Science and Inquiry discussion
Issues in Science
>
Will technology replace evolution?
Betsy wrote: "Nancy wrote: " I was thinking more of the implantee controlling not being controlled. For example, recording or downloading input that one might find useful in the future. Directly into a little fl..."There was also an old star trek episode, where they found a civilization that had surgically become "part computer," and were all connected to a large central computer that had crashed. Whaddya think had happened to the people connected to it?
(Well, it was either original star trek or next generation, so they weren't dead. :) But they sure needed the crew's help! lol)
Mel wrote: "There was also an old star trek episode, where they found a civilization that had surgically become "part computer," and were all connected to a large central computer that had crashed. Whaddya think had happened to the people connected to it?(Well, it was either original star trek or next generation, so they weren't dead. :) But they sure needed the crew's help! lol)
"
There may have been a Star Trek episode like that, but I know there was a Twilight Zone episode with a similar theme. (I'm referring to the series from the 1980s, not the original Twilight Zone.) As I recall, people had lost the ability to read because all information was simply downloaded into their brains. The hero of the story either chose not to have an implant or the implant didn't work for him. I recorded that episode on my DVR but haven't watched it lately. We do seem to be moving in that direction technologically, though.
Mel wrote: "If you don't consider humans polluting our own water and arable land, then you must still consider that our farming/food production still relies on the ecosystem as a whole functioning. If you also..."If you consider things from the standpoint of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics (projected to the macro world), there are versions of reality where *all* of these possibilities—and more—exist.
Daniel wrote:"1.) "Education the key," as has been the mantra for many decades. Certainly some kinds of education, or some amount... but, from an economic standpoint, do we need to graduate more e.g. communications majors? Not to pick on the humanities, since there is a lot of clamoring that we need more STEM majors, but I've seen arguments made that much of this education is wasted as the STEM jobs don't actually exist. (Full disclosure, I left a software/tech career and am back in school studying physics... so this didn't stop me.)
I graduated as a journalism major with an unofficial economics minor. (The minor hadn't been adopted formally yet when I graduated, but I found out what the requirements would be and took all the classes.) I wound up working for a newspaper (yes, a real newspaper!) for a few years before doing some free-lance writing. My training in journalism and economics prepared me very well for becoming a public policy analyst, something I did for many years.
Even long ago, when I was looking for a college with a good journalism program, I found that many schools had "communications" majors instead. I don't know just what the requirements were either then or now, but I sure wish more people in the media would follow the journalistic principles that I tried to follow both in my reporting and in the commentaries I wrote later in my career. Whether it's in a newspaper, in the broadcast media, or on the Internet, news reporting should be honest, reasonably objective (complete objectivity is really impossible) and accurate. If they're still teaching that to communications majors, I'm glad to hear it's become a popular field. As for jobs availability, good training in journalism, at least, teaches you how to find and evaluate information--and how to communicate what you find to others effectively. Seems to me those skills would be useful in a lot of jobs that might not be thought of as "communications."
2.) Since "everyone knows" that you must get an education, the cost keeps going up to match demand, while the value returned on a degree has declined or stagnated. E.g. You will still earn more with a bachelors, but would you earn 90% as much of that "education bump" with 25% of the cost if we had a better system of e.g technical training and retraining?"
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the need for better training—and retraining. A college degree isn't the only kind of education, however. We need to treat non-college education with much more respect than we do.
In my novel, The Reality Matrix Effect, the employment service in the alternate reality of 2021 assumes that people will change careers at least once during their lifetime and provides the necessary support system for that.
Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think that could be accomplished using small computer chi..."
That's a scary thought! Having someone else in your head controlling your body! Wonder if that would work for disobedient dogs? Hmmmm....
Laura wrote: "Nancy wrote: "I not sure. It seems to me that the US government's agenda is to "breed" a dependent class of people, through its economic policies and social programs. The extinction of the American..."You are right, government policies discourage people from being productive! This is as detrimental for the people with disabilities as it is for society in general. And many of us have disablilities, whether officially documented by the government or not. Some of these are genetic and some are caused by stuff that just happens in life. And even if you don't have a "disability," your economic condition can be crippling, especially in these tough times. My quarrel is that the government seems to reward people for caving in and living off the system and punish people for attempting to better themselves. And, at least in my world, the cavers seem to reproduce at a much higher rate than those who try to assume some control of and responsibility for their and their families' lives. So what is this doing to our gene pool? And should we care?
Betsy wrote: "Nancy wrote: " I was thinking more of the implantee controlling not being controlled. For example, recording or downloading input that one might find useful in the future. Directly into a little fl..."Wow! They stole my idea :-) I will have to check out out.
Nancy wrote: "Betsy wrote: "Nancy wrote: " I was thinking more of the implantee controlling not being controlled. For example, recording or downloading input that one might find useful in the future. Directly in..."I mean, check that out.
Laura wrote: "Mel wrote: "If you don't consider humans polluting our own water and arable land, then you must still consider that our farming/food production still relies on the ecosystem as a whole functioning...."Yes, in fact......that just might be a whole nother discussion. Not too long ago, my roommate and I were talking about the idea that travel between these places is impossible. Since it is another reality, logic says you cease to exist upon entering it, and it's probably impossible for you to even get that far, as your existence depends on THIS reality. I was suggesting that if these worlds are infinite, though, it stands to reason there must be at least one, where the inhabitants CAN travel like that, and they are doing it right now. The same rule, though, would also say there is at least one world that cannot be accessed by travelers, since "all things exist somewhere," etc. Lots of fun to toss around, that's for sure! :)
Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think that could be accomplished using small ..."
Ooh, that's just the tip of the iceberg--depending on how these chips are supposed to function, they may also work on a corpse. Or at least continue to work after the hapless remote-controlled person is dead. That would depend on whether they are wired TO the nervous system or come with wiring of their own. You wouldn't even need to go so fancy as to imitate a real nervous system, just have enough cables and/or more chips throughout the body, and you could activate the main chip after death and have a zombie. Hell, you could program the chip itself to default to the synthetic "nervous system" upon death of the host. Since I would imagine our natural "cables" would still be preferable. More dexterity >:D
Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think that could be accomplishe..."
Sounds like the makings of a good zombie movie! Installing cables and wires into a perishable body sounds like a lot of trouble for a short useful life, though, unless you're in Antartica or someplace where the body would not rot. Just sayin'.
Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think that could be accomplished using small computer chi..."
You are too funny! Shows how minds work so differently, though. I am thinking of having a calculator built into my brain (not necessary, since I could easily carry one in my purse, but cool...) or photographic memory, or even the ability to send information as in an internal cell phone ... which of course leads to your fears of also receiving information which might result in you bringing someone a monogrammed towel. I had not thought that far ahead. I was just thinking it would be cool to have computer power in my own head, for my own use!
Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think that could be..."
Ya, I figure extra computer chips would work with a partially-intact nervous system. Not badly decomposed.
Whereas a wiring system attached to the bones could very well work until there is only a skeleton. (although there would need to be some sort of tendons for it to move w/o falling apart lol)
And in either case, the main chip situated in the skull COULD include--ta-da! Backup drive of the dead person's memories/personality, stored as data. It would, of course, think it was the real person. (it's not, it's a copy on a chip, the original is floating around in Soulville lol) At any rate, it'd be able to walk, think, and (somewhat) function up to between 24 hrs and 1 month after death. It would not need to eat, and it would not breathe. And it would continue to decay.
Yes, I am well aware this concept floats around already. Fascinates me to no end :)
No; technology cannot replace evolution. Technology can contribute to evolutionary change or accelerate it, but evolution is a force of reality that cannot be replaced. Even if prosthetics, implants, and genetic modifications were widely adopted, evolution would still be in place and would work subtly in the background.
While technology can't replace evolution it certainly gives a whole new meaning to survival of the fittest. The "fittest" being not so fit when the batteries run down.
Nancy wrote: "Laura wrote: "Nancy wrote: "I not sure. It seems to me that the US government's agenda is to "breed" a dependent class of people, through its economic policies and social programs. The extinction o..."I don't think that "caving," as you put it, is a genetic trait. I think people just respond to the incentives around them and do whatever they *perceive* to be in their best interests. (Important note: What people *perceive* to be in their best interest often is *not* in their best interest!)
So if a government program that is initially designed to be a temporary helping hand is *perceived* to be an ongoing "free lunch," that is what it is likely to become, and those who become dependent on that program for their survival will continue to make the rational decision to remain dependent on it. But that doesn't mean that the program itself is worthless or destructive, and I don't think it means recipients of that program will pass on a genetic trait for dependence via a disproportionate number of children. This gets into the old "nature vs. nurture" debate.
Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Although I think..."
Where would the energy to move this rotting carcass come from?
Wouldn't it be easier to install the chip which contains the duplicate personality/memory/etc. into a new, living body. Preferably an individual who is already brain dead so we don't have a potentially problematic split personality. Or some kind of animal who operates mainly off of instinct, so as not to displace his personality. Someone who has admirable physical attributes but not a whole lot of brain power. A kangaroo, maybe? Or better yet, a prisoner convicted of heinous crimes who is languishing on death row and doesn't deserve to live, but has a perfectly good body it would be a shame to waste.
Laura wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Laura wrote: "Nancy wrote: "I not sure. It seems to me that the US government's agenda is to "breed" a dependent class of people, through its economic policies and social programs. Th..."I concede that it is neither 100% nature nor 100% nurture. But we will have to agree to disagree on the proportion of each. I think nature plays a more important role in behavior than many assume.
A system which results in, as you put it, those who depend on some program for survival to make the rational decision to remain dependent on it (thus in many cases becoming a parasite), is a destructive system. A good system would result in the advancement of those it purports to help.
Nearly half of all babies now born in the US are paid for by Medicaid. This is precisely the same percentage as those born out of wedlock ... coincidence? Becoming pregnant with a child one can't support in an era where there are so many ways to prevent such "accidents" indicates somewhat low intelligence. And intelligence is very much hereditary.
Mel wrote: "Betsy wrote: "Nancy wrote: " I was thinking more of the implantee controlling not being controlled. For example, recording or downloading input that one might find useful in the future. Directly in..."Missed that one! (I am SO out of the loop...)
Nancy wrote: "...A system which results in, as you put it, those who depend on some program for survival to make the rational decision to remain dependent on it (thus in many cases becoming a parasite), is a destructive system. A good system would result in the advancement of those it purports to help.I agree completely that the current system is bad. That's one of the points I was trying to make. But I'm convinced there *are* ways to create a system that *will* work if we as a society really commit ourselves to doing so.
Nearly half of all babies now born in the US are paid for by Medicaid. This is precisely the same percentage as those born out of wedlock ... coincidence? Becoming pregnant with a child one can't support in an era where there are so many ways to prevent such "accidents" indicates somewhat low intelligence. And intelligence is very much hereditary.
I don't agree that becoming pregnant out of wedlock is necessarily a sign of low intelligence. Intelligent decisions are at least in part a function of good information, and availability of such information can vary based on socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, the ability to *act* on that information in productive ways is often dependent on other circumstances as well. For example, when abortion was illegal, the fact that a woman knew that the best thing for her to do was end her pregnancy didn't mean she could do so without possibly risking her life. Under those circumstances, carrying the baby to term was hardly a sign of low intelligence. (And there was a time when just using contraceptives, if not illegal, at least was socially stigmatized.)
I will agree with your conclusion on this point, however: I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about a lot of this.
Jonathan wrote: "No; technology cannot replace evolution. Technology can contribute to evolutionary change or accelerate it, but evolution is a force of reality that cannot be replaced. Even if prosthetics, implant..."Where does contribution/acceleration end and replacement begin? With the size of the contribution. Blast enough gases A and B, and the primordial soup becomes primordial koolaid. Oversimplified comparison? Only depending on how long it's been :P Come on. You know it's true! :)
No, even if you're joking, it can't happen. The problem for this idea is that technology is a factor but evolution is the mechanism. They are not of the same type or genre, so they cannot be directly compared. The only way for technology to replace biological evolution is by wiping out the biology part entirely (i.e. no genetic matter), in which case some sort of abiological evolution would replace it.For example, say all humans get some serious brain implants that double average IQ, make us all highly multilingual, turn us into human calculators, and give us photographic memory, with different variations in the implant types (e.g. Types X, Y, Z, and so on). Now, like today's pharmaceutical medicines, maybe Type X is susceptible to some clotting factor/risk due to its component materials, and so users of Type X cannot eat bananas. And Type Y users cannot eat mangoes, etc. These differences create different environments, which in turn impacts the biological organisms of those users' GI tracts. From a non-anthropocentric viewpoint, evolution continues normally; this is what I meant by evolution will continue to run subtly.
No matter how much technology you throw at the human body, it will not have any impact on the reality of evolution. The size of the contribution or acceleration does not matter; even if we have all sorts of eugenics and life preserving technologies to carefully select the genotypes, the evolutionary mechanism is still in place. As I wrote before, the only way for technology to replace evolution is to sterilize all biological life, whereby the mechanism acting on those genetic materials stops.
To clarify, I think we are discussing different concepts here. Per the title, will technology replace evolution? No.Per your prompt, will improving technology increase the rate of change in our quality of life above the level we have been experiencing normally? Yes, I agree it will--it has already historically shown this.
No, even if you're joking, it can't happen. The problem for this idea is that technology is a factor but evolution is the mechanism. Our technological advancement, driven by our instincts, will naturally be an extension of our evolution. Being that, it follows that it will affect its direction. As well as that of our planet.
They are not of the same type or genre, so they cannot be directly compared.
Why not? One is a realization of the other, after all.
The only way for technology to replace biological evolution is by wiping out the biology part entirely (i.e. no genetic matter), in which case some sort of abiological evolution would replace it.
I didn't mean universally. But yes, I DID mean to blur the chemical lines a bit. Especially insofar as what constitutes "biological," "organic," "life," etc. Why not? There is a snail with iron scales. Like actual iron! Seriously! look it up if you don't believe me :)
For example, say all humans get some serious brain implants that double average IQ, make us all highly multilingual, turn us into human calculators, and give us photographic memory, with different variations in the implant types (e.g. Types X, Y, Z, and so on). Now, like today's pharmaceutical medicines, maybe Type X is susceptible to some clotting factor/risk due to its component materials, and so users of Type X cannot eat bananas. And Type Y users cannot eat mangoes, etc. These differences create different environments, which in turn impacts the biological organisms of those users' GI tracts. From a non-anthropocentric viewpoint, evolution continues normally; this is what I meant by evolution will continue to run subtly.
Yes, but that domino effect was caused by the technological advance. Also, technology uses all different crap off the periodic table that we don't always know the long term effects of. It doesn't take much either (hellow madam curie and chernobyl)
Also, Balance Of Nature. Food Chain. One change of course affects another, and the dominoes don't just go in that straight line (with the nanner allergies on type x) So it seems, the whole ecosystem is changed, the more we poke around with chemicals. Makes sense to me! Seeing as we're born from chemicals!
But yes, it would run on subtly, but may depend upon a certain, um, radius that's.......a realization of itself!
Jonathan wrote: "No, even if you're joking, it can't happen. The problem for this idea is that technology is a factor but evolution is the mechanism. They are not of the same type or genre, so they cannot be direct..."I think you are limiting your thinking on this Jonathan. Evolution is not limited to biology. We are BECOMING our machines and there is reason to believe they will replace us. It may be that biological life is only one phase of the larger picture. We are the caterpillars, our progeny will be the butterfly. I've written a few essays on this topic. Doesn't mean I'm an expert by any means, but I have been researching the area for many years - evolution, computers, technology, artificial intelligence, human intelligence, etc. See my Bleeding Edge blog and/or
my "How do we know" book of science essays.
I've written a full essay on the 'Butterflies' idea but unfortunately it is not published yet. I hope to include it in my next book of science essays, but I also attempted to capture it in this poem from my first book of poems. Not to spam the group or anything, but I did just release a full book of Science poems if anyone is interested. :)Butterflies
We build them in our image
reaching out to other worlds
roving Mars, seeking, learning
searching for life beyond
we give them our intelligence
and super-human strength
to survive in places we cannot
to reach out beyond our means
sensors and senses, measure and probe
sending signals back home
through them we grow
to be what we can’t be
humanity is but a twinkle
in the universe’s eye
we’re caterpillars in Earth’s cocoon
and butterflies to the stars
Kenny A. Chaffin – 1/08/2012
If we wanted to be truly scientific about this discussion, we would attempt to define our terms and axiomatize the reasoning. For example, "technology," "evolution," "replace," "proper go," "next level," and so on.Kenny, "evolution" is a vague term that we are using in different ways, and that is causing a bit of confusion here. It's true, cosmic evolution need not pertain only to biological organisms. But biological evolution is limited in its definition to biology.
To expound on this point, try searching "evolution definition" in Google. This is what I get:
"1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
(1) basically relates only to beings with genetic material, e.g. DNA. This sort of evolution is indeed limited to biology, and the "process" or "mechanism" is fundamentally different than the "technology" examples of implants, prosthetics, eugenics programs, etc. It is akin to saying that "natural evolution" (whatever that is defined to be) is British English and "technologically-catalyzed evolution" (again, whatever that is defined to be) is American English. But has either replaced language (evolution)? No. The fundamental system is still in place.
If you are using the definition in (2), then you may be correct, for this is the more general version that is not used strictly as biological evolution. But still, technology is a factor or parameter influencing, but not replacing, the fundamental system.
Mel, yes, I agree; our technological advancement is powered by our historical evolutionary development, and will in turn affect our future evolutionary development. But technology is always a contributing factor; it cannot replace the fundamental mechanism. Evolution is much more basic and fundamental; so long as organisms are reproducing/producing new generations with varied gene frequencies, biological evolution is in place.
Kenny, that is a beautiful work.
Again, to clarify, such abiological organisms (driven by technological "extension") could lead to some abiological, robotic evolution, but so long as there are genetic, biological organisms producing new, non-static generations, there is biological evolution. That is not to say the forms will look the same tomorrow as they look today; it is only to say the mechanism is still in place.
Jonathan evolution is not vague at all. Darwin explained as simple as I have ever seen - "descent with modification." :)
Let me ask you a question then; do you believe that technology will fundamentally change/replace the rules of Darwinian evolution, as applied to us?If you answer "yes," therein lies my surprise. Darwinian evolution, natural selection, etc. have been in effect for billions of years since the first living organisms.
The affirmative argument is basically stating that technology will replace the mechanisms of Darwinian/biological evolution as pertains to living organisms, or perhaps even more specifically to us humans. That is highly, highly theoretical, and I do not think it is realistically plausible any time soon--not within my lifetime, or the next century, or the century after that.
I'd also add that our technology, and certainly our applied science via technology has had an effect on evolution. We have wiped out various diseases, change patterns of interbreeding in animals and humans as well. Craig Venter is claiming to have created or on the verge of creating synthetic/artificial life. There was a recent paper on creation of a full chromosome from scratch - http://www.thewire.com/technology/201... Now of course these are manipulations of genetics and environment still using/affecting biological organisms but I truly don't think it is much of a stretch (given that we've only been at this 'science/technology' thing a few thousand years) to see us develop fully independent technology that goes far beyond human capabilities (with all the characteristics of life, evolution, procreation, intelligence, survival etc.) and to send that technological life out into the cosmos prior to destroying ourselves.....or not....we're on the verge of a 6th Extinction Event some think at the moment.
Jonathan wrote: "Let me ask you a question then; do you believe that technology will fundamentally change/replace the rules of Darwinian evolution, as applied to us?If you answer "yes," therein lies my surprise. ..."
Evolution operates over billions of years, not lifetimes. I understand what you are saying with respect to the one example of life as we know it -- Earth life. I also think that is only one example and yes I do think as I said in my poem and in my essay that this biological life may only be one phase, one stage of life in the Universe. As I said above, I do think we have already influenced human and other biological evolution here on Earth, I'm also pretty convinced we will be able to create technological life that will transcend us....whether we as humans still exist/continue after that happens....I really don't know....likely yes, unless we somehow transfer our minds into those technologies and decide to leave the biological life behind. I suspect we'll coexist but who knows...
Ryan wrote: "Darwinian evolution (I relate it crudely to survival of the fittest)in humans has essentially stopped. We no longer physically evolve to survive. Evolution still occurs, but it just makes our featu..."I tend to agree Ryan.
And David Attenborough's answer:
"Sir David Attenborough: Humans have stopped evolving
Human beings have stopped evolving after becoming the only species to “put halt to natural selection of its own free will”, Sir David Attenborough has said, as he predicts the “cultural evolution” of the future."
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/ev...
Apparently he got quite a bit of flak for that article/claim. :)
Ryan, evolution is still occurring with regards to humans today. It has not stopped. Any time a fetus with severe chromosomal abnormalities fails to survive to birth, or fails to thrive, that is an obvious example that the evolutionary mechanism is still in effect. In simple terms, it was not fit enough to come to reproductive age, and so did not pass on its genes.Yes, evolution occurs across generations. Darwinian evolution is not specific to Earth life, but biological life dependent on genetic material.
You wrote it yourself--"descent with modification." Even if that is a gross simplification of Darwinian evolution, then all of your examples still hold that Darwinian evolution is in effect, and will continue to be in effect. These technological advances are all "modifications," the descent with modification is still active.
If not, please provide an example where this would not be the case. In vitro fertilization, in vitro diagnostics, eugenics, stem cell technologies, gene therapies? None of these break Darwinian evolution.
Ryan, the trial is life itself, just by being conceived the fetus is being "trialed." It is an example of Darwinian evolution at work.The rest of the post was directed at Kenny.
I already agreed that technological advancement is altering the course and rate of evolution. What I am only stating is that technology cannot replace Darwinian evolution, because it is a contributing factor to Darwinian evolution, not a competing mechanism or scheme.
Jonathan wrote: "Ryan, evolution is still occurring with regards to humans today. It has not stopped. Any time a fetus with severe chromosomal abnormalities fails to survive to birth, or fails to thrive, that is an..."Jonathan wrote: "Ryan, evolution is still occurring with regards to humans today. It has not stopped. Any time a fetus with severe chromosomal abnormalities fails to survive to birth, or fails to thrive, that is an..."
But Jonathan the point is that we can (and I think are likely to) replace biological evolution with technological evolution. You don't seem to be connecting with that. Perhaps the biological mechanisms will still be around but they may not we may BECOME our machines and leave biology behind, hell we might even intentionally sterilize the Earth...who knows.
What I'm hearing YOU say is that evolution only applies to biology and I'm saying it way way bigger than that.
Are you claiming evolution does not apply to technology and that it only applies to the one example we have - Earth life?
Kenny, what you are not connecting is that Darwinian evolution via natural selection of genetic materials applies to biological organisms. Abiological evolution is a separate mechanism and can apply to different objects. Please reread my post above with regards to definitions.If we lose the biological/genetic component, we are not ourselves anymore. That "life" form is no longer human.
As I noted above, if technology replaces Darwinian evolution completely, the only option is the complete sterilization of biological life, and its replacement with abiological life.
Definitions. "Evolution" =/= "Darwinian Evolution" =/= "Abiological Evolution."
Jonathan wrote: "If we lose the biological/genetic component, we are not ourselves anymore. That "life" form is no longer human."
And that is where you are not connecting. As I said in my first post to you, you are limiting your understanding of evolution and not looking at the bigger MUCH bigger picture. This is where we disagree.
You are restricting both the reality of what evolution is and what humanity or even life is.
Kenny, then you need to provide a better definition of "evolution." Technology cannot replace Darwinian evolution, as stated multiple times above. Technology cannot even replace the broader evolution; I understand where you are going with evolution, and it is not correct in my opinion.At this point we are playing with semantics here.
The answer to the question "Will technology replace evolution?" should be "No," because however you define "evolution," most accepted definitions encapsulate such changes driven by technology. Technology is not a competing mechanism to evolution; regardless of biological or abiological in nature.
That is all I am trying to explain in this thread. The prompt in the opening post is not exactly the same as the title, if read carefully. Forgive me if I sounded exasperated, or if I refrain from responding to further posts.
As I said, that's where we disagree and that's okay. :)
Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyone."Yes! Alth..."
Sorry, I missed this one before. I was (seriously) picturing it wandering around from its death site, with a limited time to find a new body. (Yup, just like in the old "transplant the soul into a fresh body" myths lol). Yeah, it would need to find a fresh place to go.
Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Mel wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Robert wrote: "Photographic memory or total recall would be helpful for everyon..."Oh, and as to powering it, pick your poison.....battery that needs charging......fossil fuels......BRAAAAIIIIINS......or a dead person's consciousness (a now-cliched sci fi trope based on the idea that if consciousness is energy, then it can be used to power a machine, voluntarily or otherwise)
To try and clarify again, "technology" is generally a noun representing concrete things (e.g. smartphones), whereas "to evolve" is a verb. "Evolution" is a process or mechanism. "Darwinian evolution," or the biological sense of "evolution," is a subset. Even in the sense that "technology" is used with regards to a process (e.g. acid bath etching, IVF), such an example does not remove the evolutionary process. Self-building robots could "evolve," but the robotic technology has not removed the fundamental process or schema of [abiological] "evolution." The technology is playing into the evolutionary scheme. Again, this is more semantics, and we are using different understandings or definitions for "evolution."This latter form of evolution is certainly not Darwinian evolution in the biological sense, however. I would say that such a form of evolution, if clarified, would not agree with the strictly scientific sense (certainly not in biology), but belongs more in the world of futurology or science fiction. It is more of an idea or belief than the laboratory-tested, scientific descent of allele frequencies.
So, okay, we can agree to disagree there. I agree with you, technology will impact our evolution, and has already impacted our evolution. The question of who we "humans" are, the issue of self, that is a topic for another thread.
1) basically relates only to beings with genetic material, e.g. DNA. This sort of evolution is indeed limited to biology, and the "process" or "mechanism" is fundamentally different than the "technology" examples of implants, prosthetics, eugenics programs, etc. It is akin to saying that "natural evolution" (whatever that is defined to be) is British English and "technologically-catalyzed evolution" (again, whatever that is defined to be) is American English. But has either replaced language (evolution)? No. The fundamental system is still in place.
The definition is what I am taking issue with. It is deliberately narrowed, as is the human definition of life. Since we DO know ourselves to be made up of elements, I want to look at evolution by "what elements," not "organic or inorganic material." That is part of why I was asking this.
Especially since we already have seen the direct effect wonky elements have on GENES. How would evolution and technology NOT be intertwined based on this alone, even if we are still humoring the traditional "organic only" definition
As to definition 2--simple=technology free evolution and complex = technology-influenced evolution. (remember, evolution is what drives it in the first place)
Gotta go cook now
Yep. Agreed Mel. Just finished getting hamburger patties prepped and about to throw them on the grill. Mmmmmm good!
I haven't followed every message on this thread; so maybe I'm repeating something someone else already has said. It seems to me that technology can be viewed as a part of human evolution. Technology is a result of what our brains can conceive and build. As our brains evolve, so can our technology "evolve." Will technology overtake the evolution of our brains? I think that will depend on whether human wisdom evolves quickly enough to keep up with what evolution enables us to do, with or without technology.
Yep Mel said that same sort of thing I think. And yeah I agree even in 'The Selfish Gene' Dawkins took evolution to the 'meme' level. I just don't see any way that evolution is restricted to biology, but I do think there is a hell of a lot we have to learn about how it applies beyond biology and what that means for humanity.
Part of the confusion is that the more general version of the word "evolution" that you (e.g. Mel, Kenny) are using in this thread is not Darwinian evolution. To repeat, you are using the general sense of the word, not the scientific sense, i.e. not the way biologists academically use the word "evolution." Going back to my previous results from Google; you are using definition (2), not definition (1).Laura, yes, technology is part of humanity's historical evolution. In time, it may branch and create abiological beings (they may or may not be called "life," e.g. robots) that can "reproduce" in a sense. They may follow their own "[abiological] evolution," but it will not be Darwinian evolution.
To put it simply, evolution is a system composed of parts A, B, C, etc. Technology is a part, e.g. part A.
(Edited this little section)
All Evolutionary Change = 1 = A + B + C + ...
All Evolutionary Change = 1 = (Technology-Driven Change) + B + C + ...
(End of edits)
Or another metaphor; evolution is the chess board, we are one of the players, and technology is one of the pieces on the board. Perhaps that simply confuses the matter.
But again, this is semantics. Evolution is the framework, the process. Darwinian evolution is that process with regards to us, biological lifeforms with genetic materials. Technology is a piece in that framework. The definition of evolution you are using is not Darwinian evolution, i.e. the scientific version of evolution. Hence, all bets are off, and we are in the realm of fiction, not science.
So long as "we" continue to exist with a familiar mode of life, technology cannot fully replace evolution.
Science and Inquiry
Books mentioned in this topic
The Reality Matrix Effect (other topics)The Reality Matrix Effect (other topics)
Took the words right outta my mouth....