Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#31

Post by nhaehnle »

azakai wrote: post #11
unoti wrote: 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.

> 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. Selection is always active. First, there is sexual selection, not just natural selection, and there is no reason to assume that is not important today. Second, as the article says, there is more genetic variety than before - we accumulated a lot…

it isn't clear intelligence was ever more important than say brute strength/social skills/etc. in our evolutionary history

The juxtaposition of intelligence vs. social skills is amusing given the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, which suggests that our general intelligence basically evolved precisely as a means to get ahead in the social games that are relevant for sexual selection.

If you can reason abstractly about what some rival is going to do and examine the "game tree" of potential actions, that is surely an advantage both for sexual selection and, say, debugging or proving theorems.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#32

Post by cup »

maratd wrote: post #10
unoti wrote: 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…

Would this then make the case even more pessimistic, considering there is an inverse correlation between family sizes and parental education levels.

I.e. smarter individuals have less (or no) kids.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#33

Post by bicknergseng »

cup wrote: post #32
maratd wrote: 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…

Would this then make the case even more pessimistic, considering there is an inverse correlation between family sizes and parental education levels. I.e. smarter individuals have less (or no) kids.

The Mike Judge/Idiocracy Theory of Evolution.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#34

Post by ogoffart »

maratd wrote: post #25
tmh88j wrote: 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…

Imagine you have a gene that will make half of your kids very strong, but unable to reproduce. Because of the tendency to protect the familly, your strong kids might help their sibilings to survive and reproduce, propagating their genes.

Another example is the ants. A gene that gives workers good abilities will help the hole colony, even if the worker themself do not reproduce.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#35

Post by lindbergh »

unoti wrote: 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.

At any rate, it seems evolution has shifted from an individual action, to a cultural (or, dare I say, a civilizational) action. And from a cosmic point of view, it makes a lot of sense.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#36

Post by shard »

pyre wrote: post #17
potatolicious wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding . I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.

> Natural selection only works if unfit individuals > are killed off prior to breeding. > since nearly everyone survives to breed. No one needs to be killed off for natural selection to work. If they have some attribute that prevents them from finding a mate, that is also natural selection at work.

Right, in other words, they are killed off by old age prior to breeding.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#37

Post by da3da »

maratd wrote: post #10
unoti wrote: 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 points are valid but I think you're arriving at the same conclusion that the parent is. Since the population groups that have lots of children are generally less intelligent and poorer, evolution is currently selecting for less intelligence. Though the parent called this natural selection, he was really refering to sexual selection, which as you noted is the more important force.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#38

Post by mahyarm »

cup wrote: post #32
maratd wrote: 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…

Would this then make the case even more pessimistic, considering there is an inverse correlation between family sizes and parental education levels. I.e. smarter individuals have less (or no) kids.

Urbanization in general reduces family sizes. Something like free RISUG procedures for 13+ males, and the procedure being promoted during sex ed classes would probably reduce irresponsible pregnancies significantly. Even the US government would benefit significantly from reduced expenditures with a program like that.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#39

Post by Zimahl »

ogoffart wrote: post #34
maratd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Imagine you have a gene that will make half of your kids very strong, but unable to reproduce. Because of the tendency to protect the familly, your strong kids might help their sibilings to survive and reproduce, propagating their genes. Another example is the ants. A gene that gives workers good abilities will help the hole colony, even if the worker themself do not reproduce.

Ants have a intrinsic instinct to help the whole colony mostly because they are related the the entire colony.

I may have an evolutionary interest in supporting my nieces since they are my sister's children. However, I probably don't have an evolutionary interest in supporting my nephew since he is my wife's sister's child. Biologically I have zero relation to him.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#40

Post by mahyarm »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #4

At the rate biological research is progressing, anything beyond this century is impossible. In a couple of centuries, we'll have replaced carbon with silicon in our bodies and be living a couple millennia.

How would silicon avoid something like cancer? Why would that make any difference?
Post reply on HN