Does intelligence trump evolution?

[Gravage]

intelligence does trump evolution , since it can control it

but what puzzles me is what the heads of corporations are thinking

here we have intelligent people in corps. that have destructive intents upon the common populus , why though ?

is the evolution of intelligence geared to clearly destory Humanity , it makes no sense

pollution , over fishing , deforestation etc

It is so much obvious that intelligence would eventually destroy everything despite being self-aware of this as well as having tools to recognize this, we're like locusts, we're destroying everything we touch just to make our lives better on the huuuge cost of all other species, give other animals our intelligence level and this entire planet would be in the same situation it (this planet) is with humans.
Cheers.

 

[Buddha12]

I am aware of that coming near miss. I think it would be a good idea use it and see how good at deflection we might be. Don't you think so? I wonder if they can fit it into the budget in time to make such a test worthwhile?

I'd send a probe to the asteroid to gather data but not try to deflect it this time by. It will miss the Earth by a very great distance so there's no fear in it hitting us this time. A probe sent to the asteroid would be the thing to do to see what is made of and gather information about it. I understand your concern that we as yet haven't tried the deflection technique but computer simulations can be done to see what would happen just as easily as actually trying to deflect it.

 

[garbonzo]

I'm not really sure, what can really stop 15 km wide asteroid that hits the ocean? I have impression that people think science and technology will save us from everything bad and negative including natural disasters, I personally don't think so, I'm not that optimistic at all.
There are limits in both science and technology, you know. I somehow doubt humans will survive if the acidification of oceans in the future (it already started), I wouldn't be surprised if humans somehow remove all the oxygen from the atmosphere, by continually burning fossil fuels, with plants unable to produce enough oxygen for survival human species as well as lots of other species as well.
In this war there is only one winner in the long-term, and those winners are not humans at all.

You stop the asteroid before it hits the ocean.

For the other things.... there is quite a long time before acidification is a problem, and by then, we will either have the technology to stop it, or learn to live with recycling our water.

Loss of oxygen is silly. The fix is so simple, why even mention it?

 

[spidergoat]

Oh, burning fossil fuels releases CO[sup]2[/sup], which usually helps plant life, (although the accompanying warming could render some trees more vulnerable to insect infestations, etc...)

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I'd send a probe to the asteroid to gather data but not try to deflect it this time by. It will miss the Earth by a very great distance so there's no fear in it hitting us this time. A probe sent to the asteroid would be the thing to do to see what is made of and gather information about it. I understand your concern that we as yet haven't tried the deflection technique but computer simulations can be done to see what would happen just as easily as actually trying to deflect it.

I would feel a lot more confident in an actual test of our ability to change the orbit of an asteroid (seeing is believing) than a successful computer simulation.

There have been many suggestions on how to change or deflect an asteroid, but the best method depends on the composition of the asteroid in question. Also, while we are working on changing an asteroids orbit, it might be nice to be able to move a promising asteroid for future mining activities into a better orbit.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You stop the asteroid before it hits the ocean.

Have you calculated the energy requirements of that project?

 

[Gravage]

You stop the asteroid before it hits the ocean.

For the other things.... there is quite a long time before acidification is a problem, and by then, we will either have the technology to stop it, or learn to live with recycling our water.

Loss of oxygen is silly. The fix is so simple, why even mention it?

We definitely will not have technology to stop it, we could adapt eventually, it depends how big asteroid is..., there is also a problem with how early can we see the asteroid.
You're over-estimating both science and technology.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

We definitely will not have technology to stop it, we could adapt eventually, it depends how big asteroid is..., there is also a problem with how early can we see the asteroid.
You're over-estimating both science and technology.

We've already calculated near misses over 20 years out. If we knew it was going to be a hit, I'd be willing to bet we could get it diverted in time. I believe the thing that will get us, will be something that will sneak up on us and catch us completely off guard. Maybe something of our own making.

 

[Gravage]

We've already calculated near misses over 20 years out. If we knew it was going to be a hit, I'd be willing to bet we could get it diverted in time. I believe the thing that will get us, will be something that will sneak up on us and catch us completely off guard. Maybe something of our own making.

Nope I haven't seen any defensive technology so far, they all exist in hypotheses. Also, there is always a possibility where asteroid could stay undetected when falling on Earth.

 

[Gravage]

You stop the asteroid before it hits the ocean.

For the other things.... there is quite a long time before acidification is a problem, and by then, we will either have the technology to stop it, or learn to live with recycling our water.

Loss of oxygen is silly. The fix is so simple, why even mention it?

Check out the great extinction 250 million years ago, oxygen levels from 21% dropped to 16%. If the acidification of oceans continues and plants and microorganisms would not be able to produce enough oxygen, and the oxygen burns out every time you burn fossil fuels.
Burning of fossil fuels involves the consumption of oxygen.
There is no high-tech to stop this.
We destroyed environment waaay too much to be repairable. And what's the point if we detect asteroid which 35 km in diameter and we have 2 days or let's say 2 months, there is no way we can do anything about it.

 

[Gravage]

Oh, burning fossil fuels releases CO[sup]2[/sup], which usually helps plant life, (although the accompanying warming could render some trees more vulnerable to insect infestations, etc...)

But not too much, since the acidification of oceans rises rapidly.

 

[Junglebearz]

I believe that intelligence does indeed trump evolution. Natural events such as volcanoes or asteroids do not have anything to do with intelligence, with the exception that knowledge used to devise ways around these natural events can create a loophole around extinction.
Let's say that humans suddenly are forced into the middle ages. We would be able to re-create our society back to a certain extent, depending on who is gone and who is still there. All you need is a few intelligent people out of the 6 billion currently here, and you have yourself the means to build cities, aqueducts, motors, etc. With a lot of people gone, there would suddenly be a huge amount of resources without an owner with which to build these things for free.
Also, evolution does not occur often with organisms that have branched off from each other. It has been proven that the Founder's effect is a main force behind mutations, therefore unless the human race is somehow dwindled down to extremely small groups, evolution most likely won't happen quickly.
All of these arguments of evolution vs intelligence is a little redundant in hindsight, for evolution is caused by mutations over hundreds of generations. Hundreds of generations is thousands of years, which is plenty of time to relearn what has been lost

 

[arfa brane]

I believe that intelligence does indeed trump evolution.

But intelligence evolved, it's a product of the evolutionary process.

Also, evolution does not occur often with organisms that have branched off from each other

Rubbish. Evolution doesn't come to a halt because species appear. Species diverge, that's evolution. Species that don't diverge and adapt end up extinct. Extinction is also part of the process.

 

[kwhilborn]

I believe mankind is negatively affecting evolution with our "intelligent" society.

People survive in our times that would normally die out in nature. People with disabilities and even diabetes might die in the wild and would not be able to reproduce.

a) we have handicapped (physical and mental) people breeding their damaged genes into our (mankinds) diminishing genome pool.

b) Skeptics aside. I feel we do have psychic abilities that are being bred out of us or at least buried in many because of sciences inability to detect psychic mechanisms and promote doubt at the topic.

The meek shall inherit the earth...?

More like ; The weak and deformed and sick and undeveloped shall inherit the earth.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I believe mankind is negatively affecting evolution with our "intelligent" society.

How do you know that evolution isn't progressing normally and the by product of human intelligence isn't naturally leading to the next order of life? Intelligent self replicating machines (non-carbon based life)

People survive in our times that would normally die out in nature. People with disabilities and even diabetes might die in the wild and would not be able to reproduce.

Some of those people might be geniuses, inventors or in some way major contributors to society and keeping them alive is a measure of our social advancement.

a) we have handicapped (physical and mental) people breeding their damaged genes into our (mankinds) diminishing genome pool.

There's lot's of reasons why people are handicapped and most of them don't involve genetic defect. Also, please provide some evidence that we have a diminishing genome pool.

b) Skeptics aside. I feel we do have psychic abilities that are being bred out of us or at least buried in many because of sciences inability to detect psychic mechanisms and promote doubt at the topic.

Again what evidence do you have for this belief of yours?

The meek shall inherit the earth...?

More like ; The weak and deformed and sick and undeveloped shall inherit the earth.

Doubtful at best.

 

[sigurdV]

I am aware of that coming near miss. I think it would be a good idea use it and see how good at deflection we might be. Don't you think so? I wonder if they can fit it into the budget in time to make such a test worthwhile?

This makes me remember the early Hubble Telescope who needed optical repair.
Probably no error was made in calculating the coming near miss.

 

[sigurdV]

I believe mankind is negatively affecting evolution with our "intelligent" society.

People survive in our times that would normally die out in nature. People with disabilities and even diabetes might die in the wild and would not be able to reproduce.

a) we have handicapped (physical and mental) people breeding their damaged genes into our (mankinds) diminishing genome pool.

b) Skeptics aside. I feel we do have psychic abilities that are being bred out of us or at least buried in many because of sciences inability to detect psychic mechanisms and promote doubt at the topic.

The meek shall inherit the earth...?

More like ; The weak and deformed and sick and undeveloped shall inherit the earth.

Go to the mirror for an example.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

This makes me remember the early Hubble Telescope who needed optical repair.
Probably no error was made in calculating the coming near miss.

Yeah! Probably and if they did we might not care for very long. But if there are any survivors, they will have it kind of rough, and the human species might never get back to our current level of technology.

We do have time to test our best options and we'd be fools not to IMO.