backing down and sucking up to, show that you are uncertain in your convictions. I am not aggravated, I was just a bit dumbstruck when someone who argued on the topic of evolution commented that Darwin THEORY (NOT hypotheses, you scientific illiterate. Seriously I haven't even goten that the first time. You called theory of evolution "hypothesis", did you even graduated from high school?) that Darwin theory might be outdated. It's just so ridiculous if you read it and research the topic. Darwin theory is one of the most awe inspiring theory of all time, because it was so clear, correct and factual. Granted Darwin stood on the shoulders of giants and many people before him formulated the idea in one way of another but Darwin himself shoot the bullseye. His work is really amazing. It's shame that ol' papa Darwin couldn't know about genes, chromosomes and actual biological foundation of the reproductive process, because if he did, oh boy.

It's just so arogant to dismiss Darwin theory that I am absolutely certain that your whole understanding of evolution is beyond arguing. It's step one of understanding evolution. Read Darwin, read Spencer, read Huxley, read Villee, because they will give you much better english and will teach you much better than I could. And they will OBLITERATE your puny understanding of wonderful process of evolution. It's just folly to "debate" about evolution with someone who has so wrong misconception and yet is so firm in his beliefs.

>has brought about an evolutionary plateau
There we go again! Oh boy! You really are adicted to being wrong, aren't you?

>upload human brains to CPUs
>new technology creates the ability to transfer the electricity in your brain to inanimate objects
>now we're computers
>blast off giant, solar powered brain database to infinity and beyond
>remain conscious till the heat death of the universe
This is how we should go out

You just said my original question was an interesting topic of discussion, now you're saying the possibility of an evolutionary plateau is ridiculous? I don't understand what you're misinterpreting. Just so I know we're on the same page, plateaus have two slopes and a flat top. We made it up the incline, now we're coasting along the flats, pretty soon the human race will be in a race to the bottom because people like your parents chose to reproduce.

>One group of human/AIs decide they want all the resources that "comfy human/AIs" have.
>"comfy humans/AIs" are destroyed, because they spent all their resources on creating paradise, not on creating defences
>all the other groups must prepare for fight or die out
>armaments race commences
>soon groups that spent much resource on weapons start using them on defencless
>endless war begins
>all the human/AI must now wage endless war for survival, one uping on another with new weapons, defences and generally new inventions. >often they must change their whole structure and way of working, >they create offspring groups of copies
>each copy decide on the slightly different aproach
>most fitted copy-groups survive and create even more offspring copy-groups... etc... etc...

EVOLUTION REIGNS SUPREME!

Well my scenario involved all of our brains being crammed into a server on a spaceship but that's an interesting thought.

>evolutionary plateau
Evolution never stopped. Quite contrary, we are in the step of great explosion of gene diversity. Many different gene arrangement are "allowed" to survive and flourish. It's truly wonderfull, there is great potential because some genes that are negative in the nascent form but would prove great benefits to its owner in its fully gestalted form are "allowed" to develop.

What you postulate is only that for time being ENVIROMENTAL PRESSURE is much lower than it was for thousands of time, which is false also! Because what really did happen is broading of our resource base by the mechanisation of food production. So your argument is two steps away from being correct. Haha.

Evolution is not enviromental pressure, it's not natural selection, it's not sexual selection (which you seem to disregard all together, which is great error in itself). This things are tools of evolution. Evolution is much bigger process. And trust me, it's not plateua, it's everything but plateua, it's field day for evolution. It (and this will be jokingly said, ofcourse I don't think evoltion has any "self" or agenda, it's just a way of humorously saying this things) Evolution has a playday today, it get's to try out all this wacky designs, it can try all the things. What you seem to anticipate is next bottlenec event that will "reenergize" enviromental pressure. It's funny question.

You still however completly disregard sexual slection and intraspecies pressure, which bugs me.

Spaceship would need to be maintained and wound need to ocasionally change course to avoid space debriss, so there would be some outer agency buuuuuuut eveeeen sooo

>your ability to create world in this virtual space is limited to processing power and disk space
>everyone has more than enough to create his own world
>but what was always only real objective in our history is:
>power over other humans
>it's no fun to have power over some simplistic AI
>it's no fun for some people to be kings, gods even if everyone can be god
>they want to be gods supreme
>so they spent enitre eons to hack the system
>they gain control over the very fabric of simulated reality
>ofcourse they fight with each other
>some people start to defending themselves
>endless war ensues
>people create better and better AIs to aid them in the hack war
>better AIs, create better AIs...
>etc...

EVOLUTION REIGNS SUPREME!

According to the World Bank,s most recent numbers (2012), 2.1 billion people live on less than US$3.10 per day. It's safe to assume these people use little to no modern technologies in their daily lives. Many of these people are subsistence farmers or members of ever shrinking hunter-gatherer groups. It's disingenuos to talk about humans not having natural environmental pressures on them when ~30% of them do.

With that being said, I would be more interested in genetic diversity than with technology's influence on evolution. Having a high level of genetic diversity doesn't guarantee survival, but it gives us a better chance. In case you're wondering, the area with the highest diversity is Africa.

So to give you my spin on the question that I think you wanted to ask. What is future of human race, where technology stand in the evolution.

It's such a loaded question that I belive whole doctoral papers could be made for it and not even bite the subject properly.

For starters let me, please, ask a simpler question.

Question that I find fascinating is "do we create our next bottleneck" by overusing, abusing our product base? And simultaneously are we actually lowering our species ability to survive in the more demanding, harsher enviroment by allowing for rampart reproduction of everyone which actually most benefit those most bent on just reproducting for reproduction sake instead of caring for their and their offsprings chances? (Basically 2 questions, are we creating our next extincion event and is our allowing stupid, lazy, unproductive and promiscous to flourish dooming chances of human race to survive in the scenario of next bottleneck event?)

Genetic diversity didn't save the dinosaurs.

A space program would have.

Well what you are postulating is that intelligence would save them.

Since we don't know very much about how genes form intelligence and genius it might actually prove very profitable for the whole of human race to have genetic diversity, which means greater chance at spontanical genius development that would lead to great breakthrough in science.

Sure we should do our best at helping "best" lines of human to proliferate (I am deeply sadden that eugenics are boogeyman in today world) but the fact is that what we percive as a "best" lines would prove to be steady and intelligent but lacking the spark that would save us if need be.

Why would genetic diversity rise in intelligence?

During the times of the dinosaurs there was more genetic diversity in life than we have now.

That didn't cause the rise of intelligence.

In fact I would argue that it takes specific environmental conditions to create intelligence. Not genetics itself.

Given to itself, genetics just made better predators and larger and larger animals due to the oxygen content of the earth.

And you are being too anthromorphic. Intelligence may not require genes or humans if technology gets it right.

>Why would genetic diversity rise in intelligence?
Maybe not the rise in general intelligence but to bring more oportunity for the "spark" of genius to be born, because as we seen through most of our history it many times this remarkable, unlikely genius types that really pushed the boundaries. I'm not sure, maybe it is just a characteristic of certain genetic lineleage to bring forth highly intelligent, visionary individuals, but maybe it is actually unique mix of different genes that will have more chances of ocuring if we have more genetic diversity.

Still dinosaurs are not completly extinct, birds are their direct descendants, so it could be postulated that they actually survived.

>In fact I would argue that it takes specific environmental conditions to create intelligence. Not genetics itself.
Well science actually proves that intelligent people, breed intelligent people and it is very strong hypothesis that about 80% of intelligence is hereditiary.

>Given to itself, genetics just made better predators and larger and larger animals due to the oxygen content of the earth.
Given to itself evolution (which you call "genetics". Strange enough) made humans. So given to itself evolution gave rise to intelligence. We ourself are product of evolution.

>And you are being too anthromorphic. Intelligence may not require genes or humans if technology gets it right.

I don't think that I am being too anthromorphic. I vehemently agree with you that it MAY not require gene or humans, but it also MAY be that it really does. Because as of today we still haven't really been given any good indication that true intelligence can arise from technology. Despite this as a devoted fan of science-fiction I mentally explored many non-human intelligence ideas. Still, not much evidence in the real world for it. I think deep-mind is best shot as of today, do you have something interesting for me to read?

I don't know.

Natural evolution has run its course. Even if we implemented eugenics, it would take too long.

Gene therapy and augmentation through neural implants would be much quicker ways to enhance intelligence.

If we were to invent intelligent machines in our lifetime, then genes would become a moot point.

eugenics has a turnaround of 4 generations

What is that hundred years?

We will have machine intelligence before then.

ill still smoke it under the table

That's all just assumptions with very little real credibility. We don't have no "neural implants" we don't even know exacly how our brain works, much less being able to enchance them.

We still don't have artificial intelligence and to be honest we don't even know if we are able to make them.

As far as we know artificial intelligence could be tomorow, in thousand years or never and you speak like it is certainity. That's why I asked you to give us some proof of your assumptions. Do you have any?

We have made more progress in AI in the past 3 years than in the past 30 according to the experts in the field.

Billions is being spent on it. Way more than eugenics.

So its going to happen. Economic factors are pushing for it.

And yes we do have neural implants. Not intelligence related ones, but we do have neural implants that function.

Just google or search youtube for it.

Ok, fair point with the neural implants, still no enchancing intelligence ones.

And about AI, I'm not saying that it isn't possible. Hell, I belive it is and soon we will all be dead, but as far as I know there is no real AI today, despite all this founding it may just be proven that we are not able to create one, no matter how much money will be poured into this bucket the bucket may be leaky (our flawed understanding of intelligence and working of brain may be too big problem to just deal with by more money). It may be that we just don't know something very important about thought that will prove AI's impossible to construct.

Unless you believe the brain operates by magic, intelligence can be replicated. It may not be that easy to do, but its possible as we have proof that intelligence exists in the universe.

>Unless you believe the brain operates by magic
There is a theory (that I am NOT very fond of) that brain uses quantum effects to create consciousness and intelligence and since we don't really understand quantum mechanics (even if they exist at all is up to debate) it would be efectively magic.

We don't know how much of mind is just electric, how much is chemic, how much is just some complex scheme of interactions or if there is much more inside the cells. We may be very far. Or we may be just before the major breakthrough. I don't know, I would love to know, but everything I read about current "AI" just leaves me puzzled.

>From the very begining Darwin points out
>it's all there in the works of Darwin, Spencer and the like

You should know that the evolutionary processes as dictated by Darwin are now mostly outdated and only work if you apply it to a superficial analysis to what is going on in a evolutionary system. Behavioral science and evolutionary theory have changed and added much since Darwins time. Further, applying Darwinian theories to evolution of humans especially trying to apply it to the genetic side of things is incredibly ignorant and out of step with current knowledge of molecular biology and genetics.

You should try reading a book sometimes.

You're like the faggots who still worship Freud and think he's still incredibly relevant to psychology today.

"empthy laugh"

Added sure [there is a lot of things that Darwin couldn't know because they were not know at his time at all (genes, chromosomes, DNA, genetic drift, gamets)], changed what?

>You're like the faggots who still worship Freud and think he's still incredibly relevant to psychology toda
And since you point at Freud on the first oportunity you got I suspect you "are from" the pseudoscience of modern psychology. Anyway I must go now, will come later to see if you wrote anything worth reading.