Is being able to make art, to reason, and to guess at the secrets of eternity really enough?

Question

While creationists would disagree, I believe humans were propelled to our current position in the food chain by the challenges we faced: Predators/prey inspired and developed our speed, stealth, cooperation, and cunning as a defense and a survival skill, as well serving to weed out the weak or infirm, ensuring that each new generation was stronger, and more apt to succeed. The same could be said for plagues, famines, conflicts, and any other challenge we've faced as a species - that they have been the fire in which our status as "dominant species" was forged.

Now, we consistently undermine the elements that would strengthen us further. Disease and famine are combated the world over, wars are treated with disdain, the unmotivated or incapable are fostered by the state and breed new generations of the same, and the only predators that remain to hone us are ourselves.

By eliminating most of what drives a creature to improve, how long before we start backpedaling into extinction?

While I support each person's right to subscribe to whatever views they prefer to give comfort and meaning to their lives, I'd prefer to hear less about the afterlife and more about the question at hand, and how it effects the life/lives before us and our children and our children's children. When and if the apocalypse ever gets around to coming, or I find myself roasting in a fiery hell, then I'll be willing to consider such other points as relevant.

Answer 1

The erroneous assumption that you are making is that evolution can be stopped in some way. This is patently untrue.

Yes, it's true that now that antibiotics are available to eliminate certain diseases, being able to fight them off on your own is not necessarily a survival trait. But does this mean that there is nothing to take it's place? Hardly. There's being able to afford the antibiotics, knowing when to use them, and developing new ones to resist new diseases.

The only reason to WANT diseases is if you think the ultimate human is able to throw them off on his own and humans who can't do this should be discarded, regardless of their other traits.

I tend to value other traits MUCH more than disease-resistance: intelligence, creativity, productivity, rationality, self-control, and so on. Give me a society comprised entirely of such individuals, and we can in time probably not only come up with defenses against any disease but also concoct new diseases that the naturally resistant person is helpless against.

And I would argue that natural selection is favouring the kind of people I named above, though in ways that might seem unnatural at first: such people are -right now- often rich, powerful, and influential. As such, they are much more likely to survive ANY threat that comes along, have children, and pass on the genes that make them so.

Yes, some talented people manage to not be well off, and some untalented ones manage to be well off anyway... but these are accidents and fluke. It's a very easy matter to demonstrate correlations for all the above things.

If the weak survive, it is generally only at the generousity of the strong. Even now. It doesn't matter if there are a hundred or a thousand for every one of their betters (if it did, insects would be far more successful than humans, neh?)... what matters is that the betters continue to exist and continue to do better.

Answer 2

I hardly think fighting disease and famine is making us a less evolutionarily fit species. Nor do I think we've eliminated most of what drives us to improve. We've merely moved on to different challenges, now that we've largely overcome the previous ones. (We ARE allowed to do that, you know--actually win a battle against some element.)

Our accelerating rate of scientific and technological advancement means that our future evolution will be guided mostly by our own hands, rather than nature's. Already we are unlocking the secrets of life hidden in our genetic code, and I'm confident that by this century's end we'll have cures for most genetic diseases and cancers, as well as fixes for the many other flaws and inefficiencies that we've been left with through our imperfect evolution. (Anyone who studies our DNA knows that if we were created, god was a less-than-brilliant engineer.)

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest or of those with the best immune systems. Fittest means best able to adapt to changing conditions and new environments, which include man's specialties, tool making and intelligence. The welfare state may be a drain on our productivity (I actually tend to view gov't as a meta-parasite). But that's just one more challenge for us as a species to overcome, and when we can learn to live without dependency upon the institutes of gov't, we'll be all the better and fitter as a species.

Answer 3

I believe we are already back peddling. how can a society where the ego is at the fore front. be moving in a positive direction. I think society is to a point where there is no turning back , we aren't going to become some great universal race where we care about each other. All that's left is the breakdown of the current infrastructure . and what would we do no one knows how to survive, to make, to build , to protect. all societies come to a point, then die this time is different because we have a global society

Answer 4

I'm a vegetarian, so I guess I don't embrace my place in the food chain.

I think the entire concept of a "dominant species" is BS. I think the best a species could do is to reach a point of consciousness and "dominance" that it takes the responsibility of embracing and protecting its own and others. So... I think the more we help fellow humans, and the more we recognize non-human species as sentient and significant and our equals, the closer we are to perfection. "Dominance" is a BS facade people put up to make themselves feel safe, when really, it could all go to hell at any moment.

Darwinism, I guess. It's funny, coz most Darwinists have never actually read any of Darwin's writing. According to him, ants, bees, wolf packs, etc... ie: species which live and die for each other, care for and about and protect each other, as the highest forms of life, regardless of position of the food chain. The highest form of "evolution", according to Darwin, is a family of humans who care for and about each other, as well as the things around them.... NOT a big strong archetype of "man" that slaughters and claws his way up the food chain.

Answer 5

Conversely it could be claimed that by changing our circumstances and surroundings we are creating a whole new arena which we are forced to adapt to. Evolution just moves in a new direction, guided by a new set of survival imperatives. Each new generation is more adapted to the world around it then the previous by default. We, for example, are more adept at using and manipulating technology to our advantage then our parents or grandparents.
Just a thought...

Answer 6

we cant improve so easily when we are going to hell in a handbasket...its not a secret...and im not guessing