How does medicine play into the theory of evolution?

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: NSFW
If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

no.

where do you think modern medicine comes from?

The use of plants in the aid of healing has been around since the dawn of mans existence. they have been used to cure many diseases through out time.

incorporating that fact into your statement, one could concluded that we have, in essence artificially prolonged our own existence since we first appeared.

or we have forced our body, thanks to the genetics of our most ancient ancestors, to have use, and easily become in need of such natural remedies to ease ailments.

Whether the other primates discovered the chemicals first or the first hominids, our current body has become able, willing, and ready to ingest the finest mix of the most potent chemicals man has discovered, but why?

As a species, it is terrible to have to rely on chemicals that serve as insecticides of sorts for plants, to alter our neurotransmitter levels.

It may be natural, but it also ridiculous. Now, for the enjoyment of something that makes us feel really good, cool. But for the use just to get by?

Now granted, that is what helps us distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence and the advancement of the species.
But it's going to pay a price when man collapses and we have to pick ourselves up once again and figure out what we did wrong and where to go next. It already is, because it has helped push the morality button to the edge.
Morally, we say we need to help every human struggling and help them live.
Logically, that's the most retarded thing a species can do.

However, I am NOT going to get into eugenics. It's pointless to argue because we tried it once, at a time when we were actually quite capable of holding an intelligent discussion about it, but well... a decade or two after that time, Hitler had to go and push it way too far, and everyone who was in favor of eugenics to same degree, tried to find every way possible to distance themselves from the subject. If I remember right one of the presidents even agreed to some extent.

Back to the medicine bit, and in a different light:

Natural plant remedies were one thing. And still... taking those very same chemicals and putting them into regular use... not so bad.
But there are worse: not necessarily specific chemical treatments, but the medical practice in general.

We put so much time and money into trying to help people who will never live a normal life. The strain that overly obese people have on health care, the smokers receiving so much health care, those in very long comas, or on full life-support.
So many people receive treatment to even just get a few more years or months added to their lifespan.

The choices we make, and their consequences, should be enough. But yet, we get so many chances to recover from those consequences, and yet I guarantee over half of those people go on to make the same or different yet just as risky decisions.

Why? Because we're humans and we just LOVE all other humans.

As an animal on Earth, I like to think up all the things we could do to become a better species, and push mankind further into a truly intelligent, and one day, intergalactic race. Eugenics is one of them, because in honesty, that's the natural tendency of animals and life itself - weak die, strong survive. Abnormal die, "perfect" live. Some are exiled from the group/tribe, and some rise to the top or to leadership in general. All depends on what animal kingdom we are talking about.
But in general, the imperfect are left behind to die. The normal ones live.
Let me clear that up: the individual may live, but their genetic line dies. The imperfect never get a chance to mate.
Today, we are all morally obedient, and we have these feeeeeelings. Even the fattest man on earth has a girlfriend. .... I just don't get it.

But I'm a cold-hearted bastard only in my mind. I have all these thoughts and whatnot. I'll mostly use them as controversial subjects and ideas in my future 'man is retarded dystopian thriller'. 😛
As a modern human... in the physical world and outside of my very creative, very cold mind... I would actually most likely put my life in harms way to save a quadriplegic in a dire situation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: NSFW
If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

no.

where do you think modern medicine comes from?

The use of plants in the aid of healing has been around since the dawn of mans existence. they have been used to cure many diseases through out time.

incorporating that fact into your statement, one could concluded that we have, in essence artificially prolonged our own existence since we first appeared.

or we have forced our body, thanks to the genetics of our most ancient ancestors, to have use, and easily become in need of such natural remedies to ease ailments.

Whether the other primates discovered the chemicals first or the first hominids, our current body has become able, willing, and ready to ingest the finest mix of the most potent chemicals man has discovered, but why?

As a species, it is terrible to have to rely on chemicals that serve as insecticides of sorts for plants, to alter our neurotransmitter levels.

It may be natural, but it also ridiculous. Now, for the enjoyment of something that makes us feel really good, cool. But for the use just to get by?

Now granted, that is what helps us distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence and the advancement of the species.
But it's going to pay a price when man collapses and we have to pick ourselves up once again and figure out what we did wrong and where to go next. It already is, because it has helped push the morality button to the edge.
Morally, we say we need to help every human struggling and help them live.
Logically, that's the most retarded thing a species can do.

However, I am NOT going to get into eugenics. It's pointless to argue because we tried it once, at a time when we were actually quite capable of holding an intelligent discussion about it, but well... a decade or two after that time, Hitler had to go and push it way too far, and everyone who was in favor of eugenics to same degree, tried to find every way possible to distance themselves from the subject. If I remember right one of the presidents even agreed to some extent.

Back to the medicine bit, and in a different light:

Natural plant remedies were one thing. And still... taking those very same chemicals and putting them into regular use... not so bad.
But there are worse: not necessarily specific chemical treatments, but the medical practice in general.

We put so much time and money into trying to help people who will never live a normal life. The strain that overly obese people have on health care, the smokers receiving so much health care, those in very long comas, or on full life-support.
So many people receive treatment to even just get a few more years or months added to their lifespan.

The choices we make, and their consequences, should be enough. But yet, we get so many chances to recover from those consequences, and yet I guarantee over half of those people go on to make the same or different yet just as risky decisions.

Why? Because we're humans and we just LOVE all other humans.

As an animal on Earth, I like to think up all the things we could do to become a better species, and push mankind further into a truly intelligent, and one day, intergalactic race. Eugenics is one of them, because in honesty, that's the natural tendency of animals and life itself - weak die, strong survive. Abnormal die, "perfect" live. Some are exiled from the group/tribe, and some rise to the top or to leadership in general. All depends on what animal kingdom we are talking about.
But in general, the imperfect are left behind to die. The normal ones live.
Let me clear that up: the individual may live, but their genetic line dies. The imperfect never get a chance to mate.
Today, we are all morally obedient, and we have these feeeeeelings. Even the fattest man on earth has a girlfriend. .... I just don't get it.

But I'm a cold-hearted bastard only in my mind. I have all these thoughts and whatnot. I'll mostly use them as controversial subjects and ideas in my future 'man is retarded dystopian thriller'. 😛
As a modern human... in the physical world and outside of my very creative, very cold mind... I would actually most likely put my life in harms way to save a quadriplegic in a dire situation.

uhhh, no. "Strongest" "Best" has nothing to do with Evolution.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sandorski
We are Animals. The more we Learn about Animals, the more we realize they are like us. Animals are not Pre-programmed with "Instinct", they Learn just as we do. They just do so on a much smaller scale.

Actually quite the opposite.

Animals have instinct. We have far more instincts than you may realize.

But we are also such a broad species in numbers, with less than ideal genetic heritage (those not fit for breeding in natural terms have been in the breeding population of mankind for a long time)... that our instincts have become blurry.

In one person, an instinct might be to run from an intense situation, the next person the instinct is to stick around to take care of business. Aka fight or flight.

Man is an animal. Some of our instincts show themselves all the time - fighting is an instinct, the art of finding a compatible mate is instinct (this has been blurred due to a very retarded society).

Certain instincts are learned from the elders you are around most. Other times, learning just reinforces natural instincts.

Many animals can go without ever seeing one of their own kind their whole lives, yet could easily live in the wild nature if their had good instincts/genetics.
Without education, I bet everyone would be surprised what a human could still accomplish. I mean, never learning anything. It'd be a cool experiment, very against morality, but whatever... take a few humans, never teach them anything other than maybe some basic language, and set them loose in the wild. I mean wild, as in not in our fancy comfortable living.
I actually wonder if man could get by as easily as more ancient man in the wild - I mean, our genetics have become far more varied, not as ideal.

However, true mankind instincts are hard to ever see at play, because instincts aren't as useful in our kind of society. We live comfortably. Every real need can be satisfied with ease - hunger and water, in developed society, are never hard to find.
However, I'd love to see humans living very wild natural lives. Watching humans slay animals with whatever they can construct or find, watching how brutal they get when they haven't had food in awhile and some men nearby have food, watching how we scavenge and how we organize. Would we be truly tribal like I imagine we would be?
Oh, and I'd argue that's another natural instinct - social structure. How do we group? What leads us to that way? I think naturally we had essentially marriage without the marriage. We had life partners, raised kids, and we either had only family-based tribes, or larger tribes that was a collection of families. And no matter what, each tribe probably had 3 generations - the youth, their parents, and the elders.

 

[SampSon]

Medicine is very much part of evolution, humans are the most prolific species in utilization.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sandorski
We are Animals. The more we Learn about Animals, the more we realize they are like us. Animals are not Pre-programmed with "Instinct", they Learn just as we do. They just do so on a much smaller scale.

Actually quite the opposite.

Animals have instinct. We have far more instincts than you may realize.

But we are also such a broad species in numbers, with less than ideal genetic heritage (those not fit for breeding in natural terms have been in the breeding population of mankind for a long time)... that our instincts have become blurry.

In one person, an instinct might be to run from an intense situation, the next person the instinct is to stick around to take care of business. Aka fight or flight.

Man is an animal. Some of our instincts show themselves all the time - fighting is an instinct, the art of finding a compatible mate is instinct (this has been blurred due to a very retarded society).

Certain instincts are learned from the elders you are around most. Other times, learning just reinforces natural instincts.

Many animals can go without ever seeing one of their own kind their whole lives, yet could easily live in the wild nature if their had good instincts/genetics.
Without education, I bet everyone would be surprised what a human could still accomplish. I mean, never learning anything. It'd be a cool experiment, very against morality, but whatever... take a few humans, never teach them anything other than maybe some basic language, and set them loose in the wild. I mean wild, as in not in our fancy comfortable living.
I actually wonder if man could get by as easily as more ancient man in the wild - I mean, our genetics have become far more varied, not as ideal.

However, true mankind instincts are hard to ever see at play, because instincts aren't as useful in our kind of society. We live comfortably. Every real need can be satisfied with ease - hunger and water, in developed society, are never hard to find.
However, I'd love to see humans living very wild natural lives. Watching humans slay animals with whatever they can construct or find, watching how brutal they get when they haven't had food in awhile and some men nearby have food, watching how we scavenge and how we organize. Would we be truly tribal like I imagine we would be?
Oh, and I'd argue that's another natural instinct - social structure. How do we group? What leads us to that way? I think naturally we had essentially marriage without the marriage. We had life partners, raised kids, and we either had only family-based tribes, or larger tribes that was a collection of families. And no matter what, each tribe probably had 3 generations - the youth, their parents, and the elders.

My point was that they are not Automatons who merely act on Instinct. That is an old view that is debunked every time extensive study is conducted into specific Animal species.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: NSFW
If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

no.

where do you think modern medicine comes from?

The use of plants in the aid of healing has been around since the dawn of mans existence. they have been used to cure many diseases through out time.

incorporating that fact into your statement, one could concluded that we have, in essence artificially prolonged our own existence since we first appeared.

or we have forced our body, thanks to the genetics of our most ancient ancestors, to have use, and easily become in need of such natural remedies to ease ailments.

Whether the other primates discovered the chemicals first or the first hominids, our current body has become able, willing, and ready to ingest the finest mix of the most potent chemicals man has discovered, but why?

As a species, it is terrible to have to rely on chemicals that serve as insecticides of sorts for plants, to alter our neurotransmitter levels.

It may be natural, but it also ridiculous. Now, for the enjoyment of something that makes us feel really good, cool. But for the use just to get by?

Now granted, that is what helps us distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence and the advancement of the species.
But it's going to pay a price when man collapses and we have to pick ourselves up once again and figure out what we did wrong and where to go next. It already is, because it has helped push the morality button to the edge.
Morally, we say we need to help every human struggling and help them live.
Logically, that's the most retarded thing a species can do.

However, I am NOT going to get into eugenics. It's pointless to argue because we tried it once, at a time when we were actually quite capable of holding an intelligent discussion about it, but well... a decade or two after that time, Hitler had to go and push it way too far, and everyone who was in favor of eugenics to same degree, tried to find every way possible to distance themselves from the subject. If I remember right one of the presidents even agreed to some extent.

Back to the medicine bit, and in a different light:

Natural plant remedies were one thing. And still... taking those very same chemicals and putting them into regular use... not so bad.
But there are worse: not necessarily specific chemical treatments, but the medical practice in general.

We put so much time and money into trying to help people who will never live a normal life. The strain that overly obese people have on health care, the smokers receiving so much health care, those in very long comas, or on full life-support.
So many people receive treatment to even just get a few more years or months added to their lifespan.

The choices we make, and their consequences, should be enough. But yet, we get so many chances to recover from those consequences, and yet I guarantee over half of those people go on to make the same or different yet just as risky decisions.

Why? Because we're humans and we just LOVE all other humans.

As an animal on Earth, I like to think up all the things we could do to become a better species, and push mankind further into a truly intelligent, and one day, intergalactic race. Eugenics is one of them, because in honesty, that's the natural tendency of animals and life itself - weak die, strong survive. Abnormal die, "perfect" live. Some are exiled from the group/tribe, and some rise to the top or to leadership in general. All depends on what animal kingdom we are talking about.
But in general, the imperfect are left behind to die. The normal ones live.
Let me clear that up: the individual may live, but their genetic line dies. The imperfect never get a chance to mate.
Today, we are all morally obedient, and we have these feeeeeelings. Even the fattest man on earth has a girlfriend. .... I just don't get it.

But I'm a cold-hearted bastard only in my mind. I have all these thoughts and whatnot. I'll mostly use them as controversial subjects and ideas in my future 'man is retarded dystopian thriller'. 😛
As a modern human... in the physical world and outside of my very creative, very cold mind... I would actually most likely put my life in harms way to save a quadriplegic in a dire situation.

uhhh, no. "Strongest" "Best" has nothing to do with Evolution.

Since when?
Well, I guess it depends how you look at it...

I tend to couple evolution with natural selection. The two go hand in hand.
Evolution, in definition, is essentially just the random mutations of species and the eventual creation of a new species from an already present species.
But random mutations, which created the new species, weren't always beneficial. Thus, natural selection. The strongest and best survived, leaving the better species.

So this whole medicine thing with humans, has nothing to do with evolution. But it is a preservation of species thing, and the way our medical practices are, we'd probably prevent a beneficial mutation from becoming a dominant genetic line, which could prevent a species split hundreds of thousands of years later.

Hmm..

In short - you are correct - my original post was not really meant to be seen as an argument that had anything to do with Evolution.
I tried to bullshit a connection above, and couldn't do it. At least without writing a novel. And I'm feeling especially lazy of the mind right now. Been a hazy week. Gotta love spring break. 🙂

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sandorski
We are Animals. The more we Learn about Animals, the more we realize they are like us. Animals are not Pre-programmed with "Instinct", they Learn just as we do. They just do so on a much smaller scale.

Actually quite the opposite.

Animals have instinct. We have far more instincts than you may realize.

But we are also such a broad species in numbers, with less than ideal genetic heritage (those not fit for breeding in natural terms have been in the breeding population of mankind for a long time)... that our instincts have become blurry.

In one person, an instinct might be to run from an intense situation, the next person the instinct is to stick around to take care of business. Aka fight or flight.

Man is an animal. Some of our instincts show themselves all the time - fighting is an instinct, the art of finding a compatible mate is instinct (this has been blurred due to a very retarded society).

Certain instincts are learned from the elders you are around most. Other times, learning just reinforces natural instincts.

Many animals can go without ever seeing one of their own kind their whole lives, yet could easily live in the wild nature if their had good instincts/genetics.
Without education, I bet everyone would be surprised what a human could still accomplish. I mean, never learning anything. It'd be a cool experiment, very against morality, but whatever... take a few humans, never teach them anything other than maybe some basic language, and set them loose in the wild. I mean wild, as in not in our fancy comfortable living.
I actually wonder if man could get by as easily as more ancient man in the wild - I mean, our genetics have become far more varied, not as ideal.

However, true mankind instincts are hard to ever see at play, because instincts aren't as useful in our kind of society. We live comfortably. Every real need can be satisfied with ease - hunger and water, in developed society, are never hard to find.
However, I'd love to see humans living very wild natural lives. Watching humans slay animals with whatever they can construct or find, watching how brutal they get when they haven't had food in awhile and some men nearby have food, watching how we scavenge and how we organize. Would we be truly tribal like I imagine we would be?
Oh, and I'd argue that's another natural instinct - social structure. How do we group? What leads us to that way? I think naturally we had essentially marriage without the marriage. We had life partners, raised kids, and we either had only family-based tribes, or larger tribes that was a collection of families. And no matter what, each tribe probably had 3 generations - the youth, their parents, and the elders.

Do0d, stop rambling. Instincts are NOT learned, that is counter to the very biological DEFINITION of instinct:

a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

Instinct is NOT learned. :roll:

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'll give you an example to consider the interaction you're thinking about.

Sickle cell anemia is thought to continue its existence due to natural selection, as a defense to malaria. As we are developing better malaria prevention we should normally see sickle cell phase out as well, since there will no longer be a natural selection benefit for carrying that gene. Except that we are also developing sickle cell treatments, meaning there is no negative reinforcement to remove the trait from the gene pool.

So, the benefit to mankind of malaria medicine would be the near eradication of sickle cell anemia, except that medicine keeps people with the sickle cell trait alive and reproducing, thus preventing it from being selected out.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

My point was that they are not Automatons who merely act on Instinct. That is an old view that is debunked every time extensive study is conducted into specific Animal species.

I'd agree.
I'd say at first, all animals are on autodrive while young.

But most all complex animals learn. It's kind of a nature vs nurture thing. Animals have instincts that are used to survive, but instincts don't always provide the best course of action, and animals over time learn to deal with certain inefficiencies and discover better methods.

And I'm surprised that old view lasted so long - watch any animal group, and with enough observation you'll see even different animals in the same genetic line will have their own little quirks. Sometimes even enough to say it's a personality.

The more intelligent the species, the more apparent this becomes.

But watching a lot of animals, you can see they do things that wouldn't be considered instinct. Animals will play with siblings and whatnot. Hell, even play with other species, comically sometimes even with a species that would normally be an "enemy".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: NSFW
If the theory is that the strong survive and the weak die off, aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases?

no.

where do you think modern medicine comes from?

The use of plants in the aid of healing has been around since the dawn of mans existence. they have been used to cure many diseases through out time.

incorporating that fact into your statement, one could concluded that we have, in essence artificially prolonged our own existence since we first appeared.

or we have forced our body, thanks to the genetics of our most ancient ancestors, to have use, and easily become in need of such natural remedies to ease ailments.

Whether the other primates discovered the chemicals first or the first hominids, our current body has become able, willing, and ready to ingest the finest mix of the most potent chemicals man has discovered, but why?

As a species, it is terrible to have to rely on chemicals that serve as insecticides of sorts for plants, to alter our neurotransmitter levels.

It may be natural, but it also ridiculous. Now, for the enjoyment of something that makes us feel really good, cool. But for the use just to get by?

Now granted, that is what helps us distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence and the advancement of the species.
But it's going to pay a price when man collapses and we have to pick ourselves up once again and figure out what we did wrong and where to go next. It already is, because it has helped push the morality button to the edge.
Morally, we say we need to help every human struggling and help them live.
Logically, that's the most retarded thing a species can do.

However, I am NOT going to get into eugenics. It's pointless to argue because we tried it once, at a time when we were actually quite capable of holding an intelligent discussion about it, but well... a decade or two after that time, Hitler had to go and push it way too far, and everyone who was in favor of eugenics to same degree, tried to find every way possible to distance themselves from the subject. If I remember right one of the presidents even agreed to some extent.

Back to the medicine bit, and in a different light:

Natural plant remedies were one thing. And still... taking those very same chemicals and putting them into regular use... not so bad.
But there are worse: not necessarily specific chemical treatments, but the medical practice in general.

We put so much time and money into trying to help people who will never live a normal life. The strain that overly obese people have on health care, the smokers receiving so much health care, those in very long comas, or on full life-support.
So many people receive treatment to even just get a few more years or months added to their lifespan.

The choices we make, and their consequences, should be enough. But yet, we get so many chances to recover from those consequences, and yet I guarantee over half of those people go on to make the same or different yet just as risky decisions.

Why? Because we're humans and we just LOVE all other humans.

As an animal on Earth, I like to think up all the things we could do to become a better species, and push mankind further into a truly intelligent, and one day, intergalactic race. Eugenics is one of them, because in honesty, that's the natural tendency of animals and life itself - weak die, strong survive. Abnormal die, "perfect" live. Some are exiled from the group/tribe, and some rise to the top or to leadership in general. All depends on what animal kingdom we are talking about.
But in general, the imperfect are left behind to die. The normal ones live.
Let me clear that up: the individual may live, but their genetic line dies. The imperfect never get a chance to mate.
Today, we are all morally obedient, and we have these feeeeeelings. Even the fattest man on earth has a girlfriend. .... I just don't get it.

But I'm a cold-hearted bastard only in my mind. I have all these thoughts and whatnot. I'll mostly use them as controversial subjects and ideas in my future 'man is retarded dystopian thriller'. 😛
As a modern human... in the physical world and outside of my very creative, very cold mind... I would actually most likely put my life in harms way to save a quadriplegic in a dire situation.

uhhh, no. "Strongest" "Best" has nothing to do with Evolution.

Since when?
Well, I guess it depends how you look at it...

I tend to couple evolution with natural selection. The two go hand in hand.
Evolution, in definition, is essentially just the random mutations of species and the eventual creation of a new species from an already present species.
But random mutations, which created the new species, weren't always beneficial. Thus, natural selection. The strongest and best survived, leaving the better species.

So this whole medicine thing with humans, has nothing to do with evolution. But it is a preservation of species thing, and the way our medical practices are, we'd probably prevent a beneficial mutation from becoming a dominant genetic line, which could prevent a species split hundreds of thousands of years later.

Hmm..

In short - you are correct - my original post was not really meant to be seen as an argument that had anything to do with Evolution.
I tried to bullshit a connection above, and couldn't do it. At least without writing a novel. And I'm feeling especially lazy of the mind right now. Been a hazy week. Gotta love spring break. 🙂

Eugenics was about creating a Super Race, Evolution is not. How things Evolve is not a matter of Strength, but of containing the proper adaptations for the current conditions. Depending on those conditions, one adaptation may be a benefit for a time, then become a disadvantage, then become a benefit again. There is no move towards Perfection, there is only the ever present Most Adapted.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sandorski
We are Animals. The more we Learn about Animals, the more we realize they are like us. Animals are not Pre-programmed with "Instinct", they Learn just as we do. They just do so on a much smaller scale.

Actually quite the opposite.

Animals have instinct. We have far more instincts than you may realize.

But we are also such a broad species in numbers, with less than ideal genetic heritage (those not fit for breeding in natural terms have been in the breeding population of mankind for a long time)... that our instincts have become blurry.

In one person, an instinct might be to run from an intense situation, the next person the instinct is to stick around to take care of business. Aka fight or flight.

Man is an animal. Some of our instincts show themselves all the time - fighting is an instinct, the art of finding a compatible mate is instinct (this has been blurred due to a very retarded society).

Certain instincts are learned from the elders you are around most. Other times, learning just reinforces natural instincts.

Many animals can go without ever seeing one of their own kind their whole lives, yet could easily live in the wild nature if their had good instincts/genetics.
Without education, I bet everyone would be surprised what a human could still accomplish. I mean, never learning anything. It'd be a cool experiment, very against morality, but whatever... take a few humans, never teach them anything other than maybe some basic language, and set them loose in the wild. I mean wild, as in not in our fancy comfortable living.
I actually wonder if man could get by as easily as more ancient man in the wild - I mean, our genetics have become far more varied, not as ideal.

However, true mankind instincts are hard to ever see at play, because instincts aren't as useful in our kind of society. We live comfortably. Every real need can be satisfied with ease - hunger and water, in developed society, are never hard to find.
However, I'd love to see humans living very wild natural lives. Watching humans slay animals with whatever they can construct or find, watching how brutal they get when they haven't had food in awhile and some men nearby have food, watching how we scavenge and how we organize. Would we be truly tribal like I imagine we would be?
Oh, and I'd argue that's another natural instinct - social structure. How do we group? What leads us to that way? I think naturally we had essentially marriage without the marriage. We had life partners, raised kids, and we either had only family-based tribes, or larger tribes that was a collection of families. And no matter what, each tribe probably had 3 generations - the youth, their parents, and the elders.

Do0d, stop rambling. Instincts are NOT learned, that is counter to the very biological DEFINITION of instinct:

a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

Instinct is NOT learned. :roll:

Bah. You are debating an error in typing. Yeesh. It's been a long week without mental use, spring break... slip of mind there.

I know what an instinct is.
I was saying that an animal can append knowledge/thoughts/experience to an instinct. That alone can be debated, I agree, but at the moment I cannot determine another way to word that.

I.e. An instinct leads to one outcome. Let's say its a human instinct, doesn't matter which instinct.
That human commits the actions that are programmed as an instinct as a response to an environmental situation. However, over time this humans gains experience and begins to learn any problems in the oft-repeated actions, certain risks and possible consequences.
The human encounters the same environmental situation again. This might be a strictly human thing, not sure... but that human might give it a moments thought as to whether 'go by the book' or change it up.

However, I might be adding too much to this, and in part may be dipping into what separates humans from other animals. We have a more complex mental process, and might have more control.

Or maybe... hmm

Animals might not be able to change anything regarding instincts, or add to them or whatever. However, they might learn the environmental triggers that set off their instincts, and through time learn to find ways to avoid the situation, such as tackling the problem before it throws the mind into "full stress, let's ignore all thought and use instincts" mode.
Because I'd say the easiest way to witness instinct in an animal is throw them into a situation deemed full stress. Stress - not as in work stress, but as in mental/physical life stress, like life is threatened, hunger is so severe that that squirrel in the tree might be the difference between eating today and not, and might not seeing tomorrow.

I'd say human instinct comes into play, in any situation where one finds themselves without any time whatsoever to think, and rather simply act. And maybe when your done you look back and say, why did I do any of that like that? Instincts would be what lead animals to do what likely needs to be done, in moments where mental thought will severely threaten the chances of successfully conducting said actions.

 

[0roo0roo]

it continues.

perhaps the idiots like bill maher who rant against vaccination and stuff will be less reproductively successful over time.

bill himself shall not continue his line, so its a start.

 

[spikespiegal]

aren't we screwing with the future of the human race by trying to cure diseases

Yes...and no.

Improvements in the lifespan of human beings over the past century due to medical technology have little to do with genetic resistance to disease. The reason is simple; most people have children at a young age, and hence don't breed in the later stages of their lives when they usually require more medical assistance. The more dramatic irony to this is nations that have higher birth rates tend to have lower life expectancies. Also, the more technologically advanced a country (or social class is) the lower birth rates tend to be. Call it racist or whatever....but access to medicine tends not to be proportional to birth rates.

Also, it is extremely doubtfull that medical technology will 'cure' all disease because access to medical resources will always be finite. I dare say that when we can (if ever) claim a 100yr average life expectancy for every nation on earth we will have evolved to the point of not being called human anymore.

The other arguement about humo-sapien being considered (or not considered) a class of 'animal' is downright scary. The cold truth is that all plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc., are nothing but mechanisms for a complicated string of molecules to replicate itself. The most abstract human thoughts about the universe only occur because some molecule has a large brain size encoded in it's protein sequences. There are more than a few virii and bacteria that can easily host in both humans and primates as evidence of just how closely we are akin to our nearest genetic neighbors.

We can change our environment, which is basically the only unique skill of homo-sapien worth noting, and that only to the advantage of those sequences of molecules which evolved to give us the brain capacity to due so.

"Altering genetic code to make up more disease resistant"

Blah..blah..blah. More likely a rich CEO would use this technology to make his offspring taller and have blonde hair rather than improve the lives of kids in Africa. Or, we'll flip the gene to erradicate type 1 diabetes and result in an chronic allergy to polyester or something.

I'll now let you Liberty University graduates go back to bickering 😀

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
"it is not the fittest of the species that survives, but the ones most responsive to change"

Tits.

Please don't confuse the bullshit bastardized Social Darwinism, a favorite since the 1880's or so of the rich and privileged, Nazis and other facists, with Darwin's actual theory.

One is science, the other is ugly, simple-minded socio-political demagoguery and the favorite collective misapprehension of feeble-minded ATOT level posters and the partisan hacks they love.

I guess I haven't looked into it enough. I have haven't heard of social darwinism but I used to bang a chick that was into Neo Darwinism.

This is one of those questions that pops into my brain and I play with when I get bored. I guess I still don't understand it. Wouldn't the human race be better off in the long run if the people who were genetically inclined to have diseases were taken out of the gene pool?

many congenital diseases are actually evolutionary adaptations themselves, for instance sickle cell anemia is an adaptation to counter malaria