Is humanity an evolutionary mistake?

[Cyrano]

Or, for those who believe in a supreme deity, was he/she/it just a clueless kid playing with a cosmic chemistry set?

I don't have an opinion either way. However, any objective observer would conclude that we live on a planet that might be FUBAR.

Have our scientific discoveries far outpaced our ability to control the world we have brought about? Have our machines of war far outpaced our ability to live together on this fragile rock hurtling through space?

Whether through design, or pure chance, the development of the human race has provided both genius and destructiveness. Unfortunately, our genius has more often than not been brought to bear on creating weapons of ultimate destruction.

Perhaps I'm feeling a bit cynical today. And that may be because, tonight, an incredibly ignorant man is going to stand in front of TV cameras to feed us a super-sized helping of horse manure. He's an insignificant toad. But his puppet masters have their bloody claws on buttons that can destroy us all.

So rather than watch tomorrow's commentary on whatever this jackass happens to bray tonight, I'd prefer to hear what some voices of wisdom here on DU have to say to interpret his bleatings.

[saltpoint]

1. It's tempting to think so while Dubya is trying to speak English.

But then we have Joni Mitchell doing "O I wish I had a river so long/I would teach me feet to fly..."

-- and then we hear the validation.

[JeffR]

5. Hey OC. How ya been?

Long time no see your posts.

[saltpoint]

7. JeffR. Really nice to see you, bud.

I've been happily preoccupied but I do pop into DU from time to time.

I hope things are goin' your way.

[JeffR]

12. '07 is looking up

:thumbsup:

Glad you're well.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. I second that, JeffR.

OC is one my very favorite posters. :)

[JeffR]

51. and you're another one of mine

:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

57. Awww.....

:pals:

[eerriicc]

73. ya, he needs to work on his New England Accent

so that he can apear intelligent

[saltpoint]

82. Welcome to DU, eerriicc. Yep. Ol' Dubya's a Yankee

born and bred and invested.

This Texas oil man cowboy crap is all show.

[Taverner]

2. There are no mistakes in evolution

There is only adaptation, and failure to adapt.

We have adapted - almost too much for our own good. The choice is ours, we can either correct this ourselves, and live here a while longer, or let nature correct it. And when nature corrects things, lots of things die.

[Auggie]

3. I think the mistake is the development of our own self-importance and greed

[Taverner]

4. That is our mistake

Homo Sapien existed several thousand years before the Agricultural Revolution. Self importance is a relatively new thing.

A lot of it has to do with religion constantly repeating the lie that we are different than other animals. IN fact, we are not.

[theHandpuppet]

29. But we're so SPECIAL!

We're our Daddy-in-the-Sky's favorites and everything on this planet was created just for our amusement. It's all ours and if we want to tear it to pieces, befoul it, or reduce it to rubble then that's our Daddy-given right.

:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Maybe the original mistake (or, if you will, the original "sin") was the *concept* of original sin

itself. And all the self-flagellation it engenders, whether it's dressed up in religious hand-wringing over sex, or back-to-the-caves neoluddism. The bottom line is, we should take care of the planet, it's in everyone's best interest-- (but we're not going to do that by all moving into yurts and shutting down our higher brain functions) but the fact that humans have developed technology, indoor plumbing, dental care, and extended our average lifespans from 30ish to 70ish doesn't mean we're "bad", "evil", or "unnatural". We are using the cerebral cortexes that nature and evolution gave us. Like the song says; "You cannot go against nature. Because if you do- going against nature is part of nature, too"

Seems to me an awful lot of these "the bad, nasty human race should just go away" threads are uprooted religious guilt looking for a new place to bed down.

[tridim]

11. And there's nothing to stop Homo Sapien from splitting into two or more species

It's already happening IMO.

[mondo joe]

23. Other than the fact that we have no reproductive isolation.

Humanity has too much reproductive access to split into subspecies.

[jelly]

24. Interesting. Tell us more.

What do you see as the characteristics of the divergent species? And how long do you think it would take for us to get to the point that we'd evolved to become undeniably different species?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. I think it's just the opposite ...

with swifter travel, we're homogenizing into one race, slowly. Not splitting.

Unless you're talking about the knuckle-dragging Republicans we see grunting and wandering.

[tridim]

71. We're already one species..

It's impossible to go the other way.

The issue is humans that were formerly selected for extinction (via natural selection) have been breeding with each other successfully for thousands of years. It's validating and maintaining the 'bad' traits in our gene pool. It'll have to split at some point based on biology.

[mondo joe]

76. Nonsense. Humans selected for extinction would be extinct.

There are no "bad" traits, evolutionarily speaking. Traits survive or don't.

And our species will not split unless it is segmented in reproductively isolated populations for a LONG time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. We think we are a superior species because we tell ourselves we are.

In our present form, we've been around for about 40,000 years. We live on a minuscule bit of rock, circling a very insignificant star, on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy. In a universe that contains billion of galaxies, trillions of stars, that is about 13.7 billion years old. And, which may be only one universe of an infinite number of universes.

Incredibly, we have the utter hubris to consider ourselves the top of the evolutionary heap when we are really a flash in the pan.

[The2ndWheel]

8. We're a small scale, tribal species

The expanding circle of concentrating power we call civilization has been our artificial attempt to control existence. The only reason we've made it this far is that we've been able to come up with complex solutions to the problems that exist, only to have to come up with even more complex solutions to the problems caused by or enhanced by the previous solution. Because of that need for control of everything, I'd say we're one of the weaker species on the planet.

We also don't like actual diversity, which comes from that need for control.

It's not a mistake, we're just too successful. Nature keeps trying to fight back(viruses, diseases, limits period), but we keep building walls. As we've all seen, walls crumble. The more walls we build, and the bigger we build them, when they do crumble, the worse that collapse will be.

[mmonk]

9. The jury is still out.

[Double T]

10. Evolution takes care of its 'mistakes' with extinction...........

unfortunately the 'mistakes' are taking the entire planet; animal, vegetable and mineral; to an accelerated, premature extinction. Tonight's SOTU will be tough to stomach as bush continues his last-ditch efforts to save the legacy of his grossly failed administration. For HIM, there is NO HOPE!!!!....the rest of 'US' must keep trying!!!!

[Darkover]

15. Please don't tell me...

...You honestly believe that Homo Sapiens can make a dent compared to what nature hasn't already thrown (and will again) at this planet.

[karlrschneider]

17. True enough but it doesn't take much of a 'dent' to get rid of a species.

...

[Double T]

19. Homo Sapiens are the MOST DESTRUCTIVE species............

that ever occupied the earth and possibly the universe; self destructive abuse of the environment, resources and the other creatures of the planet.

[Darkover]

28. That we know of...

Deep Time can hide a lot. Time not only carries all with it, it bulldozes the landscape with glaciers and moving continents.

Putting Homo Sapiens on some form of pedestal i.e. the best, the worst, the most, etc. is arrogance to the extreme.

Rocks don't care. Eventually Homo Sapiens will pass. But to pull out your hair and shriek your contempt for your own species accomplishes nothing but shallow 'feel good' humility on the shriekers' part.

Human nature is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Corporations will still exploit resources, third world farmers will still conduct slash and burn farming to feed their families, etc.

Our best hope for ourselves and our planet is with science. Not good intentions, not blind hostility, not wishful thinking. As long as our species stays on this single planet it is doomed. I think the only thing we can hope for is to leave some lasting mark that those that follow us will find to assure them that even if they are alone in space, they are not alone in time.

[Double T]

43. Science will NOT suddenly invent a pill to make Homo Sapiens.......

responsible creatures. It is difficult or impossible to 'allow' the true results of scientific research to be told or published in the current political and corporate environment. 'WE' certainly would NEVER be welcomed on other planets with 'intelligent' beings as THEY would know that their planet would eventually be trashed by our mere presence. 'WE' are leaving those that follow with very little to work with and a substantial cleanup of our mess.

[Darkover]

60. I am not sure...

what you were trying to say with your last post. I believe you were implying that I expect science to be a 'magic bullet' that will cure all Homo Sapien's ills.

If the above is the case, then I will reply with 'not so'. A 'best' option is not a 'perfect' option.

As to your statement that others would never allow us, I would rather we had to deal with laser wielding aliens. We could talk to them, if nothing else then about lasers. I am worried about going to a planet where you develop a rash on your feet and that afternoon your legs explode.

I still think you are missing the point about our impact on the planet. Aside from pointing you to my signature and profile, indulge me to post an excerpt from an excellent book that takes a look at how 'we' got here...

The book is call "The Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, and Jack Cohen.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld>

*snip*
'Did you see the weather report for this world?' said Rincewind, waving his hands in the air. 'Two miles of ice, followed by a light shower of rocks, with outbreaks of choking fog for the next thousand years? There will be widespread vulcanism as half a continent's worth of magma lets go, followed by a period of mountain building? And that's normal.'
*snip*

If science isn't the answer, then what? What actions do we take? What course do you recommend?

[Homer Wells]

13. The entire world lives in fear and uncertainty

in this "modern" era, and people retreat into their fantasy worlds for succor. They see no hope for the future, and, like their primitive ancestors, look for help and security in the "super-natural" world.

Where the literacy level is low, power-hungry individuals find it easy to lure the people into their own agenda, with implied promises of happiness and security.

The greatest good can be accomplished where free education, unblocked by the powers who would keep them in the dark, is allowed to flourish.

Religion, (at least the more Fundamentalist sort), grows in proportion to the lack of literacy in it's followers. It was once said that the decline of the power of the Church coincided with the invention of the printing press. When people were allowed to read the Bible for themselves, it was possible for them to reason the meaning of life on their own.

Even the Bible admits this. The sin of Mankind was his/her discovery of free will through Knowledge.

Until we rise to the challenge of believing in ourselves, and taking responsibility for our own actions, this will continue to be Mans biggest obstacle.

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and He is US"

[Darkover]

14. Homo Sapiens isn't a mistake...

Because that implies intent. That we are somehow the goal (or at least a path to a goal) of evolution.

[jelly]

21. That's true.

But I don't think the original poster meant to ascribe intent to evolution in a literal sense. We are all the product of evolution, and the process predicts that species will evolve to have characteristics that favor survival of the species. Our species has evolved to be intelligent and social because that was what was needed for soft, defenseless creatures without large fangs or claws to survive. But what if we've evolved to become too intelligent for our own good- it's an evolutionary mistake in that a trait was selected as a survival-enhancing feature which ultimately, ironically, could end up also being the trait which leads to our collective demise.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. Homo Sapiens isn't the goal ...

the goal is to change, adapt, survive (or not). Evolution isn't done.

Homo Erectus couldn't envision us. Dinosaurs couldn't envision birds. We can't envision what's next.

So let's just relax, eat, drink, screw, and ITMFA.

[Darkover]

62. I think I just found...

My Role Model for Life. :toast:

[porphyrian]

16. The question implies a pre-existing plan evolution failed to achieve.

Evolution achieves exactly what the species and environment dictate.

[Madspirit]

18. hurling

The only thing that keeps me from hurling myself out a window is remembering that on the evolutionary scale, we are a young species. We can fix our mistakes. Hopefully we can fix a big one in 2008.
Madspirit

[jelly]

20. I've had the same thought.

I feel as though humans may be an evolutionary mistake -- simply too smart for our own good. Or maybe it's our intelligence combined with our tendency to strong emotions. Perhaps if we were not so emotional we would be more cautious in the way we use our intelligence. Unless we learn to control our emotions and start putting our intelligence to better use, we may be going the way of the dinosaurs.

[mondo joe]

22. There's no such thing as an evolutionary mistake.

Evolution has no agenda, no vision and no end goal. Evolution doesn't care.

[Madspirit]

25. I agree

As an atheist, I agree. Evolution has no agenda. The person who started the thread however is not an atheist and so I don't know how they feel about evolution.

Evolution may have no agenda but humans do. As a species with a big squishy frontal lobe, we could easily destroy ourselves with that which we create. Or not. As I said, I still comfort myself with the knowledge we are a young species. I have hope but it's dwindling.
Madspirit

[Bill McBlueState]

80. but evolution is a scientific theory

It doesn't really matter how many gods anyone believes in; that doesn't change the reality of what evolution is.

[Auggie]

26. And who says humanity is not finished evolving?

Come back in 50,000 years -- you might be suprised.

[Odin2005]

27. Indeed, with genetic engineering we will be in control of our future evolution.

[Madspirit]

36. Indeed, with genetic engineering we will be in control of our future evolution.

I can't wait to become a Borg myself. Actually I would prefer Cylon...the New Hottie ones... ...but whatever. Anything will be better than this flimsy container.
Madspirit

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

38. Our very own "Intelligent Design"?

Wow, does that ever NOT inspire confidence...

Who's the chairman of the Committee to Design Human Improvement?

[Madspirit]

42. Who's the chairman of the Committee to Design Human Improvement?

I have an improvement suggest. This has always bugged me. Our backside is almost entirely wasted. Other than our butt...there's nothing there. It's all blank. Everything else is crammed onto the front of us. Maybe we could get some extra bells and whistles for our backsides.
This has bugged me since I was little.
Madspirit

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

56. Ok, but what do you propose?

The Committee to Design Human Improvement needs suggestions.

What would you put on that plain expanse called "the back"?

A tail? Peacock feathers? A built-in douchebag? Extra sex organs (something different than the usual array)? A grenade launcher (from the Republican member of the committee)? Wings? (and wouldn't "wings" make for an interesting Colts/Bears game?). Gills? ('cause we hate hauling all that SCUBA crap around). LED's, just for the hell of it, or so we can display our MySpace page?

We can splice genes, but I don't think my imagination can out-do evolution.

[jelly]

75. I agree, let evolution do it's thing. nt

[Odin2005]

79. Everyone.

Every person should be allowed to engineer themselves the way they want. The "Eugenics" accusation is a strawman.

I suggest you read these:

What is transhumanism?
Biotechnology, genetic engineering, stem cells, and cloning
Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?

[Madspirit]

32. And who says humanity is not finished evolving?

Of course we are still evolving.
Madspirit

[jelly]

77. Yep. I was reading about a theory

that many common human ailments such as sinus and lower abdominal problems are a result of having evolved from creatures that went about on all fours to creatures that walk on two feet. Our innards have not yet undergone sufficient evolution to catch up with the transition to walking upright.

Edited to add and that's just one immediate example . . . in theory, we may never be "done" evolving.

[Crandor]

81. Devolving is more like it

The times when being smarter made one more likely to survive are long gone. Today the groups with the highest evolutionary fitness are religious fundamentalists.

Evolution is like the economy - the more advanced you get, the more important regulation becomes.

[Greyhound]

31. All evolution is a mistake,

just some mistakes turn out to be beneficial, or at least lead to further beneficial mutation.

One minor point, our rock is not at all fragile, it is our ecosystem that is fairly fragile. OTOH, it is self-correcting so if we keep screwing with it, it will shrug us off like the infestation we are.

[Madspirit]

39. All evolution is a mistake

I question your definition of mistake. We are not a Mistake or a Not-Mistake. We just are.
Madspirit

[Greyhound]

50. A mistake in that it is a deviation from the source of the organism, but I see your point, so

let's just call it a mutation.

[Rex]

34. No.

Humanity is an example of what happens when evolution becomes obsolete.

[Uncle Joe]

35. I believe everything in evolution is a mistake,

these mistakes occur at the genetic level. However sometimes these mistakes result in giving a new generation advantages over the old ones eventually resulting in new species.

[Madspirit]

41. I believe everything in evolution is a mistake

I also question your definition of mistake. Shit happens. Because something starts as an accident or happenstance, doesn't define it as a mistake.
Madspirit

[Uncle Joe]

45. If you try to copy a document and for some reason

a word does come through resulting in a text which is actually improved by the omission, this would technically be a mistake even if it improved the product. Having said that, I believe there is an intelligent creator of some sort behind it all. I could see building mistakes in to the equation as a self correcting mechanism.

[mondo joe]

48. On the other hand, a document has a correct version. DNA does not.

And if the random element results in a species surviving, whereas the DNA that fails to mutate dies off.... which version is the mistake?

[Uncle Joe]

49. How do you know the document has a correct version?

DNA may have a correct version as well, but the changes may still be even better.

I have to leave for the evening, but will be back tomorrow, peace to everybody here.

[mondo joe]

54. That's what a document IS.

DNA doesn't have a correct version because there is no standard to hold it to. Shark DNA is as "correct" as fly DNA as chimp DNA.

[Madspirit]

52. different definitions

I think we just have different definitions. To me, "mistake" implies something negative. I rather "accident" or "surprise"...<g>
Madspirit

[Blue_In_AK]

46. What's a mistake

is that we haven't evolved beyond our very, very ancient territorial instincts which continue to result in war after war after war. We never have learned how to share and play nice.

[Madspirit]

55. What's a mistake

Once again, we are a young species. Evolution takes millions of years, not decades. When we no longer need those wilder instincts to survive, they will lessen. I don't think we need to overcome all our drives completely. In that comes stagnation. We NEED some conflict. Or it all ends.
Madspirit

[Blue_In_AK]

61. I suppose you're right.

But to me it's always seemed like warfare is such a counter-evolutionary development. What sense does it make genetically to send our strongest young men off to be killed and maimed? Is it nature's sorry attempt at population control?

[mondo joe]

63. Obviously, the most "fit" ones aren't killed. That's selection.

And since you need very few males - relative to females - evolution isn't the least bit troubled by selecting some out.

(Not that evolution is troubled by anything.)

[Blue_In_AK]

64. Are you saying then that the most "fit" ones

are the ones who figure out a way not to go to war and get killed, i.e., someone like George Bush? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from ... or maybe I'm just an old '60s hippie peacenik who still, against all odds, believes that peace and cooperation are preferable to war and strife.

[mondo joe]

65. In evolutionary terms, "fit" simply means those that survive to reproduce.

Whether you survive by being the fastest strongest soldier or the smoothest talker or whatever.

Evolution selects. It doesn't judge and it doesn't care.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. My head knows you're right

but my heart hates it.

[mondo joe]

72. That's because you're confusing "fit" with something else.

People often take "fit" to be a value judgment.

[mondo joe]

58. What makes you think that's a mistake?

Is there some correct version you think we no longer meet?

[StatGirl]

37. Here's what happened . . .

One eon, Gaia noticed that she was feeling cold.

So she created conditions to evolve a species that would dig a lot of sequestered carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere as CO2, enabling her to trap more energy from sunlight.

She's feeling warmer already. Soon she'll be rid of those pesky ice caps and glaciers, and then she won't need us any more.

The End.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Maybe she didn't like the fact that every 60 million years or so she was getting whacked in the face

with a big-ass asteroid, and decided to create an intelligent species which, (if it could get it's head out of its ass and move beyond old thinking and superstition) would move into space while simultaneously developing the capability to defend her from the inevitable, occasional massive impact.

[Az]

40. No, but a creation of ours may be problematic

Corporations. They are systems that run by rules. Just like everything else. But they are not backed by long term processes. They are short term only instruction sets (as global evolutionary systems go). As such they are missing several key components. Namely social ties. For something as far reaching as corporations can be the lack of a sense of connectivity to the earth or life itself is a vital flaw.

Small to midsized corporations are responsive to our humanity. But large scale multinational corporations are growing beyond our control and that presents the world with the problem. Everything and anything in the name of increased profits cannot turn its mind to such long term problems as survival of life.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. No.

[0rganism]

53. more like evolution's wet dream

It's easy to wax pessimistic about humans, especially human civilization over the last 10000 years, but c'mon, let's take the good with the bad.

Certainly, we behave irresponsibly and foul not only our own nests but those of countless other species, yet what other species has taken so much responsibility upon itself? What other species has the ingenuity and the freedom to correct these mistakes if it so desires? We are capable of great harm and destruction, but we are also capable of great healing and repair. Indeed, our survival as a species and continued evolution will depend on the resurgance of these qualities.

For all the gripes I level against the current crop, myself included, I have great hopes for the future of homo sapiens sapiens. As Daniel Quinn suggests, someone had to go first, and there is no shame in being the first species to go down this path, as long as we avert utter destruction and learn something of lasting value along the way.

[MindPilot]

59. Not a mistake; the intelligence was bad. But it was the best at the time.

Or maybe the intelligence was fixed around the evolutionary policy.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. There's no such thing as a "mistake" in evolution. Or, as others have noted, all evolution depends

on "mistakes".

Beyond that, these threads tend to be just another rehash of the old "original sin" blahblah, dressed up in scientific language. I think the "mistake" was when humans started thinking in terms of what a big "mistake" we all are (or, to put it another way, "we are all sinners")

Bullshit. Step number one in improving things down here is to get rid of that kind of mental gibberish, IMHO.

"our genius has more often than not been brought to bear on creating weapons of ultimate destruction."

Really? Because I look around my house, and I see indoor plumbing, a microwave oven, a bunch of screwdrivers, an ipod, a computer, a cell phone. I look at my arm and I see a scar from a childhood smallpox shot (yes, I'm that old). I don't see any ICBMs, nuclear warheads, or "weapons of ultimate destruction". Yes, those things exist, but I don't think it's fair to say that the lions' share of humanity's genius has "more often been not" been focused on creating them.

[jgraz]

67. This is a popular theory among some SETI folks

Even though your use of "mistake" is problematic, one of the reasons often given for the lack of radio noise from intelligent ETs is that intelligence is really a self-destruct for a species. It may be atomic weapons, environmental degradation or some other discovery that we have yet to make, but it may well be the case that intelligence contains the seeds of its own destruction.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. It may be. It may also be that intelligence contains an extremely strong self-preservation instinct.

Since we only have one intelligent species to judge on, and it's still here, I think that's certainly as reasonable -if not more- of an assumption.

[k_jerome]

74. evolution corrects mistakes...nt.

[leftofthedial]

83. we're the result of aliens on shore leave getting drunk

and fucking the monkeys (40 light years without sex is a long, long time . . . .)