I invite you to speculate on the next step in evolution

[Aladran]

Since evolution is an adaptation over time of a living being to his environment.

I think that with the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer therefore living in a drastically different environment. If nothing change in this regard, maybe in a distant future we will split in two different species.

The rich being more intellectual but weaker physically

The poor being more resilient to harsh condition with some how more limited intellectual capabilities.

By poor, don't think of the industrial worlds poor, but the 3rd worlds poor.

[CaptainKipard]

The rich being more intellectual but weaker physically

The poor being more resilient to harsh condition with some how more limited intellectual capabilities.

plz support the assumptions in that argument kthxbye

[Dispatcher]

Since evolution is an adaptation over time of a living being to his environment.

I think that with the rich becoming richer and the poor poorer therefore living in a drastically different environment. If nothing change in this regard, maybe in a distant future we will split in two different species.

The rich being more intellectual but weaker physically

The poor being more resilient to harsh condition with some how more limited intellectual capabilities.

By poor, don't think of the industrial worlds poor, but the 3rd worlds poor.

Ah, perhaps the Eloi and the Morlocks.

[lajoswinkler]

Interesting that you wrote "slavery in the USA". I would think that this would be so regarding slavery anywhere and any time in human history. A little armchair research on the subject of slavery at a popular online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) shows us that "historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies" and "slavery is officially illegal in all countries, but there are still an estimated 20 million to 30 million slaves worldwide." As for recent and indeed, ongoing abuses, "Mauritania was the last jurisdiction to officially outlaw slavery (in 1981/2007), but about 10% to 20% of its population is estimated to live in slavery." The word itself is instructive, for "the English word slave comes from ... the ethnonym Slav, because in some early mediaeval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved."

In what might seem a surprising twist of fate, "in Algiers, ... Northern Africa, Christians and Europeans that were captured had been forced into slavery" in the early 1800's.

The entry is informative, and the feeling I get is that its not unreasonable to assume that a large part of the human population throughout historical (and prehistoric) times, subjected to slavery, resulted in genetic differentiation, in terms of humans bred and adapted to their local conditions and tasks. The sad thing is that it still occurs in various places under various guises.

There are some places where mixing of people from different "races" was quite weak and the socioeconomic differences are highly visible. USA is a famous and good textbook example and that was the reason I've picked it.

In 500 years, the differences will probably be a lot more blended. Societies evolve, and with that, people's opinions, too. The strength of immune system will benefit greatly from mixing. Unfortunatelly, until people stop thinking that certain groups are stupid, smell, have abnormal genitals etc., it won't happen.

[Dispatcher]

There are some places where mixing of people from different "races" was quite weak and the socioeconomic differences are highly visible. USA is a famous and good textbook example and that was the reason I've picked it. ... Unfortunatelly, until people stop thinking that certain groups are stupid, smell, have abnormal genitals etc., it won't happen.

Ah, since this is a good textbook example, I'm interested in your sources. Thanks.

[lajoswinkler]

Ah, since this is a good textbook example, I'm interested in your sources. Thanks.

Is that sarcasm?

[Dispatcher]

Is that sarcasm?

No. I'd like to know; you did mention the situation of classic textbook case.

[randomness5555]

You would probably eventually end up with only 3 species. One type of probably algae like plant that is so resilient that it could grow anywhere, one type of herbivore that can also live anywhere and eats only that plant and one type of carnivore that eats the herbivore. Or maybe the plant and a few omnivores that eat eachother and the plant.

[Seret]

You would probably eventually end up with only 3 species. One type of probably algae like plant that is so resilient that it could grow anywhere, one type of herbivore that can also live anywhere and eats only that plant and one type of carnivore that eats the herbivore. Or maybe the plant and a few omnivores that eat eachother and the plant.

And what happens if conditions change so that the algae/plant goes extinct? Diversity is strength, monoculture is not the way mother nature rolls.

[KerbMav]

That's exactly the point. Being successful in terms of evolution doesn't just mean being on top of the food chain or the dominant race for some time, but that your branch on the tree of species will go longer than the competition, preferably for ever. Dinosaurs had millions of years to develop but that didn't prepare them for a radical environment change.

Regarding the total extinction of dinosaurs - there are a few alligators, sharks and especially pigeons that would like to have word with you.

We might run into an evil alien race that tries to extinguish any possible competition but wouldn't have found us otherwise. Not even mentioning that our intelligence made us a serious threat to ourselves.

Extinction by being wilfully killed of by another kind - I will have to meditate over this if I would count this as an evolutionary influence.

But a key requirement to "win" evolution is being able to adopt. The only ways I'm aware of to do so are a. mutation + selection and b. "intelligence".

Intelligence and the use of tools are a key in many species development, humans took it a few steps further.

And I agree that our intelligence (building houses to protect us from the elements, artificial heat sources beginning with the first tamed camp fire), and use of tools (including especially medicine to fight germs our immune system has not adapted to, heart surgery) removes us somewhat from the mere "organic"/genetical evolutionary process, so does the compassion for our fellows (not abandoning our e.g. blind or crippled offspring to the predators in the woods *Spartans).

And what happens if conditions change so that the algae/plant goes extinct? Diversity is strength, monoculture is not the way mother nature rolls.

I agree completely.

And our interference with the genetics of our crops and livestock, reducing the number of species we farm, is already creating problems backlashing to ourselves.

There may not be any significant change in intelligence, even with sexual selection at work. The female pelvis simply cannot accommodate a much bigger head.

Size is not everything, my friend.

Regarding the discussion on around page 8 of this thread: Quite a touchy topic!

Instead of a "guided breeding process" I would opt for genetical sequencing to look for inheritable diseases/disablities and if high probabilities point to negative influences on the offspring go for invitro fertilization with preimplantation diagnostics. (Worded as neutral as possible!)

Main problems mentioned most often in these regards:

1. parents with disabled children might feel reproach from society for not taking every possible precaution to spare their children

2. disabled people feel scorned/their lives being invaluated by sorting out certain genes

Edited March 10, 2014 by KerbMav

[CaptainKipard]

Quite a touchy topic!

It's only touchy if you're ignorant of history and science, which admittedly most people are.

1. parents with disabled children might feel reproach from society for not taking every possible precaution to spare their children

These days many western governments provide socially funded healthcare (with some notable exceptions lolol). If technology ever got to the point where we could cheaply fix problems in utero, then people who don't take advantage of that will be judged the way anti-vaccers are right now, or like people who let their children die because instead of taking them to a doctor they perform superstitious rituals. I have absolutely no problem judging people like that, and I'm sure most wont either. If something is untreatable thought I don't understand why anyone would complain.

2. disabled people feel scorned/their lives being invaluated by sorting out certain genes

This is just an example of black-and-white thinking. I hope you're not raising this point for yourself. Everything lies on a spectrum.

Also our society is very complex with many niches. There's a place for all sorts of talents.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[jwenting]

way things are going, we're more likely going to see mandatory genetic matching of people who want children and only if you're "a proper match" will you be granted a license to breed...

And everyone with even minor deficiencies being forcibly neutered, same as we do with dogs and cats now.

[78stonewobble]

Regarding the discussion on around page 8 of this thread: Quite a touchy topic!

Instead of a "guided breeding process" I would opt for genetical sequencing to look for inheritable diseases/disablities and if high probabilities point to negative influences on the offspring go for invitro fertilization with preimplantation diagnostics. (Worded as neutral as possible!)

Main problems mentioned most often in these regards:

1. parents with disabled children might feel reproach from society for not taking every possible precaution to spare their children

2. disabled people feel scorned/their lives being invaluated by sorting out certain genes

Touchy subjects are quite often the best topics for discussion.

My subjective feelings on this:

1: I think they should feel that and I think we should, as a society, frown upon this. In my mind, knowingly or willfully giving your children a debilitating and serious illness, just to fullfill a basic urge is bad. From a point of morality it is no different than me, knowingly or willfully gives a stranger a debilitating and serious illness to satisfy me needs for lulz or attention in the media. Note: I mean serious illnesses* here, not whether it's red hair or blonde hair or having 9 toes or 11 or even being blind or deaf. Which are, afterall, relatively insignificant stuff. And offcourse if people couldn't possibly know it then they're offcourse fully excused as well.

2: They could probably feel it like that, but personally I'd never hold it against them. Heck, subjectively the rate of "decent people" to all people is significantly higher among the disabled people I've met. I do think however, that most disabled people, would have preferred to not have that disability if everything else is equal.

PS: By serious illness I mean illnesses that signicantly shortens lifespan and/or quality of life. Whether being blind or deaf will be a "significant reduction in quality of life" to a potential child is impossible to know. It's one of those things that contain too many variables and can only be known at the end of a persons life.

PPS: Personally I tend to err on the side of caution. My parents have both had rather minor psychological issues, but with me it's been a struggle for 20+ years and I simply will not put a child through that if I can help it.

Edited March 12, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[CaptainKipard]

1: I think they should feel that and I think we should, as a society, frown upon this. In my mind, knowingly or willfully giving your children a debilitating and serious illness, just to fullfill a basic urge is bad. From a point of morality it is no different than me, knowingly or willfully gives a stranger a debilitating and serious illness to satisfy me needs for lulz or attention in the media. Note: I mean serious illnesses* here, not whether it's red hair or blonde hair or having 9 toes or 11 or even being blind or deaf. Which are, afterall, relatively insignificant stuff. And offcourse if people couldn't possibly know it then they're offcourse fully excused as well.

That'll put you at odds with about 1% of the global population. You must be really brave to stand in the face of such opposition. Stay strong!

But seriously, you need to re-read the post you're responding to carefully because you really missed the point of it.

[Seret]

way things are going, we're more likely going to see mandatory genetic matching of people who want children and only if you're "a proper match" will you be granted a license to breed...

And everyone with even minor deficiencies being forcibly neutered, same as we do with dogs and cats now.

That's the way things where going in the late 19th and early 20th century. Absolutely no way we'd go down that road now.

I have a child with a disability caused by a random genetic event. There's no way it could have been predicted, geneticists gave us a very conservative <5% chance of it occurring in our second child, and indeed he's fine. So it's unlikely IMO that we'll ever get to the point where all medical issues with a genetic cause can be screened out. Random genetic variation is a feature, not a bug.

What would we have done if we were told during pregnancy that our child had life-affecting problems? I honestly can't say, although with hindsight I hope we still would have gone through with having her.

[78stonewobble]

That'll put you at odds with about 1% of the global population. You must be really brave to stand in the face of such opposition. Stay strong!

But seriously, you need to re-read the post you're responding to carefully because you really missed the point of it.

Yet, some people still do it. Around here there was recently a case of a woman having a child despite her serious allergies and passing on to the child her hepatitis due to not wanting to innoculate the child.

It wouldn't be the first time that I misunderstood something, but here I'm at a loss as to what you mean.

I'm essentially agreeing with the poster on not opting for a "only the best of the best" scenario, but instead wanting to avoid the "the worst of the worst", even though I do not know to what degree it should be enforced according to the poster.

Personally... In the interest of personal freedom (and responsibility) I think we should go with a change in public oppinion (which allready guides our evolution in determining what is presently beautifull and hot) rather than the fertility police approach.

[KerbMav]

It wouldn't be the first time that I misunderstood something, but here I'm at a loss as to what you mean.

I'm essentially agreeing with the poster on not opting for a "only the best of the best" scenario, but instead wanting to avoid the "the worst of the worst", even though I do not know to what degree it should be enforced according to the poster.

I am not really voting to enforce anything, at least I am myself not completely sure about ...

The two problems I posted above were simply "quotes", things that have been brought up repeatedly in forum and public discussions, so it was the viewpoint of OTHER people.

For me it is totally incomprehensible how a human being (born with disabilities for example) could want another human being to suffer the same fate/conditions with the argument, that they have to cope with it and do not wish to be seen as inferior and undesired. This person would - in my view - be undesired in my social group for being selfish out of bitterness, not for having no legs/nose/whatever!

My viewpoint (as of now and in my current situation):

Would I have the intention to procreate (in contrast to adoption) and had the option to have my and the mother's genes screened for defuncts, diseases, disabilities and their probability to manifest in our child, I would go for it. Depending on the results - and in agreement with the mother OF COURSE - for me it would be either "ye good olde natural way", or testing the genes of the embryo as soon as possible with the option to terminate the pregnancy, or preimplantation diagnostics and in vitro fertilization.

Regarding the creation of superior beings, genetical discrimination (GATTTACA anyone?), sorting out and matching parents to get smarter, stronger children, I repeat my nudge towards degraded and thinned gene pools in our agriculture/livestock.

Regarding the condemnation of parents not making use of every available (affordable?) medical invention - well, if there have been cases in their families of serious hereditary diseases ... they may have to live with the occasional frown ... but never should they be excluded from supportive society.

(Which would open up a whole new chapter of whether insurance companies would have access to genetical data ...)

[78stonewobble]

I am not really voting to enforce anything, at least I am myself not completely sure about ...

The two problems I posted above were simply "quotes", things that have been brought up repeatedly in forum and public discussions, so it was the viewpoint of OTHER people.

For me it is totally incomprehensible how a human being (born with disabilities for example) could want another human being to suffer the same fate/conditions with the argument, that they have to cope with it and do not wish to be seen as inferior and undesired. This person would - in my view - be undesired in my social group for being selfish out of bitterness, not for having no legs/nose/whatever!

My viewpoint (as of now and in my current situation):

Would I have the intention to procreate (in contrast to adoption) and had the option to have my and the mother's genes screened for defuncts, diseases, disabilities and their probability to manifest in our child, I would go for it. Depending on the results - and in agreement with the mother OF COURSE - for me it would be either "ye good olde natural way", or testing the genes of the embryo as soon as possible with the option to terminate the pregnancy, or preimplantation diagnostics and in vitro fertilization.

Regarding the creation of superior beings, genetical discrimination (GATTTACA anyone?), sorting out and matching parents to get smarter, stronger children, I repeat my nudge towards degraded and thinned gene pools in our agriculture/livestock.

Regarding the condemnation of parents not making use of every available (affordable?) medical invention - well, if there have been cases in their families of serious hereditary diseases ... they may have to live with the occasional frown ... but never should they be excluded from supportive society.

(Which would open up a whole new chapter of whether insurance companies would have access to genetical data ...)

Thank you for the further explanation.

I do not think my thoughts on the subject are far from yours.

Hmm... You bring up some good associated questions in so far as medical interventions being both available and affordable and offcourse the whole insurance thing (personally I think it's a big no no for singling out people for something as genetics, which they had no influence on themselves).

Though those might be off topic here.

PS: I'm offcourse also viewing this thing from the perspective of a pervasive public health service (Denmark).

[Seret]

For me it is totally incomprehensible how a human being (born with disabilities for example) could want another human being to suffer the same fate/conditions

It's a complex issue, and there are people who refuse to have their disabilities corrected. There are deaf parents, for example, who refuse to get cochlear implants for their deaf children. Some deaf people see their community as a viable subculture, since they share a distinct language from the rest of mainstream society. These parents argue that being deaf isn't necessarily a deficiency, and that to remove their child's deafness would potentially exclude that child from their family's social sphere.

Now, I don't happen to agree with those people (I think it's elitist to suggest that a hearing person should be excluded from a social setting where the primary language was sign) but I definitely understand their point of view.

[78stonewobble]

It's a complex issue, and there are people who refuse to have their disabilities corrected. There are deaf parents, for example, who refuse to get cochlear implants for their deaf children. Some deaf people see their community as a viable subculture, since they share a distinct language from the rest of mainstream society. These parents argue that being deaf isn't necessarily a deficiency, and that to remove their child's deafness would potentially exclude that child from their family's social sphere.

Now, I don't happen to agree with those people (I think it's elitist to suggest that a hearing person should be excluded from a social setting where the primary language was sign) but I definitely understand their point of view.

I have to admit that while I can rationally follow the arguments, understand it I do not.

In my point of view being ie. deaf will allways be a "deficiency", compaired to a "baseline" of how a human "should" work and being able to hear will allways be an advantage to the opposite.

Obviously though it does not mean you cannot lead a full and/or good life as a deaf person or that they have any less value. Theres way more to that than the single aspect of hearing.

[Guest]

Evolution is too slow, we need those augmentations from DeusEx to fix cancer and stuff.

Seriously the real next step in human evolution will be when we will start to successfully and harmoniously (perfectly without reject) mix the creations of our minds, with our natural body.

It's a complex issue, and there are people who refuse to have their disabilities corrected. There are deaf parents, for example, who refuse to get cochlear implants for their deaf children. Some deaf people see their community as a viable subculture, since they share a distinct language from the rest of mainstream society. These parents argue that being deaf isn't necessarily a deficiency, and that to remove their child's deafness would potentially exclude that child from their family's social sphere.

Now, I don't happen to agree with those people (I think it's elitist to suggest that a hearing person should be excluded from a social setting where the primary language was sign) but I definitely understand their point of view.

Just look at children's right. Do you think those parents love their child or want the best for them when they choose for selfish reason to cut him from ever hearing (wich is hard to imagine if you never had but still)? Technology offers them an incredible chance for their child's overall life experience and they refuse. That's really the kind of thing that makes me mad. Anyone with hereditary disease should be responsible enough to adopt anyway.

Edited March 12, 2014 by RevanCorana

[Seret]

Just look at children's right.

I'm sure they genuinely believe they're doing what's best for their child.

Anyone with hereditary disease should be responsible enough to adopt anyway.

That's going a bit far IMO. It depends entirely on what impact the disease would have on quality of life.

When I went for genetic advice before trying for a second child after my first was born blind it wasn't to decide whether to have the child or not, it was to be prepared if it was likely to happen again. If it turned out it was likely we still would have had the child, raised it well and made sure they were loved and turned into a valuable member of society. I wouldn't class blindness as being a severe enough disability to not have the child. I would feel differently if it was a condition which resulted in significant pain, suffering or a shortened lifespan.

[78stonewobble]

I'm sure they genuinely believe they're doing what's best for their child.

That's going a bit far IMO. It depends entirely on what impact the disease would have on quality of life.

When I went for genetic advice before trying for a second child after my first was born blind it wasn't to decide whether to have the child or not, it was to be prepared if it was likely to happen again. If it turned out it was likely we still would have had the child, raised it well and made sure they were loved and turned into a valuable member of society. I wouldn't class blindness as being a severe enough disability to not have the child. I would feel differently if it was a condition which resulted in significant pain, suffering or a shortened lifespan.

I completely agree that there is a huge difference between ie. being blind or deaf and as you say, significant pain, suffering or a shortened lifespan. Some people still choose to have a child even if they're in the last category (or have no choice but to do it).

However I'd point out that no matter what you do or how "perfect" a child is, or how well raised, there are no guarantees that he or she will become valuable members of society or live a good life. There are many things beyond our control or ability to predict. From how the brain forms it's basic structures at early stages to whatever can happen to people during their upbringing and life.

You certainly sound like a good parent, but imagine blindness in combination with parents who literally loved their child less for that and sadly it does happen.

[KerbMav]

I'm sure they genuinely believe they're doing what's best for their child.

As do all religious parents that object to medical care or demand a circumcision for their children.

We could start a whole knew thread debating if the right and duty (!) of parents to educate and raise their children constitutes a right to determine every aspect of their lives.

You certainly sound like a good parent, but imagine blindness in combination with parents who literally loved their child less for that and sadly it does happen.

Those wouldnt have had the child to begin with - at least it would be most unlikely if they knew of the possibility beforehand.

[78stonewobble]

Those wouldnt have had the child to begin with - at least it would be most unlikely if they knew of the possibility beforehand.

Good point, but I guess there would also be assorted categories of potential parents that would:

A: Not think about taking a test.

B: Choose to not take a test.

C: Think they can handle a handicapped or disabled child, when they cannot.

D: Any other option you can think of.

Sadly you don't have to look further than the news to see that it isn't everyone that should have become parents or didn't really think it through.