h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Actually, humans are not the only species on this planet to use technology.

Sea otters use rocks to break open the crustation-y things that they eat.

Chimpanzees use sticks to fish ants out of their little ant-y homes.

Granted, their technology is not as complicated as our own, nor do they use technology in almost every aspect of their lives, but it is there.

As for technology stopping our progress in evolution...how on earth can we tell if we are evolving or not? Evolution takes a very long time to take place. That is, if we're talking about physical evolution. Culturally (and that includes the evolution of technology) we are evolving all the time. Cultural evolution can be noticed in every detail of the things in our homes, our ways of life, our knowlege, awareness and our opinions.

As for our physical evolution, who really cares? Does anyone honestly want to grow an extra limb, or more or less hair? Are we concerned that we aren't showing any signs of doing so, so far?

I'm not saying that we should just plow ahead with every possible technological idea until we're totally dependant on it to live.

The best possible way we can live is with balance. Live with technology, but also live with nature. And that means not letting the progress of technology destroy the environment that sustains us.

I can spend hours on my computer, fiddling with HTML, talking to people I don't know about the Simpsons, politics, Harry Potter, and anything on H2G2. But if I didn't spend a decent amount of time outdoors once in a while - I'd go beserk!

Good points, really. Perhaps I should clarify that I mentally draw a line somewhere between using tools and using technology, but I'm not sure where I would draw such a line - perhaps to define a "machine" as opposed to a "tool" and go from there, but then I'd just be quibbling. Your point stands, IMO.

I like what you said that culturally we are evolving very rapidly - I submit that this is part of what evolution is and how it should be measured, particularly when it comes to a technological society** with the capability to affect wides ranges of species (indeed entire phylla) of lifeforms on a planet, and maybe even other planets in the near future.

**Such as, for example, ours.

I don't think the human race is likely to change much as far as our physical traits are concerned, largely 'cos there's no ecological pressure for those traits to change. I also think a lot of the sicknesses, ailments, and diseases we die or suffer from has more to do with our living longer lives (and not dying of other things that used to kill people at a younger age) than many realize.

I couldn't agree more that technology has to pass through this adolescent phase it's in, it needs to move from abuse of the environment and our Earth and into working in harmony with it. Having said that, to think that we should just "go back to the good old days" is, IMO again, a dangerous sort of ignorance borne of the luxury of modern life. Those who yearn for times they didn't live in long ago probably have a romanticized idea about life at that time. The grass is always greener ...

Re-reading what I wrote, I sound a little testy to my eyes (how's that for a mangled phrase?). Not my intention, I assure you dear reader. What I object to is more the "technology is such a horrible thing, we should all go back to the trees" kind of sentiment. Really the point is that we as a species have all these wonderful things that technology has given us, and yet it seems we still feel so alone, so lost, and so cut off from each other most of the time. I'm not sure such a thing is the fault of technology itself, but more a fault of our own. Technology will never be able to replace human emotion, and especially other humans. I think one of the reasons that "information technology" (like this PC I'm typing this on for the World to read and respond to) has caught on so much is because it allows us to interact in ways we've never interacted, or at least ways we might have been afraid to without the technology helping us. One of my favorite movies of all time was nearly paraphrased in another thread on this talking point, the film "Contact" - when the character Palmer Joss is talking on Larry King's TV show about how we still feel so cut off and alone despite all we have technologically to amuse ourselves. In that respect, I think we have a lot of work to do, as a society, and that we can learn from our elders and from studying life in the past to re-learn maybe a little of what we've forgotten in all this damn hustle and bustle. Technology is no replacement for a human being (indeed that premise has been the root of many a story about robots, replicants, and holodecks ).

- JD

Don't all of you worry, Mother Nature gets revenge on the human race in lots of subtle ways.

Concerned about medical technology keeping the 'least fit' of us (of which I am one, so I'm a teensy bit irked at that) alive? Think of all the lovely new multi-antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria (such as TB) and those craaaaazy prions (like mad cow disease). The first antiobiotics, like penicillin, are becoming less and less useful as more bacteria develop resistance to them. There are several good entries on antibiotic resistance and the 'anti-bacterial lifestyle' on here. Eye-opening, to say the least.

Also, compared to the rest of earth's creatures, we take a very long time to reach sexual maturity and reproduce. The longer the generation, the longer it takes to see noticeable change on an evolutionary level. Bacteria, insects, cats -- they've all got us beat when it comes to evolving quickly.

I don't doubt that we (the human race, that is) are perfectly capable of screwing this planet up on a grand scale, but something will likely survive (prob'ly the insects, if I get my way) and they'll figure out how to make the best of what's left.

Are we approching the point where we can controll our evolution ?

Genetics, we're not yet abvle to rewrite ourselves with improvements (I would like to see humanity with added moral fiber) but we may well get there soon.

But the big one to my mind is teaching. We can change what tomorrows society will be by teaching the people who make up that society. isn't that evolution ?

So I think I'm taking the view that rather than slaying evolution technology is enabeling us to speed it up and to direct it, its putting our fate in our own hands...

but then the cynic in me thinks we may not be readyto cope with such responsibility...

as Lawrence Lessig wrote:
It is the age of the ostrich. We are excited by what we cannot know. We are proud to leave things to the invisible hand. We make the hand invisible simply by looking the other way.


Math

avast, humans arent intelligent enough to edit their genes just yet(its still unnatural, I say)

the thing is, the monkeys and otters use technology to survive.

we already passed that stage, now we just use technology for conveniences and just to fiddle around with things. we dont HAVE to genetically engineer our offspring to survive, now do we? something is going to go terribly wrong, and its going to be our faults.

It is theorized that our survival as a species (that being Homo Sapiens Sapiens) was caused by our intelligence compared to that of other early hominids which died out. If our intelligence is indeed the only thing that is truly unique and special about us, then perhaps it is what will likely continue to evolve.

If our intelligence as a species continues to grow, then eventually we will probably come up with solutions for living in harmony with technology, nature, and each other.

However, I honestly don't think it can be that simple. Our culture, awareness, instincts, opinions and emotions all come in to play, IMO. In one way the evolution (non-physically speaking, that is) can be compared with the evolution of an individual's maturity. For example, when you're a child you might not think twice about your parent(s)/guardian(s) going out of their way to help you, or do something nice for you, but when you're older, you're able to recognize and appreciate all the love, hard work and effort that your parents put in for you. On the larger scale, if say a corporation/city/nation can understand, appreciate and look at an issue such as technology, the environment, or even political enemies from the point of view of others, and be able to act fairly maybe our society as a whole would be better.

But, there's no garunteering that that kind of maturity will happen in an individual or a society.

I agree with you that some people have a romantisized notion about "going back to the farm/hunting and gathering society/trees/ocean etc". At this stage it honestly wouldn't work out for us all, and we might end up developing the same (or similar) technologies anyways.

And you're right about technology never being able to replace a human being.

btw, have you ever read this article?
http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/19990901-00-a.html

But then IMO, the Internet is one aspect where our technological evolution is really heading in the right direction. Not only can we more easily keep in touch with friends and family we know in the flesh, but for once, people can communicate and interact with each other no matter their location. Discussion is often only restricted to words, -not worrying about physical appearences, dissabilities, etc - but still being able to communicate, socialize and exchange ideas, is one of the most brilliant technologies ever invented. The interesting thing is, the Internet itself evolved from a little program that one person found useful, to a world wide web enjoyed and used by millions.

The internet also allows us to learn and be more inclined to learn and be aware of people, ideas, cultures, issues that we may not normally come across. Thus our consciousness is evolving.

The guy from Contact is right in that respect. In general, we do feel alone and separated from each other. But don't we feel less alone with a technology like the internet, than say, a television?

I'm glad you mentioned holodecks! I think it was on ST: Voyager where one of the characters (commenting on television) said that they couldn't imagine not BEING IN the entertainment (like on a holodeck), but just sitting back and watching it. The futuristic society in Star Trek has also realized that interacting with one another is so much healthier than being isolated. (But, then again, both the holodeck and the internet can become as escapist as television can be for some people).

Again, technological communications can't replace in person experiences.

I also agree with you on diseases cropping up more because we live longer now. There has never been such a thing as "dying of old age" or a person dying because "it was his/her time". Everyone dies of some biological cause, and the more our lives lengthen (due to finding cures for diseases and ailments), the more likely it is we will come across more diseases and ailments.

I think when it comes down to it, our evolution is split into two sections: memes and genes.

Genes being our physical traits and abilities.

Memes being our mental traits, abilities and knowledge.

Is it more important for someone to have offspring that resemble them, or have their ideas, knowledge and experiences shared and passed onto others?

I think (and I may be way off, as I'm only 18 and years and years away from having/wanting kids) a large part of wanting children is to be able to pass on our memes (as defined above).

Then again, evolution has never been "what is meant to be", it's just what happens: not necessarily better or higher. So if our evolution is mostly with our intelligence and culture, we could go in any direction because of the choices we make.

I realize this is a really really long post, but this topic has me branching off with so many ideas...why not put 'em all down?

Any thoughts?

Interesting post .M.c.B.,

Would it be fair to equate Genes and Memes with Nature (our genetic predisposition) and Nurture (the cumulative effects of experience)?

Don

It is an interesting comparison...but I don't see how it quite relates to evolution...could you explain a little more?

I'm not sure if anyone here has read "The Origin of Species", or to give it it's full title: "On the Origin of Species and how they Evolve through Natural Selection", but if you haven't then you should.The entire first chapter is dedicated not to natural selection, but to something people woul be more familliar with, artificial slection or selective bredding as it is sometimes known. This is my point: Perhaps Natural Selection has turned away from us, but we have artificial selection, as well as technology, to make up for this. We can effectively create evolution in other animals and form advantages in this world much faster than Nature itself can. The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't believe evolution stopped for us, I beleive we chucked out evolution and told it we could do perfectly well without it. Technology is human evolution brought on by humans. We aren't evolvig our bodies OR our minds, but our ability to enjoy life and prosper in civilization and the modern world.

I wrote this blog a while back:

Wednesday, April 02, 2008


Evolution is Dead. We have killed Evolution.
Current mood: angsty
Category: Life

When I say ’Evolution is Dead’ I don’t mean it in the way Nietzsche did when he said "God is dead" (some of you may have noticed a parallel). Nietzsche meant that because atheists don’t believe in a god, it would be hipocritical to follow a holy book for morality. What I mean is that we are going around in circles, more like a dead motorboat than a dead cat in the road.

To pin it down, I’m not saying the theories of evolution, etc. are false. I’m saying that they don’t apply to humanity in the same way they apply to... well... pretty much everything else.

As humans, we take it upon ourselves to make ourselves as comfortable as possible, so rather than learn or adapt, we change our environment to meet our needs.

This wouldn’t be such a big problem if there weren’t seven billion or so of us.

Unfortunately there are, and rather than finding ways to grow edible foods around trees, we decide that we should clear-cut the forest to make room for our crops. Rather than slowly adapting to withstand venom from snakes or frogs through generations, we kill off the snakes and frogs to ensure our own survival.

Rather than evolving to be stronger, faster, smarter, etc. we’re changing our world to allow us to be more obese and sedentary.

I’m fine with technology. I’m fine with electricity. I’m fine with television. I’m fine with movies. I like the internet. I’m not fine with the way it has led me to make myself.

I will change.

Will you?