Re: [asa] Re: Endgame

Hi David,

Interesting point which has the added bonus of expanding the scope of the discussion. By extension one might also point out that the brain is an energy hungry device and an increase in size would lead to a corresponding increase in resource consumption. I imagine that there might be other flow on effects.

A few further very brief reflections on the theme;

1) In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley propounded the idea that humans might be genetically modified to be dumber, therefore happier in what would otherwise be a dreary existence. Significantly, "Brave New World" was written to portray a potential "dark" side to progress (a "dystopia") over against H.G.Wells' utopian "Men Like Gods" - thus reminding us that technological advance is not always a human good. Or, at least, the ways in which genetic modification might be applied to "improve" humanity are as various as opinions as to what constitutes an "improvement".

2) There is much potential to "improve" the human species by the use of bioelectronics, etc. Perhaps it might be the case that we see remarkable improvements in (say) memory capacity by the implanting of electronic devices, thus eliminating the need for larger skull sizes?

3) A common sci-fi theme is the growth of humans ex utero. This is, in fact, a theme in Huxley's "Brave New World" but is probably familiar to most from the growing fields in "The Matrix." Perhaps we might not need to see a change in female physiology to see a growth in human brain sizes?

4) I'm interested in the question of poverty and equality of access. Let's say that our technologically advanced society does come up with ways to make people smarter, faster, stronger, etc - what's the guarantee that this will benefit humanity rather than a small privileged sub-section thereof? Western governments ALREADY restrict technology exports in the cause of national interest and I doubt that things will change much when the technology is directly related to "improving" the human species.

I think the entire thing is replete with possibilities. As with all technological advances those possibilities will be varied in their implications.

It's an interesting topic which I regrettably don't really have the time to get into it at the moment but others might find the above to be helpful material for reflection.

Blessings,
Murray

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> Bernie,
> In considering human evolution, your need to remember that the fetal head
> is as large as can be accommodated by the mother's pelvis. So the notion
> of bigger brains is nixed. The pictures of aliens with big heads and
> narrow hips are an impossibility. There was a recent report that the
> Neanderthal newborn had a head almost identical in size to that of Homo
> sapiens. So size was preserved across species. Of course, if males and
> females diverge, with the females becoming sessile because of the vast
> increase in hips to accommodate a birth canal big enough to pass a keg,
> brain size may increase tremendously.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:32:45 -0800 "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
>> Gordon said: "I seem to recall reading in some secular publication
>> that Francis Collins believes that humans will not evolve into
>> something else."
>>
>> I'd like to see that quote in context. I don't see how anyone who
>> accepts evolution would think that we would still be the same in 2
>> million years from now (as if we were even the "same" now).
>>
>> The really interesting thing about human evolution is that humans
>> are the only creature interbreeding all over the world- no
>> geographic separation at all (a few isolated tribes aren't really
>> all that isolated, and won't be isolated too much in the next 1
>> million years). This worldwide interbreeding likely slows
>> everything down- or may create a brand new effect never before seen
>> in biological evolution.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>> On Behalf Of gordon brown
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:21 PM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Re: Endgame
>>
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know, everyone who accepts biological evolution also
>> thinks that biology is still evolving- we have seen the end of
>> nothing, biologically. And if we stay on earth for another 1 to 3
>> million years, then I'd expect to see some major biological changes.
>> And knowing humans, these biological changes WILL be
>> directed/influenced by the human mind (known as "intelligent
>> design," I suppose) via human genetic engineering. What we can do
>> will be influenced by our ethics (known as memes). This brings up
>> an interesting idea of memes being a major evolutionary mechanism
>> upon genes, whereas memes arose from genes.
>> I seem to recall reading in some secular publication that Francis
>> Collins
>> believes that humans will not evolve into something else.
>>
>> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Find the right teaching school to meet your educational needs. Click to learn more.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw25lE2gnFw6aLN5iJKC4XqPB1HtfK5RhnliMa4ZUubxdMxoB/
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 2 18:46:13 2009