Did evolution screw us?
(This is really more of a blog, but I am posting it here so the replies can be easier to follow, for those interested.)
It is clear that we are still in development from natural selection instead of being the finished product of intentional design.
When we look at the negative impact humanity orchestrates, I can't help but think that maybe homo sapiens are going to be yet another pruned branch; a dead end. Really, there are only two ways for us to go.
In a few billion more years, we will have either developed into something unrecognizable (unlikely, given our urges for self destruction.) Or we are going to have wiped out our own species, and probable quite a few more that were unfortunate enough to share a planet with us. Sad? Yes. Catastrophic? No.
Let's face it. We have scientific evidence that the planet has been rebooting itself systematically long before we started to slime across its surface. How many dinosaurs are roaming over the great plains? How many extinctions on the small scale as well as the planetary took place long before we mastered fire?
It would take the total destruction of every single bug, bacteria, virus and well....EVERYTHING..and then, still...
The cosmos will still continue to spin, which means that whatever environment created the potential for universal life will still exist, and eventually start all over again. Existence as we know it is such a temporary thing. Survival of any species, let alone ours depends on the rules of simplicity.
Humanity is anything but simple.
The only thing that gives us an 'edge' in the over all predator/prey struggle is our ability to think and reason.
It seems that our logical mind is always at war with our base urges. We know we need to consume less, conserve more and reverse our environmentally destructive path to survive in this little window of reality.
But we don't.
And we won't.
Why?
There is no deity to blame for this failed blueprint. We don't have any omnipotent 'plan' for our future.
It is in our very genes to act out this play....but why?
At what point did we evolve into what we are now?
What was the turning point in our development that wrote the screen play for this monumental fuck up that we have since become?
I would say that it comes down to procreation.
When we gradually developed pleasurable sex, our species as we know it ended.
We started down the irreversible path of destroying ourselves and everything around us.
Take a look at other animals. How many of them actually enjoy the act of intercourse? How many gain physical pleasure from it?
This is my theory. Feel free to pick it apart at will.
<b>When the mating urge becomes linked to pleasure instead of reproduction, a hedonistic species arises. </b>
In some species, this is nothing more than the promise of reproduction and continuation of the line..
In ours, it has lead to over population and the lack of the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the long term.
Immediate pleasure supersedes future security.
Wait. No. Not just security, but future SURVIVAL.
We have adapted to go for immediate pleasure without weighing the future cost.
Procreation was the start.
We had sex because it felt good to rub our wet bits together, not because we wanted to risk agony and possible death for the continuation of our species.
We had sex because it felt good, despite the fact that the tribe couldn't really handle another member.
There is a correlation with environmental knowledge, too.
We eat what tastes yummy, despite the fact that it's literally killing our world.
We drive cars three miles to work and then complain when the air quality falls and our allergies and asthma act up.
Instead of asking 'where does it stop?'
I'm wondering where it started.
Thoughts? Opinions?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on -
Stop thinking of yourself as a member of the human species. You need to widen the scope. Repeat after me: "I am an eukaryote and our future is bright." You'll feel better.
-
Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on -
I love this comment. Hahahaha.
-
Permalink Reply by Shine on -
I think the problem is that our intellects allowed us to overcome environmental restrictions. Intercourse feeling pleasurable and leading to excessive breeding is not a problem when infant mortality--and death rates in general--remain high. However, once we used our brains to develop adequate medicine to overcome the environmental restriction of a high death rate, we suddenly have too man
It's like you have a large water jug with several holes in the bottom. In order to keep a certain water level in the jug, you must continually pour large amounts of water into the jug. Once you plug the holes, however, that same amount of added water will suddenly cause the jug to overflow. This is what happened with our population; by plugging many of the "holes" of death due to disease, starvation, etc., we have now caused an overflow from the same amount of pleasurable breeding.
A similar situation applies to our preference for foods which harm ourselves and the surrounding environment. We have evolved with an intense taste preference for sweet, salt, and fat. In a pre-agrarian world, these preferences would have greatly increased our chances for survival as they would have ensured that we sought foods which would provide adequate nutrition. Of course, these same preferences become detrimental when applied to a world where we have totally removed any environmental restrictions to nutrition and have, in fact, created an entirely new culinary landscape. And I'm not just talking about the obvious influx of processed fast food in the past century; the same applies to agricultural products, as well. I forget the exact statistics, but the overwhelming majority of the fruits and vegetables which we consume today were nonexistent in the wild. Even broccoli--often lauded as the epitome of natural, whole foods--is the result of centuries (if not millennia) of deliberate domestication of a variety of kale at the hands of human farmers.
I'm not trying to criticize domestication nor insinuate that we should revert to a pre-agrarian existence. However, I do think that it is imperative that we maintain the utmost vigilance at the potential conflicts which arise from our ability to intellectually overcome the environmental restrictions which shaped our evolution. I think that the only solution is to further use our intellects to resolve this disparity. We know the physiological needs and desires that we evolved with; now we just need to figure out how best to accommodate our natural tendencies while inflicting minimal harm upon ourselves and the planet.
-
Permalink Reply by Shine on
-
However, once we used our brains to develop adequate medicine to overcome the environmental restriction of a high death rate, we suddenly have too man
Proofreading fail. That sentence should read "...we suddenly have too many new people being created."
-
Permalink Reply by Eoganacht on -
I agrre.
Ironic, isn't it: the evolutionary tactics that we picked up to improve our chances are now backfiring and decreasing our chances. Greed back then = more resourses. Greed now = squandering of resourses (and if the resourses are only finite, a bigger screw up.) Lust back then = high birth rate, but high birth rate - infant mortality rate = stable population; therefore, lust now + improved medicines + decreased infant mortality rate = rapidly increasing population that can only be checked by itself and limited resourses. And as we are not going to kill newborn babies anytime soon and our science is extending currnet resourses and exploiting new ones we can only keep running until we fall over.
As you said, we need to devise a way of solving this with science but I doubt that our natural insticts for consumerism will disappear any time soon without another mass extintion.
Did evolution screw us? Yes, then we fucked over again.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on
-
As you said, we need to devise a way of solving this with science
We already have all the science we need to solve this problem. What we're lacking is common sense and political commitment. Both among the ruling elites and the masses.
-
Permalink Reply by Eoganacht on
-
For the science part I was thinking of more effective sustainable energy production, i.e. cold fusion or something along the lines of the National Ignition Facility if it is economically viable. There are smaller details that still need to be ironed out.
But with human attitude, we're on the same page.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on
-
Assuming it is viable, it's still a long-term goal.
While with current technology, we can build coal plants that release 20+ times less carbon dioxide than the ones the Chinese are churning out weekly at the moment.
With current technology, we can build eco-friendly housings to drastically reduce the need for these plants.
With current technology, we can do a lot of things, but we do little, because of social inertia and political lethargy, or because these solutions "cost more" (while they would actually often cost less if people were used to take externalities into account.)
Sheeesh. We're collectively responsible for what await us, and whatever it is, we'll deserve it. I'm done with the human race.
-
Permalink Reply by Eoganacht on
-
I can see where your coming from. Current tech is better than that 50 years ago and turning out more energy for the same amount of fuel. I agree about the issue with social inertia. The 20* less CO2 coal plants are of huge importance but they are short term (if we do not destory the enviroment before then). Oil and coal will run out, they are finite resourses and we will have to switch to more sustainable resourses. I think that this will only happen in today' political climate when we run out of oil or when oil is too expensive common use. This will no doubt happen sooner rather than later.
Sheeesh. We're collectively responsible for what await us, and whatever it is, we'll deserve it. I'm done with the human race.
We are an animal of unique stupidity and wishful ignorance. I am caught between a wish for a future for humanity and the interest of being there to watch when we finally throw all our shit into the fan.
-
Permalink Reply by Jaume on
-
The point is, there's still enough coal for about 150 years (at the current production rate.) I expect that will be enough for humanity to find a reliable, renewable and cheap replacement.
-
Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on -
I wonder if that takes into account the dwindling supplies of other fossil fuels....once we run out of oil we will probably lean more heavily on coal, increasing it's rate of use.
Support T|A
Think Atheist is 100% member supported
All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America won't do a thing about Uganda's anti-gay law
Started by Physeter in Politics. Last reply by Physeter 4 minutes ago. 12 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
Neil deGrasse Tyson On Science Deniers
Posted by Everyday Freethought on March 10, 2014 at 11:59am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Videos
The Latest on Giz Gad
Services we love
We are in love with our Amazon
Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!
Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com
Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com
© 2014 Created by Dan.
