Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!spaceboy
From: spaceboy@indirect.com (s p a c e b o y)
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
Message-ID: <D3vEJ5.72s@indirect.com>
Sender: usenet@indirect.com (Internet Direct Admin)
Organization: Internet Direct, indirect.com
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 04:45:04 GMT
References: <3gpddj$t2b@usenet.rpi.edu> <D3DKGJ.Luy@indirect.com> <3h9avu$35t@tribune.usask.ca> <3hbjaq$iaf@news.u.washington.edu> <D3qIz8.wr@indirect.com> <3hgj4q$di7@news.u.washington.edu>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Lines: 74
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27396 comp.ai.philosophy:25475 comp.ai.alife:2375


: >Naive?  Perhaps a little general in scope but hardly naive I think.  
: >As far as our ecosystem is concerned we have wholly overrun the bounds in 
: >which we need to simply "survive".  

: 	True, but we can't assume that that's a good thing.  In 
: evolutionary terms, its probably a bad idea.

: 	Your arguments concerning advancement are applicable and 
: undeniable in the context you offer them.  I agree that humans are the 
: most advanced species intellectually and socially.  However, I do *not* 
: agree that humans are the most advanced and successful species in terms 
: of evolution.  It's always been my opinion that a species is 
: evolutionarily successful when its form and function offer it a 
: significant chance of survival within its environment.  This can be 
: achieved a number of ways, and nature is constantly experimenting with 
: new and interesting methods.  High intelligence is one such experiment.  
: Which brings me to another point.

I do agree with you upon this point.  Humans have definitely not evolved 
well physically.  One interesting point of research has been upon 
birthing of young in many species.  When humans began to walk more and 
more upright throughout history, this had the effect of changing the 
geometry of the pelvis, causing the birth canal to become much more 
narrow.  Over the eons this caused human young to be born more and more 
premature since the babies' head develops very rapidly and would not pass 
through the pelvis unless birth occured more early.  Dogs and other 
animals with similar skeletal structures birth their young when they are 
much more mature.  Birds similarly hatch at the "proper" time.  
Scientists see the change to walking erect as an evolution in humans 
which has had definite disadvantages.  Almost a "deevolution" of sorts.  
Depends on how much value you place upon being able to walk on two legs 
versus having more premature births.  Just an interesting idea to me.

: 	It's possible to be even more successful than a species perfectly 
: suited to its environment.  Environments change.  Therefore, if a species 
: can survive in many environments, it can be seen as more successful.  
: This introduces the concept of "adaptability".
: 	There are a number of ways to gain adaptability.  One is 
: intelligence.  And I have no doubt that humans are the most intelligent 
: species around.  We have the ability (and the drive) to adapt ourselves 
: to any environment that presents itself.  We can be seen as fairly 
: successful in terms of evolution.  However, intelligence comes with a 
: price.  Maybe it's too good at what it does.  We've arrived at a point in 
: our evolutionary history at which we have the ability to annhialate 
: ourselves and nearly every other species on the planet, all for the sake 
: of adaptability.  Perhaps intelligence was a bad idea from the start.

Yes humans have used intelligence to gain adaptability in a SHORT amount 
of time, and you are correct that this has drawbacks.  Instead of being 
physically suited (naturally) for these environments we rely on 
mechanisms and invention to fill in the gap.  It works, but shows exactly 
how limited we are.

: 	Another way to gain adaptability is through simplicity.  
: Bacteria, for example, depend on very little to survive.  Because they 
: have so few requirements, they can thrive in nearly any environment.  
: Almost any environment that humans can habitate, for that matter.  
: Furthermore, they haven't come up with a way to wipe themselves out.

Yet they are at the mercy of nature to be wiped out, wheras our 
intelligence gives us a wild card chance to "evade" nature's grim reaper.

: 	In this context, its apparent that we can't assume humans are the 
: most succesful species around.  We're just another experiment that may or 
: may not pan out.

Yep, still depends on your scale for measuring success.

: 							-Josh


s p a c e b o y @ i n d i r e c t . c o m

