3 ms·

> This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO. Who's to say that this is not actually an evolutionary adaptation that

> This is a conundrum humanity must address if we’re to survive over the long term, IMO. Who's to say that this is not actually an evolutionary adaptation that allows the more ruthlessly led tribes to dominate their enemies? The stat about 1/25 of individuals being sociopaths is very telling

Henchman21 2y ago
Each and every one of us has the ability to choose to be better. That so many just “go along with whatever” is why I personally think we’re unlikely to survive over the long term, unless a more enlightened species leads us by the hand.
- pyfon 2y ago
  Can we get to human or better intelligence through evolution without tribal behaviours?
moshegramovsky 2y ago
Even if you're correct, is that the world you want? (And to be clear, I'm not saying it's the world you want.) DNA isn't destiny.
- foobarian 2y ago
  Right, I don't. It's an interesting conundrum because on an evolutionary scale the civilized era is so short it probably hasn't had an effect yet, which means that getting to a Star Trek style utopia would require a conscious struggle against our nature.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
    Problem with that logic is, humans don't just evolve genetically, we evolve culturally, and that cultural evolution ends up affecting our biology as well. So it doesn't really matter how slow genetic evolution is. Cultural evolution is what defines the human species. It's much more rapid because it includes planning and foresight, unlike the blind watchmaker of biological evolution. It is also lamarckian in that it incorporates the experiences of the previous generation into the cultural phenotype of the next one. That's precisely how we've changed so drastically is an evolutionary blink of an eye. And now, our cultural evolution has reached the point where we're even able to change our own genetics with planning and foresight in a single generation. So it seems to me that the blind watchmaker is essentially irrelevant now.

Henchman21 2y ago

Each and every one of us has the ability to choose to be better. That so many just “go along with whatever” is why I personally think we’re unlikely to survive over the long term, unless a more enlightened species leads us by the hand.

pyfon 2y ago
Can we get to human or better intelligence through evolution without tribal behaviours?

moshegramovsky 2y ago

Even if you're correct, is that the world you want? (And to be clear, I'm not saying it's the world you want.) DNA isn't destiny.

foobarian 2y ago
Right, I don't. It's an interesting conundrum because on an evolutionary scale the civilized era is so short it probably hasn't had an effect yet, which means that getting to a Star Trek style utopia would require a conscious struggle against our nature.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
  Problem with that logic is, humans don't just evolve genetically, we evolve culturally, and that cultural evolution ends up affecting our biology as well. So it doesn't really matter how slow genetic evolution is. Cultural evolution is what defines the human species. It's much more rapid because it includes planning and foresight, unlike the blind watchmaker of biological evolution. It is also lamarckian in that it incorporates the experiences of the previous generation into the cultural phenotype of the next one. That's precisely how we've changed so drastically is an evolutionary blink of an eye. And now, our cultural evolution has reached the point where we're even able to change our own genetics with planning and foresight in a single generation. So it seems to me that the blind watchmaker is essentially irrelevant now.