Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the biomass of ants is about the same as humans,
the biomass of the bacteria is larger.
the air you breath depends on a very large number of photosynthesizers without whom you wouldn't be "dominating" the environment.
I do believe that human energy production, largely harvesting reserves that a billion of years of non-human organisms created, is currently higher than the sum of all biological activity (e.g. keeping the atmosphere-ocean-land disequilibrium in place).
the illusion of human dominance is just that, and Darwin won't change, I believe (if you expand "Darwin" to include a more sophisticated modern version of evolution), human dominance is most likely to change.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
the illusion of human dominance is just that, and Darwin won't change, I believe (if you expand "Darwin" to include a more sophisticated modern version of evolution), human dominance is most likely to change.
This depends on what's meant by dominance. There is only one life form on this planet that understands the Intricacies of natural selection (or the idea of biomass) to the degree it has made a conscious effort to manipulate natural selection in its own and other species. There's only one life form that sees its place in evolution as possibly a real ethical problem. Dominance? Perhaps not but in terms of understanding, well there's something to be said for that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"...well there's something to be said for that."
enjoy it while you can. You can also imagine a time, in the not to distant future, where there are no humans on Earth, and no one to say anything for that.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
There's only one life form that sees its place in evolution as possibly a real ethical problem.
A sweeping statement. The human "life form" comes in several billion individual forms. "It" possibly sees "its place in evolution" many different ways.
I like it when Paul reminds us of the better side of humanity. There are grave troubles facing us all but many of us still experience joy in each others' company, in art and music, in scientific curiosity, or in simple comfort, in every corner of the planet.
Whether or not the human place in evolution is an ethical problem, it is a practical problem likely to grow worse. In the sf novel Macroscope humans have found intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy. Many of them have gone through a crisis of overpopulation and pollution which their intelligence did not fix and they are in woeful decline. The book was written in the years following the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which may have been an influence.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
enjoy it while you can. You can also imagine a time, in the not to distant future, where there are no humans on Earth, and no one to say anything for that.
I don't see how finiteness, whether the end of human life on earth or the end of the universe itself, determines the efficacy or importance of knowing. Eternity is the foundation of efficacy for religion not science. Likewise the idea that we are but a speck of life on a dust speck in a vast universe somehow determines our irrelevance, that scale is somehow related to importance seems best relegated to the painting of Byzantine Icons. We aren’t irrelevant for the simple reason that we can declare our importance.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
We aren’t irrelevant for the simple reason that we can declare our importance.
well we are the meaning makers, after all
even in the utelic universe of which we are a part
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
the illusion of human dominance is just that, and Darwin won't change, I believe (if you expand "Darwin" to include a more sophisticated modern version of evolution), human dominance is most likely to change. For the life of me, I don't know what you mean by this statement, Ed. What does "Darwin" have to do with whether humans are or aren't dominant? And what is not explained by "Darwin" that is explained by a more sophisticated version of evolution?
Btw, my contributions with respect to the slowing down of evolutionary pace in humans because of weaker selection pressure is really kind of my Star Trek version of the future (without the aliens). In reality, I'm rather pessimistic about the future for humans. In could very likely be dystopian. In that event, selection would likely come roaring back as a big factor.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
In could very likely be dystopian.
eeyonkee, so would you consider it a dystopian future - if not post-apocalyptic - if you were privileged to look into the Crystal Ball of Truth to see that in 500 years total population of the earth was a mere 8 million (cf: today's 8 billion), descendant of the super rich and very beautiful (after some 22nd century ecological bottleneck event perhaps) and that they inherited all the planet's wealth of previous generations?
Admittedly, this prospect demoralized me for awhile some time ago while pondering the growing wealth inequality in the larger picture of things, including Harari's "useless class". But then I mostly got over it.
I don't know, maybe an Earth Island Spaceship of a mere 8M would be for the best. And not dystopian, I don't know. Depends on how one measures, eh? Speaking of Star Trek, sort of reminds me of that episode with Alexander, the midget, in that ancient Greek Platonic setting.
Climbing crags, road side, would be less crowded.
Once again, man and woman would be able to raise a family as big as they wanted, 10 or 12 or 20 head, steeped in wealth and culture all guilt-free. That's the formula of pure bliss for some.
So this might be just the thing about dystopias, they come and go. Ask the dinos.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The thing about that particular scenario is that the "winners" would not have won because of good genes but because of good technology or something. When I think of a dystopian or post-apocalyptic scenario, I think of far-flung pockets of human survivors. The greatly-reduced genetic variability in each group would result in selection pressures to evolve somewhat differently in each.
When I think about it more, even if a relatively small number of humans survived the apocalypse, I would think that the re-emergence of technology would be relatively fast, since presumably there would still be people with technological knowledge, not to mention books and machines lying around. The speed of technological re-adoption might be faster than evolution could change us significantly.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Interesting. My imaginings, my scenarios, though actually took into account future versions of eugenics (not 1930s Nazi-esque, there are others) ala CRISPR, etc... Recall Star Trek's Botany Bay. So under this scheme, the gene pool after bottlenecks, population loss, etc. has changed radically and for the better. H. sapiens to H. superbus.
Khan, or the Bezos, Brins, and Dempsey's are the Winners. Don't forget the sperm donors either. From Stanford, Harvard, etc... they are having an impact already, only few if any are talking about it currently. But in the future? who can say? Esp after some arms race, eugenic, promoted by China or Russia, say?
Even artificial selection, it could be argued, is a form of natural selection. By some metrics, who cares it's irrelevant how genes are selected; the thing is they are differentially selected for better or worse and this impacts the gene pool.
I see dystopian futures, I see utopian futures. Even in the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse. William Perry, believe it or not, thinks the chances are 5050 of a nuclear exchange of some kind in the next 10 years. Youza! He said this just this year. He thinks today is as much at risk as Oct 1962.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Interesting. My imaginings, my scenarios, though actually took into account future versions of eugenics (not Nazi-esque, there are others) ala CRISPR, etc... Recall Star Trek's Botany Bay. So under this scheme, the gene pool after bottlenecks, population loss, etc. has changed radically and for the better. H. sapiens to H. superbus.
"Not Nazi-esque?" No? Just scary and dangerous and blatant scientism. I just don't get acquiring your philosophical and ethical sense from a television entertainment.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
lol
cf: Hamlet or King Lear entertainment
I'm thinking, you have no idea how much you've missed by dissing the Star Trek Universe. Roddenberry was a genious.
It's like Michael Shermer said in his book, The Moral Arc, about Star Trek and Gene Roddenbeery re "Arena" and the Gorn. Let me see if I can find it...
EDIT
Yeah, here it is...
"The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, invented a genre unto itself with the creation of the magnificent starship Enterprise, whose twenty-third-century mission was to expand humanity’s horizons, both physically and morally, via extraterrestrial interactions with the starship’s interracial, transnational, trans-species mixed crew. Each episode was both intrepid space adventure and thoughtful morality play, and many episodes explored the controversial issues of the age—war and conflict, imperialism and authoritarianism, duty and loyalty, racism and sexism, and how humanity might handle them centuries hence. Roddenberry made it clear that one of his goals with the series was to smuggle onto TV allegorical moral commentaries on current events. He said that by creating “a new world with new rules, I could make statements about sex, religion, Vietnam, politics, and intercontinental missiles. Indeed, we did make them on Star Trek: We were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network.”2 This is one method, among many, of bringing about social change, and it is revealing to note that Roddenberry was personally well acquainted with war. In 1941, as a young man of only twenty, he’d enlisted in the US Army Air Corps and flew eighty-nine missions in the South Pacific, for which he was decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross. So he knew of what he wrote: “The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them."
You remember the Gorn, don't you?
...
Just scary and dangerous...
So is just about every thing else off the couch. Sheesh.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
I got a hunnerd that says we don’t make it to the 23rd century.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I got a hunnerd that says we don’t make it to the 23rd century.
By what metric? It's a meaningless statement till you specify the criteria including units (e.g., millions, billions; Americans, Chinese, Tutsi, Hutu; 120 IQ or above; Christians, supernaturalists; bezo, brin, musk, dempsey, and putin clans).
You're on... if you think it's extinction down to the last individual Sapiens.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL wrote:
Darwin’s model may need major reconsideration. Indeed, one can argue in every instance that nothing is permanent. Everything changes; and it implies that every thing needs to change.
which is what I was referring to.
Criticisms of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (see SA Kauffman):
1) Is the concept of natural selection circular? survival of the survivors.
2) Panselection. In order to be present in organisms at all, any trait must be under direct or indirect positive selection.
3) Restricted selection. Some but not all features of organisms are present as a result of positive selection.
4) The abundance of variation. The (unexpected) abundance of variation in the amino acid sequences of proteins segregating in natural populations begs the question how so much variability is maintained.
5) Epistemological adequacy of population genetics. Population genetics ignores the organism and ascribes fitness to a given gene.
6) Missing phenotypes. Many conceivable useful phenotypes do not exist.
7) Phenotypic stasis. The long-term persistence of form or feature.
8) Macroevolutionary challenges. Doubts about selection at the level of individual organism is the only factor accounting for patterns among higher taxa.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
"The physical / materialistic, dog-eat-dog world of primitive human development may have given way to social competition as the predominate evolutionary model."
Having lived and traveled in East Asia for 30 years, this is my observation also. Some societies are much more adaptive to current selective pressures such as productive life in crowded urban environments. Others such as our own seem to be clinging to an outdated frontier model and then blaming others for out lack of competitiveness.
As I watched the state of the union speech last night, of course I felt great pride when our WWII efforts were discussed and praised. However, that still doesn't create jobs in the rust belt.
This is not meant as a political statement but rather one about adaptation and ecology.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I would think that the re-emergence of technology would be relatively fast, since presumably there would still be people with technological knowledge, not to mention books and machines lying around.
We have mined all the easily accessible ores. Before there could be a new Bronze Age the Earth's crust would need to push up new ore veins. That could take a while. If the re-emergence of technology were to depend on metal, technological knowledge might not suffice. The machines lying around would need both fuel and maintenance. The ores they could extract would need refining and production facilities in order to make new machines.
It would likely be a few million years before a machine-dependent civilization like ours could appear again.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Criticisms of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (see SA Kauffman):
1) Is the concept of natural selection circular? survival of the survivors.
2) Panselection. In order to be present in organisms at all, any trait must be under direct or indirect positive selection.
3) Restricted selection. Some but not all features of organisms are present as a result of positive selection.
4) The abundance of variation. The (unexpected) abundance of variation in the amino acid sequences of proteins segregating in natural populations begs the question how so much variability is maintained.
5) Epistemological adequacy of population genetics. Population genetics ignores the organism and ascribes fitness to a given gene.
6) Missing phenotypes. Many conceivable useful phenotypes do not exist.
7) Phenotypic stasis. The long-term persistence of form or feature.
8) Macroevolutionary challenges. Doubts about selection at the level of individual organism is the only factor accounting for patterns among higher taxa.
Thanks for that Ed. I was going to bone up on Kauffman before replying, but, after reading a couple of the questions, I thought it would be fun for me to answer these cold – no internet lookup. It will be fun to look back on them after reading him.
1. Okay, so without reading why he thinks this, this one is a toughie. Firstly, my answer would be no, it’s not. To support this, I would say that genes and collections of genes are the things that actually evolve. Individual bodies, on the other hand, are like the expendable ensign in a Star Trek episode. And yet that expendable ensign carries out a crucial role in evolution. His world is the battlefield, and he nudges the relative numbers in the breeding population a bit with his death.
2. Not true. Some genes could have piggy-backed on actual selection genes (unless that it was what the "indirect" referred to).
3. Hmm, can’t discern what the issue is with this one.
4. Although I’ve been downplaying genetic drift up until now, it does obviously happen, particularly when piggy-backing on selection genes.
5. I would say that you have to look at evolution from two different perspectives; that of the gene and that of the interbreeding population.
6. Yeah, whatever.
7. Some designs are what you call killer designs.
8. Say what?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Darwain had no real clue nor do the modern science mental speculators.
The soul the living entity transmigrates from different material bodies according to its developed consciousness.
That is the real evolution ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
on point 3)
"We do not doubt that, for example, the eye has been selected to enable distant vision because such vision makes a significant contribution to organismic fitness, but in innumerable concrete cases it has proved elusive to establish what the function of a given structure or property is. If selection alone is to account for the order we find and if we cannot genuinely determine that which is selected, then our account of the order in organisms stands in peril of weakening into a formal explanation whose validity can rarely be ascertained in concrete cases."
Kauffman is making the point that the neo-Darwinian Synthesis does not have an explicit explanation of how order arises in organisms.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!