07-11-12, 07:35 PM #1
1. Can the introduction of birth control and similar substances alter the future evolutionary system of humans? Might women become infertile as a result of using it in say 1,000 years? How would one approach this problem or even realize it's potential existence?
2. Does industrialization of society cause a degeneration of sorts in the evolutionary process of humans? For example the more removed humans are from their natural environments (i.e. cities, malls, houses) the more it effects them in say 1,000 years? Would we perhaps loose traits which are considered essential or would current ones alter in ways unforseen (and perhaps unwelcome?)
3. Should humans begin to bioengineer themselves and what risks would such a thing pose?
4. Do you think eventually a virus or plague will wipe out humankind leaving earth to the animals and nature?
Can a balance be struck in which we live in a technological society but without cities or roads, ensuring the earth is allowed to evolve with it's various lifeforms while we are more like part of the background?
I had this idea that we've reached an apex in which we can begin to de-industrialize some of the planet while maintaining our technological state, just limit it to certain areas of the planet instead of the entire thing
07-11-12, 09:01 PM #2
1. Yes, birth control changes society because women control how many children they have. This leads to different outcomes socially, and it could have evolutionary repercussions. Pretty much everything can effect evolution to some degree. Would they become infertile? No, since babies born to mothers who have used birth control in the past are still fertile and healthy.
2. There is no such thing as "degeneration" of evolution, which has no direction or purpose. Has civilization already affected us? Yes, the ability to digest lactose into adulthood is one example. But I wouldn't count on modern civilization lasting forever. All civilizations collapse.
3. I don't know, it could be very risky. I'm sure some level of genetic tampering will be a part of typical medical care in the future.
4. No. Most of us could be wiped out, but it's highly unlikely that all of us would be. The difference might be irrelevant though.
Cities may be more ecologically sound than spreading out into the country. Look at the example of the termite. But the answer is no, we can't be both ecological and technological. Technology requires a huge industrial infrastructure and communication between people that only happens collectively. I believe we will start to de-industrialize naturally when the energy starts to run out.
07-14-12, 01:36 PM #3
By James R in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 01-28-12, 11:29 PMReplies: 96
By Ellis in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 06-08-11, 12:00 AMReplies: 22
By coberst in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 09-22-08, 02:33 PMReplies: 0
By Detro Metro in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 07-14-08, 09:17 AMReplies: 10
By answers in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 12-17-07, 09:47 AMReplies: 17