Will Mankind determine our future 'evolutionary' steps?
By w1z111
@w1z111 (985)
United States
March 10, 2007 5:23am CST
I've been looking at several discussions here on myLot that relate to evolution, Creationism, and how each 'theory' allegedly operates, and seeking scientific evidence to support each one. Most of these discussions are very well populated with data and links to data, which make for very interesting reading, to be sure.
As I've been flipping back and forth thru some of the topics and discussions and links, it occurred to me that even though much is being said about how things have "come to be", I don't see much about how things WILL BE.
And, if we propose to understand how either evolution or Creationism operates, and we claim to have 'evidence' of those operations, isn't it then possible or even logical that we should be able to interpolate what the next steps may be? And, if we can, is it possible we could 'engineer' our future through technology? And, is it possible that we're even currently 'engineering' our future steps unwittingly, through introductions of and exposures to exotic, toxic, and otherwise 'foreign to nature' substances? Can we interpolate (or extrapolate?) enough to determine truly what our future may be?
This discussion is not limited to factual evidence; speculation is welcome, provided it is on topic and not 'inappropriate'.
I'd like to focus on these questions:
1) Is it possible to determine accurate future certainties, through current evidence of evolution and/or Creationism, and interpolation and/or extrapolation of that evidence? If so, give appropriately supportive data or discussion.
2) Is it possible that mankind is currently 'forcibly determining' future certainties through introductions and exposures to 'synthetic', 'foreign-to-nature' substances? If so, give appropriately supportive data or discussion.
3) Is it possible that mankind can 'engineer' future certainties through genetic modifications and the like? If so, give appropriately supportive data or discussion.
1 response
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
11 Mar 07
1) Like with every other kind of prediction, trying to hazard a good guess more than 5 or 10 years into the future is nigh impossible. That doesn't mean there aren't people who try, though. =P But usually I don't think it's a worthwhile effort, and more often than not it's just an assured way of making one look silly in the future. See: www.sysprog.net/quothist.html
2) The concept that "synthetic" or "foreign-to-nature" substances are somehow "evil" and damaging to the body is a fabrication of the pseudo-medicine crowd, mostly. To take Aspirin as an example, there is nothing "foreign to nature" in it - it's just a beneficial substance that can be naturally found in a plant, but that has been isolated from the other substances present on the plant (and that have bad side effects) and made into a pill form.
3) It is very possible, yes. Medical research will ever move forward, and there's no reason to doubt that someday we may be able to manipulate the genetic code more or less freely. Its practical possibilities will most likely be determined not by what our technology is capable of, but by what our morals decide should be allowed or not.
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
11 Mar 07
1) Well, I may have been too harsh on people who try to make predictions about the future - analyzing trends to see what will happen IF no major change, indirect intervention, or scientific breakthrough happens in the meantime can, sometimes, yield good results, and is certainly better than not trying to predict anything at all. It's just that that is a huge IF, and one which more often than not catches us off-guard.
2) I may have failed to give a broader picture of my view in this one, due to focusing only on one of my "pet peeves": the whole concept of 'evil unnatural substances'. I actually agree with you, it's certainly true that humans ARE being affected everyday by our eating habits, medicine, cosmetics, and all other chemical factors that influence peoples' lives and survivability. But the important point is: that would happen regardless of those factors being "natural" or "unnatural".
The eating habits of cavemen influenced their health, survivability, and the eventual invention of dental plans as much as our current habits of eating too much fast (and fat) food does, or our ingestion of medicine in pill form instead of simply chewing or boiling herbs.
Every habit that is spread through mankind influences us in one way or another, but the really important point I want to emphasize is that the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" makes no difference here. It is, for the most part, a meaningless distinction used mostly by infomercials trying to sell VERY dubious books with miraculous (and untested) "natural" cures for a variety of diseases.
And do note that you used one of the favorite words misused by those pseudomedicine infomercials: "toxins". It's just a generic - and I think qualifies as fabricated - term to refer to some mysterious, never-specified "bad chemicals" supposedly found only in "unnatural" substances.
3) I'd only disagree with your last sentence, but that's neither really nor there, now. =P
2 people like this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
11 Mar 07
I appreciate your further explanations, and must say I do think we have 'similar' views in at least some areas.
And, kudos on raising the points about 'other outside influences'. You're right, of course. Even natural disasters would influence the 'evolutionary-path', and those may not be quite so simple to predict.
I also agree in principle on what you say about 'natural' vs 'unnatural' substances, except I believe we do a poor job of investigating just what influences and impacts may come about with continued use and exposure to some of them. We may look into some of the 'immediately-obvious' impacts, but that's not enough to determine whether or not such substances may be capable of broader and wider scope of negative impact. And, of course, we must also recognize that there IS opportunity to promote only those substances which may prove to provide positive impact. Without the research, we'll continue to go 'blindly into the future'?!
And...I'm not referring only to 'unnatural' substances here. As we know, many 'natural' substances are also "toxic" (for want of a better word!) to humans. Example: Asbestos. Purely natural and a wonderfully useful substance. But only too late did we discover its wide-reaching impact. Same with lead-based-paints. Lead is a natural element, but used 'improperly' (i.e., without regard to impact to life or environment) it caused loads of problems after-the-fact. And, mercury...naturally occurring...used in a myriad of products...found only 'after-the-fact' to be so dangerous to human exposure. And I'm sure we could list numerous 'natural' and 'unnatural' substances in the same light.
However, this really just serves to support the need to DO THE IN-DEPTH RESEARCH BEFORE HAND to prevent similar 'disasters' in the future...whether it's about natural or man-made ('unnatural') substances.
'nuff for now...
1 person likes this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
12 Mar 07
I know for sure that there are a few elements that don't occur naturally, they have to be created in laboratory; but I wouldn't be able to tell you which ones they are exactly, that goes beyond my rudimentary chemistry knowledge. I don't think they have many practical uses, though - manufacturing a chemical element isn't exactly cheap.
I haven't read much lately about nanotechnology, except from some frequent comments by one of the hosts of a podcast I listen too - he's quite the enthusiast for nanotech and has a very optimistic view of the progress it will bring to mankind. I'll try to find the time to read from that link you provided.
And yes, I'm familiar with Dr. Asimov and his Psychometry... unfortunately I never got past the end of the first book in the Foundation Trilogy, but I enjoyed most of what I read from him, and I hope his somewhat optimistic view of the aid machines will bring to humanity is confirmed in our real, non-fictional world. A leitmotif in the good doctor's books was the image of robots not as a metal menace, but as companions and posteriorly guardians protecting mankind from itself; that wouldn't be a bad perspective for our (distant?) future.
