Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2017, 04:37 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
I still believe it is fallacious to consider anything man-made to be "not natural". This is only one of the definitions of the word "nature" and I believe the only reason we use it this way today is because back when we started using the word, before Darwin, humans were considered to be something separate from nature, they were elevated beings, not animals.

Why is any human intervention considered unnatural? Why are buildings unnatural but beaver dams are perfectly natural? Our indifference about the environment is irrelevant to our nature as animals of this planet. We are animals. We are natural. Our actions are natural. Because if our actions are not natural, then we are not natural.

If nature encompasses both the natural environment and the cosmos (which it does) then claiming that what humans do is "unnatural" is like claiming it is supernatural. Now you might think "What the fuck is she saying? Supernatural means beyond the laws of nature. We're not beyond the laws of nature". Exactly. We're not. We're natural; part of nature. And so are all our actions, as dictated by our own "natural" nature.

Haha wow, this post is shit, hope it makes sense.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
13-08-2017, 04:56 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2017 05:01 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 04:37 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  I still believe it is fallacious to consider anything man-made to be "not natural".

I've had this discussion before with someone else here. We use the word "artificial" to distinguish those things made by man from those things not made by man, that is all. That those things made by man are a subset of all the things made naturally is not in dispute.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:02 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 04:56 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I've had this discussion before with someone else here. We use the word "artificial" to distinguish those things made by man from those things not made by man, that is all. That those things made by man are a subset of all the things made naturally is not in dispute.

Well, I mentioned it because one, my first post here was almost ignored and two, I keep seeing posts referring to human intervention as "unnatural" as if that means something. Cells keep mutating, evolution goes on. Whether something is artificial or not has nothing to do with natural selection.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:11 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2017 05:15 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 05:02 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(13-08-2017 04:56 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I've had this discussion before with someone else here. We use the word "artificial" to distinguish those things made by man from those things not made by man, that is all. That those things made by man are a subset of all the things made naturally is not in dispute.

Well, I mentioned it because one, my first post here was almost ignored and two, I keep seeing posts referring to human intervention as "unnatural" as if that means something. Cells keep mutating, evolution goes on. Whether something is artificial or not has nothing to do with natural selection.

So this is an interesting point. Technology has rendered "natural" selection in the sense of genetic and cellular survival of the fittest nearly moot (cancer cells is still putting up a fight but we're close), but the way that technology evolved to render it's responsible mechanism of action moot was entirely "natural". My conclusion from that is technology is the next stage of evolution and will work under different, more accelerated and efficient, mechanisms of action. It's still completely natural. What else could it be? Certainly not unnatural. Smile

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
13-08-2017, 05:15 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 07:32 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 09:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They aren't.
But now we can fiddle with genes when that happens.

EVERYBODY's genes? When is that going to happen.

If anyone starts fiddling inside my genes, I'll take them straight to denim court.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:20 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 05:11 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So this is an interesting point. Technology has rendered "natural" selection in the sense of genetic and cellular survival of the fittest nearly moot (cancer cells is still putting up a fight but we're close), but the way that technology evolved to render it's responsible mechanism of action moot was entirely "natural". My conclusion from that is technology is the next stage of evolution and will work under different, more accelerated and efficient, mechanisms of action. It's still completely natural. How could it be otherwise? Smile

Well, yes.

But even if we consider such a process to be unnatural, as I mentioned before, we may be able to control what's happening in our bodies, but we can't fully control what's happening in our environment (and I doubt we will ever be).

If a huge volcano erupts, if the climate changes drastically, if we run out of resources, it won't matter how far we've gone in medicine. It will be "natural selection" all over again. As it is now, and as it will always be.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:23 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 04:37 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  I still believe it is fallacious to consider anything man-made to be "not natural". This is only one of the definitions of the word "nature" and I believe the only reason we use it this way today is because back when we started using the word, before Darwin, humans were considered to be something separate from nature, they were elevated beings, not animals.

Why is any human intervention considered unnatural? Why are buildings unnatural but beaver dams are perfectly natural? Our indifference about the environment is irrelevant to our nature as animals of this planet. We are animals. We are natural. Our actions are natural. Because if our actions are not natural, then we are not natural.

If nature encompasses both the natural environment and the cosmos (which it does) then claiming that what humans do is "unnatural" is like claiming it is supernatural. Now you might think "What the fuck is she saying? Supernatural means beyond the laws of nature. We're not beyond the laws of nature". Exactly. We're not. We're natural; part of nature. And so are all our actions, as dictated by our own "natural" nature.

Haha wow, this post is shit, hope it makes sense.

It does make sense. We are a part of nature. Scientifically speaking, I can't see any difference between the words "natural", "physical", "material" and "existent". If something exists and is not natural, then at best that means it's outside of our (sub)universe. But even then... I don't know what would make it not natural.

Anything that exists follows whatever rules apply to it. So saying "natural means following the laws of nature" really tells us nothing about what is and isn't natural. It's a tautology. In real terms, anything that "exists" but isn't natural/material/physical is imaginary. An abstract concept of some sort, or a potential one. Woo tries to hide its garbage in non-existent gaps in language.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
13-08-2017, 05:29 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 05:20 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  ... but we can't fully control what's happening in our environment (and I doubt we will ever be).

That statement's not obvious to me. It depends on what we mean by "full control". Boy in the bubble and engineering clean rooms are pretty damn close to full control for all practical purposes. And we're pretty sure at this point that we are responsible for determining whether the damn thing is a particle or a wave. I just don't think that evolution has any practical purpose anymore. Its methods are too crude and slow and inefficient to keep up with or even influence its natural replacement.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:37 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 05:29 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-08-2017 05:20 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  ... but we can't fully control what's happening in our environment (and I doubt we will ever be).

That statement's not obvious to me. It depends on what we mean by "full control". Boy in the bubble and engineering clean rooms are pretty damn close to full control for all practical purposes. And we're pretty sure at this point that we are responsible for determining whether the damn thing is a particle or a wave. I just don't think that evolution has any practical purpose anymore. Its methods are too crude and slow and inefficient to keep up with or even influence its natural replacement.

Well, I think we're pretty far from controlling volcanoes and earthquakes.

As for evolution's "practical purpose", well, evolution just happens. It's the reason we exist. I don't think it will ask us if it can go on or not. We're also pretty far from controlling how cells replicate too.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2017, 05:46 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(13-08-2017 05:37 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  Well, I think we're pretty far from controlling volcanoes and earthquakes.

We know how to make them.


(13-08-2017 05:37 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  We're also pretty far from controlling how cells replicate too.

You think?

Stanford biologists crack centuries-old mystery of how cell growth triggers cell division

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: