The Force: has Technology trumped evolution?

[coberst]

The Force: has Technology trumped evolution?

Darwin informs us that natural selection, i.e. evolution, has been the guiding force determining the course of biological change. Natural selection, i.e. evolution, operates far too slowly to compete with Technology in the present and future determination of biological change.

Just ask the Polar Bear!

Is Technology the “true” meaning of Intelligent Design?

[trueromantic]

As A.C Doyle memorably wrote, 'When man tries to rise above nature, he is apt to fall below it.' :thumbs_up

[TheFifthElement]

I think you've missed a step. Technology is evidence of evolution in practice.

Humans have evolved to use and develop technology. Everything arising from that is therefore a product of natural selection. Technology is therefore natural in that it is a natural product of humans' evolutionary advantage. If technology is damaging to the environment, or the ability of other creatures to live in the environment, then this is an activity of humans, being the dominant species, and again evidence of evolution in practice.

If your question is whether technology is the true meaning of 'intelligent design' in the respect that the phrase 'intelligent design' is intrinsically linked to the concept of God as a creator then I think no. I don't think humans can be elevated to the status of God whether you believe in God or otherwise. Humans are humans. Technology is just a tool humans use to manipulate their environment and increase their chances of survival. Of course if misused it could decrease our chances of survival but again this would be evolution in practice. Technology does not make humans omniscient.

[coberst]

I think you've missed a step. Technology is evidence of evolution in practice.

Humans have evolved to use and develop technology. Everything arising from that is therefore a product of natural selection. Technology is therefore natural in that it is a natural product of humans' evolutionary advantage. If technology is damaging to the environment, or the ability of other creatures to live in the environment, then this is an activity of humans, being the dominant species, and again evidence of evolution in practice.

.

Humans are the result of natural selection. Humans have evolved with the ability to develop technology. Technology has become strong enough to overcome the influence of natural selection because technology changes the natural world much faster than natural selection can act thus aborting natural selection.

Technology replaces natural selection because natural selection no longer has time to act except perhaps with insects because they reproduce very rapidly.

The bit about Intelligent Design was just a joke.

[The Atheist]

This is an interesting subject, but I also think you've got it back to front.

As 5th said, humans have evolved the ability to use technology, so it has become by its very nature part of natural selection. It's still pretty selective, as "unnatural" ways of extending life are used in rich countries while the poor still starve in poor countries.

Technology is just another step in the evolutionary chain. It might well be a dead end, but it certainly hasn't replaced or overcome evolution. Even if machines become intelligent/self aware and take over the earth, it would still be part of natural selection, even though it looks quite unnatural.

On your basis, we've already by-passed evolution since the first tools of war were invented, because those with the invention have always beaten those without it. The first man with a crossbow would have been unnaturally superior to all other humans, but it's still part of nature.

[TheFifthElement]

Technology has become strong enough to overcome the influence of natural selection because technology changes the natural world much faster than natural selection can act thus aborting natural selection.

Technology replaces natural selection because natural selection no longer has time to act except perhaps with insects because they reproduce very rapidly.

Okay, a couple of points here.

Firstly, you appear to present technology as some kind of self-determining organism in itself, something which exists without outside influence or action. But this is not the case. Technology is a product of human activity. Take away the human and technology has no influence on anything at all. You mention 'technology getting stronger' but what I think you mean is that humans are developing more and more complex technologies and are becoming increasingly reliant on it. Technology cannot get stronger in itself. The intervening factor is still humanity so in fact what you're saying is human activity influences natural selection. Which seems reasonable. But to say that such activity replaces natural selection is where your proposition goes awry. It may accelerate the process or decelerate the process, but it does not replace it and cannot replace it because humans themselves remain subject to the process of natural selection.

You could also say that technology itself is subject to the process of natural selection. Take HD DVD and Blu Ray as an example. Both were released as a vehicle for playing high definition pre-recorded media. Blu Ray proved more popular with the result that manufacturers stopped producing HD DVD compatible media. Blu Ray 'survived' and HD DVD became 'extinct'. Future versions of DVD player will be based on the Blu Ray model, therefore the Blu Ray model's 'DNA' survives, mutates into the next and better model. Technology 'evolves' through a process of market forces which, again, are a product of human activity. If both technology and humans remain subject to the process of natural selection, how can either then replace it?



On your basis, we've already by-passed evolution since the first tools of war were invented, because those with the invention have always beaten those without it. The first man with a crossbow would have been unnaturally superior to all other humans, but it's still part of nature.
Yes, I agree. I think it is very easy to get caught up in the use of the term 'natural'. Effectively technology is 'natural' because the use and development of it has naturally evolved in humans. I don't believe that at our current level of knowledge and understanding it is possible for humans to produce anything which is strictly 'unnatural'. Man-made, certainly, but unnatural implies something which takes things beyond their nature which humans haven't yet done. We have not made new elements which haven't previously been encountered, and most technology uses naturally occurring phenomena. We have very fortunate ability to manipulate the environment, but we haven't yet achieved the ability to completely alter it at our will.

[billl]

Should we figure out a word or phrase by which we might differentiate between "traditional" evolutionary processes, and direct, informed, purposeful manipulation of DNA (by humans, working with specific tools/techniques, perhaps even in a lab) for the purpose of enhancing fitness?

In researching the point 5th Element made about the history of making new elements, I encountered Synthetic Elements. It at least appears, upon scanning the Wikipedia page, that we have made some elements that we hadn't previously observed. Perhaps we could also speak of "Synthetic Evolution" if we want to keep everyone happy about the "Natural Selection" terminology? Here's an article you might have seen about glow-in-the-dark cats, that helps to illuminate the possibilities that stretch before us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1080042/Meet-Mr-Green-Genes--worlds-glow-dark-cat.html

I know that coberst mostly appeared to be addressing other types of technology, however. I think that differing sensitivities to the word "evolution", as well as a whole range of subtleties regarding technological effects, and how humans adapt to them, makes it easy for people to talk past each other in regards to some pretty interesting (and timely) issues. Actually, this sort of thing appears to be at the heart of Fifth Element's objections to coberst's posts here. coberst is talking about natural selection as it is understood by evolutionary biologists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection ), which is limited to discussion of organisms with inheritable traits. Fifth Element's objection occurs when the salient limitation (presumably implied by coberst) is removed.

I think there is a point that a lot of people could agree on, regarding how the advancement (some might casually use the word "evolution") of technology has reached a frequency and leverage that is affecting the biosphere more profoundly than ever before, and threatening many (naturally evolving/adapting) species as significantly and suddenly as anything since a major meteor strike. I mean, I'm no expert, and I might be wrong about some specifics, etc., but some animals are having a tough time, for some reason. Probably, increased human population plays a significant role. But a lot of scientists are also pointing the finger at human technological side-effects. Sure, natural selection is still occurring. But technology seems to be making prospects gloomy for many of those species whose ability to adapt relies solely on natural selection (ie. no technological crutches). But, yes, humans and others are still mating along in the wake of technology's churning, and even playing a role in where technology goes next.

Incidentally, one of the biggest culprits in all of this (if one is willing to view it with some measure of disapproval) is a particular "technology" that was developed hundreds of years ago: the corporation. Perhaps using "technology" to describe the idea of incorporation is a bit playful, but I think it is a good example of how man-made things can take on an importance (even a supremacy, in certain situations), and seem to drive human behavior at least as much as respond to it.

[JacobF]

Should we figure out a word or phrase by which we might differentiate between "traditional" evolutionary processes, and direct, informed, purposeful manipulation of DNA (by humans, working with specific tools/techniques, perhaps even in a lab) for the purpose of enhancing fitness?


Maybe you are thinking of artificial selection? When we domesticated sheep 10 000 or so years ago, for example, the amount of wool sheep can grow has increased by many kilograms since then.

[billl]

Thanks JacobF!

[The Atheist]

Should we figure out a word or phrase by which we might differentiate between "traditional" evolutionary processes, and direct, informed, purposeful manipulation of DNA (by humans, working with specific tools/techniques, perhaps even in a lab) for the purpose of enhancing fitness?

No, that would just confuse the issue.

Is irrigation "unnatural"?

It's one of those things where drawing a line is impossible and pointless. If a monkey uses a tool, is that natural or technological advancement?

[billl]

What if he makes the tool better? Did nothing happen?

I'm not (just to be clear) pointing at magic or anything. Tthere's no DNA change, but there is a "development."

----------

Wait a minute--did you see what you quoted? I was talking about DNA change. Not tools to get at ants. I think the role of DNA in traditional discussions of evolution makes our new-found ability to directly tailor and experiment with DNA for the purpose of increasing our "fitness" something different than other tools. The idea of "inheriting traits" loses its relevance, right? How could an evolutionary biologist continue to call it "natural selection" without changing the definition in this case?

[The Atheist]

What if he makes the tool better? Did nothing happen?

I'm not (just to be clear) pointing at magic or anything. Tthere's no DNA change, but there is a "development."

----------

Wait a minute--did you see what you quoted? I was talking about DNA change. Not tools to get at ants. I think the role of DNA in traditional discussions of evolution makes our new-found ability to directly tailor and experiment with DNA for the purpose of increasing our "fitness" something different than other tools. The idea of "inheriting traits" loses its relevance, right? How could an evolutionary biologist continue to call it "natural selection" without changing the definition in this case?

Easy. "Natural" simply implies "of nature" and as humans and tools are part of nature, they're natural. The opposite would include divine or supernatural. In that way, everything becomes natural until something supernatural is discovered. (i.e. never)

Humans learn from each other, and since the ability to learn is encoded in our DNA, what we learn must be natural.

Easy, eh?

:D

[coberst]

McLuhan was, I guess, the first to express the insight that technology is an extension of the human body.

These hand-held gadgets for communication might very well represent the end of ‘understanding’ for almost all citizens by 2050. I can see it already on the Internet discussion forums where communication is becoming a stream of consciousness without coherent grammatical or thoughtful content or construction.

I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.

Suppose we establish a knowledge-to-understanding ratio K/U, i.e. the amount we know divided by the amount we understand (i.e. need to create).

I would say that a frontier family might have K/U ratio of 20/1. As time passes and there is less need for understanding (creativity) and more need for knowing because the demands of the frontier diminish and ‘civilization’ encroaches I would say the K/U ratio might go to 50/1.

After one hundred years I suspect the ratio might easily move to 100/1; after leaving the farm and moving to town and going to work in the factory the ratio might very well go to 1000/1.

Today’s modern man or woman may very well have a ratio of 10,000/1. The person with a PhD might very well have a ratio 100,000/1.

I have heard college professors say that you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it. I suspect a PhD who is also a long time teacher might have developed an understanding of many things and thus dropped the ratio back to 10,000/1.

I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum.

[trueromantic]

You could go further with your propositions Coburst and argue in favour of the agricultural as opposed to industrial state if as you seem you argue mans understanding is proportionally greater when living according to organic principles.
The debate about evolution is interesting, but mans nature isnt controlled by nature; we have free will, creating a distinction precisely as Bill says of synthetic and natural evolution.
To answer the original question, not everybody is in favour of technology, many people are seeing nature in a new light, one which appears brighter compared with the shadow of modernisation. A sub-section of humanity has become isolated from nature from over-reliance on and belief in artificality, but generally people seem to use technology in moderation, so understanding may well be increasing or at least remaining 'natural' in some while decreasing in others. Modernisation wasnt spontaneous, unopposed, unavoidable nor is is it irreversable, seems like the divide between tradionalist and futurist is growing though.

[The Atheist]

These hand-held gadgets for communication might very well represent the end of ‘understanding’ for almost all citizens by 2050. I can see it already on the Internet discussion forums where communication is becoming a stream of consciousness without coherent grammatical or thoughtful content or construction....

I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum.

You're channeling Sagan!

:D


We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

I agree with you (and Sagan) entirely. I just think it's our destiny, just as the dodo's was to die out.

Something else will take our place. It may even be intelligent.


You could go further with your propositions Coburst and argue in favour of the agricultural as opposed to industrial state if as you seem you argue mans understanding is proportionally greater when living according to organic principles.

Pol Pot tried that. Didn't work out that well.

[billl]

Just to clear up a confusion above (for the second time, though most followers of this thread might not need it), here's the definition of "natural selection," which is, notably, different than a mere combining of the definitions for the words "natural" and "selection".

from biology-online (but there are many other good sources)

natural selection
Definition

noun

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.


Supplement

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are [more] favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.



It goes without saying that the ability to directly manipulate one's own genotype (or that of a fetus) makes for an altogether different (but still, in essence, "natural") process of selection. The noted evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins happens to agree on this point, and, for him, the term "artificial selection" (which is used, as JocobF pointed out, to refer to certain traditional selective breeding practices) doesn't seem to go far enough to distinguish "natural selection" from the methods for manipulating the genotype that are now availble to us. In the end, "genetic engineering" seems to have been the obvious choice of terminology all along. :smash:





I agree with you (and Sagan) entirely. I just think it's our destiny, just as the dodo's was to die out.

Something else will take our place. It may even be intelligent.



Regarding destiny, here's a quote I like from McLuhan:


There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.
Marshall McLuhan


It might not apply to a person falling from a tall building, but still... :)

I think its sentiments are well-reflected in this (interesting, and very relevant to this discussion) essay by Richard Dawkins
http://www.memeoid.net/books/Dawkins/Dawkins%20Articles/Where%20do%20the%20real%20dangers%20of%20genetic%2 0engineering%20l.pdf


-----

[The Atheist]

Regarding destiny, here's a quote I like from McLuhan:-

I quite agree. Unfortunately, as Sagan nailed, not very many people have a clue about what's really going on.

[bcronmiller]

This is a great discussion.

The point I wanted to raise is about the object of evolution. Most successful organisms are successful by out performing their rivals and being able to reproduce. If a mutation helped the organism succeed then this trait would be passed on to the next generation. The mutations becomes a standard trait.

Do we have a new definition of success now? If it is not the passing on of your DNA, is it passing on your ideas?


It's still pretty selective, as "unnatural" ways of extending life are used in rich countries while the poor still starve in poor countries.

I think this misses the point.

From an evolutionary point of view, it is irrelevant how long someone lives. What matters is who is passing on their genes. The people in the rich countries are more likely to have a family tree with 8 great-grandparents for every 1 great-grandchild.

In the poorer countries you would find the opposite trend. You do not even have to leave the country to see this in the United States.

[billl]

For a couple of interesting presentations regarding "passing on ideas," here's a couple of videos from ted.com (in case you haven't seen them :) )

this one is similar to what I've been noticing (and reading) about what's going on these days regarding technology.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html

this one is pretty good too.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html