Everyone seems to be missing the point that we have defeated natural selection, and that is poised to continue indefinitely unless there is a major and massive plague that is only non-lethal in those with natural resistance; ie. some outbreak that science can't deal with.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that natural selection is not the main factor in human evolution. Sexual selection is. And the selection pressure is pushing as hard as ever.
"The main question is now, is intelligence in any way still being selected for? If it isn't, then it seems likely that there will be a backwards slide in human intelligence until the situation changes."
Yes, human intellingence is still being selected for, by sexual selection. It is the women who do the selecting, and they are more choosy than ever. The proof of this could be the fact that people in rich countries have fewer children.
Most of the posts here simply ignore the "sexual selection" part of the evolution. This doesn't make sense, since this could be the 60% of all the reasons for human evolution. In Darwin's work, sexual selection is side by side with "survival of the fittest", but after that it kind of gets ignored, at least until last 20 years.
Human intelligence is basically shaped by sexual selection. Humas/monkeys survived just fine without super intelligence. Human brain is basically a giant sexual ornament, analog to peacock's tail. Many aspects of human intelligence like humor, music, language are a result of sexual selection. "Survival of the fittest" can explain none of those traits. Women always mention "sense of humor" when they talk about desirable men. Being bold might get you killed, being an arrogant rock star will get you laid like, well, a rock star.
Selection for survival and sexual selection are often in conflict. One selects for a trait that the other selects against. Peacock's tail is a giant handicap. However, surviving despite having such a handicap sends a strong message that can't be faked.
Ah, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that by having more humans, and increasing sexual selection pressure, combined makes for a faster human evolution.
While it might look that the human evolution has stopped, this is not the case. Evolution algorithm needs variations to be able to work, and more humans, more genetic diversity. Increasing genetic diversity is also a part of evolution process. (Also, don't worry, the "death" part will happen.)
Also, sexual selection is much more important than survival for humans, and probably was for the last 100.000 years. Sexual selection is mostly ignored or overlooked when evolution is thought, probably because it deals with sex. An excellent and very readable book on the subject is "Red Queen". Being slim will not kill you today, but being fat will not get you laid. This is evolution at work.
Bbtw, sexual selection is churning along just fine, and it the geek that will not inherit the earth.:)
If average call would be routed trough N other phones, then, average battery usage will be N times more than in current non-mash structure. (I'm talking averages here.)
"But last year, Mr. Singhal started to worry that Google's balance was off. When the company introduced its new stock quotation service, a search for "Google Finance" couldn't find it. After monitoring similar problems, he assembled a team of three engineers to figure out what to do about them."
But then they changed the algorithm and now Google Finance site is at the top.
" Neo, seeking a knife to cut himself loose from an agent trap and instead finding 10,000 spoons, would be irony...;-)"
Oh, come on.:) Now you need a reason which is implicit in the song. Making the missing reason implicit, rather than explicit does not change something from from not being ironic, to being ironic...
I couldn't agree more. However, original poster claimed there was not a single irony in the song. This is simply wrong, in multiple ways.
Even if her usage didn't fit the dictionary definition (which it does, perfectly), the song, by its popularity, would change what we consider ironic or not, or at least start the change and give it a push.
You seem to have problems accepting that words can have more than one meaning.
When you need a knife and you have a lot of spoons, I would say there is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. You open a drawer, you expect a spoon. Knifes are there. One thing expected, other occurs.
This very cleanly fits into this definition of irony:
Irony: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
Don't ignore this definition of irony, and use only the one you like. They both exist. Not hard to understand.
You seem to be hung up on the entry 1, but, look, there is also entry number 2, which says:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
The number one says:
The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Examples do not fit this "strong" definition of irony, but that does not make them not ironic, perhaps simply weakly ironic. However, it's still irony.
"Irony:... Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:" "
and also:
"Incongruity:... n : the quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate "
so, "A traffic jam when you're already late",
When one is late, and one might expect that he will drive faster. However, what actually occurs is that there is a traffic jam. Therefore, we have the quality of desagreeing with what might be expected and what actually occurs, in other words, irony.
"It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife"
When you need a knife, I guess a spoon would be unsuitable and inappropriate. Irony.
"It's a free ride when you've already paid"
When you've paid for something you expect it to be called "paid", not "free". Inconguity. You expect one, you get another. Irony.
So, how come there is not a single inory in that song???
I agree, the new table is b***shit. It has too much empty space, and the letters are small and unreadable, and it wastes too much space. This "galaxy" will never take off.
Very interesting. I thought all cloning species are small and fast-reproducing so they can filter out bad genes that way. Where did you learn about those lizards?
I was indeed thinking of the recent human evolution. If you check those sources, you'll see that it is a much more satisfying solution for hard problems in explaining arts and humor. Humor as a byproduct? Of what?:)
In a same way that is it much more logical to look at bodies as vehicles to carry and spread genes (Dawkins), it is also much more natural to look at the human brain as a way to advertise those same genes around. So, if you take a look from that angle, brains are actually just entertainment centers for attracting and entertaining the opposite sex. Even monkeys are excellent at surviving, and you would have a hard time that arguing that all that recent processing power in human brains is there for survival only.
As for why sexual selection is not as known as 'survival' is because, it is about sex, so they don't teach it in schools, not so many articles about it, etcK But, it fits the situation much better. For example, if humor is a byproduct of survival, it should be equally there in both sexes, but most stand-up comics and most artists are male. Sexual selection works much harder against males, males have to work much more to find a mate, and while there are some men that have like 10.000 children, there a lot more that have none. For women it is much easier to find a sperm donor, all they have to do is to spread their legs.:)
So, if you look at ornamental feathers in male birds, it is the same with men and brains.:)
Consider that the brain evolved to keep the person alive (primary funciton),
Wrong. Its primary function is that of sexual selection. Read those books:
The mating mind The red queen
and see for yourself.:)
and then think about just how "over-engineered"...
Yes, because that is not the brain's primary function. those 'survival benefits' came much later.
The brain is primarly designed for humor,arts, telling stories and enyojing watching naked women and judging social status, and even that is what it is mostly used today. I'm not joking, read those two books, they will open your eyes...
Once (and if) AI develops sex and sexual reproduction, who knows which way it will go...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be missing the point that we have defeated natural selection, and that is poised to continue indefinitely unless there is a major and massive plague that is only non-lethal in those with natural resistance; ie. some outbreak that science can't deal with.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that natural selection is not the main factor in human evolution. Sexual selection is. And the selection pressure is pushing as hard as ever.
"Now it's bad to get fat easily, it's better to be anorexic (which would have killed you a few centuries ago). We are certainly going backwards."
How do you know? Perhaps being anorexic gives an evolutionary advantage.
Being fat, 100% alive and having 1.2 children?
Or being anorexic, 80% alive, and having 1.8 children?
The second option, the more dangerous one is the one the evolution will select for.
Nice post.
"The main question is now, is intelligence in any way still being selected for? If it isn't, then it seems likely that there will be a backwards slide in human intelligence until the situation changes."
Yes, human intellingence is still being selected for, by sexual selection. It is the women who do the selecting, and they are more choosy than ever. The proof of this could be the fact that people in rich countries have fewer children.
Most of the posts here simply ignore the "sexual selection" part of the evolution. This doesn't make sense, since this could be the 60% of all the reasons for human evolution. In Darwin's work, sexual selection is side by side with "survival of the fittest", but after that it kind of gets ignored, at least until last 20 years.
Human intelligence is basically shaped by sexual selection. Humas/monkeys survived just fine without super intelligence. Human brain is basically a giant sexual ornament, analog to peacock's tail. Many aspects of human intelligence like humor, music, language are a result of sexual selection. "Survival of the fittest" can explain none of those traits. Women always mention "sense of humor" when they talk about desirable men. Being bold might get you killed, being an arrogant rock star will get you laid like, well, a rock star.
Selection for survival and sexual selection are often in conflict. One selects for a trait that the other selects against. Peacock's tail is a giant handicap. However, surviving despite having such a handicap sends a strong message that can't be faked.
Ah, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that by having more humans, and increasing sexual selection pressure, combined makes for a faster human evolution.
Your view is overly simplistic.
:)
While it might look that the human evolution has stopped, this is not the case. Evolution algorithm needs variations to be able to work, and more humans, more genetic diversity. Increasing genetic diversity is also a part of evolution process. (Also, don't worry, the "death" part will happen.)
Also, sexual selection is much more important than survival for humans, and probably was for the last 100.000 years. Sexual selection is mostly ignored or overlooked when evolution is thought, probably because it deals with sex. An excellent and very readable book on the subject is "Red Queen". Being slim will not kill you today, but being fat will not get you laid. This is evolution at work.
Bbtw, sexual selection is churning along just fine, and it the geek that will not inherit the earth.
If average call would be routed trough N other phones, then, average battery usage will be N times more than in current non-mash structure. (I'm talking averages here.)
"(minute quantities of ...) matter are constantly being created"
:)
Finally, that's how the earth can grow.
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
Youmeanlikethis? Or-like-this?
I don't see any problems. Google's computers are powered by millions of tiny black rectangular box-shaped bateries.
So how do you call the "thing" that you use to impement a heuristic?
I guess I'm saying that Google should not change its algorithm just to boost their own rankings.
"But last year, Mr. Singhal started to worry that Google's balance was off. When the company introduced its new stock quotation service, a search for "Google Finance" couldn't find it. After monitoring similar problems, he assembled a team of three engineers to figure out what to do about them."
But then they changed the algorithm and now Google Finance site is at the top.
of course it is hot inside, it is, as are all other planets, growing from the inside. (!)
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/navback.htm
"This innovation will make it easier to [...] ensure your photo is framed properly"
Bullshit.
For framing purposes, increased resolution brings in nothing.
" Neo, seeking a knife to cut himself loose from an agent trap and instead finding 10,000 spoons, would be irony... ;-)"
:) Now you need a reason which is implicit in the song. Making the missing reason implicit, rather than explicit does not change something from from not being ironic, to being ironic...
Oh, come on.
"Language is defined by usage"
:)
I couldn't agree more. However, original poster claimed there was not a single irony in the song. This is simply wrong, in multiple ways.
Even if her usage didn't fit the dictionary definition (which it does, perfectly), the song, by its popularity, would change what we consider ironic or not, or at least start the change and give it a push.
Now, enough of me being stupid.
You seem to have problems accepting that words can have more than one meaning.
When you need a knife and you have a lot of spoons, I would say there is incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. You open a drawer, you expect a spoon. Knifes are there. One thing expected, other occurs.
This very cleanly fits into this definition of irony:
Irony: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
Don't ignore this definition of irony, and use only the one you like. They both exist. Not hard to understand.
Ok, please read the definition again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
You seem to be hung up on the entry 1, but, look, there is also entry number 2, which says:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
The number one says:
The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Examples do not fit this "strong" definition of irony, but that does not make them not ironic, perhaps simply weakly ironic. However, it's still irony.
You all should get off your high horses, and actually read the definition. From
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
"Irony:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs:"
"
and also:
"Incongruity:
n : the quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate
"
so, "A traffic jam when you're already late",
When one is late, and one might expect that he will drive faster. However, what actually occurs is that there is a traffic jam. Therefore, we have the quality of desagreeing with what might be expected and what actually occurs, in other words, irony.
"It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife"
When you need a knife, I guess a spoon would be unsuitable and inappropriate. Irony.
"It's a free ride when you've already paid"
When you've paid for something you expect it to be called "paid", not "free". Inconguity. You expect one, you get another. Irony.
So, how come there is not a single inory in that song???
I agree, the new table is b***shit. It has too much empty space, and the letters are small and unreadable, and it wastes too much space. This "galaxy" will never take off.
where can you learn more about this? any books to recommend?
Very interesting. I thought all cloning species are small and fast-reproducing so they can filter out bad genes that way. Where did you learn about those lizards?
Nooooo, in Soviet Russia, IP over you!
I wander about that poor guy that plays 156 hours per week. Poor guy. When does he have time to read slashdot?
I was indeed thinking of the recent human evolution. If you check those sources, you'll see that it is a much more satisfying solution for hard problems in explaining arts and humor. Humor as a byproduct? Of what? :)
:)
:)
In a same way that is it much more logical to look at bodies as vehicles to carry and spread genes (Dawkins), it is also much more natural to look at the human brain as a way to advertise those same genes around. So, if you take a look from that angle, brains are actually just entertainment centers for attracting and entertaining the opposite sex. Even monkeys are excellent at surviving, and you would have a hard time that arguing that all that recent processing power in human brains is there for survival only.
As for why sexual selection is not as known as 'survival' is because, it is about sex, so they don't teach it in schools, not so many articles about it, etcK But, it fits the situation much better. For example, if humor is a byproduct of survival, it should be equally there in both sexes, but most stand-up comics and most artists are male. Sexual selection works much harder against males, males have to work much more to find a mate, and while there are some men that have like 10.000 children, there a lot more that have none. For women it is much easier to find a sperm donor, all they have to do is to spread their legs.
So, if you look at ornamental feathers in male birds, it is the same with men and brains.
Btw, thanks for the book recommendations.
Consider that the brain evolved to keep the person alive (primary funciton),
:)
:)
Wrong. Its primary function is that of sexual selection. Read those books:
The mating mind
The red queen
and see for yourself.
and then think about just how "over-engineered"...
Yes, because that is not the brain's primary function. those 'survival benefits' came much later.
The brain is primarly designed for humor,arts, telling stories and enyojing watching naked women and judging social status, and even that is what it is mostly used today. I'm not joking, read those two books, they will open your eyes...
Once (and if) AI develops sex and sexual reproduction, who knows which way it will go...