Have we reached a stage of "Conscious Evolution?"

John21 · #1 10-11-2006, 07:47 PM

Up to the point of a human with what we would define as consciousness and abstract reasoning, I think it would be fair to say we and life in general evolved subconsciously.

Now with the ability to master our environment, medicine and genetic research going on - I'm wondering if we're not just along for the ride anymore, but "consciously" participating in evolution. It's not so much happening to us to any longer as much as we are controlling what happens.

I know the subject has been brought up before, but if you really think about the idea of actually being a conscious participant in a process that has been going on unceasingly for billions of years - it's kind of awe inspiring.

I'm wondering if some long ago humanoid had some primitive inkling of that awe. I wonder if that was the day God was born?

madnak · #2 10-11-2006, 09:07 PM

I hope so. Unfortunately, even words like "eugenics" are hated. And people mate based on irrational feelings and crazy preferences.

To consciously influence evolution, I think our best bet is to create an environment in which desired traits are selected for. Thankfully, intelligence seems to be selected for in the current environment, though it's hard to say for sure.

pilliwinks · #3 10-11-2006, 11:01 PM

From a population genetics point of view, the healthiest population is the one with the least selection operating. Because that generates the greatest diversity, which in turn gives you some insurance in a changing world.

Unless you argue that we are able to dictate (not just modify) the selective pressures on us, it would seem unwise as well as socially unacceptable to impose selective pressures (conscious or otherwise).

I would also dispute the claim that intelligence is currently selected for. Anyone remember these lyrics: "Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street"?

And I suspect the OP is describing the Fall, rather than the discovery of God.

madnak · #4 10-11-2006, 11:08 PM

Eh, I'm in the "Brains! Brains! Brains!" category, myself.

John21 · #5 10-12-2006, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And I suspect the OP is describing the Fall, rather than the discovery of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "Fall" you're referring to a tree "falling" in the forest...yes.

If Maslow's hierachy of needs and the saying "God created man in his image," are valid and true, then: self-actualization (the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is) of a divine being would necessitate the development or evolution of a self-aware being.

lippy · #6 10-12-2006, 12:47 AM

I see a schism in evolution.

Idiots in the south have 12 kids, all of those kids marry other idiots in the south.

Conversely, Harvard grads marry Yale grads and their children will mary Princeton grads, etc.

Turn Prophet · #7 10-12-2006, 01:14 AM

You're trying to draw a normative distinction to a neutral phenomenon. Evolution is not progressive and has no goal. We could, if we wanted to, institute eugenics and genetic engineering, but that makes us no more or less "evolved" than before. It would merely produce biological specimens that embody traits we value. Nature doesn't care--it will take anything that works.

MidGe · #8 10-12-2006, 01:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not progressive and has no goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people miss this most important point. Missing it is like letting religiosity seeping into science.

John21 · #9 10-12-2006, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not progressive and has no goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people miss this most important point. Missing it is like letting religiosity seeping into science.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're arguing the point that more and more complex forms of life are "not" progressive? Wouldn't this nullify evolution?

(I could understand this if what you mean by progression is "goal directed", but I define it as "general betterment or improvement".)

hmkpoker · #10 10-12-2006, 02:07 AM

It's not evolution anymore. There is no meaningful natural selection. We're actually at the point of reproductive success where children are more of an inconvenient liability than an asset. Third world countries reproduce more than the civilized world just because we can afford the luxury of choosing protection.

Civilization and technology progress at a rate that is blindingly fast compared to evolution. There's not really much point of it anymore.