Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Human Evolution will hit a wall soon

BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:40:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes and no. Our use of technology certainly is changing how we adapt. That's not the same as not adapting. I think that what you mean is that we're evolving to become more dependent on the technology that we use. I agree that this could become a concern.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:45:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM, BDPershing wrote:
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.

Rather than spending additional resources in bio and genetic engineering, wouldn't it just be more efficient to just stop looking at our phones as often and getting of facebook. Then our kids will turn out WAY more intelligent. I hardly think our abilities in Candy Crush is hampering our evolutionary progress.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:36:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:45:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Rather than spending additional resources in bio and genetic engineering, wouldn't it just be more efficient to just stop looking at our phones as often and getting of facebook. Then our kids will turn out WAY more intelligent. I hardly think our abilities in Candy Crush is hampering our evolutionary progress.

True, but I think it would be better to place our resources into engineering, if we can make humans capable to being even more adaptable to what could be considered harsh conditions for our current level of the human body. It would lead to even faster expansion of the species. One issue everyone complains about is the long period people would need to endure when at space, we could engineer ourselves to endure such conditions and would still be capable of living on the surface on a planets still. With coming up science I think our capability to making the systems of out being way more efficient then what evolution would be able to manifest.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:59:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:36:01 AM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:45:25 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Rather than spending additional resources in bio and genetic engineering, wouldn't it just be more efficient to just stop looking at our phones as often and getting of facebook. Then our kids will turn out WAY more intelligent. I hardly think our abilities in Candy Crush is hampering our evolutionary progress.

True, but I think it would be better to place our resources into engineering, if we can make humans capable to being even more adaptable to what could be considered harsh conditions for our current level of the human body. It would lead to even faster expansion of the species. One issue everyone complains about is the long period people would need to endure when at space, we could engineer ourselves to endure such conditions and would still be capable of living on the surface on a planets still. With coming up science I think our capability to making the systems of out being way more efficient then what evolution would be able to manifest.

putting humans in a suit is much cheaper, and simpler and quicker than genetically engineerng them to adapt to an environment. Lets see how long it would take to GM some gills on your gullet
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 11:07:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM, BDPershing wrote:
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.

Evolution only "stops" when the environment stops changing. It could be argued that Humans are evolving more now then ever before because we ourselves have radically changed our own environment.
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 11:07:00 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Evolution only "stops" when the environment stops changing. It could be argued that Humans are evolving more now then ever before because we ourselves have radically changed our own environment.

I'm more about how positive evolution will "stop" and start digressing due to our environment made easier because of technology. So evolution wouldn't simply stop but, take a turn that is more digressive.

For example, the calculator
Even today we have kids who cant even attempt the calculations without it, but would the mind benefit more if children were capable to do said math without the need of a calculator?
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 12:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:35:54 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:07:00 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Evolution only "stops" when the environment stops changing. It could be argued that Humans are evolving more now then ever before because we ourselves have radically changed our own environment.

I'm more about how positive evolution will "stop" and start digressing due to our environment made easier because of technology. So evolution wouldn't simply stop but, take a turn that is more digressive.

For example, the calculator
Even today we have kids who cant even attempt the calculations without it, but would the mind benefit more if children were capable to do said math without the need of a calculator?

Their mind might benefit, but they can only pass on their gene, not their acquired intelligence. Basically with the road you are going down - ie stopping "negative" evolution it is sounding very akin to eugenics.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:30:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 12:35:54 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/9/2015 11:07:00 AM, Accipiter wrote:
Evolution only "stops" when the environment stops changing. It could be argued that Humans are evolving more now then ever before because we ourselves have radically changed our own environment.

I'm more about how positive evolution will "stop" and start digressing due to our environment made easier because of technology. So evolution wouldn't simply stop but, take a turn that is more digressive.

For example, the calculator
Even today we have kids who cant even attempt the calculations without it, but would the mind benefit more if children were capable to do said math without the need of a calculator?

"I'm more about how positive evolution will "stop" and start digressing due to our environment made easier because of technology. So evolution wouldn't simply stop but, take a turn that is more digressive."

That's what I said.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 2:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:36:01 AM, BDPershing wrote:
True, but I think it would be better to place our resources into engineering, if we can make humans capable to being even more adaptable to what could be considered harsh conditions for our current level of the human body.

This presumes that we know what we're doing. I see several problems here:

1) We don't understand the genetics nearly well enough. I'm just talking the basic mechanics of the DNA here. We're still figuring out how a few billion years of evolution has coded us.

2) We don't understand the implications. Gene X looks deleterious and gene Y looks like it would be handy to have. Turns out that X does something useful, perhaps even necessary and gene Y interacts badly with Z.

3) We probably aren't smart enough to use it properly even if we could get past 1 and 2. We're talking about societies where a shocking number of people are scientifically illiterate and deeply superstitious. Is it really smart to give that sort of society the capacity to rewrite its own DNA?

It would lead to even faster expansion of the species.

Because the world really needs more of us.
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 3:03:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:39:05 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
This presumes that we know what we're doing. I see several problems here:

1) We don't understand the genetics nearly well enough. I'm just talking the basic mechanics of the DNA here. We're still figuring out how a few billion years of evolution has coded us.

2) We don't understand the implications. Gene X looks deleterious and gene Y looks like it would be handy to have. Turns out that X does something useful, perhaps even necessary and gene Y interacts badly with Z.

3) We probably aren't smart enough to use it properly even if we could get past 1 and 2. We're talking about societies where a shocking number of people are scientifically illiterate and deeply superstitious. Is it really smart to give that sort of society the capacity to rewrite its own DNA?

It would lead to even faster expansion of the species.

Because the world really needs more of us.

This might be the case today, but so many are against the notion of engineering ourselves because it steps on the bounds of god, which to me sounds completely insane.

As for expansion of the species, i'm more or less talking out future space colonization. We cant really colonize mars due to the gravity difference, but with engineering it is possible to make the body capable with dealing with this problem.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 8:41:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 3:03:41 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:39:05 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
This presumes that we know what we're doing. I see several problems here:

1) We don't understand the genetics nearly well enough. I'm just talking the basic mechanics of the DNA here. We're still figuring out how a few billion years of evolution has coded us.

2) We don't understand the implications. Gene X looks deleterious and gene Y looks like it would be handy to have. Turns out that X does something useful, perhaps even necessary and gene Y interacts badly with Z.

3) We probably aren't smart enough to use it properly even if we could get past 1 and 2. We're talking about societies where a shocking number of people are scientifically illiterate and deeply superstitious. Is it really smart to give that sort of society the capacity to rewrite its own DNA?

It would lead to even faster expansion of the species.

Because the world really needs more of us.

This might be the case today, but so many are against the notion of engineering ourselves because it steps on the bounds of god, which to me sounds completely insane.

It's a sorry deity whose handiwork can be undone in a test tube.

As for expansion of the species, i'm more or less talking out future space colonization. We cant really colonize mars due to the gravity difference, but with engineering it is possible to make the body capable with dealing with this problem.

As far as colonizing Mars goes, gravity is the least of your worries. The human body ought to be able to cope with 1/3rd g reasonably well. Radiation a much bigger problem. With little magnetosphere or atmosphere to stop them, solar and cosmic radiation make long term habitation very difficult. The lack of atmosphere is pesky, though you could get around that with some smart engineering.
BDPershing
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 8:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:41:59 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:03:41 PM, BDPershing wrote:
At 1/9/2015 2:39:05 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
This presumes that we know what we're doing. I see several problems here:

1) We don't understand the genetics nearly well enough. I'm just talking the basic mechanics of the DNA here. We're still figuring out how a few billion years of evolution has coded us.

2) We don't understand the implications. Gene X looks deleterious and gene Y looks like it would be handy to have. Turns out that X does something useful, perhaps even necessary and gene Y interacts badly with Z.

3) We probably aren't smart enough to use it properly even if we could get past 1 and 2. We're talking about societies where a shocking number of people are scientifically illiterate and deeply superstitious. Is it really smart to give that sort of society the capacity to rewrite its own DNA?

It would lead to even faster expansion of the species.

Because the world really needs more of us.

This might be the case today, but so many are against the notion of engineering ourselves because it steps on the bounds of god, which to me sounds completely insane.

It's a sorry deity whose handiwork can be undone in a test tube.

As for expansion of the species, i'm more or less talking out future space colonization. We cant really colonize mars due to the gravity difference, but with engineering it is possible to make the body capable with dealing with this problem.

As far as colonizing Mars goes, gravity is the least of your worries. The human body ought to be able to cope with 1/3rd g reasonably well. Radiation a much bigger problem. With little magnetosphere or atmosphere to stop them, solar and cosmic radiation make long term habitation very difficult. The lack of atmosphere is pesky, though you could get around that with some smart engineering.

the 1/3rd gravity actually could screw up a humans circular system quite easily.
As for the terraforming issue, we can do it, the time cycle will be different, but the gravity would be a major concern to keep the body in a capable condition to migrate. the co2 considerations would need to be slightly higher than earth to regulate temp. But radiation could be neutralized with engineering of the body.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 3:06:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM, BDPershing wrote:
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.

Certain characteristics have begun, such as wisdom teeth and I believe the small toe, to cease functionality. Humans will continue to adapt given a potential stimulus, it just depends on the severity and frequency (relentlessness) of the stimuli.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM, BDPershing wrote:
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.

I don't think that human evolution will change that much, or that we need genetic engineering to continue evolving. What technology has changed is the importance of the mechanism of natural selection, in that it has made environmental pressures irrelevant, and perhaps, in the future, it will make competition for resources irrelevant. However, sexual selection will continue more or less unchanged, genetic drift will continue, again, more or less unchanged, we will still have genetic variation, so on.

And remember this is only true of the First world, in Third World countries like Central African Republic, natural selection is still very important.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:15:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.

What's the point of having the greatest academic success if you prioritise that over starting a family at a reasonable age. Books smarts does not necessarily equal life smarts
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:31:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:14:05 AM, BDPershing wrote:
Evolution works in a way of adaptability, the problem now is we use technology to adapt now, and since technology is getting more common and simple, one day the "expertise" needed to operate this tech will be minimal. Causing development to, more or less, stop. the body will be confused on how to go on, and since less is needed, and the body is hard wired to be the most energy efficient as possible, it will cut down on development on core processes, just to save energy.

Leading to on conclusion, bio and genetic engineering is a must to continue evolution, human race is at that point at which development can only be improved my itself and not by natural, and I prefer to to wait for this "god" everyone believes in, waited too many years already for just one simple question, yet no answer.

At least that's my theory, trying to avoid an idiocracy of a different kind.

I believe evolution already hit a wall in lots of populations, mainly developed ones. We are not subjected to "natural selection" anymore, as we do not live in natural ecosystems but on optimal ecosystems made by us, in which ie handicaped people can reproduce with the same ease as non-handicaped people, thus stopping the "natural selection" that would eliminate them. The same happens to all of us with sickness like the flu, that would be way more lethal if we lived on a natural undeveloped ecosystem.

As of we "devolving" because of energy efficiency reasons, I don't think that's possible. People that waste a lot of body energy still reprocues as easily as people that have very efficient bodies.

So yeah, imo developed societies have already built a kind of inmunity to natural selection (luckily).
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:33:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 2:39:05 PM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/9/2015 3:36:01 AM, BDPershing wrote:
True, but I think it would be better to place our resources into engineering, if we can make humans capable to being even more adaptable to what could be considered harsh conditions for our current level of the human body.

This presumes that we know what we're doing. I see several problems here:

1) We don't understand the genetics nearly well enough. I'm just talking the basic mechanics of the DNA here. We're still figuring out how a few billion years of evolution has coded us.

2) We don't understand the implications. Gene X looks deleterious and gene Y looks like it would be handy to have. Turns out that X does something useful, perhaps even necessary and gene Y interacts badly with Z.

3) We probably aren't smart enough to use it properly even if we could get past 1 and 2. We're talking about societies where a shocking number of people are scientifically illiterate and deeply superstitious. Is it really smart to give that sort of society the capacity to rewrite its own DNA?

It would lead to even faster expansion of the species.

Because the world really needs more of us.

I totaly agree with this. I think it would be such a disaster if we started messing with our own DNA in order to "evolve". If we stoped evolving, it is precisely because nature wouldn't affect us anymore, and thus we wouldn't need to evolve.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:58:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:15:03 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.

What's the point of having the greatest academic success if you prioritise that over starting a family at a reasonable age. Books smarts does not necessarily equal life smarts

There is seldom an alternate path to becoming a professor at a university. That's the problem.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:58:11 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:15:03 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.

What's the point of having the greatest academic success if you prioritise that over starting a family at a reasonable age. Books smarts does not necessarily equal life smarts

There is seldom an alternate path to becoming a professor at a university. That's the problem.

Golly, it sounds very much like the priesthood.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:51:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:04:41 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:58:11 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:15:03 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.

What's the point of having the greatest academic success if you prioritise that over starting a family at a reasonable age. Books smarts does not necessarily equal life smarts

There is seldom an alternate path to becoming a professor at a university. That's the problem.

Golly, it sounds very much like the priesthood.

lol. I see the comparison. It's just extremely competitive, and you had to have been a successful scientist (or academic, if we're talking about non-science fields) for several years with a strong publication record to even be considered.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:57:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:51:03 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:04:41 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:58:11 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:15:03 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/22/2015 5:26:06 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 1/10/2015 8:30:49 AM, chui wrote:
It would seem the creationists have won judging from the appalling lack of knowledge of Darwinian evolution shown here. Lamarck was wrong, acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. Over reliance on technology can only drive human evolution if it gives a reproductive advantage. Nerds don't usually get laid! Long live the jock.

We live in an age where the nerd is more and more respected and desirable and the jock is less so. A bigger issue, in my mind, is that those who achieve the greatest academic success generally don't start earning enough money to begin having children until well-past their prime, and even then hardly have the time to raise a child. You earn your PhD in your late 20's early 30's, then post-doc for a few years, then if you're lucky enough to get a tenure track position (getting very rare these days), it's another 5 years or so until your job is secure and you're actually making a large enough salary to have one kid who's hopefully not deformed because you're already in your 40's or 50's. Meanwhile, some of the people who dropped out of high school already have 6 kids.

What's the point of having the greatest academic success if you prioritise that over starting a family at a reasonable age. Books smarts does not necessarily equal life smarts

There is seldom an alternate path to becoming a professor at a university. That's the problem.

Golly, it sounds very much like the priesthood.

lol. I see the comparison. It's just extremely competitive, and you had to have been a successful scientist (or academic, if we're talking about non-science fields) for several years with a strong publication record to even be considered.

Well in that case, the jocks have won. That being said, they will pull their weight during the zombie apocalypse
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...