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

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#41

Post by emiliobumachar »

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…

I'm curious about the definition of these "misfires" (links?). If any action that does not contribute to one's selfish goals can be classified as an error, then it seems circular logic to conclude there is no true altruism.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#43

Post by robertk »

mahyarm wrote: post #40
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?

Backups. If you can backup someone's brain (which should be doable in silicon), then even if they contract cancer, you can simply back them up for a few hundred years (or however long it takes) until there's a cure.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#44

Post by baddox »

nooneelse wrote: post #24
baddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ).

Not to mention the constant arms race with biological pathogens.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#45

Post by baddox »

tmh88j wrote: post #21
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…

>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…

Sure, you can do all those great things, but your genes won't pass to the next generation unless you reproduce. Evolution is a specific thing: the ongoing change in the inheritable traits of a population. Humanitarian efforts are great, but they have nothing to do with evolution in this context.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#46

Post by baddox »

jonathansizz wrote: post #28
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…

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 demographi…

Although there is obviously some debate among scientists, natural selection is considered to be the most important force by far.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#47

Post by baddox »

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…

Did Darwin really make a distinction between natural and sexual selection? As far as I know, the distinction doesn't really exist in modern biology. Natural selection is simply selective pressure that comes from the environment, and the psychology and behavior of potential mates are part of the environment.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#48

Post by baddox »

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.

It might be pessimistic if you're egalitarian, but nature doesn't seem very egalitarian.

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#49

Post by baddox »

potatolicious wrote: post #14
pyre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.

"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.

That's not true. Even in the hypothetical scenario that all humans reproduced exactly enough to replace themselves then died immediately (i.e. a completely constant human population), there would almost certainly be gradual change in the inheritable traits of the human population (i.e. evolution). If sexual partners are chosen, and those choices are inheritable traits (i.e. genes influence your choice of mate), that's textbook natural selection.

> even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case.

A very large portion of the most successful pride of lions probably also breed, since they're not worrying as much about food or predators. Does that means the entire species is not evolving?

Re: Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

#50

Post by mdda »

pyre wrote: post #9
maxwin wrote: post #2

Talking about how we are going to evolve in the next thousands of years is a waste of time. Artificial interference is going to kick in long before that. I believe we will be very different 300 years from now.

> Artificial interference is going to kick in long > before that If we're constantly 20 - 30 years away from a major break-through, it will eventually come true! ;-)

Since we're talking about human evolution, time-scales of 20-30 years are only 1 generation changes. Machine evolution may have a much shorter generational cycle - but for the moment, it doesn't seem too much to ask to be a little patient. Machines have come a long way in the last 4 human generations...
Post reply on HN