Started By
Message
re: Leaked video shows new 'nightmare-inducing' wheeled robot from Boston Dynamics
Posted on 2/8/17 at 10:54 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 2/8/17 at 10:54 pm to Kentucker
That is, at best, conjecture with little evidence for or against. It could be. But it's more likely it's been going like this for centuries, the high and the low filtering themselves out. There doesn't seem to be much selection for weeding out the lower middle of intelligence. There is little evidence either way again. There is also little evidence that higher intelligence percentile is a better adaption. If the top had filtered itself out already we may not have 15000 nukes. All of it is an open question that won't be answered till long after we are gone
There is a good journal article that postulates, with some evidence, that individual humans were smarter and more capable ten thousand years ago when you had to be much more independent and the selection for all abilities was much stronger. I shall try to find.
There is a good journal article that postulates, with some evidence, that individual humans were smarter and more capable ten thousand years ago when you had to be much more independent and the selection for all abilities was much stronger. I shall try to find.
1
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:00 am to MIZ_COU
Conjecture? On a sports board? No, say it ain't so! 
Actually, my points are simple observations of human life. No conjecture needed. There's obvious evidence that humans are not experiencing selection pressures as a species.
Humans are the only species that save members with even severe birth defects and injuries; many that are maintained in a vegetative state. With the evolution of humans came an intensification of emotions that includes a "life is precious" commandment.
I'd like to know what pressures you think would cause a selection for the middle.
I just don't see the weeding out of any classifications of intelligence. Intellectually challenged humans are being born at a much faster rate than are the gifted, effectively dumbing down the species. This will, as illustrated in Soylent Green, ultimately exhaust survival resources for all.
Certainly a definition for intelligence must be applied. For me, I generally think of scientists as having higher IQs and of politicians being mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging morons.
The game changer is technology. Quantum changes are becoming the norm. Every new development is eliciting a kaleidoscope of associated change around it, spurring more developments. The resulting pace of change is ever quickening. I think the 2020s will be the most astounding decade in human history for scientific discovery.
Agriculture began about 11,000 years ago and the human population began to grow, fast. By 10,000 years ago, a few million people lived on the earth. Natural selection pressures eased because of the new availability of food, but there were still enough that the "survival of the fittest" law of evolution still applied.
That law doesn't apply to humans anymore, of course. Rather, we are rapidly expanding our numbers under a "survival of all" credo.
Actually, my points are simple observations of human life. No conjecture needed. There's obvious evidence that humans are not experiencing selection pressures as a species.
Humans are the only species that save members with even severe birth defects and injuries; many that are maintained in a vegetative state. With the evolution of humans came an intensification of emotions that includes a "life is precious" commandment.
quote:
But it's more likely it's been going like this for centuries, the high and the low filtering themselves out.
I'd like to know what pressures you think would cause a selection for the middle.
quote:
There doesn't seem to be much selection for weeding out the lower middle of intelligence.
I just don't see the weeding out of any classifications of intelligence. Intellectually challenged humans are being born at a much faster rate than are the gifted, effectively dumbing down the species. This will, as illustrated in Soylent Green, ultimately exhaust survival resources for all.
quote:
There is also little evidence that higher intelligence percentile is a better adaption. If the top had filtered itself out already we may not have 15000 nukes.
Certainly a definition for intelligence must be applied. For me, I generally think of scientists as having higher IQs and of politicians being mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging morons.
quote:
All of it is an open question that won't be answered till long after we are gone
The game changer is technology. Quantum changes are becoming the norm. Every new development is eliciting a kaleidoscope of associated change around it, spurring more developments. The resulting pace of change is ever quickening. I think the 2020s will be the most astounding decade in human history for scientific discovery.
quote:
There is a good journal article that postulates, with some evidence, that individual humans were smarter and more capable ten thousand years ago when you had to be much more independent and the selection for all abilities was much stronger. I shall try to find.
Agriculture began about 11,000 years ago and the human population began to grow, fast. By 10,000 years ago, a few million people lived on the earth. Natural selection pressures eased because of the new availability of food, but there were still enough that the "survival of the fittest" law of evolution still applied.
That law doesn't apply to humans anymore, of course. Rather, we are rapidly expanding our numbers under a "survival of all" credo.
This post was edited on 2/9/17 at 2:23 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News