Subject:
|
Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 22:23:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
846 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
>
>
> Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > Ross Crawford wrote:
> > >
> > > > > This is an interesting point. It is a generaisation, but in the UK low
> > > > > income families tend to have more kids than higher earners. Many couples
> > > > > (married or otherwsie) decide to have only one or no kids at all. If we
> > > > > assume (again a generisation) that low income familes have lower levels • of
> > > > > intelligence (measured by lower levels of educational attainment) is our
> > > > > gene pool geing skewed the wrong way?
> > > >
> > > > Is there a "wrong way"?
> > >
> > > I would think that most people with at least middling intelligence would • tend
> > to
> > > agree that decreasing the overall intelligence level of our species is the • "wrong
> > > way".
> >
> > That may be so, but I would think that most people who have a middling
> > understanding of evolution would agree that intelligence has little (if any)
> > effect on it.
>
> I dispute that. While there will always be people on the far edges of the • bell
> curve no matter what the scale of the curve, I would tend to believe that • having
> that curve shifted UP would increase the chance of our species surviving • longer,
> simply because we can't rely on a few supergeniuses to save our butts. Having • the
> curve higher increases the chance of our species solving all of its current • and
> future problems, IMO.
>
> > > Do you have a reason to think that decreasing our species intelligence is • the
> > right
> > > way to go?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Read the question again. I was questioning whether or not the notion of • right &
> > wrong[1] can be applied to evolution, I made no comment whether or not
> > decreasing intelligence was right or wrong[1].
> >
> > IMO, intelligence may help us overcome various individual events[2], but • makes
> > little (if any) difference to the overall evolution of a species.
> >
> > ROSCO
> >
> > [1] as applied to the way our gene pool may be skewed
> > [2] which may range from milliseconds to several generations, but that's • still
> > a needle in the haystack of evolution
>
> #2 is more important than you think, IMO. Having our species intelligence • level
> increase gives us a better chance of solving problems that may wipe us out.
I don't agree with this. You're thinking cataclysmic events like a meteorite
hit. I think it's more likely danger (of wiping us out) will come from a
genetic direction.
> If
> we're wiped out, we can't evolve further, now, can we?
No.
> I think we've reached the point in the last few decades where those • milliseconds
> can easily decide whether we still exist or not in the future, so while the • time is
> insignificant compared to our total time of existence to date, it is far from
> insignificant as to the effect on our future evolution.
I wasn't comparing the time to the length of our existence, just the length of
time it takes us to evolve, which is important if the only solution to the
danger is evolution. Other species which evolve faster are much more likely to
survive.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) I dispute that. While there will always be people on the far edges of the bell curve no matter what the scale of the curve, I would tend to believe that having that curve shifted UP would increase the chance of our species surviving longer, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
