[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Probably, not......seems clear to me.


See above.

Then I'll come back to this thread when I'm smarter. Could be a while.

ummm.....how did you derive that?

PBS. Probably not the best source.

Two instances do not define a rule and I don't even see how the destruction of a natural habitat is productive.

There are more instances, but I didn't make any argument for a "rule" that I know of. All I mentioned was two instances of species where man's "technological dangers" were a factor in natural selection. Wasn't so much a "rule" as it was a disproof of your rule/thread-topic(that "technological dangers" are not a factor in natural selection).

That those two species survive and adapt is notable, but, by and large, species in general are disappearing both in population size and count.

Anyway, if there was actually an increase in their populations, it was only done by the technological impact of man.

Which is the whole point of the thread, no?

You seem to be catching on to the argument I just made.

So?
To do so, it's previous territory was reduced and factored to the limitations imposed by man.

The number of trees (or forests - can't quite remember which) has doubled in the US since the 1700s.

Falcons hunt from trees, if I remember right. Or skyscrapers, whichever is available. There seems to be more of both today than there was a few hundred years ago.

That the falcon survives does not mean it survives at a greater advantage in it's new environment or in greater numbers.....and they don't.
At one time, their environment almost spanned the continent. Now, reduced by activities such as pesticides from agriculture, the chemistry man pushes into the environment, as you put it......tall skyscrapers became a refuse.....but that's really a step backwards from before man's influence.

So I guess PBS turned out to NOT be the best source afterall. I haven't looked for the numbers of falcons alive today compared to the number alive throughout the history of the US, I was only going on an old PBS special that appears to be incorrect.

A self defeating argument.
You just reduced the size of that species environment after the influence of man.

See above - their environment was increased by man, both in the number of trees they have available, and in the number of skyscrapers they have available.

Taking just a quick search on falcon populations......it appears there has been a considerable decline in the past, followed by some growth due, again, to man's intervention.

Like I said, I probably should have checked my facts before so easily trusting PBS.

That is not generally considered as a process of Natural Selection......the intervention of man, in either a positive or negative manner.

Not sure about that. If man isn't intentionally changing the environment with falcons in mind, I'd argue that to be falcons adapting to their new environment. Unlike the case of aligators, which were on the brink of extinction until farming them was made legal. now THAT is a case of man's intentional intervention.

As far as raccoons, eliminate their water sources, creeks and streams, by development....and they generally move on to new sources.
Never heard of it benefiting them.

They also seem to have a taste for the stuff they find in garbage cans in the city. But again, this is abnother case where I got my info from PBS so I may be wrong.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Then I'll come back to this thread when I'm smarter. Could be a while.
PBS. Probably not the best source.
There are more instances, but I didn't make any argument for a "rule" that I know of. All I mentioned was two instances of species where man's "technological dangers" were a factor in natural selection. Wasn't so much a "rule" as it was a disproof of your rule/thread-topic(that "technological dangers" are not a factor in natural selection).
Which is the whole point of the thread, no?

You seem to be catching on to the argument I just made.
The number of trees (or forests - can't quite remember which) has doubled in the US since the 1700s.

Falcons hunt from trees, if I remember right. Or skyscrapers, whichever is available. There seems to be more of both today than there was a few hundred years ago.
So I guess PBS turned out to NOT be the best source afterall. I haven't looked for the numbers of falcons alive today compared to the number alive throughout the history of the US, I was only going on an old PBS special that appears to be incorrect.
See above - their environment was increased by man, both in the number of trees they have available, and in the number of skyscrapers they have available.
Like I said, I probably should have checked my facts before so easily trusting PBS.

Not sure about that. If man isn't intentionally changing the environment with falcons in mind, I'd argue that to be falcons adapting to their new environment. Unlike the case of aligators, which were on the brink of extinction until farming them was made legal. now THAT is a case of man's intentional intervention.
They also seem to have a taste for the stuff they find in garbage cans in the city. But again, this is abnother case where I got my info from PBS so I may be wrong.

Then I'll come back to this thread when I'm smarter. Could be a while.

I'm 61 years old......don't wait too long

PBS. Probably not the best source.

A PBS documentary comparing an increase in falcon populations compared to before man's impact on the environment?....I rather doubt that.
From quick reading, pesticides alone took a tremendous toll.

All I mentioned was two instances of species where man's "technological dangers" were a factor in natural selection.

You really are missing the point. Man's intellect defies Natural Selection. Both of himself and now, of his environment.
un natural selection might be a better term
The processes of adaptation are still there, just steered by man.

Falcons hunt from trees, if I remember right. Or skyscrapers, whichever is available. There seems to be more of both today than there was a few hundred years ago.

Maybe in the forests of California, but the US has seen deforestation on an immense scale since the early 1800s for agricultural purposes and in the last 50, for urban sprawl.
Mix in the pesticides and there was more reduction of the population.

If man isn't intentionally changing the environment with falcons in mind, I'd argue that to be falcons adapting to their new environment.

Side effects..........the issue persists.....the technology of man ...made an environmental change which the falcon adapted to........that still is not considered Natural Selection as it is an event that would never have occurred with out the artificial influence of technology...skyscrapers do not naturally exist with out the intellect and creativity of man............sounds like an argument of sophistry, but a very real distinction, imo.

They also seem to have a taste for the stuff they find in garbage cans in the city. But again, this is abnother case where I got my info from PBS so I may be wrong.

It's been my understanding that raccoons are conditioned to habitually washing their food.
In my area, when a creek or water way becomes piped in a development, raccoons move to be near a water source.
If their habits are changing, it's still a result of man's technology being applied.

True....the process of change may indeed be the same.......but when done by man's influence of his intellect, it's not Natural in the historical sense, IMO of course

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Stoner

edit:
Voters names are being shown.
This is also a multiple choice poll.


Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?

This thread was written up at the request of Goku.
The discussion begins here: http://forums.techguy.org/tech-tips-...ml#post4883636


In the Tips and Tricks thread, a poster went off topic and brought forth the issue and hazards of fireworks with an example of someone being killed.
Another poster, ChuckE, called it 'Nature's way of thinning the herd'.
Another poster, Goku, claimed that it was true and must be accepted.

While Goku dislikes being called an animal, he positions the rest of us to be of a herd mentality


Naturally, in the animal kingdom, there is the issue of survival of the fittest and that also includes the intelligence of that specimen.
The originator of the issue , mom2inky,noted that "people need to be educated about how to handle/consequences of being uninformed. "
Sounds reasonable to me.

ChuckE responded, "This is Nature's way of thinning out the herd. "

Goku replied, ".......we have to accept the fact that it is true. "

My comment, " If you're an animal.........."

Even if a person does not believe in the human soul, there is that distinction of intellect that places man above the rest of the animal kingdom........rather obvious as man's intellect has litterally reshaped the planet from it's primitive state.


As Goku suggests, is mankind an animal without distinctive intellect governed by the same rules of evolution/natural selection, or does man's intellect now influence and direct to a degree, his own future?
Is the 'thinning of the heard' from technological dangers an evolutionary matter as projected or just the lack of information leading to unsafe practices?
Here's the issue....it was pointed out the children of the woman that was killed by a fireworks, taught her children a lesson by way of her death.
But, the 'thinning of the herd' is an evolutionary process that prevents an unwanted/unsuitable concepts ( actually genetic trait ) from being passed to the next off spring.
In this case, nothing was passed genetically and the only transfer was the knowledge of danger that could have been transferred to the mother beforehand.



So, this is a poll.
Beware, voter's names will be visable.
I'll keep it simple,

Man is an animal .

Man's intellect is one aspect that distinguishes him from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Man's intellect is now a consideration beyond the processes of natural selection

Stupidity is equal to ignorance

I am not an animal.

Hi Stoner,

I prefer to answer the question, Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?, by examples.

Example: What are technological dangers and what causes them and is the process of natural selection involved at all?

We know that natural selection is part of evolution. If then technology is self-replicating and works via the process of natural selection it would be fairly clear that technology is derived from a process of natural selection. But, does that mean that there is also an implied or explicit danger concomitant with the technology.

A simple example would be to program a genetic algorithm and let it evolve by natural selection. Such algorithms do exist, but the end result if often that not able to be understood by a human. How does that represent a danger. If the algorithm was to optimize the workings of a nuclear reactor, then it just might be possible for it to fail and cause a nuclear accident when the human intellect is taken out of the process of managing the nuclear reactor.

Certain accidents are caused by human error - not so much based on whether the human understands the situation, but that timing of critical events can rapidly get to a stress point where there no longer is any control by the human. Like a lightening strike or HIV Aids which some have colored as "God's wrath" for our sins or the sin of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and/or doing the improper thing at any time.

A counter example would be to have someone like "Homer Simpson" be in charge of a nuclear reactor - something that would never occur in real life. So, what of the situations in the real world that are in between?

Example: A biology experiment goes eyry and a microbe escapes a level-10 Bio-hazard facility.

Now, in that situation the microbe could very well evolve by natural selection, and by its very nature cause great harm to humanity.

The question here is has man's intellect failed to consider the process of natural selection?

Most likely in this situation, man's intellect underestimated the safeguards in place with regard to the new life form on which the experiment was conducted.

Hence:

We are all animals, stupidity and intellect are not mutually exclusive, man's intellect is often overestimated vs that of another animal, and ignorance is no excuse for not using your intellect to avoid behaving stupidly.

-- Tom

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

You really are missing the point. Man's intellect defies Natural Selection. Both of himself and now, of his environment.
un natural selection might be a better term
The processes of adaptation are still there, just steered by man.

i dunno....how can a product of natural selection defy it?...i think i don't have the science for this (elsewhere here, we've got the supernatural attacking natural selection, and now we have the unnatural at work on it too.......... )

it just seems that technology and the environment that it produces is as much of function of genetics as the three toed sloth

the biggest difference -and this may be your point- is that intellect has given one species the ability to manifest thought....to take that stick that chimps use to harvest ants from their holes, process its function, combine that funciton with other observations, experiment, build....and turn it into a backhoe.

that's why i found your original question -what does human intellect select for- to be so fascinating....as a part of natural selection, it's implication in terms of evolution....in terms of our future, are profound.....

[valis]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Most likely in this situation, man's intellect underestimated the safeguards in place with regard to the new life form on which the experiment was conducted.

-- Tom

bingo.....exactly how I feel about it....science gave us the ability to do something, but the ramifications and safeguards must be considered and put in place, not by science, but by those utilizing the new technology. And that is where the problem lies, IMO.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Stoner

A PBS documentary comparing an increase in falcon populations compared to before man's impact on the environment?

No, nothing so specific. I don't remember what it was about in general, but one of the things it talked about is that man's influence on the animal kingdom hasn't been all bad. It gave several examples of animals using the new habitat created by man to their advantage, and I distinctly remember it saying that animals like the falcon have increased due to cities. I don't remember the time period over which they increased.

Also, the deforestation, to my knowledge, has been largely on the west coast. In the midwest, the presence of European Americans caused an increase in the amount of forests due to the suppression of fire that American Indians did NOT do when they were the only humans present in the midwest. Previous to European Americans settling in the midwest, there were very few forests due to annual fires burning out all saplings.


Edit:

Originally Posted by Tom

Example: A biology experiment goes eyry and a microbe escapes a level-10 Bio-hazard facility.

I assumed you meant "Awry", but I had to look that one up anyway.

The only thing I knew anything similar to "eyry" from was Jamaican slang. It seemed out of place.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

eyry
n 1: the lofty nest of a bird of prey (such as a hawk or eagle)
[syn: aerie, aery, eyrie]
2: any habitation at a high altitude [syn: aerie, aery, eyrie]


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Eyrie \Ey"rie\, Eyry \Ey"ry\ ([=a]"r[y^] or [=e]"r[y^]; 277),
n.; pl. Ey"ries (-r[i^]z). [See Aerie]
The nest of a bird of prey or other large bird that builds in
a lofty place; aerie.

The eagle and the stork On cliffs and cedar tops their
eyries build. --Milton.

from http://dict.die.net/eyry/

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Stoner

It's been my understanding that raccoons are conditioned to habitually washing their food.
In my area, when a creek or water way becomes piped in a development, raccoons move to be near a water source.
If their habits are changing, it's still a result of man's technology being applied.

True....the process of change may indeed be the same.......but when done by man's influence of his intellect, it's not Natural in the historical sense, IMO of course

Speaking of conditioned racoons, a friend was doing a major remodel of her house, ahd there were many openings throughout....a certain racoon snuck in repeatedly...and we would peek around the corner and watch it clean food in the toilet bowl

On a more serious note, and about technology and man and our natural place in the world, I feel in a very real way our advances are a manipulation and sometimes copying of what is found in nature....we are a product of a natural world and very dependant on it and also fragile in the face of our creative endeavor to expand a hopefully higher intelligence in harnessing what is abundantly available, and altering it to our wishes and needs.
What is fallen behind is both our reasoning, and humanity toward each other...and other groups (clans) of people.
We are both wonderful and terrible. So the technology and use of that projects this sometimes unforgivingly.
Yes we are animals, too....but in the respect that it links us to nature, or the natural instincts that clamor and call us to reproduction, territorialness, and all that come with what we have been to survive and grow and be able to lift our heads from the mud to face the sun amd look beyond and dream and want to be more.

We are both natural and supernatural beings. And we are stupid about it

[iltos]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

No, nothing so specific. I don't remember what it was about in general, but one of the things it talked about is that man's influence on the animal kingdom hasn't been all bad. It gave several examples of animals using the new habitat created by man to their advantage, and I distinctly remember it saying that animals like the falcon have increased due to cities. I don't remember the time period over which they increased.

Also, the deforestation, to my knowledge, has been largely on the west coast. In the midwest, the presence of European Americans caused an increase in the amount of forests due to the suppression of fire that American Indians did NOT do when they were the only humans present in the midwest. Previous to European Americans settling in the midwest, there were very few forests do to annual fires burning out all saplings.

i thought you were talking about tree farms....the trees engineered for rapid development and harvested for paper, etc.

[Stoner]

We know that natural selection is part of evolution. If then technology is self-replicating and works via the process of natural selection it would be fairly clear that technology is derived from a process of natural selection. But, does that mean that there is also an implied or explicit danger concomitant with the technology.

How did you determine technology is self replicating?
With out the intellect of man, the next closest concept to technology is the adaptation of physical elements ( rocks, sticks, etc ) by other animals.
I'm not aware of any other species being able to synthesize beyond what is physically or genetically available.
Man synthesizes what does not occur naturally.

But, does that mean that there is also an implied or explicit danger concomitant with the technology.

Doesn't mean there is or isn't.......but in the practical sense, it (danger) can be an element. Depends on the application.

A simple example would be to program a genetic algorithm and let it evolve by natural selection.

I'd rather stick to what is recognizable, Tom......
Lets use the reality we live in.

We are all animals

Please, speak for your self

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

i dunno....how can a product of natural selection defy it?...i think i don't have the science for this (elsewhere here, we've got the supernatural attacking natural selection, and now we the unnatural at work on it too.......... )

it just seems that technology and the environment that it produces is as much of function of genetics as the three toed sloth

the biggest difference -and this may be your point- is that intellect has given one species the ability to manifest thought....to take that stick that chimps use to harvest ants from their holes, process its function, combine that funciton with other observations, experiment, build....and turn it into a backhoe.

that's why i found your original question -what does human intellect select for- to be so fascinating....as a part of natural selection, it's implication in terms of evolution....in terms of our future, are profound.....

I think our success as the most dominant life force on this planet with the greatest impact...... is a result of evolutionary forces at work till man became power full enough (intellectually) to violate the mechanism that put him in the saddle, so to speak.

Natural Selection made us what we are, now we ( attempt at least) to control what we want to be.

[Stoner]

Got some errands to run....back later

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

i thought you were talking about tree farms....the trees engineered for rapid development and harvested for paper, etc.

In my area, that's only been around for a decade or so. The growth of forests in the midwest where there were none prior to European Americans settling there is something I got from a university class on the environment.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I think our success as the most dominant life force on this planet with the greatest impact...... is a result of evolutionary forces at work till man became power full enough (intellectually) to violate the mechanism that put him in the saddle, so to speak.

Natural Selection made us what we are, now we ( attempt at least) to control what we want to be.

ok...i get that...and agree....this would be the danger part, as a worst case scenario...

every product of natural selection carries with it the risk of failure as an adaptation...but it makes it no less natural

the environment that we create can never step outside nature and become something other than the nest we've built with OUR version of feathers and sticks.....

our wonderful quirk is that our feathers and sticks are the manifestation of thought...and that's what technology is

the danger, as i see it, is -as you imply- our arrogance....that we can build our nest anywhere by dominating all other forces at work....that we, as a bundle of genes, can step beyond natural selection, and "manifest our destiny"

which would make the question of what that might be essential.....and suggests a reason for the origination of religion, and the thoughts that it manifests.

my suggestion is that the potential adaptive benefit of technology is as a tool for the manifestation of our desire to create a social organization, and -ideally- serves that purpose by being a kind of vehicle for time travel (or at least the presevation of memory and the implementation of a future)...it's manipulation of the environment is just the manifestations of these thoughts.

and we are just now coming to the first real pitfall in the use of intellect as a selected adaptation.....a recognition of the chasm between the finite nature of the world, and the infinite nature of our intellect.

[Gabriel]

Yes Iltos, the idea that these are supposed to be separate adds to the rift.
Maybe we acquired this attitude as a remnant of our wanting to dominate nature

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by iltos

my suggestion is that the potential adaptive benefit of technology is as a tool for the manifestation of our desire to create a social organization, and -ideally- serves that purpose by being a kind of vehicle for time travel (or at least the presevation of memory and the implementation of a future)....

Very interesting ideas springing forth from that little section of a post for me. I think of the old cavemen - they looked at a painting on the wall and tried to figure out what it meant. Probably wasn't as much ambiguity then. It was probably easier to discern meaning then than it is now. I'm guessing back then, a picture painted far fewer words than it does today. Today, even with the advent of very descriptive text and moving pictures, it's probably easier to interpret things in a way different than the one the author/painter expected. Look up old meanings of the word "again" just as an excercise in trying to discern what authors of long ago might have been talking about.

I guess time travel was never an exact science.