Discussion objectively, do you think we humans

[JustAnx]

Are evolution gone wrong?

 

[DarkRange55]

What objective metric are you using?

Evolution doesn't have any goal other than chugging along and continuing the process. It doesn't care how many species it has to throw in the meat grinder. Its "goal" is not higher levels of intelligence either.
We're probably already the third most important species in the ecosystem (after the most common phytoplankton and its main virus), and we're the only species that can save the planet from the sun.
We have progressed further than other species.

 

[JustAnx]

What objective metric are you using?

Evolution doesn't have any goal other than chugging along and continuing the process. It doesn't care how many species it has to throw in the meat grinder. Its "goal" is not higher levels of intelligence either.
We're probably already the third most important species in the ecosystem (after the most common phytoplankton and its main virus), and we're the only species that can save the planet from the sun.
We have progressed further than other species.

But at what cost? I mean sure, we've managed to invent things, explore space, cure diseases, extend our life expectations (not everywhere though). I mean, we may have over done things and created belief systems that may have complicated our lives.

 

[DarkRange55]

But at what cost? I mean sure, we've managed to invent things, explore space, cure diseases, extend our life expectations (not everywhere though). I mean, we may have over done things and created belief systems that may have complicated our lives.

The sun is getting warmer and only humans can save the earth from overheating. If the sun is 30% warmer now than it was in the early solar system, that means that we should be 15% farther from the sun, so we should be about 22.5 million km, or 22.5 billion m, further from the sun now than we were 4.5 billion years ago. That's just a rough calculation, but it comes out as a nice, round 5 m per year that we should be moving the earth to maintain its place in the habitable zone.
There are a few ays to achieve this. I recently read a paper about a new one (to me).

We are at an evolutionary mismatch currently. But we are not the end…

 

[Forever Sleep]

In what way? As in- we're destroying the planet we depend on? That's not evolutionary a very good idea for anything. Still, I don't actually believe that other animals form a natural equilibrium with their surroundings. I don't think they have this innate nobility that holds them back from destroying everything- like we tend to do. I just think that most animals are kept in check by other predators in the food chain. Or, they are dependent on nature and vulnerable to weather. Given the right conditions- I expect their population numbers would also explode until they'd stripped the area of resources. There are population increases in species such as jellyfish and lion fish with the rising sea temperatures. I just think we all have within us this innate desire to thrive and propagate.

I don't think evolution 'thinks' about the long term. It simply means that some animals with certain traits do better than others in that moment. They may even live long enough to pass those traits on to offspring.

Or- do you mean- we are able to work against evolutionary 'advantages'. Antinatilism, suicide, mental illnesses like depression aren't exactly conducive to furthering the species. They actually work against what you would think would be innate in us.

 

[Pluto]

 

[obligatoryshackles]

Evolution is about surviving and filling as many niches as possible. We still exist and have taken over basically every niche on earth. Everything else is irrelevant. So no?

If you meant to pose a moral question, rephrase the post.

 

[avoid]

Objectively, if the purpose of evolution is to ensure the survival and reproduction of each individual species then the modern human, as a species, is not a case of "evolution gone wrong." Technological advances allows us to thrive more than ever. Though no one can predict what happens to us in the future. Technology may very well cause our extinction: radiation, rogue AI or climate change.

Subjectively, if the process of evolution were a person — Mother Nature — then she may label us as "evolution gone wrong" because we have the capabilities to gain control over the evolutionary forces and ignore Mother Nature at some point in the future. Only our morals may prevent us from regulating our reproduction and evolution. Though I would rather label us as a marvel of evolution.

Overcoming evolutionary forces
Natural selection may play an insignificant role in our future if we collectively decide to selectively reproduce in a manner that befits the health of the populous en masse. Compulsory sterilization, albeit morally wrong and recognized as a crime against humanity, has been practiced by Western countries in the past and is still practiced in some countries nowadays. In the future, we may encourage or even mandate humans to participate in reproduction programs to create genetically elite humans. Movie recommendation: Gattaca.

Genetic drift may become a thing of the past when we are capable of reconstructing entire DNA sequences for reproductive purposes. In the mean time, genetic screening already exists and we experiment with genetically altering animals, some of which are available to the public. Moreover, He Jiankui is a Chinese biofysicus who engineered 3 genetically altered human embryos to immunize them against the HIV virus. He went to prison for 3 years for the unethical practices and is back at work in the lab since 2023. The babies were born in 2018–2019 and are still alive today.

Genetic mutation bias such as sexual selection and genetic hitchhiking may become irrelevant for the same arguments I used for natural selection and genetic drift, respectively.

 

[DarkRange55]

Objectively, if the purpose of evolution is to ensure the survival and reproduction of each individual species then the modern human, as a species, is not a case of "evolution gone wrong." Technological advances allows us to thrive more than ever. Though no one can predict what happens to us in the future. Technology may very well cause our extinction: radiation, rogue AI or climate change.

Subjectively, if the process of evolution were a person — Mother Nature — then she may label us as "evolution gone wrong" because we have the capabilities to gain control over the evolutionary forces and ignore Mother Nature at some point in the future. Only our morals may prevent us from regulating our reproduction and evolution. Though I would rather label us as a marvel of evolution.

Overcoming evolutionary forces
Natural selection may play an insignificant role in our future if we collectively decide to selectively reproduce in a manner that befits the health of the populous en masse. Compulsory sterilization, albeit morally wrong and recognized as a crime against humanity, has been practiced by Western countries in the past and is still practiced in some countries nowadays. In the future, we may encourage or even mandate humans to participate in reproduction programs to create genetically elite humans. Movie recommendation: Gattaca.

Genetic drift may become a thing of the past when we are capable of reconstructing entire DNA sequences for reproductive purposes. In the mean time, genetic screening already exists and we experiment with genetically altering animals, some of which are available to the public. Moreover, He Jiankui is a Chinese biofysicus who engineered 3 genetically altered human embryos to immunize them against the HIV virus. He went to prison for 3 years for the unethical practices and is back at work in the lab since 2023. The babies were born in 2018–2019 and are still alive today.

Genetic mutation bias such as sexual selection and genetic hitchhiking may become irrelevant for the same arguments I used for natural selection and genetic drift, respectively.

Objectively, if the purpose of evolution

While I prefer the perspective that it has a purpose, from other perspectives it just happens.

is to ensure the survival and reproduction of each individual species

To maximize the chance that the species adapts to changes and survives.

then the modern human, as a species, is not a case of "evolution gone wrong." Technological advances allows us to thrive more than ever.

Agreed

Though no one can predict what happens to us in the future.

I can predict it - I just might be wrong...

Technology may very well cause our extinction: radiation, rogue AI or climate change.

Agreed.

Subjectively, if the process of evolution were a person — Mother Nature — then she may label us as "evolution gone wrong" because we have the capabilities to gain control over the evolutionary forces and ignore Mother Nature at some point in the future. Only our morals may prevent us from regulating our reproduction and evolution. Though I would rather label us as a marvel of evolution.

Agreed.

Overcoming evolutionary forces
Natural selection may play an insignificant role in our future if we collectively decide to selectively reproduce in a manner that befits the health of the populous en masse. Compulsory sterilization, albeit morally wrong and recognized as a crime against humanity, has been practiced by Western countries in the past and is still practiced in some countries nowadays. In the future, we may encourage or even mandate humans to participate in reproduction programs to create genetically elite humans.

Or simply engineer our genomes, rather than selective breeding.

Movie recommendation: Gattaca.

Genetic drift may become a thing of the past when we are capable of reconstructing entire DNA sequences for reproductive purposes. In the mean time, genetic screening already exists and we experiment with genetically altering animals, some of which are available to the public. Moreover, He Jiankui is a Chinese biofysicus who engineered 3 genetically altered human embryos to immunize them against the HIV virus. He went to prison for 3 years for the unethical practices and is back at work in the lab since 2023. The babies were born in 2018–2019 and are still alive today.

Genetic mutation bias such as sexual selection and genetic hitchhiking may become irrelevant for the same arguments I used for natural selection and genetic drift, respectively.

Agreed.