Maybe if we had evolved to be more like iguanas we wouldn't even have society at all. We would just sit on rocks, seeking to stay warm, never striving for more
Evolution is cruel beyond our comprehension and so it does not have mercy. Today they sit in the sun, their grandchildren can be cannibals eating each other. We have a say, for now.
Not being at the mercy of evolution is an illusion caused by being at the mercy of both genetic and memetic evolution. If we do things that are at odds with either our biological and social adaptation, we tend to not replicate as much as otherwise.
For instance we can chose not to eat or have sex, but that just edits our patterns out of the population as it always has. We can change society such that acts that were adaptive are now maladaptive, but that just changes evolutionary pressures rather than eliminating them. Even as we master evolution it still masters us.
It's like the illusion in orbit that you have escaped gravity, but you're just falling continuously.
In fact placing together memetics and genetics in a single sentence doesn't even compile for me. It's like stamp-collecting and murder. Yes, my whole point is that we are operating on memetic engine and it works wonders.
I'll point out one thing "that just edits our patterns out of the population as it always has", just like not eating or not having sex: being infected by tuberculosis bacteria. By your reasoning developing a vaccine is just silly. Do we even want to rescue any Chopins or Orwells or Kafkas. Vaccine (which is effectively a meme) "just changes evolutionary pressures rather than eliminating them". If it happens, good, if it doesn't happen, no worries? That's the message?
Iguanas surely don't give a fuck about their Chopins.
But they absolutely are the same category. 100%, and always have been. Just look at how mating preference has affected many species, ex: the peacock. "Cultural" pressure preferred men with a colorful booty, and over time genetics conformed. The same is true if the "culture" prefers people who are soft spoken, adversarial, drawn to the color green, or have a funny left ear. If the culture means that people with a certain trait are more successful and thus more likely to reproduce over a sufficient period of time genetics will trend towards producing more individuals like that.
As for the rest of your comment, I keep reading it over and over and I can't figure out what your getting at. Developing a vaccine means more people in my group are likely to survive to reproduce, thus (given sufficient time) evolution will favor those species that can produce vaccines (or not be vulnerable to the disease in the first place).
You seem to be saying that Crocs users have a serious chance to die out in one or two thousand years (after all 30 or 60 generations are peanuts). I'm sure the effect is real. I'm not holding my breath though, because seemingly humans posses another mechanism which can mysteriously mask the trait of i-like-ugly-shoes within just one or two generations. (And with almost no one dying out?)
Just like it didn't take 30-60 generations for the trait of i-hate-suspicious-injections to die out.
I avoided the word "evolution" in hope of achieving understanding at least about the territory if not about the map.
Even if secular people went extinct today, there would be more 30 years from now. Religious communities can produce secular individuals, from which secular communities form that generate secular memes.
They operate on independent planes. Unless a sort of direct genetic disposition to specific ideas can be established, I believe the complexities of genetics and memetics allow for such a broad range of complex interaction that they cannot be correlated so easily.
It may be that as behavior driven by memes versus genes diverge enough, the population naturally falls. That could be the solution to the Fermi paradox, that sentient population growth is limited by the growth of their meme pools, as they diverge in purpose from their gene pools.
Now that contraceptives exist, people who choose them and deliberately avoid ever having children will select themselves out of the gene pool. The same goes for people born in religious communities who are skeptical of their religion. The people who remain in those communities will be the ones who have some sort of genetic predisposition to religious experiences. This is already a hypothesis (the God gene [1]).
Given enough time, every species evolves. Now, the twist is that the human species could alter its own.
But the comment above us is probably right, it would seem that the iguanas have been "doing nothing" for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Meanwhile humans have "accomplished a lot" in the past 10,000 years lets say, at the expense of many many many other things.
Back when Zimbabwe was still Rhodesia, in addition to fighting the Mugabe-lead rebels the Rhodesian military had to routinely step in to stop rival tribes from slaughtering each other. The default state of humanity is tribal warfare, not some beautiful Eden-esque utopia. "Colonialism" wasn't the cause, this is just humanity.
I don't know why people are so keen to deny this. Nature is brutal and yet still beautiful, and I don't see why humanity should consider itself to be special in that regard.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/new-study-o...
Yes - the world was peaceful until the big bad West came into play. Very bad people!
Lol. The reality is as you lay above. Constantly clashes for resources and land, just as the lives of wild animals are in the present.
Even just watching the birds eating from a limitless supply of seeds this morning, they were fighting and establishing an order.
Colonialism isn't the cause, but colonialism, powered by weapons and transportation technology and the concept of manifest destiny, massively increased the scope and scale of human exploitation of other humans.
Who said colonialism didn't happen in Europe? Scotland and Ireland were arguably where the English prototyped their methods of subjugating countries.
> Do you consider 'colonialism' to be different to any other form of human expansion done since time began?
Yes. Colonialism as a systematic state supported effort to subjugate other nations and overtake their resources is very different than migration, for example.
The only exceptions were species that were total badasses (bears, pumas), extremely prolific (deer), or a combination of badass and prolific (wolves, bison).
Also note that the pre-Contact Aztecs weren't exactly nice people. I believe it was Neal Stephenson who observed that one measure of how much the Aztecs sucked was that when the Spanish Inquisition took over, things actually became more humane.
Species can survive humans if (1) the humans can't wipe them out (badass, prolific) or (2) humans don't want to wipe them out (tasty/useful, invisible, cute).
If you know more than another commenter, that's great, but in that case share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. Responding to bad information with good information improves this place; just putting others down makes it worse.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...