Would a non-violent race stop evolving?

re: peacocks: it appears to be the overall show that attracts the females, not the specific number of eyespots.


I was going to mention sexual selection. This is a perfect example. Were a species to become non-violent, there would still be sexual selection, which would drive evolution along. it would just run slower than a species which had both violent survival and sexual selection pushing it. Don't forget that while peacocks love to show off for the ladies, they will attack each other, too. they are not in the "non-violent" catagory.


For a plant to live, it has to pull in more water, get more light, and inhale more air than it's neighbors. if it doesn't, it neighbors outgrow it, and shade it out, killing it. For animals to survive, they must consume organic matter of some sort. As long as there is a limited supply of energy and a limited amount of area in which to live, living requires that you create a certain amount of suffering in the other things which are alive. Every time I wlk to my car, I crush insects, break grass leaves, inhale oxygen which could be used by other living things. this is after eating a breakfast of dead plants and sometimes dead animals. Often I add to that a tall glass of white liquid produced by cows, and meant for consumption by baby cows.

My main issue was mentioned on page 1: if you have an entire species become non-violent; the next bay that is born has a choice. be non-violent, and be a peace with everything, or choose to be violent (which is natural for humans), and take over. No one else is violent, so no one will stop you. the temptation to rule with such ease would be very hard to resist. the only thing which would prevent this is if the peacefull people were willing to simply put up with the violence of the person in question. allow him to kill, main, etc, without responding in any way. fully ignore the person through out their life. they would gain no power as long as no one recognised it. All they would have is the ability to hurt people who don't react when they are hurt. you can get no servents that way.

so would a no-violent species continue to eveolve? yes, IMO. at the same rate? no, IMO. however, their culture will continue to evolve, and may evolve faster, thanks to the extra time available, now that war has ended. Technology advances may slow down significantly, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First off, WE ARE NOT A VIOLENT SPECIES. Dont let people or politicians fool you into thinking that so we can bomb whatever country we want. We have choices (freewill), and i chose not to harm others, and i chose not to be violent. Saying we are a "violent species" is like implying that it is acceptable for anyone to commit violent acts onto others as if it were ok. "hey, what can you do, its in our nature." NO IT IS NOT. We ALWAYS have the final choice, just use your frontal lobes (super-ego). Take responsibilty for your own actions people, stop using crutches like a bible or some other ideology you thought up that can relieve you of all responsibilty.

Second, as for us evolving further more, i'll answer your questiong be quoting Physicist Michio Kaku...

"Assuming the laws of biological evolution on a Type 1 planet like ours, one can conclude their evolution will cease. Evolution tends to accelerate when there are isolated pockets of individuals and harsh environmental conditions. Whithin a small colony or tribe, small genetic differences due to inbreeding are gradually magnified, creating genetic "drift" within the same species...in general, the larger the breeding population, the slower the rate of evolution...because a Type 1 civilization will no longer have isolated breeding populations, there will be gradual mixing of peoples which will terminate their evolution as a species"

Ultimately, i think our "giant" leap in evolution will not be a new uber-species of humans (although a possibilty if genetic engineering gets out of hand). But It may well be that humanity's fate is to give birth to new lifeforms, including advance electronic ones. Certainly seems that way to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution doesn't stand still when you become peaceful. Let's knock that theory on the head. Michio Kaku is a fool. A well educated physicist without a shred of common sense. Mutations happen. That is fact. Look at your siblings. Your brothers and sisters don't look exactly like you despite having the exact same parents. Unless ofcourse you are identical twins from the same cell which split. The race is mutating every single generation and the mutations are completely random. Both physical and mental details of your being do not get passed on exactly. Survival of the fittest is nothing more than a natural mechanism for preventing genetic spread diversifying too far. There is nothing else to stop it. You might pick a handsome husband or pretty wife but such selections are skin deep and don't reveal inner problems. Diabetes, weak heart, onset of muscular dystrophy, short lifespan, weak eyesight hidden by contacts and so on. Even appearance can be cloaked with makeup for bad skin and wigs for hair loss. Once attachments are made they often stick out of feelings of love and pregnancy.

The Coelacanth isn't a peaceful animal. It has big teeth. The reason it has hardly changed since the era of the Dinosaurs is because it's shape works well in its environment. It hasn't advanced much further but neither has it devolved into mush. Survival has kept the species in shape.

A Peacock has big feathers for attracting hens. It must also carry those heavy decorations when running away from wild dogs and cats. It's not just about who has the biggest most colourful feathers. It's who can drag them around long enough to breed and pass on their genes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read the post again, it has nothing to do with becoming "peaceful." Kaku was referring to breeding peopulations, mutations become magnified the smaller the breeding peopulation ("In ancient time, for example, one could marry someone from the same neighboring tribe, with a total breeding population numbering less than a hundred. Today, breeding populations are usually in the millions").
Lets look at the Innuits, they live in a harsh frigid environment and have an isolated breeding population. Because of that, their mutations become magnified. they have short stocky bodies, with wider mid-section to store more heat.
Harsh environments+small breeding population = Genetic drift

 

I understand that and agree completely. Isolated small numbers of a species have a reduced gene pool to draw upon. Survival is still important but there are fewer adults from which to draw genes. All of us are unique and in such a small community large mutations are more likely. Especially with inbreeding enforcing genetic differences.

I believe human evolution must have been kickstarted by such segregation. Human beings diverged from apes too markedly and too fast for any other likely explanation.

How did we survive on the ground before super intelligence and tool use developed? I'm sure it wasn't by offering flowers to the lions and hyaena's of the savannah.

 

How do gorillas survive on the ground? There are other ground-dwelling apes in the world that are still alive. I guarantee early humans did not march around the African grasslands slaughtering all the lions and hyenas.

"Natural" selection will occur on any species where it is possible to develop a condition through mutation or disease that renders the individual sterile or otherwise unable to reproduce. Selection is all and only about reproduction, unless you live forever, which nothing really does.