Human race will 'split into two different species'

[albed]

Wars are seldom very devastating to a population, historical casuality numbers are almost always vastly exaggerated and civilians often fare worse than soldiers. So I'd flush that theory.


Biotechnology will probably steer human evolution in the future imo. Designer babies for the wealthy at first and then for the middle class as it becomes more affordable.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

Wars are seldom very devastating to a population, historical casuality numbers are almost always vastly exaggerated and civilians often fare worse than soldiers. So I'd flush that theory.


Biotechnology will probably steer human evolution in the future imo. Designer babies for the wealthy at first and then for the middle class as it becomes more affordable.

Niven's explanation may be flawed or incomplete, but there are likely many reasons why humans no longer evolve by means of natural selection and biotechnology is just one of them. In all cases the new motive forces behind human evolution are social rather than biological in nature.

[albed]

Nonsense. You're just as bad as that "top scientist" with no evidence or explanation, just your pronouncement. And biotechnology certainly isn't a "social force" so you're already contradicting yourself.

Society has little or nothing to do with reproduction, it's a fairly personal choice made mostly by women imo, at least in advanced, liberal countries with birth control options. And they're still driven by animal instinct from what I can determine, so they're still selecting for looks, health, wealth, etc. even when it's from a sperm bank. So I really don't see any "social" forces at work. But feel free to elaborate.

[multi]

'advanced', liberal countries?

Wouldn't that would be a contradiction of terms for you albed? Or maybe you are saying there needs to be a balance of liberal and conservative to attain the status of 'advanced' country?

[RDixon]

It's easy to be optimistic when you are predicting something that is 100,000 years in the future.
I don't see any humans around after a few hundred years.
Hell, there may not be any of us left alive after just the next 50 years.
I do see a strange looking metalic thing that is saying "bite my shiny metal ass" and "kill all humans".

[Nicobie]

Hasn't that already happened?

And how will mother nature deal with it.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

'advanced', liberal countries?

Wouldn't that would be a contradiction of terms for you albed? Or maybe you are saying there needs to be a balance of liberal and conservative to attain the status of 'advanced' country?

He means liberal as in free, not liberal as in leftist.

Originally Posted by albed

Nonsense. You're just as bad as that "top scientist" with no evidence or explanation, just your pronouncement. And biotechnology certainly isn't a "social force" so you're already contradicting yourself.

Society has little or nothing to do with reproduction, it's a fairly personal choice made mostly by women imo, at least in advanced, liberal countries with birth control options. And they're still driven by animal instinct from what I can determine, so they're still selecting for looks, health, wealth, etc. even when it's from a sperm bank. So I really don't see any "social" forces at work. But feel free to elaborate.

I will, but what I'm about to write should be obvious.

You're trying to convince me that attraction is the only factor in reproduction because attraction is a product of instinct while society is not, but you're wrong. Societies occur in most classes of vertebrates and in many arthropods, the vast majority of which behave solely out of instinct because they lack the capacity for emotion and intellect. You'll find societies in animals ranging from lions to ants. So society is a product of instinct and as such its purpose is to enhance reproductivity.

Like most people you've gotten into the habit of equating sex and reproduction, but because of birth control we don't have to apply that kind of thinking to ourselves. People use contraceptives when they want to fuck, not when they want to mate. Humans and animals alike fuck out of instinct, but for humans reproduction is a conscious choice. And because we are social creatures our reproductive decisions are deeply affected by social pressure.

I wasn't contradicting myself by saying biotechnology is a social force because I didn't say that biotechnology is a social force. I did say that it is one of many processes that has superseded natural selection and that it is a result of social forcings.

[multi]

You guys use fucking 'liberal' in one breath as discription of a blight on your precious economy, a scourge on progress ,a political bent held by crazies whos fucked up ideas are a constant drain on society. Then you tell me that it means 'free'?
To me it means the conservatives in this country.

It's the one aspect of democracy and freedom that you love to enforce on the rest of the world.. but it's bullshit. It was once 'free' built on the ideas of 'free' men, but all that has changed.

Thats what people hate about you conservatives , you take all that is good in the world and suck it up for all it's worth then regurgitate it as some hideous represtentaion of what it once was.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by multi

Thats what people hate about you conservatives , you take all that is good in the world and suck it up for all it's worth then regurgitate it as some hideous represtentaion of what it once was.

Hahahahahahahahaahhaa...

what a dillweed.

[multi]

go fuck a pushbike..

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

You're trying to convince me that attraction is the only factor in reproduction because attraction is a product of instinct while society is not, but you're wrong. Societies occur in most classes of vertebrates and in many arthropods, the vast majority of which behave solely out of instinct because they lack the capacity for emotion and intellect. You'll find societies in animals ranging from lions to ants. So society is a product of instinct and as such its purpose is to enhance reproductivity.

Society's purpose is to increase survival, if anything it's inhibited reproduction significantly. And this thread's about the "human race" so you can leave out the ants and lions until our society has one reproductive female birthing thousands or men start killing babies that aren't theirs.

Originally Posted by Mazer

I wasn't contradicting myself by saying biotechnology is a social force because I didn't say that biotechnology is a social force.

Originally Posted by Mazer

but there are likely many reasons why humans no longer evolve by means of natural selection and biotechnology is just one of them. In all cases the new motive forces behind human evolution are social

I don't know which is worse someone who can't understand his own post or someone who's never noticed that some words have multiple definitions.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Like most people you've gotten into the habit of equating sex and reproduction

Please tell me about your strange society with sexless reproduction and quote me where I equated that anyway. I said "animal instinct" and it's right up there for you to liberally reinterpret apparently. -jump multi, jump.

Originally Posted by Mazer

but for humans reproduction is a conscious choice. And because we are social creatures our reproductive decisions are deeply affected by social pressure.

I said it's instinctive, not unsconcious, but you can't consciously decide someone's attractive. And where's that "social pressure" again? Science demands data. Just because you declare it so isn't good enough for me.

[multi]

Theory of Social Impact

Bibb Latanè‚ has been involved actively in trying to understand the influence of others on social behavior. His early work with John Darley demonstrated that people are less likely to help someone in an emergency if there are other people around. The concept of diffusion of responsibility explains the bystander effect by saying that responsibility for helping is equally distributed among all of the people present. Hence, if you are alone, the responsibility of helping or not helping is totally yours, but if you are one of four people, only 25 percent of it is yours.
Latanè‚ has also investigated the phenomenon of social loafing, which states that in a group of people each one contributes less than he or she would contribute alone. He found that when eight people clapped their hands, the sound was not eight times as loud as the sound of each one individually, and that in a game of tug-of-war the force was not multiplied by the number of people pulling on the rope.
Latanè‚ combined much of his research into a new theory called the theory of social impact. There are several principles included in this theory. First, the more people present, the more influence they will have on each individual. Additionally, the more important the people are to the individual, the more influence they will have on him or her.
Second, the theory of social impact states that while the impact of others on the individual increases as the number of people increases, the rate of increase in impact grows less as each new individual is added. For example, if you are giving a presentation to three people and a fourth one joins the group, this is more significant than if you were giving a presentation to 31 people and one more joined.
Third, each individual can influence others; but the more people are present, the less influence any one individual will have. Thus, we are more likely to listen attentively to a speaker if we are in a small group than if we were in a large group.
Latanè‚ has tested his theory of social impact in a variety of situations. In his 1981 paper, he reports that people tip more if they have separate bills than if they share in a group bill. In parties of six, if each person is given an individual bill, the tipping is about 19 percent, while in groups of six with a group bill, each individual contributes only about 13 percent.
In another study, Latanè‚ tested the hypothesis that television evangelist Billy Graham would be more effective in front of small audiences. He researched the numbers of people who responded to Graham's appeal for converts in various-sized audiences. He found that when the audiences were small, people were more willing to sign cards allowing local ministers to contact them than when the audiences were large.
Social psychologists are just beginning to research the theory of social impact (Jackson, 1987). Already it has made many predictions that could be useful in understanding human behavior. Further research will test the validity of these predictions.

Going on this idea it would mean, the more people with kids the more chances you would find childless people outnumbering parents in that age group over time but thats not whats happening. Of course it is instinctive to mate but thats not where it ends ,social pressure maybe only one variable of something far more complex if you take into consideration things like the individuals mental health and if they are in a co-dependent relationship. Again like liberal, it's a multiple of values that creates a definition of what human reproduction is.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

Society's purpose is to increase survival...

...Just because you declare it so isn't good enough for me.

A sentence by sentence breakdown of my post isn't an argument and you're only diluting your message by posting this. Instead of looking for the flaws in my argument try looking for the flaws in your own because as far as anyone can tell, the thrust of your argument is that instinct is the only factor in reproduction. By definition there can never be just one factor in any equation. Try arguing instead that instinct is the only commonality among all the different forces guiding evolution, do so without over-emphasizing its importance (because while people can't decide whom they're attracted to, they can certainly ignore them), and see if I don't respond more positively.

But I guess convincing me to agree with you would mean the end of this debate, and you'd hate that wouldn't you?

[albed]

You already agreed with me when you squirmed away from your 'evolution by war' theory after I poked holes in it and onto that vague 'social forces' crap. If you'd stand by your beliefs and defend them with honest and intelligent arguments you'd at least get a little respect but instead you just weasle over to another statement that you're also unable to defend and repeat ad nauseum.


Frankly your 'social forces' reference and your refusal to explain it led me to think of Warren Jeffs and other mormon cults where girls are subject to forced "marriages", little more than church sanctioned rapes. Maybe that's the way you see evolution at work in your own life.