Are we humans at the peak of our mental and bodily evolution?

Alan McDougall

Alan McDougall
Registered Senior Member
Hi,

Are we humans at the peak of our mental and bodily evolution? What I mean are our heads going to grow larger to compensate for a larger more evolved brain?

Do you think in another 100 000 years or so, will we lose the strength of our limbs due to extreme mecanisation, where every action we have to perform will be done by machines?

Do you think that Homo Superior is in the process of happening?
 
In order for a species to evolve, two things must happen:
  • Mutation.
  • Selection for that mutation in breeding.
Mutation is certainly taking place. Background radiation is always with us, we've even added a little extra radiation just for fun, and surely a mutation is occasionally triggered by something other than radiation.

But is selection taking place? Each generation uses more technology to override the principle of survival of the fittest. We've kept Stephen Hawking alive, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if his sperm is in a bank somewhere and women are queuing up for it. We go to great lengths to keep people with both physical and mental disabilities in the gene pool.

There are very few people on this planet who can't find someone, somewhere, to breed with.

The only people who don't procreate are the ones like my wife and myself, who chose not to. And we've both got Mensa-level IQs and are perfectly fine physically. We're exactly the genetic stock you postulate as the seeds of the future race. Most intelligent people lament the fact that while we're having zero children, or one or two, the people of average or below average intelligence are reproducing like sparrows.

So based upon personal experience, I'd have to answer, "No."
 
survival of the fittest isn't about what is best, it is about what has power.

if survival of the fittest was about what is best, those who are right (about anything) or anything that is true would never be ridiculed, oppressed or misunderstood.
 
So based upon personal experience, I'd have to answer, "No."
Have you seen the movie, Idiocracy? It takes your logic to its inevitable end. A perfectly average guy from the present day is put into cryogenic suspension in an experiment and wakes up 500 years in the future as the smartest man alive. It's hilarious.

On a more serious note, in my darker moments I do sometimes fear that our present lifestyle may one day be looked upon as a golden age as mankind sinks into tyranny and and barbarism having squandered our natural resources without managing to get off this rock.
 
On a more serious note, in my darker moments I do sometimes fear that our present lifestyle may one day be looked upon as a golden age as mankind sinks into tyranny and and barbarism having squandered our natural resources without managing to get off this rock.

I see that time coming as well. The writings on the wall as they say already and I believe it is only a matter of time as to when the natural resources run out. But on a lighter note perhaps there will be something that happens that pulls humanity back from the precipice of oblivion and some of them are saved, but they have little left to live for.
 
Are we humans at the peak of our mental and bodily evolution?

Without genetic modification and cybernetic enhancements, probably.

Idiocracy is a no laughing matter but hopefully we are less than 3 generations away from a technological singularity and the cyborgs and AI will continue progressing technology and science at an unimaginable pace while also controlling, even euthanizing the marching morons.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen the movie, Idiocracy? It takes your logic to its inevitable end. A perfectly average guy from the present day is put into cryogenic suspension in an experiment and wakes up 500 years in the future as the smartest man alive. It's hilarious.
Yeah, I thought it was one of the better movies of recent years. You probably also liked "Wall-E" for the same reason. Every dark prediction goes down easier with a dose of humor.:)
On a more serious note, in my darker moments I do sometimes fear that our present lifestyle may one day be looked upon as a golden age as mankind sinks into tyranny and and barbarism having squandered our natural resources without managing to get off this rock.
During any Paradigm Shift, people feel that way. The Industrial Revolution was the catalyst for an enormous wave of pessimism, while it blithely went ahead freeing 96% of the population from "careers" in food production and distribution, at the same time providing them with at least small amounts of leisure time, discretionary income, the ability to travel outside their own community, and of course printed information to balance what they were told by their kings and priests.

Imagine the feelings that the Agricultural Revolution must have stirred. You mean we're now going to spend most of our time in one place, tied down by crops, herds, houses, furniture, pottery, tools, knicknacks, musical instruments and other possessions? No more adventure in our lives? Mark my words, this new "food surplus" phenomenon is going to make our kids fat and lazy, and with several clans living together in a village we're going to have non-stop warfare.

The Electronics Revolution (or "Information Age" as it's more usually called but it started with the telegraph, and television was as reviled by the curmudgeons in my youth as the internet is today) is spawning the same wave of end-of-the-world rhetoric.

Tyranny is hardly new, and instant communication is a tremendous brake on it: look at what's going on in China at this very moment in reaction to the government's attempt to keep their first Nobelist in prison.

And neither is the squandering of natural resources. Medieval Europe polluted itself into literal squalor, and until the discovery of coffee people drank beer and wine to quench their thirsts. It's no wonder their economy was failing, they were all plastered! The Maya deforested themselves into oblivion and the Aztecs turned their breadbasket into the Sonora Desert. The true reason that the United States so quickly became the world's leading economy has nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of the Founding Fathers. It was built on land that had never supported a civilization, so it was rich in water, game, topsoil, minerals and forests, and due to the limitations of the transportation technology of the era its population density was very low.

Desertification goes all the way back to the Mesopotamians.

Using technology that is available today, we can build giant solar collectors in high orbit and beam the energy to earth safely in microwaves. That will provide more energy than even we can use, no matter how unwisely we reproduce... and BTW the second derivative of population went negative about twenty years ago and the total number of human beings will start to decrease by the end of this century. Energy collection is arguably the biggest factor in the destruction of our environment, and moving it out into space will generate an Environmental Revolution.

We just have a few tiny problems to solve, like getting all the big countries to cooperate on a project that will take several generations to complete before it starts to pay off.
Are we humans not now driving our own evolution?
We have transcended that by creating civilization. Civilization is a superorganism and we are its cells. We die as individuals but the organism lives on. It's surprisingly resilient, having withstood several serious threats to its survival.

Civilization continues to evolve. It's now in its sixth Paradigm Shift. (Scholars don't agree on a model but mine is Agriculture-Cities-Bronze-Iron-Industry-Electronics, each one fundamentally changing who we are and the way we live.) This evolution is accelerating: each shift happens sooner and completes faster than the last one.

So evolution is in fine shape, thank you. You missed it because it has nothing to do with our minds and bodies, it's all in this colossally wonderful artifact that's all around us: civilization.
 
There is no such thing as "more evolved" or a "peak" of evolution. Are we at a point where our species will change no longer? Of course not.
 
Yeah, I thought it was one of the better movies of recent years. You probably also liked "Wall-E" for the same reason. Every dark prediction goes down easier with a dose of humor.:)During any Paradigm Shift, people feel that way. The Industrial Revolution was the catalyst for an enormous wave of pessimism, while it blithely went ahead freeing 96% of the population from "careers" in food production and distribution, at the same time providing them with at least small amounts of leisure time, discretionary income, the ability to travel outside their own community, and of course printed information to balance what they were told by their kings and priests.

Imagine the feelings that the Agricultural Revolution must have stirred. You mean we're now going to spend most of our time in one place, tied down by crops, herds, houses, furniture, pottery, tools, knicknacks, musical instruments and other possessions? No more adventure in our lives? Mark my words, this new "food surplus" phenomenon is going to make our kids fat and lazy, and with several clans living together in a village we're going to have non-stop warfare.

The Electronics Revolution (or "Information Age" as it's more usually called but it started with the telegraph, and television was as reviled by the curmudgeons in my youth as the internet is today) is spawning the same wave of end-of-the-world rhetoric.

Tyranny is hardly new, and instant communication is a tremendous brake on it: look at what's going on in China at this very moment in reaction to the government's attempt to keep their first Nobelist in prison.

And neither is the squandering of natural resources.
Great points. As I said, those are my dark moments.
The true reason that the United States so quickly became the world's leading economy has nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of the Founding Fathers. It was built on land that had never supported a civilization, so it was rich in water, game, topsoil, minerals and forests, and due to the limitations of the transportation technology of the era its population density was very low.
Why did those advantages stop at the Mexican border to create the greatest imbalance in wealth of any border on earth? Wouldn't you imagine it had something to do with the corrupt and kleptocratic nature of government south of the border? In other words, didn't virtue (i.e. relatively good government) have something to do with the rise of the United States after all?
BTW the second derivative of population went negative about twenty years ago and the total number of human beings will start to decrease by the end of this century.
I'm aware of that. It's amazing how many people still speak of the "overpopulation" problem" when it seems to be solving itself.
 
I'm aware of that. It's amazing how many people still speak of the "overpopulation" problem" when it seems to be solving itself.

As long as we assume standard of living will improve and thus family sizes will shrink this is true, but we are in real trouble if standards of living decrease, then people start breeding like rats (and live like them too!)

spidergoat said:
There is no such thing as "more evolved" or a "peak" of evolution. Are we at a point where our species will change no longer? Of course not.

Yes, but from the perspective of intelligence and physical health we have probably reached are zenith some time ago. We will continue gaining more and more genetic defective conditions and reductions in mental capacity until either cybernetics, AI and/or genetic engineering obliterate the forces of Darwinian evolution on us and replace them with a million times more rapid psuedo-lamarckian technological evolution, or the sickly marching morons moronically destroy our cushy self-domesticating society with a more conservative brutal society where the sick die of previously curable diseases, the smart and strong take power and brutally enslave and slaughter the weak and stupid for resources.
 
Yes, but from the perspective of intelligence and physical health we have probably reached are zenith some time ago. We will continue gaining more and more genetic defective conditions and reductions in mental capacity until either cybernetics, AI and/or genetic engineering obliterate the forces of Darwinian evolution on us and replace them with a million times more rapid psuedo-lamarckian technological evolution, or the sickly marching morons moronically destroy our cushy self-domesticating society with a more conservative brutal society where the sick die of previously curable diseases, the smart and strong take power and brutally enslave and slaughter the weak and stupid for resources.

I disagree. We are already seeing some interesting changes occur as the possible result of the information age. People on the autistic spectrum are not longer at a disadvantage. Their particular traits are a recipe for success in some fields, such as computers. I think this trend is visible in the explosion of autism in some areas of the country that specialize in high-tech industries.
 
I read an article that said our behavior is might already be shaping human evolution. According to some scientists sexual dimorphism is decreasing among the human species. Apprently early human and recent genetic ancestors of humans, the males were almost 50% larger than the females and today human males are only about 15% larger on average and shrinking. While people have gotten larger in general, females are growing in size more quickly in comparison to males. Proportionally probably more women than ever before are reaching heights of over 6 feet. I'm ont sure why this is happening though...if it is happening. I don't know how reliable the article is.

If all of that is true, then that would be considered evolving beyond our current forms on a minor scale at least.
 
That makes sense, sexual dimorphism is a product of a harem type arrangement with a dominant male having exclusive access to more than one female. Naturally, we don't have that any more, so there is no advantage.
 
I disagree. We are already seeing some interesting changes occur as the possible result of the information age. People on the autistic spectrum are not longer at a disadvantage. Their particular traits are a recipe for success in some fields, such as computers. I think this trend is visible in the explosion of autism in some areas of the country that specialize in high-tech industries.

Yes and these people are entirely reliant on are present society and social structure, just like many others with genetic aliments and general stupidity, when the whole systems collapse these will be the first to die, and a I guarantee you are present evolution within the evolution of our civilization is very unstable, the more the marching morons breed and the sickly breed the more unstable our society becomes as the morons vote for increasingly asinine policies and leaders, eventually the whole society will collapse under its failures from sheer stupidity. Idiocracy is real, look at the present tea party movement and the easy of propaganda today, fuck we had Bush Jr. for 8 years, clear sign of how our society has fallen, by 2050 the ever increasing stupidity of Americans politics will have completely wiped the American empire from the face of the planet, what will be left will be an assortment of impoverished states with probably china as the worlds sole superpower, forcing its will like the USA did if not more so. Inside the impoverished states the sickly and stupid will die the rich and smart will rule over them and eventually the whole system will slowly restart assuming resources and energy are plentiful enough.
 
That makes sense, sexual dimorphism is a product of a harem type arrangement with a dominant male having exclusive access to more than one female. Naturally, we don't have that any more, so there is no advantage.

I wonder if infidelity is on the rise as well, that would mean penis size will increase :D Look at the Gorrilla and his harams, hes got tiny genitals compared to humans and even smaller compared to the orgy prone and less dimorphic chimps.
 
Great points. As I said, those are my dark moments.
Why did those advantages stop at the Mexican border to create the greatest imbalance in wealth of any border on earth?
The Rio Grande was already a natural border. The Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization continuum had existed in Mesoamerica for nearly 3,000 years. They had already mined many of the minerals, cleared vast forests, eaten all the game, and watched their topsoil blow away. In contrast, most of the tribes to the north were still Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, and only a few cultures in the East had invented the technology of agriculture, transcending into the Neolithic Era. They were struggling toward civilization, the next Paradigm Shift, by establishing trade networks among their villages.

Unfortunately corn, the New World's grain, isn't very nutritious, and no one had managed to domesticate our large meaty herbivores, the positively daunting moose and bison. The largest domestic animal in North America was the turkey. The Olmecs deserve a special prize for managing to build cities with no draft animals, but instead their descendants got Cortés. (The Incas had llamas, and they built a Bronze Age civilization in less than half the time. Of course their cross to bear is that llamas produce so little milk that it's a wonder their babies survive.)

The British invaders of North America had more to work with than the Spanish, French and Portuguese invaders of Central and South America: lots of resources, few people, and none of them had bronze weapons.
I'm aware of that. It's amazing how many people still speak of the "overpopulation" problem" when it seems to be solving itself.
It turns out that prosperity is the best contraceptive.
I disagree. We are already seeing some interesting changes occur as the possible result of the information age. People on the autistic spectrum are not longer at a disadvantage. Their particular traits are a recipe for success in some fields, such as computers. I think this trend is visible in the explosion of autism in some areas of the country that specialize in high-tech industries.
I've read that dyslexics make great managers. They have to delegate!
 
In order for a species to evolve, two things must happen:
  • Mutation.
  • Selection for that mutation in breeding.
Mutation is certainly taking place. Background radiation is always with us, we've even added a little extra radiation just for fun, and surely a mutation is occasionally triggered by something other than radiation.

But is selection taking place? Each generation uses more technology to override the principle of survival of the fittest. We've kept Stephen Hawking alive, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if his sperm is in a bank somewhere and women are queuing up for it. We go to great lengths to keep people with both physical and mental disabilities in the gene pool.

There are very few people on this planet who can't find someone, somewhere, to breed with.

The only people who don't procreate are the ones like my wife and myself, who chose not to. And we've both got Mensa-level IQs and are perfectly fine physically. We're exactly the genetic stock you postulate as the seeds of the future race. Most intelligent people lament the fact that while we're having zero children, or one or two, the people of average or below average intelligence are reproducing like sparrows.

So based upon personal experience, I'd have to answer, "No."

What about genetic modification? I've read on some of the notions of extension of life and reading brain waves and such and isn't it just possible in 100 years or so we might be able to simply copy our conscious onto a harddisk or add some hardware to our brains to give us more computing capacity?

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED lol
 
. . . . copy our conscious onto a harddisk . . . .
That doesn't copy the whole person. The hormones that we experience as emotions have a tremendous impact on how we feel and what we do. Without emotions we'd be robots, like Data on Star Trek. (Yeah yeah I know he's an android.)
. . . . or add some hardware to our brains to give us more computing capacity?
I don't need more computing capacity, I need more memory. Having real-time access to an external database would be nice.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED lol
Good literature is loaded with archetypes, and the Borg are an archetypal example of logic without emotion. They certainly contrast with Data, who was an earlier character from the beginning of the series, and not as sharply drawn.
 
Back
Top