So, I was just relaxing tonight trying to ga all asleep contemplating, and since I can't seem to fall asleep, I might as well pass some time sharing my thoughts.
Now before I begin, I'm going to tell you my general opinion of the theory of evolution. Why is this relevant, you ask? I'll get to it. I subscribe to the theory of evolution in a difference sense. I believe that life forms can change into different variations over time due to mutations or environmental factors; however, I do not the general historical side to it. Now, I don't expect you to except my opinion, and you don't really have to in order to understand my thoughts. I just wanted to get it out there.Anyways… So, back in one of the last major GMC jams, they had theme of evolution. I was in one of the irc chats talking to some of the regulars and a new guy asked for some help. Anyways, after him telling me about how in his game a crazy surfer goes around destroying a city, I decided that the cause of the surfer's rage could be the result of him learning about devolution.So, what is devolution? Well, if evolution is life forms changing over time to become better, then devolution is a life form changing over time to become generally weaker or lesser. Most mutations lean towards devolution rather than evolution. Devolution can theoretically occur in a few circumstances:* A group studied in a lab and genetically altered.* A situation where a dominant life form has little or no risk of death within its group for many years.The next part is somewhat controversial, and it ties in with society. Basically, most modern countries are in a situation where little or no people die, and if they do, it's mostly due to chance or the fault of other humans. People dying of major diseases nowadays are either voluntary (obesity and related heart issues), time to diagnosis based (most cancer), or chance based (happening to catch some major epidemic). In other words, dying of a disease is evenly distributed throughout the populist because it's mostly a matter a chance and taking precautions. As for other humans, it is mostly matters of greed, politics, insane people, war, etc., and seeing as getting killed by those is generally not inherited, they don't curb devolution. Well, maybe war, assuming the resulting baby boom wouldn't cause worse damage. This brings me to the question: society will devolve based on the current state of affairs, so what can we do about it?NOTHINGIf we kill people with lesser genes, then we are committing atrosities and genocide. If we worsen society to cause some people to die from true "survival of the fittest", then we are wrong for hurting society. The truth is that we can't practically, and /shouldn't/ do anything. Eventually, we will either devolve to the point that another species takes over, or a natural disaster will wipe out everyone, or WWIII might happen and kill everyone . No matter what, we are doomed either morally or to destruction. I'd pick morally any day. There is also the possibilty that with increasing technology, that we end up creating some kind of robotic AI to protect us similar to the one in Wall*E. Granted, the people in that were uneducated rather than legitimately retarded or mentally disabled.Ok, so I'm getting tired. That's all I have. Don't me mentioning mentally disabled to say I'm prejudicial. I'm not, FYI. They function just fine, and to be frank, most are simply mislabeled and not taught properly IMO. Education generally sucks in public schools, nowadays. Anyway, before I go on another tangent, I'm going to cut myself off and go to sleep. I'll continue this train of thought later. For now, I'm adding a caboose and signing off. INHThe general decline of society (INH Randon Train of Thought #1)
Posted by Powerful Kyurem on June 20, 2014, 2:12 a.m.
Fun fact: devolution isn't even applicable to modern biology. Evolution does not in any way revolve around a species improving or becoming more complex, only different from their ancestors.
Ok, but I still say that if the theory of evolution really is true, then I predict a long stretch of what we would consider to be negative evolution. Now is it clear?
Not necessarily. First off, are we saying that this is all based off natural selection, or is it something else? If it is natural selection, then there probably won't be a "de-evolution", as being stupid does not in any way help carry the genes. Oh wait, my bad I just realized that it does. Ok, your right :D.
My point is that with no risk of death, just about anything could survive in society, meaning that there is nothing to weed out what would be considered bad mutations. I seriously doubt we would see anything in our lifetimes, but it's still the point. Short of a major global natural disaster that lasts 100's of years, there is no way to stop it, period. (although, I don't even really subscribe to the theory of evolution to that degree, so it's more of a hypothetical conversation for me. :) )