MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

hacker · 04-18-2005, 11:42 AM

Personally, I believe that our technology is slowing (and even stopping in some cases) our evolution. Seriously...

For example, with Gore-Tex, we no longer need to adapt to colder or warmer environments. We don't have to develop thicker skin, or warmer blood, or better wicking and perspiration capabilities. We just put on our polypropalene undershirts and leggings, put on a Gore-Tex jacket, and we're ready for most serious weather conditions.

We have braces, root canals, bridges in our mouthes. Why evolve to have stronger jaws and teeth to chew tougher foods, when we can just fix it with technology.

We now have low-carb, no-carb, high-protein, gluten-free, sugar-free, Lutein, Splenda, and other types of additives that change our our bodies grow.

For millions of years, we've lived on a very specific set of minerals and nutrients, and now in the last 100, we're turning that all upside-down, and trying to change how our bodies work, because we think we're smarter than the billions of people who have come before us. Its no wonder disease, cancers and allergies are at an all-time high. Did you know that peanut allergies in children has tripled in the last 5 years?

Now we have medicines and pills and other solutions that prolong human lives. They curb the sick, allow them to live longer. The other side of that is that we also allow viruses to learn more before they are defeated. A sick person with a virus would normally have died, stopping the propagation of the virus, but now we have medicines that keep those people alive, so we can "study" the virus. Sure, and now the virus gets stronger, resistant to more medicines, and we end up breeding a new virus that we can't fight.

Viruses and bacteria have been around billions of years before we got here, and they'll be around billions of years after we're gone.

It is no longer a "survival of the fittest" world, when everyone can survive. We're breeding a weaker, less-prepared race of people, when we let recessive genes take the forefront, and combine those with others. I'm not saying we should let our loved ones die because they're sick, but I do think we should take a long look at what we're actually doing, long-term. Is saving a sick person with a genetic malfunction, so they can have children (potentially passing on the genetic malfunction) a wise idea? Is saving someone with a fatal cancer a wise idea, when we can teach our bodies to fight them? We cut out disease instead of teaching our bodies to evolve to fight it.

We're not helping!

I'm a firm believer in allowing technology "assist" human evolution, but I vehemently oppose technology replacing it.

04-18-2005, 11:42 AM	#2
hacker Technology Mercenary Posts: 617 Karma: 2561 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: East Lyme, CT Device: Direct Neural Implant	Personally, I believe that our technology is slowing (and even stopping in some cases) our evolution. Seriously... For example, with Gore-Tex, we no longer need to adapt to colder or warmer environments. We don't have to develop thicker skin, or warmer blood, or better wicking and perspiration capabilities. We just put on our polypropalene undershirts and leggings, put on a Gore-Tex jacket, and we're ready for most serious weather conditions. We have braces, root canals, bridges in our mouthes. Why evolve to have stronger jaws and teeth to chew tougher foods, when we can just fix it with technology. We now have low-carb, no-carb, high-protein, gluten-free, sugar-free, Lutein, Splenda, and other types of additives that change our our bodies grow. For millions of years, we've lived on a very specific set of minerals and nutrients, and now in the last 100, we're turning that all upside-down, and trying to change how our bodies work, because we think we're smarter than the billions of people who have come before us. Its no wonder disease, cancers and allergies are at an all-time high. Did you know that peanut allergies in children has tripled in the last 5 years? Now we have medicines and pills and other solutions that prolong human lives. They curb the sick, allow them to live longer. The other side of that is that we also allow viruses to learn more before they are defeated. A sick person with a virus would normally have died, stopping the propagation of the virus, but now we have medicines that keep those people alive, so we can "study" the virus. Sure, and now the virus gets stronger, resistant to more medicines, and we end up breeding a new virus that we can't fight. Viruses and bacteria have been around billions of years before we got here, and they'll be around billions of years after we're gone. It is no longer a "survival of the fittest" world, when everyone can survive. We're breeding a weaker, less-prepared race of people, when we let recessive genes take the forefront, and combine those with others. I'm not saying we should let our loved ones die because they're sick, but I do think we should take a long look at what we're actually doing, long-term. Is saving a sick person with a genetic malfunction, so they can have children (potentially passing on the genetic malfunction) a wise idea? Is saving someone with a fatal cancer a wise idea, when we can teach our bodies to fight them? We cut out disease instead of teaching our bodies to evolve to fight it. We're not helping! I'm a firm believer in allowing technology "assist" human evolution, but I vehemently oppose technology replacing it.