As human beings, we are separated from in animals because we are underdetermined in nature. We have no little niche in the natural world in which we were designed to live in. That is why we were given to ability to use tools and create things.
I believe that we’ve made evolution come to a grinding halt. Instead of being like every other organism on the face of the earth and changing to better fit into our environment, we humans are the only ones who change our environment to better suit our needs. Our dependence on technology in this way will cause us to remain homo sapiens for years to come. All the modern day conveniences that come with technology make things extremely easy for us.
While these conveniences are currently improving our general quality of life, it is also crippling us in the long run. Without evolution, we can not genetically change to improve. We have drugs and treatments for almost all types of ailments, so genetically fatal diseases cannot be weeded out in evolution. Someday, we will run out of raw material and natural resources. Humans will no longer be able to depend on technology. Basically, we’d have to play evolutionary catch-up or we’d be screwed.
Daniel Estrada | 21-Oct-06 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
It is entirely false, and patently absurd, to think that humans have somehow transcended evolution. I think this argument comes from the same intuitions that fuel the general Cartesian idea that humans are distinct and separate from nature.
Yes, it is true that we use technology (in the form of medicine, genetic engineering, and so on) to ‘fight back’ against diseases that would have otherwise killed us as a species. But this hardly removes us from the flow of evolution; rather, it simply changes the circumstances under which we evolve.
Humans continue to evolve, like every other species, in order to better adapt to our environment. A significant amount of these changes are designed to deal with infectious diseases, and there is strong evidence suggesting that human mating patterns (unconsciously) revolve around finding mates with compatible and beneficial immune systems. You can read more about human evolution as a response to infectious diseases here.
Jessica Podeschi | 22-Oct-06 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
I would have to agree with Daniel on this one. I think that although evolution may be curtailed by the discovery of technology, it is not necessarily gone. I view technology as simply a was of evolution itself. Humans are evolving, in a sense, whenever technology is created. Just like our bodies are immuned to certain diseases after we get the appropriate shots, our bodies and minds learn how to use machines and technology after we see or are explained to, the way they are used. This to me, is just another form of evolution. So maybe evolution is evolving.
Daniel Estrada | 22-Oct-06 at 11:45 pm | Permalink
“So maybe evolution is evolving.”
I dont know, it seems to me that evolution is staying the same: genetic variation gradually changes over time so that creatures better suit their environment.
Technology, I think, has simply changed the kinds of creatures we are, and the kinds of environments we interact with.
Brian Craig | 31-Oct-06 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
I think Kevin stated an interesting point in saying that we seem to have stopped adapting to our environment and instead started to change our environment to better adapt to us. Definetely technology has changed the way we look at evolution, but I don’t think it has made evolution obsolete at all. Though we may not be growing tails or gills anytime soon, I do believe we are still slightly changing genetically. Though our environment around us is part of this, certain trends in lifestyles have been occuring. Lifespans are increasing, intelligence levels are rising, etc, etc. Now, while people might not be getting wiped out by diseases or dying off because they aren’t smart or healthy enough, generally the human population is changing. People who are healthier, smarter, or well-adapted to new technology for example, not only have better chances of survival but better chances of sucess and, though this sounds weird saying, reproduction. Genetic makeup is always improving, and people who advance faster (whether it is through being healthier, stronger, smarter, or just better adapted to recent technology) will always have more chances to pass on their genes while people less suited to today’s environment will fade out. Evolution is definetely still occuring, it’s just not an obvious process.
Kevin K. Hong | 02-Nov-06 at 10:19 pm | Permalink
While we are able have increased longevity, healthier, stronger, and even more attractive, I don’t think we can give all the credit to our genes for this. What about nutritional supplements and medical advancements? These factors have changed much more rapidly than do the natural force of evolution, and it’s these types of technology that have changed us into who we are today.
I do agree that humans selectively breed with those that are more compatible with themselves, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find someone who is truly compatible. The first thing a person will notice about the opposite sex is their physical appearance. This visual cue will often instantly let us know whether or not we are attracted to this person. Mating with an attractive person usually means passing on the these good traits or features onto the offspring, but with advances in modern day plastic surgery. Even the ugliest of the ugly can become supermodel-gorgeous nearly instantly.
Maybe evolution still does impact us, but not nearly as much as technology has changed mankind.
Daniel Estrada | 06-Nov-06 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
“Maybe evolution still does impact us, but not nearly as much as technology has changed mankind.”
Well, again, thats controversial. Everyone we have read so far has agreed that technology is essentially related to human nature- either biologically (Gehlen, Clark), or conceptually (Heidegger, Aristotle). In other words, I don’t think anyone has argued that technology has changed the essence of mankind; rather, technology changes man’s possibilities for action. But having those possibilities is part of what makes us human; technology merely changes what we can do with it.
But if thats the case, then it is still entirely unclear what the relationship is between evolution and technology.
I think part of this traces back to the distinction between the natural and the artificial. Dennett, for instance, says that genetic engineering is not removing evolution from the equation; it is merely another kind of evolution, that takes place in the lab instead of in the environment.