Has Humankind outgrown natural selection?

zaayrdragon said:
The fate of the main character in Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga comes to mind...

Boy, that guy had vision, didn't he?
Click to expand...
I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t heard of it until now… read mainly non-fiction with a sprinkle of fiction here and there. I looked it up on Amazon for the summary/reviews. Sounds pretty good…. Not sure what’s worse: Working in an underground food mine or traveling through some random portal. I’d be scared if I knew my odds of dying were so high. Why not send robots? Is there communication with the ship once it travels through a portal? I'm guessing, not.
 
Natural selection is alive and well and operating, as always, on people as well as other animals.

Your mommy may think you're special, but natural selection doesn't.
 
A most interesting topic - I have wondered about this many times over the years, but as far as I can remember have never heard it discussed in any detail. I have no scientific or logical opinions about it, but I do wonder whether, as our species has reached the stage it has now, developing technology and medicines etc, all these things do in fact come under the heading of evolutionary advantages, and therefore our adaptability will find a solution to problems before they wipe us out.

Or, of course, if a meteor or something destroys most of us, then the adaptability of the few that are left will be essential.
 
I think susanB-M1 makes an interesting point. I don't think we will ever be completely away from natural selection, especially on the large scale.
But then our minds are a natural part of us, so from that line of thinking just about anything we do becomes a "natural" part of our evolution. It just a introduction of concious evolutionary forces over the more traditional ones that we are familiar with

I do see an eventual blurring of the lines between "biological" and "mechanical" in our species. You can already begin to see movement in that direction. All of our devices (Computers, cell phones, etc..) are getting smaller and portable and in time implantable. Pocket PCs , head mount displays. etc..
see this site about an implatable cell phone tooth:
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002june/pda20020624015096.htm

Once nantechnology reaches fullbloom, the nature of humanity will begin to change. Then there will be full integration of biological with mechanical. And eventually there may even be a complete supplant of mechanical over biological.

That is , ofcourse, we don't get hit by an asteroid first.
 
El Greco said:
When we will fully understand how the brain works we wil be able to transfer our selves to software. And we won't mind because we will know how to experience anything, including happiness. Indestructibility will be as simple as taking a backup.
Click to expand...

We've only been a few generations, if that, wherein people didn't "die off" because of genetic defects, low fitness, whatever you want to call it. So yes, that is slowly degrading "the average human" genetics.

But that won't have all that much effect in the paltry few generations until genetic engineering begins to fix issues.

And given the imminent (next few hundred years) of humans becoming capable of one or more of the following: complete genetic redesign, genetic improvement of intelligence, "uploading" the mind into computers (with self-improvement via speed increases and ability increases) even the scenario of the Gattaca movie is temporary.

My own secret pet belief is that we are already living in such a world, and this one is some bizarre birthing chamber to raise new people "the old fashioned" way* because, I don't know, bitter experience shows it's necessary to produce people who are responsible, or perhaps as a "vacation land" where people could go live "the old way", although why you'd want to do it, risking rape, torture, and murder, to say nothing of pain due to accidents or stress, ya got me!

* The runner up in my mind is we're some corner of a simulation where the simulators didn't realize such as we could arise, and haven't detected us yet because we're running to fast, or are too small for notice. Worst case scenario: they realize this, and shut us off, scared of getting their NIH grant cut because of letting intelligent life evolve in their simulation.
 
Last edited:
Humans have no control over natural selection. It is merely the result of the physical properties of the universe that natural selection occurs. We describe it as an active process but it is really the result of life and the laws of physics. Until the last human is dead there will be natural selection of humans. If we do things that eventually cause loss of life, this is natural selection in process. Every death of a human is part of natural selection. We will never get to the point where no humans die unless we also get to the point that no humans are born and I doubt that will occur.
 
Sure, you can call everything "natural" and keep repeating that "natural selection is still king". So tell me what would be "unnatural selection" and let's start talking from there, because I get the feeling that several people have completely misunderstood what I said.

ETA: Man will no longer evolve significantly without him purposefully intervening in the evolution process. I can also quantify "significantly": No new species of the Homo genus is ever going to appear without purposeful human intervention (barring of course a huge natural disaster). Even less dramatic evolutionary processes that undoubtedly keep happening all the time, are constantly and increasingly modified *purposefully* by humans. This is not "natural" selection in my book. But of course you can call everything "natural" and then there is nothing to argue about.
 
Last edited:
It would still be natural selection that those most fit to survive will survive and those unfit to survive will die whether it be within an ecology created by humans or one with still some non human created or controlled life forms. I think the idea that humans can remove nature from the picture is not likely to be true. What is happening now to humans represents only a short period of time on the evolutionary scale. We can't predict what genes will be the best to survive in the future and at some point there will be pressure on the genetic pool of human beings and it will shift a little beyond our anticipation or control. This will continue until we quit reproducing.
 
If there's going to be any Homo speciation in the near future, genetic screening will be the cause, not engineering. It's happening already. People with a seriously unwanted gene are opting for in-vitro if the embryos can be screened. This tends to purge deleterious genes from the more prosperous population's gene-pool.

Screening has already led to an oversupply of young men in China and South-East Asia, and that's not good in a world with no more frontier to conquer.
 
Dogdoctor said:
What is happening now to humans represents only a short period of time on the evolutionary scale.
Click to expand...
Drastic understatement. Nothing as exponential as Hom Sap has ever struck this planet. One species, and look what they've done to the place in 8000 years. Then look at how much of it happened in the last 2000, and how much in the last 200, 100, 50, 20.

Perhaps, after the horrible truth does its thing, humanity can take some solace from that. And/Or its successor species, if any.
 
But can it truly still be called "natural selection" for humans, when we're now aware of the process?

Isn't it sort of knowing you're participating in a blind trial? Now that you KNOW that the process is occuring, you're - even unintentionally - influencing the process?

I'm just thinking of examples where we've changed "natural selection" for humans:
- developed vaccines that would have killed off thousands/millions
- developed surgeries that have saved those who would have died (example - appendicitis)
- etc.

And not just for our own species, but we've certainly been mucking around with other species (dogs of course; fish; most plants that we grow for food, like potatos, bananas and corn) for thousands of years.
 
Smart_Cookie said:
But can it truly still be called "natural selection" for humans, when we're now aware of the process?

Isn't it sort of knowing you're participating in a blind trial? Now that you KNOW that the process is occuring, you're - even unintentionally - influencing the process?

I'm just thinking of examples where we've changed "natural selection" for humans:
- developed vaccines that would have killed off thousands/millions
- developed surgeries that have saved those who would have died (example - appendicitis)
- etc.

And not just for our own species, but we've certainly been mucking around with other species (dogs of course; fish; most plants that we grow for food, like potatos, bananas and corn) for thousands of years.
Click to expand...


That's why I asked for a theoretical example of what "non-natural" selection would be like, so that we can argue whether "natural" still exists and to what extent. If one thinks that "non-natural" selection is something that cannot exist not even theoretically, then there is not much to discuss.
 
El Greco said:
That's why I asked for a theoretical example of what "non-natural" selection would be like, so that we can argue whether "natural" still exists and to what extent. If one thinks that "non-natural" selection is something that cannot exist not even theoretically, then there is not much to discuss.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd define non-natural selection as a deliberate, intelligent attempt to select for certain properties in a life form. So, selective breeding of cows would count, as would current screening of embryos for harmful genes as would future wild scale genetic engineering for intelligence/attractiveness/whatever.

And yes, whilst natural selection has been interfered with by progress, especially in the west, non-natural selection, in terms of genetic engineering (and maybe later the use of artificial bodies and even brains, though we're wandering further and further into Sci-fi here) will make up for that, maybe even eventually meaning our descendents will be post-human in nature (hopefully getting rid of the various intolerant, selfish and violent impulses that are holding us back as a species at the moment, whilst keeping the better bits of our nature). I'm actually quite optimistic about our long term future (unlike how I am about my immediate short term one) and so think this will probably happen. It's either that or oblivion, anyhow.
 
If we can, by selective breeding, create a strand of dogs (or corn, cows, rice, sheep, etc.) with certain characteristics that we consider desirable, this may be a selection course "not natural" for that species, but not for our own species. We shape other species, our environment -and why not, our bodies-to obtain some advantage. Advantages that will improve our survival chances, individually and as species.

At a very different scale, its not unlike the relationship between some ants and other species such as fungi. The main difference it that we are aware of the process. And nowdays or technology allows us to make it faster and more efficiently.

Can our species do it? If the answer is yes, then its natural for us. Now, if the outcome will be good or bad...
 
Last edited:
Well, in a sense...

If a species fails to meet the criteria for its survival, then its de-selected... It will either go extinct or evolve into an new species or genus.

Wiping ourselves out of this universe by a nuclear war is certainly one way to achieve this. Being wiped out by the radiation of a nearby supernova explosion is another.

What many people fail to see is that brains are expensive organs to maintain. In the above übercatastrophic cases, having a large brain may eventually be counter productive, given all the energy needed to keep it. Individuals with smaller brains might have a small lead, since they would need less food and then...
 
El Greco said:
Sure, you can call everything "natural" and keep repeating that "natural selection is still king". So tell me what would be "unnatural selection" and let's start talking from there, because I get the feeling that several people have completely misunderstood what I said.

ETA: Man will no longer evolve significantly without him purposefully intervening in the evolution process. I can also quantify "significantly": No new species of the Homo genus is ever going to appear without purposeful human intervention (barring of course a huge natural disaster).
Click to expand...

Horsefeathers.

One easy way for human speciation to occur -- without purposeful intervention -- would simply be to colonize somewhere. Put a colony of humans on Mars, or a distant star, somewhere far enough away that it's impractical for large-scale gene flow to happen between Earth and the daughter colony. The founder effect and genetic drift will more or less guarantee that the two gene pools will separate.

But beyond that, it's ludicrous to believe that humanity has somehow escaped the tyranny of natural selection. Unless one makes active participation in some sort of eugenics movement mandatory, human psychology will manage well all by itself. The Marching Morons has already been mentioned. No one's mentioned The Time Machine yet, so I'll bring that up, too. What many people don't realize is that human mating behavior is assortative, and the tendency towards assortative mating are in many ways getting stronger.
 
PenguinWarrior said:
Personally, I'd define non-natural selection as a deliberate, intelligent attempt to select for certain properties in a life form. So, selective breeding of cows would count, as would current screening of embryos for harmful genes as would future wild scale genetic engineering for intelligence/attractiveness/whatever.
Click to expand...

But since intelligence is a result of natural selection why would using that intelligence count as non-natural?

Correa Neto said:
If we can, by selective breeding, create a strand of dogs (or corn, cows, rice, sheep, etc.) with certain characteristics that we consider desirable, this may be a selection course "not natural" for that species, but not for our own species. We shape other species, our environment -and why not, our bodies-to obtain some advantage. Advantages that will improve our survival chances, individually and as species.
Click to expand...

I think it is still natural for the other species aswell because the environment of the species in question selects for certain characteristics.
 
drkitten said:
Horsefeathers.

One easy way for human speciation to occur -- without purposeful intervention -- would simply be to colonize somewhere. Put a colony of humans on Mars, or a distant star, somewhere far enough away that it's impractical for large-scale gene flow to happen between Earth and the daughter colony. The founder effect and genetic drift will more or less guarantee that the two gene pools will separate.
Click to expand...

Only if there's no exchange between the populations. And what could break such an exchange ? Hmmm.... maybe the natural disasters we were talking about ?

drkitten said:
But beyond that, it's ludicrous to believe that humanity has somehow escaped the tyranny of natural selection. Unless one makes active participation in some sort of eugenics movement mandatory, human psychology will manage well all by itself. The Marching Morons has already been mentioned. No one's mentioned The Time Machine yet, so I'll bring that up, too. What many people don't realize is that human mating behavior is assortative, and the tendency towards assortative mating are in many ways getting stronger.
Click to expand...

You're still considering "natural" what man has already been purposefully interfering with. Does "natural selection" include healthcare ? Does it include vaccinations ? Does it include gene modifications ? If you think it does, then we don't have much to discuss.

So, according to you, in the near future of eugenics we will still be slaves of natural selection, just because human mating behavior is assortative. Sorry, no.

I ask you the same question: Define "non-natural" selection and tell me if it is ever possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom