3 ms·

What evolution problem? Evolution happens regardless, but why should we be bound to the limitations of nature when we have the potential ability to rise above

What evolution problem? Evolution happens regardless, but why should we be bound to the limitations of nature when we have the potential ability to rise above them?

bitwize 15y ago
Yeah, look how far transcending the limits of nature got us. The planet is polluted and rapidly warming up; and biodiversity, food and water supplies, and other natural resources are dwindling, all because of us trying to get out of the niche nature had provided us.
- JulianMorrison 15y ago
  You want to see the same thing in nature, put some yeast in a bottle full of sugar water. They won't think much about their waste products or the limits of resources either. Nature is full of boom/crunch scenarios. You are seeing a biased view because you are seeing the ecosystems that lasted - ones that oscillate perhaps, but average to balanced. Humans and our works are as natural as ants and anthills. All creatures strive to expand - humans, uniquely, have the ability to apply choice to the matter. If anything it's our ecological thinking that is "transcending the limits of nature".
SonicSoul 15y ago
the way i see it as a evolution problem is two fold. Evolution happens via generations of species. if a single generation is around indefinitely, it is not evolving. Secondly, the units of species with inferior genes (in evolutionary sense) are also around indefinitely with ability to continue to have offspring slowing down the process of that genome being filtered out of existence
- gnaritas 15y ago
  You're making the mistake of assuming evolution is progress; that's not how it works. Evolution is adaption to the current environment, that could be progress or devolving, whatever works better. Older genes are not inferior. Secondly, evolution works across great timescales, doubling or tripling lifetimes won't stop evolution. There is no evolution problem. Thirdly, if people could live indefinitely, there would still not be an evolution problem, there'd be a population and resource problem, which would change the environment thus accelerating evolution by selecting those who could survive on fewer resources or those capable of obtaining resources.

What evolution problem? Evolution happens regardless, but why should we be bound to the limitations of nature when we have the potential ability to rise above them?

bitwize 15y ago

Yeah, look how far transcending the limits of nature got us. The planet is polluted and rapidly warming up; and biodiversity, food and water supplies, and other natural resources are dwindling, all because of us trying to get out of the niche nature had provided us.

JulianMorrison 15y ago
You want to see the same thing in nature, put some yeast in a bottle full of sugar water. They won't think much about their waste products or the limits of resources either. Nature is full of boom/crunch scenarios. You are seeing a biased view because you are seeing the ecosystems that lasted - ones that oscillate perhaps, but average to balanced. Humans and our works are as natural as ants and anthills. All creatures strive to expand - humans, uniquely, have the ability to apply choice to the matter. If anything it's our ecological thinking that is "transcending the limits of nature".

SonicSoul 15y ago

the way i see it as a evolution problem is two fold. Evolution happens via generations of species. if a single generation is around indefinitely, it is not evolving. Secondly, the units of species with inferior genes (in evolutionary sense) are also around indefinitely with ability to continue to have offspring slowing down the process of that genome being filtered out of existence

gnaritas 15y ago
You're making the mistake of assuming evolution is progress; that's not how it works. Evolution is adaption to the current environment, that could be progress or devolving, whatever works better. Older genes are not inferior. Secondly, evolution works across great timescales, doubling or tripling lifetimes won't stop evolution. There is no evolution problem. Thirdly, if people could live indefinitely, there would still not be an evolution problem, there'd be a population and resource problem, which would change the environment thus accelerating evolution by selecting those who could survive on fewer resources or those capable of obtaining resources.