|
|
| Page 4 of 4 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
 Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | An article I read a short while back claimed we're actually devolving. Our lives no longer contain the challenges our brains were made for, we've made life too easy and comfortable, with new issues popping up because of it. And in a globalist world we all feel so insignificant that we have no effect or can do anything, giving up before we even start to change things. And we just go along for the ride, accepting the horrors, injustice and bullshit going on in the world. That's not particularly enlightened is it? Individuals may be enlightened, but in a population of soon 7 billion that enlightenment drowns instantly. Governments are focused on power and control and use the intelligent resources to strengthen power and control. Not very enlightened in the big picture. |
Et voila: | Quote: | | http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82226 |
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what other scientists have to say about it:
However, other scientists remain sceptical. “At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London.
“I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?” Professor Jones said.
“I am an advocate of Gradgrind science – facts, facts and more facts; but we need ideas too, and this is an ideas paper although I have no idea how the idea could be tested,” he said.
----
Now we just need another loner scientist suggesting that apes could actually use iPads with success - and there'd be no difference between man and ape whatsoever.
Incredibly convincing stuff, right there 
Don't stop providing "facts" Frant! They're amusing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:25 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't provide the facts, I linked. And I think without challenge man will stop to progress and develop, man will become (and have been for quite some time now) domesticated, unable to make it on our own. Seriously, how many of us would survive if we were placed out in a wilderness in no mans land, no weapons to kill for food, no axes to cut down trees to build shelter etc.? In late October, far up North?
Our ancestors did that because they had to, and that made humanity as a whole smarter to be able to survive. Unless you're the bastard child of Bear Grylls or some scout master natural selection would be brutal. Our intelligence and esp. knowledge have been aimed towards how to use your ipads and pc's and car stereos etc., not how to survive on your own in the wilderness without any technology or modern tools to begin with.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:29 Post subject: |
|
|
What "challenge" are you talking about? Are you implying that every man in the ancient era, when we were "at the peak of our intelligence", was some kinda homo universalis?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure the stone age man would excel in modern society with an average desk job.
How about an IT supporter? Yeah, stone age men would conquer the modern world with their smarts.
It's hardly a surprise that human beings are good at what they're doing on a daily basis - and bad at something they've never done before.
Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with being "smart" - as that's about as subjective a term as they come. If we're talking traditional IQ tests - then I'm pretty sure we're smarter today, but even that's pointless - because our daily lives are completely different.
I don't have to be a scientist to speculate like a child.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:38 Post subject: |
|
|
If you were sent back in time and were to grow up in a cavemen society, would you be dumber than them? If you were thrown into the Amazonas and picked up by an indigenous people, would you be dumber than them? Unable to survive like them? Even if you were living amongst them, learning their ways?
The question is whether we have genetically devolved with the use of iPads. I dont think so. And even if its true, I believe the potentials is still big enough to adapt to different conditions.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 14:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | If you were sent back in time and were to grow up in a cavemen society, would you be dumber than them? If you were thrown into the Amazonas and picked up by an indigenous people, would you be dumber than them? Unable to survive like them? Even if you were living amongst them, learning their ways?
The question is whether we have genetically devolved with the use of iPads. I dont think so. And even if its true, I believe the potentials is still big enough to adapt to different conditions. |
Yes, but the challenges that forced the development of bigger, faster and smarter brains have pretty much disappeared. We may not become dumber but I doubt we're getting much smarter. Every generation stand on the earlier generations accomplishment and cannot take all credit for things they do is based on work someone else did earlier. It's like we've stopped.. Science continues to develop and go forward, but not because we're getting smarter, we just have more material to base our research on and draw conclusions from.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I do not fear much of a devolution really. I agree that our modern technologies have made some of us more comfortable and somehow more "dilated" in reference to the use of intelligence. But modern societies also pose different challenges to our intelligence, like how to succeed in a society where finding a job has become more and more difficult. Other potentials are needed than were centuries ago. I dont think the farmer societies and worker societies of the last millenia were anymore using their intelligence. Especially the workers were bound to dulling routines. Not many people were educated and used their intelligence alot in the last 4000y. Only some priviledged classes.
Also the modern situation is quite unique, the technological progress beeing both very very fast and frail (because bound to limited ressources). So I think there will be times when humanity will need to use its potentials in different ways again.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Survival is what promoted intelligence. I'm not talking about amassing knowledge or intellectually stimulating high-level discussions but "smartness" for a lack of a better word where the intelligence was used to solve issues in regards to survival, protection and so on.
Knowledge and intelligence aren't the same thing. One thing without the other in the society of today is pretty pointless. We've built a society/civilisation where knowledge is needed to do anything. The main difference is that more intelligent people (and more importantly with good working memory) can absorb and use that knowledge easier and better (if we ignore all the psychological issues most people on this planet have on some level).
"Smartness" is when you figure something out without prior knowledge to promote survival of yourself, your family and perhaps even tribe, without having everything programmed into you from the day you're born to the day you start work.
But it's really two very distinctly different issues we're talking about here. IQ isn't really usable in this discussion, it's adaptability which has always been our tool to success where the brain have been the engine for the adaptability.
Besides, unless a cataclysmic effect wipes out most of the world, leaving every survivor without clean running water, no power, no electricity, no protection and no nothing (where they were suddenly forced to depend on themselves to survive.. no more shopping malls, butchers, farmers etc.) there's not much we can prove.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
With increasing scientific, cultural and societal development the human brain will adapt to accomodate the new knowledge. This does not mean the brain has to grow in size or that it has to change dramatically to "make us smarter". If you believe intelligence is as simple as the size of the brain, you have an extremely simplistic view of the human organism. Try to explain quantum physics to a cavemen who just got his big brain to utilize those tools.
Last edited by Mister_s on Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the job market of today promotes flexibility and adaptability like it never did before. I feel that the world demands more adaptation from us than ever. The smarter people succeed in this time, like they did in any tiime. Of course we do not use our brains like we used them 50.000y ago, but even then, there must have been some form of society with certain routines and enough protection for humans to thrive. I would even say that the physically strong were more likely to survive than the smart (edit: on some points). (Both things are equally important though, sometimes the smart can overcome the strong) If you look at indigenous societies, they do not seem to need to adapt alot. At some point some adaptations are necessary, but they come slowly. I mean in 200.000y time societies do not seem to have adapted alot in short time periods but more over very longer periods.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 21st Feb 2013 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | An article I read a short while back claimed we're actually devolving. Our lives no longer contain the challenges our brains were made for, we've made life too easy and comfortable, with new issues popping up because of it. And in a globalist world we all feel so insignificant that we have no effect or can do anything, giving up before we even start to change things. And we just go along for the ride, accepting the horrors, injustice and bullshit going on in the world. That's not particularly enlightened is it? Individuals may be enlightened, but in a population of soon 7 billion that enlightenment drowns instantly. Governments are focused on power and control and use the intelligent resources to strengthen power and control. Not very enlightened in the big picture. |
Et voila: | Quote: | | http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82226 |
|
I knew it, Idiocracy wasn't just a movie it was a documentary on time-travel and the future.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 10:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | If you look at indigenous societies, they do not seem to need to adapt alot. At some point some adaptations are necessary, but they come slowly. |
Lets take sub-saharan Africa as an example. Where man has lived in similar ways in thousands and thousands of years. No need for adaptation since they were basically shaped by their environment and grew/evolved into it.
Now, just a couple of hundred years ago, colonisation and slave trade, and Africa is a mess. Civil wars, warlords everywhere, starvation, inability to adapt since their environment doesn't support a new way of life, so they are victims of "progress" that we introduced. Tribes that were left alone, living like they've done for thousands of years still manage since "civilisation" hasn't affected them as much, but those areas that have been affected have massive problems, most seemingly unsolvable and costing an enormous amount of human suffering and death.
Meanwhile the hunter gatherer nomads that moved up north of Sahara and further up (there's a hypothesis that some early proto-sapiens came from eastern asia, so a split happened way before what we know from anthropology, but that's another discussion) had to adapt at every stage, learning new survival strategies, get used to completely different climate, completely different ecologies and new ways of surviving. They walked the planet, some ending up in North America (and then some walked and passed over to South America), many ended up around the Mediterranean and the middle East (where the earliest writing civilisation existed, the Sumerians), etc. and every step required intelligence to overcome and learn. The food habits changed, the proteins from cooked meat helped the brain to grow more complex and all the challenges during a hundred thousand years affected our entire species.
However, as we see, it seems the Europeans and the Middle Eastern and oriental peoples developed faster than other who were rooted in their environments. Maya, Aztec, all the indian tribes of north America, aborigines, various african populations, south american natives etc.. They were all devastated by not being able to adapt fast enough and got nearly wiped out with a few being assimilated with no chance of surviving culturally.
I believe the nomadic movements forced us to develop abilities that static populations never had to since they already mastered their environment.
Anyway, there are a ton of documentaries on that to find on the net for those interested.
Change, challenge and the need to adapt fast is what accelerated our development as a species as far as intelligence and versatility is concerned. That's my belief.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 11:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Are you really saying that the populace which migrated towards the north (i.e. the people who spread to the northern parts from the theoretical origin point aka Africa), are more evolved/developed than the ones that stayed behind becuase the nomads were "challenged"?
Adaptation, evolution, does not necessarily make one better, more intelliegent, stronger or any other "better" term. Evolution does not propagate "going forward" from our strict POV. Adaptation means you'll develop traits which make you more suitable for the niche you occupy. We, the Homo Sapiens, did not become the top of the foodchain because we were the best adapted species, we were just smart enough to wipe out the competition. Evolution does not equal intellect, it just means "better suited for the niche". It's not some sentient entity which selects the best traits to create some super creature.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 11:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | Are you really saying that the populace which migrated towards the north (i.e. the people who spread to the northern parts from the theoretical origin point aka Africa), are more evolved/developed than the ones that stayed behind becuase the nomads were "challenged"?
Adaptation, evolution, does not necessarily make one better, more intelliegent, stronger or any other "better" term. Evolution does not propagate "going forward" from our strict POV. Adaptation means you'll develop traits which make you more suitable for the niche you occupy. We, the Homo Sapiens, did not become the top of the foodchain because we were the best adapted species, we were just smart enough to wipe out the competition. Evolution does not equal intellect, it just means "better suited for the niche". It's not some sentient entity which selects the best traits to create some super creature. |
Which is sort of what I said, just using different arguments and words. Evolution in itself isn't an entity, it's an abstraction of change in organisms whether mutations, survival of the fittest (which is where the biggest steps took place in the history of human kinds development to what it is today, something that we've long ago transcended) or any other form or shape.
We weren't smarter to begin with. At some point our ape ancestors started moving, either by competition with other species or by some other event. The habits, the need to adapt rose, and our particular branch is long with failures of cousins that was sorted out by evolution. Again, early on our ancestor got a slightly bigger brain and got a hand up on other species that were stuck in their particular environments, unable to survive elsewhere. Meanwhile, our branch spread out into several directions (by evolutionary circumstances, genetic mutation, environmental effects, diet changes) and on the way to homo sapiens the other side-branches failed, either by competition or by natural selection (which is sometimes the same thing).
And no, I don't say that Africans are less developed/evolved than we are, they simply didn't pick up the abilities and necessary strategies that the nomadic people had to learn and integrate. The differences are all dependant on the history of any particular ethnic group from an anthropological view. For a long time the northern and western parts of Europe were quote primitive while in Greece they built science and philosophy still used, multi-thousand year Empires created and crumbled (Egypt, Roman, Alexandrian etc.), then Europe exploded quite recently, around the time the Roman Empire fell.
The Persian Empire (who fell to Islam) and later powers "re"-discovered the Greek knowledge and their culture grew. Meanwhile Christianity had taken a foothold in Europe where knowledge were both a blessing and a curse, opposed by the strong church if it stood against the dogma, holding back progress for a few centuries. The Islamic world who had conquered large parts of the middle east long after Muhammed died had a golden age where they took Persian and Greek models and went ahead from there with some great scholars (that weren't particularly religious, they were simply muslim scientists improving on the math and knowledge of the old greeks). After the dark ages in Europe, during the enlightenment, that's the current chapter.
I haven't included the advanced dynasties and cultures in the far east because it's a bit outside my sphere of knowledge.
To me Evolution doesn't mean anything else than that life changes and the positive changes have a tendency to survive and the negative changes will be weeded out by themselves due to not promoting survival or the bettering of the life form. Evolution is just the abstract label of how we believe living organisms develop forward, either from mutations (very common, hence hereditary diseases and so on) or from making that organism more successful than the organism that lacks the advantage of the other.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 11:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | @ Frant: I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.
Do you really think those "Maya, Aztec, all the indian tribes of north America, aborigines, various african populations, south american natives etc." were wiped out because they were not genetically adapted? The tribes of North America f.e. were wiped out because they were technologically inferior. Simple as that. I think there is a fundamental difference in genetic evolution and cultural developement. |
And hence my talk about change being the key factor to developing sociologically, culturally etc.. I cannot claim such short events have any effect on a genetic level, only that progress halted in all those now-dead/extinct civilisations, and I'd say progress is part of what we call evolution on a higher level. That's why there are expressions like "evolving nations", "evolving cultures", "evolving societies". I'm trying to widen the definition to include natural selection on a larger scale as opposed to genetic advantages.
Besides, we're now talking about differences within the same species which makes it difficult to pinpoint particular reasons for this and that, leading to hypotheses, anthropology, material I've read etc.. and the differences genetically are minimal at most.. Some ethnic populations have certain traits that make them susceptible to genetic weakness to certain diseases (sickle-cell disease is one example, affecting mainly ethnic groups from tropical and sub-tropical sub-sahara). Cystic fibrosis is a typical Caucasian disease.
This may belong to epi-genetics more than genetics, and that is in itself a very interesting subject and if I had the strength (spent way too much on writing posts today) I'd look up info on how epi-genetics may be connected to ethnic differences and anthropological research.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 12:25 Post subject: |
|
|
It is an interesting subject, one of which I know not enough about for sure, and it is legitimate, as long as we do not deduce any moral superiority of any people over another from such research.
| Quote: | | I'm trying to widen the definition to include natural selection on a larger scale as opposed to genetic advantages. |
You mean you want to include societal and cultural evolution into the concept of natural selection?
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 22nd Feb 2013 15:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | It is an interesting subject, one of which I know not enough about for sure, and it is legitimate, as long as we do not deduce any moral superiority of any people over another from such research.
| Quote: | | I'm trying to widen the definition to include natural selection on a larger scale as opposed to genetic advantages. |
You mean you want to include societal and cultural evolution into the concept of natural selection? |
Yes.. well, I'd turn it around and say natural selection on a higher level leads to societal and cultural evolution. It becomes a matter of which culture/society is most viable. That's where we are today. In fact, we live in the days of battle and war between cultures and social norms (northern/western/eastern/southern). Just look at how the world is struggling in a social and cultural game of chess where people are the pawns, whether it's islamists, rebels, young marines, civilians being slaughtered by any side, Israel in the midst of the islamic world and so on.
Racism, anti-fascism, right wing/left wing, immigration hatred, humanism (ie. pro-immigration), those are all part of a bigger picture of cultural and societal changes and battles and it's happening now so we can't tell which way it will go.
On that level we're definitely in the middle of a survival of the fittest war, and our once "superior" western position has weakened from within and from external influences. Meanwhile our opponents are having different but equally disruptive upheavals where culture and society is breaking apart in convulsions.
It's simply a question of perspective. From the miniscule (genes) to the globally macroscopic perspective of how different cultures are throwing themselves at each other and have for centuries. I guess that's been a catalyst in our societies and cultures development in certain directions. It can be applied to ideologies as well. At one point the weaker ideology will have to back down unless it renews itself with new ideas and strength. It can be applied to class structures as well.. The poor vs the rich. That's an economical survival of the fittest. The rich ones are the ones that are adepts in a capitalistic economical world, forsaking other abilities or part of themselves.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Feb 2013 11:55 Post subject: |
|
|
I agree to some extend. This battle between ideologies and cultures is something that has been happening for centuries, for millennia even. Islamists against Christians, Reformed churches against katholics, south vs. north etc. You named it aswell. I am not so sure about the concept "survival of the fittest" (Spencer) though. It is a very holistic approach, in which the individual is reduced to a simple part of the whole and determined by this whole, loosing all means of individual freedom and possibility of change. This conceptual jump from biological observations to sociological theories is very tempting though not scientifically correct. It has lead to many ethically problematic situations in the past, like eugenics (the sterilisation of women for the biological enhancement of the nation) or even the Nazi view on the world, where individuals are nothing more than a part of the nation-body (as in really a body, like the human body).
Now, I know, that you, Frant, do not see it as such. You do not promote any ideology over another, you just observe and make conclusions, which is good of course. I still do not see the scientific connection between the observation of biological evolution and the cultural/societal evolution. It may be an intuitive thing, but scientifically very problematic.
Also, I am not so certain, that nowadays, the future of different cultures and ideologies really completely depends on these ideologies or cultures beeing somehow stronger than others. (What-if scenario:) If North Korea, China, Iran, and Pakistan and the USA have nuclear weapons, all of them could attac first, and the outcome of a nuclear war could mean the destruction of one or two of them but not the other. Which one survives is simply a matter of military strength and not cultural or ideological evolution.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
