BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > After Sunset > Philosophy

Philosophy Any non-religious philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-08-2014, 10:04 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default Are we "super humans"?

If there is any shred of truth to Darwin's theories of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, then we Humans alive today should be the epitome of the Human line. We should be stronger, faster and smarter than any people before us. I think we are bigger, stronger and faster than early Man. Although, this could just be the result of having a stable food supply. But, are we any smarter than people were 40,000 years ago? Sure, we have thousands of years of compiled information to draw from, but do you think that we are actually smarter than early Man was? I'm thinking that they were pretty much the same as us. They just didn't have a written language, so information had to be passed on orally. When we started to write things down, it took alot less labor to pass information down the line. There eventually was a domino effect that resulted in the information being multiplied exponentially, resulting in computers, space flight, etc. Also, with written language, inventors wouldn't have to make the same mistakes over and over. They could read what others had done before them and avoid their mistakes. So, we probably have alot more information stored in our brains than early Man, but that is not the same as having a high IQ, or a good imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-09-2014, 02:11 PM
Knowitall Male Knowitall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 55
Default

That's an interesting idea to think about.

Perhaps 40,000 years is enough time for change to occur at a genetic level which would produce noticeable differences in intelligence. However, I think an equally important cause of change is due to differences between environmental factors then and now.

Even 250 years ago, the way people interacted with the world was very different from today. News and goods traveled slower and with smaller range. Instant communication was done in person and entertainment was limited to the offerings available in a close proximity.

In comparison, technologies for modern communications, trade, and entertainment are limited by the speed and multitasking of our minds. How is the development of a human mind affected by increasing demands for more speed and processing? I'd say it adapts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-09-2014, 02:27 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Do you think that the Human race's success as a species occurred as a result of a genetic mutation? Such as the ability to speak which enabled us to have language which enabled us to communicate about specific details.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-09-2014, 07:12 PM
Knowitall Male Knowitall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Do you think that the Human race's success as a species occurred as a result of a genetic mutation? Such as the ability to speak which enabled us to have language which enabled us to communicate about specific details.
There were probably many factors and our success may have a lot to do with all these factors coming together at once.

You have environmental factors (climate changes, competing species, available prey), physiological factors (vocalization, thumbs) and social factors (tribalism, teamwork, parental roles), and perhaps others. Maybe if you "rolled the dice" again humans wouldn't have been so successful?

I've also been thinking that mutation doesn't have to be the cause of the final product, it can just be the first step. The plumage on a peacock probably wasn't due to sudden mutation of a drab pheasant into a shiny, ornately patterned bird, but a series of genetic choices (mating pairs) which continuously enhanced what started as minor mutations like bluish feathers and faint bar patterns.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-09-2014, 09:06 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Have you ever wondered why Humans went from the stone age to space travel in less than ten thousand years and creatures like the crocodile or the shark haven't seemed to change in millions of years? They are extremely successful creatures, in the fact that they have lasted all these years. They have found their niche and are sticking with it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-09-2014, 09:50 PM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 803
Default

As an outsider looking in, it looks like most of the population of the US and western europe is following a trend toward a greater degree of domestication and docility, simply because the wilder, more violent individuals are removed from the breeding population through crime, prison, and accidents. Due to fast modes of travel and greater firepower available to us than before the industrial revolution, there are more and better opportunities for people predisposed toward violence and recklessness to remove themselves and each other.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-11-2014, 11:03 PM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

No we are not super humans. If your a person of faith then we can only get any "super" from the Creator, ie God. If one believes in evolution and what we are today is super then I would say no again. for what we have gained in knowledge we have lost in character. For those of us raised in the fifty's will know what I'm saying. I guess what the real question would be is what makes a super human. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or material things. If one could fulfill all of the sermon on the mount then you would be super. Not perfect but super none the less.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-12-2014, 03:01 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

It is impossible to have a rational discussion when religious dogma is brought into the mix. It says right in the heading of this section not to do this.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-12-2014, 09:45 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

I fail to see how you could possibly think that I was talking about eugenics. I don't think you even read my original post. Go back and read the first post and then post something worthwhile other than trying to hijack this thread. And I repeat: this section is for non-religious philosophical discussions. Keep your dogma in the religious section, please.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-13-2014, 07:38 PM
macgeoghagen macgeoghagen is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wherever theres liberty.
Posts: 803
Default

Are you or are you not asking about super humans? There can be no philosophical discussion of it without discussing Neitsche's Ubermensch and Plato's Philosopher king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-09-2015, 05:15 PM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowitall View Post
The plumage on a peacock probably wasn't due to sudden mutation of a drab pheasant into a shiny, ornately patterned bird, but a series of genetic choices (mating pairs) which continuously enhanced what started as minor mutations like bluish feathers and faint bar patterns.
You statement reminds me of the short, fat, & bald guy who had an extremely high IQ and married the tall but beautiful & vivacious gal, even though she was a "ding-bat", believing the children would all be tall and handsome or beautiful with his super intelligence.

Unfortunately the children were all short, portly, ugly & dumb like their mother to add insults & injury to the gents theory.

Hitlers "Super Human Race" did not fair much better, but as I recall Hitler was not to brilliant, rather short, plain & ordinary himself! But he did have a Super inflated ego, if that counts for anything! Probably not, since he couldn't stand to dance to the music, he had required millions of others to dance to!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-11-2015, 09:23 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjr View Post
You statement reminds me of the short, fat, & bald guy who had an extremely high IQ and married the tall but beautiful & vivacious gal, even though she was a "ding-bat", believing the children would all be tall and handsome or beautiful with his super intelligence.

Unfortunately the children were all short, portly, ugly & dumb like their mother to add insults & injury to the gents theory.

Hitlers "Super Human Race" did not fair much better, but as I recall Hitler was not to brilliant, rather short, plain & ordinary himself! But he did have a Super inflated ego, if that counts for anything! Probably not, since he couldn't stand to dance to the music, he had required millions of others to dance to!
In the original post, I was trying to reason whether today's Human is essentially the same person as an early Human. Physically and mentally. No mention of Hitler, eugenics, or anything of the sort was made.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-12-2015, 12:16 AM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
In the original post, I was trying to reason whether today's Human is essentially the same person as an early Human. Physically and mentally. No mention of Hitler, eugenics, or anything of the sort was made.
Discussions drift. Read what I posted as you told someone else about your post. Hitler, and his super race, were never compared to early man, but rather to the guy in the joke.

How do you think you can you compare stone age man to modern man, without considering all the strides made through the centuries in diet, health, education and genetics too?

Selective genetics in mankind is much more subtle than the animal world, but if you think it does not exist you are very naive. The elites of society (including upper crust politicians, management, financiers, industrial giants, doctors & lawyers wives) are not going to allow their daughters to date the dirt poor boys. The old plantation aristocracy of the South did not let their daughters date the sharecroppers boys, and neither did the privileged & genteel land owners and royalty of Europe allow that sort of thing either, and I suspect the practice dates considerable further than that time period too. There may have been a few exceptions and renegade children who crossed that invisible line, but they were few and far between. Dating may have been a different story with the elites boys, but few married a girl beneath their own class stature. Therefore......... Regardless of your including eugenics in the posting or not, to rule out its discussion is to eliminate all discussion, because it is an integral part of mankind's development.

The gene pool for stone age man was much smaller than that of modern man, which alone is sufficient to distort any valid comparisons between the two individuals separated by centuries.

Stone age man and modern man have about as much in common as the first ocean going ship man devised, when compared to the most modern atomic powered submarine in the American Naval fleet.

Stone age & modern man were both men and that first ocean sailing ship and the atomic powered submarine are both ships, but that is pretty much where the similarities end. There are greater differences between the two men and ships, than there are similarities.

As the saying goes, just my opinion. But you are welcome to you own version.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-12-2015, 12:28 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

I think that your ship analogy is flawed. We have the same DNA as early Man. You can't compare a machine to a living being. Okay, let's compare a Kalahari Bushman to an early Human. Probably pretty much the same. Now lets compare a Kalahari Bushman to a mailman living in Peoria. They're the same. They have been educated differently, etc. But, they are the same species. As a matter of fact, the Bushman may be superior in many ways.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-12-2015, 04:39 PM
wywhitewolf Male wywhitewolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 69
Default

The day we learned to control fire the laws of natural selection no longer applied to us. We now controlled our enviroment instead of it controlling us.

WWW
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-12-2015, 06:08 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wywhitewolf View Post
The day we learned to control fire the laws of natural selection no longer applied to us. We now controlled our enviroment instead of it controlling us.

WWW
I am unable to link natural selection and the harnessing of fire in my mind. Would you care to 'splain it to me?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-13-2015, 11:10 AM
wywhitewolf Male wywhitewolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I am unable to link natural selection and the harnessing of fire in my mind. Would you care to 'splain it to me?
Without fire only the strongest could survive living in cold climates. Natural selection ruled. With fire we controlled the enviroment and all could live in the cold. It was the first step.

Now we control almost every aspect of our enviroment. Too cold turn up the heat, too hot turn on the AC, Too dark turn on a light. Don't like dirty water we can clean that too. Deseases that would have limited our population and let only the strongest/best suited survive we now cure. We can adapt our enviroment to our needs instead of us adpating to the enviroment. Natural selection no longer controls us.

WWW
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-13-2015, 02:50 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wywhitewolf View Post
Without fire only the strongest could survive living in cold climates. Natural selection ruled. With fire we controlled the enviroment and all could live in the cold. It was the first step.

Now we control almost every aspect of our enviroment. Too cold turn up the heat, too hot turn on the AC, Too dark turn on a light. Don't like dirty water we can clean that too. Deseases that would have limited our population and let only the strongest/best suited survive we now cure. We can adapt our enviroment to our needs instead of us adpating to the enviroment. Natural selection no longer controls us.

WWW
I'm thinking that you mean "Survival of the Fittest" and not "Natural Selection". These are two separate concepts.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-13-2015, 04:23 PM
wywhitewolf Male wywhitewolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 69
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I'm thinking that you mean "Survival of the Fittest" and not "Natural Selection". These are two separate concepts.
I'd say both are ruled out. They are intertwinded too much to be looked at seperately.

"Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment."

One of the main reasons for one inherted trait to be reproduced more than another is more animals with that trait survive to reproduce. People without traits to survive cold (with less hair) could survive after we controlled fire. Therefore natural selection was overcome by us controlling our enviroment.

WWW
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-13-2015, 05:47 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

It has changed from Survival of the Fittest to Survival of the Richest.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.