Natural Selection
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Probably. However, the general idea is that humans have upset the balance of natural selection and created an unnatural situation. (Don't we think highly of ourselves.) Personally, I am glad we are taking efforts to preserve endangered species (except snakes, I hate snakes :)). Makes me wonder, though, if we are able to understand the long term impact our actions/inactions will have.
-
Probably. However, the general idea is that humans have upset the balance of natural selection and created an unnatural situation. (Don't we think highly of ourselves.) Personally, I am glad we are taking efforts to preserve endangered species (except snakes, I hate snakes :)). Makes me wonder, though, if we are able to understand the long term impact our actions/inactions will have.
Matt Gullett wrote: Makes me wonder, though, if we are able to understand the long term impact our actions/inactions will have. hmmm..what if we are actually preventing the emergence of new and better species in our quest to protect the old ones. If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: Makes me wonder, though, if we are able to understand the long term impact our actions/inactions will have. hmmm..what if we are actually preventing the emergence of new and better species in our quest to protect the old ones. If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
That's what I am thinking too. One concern, though, is that preventing new species could be a good thing since theoretically, any new species would be better at surviving around humans. Does that mean it would displace us?:omg:
-
That's what I am thinking too. One concern, though, is that preventing new species could be a good thing since theoretically, any new species would be better at surviving around humans. Does that mean it would displace us?:omg:
Matt Gullett wrote: any new species would be better at surviving around humans. That is already happening, there are bacteria and virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics, mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. Planet of the Apes :-D "I believe OS/2...to be the most important OS...of all time" Gates '87 Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: any new species would be better at surviving around humans. That is already happening, there are bacteria and virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics, mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. Planet of the Apes :-D "I believe OS/2...to be the most important OS...of all time" Gates '87 Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
This leads to my next question. If anti-biotics, genetic engineering, other medical breakthrougths, pesticides, etc didn't exist would the world be a better place ultimately? These various technologies have caused nature to adapt and introduce new problems for the human race. We created these sciences to "improve" the quality of life for mankind, but will they ultimately destroy us? So the real question is: should we just let people die today by denying advanced medical research or suffer the consequences later?
-
This leads to my next question. If anti-biotics, genetic engineering, other medical breakthrougths, pesticides, etc didn't exist would the world be a better place ultimately? These various technologies have caused nature to adapt and introduce new problems for the human race. We created these sciences to "improve" the quality of life for mankind, but will they ultimately destroy us? So the real question is: should we just let people die today by denying advanced medical research or suffer the consequences later?
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Well you never know if even worse diseases that have absolutely no cure will result if we force viruses and bacteria to mutate. Horrifying thought. You know that little indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why can't they make the whole plane out of that stuff? Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Probably. However, the general idea is that humans have upset the balance of natural selection and created an unnatural situation. (Don't we think highly of ourselves.) Personally, I am glad we are taking efforts to preserve endangered species (except snakes, I hate snakes :)). Makes me wonder, though, if we are able to understand the long term impact our actions/inactions will have.
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Sijin wrote: By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Fitness is always relative to an environment. Species that are fit for one environment may not be fit for another. Human beings change the environment and thereby change the selection criteria. Selection is always operative no matter what humans do. Sijin wrote: Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), then the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity (principally the destruction of habitat). Thus it is interference with Nature that is causing the extinctions in the first place. As for the risk that we are stopping "superior" organisms from appearing by seeking to prevent extinctions, the reality is that, through habitat destruction and the like, we are creating a hostile environment for most existing non-human species. This may favour the evolution of some species (such as insects that eat our crops, parasites that live in our livestock and bacteria that spread in urbanised communities) but there is no reason to think that such species are "superior" in any sense that human beings care about. John Carson
-
Well you never know if even worse diseases that have absolutely no cure will result if we force viruses and bacteria to mutate. Horrifying thought. You know that little indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why can't they make the whole plane out of that stuff? Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
No, not really. Considering that viruses and bacteria have been mutating since they first came into being, I will gladly take a world where we at least understand them. The crux of the problem is that your logic is flawed. "If it wasn't for science, then we wouldn't have these killer bugs." That just isn't true. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
I'm not arguing with that, I'm just hypothesising? (spelling?) on the long-term effect of our medical/technological advancements. It seems that we humans usually have very little concern for the future. We are consumed with the present.
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
Jonny Newman wrote: This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. Well i agree that we are not allowing ourselves to evolve but that is because we have reached a stage where we can evolve faster on our own than by waiting for nature to take it's toll. Natural selection basically means that the species which are smart enough to survive will continue to be. So basically we have achieved the status of dominant species and don't really need to evolve further naturally unless something comes along that we cant handle(killer viruses for eg.) But the point that i was making is when we try to protect endangered species we are stopping their evolution and since they are not the dominant species thus maybe we are harming them in the long run. All species are experiments of nature, humans turned out to be quite sucessful , but there maybe some species that are really not fit but we are preventing nature from improving upon it's design. It's like in genetic algorithms, you take a intial random string and then mutate and reproduce to make strings of better fitness until ultimately you reach a string which has high fitness. What we humans are doing is not allowing the unfit strings to be eliminated thus possible preventing generation of strings of better fitness. (Hope everyone gets the crux of it) :) :) Logically speaking we should not be interfering wioth nature unless it is to enhance or protect ourselves, but my heart says save the animals. :) :) User - a technical term used by computer pros. See idiot Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. I think I should be glad natural selection hasn't applied directly to me. If it had, I'd be a gonner.
-
No, not really. Considering that viruses and bacteria have been mutating since they first came into being, I will gladly take a world where we at least understand them. The crux of the problem is that your logic is flawed. "If it wasn't for science, then we wouldn't have these killer bugs." That just isn't true. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
One thing I would add to your statement, though. YES they have been mutating since they first began. However, the science we apply to them, is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans?
-
Sijin wrote: By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Fitness is always relative to an environment. Species that are fit for one environment may not be fit for another. Human beings change the environment and thereby change the selection criteria. Selection is always operative no matter what humans do. Sijin wrote: Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), then the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity (principally the destruction of habitat). Thus it is interference with Nature that is causing the extinctions in the first place. As for the risk that we are stopping "superior" organisms from appearing by seeking to prevent extinctions, the reality is that, through habitat destruction and the like, we are creating a hostile environment for most existing non-human species. This may favour the evolution of some species (such as insects that eat our crops, parasites that live in our livestock and bacteria that spread in urbanised communities) but there is no reason to think that such species are "superior" in any sense that human beings care about. John Carson
John Carson wrote: If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), No. No. it is you who are excluding humans from Nature. If Lions kill all the deer are they not changing the enviorment??..if deer eat all the plants are they not?.. If elephants eat all the trees then what?.. I think the basic reason why we do go in for protection of the enviorment in general is 1. Prevent greenhouse effect and global warming(saving rainforests) 2. There maybe a yet undiscovered cure to cancer or some disease like that in the rainforests. 3. Animals ( To maintain eco system balance in rain forests) To support 2 and 3 4. Sentimental reasons ( We want our children to see a paticular species alive, we are compassionate, we can emphatize etc.) So you see basically the only reason we do it is because we are selfish :) :) CONSOLE: What one does to a depressed computer Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Sijin wrote: By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Fitness is always relative to an environment. Species that are fit for one environment may not be fit for another. Human beings change the environment and thereby change the selection criteria. Selection is always operative no matter what humans do. Sijin wrote: Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), then the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity (principally the destruction of habitat). Thus it is interference with Nature that is causing the extinctions in the first place. As for the risk that we are stopping "superior" organisms from appearing by seeking to prevent extinctions, the reality is that, through habitat destruction and the like, we are creating a hostile environment for most existing non-human species. This may favour the evolution of some species (such as insects that eat our crops, parasites that live in our livestock and bacteria that spread in urbanised communities) but there is no reason to think that such species are "superior" in any sense that human beings care about. John Carson
John Carson wrote: the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity Infact you never know how many species were eliminated because of being excessively eaten by carnivores or herbivores. Money is the root of all evil (Send $30 shareware fee to use this tag line.) Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Jonny Newman wrote: This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. Well i agree that we are not allowing ourselves to evolve but that is because we have reached a stage where we can evolve faster on our own than by waiting for nature to take it's toll. Natural selection basically means that the species which are smart enough to survive will continue to be. So basically we have achieved the status of dominant species and don't really need to evolve further naturally unless something comes along that we cant handle(killer viruses for eg.) But the point that i was making is when we try to protect endangered species we are stopping their evolution and since they are not the dominant species thus maybe we are harming them in the long run. All species are experiments of nature, humans turned out to be quite sucessful , but there maybe some species that are really not fit but we are preventing nature from improving upon it's design. It's like in genetic algorithms, you take a intial random string and then mutate and reproduce to make strings of better fitness until ultimately you reach a string which has high fitness. What we humans are doing is not allowing the unfit strings to be eliminated thus possible preventing generation of strings of better fitness. (Hope everyone gets the crux of it) :) :) Logically speaking we should not be interfering wioth nature unless it is to enhance or protect ourselves, but my heart says save the animals. :) :) User - a technical term used by computer pros. See idiot Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Weaker or less fit species are the ones that are first in line for the chop as far as extintion goes. But extiction due to the fact they happen to be less fit (in the darwin sense) to their kin, is just one of the natural occurances of nature and should be let to nature. For example, if there were two members of one Species of the Cat family were to be so weak in comparison to the others in the Genus that it is being left behind, then I believe we should not have anything to do with their extinction. However if humans were the direct cause of their endangering then we should have a part (even a small on) to play. But this is an ethical dilema not a natural one and opinions are varied. On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? ... -> Homo Erectus -> Homo Sapiens -> ......
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
One thing I would add to your statement, though. YES they have been mutating since they first began. However, the science we apply to them, is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans?
Matt Gullett wrote: is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans If anything, by creating new vaccines against bacteria/viruses we are helping their evolution.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
Weaker or less fit species are the ones that are first in line for the chop as far as extintion goes. But extiction due to the fact they happen to be less fit (in the darwin sense) to their kin, is just one of the natural occurances of nature and should be let to nature. For example, if there were two members of one Species of the Cat family were to be so weak in comparison to the others in the Genus that it is being left behind, then I believe we should not have anything to do with their extinction. However if humans were the direct cause of their endangering then we should have a part (even a small on) to play. But this is an ethical dilema not a natural one and opinions are varied. On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? ... -> Homo Erectus -> Homo Sapiens -> ......
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
Jonny Newman wrote: On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? Why should we ignore technology?..technology is what makes us the dominant species and technological innovation should never stop. The next stage of our evolution will be bionic and genetically enhanced. Premature optimization is the root of all evil Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans If anything, by creating new vaccines against bacteria/viruses we are helping their evolution.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
This I would agree with. We are helping them. However, the black plague wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The family that includes ebola isn't exactly a nice one either. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?