Live data from Hacker News

Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

wired.com

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#21
post #10
post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

>It doesn't matter how hot, strong, or brilliant you are, if you have zero kids, from an evolutionary perspective ... it's the same as if you were killed and eaten by some wild animal.

I don't agree with that 100% (the same as just dying part), solely because of the technology and globalization that we currently live with. Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, you're essentially providing a means to life for others. If your business is successful, you will have brought life to others via work for possibly generations(which essentially means others can provide a life for themselves and their families). I know that's a bit of a reach, but it's probably true to a small extent, at least in first world countries. Hundreds of years ago, I completely agree with you.

We live in a world where your work can potentially impact billions of people. Sure, you may not reproduce, but you may have enabled many others to do so.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#22
post #10
post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

Your comment made me think of Idiocracy (the movie), which is always a good thing. :)

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#24
post #12
post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

Why would natural selection be dead? I don't see why humans would be any more immune from natural selection than any other species. At the bare minimum, people still choose their mates (and some die without reproducing), so unless these choices are completely unaffected by genes they should be causing a gradual change in heritable traits among the human population.

Indeed, and we are probably facing new selection pressures. Such as the propensity toward addictions to substances our ancestors would not have had (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/28/painkiller-add...).

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#25
post #21
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

>It doesn't matter how hot, strong, or brilliant you are, if you have zero kids, from an evolutionary perspective ... it's the same as if you were killed and eaten by some wild animal. I don't agree with that 100% (the same as just dying part), solely because of the technology and globalization that we currently live with. Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, yo…

Experiments, both on humans and other animals, have repeatedly shown that there is no such thing as pure-as-white-snow altruism. Whatever appears to be altruistic is either a misfire (essentially error, in biological terms) or is found to be long-term self-interested behavior.

That billionaire is giving his wealth away because he wants better social standing, etc.

In the end, evolution doesn't favor altruism and we have mechanisms that actively discourage it. If that weren't the case, Mother Teresa would have been the happiest person on earth (she wasn't).

> Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, you're essentially providing a means to life for others.

The businessman isn't helping others to reproduce. He's being exploited by his employees for their own benefit.

Your example fits within the confines of a parasitic relationship. In evolutionary terms, he is getting nothing from the relationship ... while they are reaping the rewards.

In reality though, even if he didn't start the business ... he still would not have reproduced, so his starting a business is irrelevant and was simply used by others to improve their circumstances.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#27
post #22
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

Your comment made me think of Idiocracy (the movie), which is always a good thing. :)

The first few minutes of Idiocracy covers all the bases and is very insightful in its presentation.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#28
post #10
post #5

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed . There are two forces at work in evolution. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sexual selection (reproduction of the sexiest). Out of the two, natural selection is by far the weaker force. > Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to ge…

And I can't stress enough that selection and evolution are not equivalent; selection is only one evolutionary force, and in humans probably not a very powerful one due to our historically low effective population size. Other forces in evolution include genetic drift, migration (gene flow) and mutation.

As the article discusses, the major characteristics of human populations in the recent past centre around demographic changes i.e. small populations where drift dominates, giving way to massive population expansion, where mutation and drift likely play a much more powerful role than selection does (for nearly neutral variation, which is the vast majority of variation).

This could potentially change if the human population ceases its expansion, stabilizing at a greatly increased level for a long period and with high levels of gene flow. In this case, selection could have more of an impact on nearly neutral variation than it previously has.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#29
post #25
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It doesn't matter how hot, strong, or brilliant you are, if you have zero kids, from an evolutionary perspective ... it's the same as if you were killed and eaten by some wild animal. I don't agree with that 100% (the same as just dying part), solely because of the technology and globalization that we currently live with. Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, yo…

Experiments, both on humans and other animals, have repeatedly shown that there is no such thing as pure-as-white-snow altruism. Whatever appears to be altruistic is either a misfire (essentially error, in biological terms) or is found to be long-term self-interested behavior. That billionaire is giving his wealth away because he wants better social standing, etc. In the end, evolution doesn't favor altruism and we h…

I think the point is that businessman selects employees who then make more money, are healthier, and therefore more reproductively interesting and successful. This means that a one can influence evolution without reproduction. This is something like an externally caused drift. The businessman can select who is more likely to reproduce, likely biasing work ethic, respect, etc.

It's a valid point. One should not be so quick to dismiss ideas.

Post reply on HN