IcyMonkey wrote:
I really hate using terms like these, since they assign teleological significance to evolutionary processes, and thus anthropomorphize nature. But saying that an animal "wants" to pass on vis genes or that this is its "evolutionary goal" is a lot easier than saying that animals that do not do this wind up having less of a genetic impact on the next generation than those who do. What can I say, I'm lazy
Well congratulations, you forced me to go look up a word I didn't know. This is only the
second time that's ever happened :) (I agree with your point about anthropomorphizing nature, but really, what can you do? It's an integral part of language. And harmless, as long as we don't confuse our homemade maps for the territory...)
As far as advancement of the human race is concerned, I think strict biological evolution is entirely irrelevant at this point. Natural selection doesn’t have much effect on societies which take care of their weaker members, and where artificial insemination is widely available*. Which is fine, because technological advancement is faster, by several orders of magnitude. Humans are what we are because our particular evolutionary path is one that found advantage in greater complexity. A certain threshold has now been reached, whereby we can increase the complexity of our artifacts by using older ones, at an ever-accelerating rate. Someday they may even be able to increase their own complexity without our intervention (see
Terminator,
The Matrix, etc., for the Hollywoodized version of this possibility), although by that time, defining just what constitutes “we” would probably be a tricky business. If we are ever to become something other than human, I seriously doubt it will be through the same biological processes which brought us to this point.
The only way I can see natural Darwinian evolution becoming relevant again is in the advent of some massive biological or ecological catastrophe (probably brought upon ourselves in one way or another, like an engineered virus getting loose). And even that would be more a matter of simply adapting to a more hostile environment, rather than a process of increased fitness for the normal one.
Notice that I’m only talking about completely natural processes (i.e., not manmade). Certainly, Darwinian evolution as a paradigm could prove to be useful in everything from computer algorithms to nanotechnology and genetic engineering, etc. But those would be a direct result of our technological, not biological, advancement. Of course, if you take the wider view, perhaps such things
are natural, since they arise ultimately from the biological adaptations that led to our current brain structure and societies. You might almost say that our genes have found a better way to express themselves- as pure
ideas, which affect how our technology and society develops. But that would just be abstract philosophizing ;)
* There is still some selection at work of course, especially for men, since even artifical insemination requires a woman’s approval of one’s general attributes (there’s some sort of data sheet that goes with all sperm donations, isn’t there?). My point is that the rate of gaining complexity through slow genetic adaptation is so glacial as to simply
not matter.
Abunai! wrote:
Creationism. Hah. HAH! At least by some omnipotent entity.
[snip]
Any other major options I'm forgetting?
How about creation by an omnipotent entity who is a misleading bastard, and want us to think he doesn't exists? After all, I'm pretty sure than any actual omnipotent, omniscient being who had any interest in us would have to be something of a bastard anyway. And you certainly can't *disprove* the possibility…