Where are we heading to ?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Post by burninbriar » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:47 am

Linn wrote:
What kind of genetic "dud" are you talking about?
Steven Hawking type?

Society today is moving more toward valuing the mind than the body.
Even jobs worth doing now a days you need college. Years ago you just needed to finish high school or even drop out and you could be susccesful.
School days are being increased, kids are pushed to learning to read earlier. Kids that have trouble sitting still for two hours are being labeled as having ADHD where years ago they were just normal.

I have read about studies where woman are choosing geekier, brainy type guys over the macho types which were preferred in the past.

Those are changes I have witnessed.

So if the genetic "dud" doesnt affect the brain then it will not matter.

Only probelm will be if a world wide disaster happens and technology is wiped out and we need to go back to the old survival skills.
Like farming, nd hunting etc...

But, then again, by the time that happens they may have unraveled the
cause of these genetic disorders which most of the time, the direct result of a mutation in just one gene.

With aAdvances in technology,we are getting closer every day. :wink:

First I'd like to say that I don't mean to offend anyone with the term "genetic dud". I take you're point of Steven Hawking as meaning physical disorder rather than mental, I did not have one in mind over the other but yes, his illness would be in line with the topic although I didn't particularly have something that severe in mind when I started it.
I think you make an interesting point but I also think you are somewhat misguided thinking that technology will eliminate blue collar work. No offense intended but farmers and trades workers will always be needed. Unless of course we develop machines to do all that. I guess the other fear in this scenario would be how much permanent damage is done before technology catches up to stop the illnesses.

User avatar
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:58 am
Location: 55284 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Post by Dr.Stein » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:28 am

We are heading to tomorrow :)

Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Post by narrowstaircase » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:07 pm

charles brough wrote:...Anyway, the proof is that we humans are genetically about the same as we were almost 200,000 years ago. That is the latest estimate of the so-far life span of Homo Sapiens.

Our cultural progress is what makes us differerent. That occurs through social evolution...

i think this is an important point in this discussion. the health problems in our society nowadays may be due to our practices which are culturally imbedded. but to what extent are you talking about genetic duds? what constitutes a genetic dud in its lowest form in your opinion? if this is the case we may be at the end of our peak for western civilisation. (?)

also a point worth concidering is psychosomatic health issues. why dont we live in an ideal society? what are the implications of this? how do our feelings affect our health? also just because our society is biased towards intellectualism nowadays doesnt mean we are doing anymore thinking. infact its been stated by many psychologists that we are actually becoming less adept at critical thinking (RD Laing is one).

overall i think the problems we're facing have to do with evolution of our mind.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."

Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:02 pm

Post by burninbriar » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:05 am

narrowstaircase wrote:
but to what extent are you talking about genetic duds? what constitutes a genetic dud in its lowest form in your opinion?

For the purpose of this discussion, any genetic malfunction that would require some sort of assistance to stay alive weather it be mechanical or medicinal.
I guess the to use a cane due to a genetic malfunction would be life threatening to early man but that is not really what I had in mind. I think my first post and the one at the top of this page pretty much says what I mean. There is so many, its hard to say what the lowest form would be, I suppose thats up to the judgment of the poster and the point he or she wants to make. I have a new point to post but I am trying to figure out how to word it properly, maybe someone will beet me to it.

User avatar
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Leeds, England

Post by 45561 » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:01 pm

I suppose an important question is whether or not a sample group of newborns from today could survive equally well if they were taken back, say, 100 years. (I'd roll out the nature versus nurture argument, but we'd be here forever.)

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, we may well be allowing genetic diversity to flourish or preserving useful traits that would otherwise be lost, which could prove useful in the case of some cataclysmic event.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests