[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.

[valis]

I don't know about that. I think that while man's intellect is now a consideration beyond the process of natural selection, I think that the focus lies more on what man's intellect creates. We are able to split the atom; fantastic, but we didn't see far enough in advance to properly safeguard the outcome of a disaster resulting from such. While we will always stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, I think that in many instances the breakthroughs that are coming at us fast an furious aren't fully researched before being put into use. Take thalidomide; granted, that was 40 or 50 years ago, but it was billed as the end all/be all and obviously it had some deleterious side effects. Our intellect has enabled us to uncoil the dna strand, and while I am all for genetic research, I think that again we've outstripped ourselves and left us with something that, while having wonderful potential, can also have horrible side effects.

I think that our intellect definitely separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but I think that it's more important that our intellect is outside the process of natural selection. Having said that, regardless of whether or not our intellect is now a consideration beyond the processes of natural selection, it (our intellect) WILL have an effect on natural selection, simply because we are part of the ecosystem.

good thread.

[Chicon]

My answer to the question Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection? is definitely No.

I don't see any link between technology, which synthetizes the activities of a part of the world population, and natural selection, which relies on biology and environment of whatever living beings.
Also, I believe there will still be people to get electrocuted in thousand years just because, some informations can't be imparted only by biological ways.

Hi every one !

[Stoner]

Morning Joe

Agreed.

[BanditFlyer]

Who would technology select against? The most ignorant? The most fearless(least fear-full)?

[Stoner]

If technology is an un natural selective process to start with, how does your question pertain to animals versus the intellect of man?

Who would technology select against?

In a practical sense, that which does not have the ability to recognize the concept of technology.

The most ignorant?

Or the most stupid? Ignorance is transitory.

The most fearless(least fear-full)?

A bit too broad to comment.
Fear is really the product of recognition and ignorance......the depth and breadth of each being an immense variable.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Stoner

If technology is an un natural selective process to start with, how does your question pertain to animals versus the intellect of man?

Animals like the falcon have made very adaptive use of man's technology. They thrive in cities and other "unnatural environments", so I think the question of how technology affects the process of natural selection is a broader one than to leave out all non-human animals.

Originally Posted by Stoner

In a practical sense, that which does not have the ability to recognize the concept of technology.

I wouldn't say that animals like the falcon "recognize" the concept of technology, but some of them certainly do benefit from it.

Originally Posted by Stoner

Or the most stupid? Ignorance is transitory.

Which one am I?

Originally Posted by Stoner

A bit too broad to comment.
Fear is really the product of recognition and ignorance......the depth and breadth of each being an immense variable.

You lost me at "stupid"

Off to google "transipamaflamatory-ish".

"Fear is the product of recognition and ignorance..." - I'd probably be afraid of that statement ... if I recognized/understood it....

In summary, uhhhh .... what?

[Stoner]

Animals like the falcon have made very adaptive use of man's technology. They thrive in cities and other "unnatural environments", so I think the question of how technology affects the process of natural selection is a broader one than to leave out all non-human animals.

Logical fallacy there Bandit......it's not that the falcon uses our technology, he adapts to it's presence as much as any environmental factor......the difference being he has no understanding of it's generation.

I wouldn't say that animals like the falcon "recognize" the concept of technology, but some of them certainly do benefit from it.

Agreed. See above.

Which one am I?

Which one do you want to be ?

"Fear is the product of recognition and ignorance..." - I'd probably be afraid of that statement ... if I recognized/understood it....

Only that it takes different levels in each of us to trigger the same effect.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Logical fallacy there Bandit......it's not that the falcon uses our technology, he adapts to it's presence as much as any environmental factor......the difference being he has no understanding of it's generation.

Does he need to have understanding of it's generation?

The thread topic was "Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?"

It appears that animals like the racoon and falcon demonstrate that technological dangers do in fact affect the process of natural selection.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Does he need to have understanding of it's generation?

The thread topic was "Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?"

It appears that animals like the racoon and falcon demonstrate that technological dangers do in fact affect the process of natural selection.

Does he need to have understanding of it's generation?

As a distinction between the intellect of man and natural selection, I would think so......

The thread topic was "Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?

Indeed, as versus un natural selection.......which is man's intellect overwhelming the last several billion years of evolutionary processes. Extinction being one of the greater impacts.

It appears that animals like the racoon and falcon demonstrate that technological dangers do in fact affect the process of natural selection.

No.......their responses are now inclusive of man's presence and man's intellect....a factor not seen in the evolutionary past.......now a unique factor in their environment.
Their survival now depends on not just on surviving the agressiveness of man, but also the impact man placed on the environment through technological 'advancement'.

[valis]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Does he need to have understanding of it's generation?

The thread topic was "Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection?"

It appears that animals like the racoon and falcon demonstrate that technological dangers do in fact affect the process of natural selection.

technical dangers, or technical advances? The falcon certainly can't differentiate between the two, and will use whatever is in their abilty to advance their own well-being. So what could be a danger for us (contamination of a stream, for instance) could be a boon for them, as the animals that live near said stream would then have to boogey on down to new digs, and temporarily be more exposed than normal.

Hypothetically, of course.

[iltos]

great thread, stoner

Originally Posted by Chicon

My answer to the question Are technological dangers a process of Natural Selection? is definitely No.

I don't see any link between technology, which synthetizes the activities of a part of the world population, and natural selection, which relies on biology and environment of whatever living beings.

hi, chicon
my first thought here is to disagree....it strikes me that technology (dangers and benefits) is a product of both our unique biology and our perception of environment.

our ability to transform the environment through technological means is adaptive behavior....a function, simplisticly, of our eye/hand coordination pushed through the filter of our intellect

Originally Posted by Stoner

In a practical sense, that which does not have the ability to recognize the concept of technology.

arrogance? (something to do with the atrophy of instinct?).....that's the first, semi-flippant thing that comes to mind....a result, perhaps, of those who argue for "the good old days" when we lived "idylically" in the forest, or some such, stone age hunters and gatherers.

but what does it select for? our intellect?
nah, too general....

all that comes to mind is the sense of time, stretching out behind us and before us, and the co-operation it takes to build a boat for that river.....so something about our social organization....

"smart ants"

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Stoner

As a distinction between the intellect of man and natural selection, I would think so......

In that case, could you please clarify the original question of the thread.

And this time, make it easy enough for someone like me. Someone whom the advance of technology is threatening to extinguish. Us dummies wanna play too.

Originally Posted by Stoner

Indeed, as versus un natural selection.......which is man's intellect overwhelming the last several billion years of evolutionary processes. Extinction being one of the greater impacts.

Again, see above.

Originally Posted by Stoner

No.......their responses are now inclusive of man's presence and man's intellect....a factor not seen in the evolutionary past.......now a unique factor in their environment.
Their survival now depends on not just on surviving the agressiveness of man, but also the impact man placed on the environment through technological 'advancement'.

Their survival, in the case of the animals I mentioned, has been greatly aided by man's aggressive building habits.

Originally Posted by valis

technical dangers, or technical advances? The falcon certainly can't differentiate between the two, and will use whatever is in their abilty to advance their own well-being. So what could be a danger for us (contamination of a stream, for instance) could be a boon for them, as the animals that live near said stream would then have to boogey on down to new digs, and temporarily be more exposed than normal.

Hypothetically, of course.

The falcon takes advantage of skyscrapers as a new type of hunting ground. Not contamination of streams, contamination(and population with pigeons) of skyline that would otherwise be forested or , more likely, deserted.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

In that case, could you please clarify the original question of the thread.

And this time, make it easy enough for someone like me. Someone whom the advance of technology is threatening to extinguish. Us dummies wanna play too.
Again, see above.

Their survival, in the case of the animals I mentioned, has been greatly aided by man's aggressive building habits.

The falcon takes advantage of skyscrapers as a new type of hunting ground. Not contamination of streams, contamination(and population with pigeons) of skyline that would otherwise be forested or , more likely, deserted.

In that case, could you please clarify the original question of the thread.

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

And this time, make it easy enough for someone like me. Someone whom the advance of technology is threatening to extinguish. Us dummies wanna play too.
Again, see above.

See above.

Their survival, in the case of the animals I mentioned, has been greatly aided by man's aggressive building habits.

ummm.....how did you derive that?
Two instances do not define a rule and I don't even see how the destruction of a natural habitat is productive. 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.

The falcon takes advantage of skyscrapers as a new type of hunting ground.

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

The falcon takes advantage of skyscrapers as a new type of hunting ground. Not contamination of streams, contamination(and population with pigeons) of skyline that would otherwise be forested or , more likely, deserted.

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

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


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.

[valis]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Their survival, in the case of the animals I mentioned, has been greatly aided by man's aggressive building habits.

complete aggreance. But they are aided also by man's aggressive building habits changing the habits of their prey as well; you need to remember that. We are messing with an entire ecosystem here, and as such the ramifications will be further reaching that at first glance.

Look at moths and porchlights. When we lived in colorado we had a floodlight covering the driveway (kid problems) and I remember sitting on the front porch just watching bats swing by like it was a buffet on wings.

Distinctly changed their eating and hunting habits. I know the light is still there (or, at least it was 3 years ago when I meandered through); that would be over 30 years that that light has provided lunch on the wing for those bats. My question would then be, remove the light, and what would the bats do? They've most likely been changed by the continued exposure to one place to feed, and feed quite easily, but how would they have changed over the intervening generations?

Or would that have been enough time to even alter them permanently?

questions, questions.....