Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution) — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

Morons are needed (some considerations on evolution)

This page's ID: 28036

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	So, let me gather my thoughts here... This is all very interesting, and it lead me to ask myself the following questions: 1. What do you do of human evolution so far? Is human kind better suited to its "Context" than 2000 years ago or just [i]differently[/i] suited? In other words, was human kind less adapted to its "Context" 2000 years ago? 2. If so, can we assume that human kind (and the other species, but this is not my point here) tend to perfection? 3. If it does tend to perfection, what is Perfection going to be like? 4. I agree with what you said about the need for weak links in the chain, but consider this: if human kind tends to perfection, does it mean it goes inversely exponential at some point? The more "sophisticated" or "perfect" (by lack of better term) we get, the less able to evolution? Therefore the less adaptive, and the less "perfect" - to quote your definition, which I find interesting: [quote]Perfection doesn't exist*, it's all a contextual thing A perfect being is nothing more, nothing less, than ideally suited to it's immediate environment right now.[/quote] Isn't perfection beyond being ideally suited to one's immediate environment at some point? Isn't it more global, like being ideally suited to [i]any [/i]environment at [i]any time[/i]? 5. Assuming the "balance" is somewhat ideal now (because it seems like it is, right here, right now, but is it an illusion?), is our effort to approach perfectness by modifying genes and selecting embryos actually going to lead us to some stagnant state? * [edit] I think perfection does exist; at least, I think we can reasonably assume the concept of perfection is realistic; it is just not [i]measurable[/i]. [edit2] And one more thing, extracted from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection]the definition of Perfection in Wikipedia[/url]: [quote]The parallel existence of two concepts of perfection, one strict ("perfection," as such) and the other loose ("excellence"), has given rise ? perhaps since antiquity but certainly since the Renaissance ? to a singular paradox: that [b]the greatest perfection is imperfection[/b]. This was formulated by Lucilio Vanini (ca. 1585 ? 1619), who had a precursor in the 16th-century writer Joseph Juste Scaliger, and they in turn referred to the ancient philosopher Empedocles. Their argument, as given by the first two, was that [b]if the world were perfect, it could not improve and so would lack "true perfection," which depends on progress[/b]. [/quote] [small](Edited by [url=http://www.ozoneasylum.com/user/5434]kimson[/url] on 06-05-2006 13:58)[/small] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu