The good of society

[Seshat]

By slowing or halting our own evolution, we are delaying greater discoveries and newer understandings. That's why I asked which is better, the good of the individual, or the good of society?

I do not see technology as slowing or halting our evolution as a species. I see our species as now contributing to its own evolution.

However, I've come to the point that I think I can understand what you're trying to assert: at least as the fundamental premises on which you base your arguments. Please permit me to lay it out in a fashion clear to me, so you can confirm or deny my understanding.

I believe you're asserting that:
- our species evolution is primarily genetic and physical
- all the worthwhile elements of our evolution are expressed in our genes
- anything which interferes with the purely genetic evolution of the human race, including such things as the ability for human minds to make decisions that affect our survival, is necessarily bad for our genetic evolution.

In contrast, my assertion is:
- our species evolves physically, mentally, socially and technologically
- all of our forms of evolution are helpful to the species
- there is no particular benefit to be gained from promoting one of those forms at the expense of the others.


I think that my (and probably your) frustration in this and previous discussions we have had about human evolution has been caused by this fundamental and unexpressed clash of premises.


Edit to add a side note:
I'm another person who has chosen not to reproduce, in part to avoid perpetuating my illnesses and disabilities. There are more of us than is apparent.

[tendomentis]

I do not see technology as slowing or halting our evolution as a species. I see our species as now contributing to its own evolution.

However, I've come to the point that I think I can understand what you're trying to assert: at least as the fundamental premises on which you base your arguments. Please permit me to lay it out in a fashion clear to me, so you can confirm or deny my understanding.

I believe you're asserting that:
- our species evolution is primarily genetic and physical
- all the worthwhile elements of our evolution are expressed in our genes
- anything which interferes with the purely genetic evolution of the human race, including such things as the ability for human minds to make decisions that affect our survival, is necessarily bad for our genetic evolution.

In contrast, my assertion is:
- our species evolves physically, mentally, socially and technologically
- all of our forms of evolution are helpful to the species
- there is no particular benefit to be gained from promoting one of those forms at the expense of the others.


I think that my (and probably your) frustration in this and previous discussions we have had about human evolution has been caused by this fundamental and unexpressed clash of premises.

That's close. Let me explain it somewhat more clearly (I know I'll get it eventually ).

Intelligence has a place, otherwise we would never have evolved that trait. But traits can be abused too. A predator that develops into a super-predator in only a few short generations can hunt its food supply into extinction and bring about its own extinction as a result. This has happened thoughout the fossil record.

We are the first species that we are aware of that is AWARE of this principle. We are essentially "hunting" our own species into extinction, but we do have the intellect to realize this and possibly correct it if we had a mind to.

EDIT: To acknowledge your edit. I want any legacy I leave behind to be one of an intellectual nature. Creating a child is easy enough, but leaving a lasting intellectual legacy is so much more useful than passing on my undesirable physical attributes.

[DesignFox]

But how is it cheating if we are using what nature gave us?

I think more than anything most of what we do impacts the planet more than it impacts human evolution. And since we recognize that, we're working on fixing what we've broken.

I don't think that eliminating birth control, or making people with "bad genes" feel like they shouldn't have kids is going to solve any of the problems we've caused ourselves as a species.

In the dark ages, we let lots of people die. Hell, we took some people and locked them away hoping they would die...but somehow those traits that were once considered undesirable still exist and new ones are being discovered everyday.

So what's the point of not applying the technologies that we've discovered?

The knowledge we have now allows us to save some people- help other people- help ourselves- and now more people help with new discoveries. How is this not a positive step in our evolutionary process?

[tendomentis]

But how is it cheating if we are using what nature gave us?

I think more than anything most of what we do impacts the planet more than it impacts human evolution. And since we recognize that, we're working on fixing what we've broken.

I don't think that eliminating birth control, or making people with "bad genes" feel like they shouldn't have kids is going to solve any of the problems we've caused ourselves as a species.

In the dark ages, we let lots of people die. Hell, we took some people and locked them away hoping they would die...but somehow those traits that were once considered undesirable still exist and new ones are being discovered everyday.

So what's the point of not applying the technologies that we've discovered?

The knowledge we have now allows us to save some people- help other people- help ourselves- and now more people help with new discoveries. How is this not a positive step in our evolutionary process?

Because, at a fundamental level, using a calculator instead of doing math by hand or (even better) in your head prevents our species from developing that ability naturally. Dependance on technology to accomplish tasks that we COULD accomplish on our own (just at a greater "inconvenience") stunts our physical AND mental evolution.

[DesignFox]

I understand the point you are making, but I don't see how it can be applied to humanity. I feel that we are too complex an organism to say that using medicine/technology is detrimental to our evolution.

Yes, calculators have become a crutch. But that problem could be counteracted if more people made the choice to use pen and paper instead. We can also teach our children to do math without a calculator. People who use calculators are not doomed to never be able to do math without them.

If certain medicines were no longer available, well, some people certainly wouldn't be alive. Some of those people have likely contributed heavily to society and humanity overall, so letting them die probably would not have been in the best interest of our species.

[tendomentis]

I understand the point you are making, but I don't see how it can be applied to humanity. I feel that we are too complex an organism to say that using medicine/technology is detrimental to our evolution.

Yes, calculators have become a crutch. But that problem could be counteracted if more people made the choice to use pen and paper instead. We can also teach our children to do math without a calculator. People who use calculators are not doomed to never be able to do math without them.

If certain medicines were no longer available, well, some people certainly wouldn't be alive. Some of those people have likely contributed heavily to society and humanity overall, so letting them die probably would not have been in the best interest of our species.

Your arguement is a slippery slope at best. MAYBE certain people saved by modern medicine could be beneficial (as in the case of Stephen Hawking), but you would be hard pressed to find this is generally the case. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it is likely very much in the minority. Your viewpoint is an emotional viewpoint (or sympathetic, depends on how you define it). You WANT those people to benefit society, but the overwhelming majority likely don't. The ratio of healthy contributors to "less healthy" contributors is probably not too varied (I'd love to see research one way or the other though).

So, in the end your viewpoint is arguing that we should artificially sustain people who would otherwise hop out of the gene pool based on the ideal that they MIGHT make some meaningful and lasting contribution to society, where this is largely likely not the case.

As far as the calculator goes...if children only ever used calculators, after enough generations, children would start lacking in fundamental math skills. Using technology as a crutch, either to supplant functions that can already be performed by humans or to sustain "the back of the pack" hurts the entire species in the long run.

Example: a group of twenty varied humans running from a hungry lion (odds are, said scenario has happened at least once). The front runners definately can get away. The middle runners have a 50/50 chance. The tailing runners are definately lion-take-out (hey, the lion has to eat too).

If the entire pack slows to help pull the tailing runners along, the majority of the group will be overtaken, where if the front runners and middle runners manage to get away, their offspring will inherit the traits that made their forebears able to outrun the hungry angry lion. Uh huh, survival of the fittest.

It's cold, immoral, unsympathetic, and all other kinds of wrong (from an individual standpoint), but that's how evolution works. Evolution doesn't care about our human standards of morality.

[DesignFox]

I guess my point is that we're not in the savannah running away from the lions, anymore.

If we were, our situation would be a bit different.

And to some degree I actually agree with you- there are some people that I don't feel are "worth" sustaining. But it's not my right to make that decision. Some of the people I would say we should let die out of mercy, their family members (or other maybe less callous people than me) would say we should strive to keep alive...either because they think we may find a cure for them..or because of their emotional attachment...I don't know.

I think that as long as someone is a contributing member of society, no matter how small their contribution, they are helping society and should be sustained.

Maybe it is emotional. But that's how humans are. Maybe my emotional state would one day prevent me from surviving. I don't know. Would the less emotional of us go on to survive because we didn't let sentiment get in the way of us living? I don't know. But I think it is a part of human nature to want to keep our fellow beings alive and limit their suffering. We want to "fix" our bodies. I don't think its a weakness. I don't think man would have come this far if it wasn't for our intelligence and compassion for one another.

Why do we even have emotions if we aren't supposed to let them govern some of our decisions?

[tendomentis]

I guess my point is that we're not in the savannah running away from the lions, anymore.

If we were, our situation would be a bit different.

And to some degree I actually agree with you- there are some people that I don't feel are "worth" sustaining. But it's not my right to make that decision. Some of the people I would say we should let die out of mercy, their family members (or other maybe less callous people than me) would say we should strive to keep alive...either because they think we may find a cure for them..or because of their emotional attachment...I don't know.

I think that as long as someone is a contributing member of society, no matter how small their contribution, they are helping society and should be sustained.

Maybe it is emotional. But that's how humans are. Maybe my emotional state would one day prevent me from surviving. I don't know. Would the less emotional of us go on to survive because we didn't let sentiment get in the way of us living? I don't know. But I think it is a part of human nature to want to keep our fellow beings alive and limit their suffering. We want to "fix" our bodies. I don't think its a weakness. I don't think man would have come this far if it wasn't for our intelligence and compassion for one another.

Why do we even have emotions if we aren't supposed to let them govern some of our decisions?

Actually, "man" has only come as far as he has to make things easier on "himself". Our technological advancement did not come from a spirit of empathy for others. Human nature is that each human wants what is best for that human. If it helps others along the way, all the better since it tends to garner extra attention, praise, and other advantages, but there is no such thing as pure philanthropy in a human being.

We might not be running from lions on a daily basis anymore (well, not EVERY day anyway), but the metaphor is still applicable. Competing systems did not stop evolving because we halted or stunted our own evolution; those competing systems are still trying to out-advantage us while we're resting comfortably on our declining laurels, as it were.

Those individuals that you think are contributing in "some small way"...I think that kind of situation would benefit from a cost benefit analysis. It seems cold, but I guarantee the rest of the universe/nature isn't concerned about the morality of the situation.

[DesignFox]

... Competing systems did not stop evolving because we halted or stunted our own evolution; those competing systems are still trying to out-advantage us while we're resting comfortably on our declining laurels, as it were.

Those individuals that you think are contributing in "some small way"...I think that kind of situation would benefit from a cost benefit analysis. It seems cold, but I guarantee the rest of the universe/nature isn't concerned about the morality of the situation...

Maybe not. But I think that's what separates us from other animals.

As for competing systems, the one argument I can see is the ongoing debate about the use of anti-microbials. Over sterilization may be creating "super-bugs" and stunting our immune systems.

I don't think vaccinations hold us back from an evolutionary standpoint, because through the use of said vaccines, we've managed to eradicate certain diseases. They aren't a threat to us because we killed them off.

I guess we could go back to just getting sick and hoping for the best... maybe that would "toughen" us up to disease...or it could lead to us being wiped out if nobody made it. There's no gaurantee that anyone would survive if a super virus/bacteria started killing us. And there are more humans on the planet now than ever before.

Of course, it could be argued that making life more comfortable for ourselves has helped there to be too many of us...and maybe we'll overpopulate our way to extinction. But then, I guess that would be evolution itself at work...

I think no matter what we do, nature will take its course. Whether we sit back and stop taking our medicine, stop wearing our glasses and let our "weaker" brethren live or die... I don't think it would matter.

[tendomentis]

Maybe not. But I think that's what separates us from other animals.

As for competing systems, the one argument I can see is the ongoing debate about the use of anti-microbials. Over sterilization may be creating "super-bugs" and stunting our immune systems.

I don't think vaccinations hold us back from an evolutionary standpoint, because through the use of said vaccines, we've managed to eradicate certain diseases. They aren't a threat to us because we killed them off.

I guess we could go back to just getting sick and hoping for the best... maybe that would "toughen" us up to disease...or it could lead to us being wiped out if nobody made it. There's no gaurantee that anyone would survive if a super virus/bacteria started killing us. And there are more humans on the planet now than ever before.

Of course, it could be argued that making life more comfortable for ourselves has helped there to be too many of us...and maybe we'll overpopulate our way to extinction. But then, I guess that would be evolution itself at work...

I think no matter what we do, nature will take its course. Whether we sit back and stop taking our medicine, stop wearing our glasses and let our "weaker" brethren live or die... I don't think it would matter.

I just don't understand the sentiment that we're somehow seperate from the animals. The human race just happens to be the largest (in terms of population) and smartest primate on the planet, but we are still in fact animals. We act like animals, utterly preocuppied with procreation (look at our media for evidence of that).

In a mass die off from disease, there is almost ALWAYS a small percentage that remain resistant, and in the few cases where there aren't it's because the losing species fell behind in the evolutionary arms race. That's evolution. You can postpone it, but you can't remove the threat completely.

We haven't completely erradicated the dangerous diseases. Take away our precious technology, and within a year you would have massive die-offs from diphtheria and malaria in metropolitan centers across the USA. We are shielded by our technology temporarily, and these diseases are busy evolving around our artificial countermeasures. Polio and other major diseases aren't gone, they're just waiting and continuing to evolve.

[Seshat]

Human nature is that each human wants what is best for that human. If it helps others along the way, all the better since it tends to garner extra attention, praise, and other advantages, but there is no such thing as pure philanthropy in a human being.

That's cold and cynical. And I disagree with it.

I also know I'm never going to be able to change your mind about it, so I'm not even going to try. I'll simply state that I completely disagree. Some humans are self-centered, sure. But others aren't. And I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations. Charity for its own sake is a part of the human spirit.

[tendomentis]

That's cold and cynical. And I disagree with it.

I also know I'm never going to be able to change your mind about it, so I'm not even going to try. I'll simply state that I completely disagree. Some humans are self-centered, sure. But others aren't. And I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations. Charity for its own sake is a part of the human spirit.

Disagreeing is fine Seshat

It's an age-old philosophy question. To date, there is no recorded example of "pure philanthropy" ever having occured within the human species. When you break it down, even the most charitable act benefits the individual performing the act in some manner.

Yes, it's cold and cynical, but the universe we inhabit is not all sugar, spice, and everything nice. It's only human sentiment that wishes it were so, but if wishes were horses...

[Norton]

I do believe in pure philanthropy and pure generosity as human motivations

I don't. Everything we do is for a reward. Even pure charity is rewarded by a sense of self-satisfaction, or a feeling of being useful, or by lifting the burden of guilt. We help others because it feels good to do so. Not that there's anything wrong with feeling good for helping others, but it is still a reward. No act is completely selfless.

[tendomentis]

I don't. Everything we do is for a reward. Even pure charity is rewarded by a sense of self-satisfaction, or a feeling of being useful, or by lifting the burden of guilt. We help others because it feels good to do so. Not that there's anything wrong with feeling good for helping others, but it is still a reward. No act is completely selfless.

That's what I was talking about. The "emotional kickback". Humans can't "progress" for anyone but themselves. We developed newer technologies to make our own individual lives better, not for the good of society.

All of our technology wasn't created to make life easier for humanity, but to make life easier for the person inventing it. The fact that it benefits others is a side-effect. Some inventions made others lives more miserable while still benefiting the owner/inventor (think weapons of mass destruction).

My point in this thread was to question whether that "spirit of invention" (as it's often romanticized) is actually harmful to our species in the long term.

[Boozy]

To date, there is no recorded example of "pure philanthropy" ever having occured within the human species.

That's quite a claim you're making there, and frankly impossible to prove or disprove unless you are familiar with every recorded action in history.