Has our human species evolved into a self-destruct mode ?

as with all things; a lot of practice makes one rather 'good' at it!

maybe, as a species, we should take a 'break'?

yo yo bogowo !!! way to go good buddy!!!

actually this topic is now redundent;
we are under attack by the 'killer' hamsters.

maybe we won't have to intecede!
(and we may not get blamed)

so it,s not you...i have not been BOGOWOed ! Funny while in the jungles of costa rica I thought of you.I finally realised good abstract name.....

suits my 'ABSTRACT' personality, in a distant, sort of, 'iffy' way.

SCoates:
We are all "prisoners of words" when it comes to definitions, aren't we? If I read you correctly you say that the evolution of technology
is not dependent on on the evolution of man. What I am saying is that technology does not evolve by itself.......it is man who causes it to evolve, and that it cannot change without man's
own involvement in that change.

I quite agree. This is not a question of evolution at all. For all practical purposes homo sapiens sapiens is no different today from what he was in paleolithic times. Technology, however, has grown (I hesitate to use the word 'improved') exponentially during the past few centuries. With the resources that mankind now has, it is certainly capable of destroying itself and taking a few other vertebrate species with it. I don't see any evidence that there is -- or ever has been -- a wilful drive to self-destruction inherent in the species. I do see, however, continuing stupidity and disregard for potential consequences. This has been so since time immemorial, except that the toys we're playing with now are a lot more dangerous than, say, bows and arrows or even rifled firearms.

Moving off-planet, under these circumstances, would accomplish nothing except to spread the stupidity (and give Ma Nature a slight respite from the silly games we play). We cannot -- and, perhaps, should not -- rein in our drive to create ever new techno marvels. We can, and should, be more circumspect about how we utilize these newly discovered toys.

One thing that irritates me is that all the discussion, all the insights and all the knowledge one accumulates rarely permeates beyond several hundred people that the individual had direct contact with (in my estimate). I mean the average individual. Some such as Einstein, Plato and hawking have profound books and other medium that touch millions. I feel if there were some sort of way to store knowledge and insight and directly pass that on to another person - I mean simple abstract knowledge not hindering the recipients perspective and individual thought then evolution of thought could greatly increase. So many ideas are thrown out because of either lack of ability to put them out on a sufficient medium and or because others have certain ignorances which hinder proper judgement of the 'new idea' and some times new ideas take years to 'get out' because they 'threaten' the current theory in place.

This cut off of thought also is symptematic in those of us who have a quant inability to express oneself fully in words. The perverbial encarceration of words.

*shrug just a thought.

This 'self-destruct mode' is an interesting concept seeing as there seems to be one in place for many other species. The lemmings committing 'group suicide' being a myth does not stop the observation that when the population gets over crowded many lemmings do die or get left behind or do actually fall over cliffs while in migration to find food. but thats more of just how the 'better suited' or 'strongest' survive.

Also the observation that humans have been taken out of the 'natural food chain' shows that humans well should be in for something to reduce our numbers.

now a retarded reference to 'group will' will always sneak its way into a discussion such as this. of course the species has no collective will its all individual but the realization that humans cannot continue to spread and multiply like we are must be attained.

My point was that man need not evolve, in order for technology to evolve. The basis is that a certain amount of effort needs to be put into technology for it to advance. If we evolved in intelligence it could increase the amount of effort we are able to apply to technology. Again, I give a wide range to my definition of "effort."

On a side note, I think that if imperialistic man (meaning man from the age of imperialism) had our technology today, they would have caused far more trouble than we have.

visavis:
Agree with you in all perspectives in your argu,ent , except one. Do you really thing that the religions, cultures, and nationalisms, will allow
our species to realize the destructiveness of over population ?

Algis, what about when we submitted ourselves to skin-damaging sunshine before we knew about sunscreen? We haven't really gotten any more self-destructive. We just now live in an era of fear, when everything is a carcenogen and everything destroys your brain, and irradiated food is doing SOMETHING HORRIBLE to us (but no knows what). I eat moldy food and biologically enhanced food and beef and haven't put on sunscreen since 1995, and I jaywalk, and I ride in cars, and on planes quite regularly, and I use cell phones occasionally, and I'm still here. That doesn't make me self-destructive.

my half a cent on this.

If Darwinism is a rough indicator, the fittest survive. If survival is the key issue, perhaps self-destruction would ultimately be something that would be avoided, with or without technological input, for the sake of survival. An eventual self-destruct mode(if apparent or existent) is then likely to be addressed and offset by the need for survival. Assuming this is a valid argument, it would suggest an answer in the negative to the original post on this thread.

crashlanded_vr2:
Your Darwinian "survival of the fittest" argumeny is obviously a good one from the point of view of having an apparent deterrent to a destruction of the human species, but even that fundamental evolutionary fact did not prevent the extinction of over 90% of all the other species that existed before our own human species......I might be wrong on the 90%. I believe it is closer to 95%
I havn't checked it out recently, but
some species of "life" form dies periodically, even
as frequently as one each year.
And I might add, these extinct species did not have the disadvantage of having a
so-called rationalization ability to distract them from thinking about anything other than survival.

visavis -- your example of our misconception of the 'suicidal drive' of lemmings is right to the point. Lemmings don't destroy themselves in any attempt at species self-eradication. Where destruction occurs, it is a way of 'culling the herd.' For humans, war and democide serve a similar function.

alikimr -- life forms do become extinct on a regular basis, true. Much of the biota today is radically different from what existed in pre-Jurassic times. But there is no indication that I know of that any of these extinctions are due to self-destruction. In evolutionary terms, it's less meaningful to speak of 'survival of the fittest' as to simply consider the undeniable fact of a drive to survive, a survival instinct, if you will. That some species disappear in spite of this drive is seldom their own fault. It's a set of circumstances beyond their control which destroys them. And, at present, except for the forces of nature, I know of nothing that is capable of destroying mankind. Bacteria or viruses, perhaps. But past experience has shown that humankind has always been able to find a remedy in time to avert total annihilation. Plagues and pandemics of the past have hardly made serious inroads in the total number of people who inhabit the planet. The Black Death destroyed about a third of all the inhabitants of Europe. But that means that two-thirds survived. And the pandemic affected only Eurasia, not the other continents.

I realize the above is somewhat off-topic. I do think, though, that we, as humans, have a very healthy tendency to worry about such things as self-destuction, mass destruction, etc. etc. and this is one of the things which keeps the worst scenario from becoming a reality. The very fact that we are all participating in this discussion shows that we are, in some snse, concerned about future possibilities. And history shows that when people are concerned, they can and do solve the problem.

alikimr:

Just thought I should add, I was emphasizing survival, not necessarily of the fittest. And humans unlike previous species are more capable and determinted to survive, so that might help them put the brakes on reaching the self-destruct mode.

According to this site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm

there might have been upto 23 extinction events in earths history. I do not know which of these possible extinction events you refer to by the 90/95% number. If the reasons for these extinction events are independent of the species present at that time, then perhaps any species cannot really stop it from happening. But it is the instinct for survival in humans, that will try to mitigate the effects of the cause for these extinctions.
If these extinction events which occur roughly every 26 million years or so are not scheduled to happen in the immediate future, chances are the destruct mode hasnt been reached so far.

crashlanded_vr2:
I was not referring to extinction
events by my reference to 90'95% number. I wasa referring to the independent extinction of the millions of different species that existed on this planet and have become extinct.
At any rate, the gist of the question which I have raised revolves itself around
the essential charecteristics of our human nature as it has evolved, and is continually being manifested in the violence and destruction to our fellow man,and our environment.
Will our species be capable of not only realizing this fact, but actually be able to work collectivelly world wide to prevent its extinction?

heh no..

its better for buisness if there are more people on the planet - sad isnt it? i wont drag economics into this. I find it best to look at the situation if you view americas view of china. I read about how chinese couples are allowed only 1 child per family and generally they are upset if its a female. The main theory is that boys are better still over there due to their social strata make most of them in the farmer-type catigory.

The problem of over population is evident in china and i think that shows a precursur to what may happen rather soon over the whole of the world if no natural disaster takes out say a billion or so people. Another possibility which would by pass the need for a natural disaster is if our 'leaders' at some point stop the squabbling and acting like preschoolers and unify the world and allow us to explore space as a single human race..

but hey dreams arnt perfect they come true not easy.

A key word in the question is "self".

As far as we know, no other species has "self awareness" and if may be the case that "self" is antithetical to survival of the species. Some writers (Capra et al) argue that anthropocentrism will end in extinction.

the successor to 'religion and nationalism' - commerce, is totally committed to increased population, for 'growth', which in its myopic undecerning way it considers to be the new 'deity'!

on the topic of evolution, as far as home sapiens is concerned it is over.
we change on the basis of individual adaptation to transformations in society in order to survive; but these are willful personal choices not mutations which drove the evolutionary process over the last few million years.
change by mutation takes thousands of years at least to occur and we no longer have time for that; this is why so many species, unable to react naturally to changes in their environment, are dying out litterally as we discuss this topic.

i would suggest anyone interested in this topic read "Our Final Hour" : a scientist's warning: how terror, error, and environmental disaster threaten humankind's future in this century-- on Earth and beyond / by Rees, Martin J., 1942-

we are now on our own, in evolutionary terms, and if we are to survive we must all make it happen, IN SPITE OF religious and nationalistic interests.