# Humans evolving backwards - devolving



## twitchy666

I see society crumbling

cynical
adjective
losing a job after fifteen years of loyal service leaves you bitter and cynical: skeptical, doubtful, distrustful, suspicious, disbelieving; pessimistic, negative, world-weary, disillusioned, disenchanted, jaundiced, sardonic. ANTONYMS idealistic.

In 1980s my parents & brothers had businesses

It's not as good as that any more. The people who made me feel good by praising me were Mum, brother & teachers. All of those are dead now.

The incorrect belief in producing children has been a simple religious trend. Too many people leads to overconsumption, lack of space. Building more offices, homes, everywhere. 

I noticed things getting worse: money, number of seats on the train to get to work in London. Last time I used that service was 2010. Now the season ticket I used has inflated. Maybe I have the advantage of never having a job to use it. If a job was offered to me I might fall into the trap of greater cost but I'd weigh it all up carefully as ever. 

Reason for unemployment is 100% employers' failure. I was smudged, all these years I was at fault, but with a mystique belief that my firings were misdiagnosed / wrongly decided. Now I'm sure of the first sentence, so the entire paragraph.

My focus is about what happens before my dea†h or prescribed pension retire dates of 2036 or 2041 since my emergence in 1970s

Enjoying my own analysis of human behaviour. Too much complex justice, preventing personal continuation.

Making money was normally easy? Born in a time of collapsing profit of my family. I read all your posts, but have to contribute my thoughts.

I never liked History at school. Now I get embedded in what's affected my life right now as well as the past. Annoying proceedings being out of control over getting what I want, facing a phantom layer of authority. I never minded being patted around pockets to find weapons to get into a nightclub. But such a serious paranoia in this country to stop me doing investigations or analysis as required in a job as I've done throughout my career. Needing such deep vetting beyond a British passport I can't understand. No chance to take on any job I'd be fine at, unless I get tightly scrutinised by phone. I can sing Mary Poppins on phone but it's not enough. 

How can we prove we haven't killed anyone? 

What is there to stop people doing what they can do? The employer only accepts people who looks the same as the employer's brother or sister and does exactly the same, all their lives?


----------



## macrotus

Well that's just your subjective experience, for someone else, they might be doing better than ever.


----------



## Aribeth

As long as technology keeps making everything easier for us, we are definitely devolving.


----------



## ugh1979

macrotus said:


> Well that's just your subjective experience, for someone else, they might be doing better than ever.


Indeed. Quality of life indexes around the world continue to rise.

Whatever period people refer to, there were always those then who said society was "better" 20 years ago or whatever. It's often just down to selective memory and personal experience rather than based on any credible data.


----------



## diamondheart89

I'd be interested to know how strongly happiness is linked to "quality of life indexes". Things don't necessarily = happiness.


----------



## ugh1979

diamondheart89 said:


> I'd be interested to know how strongly happiness is linked to "quality of life indexes". Things don't necessarily = happiness.


Indeed it's not an easy factor to measure, since happiness means different things to different people. However there is an interesting study called the Social Progress Index which aims to unite various factors into what one may consider a guide to average levels of happiness since they are typically tied to things that make people happy.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi

There are other indexes as well that report similar quality of life factors.


----------



## twitchy666

*equation for sales, advertising, grinning faces, giggles*

to pry money from dissatisfied

will leave a trailing mixture

profit needs foolish population who might learn


----------



## twitchy666

Aribeth said:


> As long as technology keeps making everything easier for us, we are definitely devolving.


Yep. Not allowed to use calculators in school exams. Should be personal DIY
not needing help. The disgust of pretty HTML

My qualification was in control systems. C++ programming. Robotics. Keeping an eye on numbers. No adverts for O'loreal video thanks. Hands-on mechanicals. This world is tuned by TV to giggle and dance about. I'd rather be on an oil rig, transported by ship or helicopter. Never wanted to be in an office. Playing football is a very gay, giggling game. :clap

How about recycling human graves as a source of oil? Small scale, but a reliable sustainable way. Everyone dies. Use their remains as fuel?

Don't let people get old. Footballer retires. Bury them as a good source. Exportable per country.

Or use healthy people as a good source of meat, if they get a bit bored. Recycle our (gl)***


----------



## knightofdespair




----------



## Fold Space

DEVO evolved to form a band out of all this. How ironic.


----------



## Aribeth

Have you guys seen Idiocracy? That's where we're headed :|


----------



## millenniumman75

Aribeth said:


> Have you guys seen Idiocracy? That's where we're headed :|


Brawndo has what plants crave....they have electrolytes.

.....and yes, I would have to agree.....right down to the Costco Porn Palaces and the President - already similarities.

Because Brawndo has what plants crave.....they have electrolytes.


----------



## Sacrieur

This is supposed to be science not wanton speculation.


----------



## jimity

The peak oil theory can also be applied to evolution I suppose.


----------



## Hylar

Aribeth said:


> As long as technology keeps making everything easier for us, we are definitely devolving.


Agree completely.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Sacrieur said:


> This is supposed to be science not *wanton speculation.*


 Is that a crime? :lol


----------



## Ressurection

macrotus said:


> Well that's just your subjective experience, for someone else, they might be doing better than ever.


Exactly.

What he's saying has nothing to do with society actually devolving and crumbling. To him it is, because of his experience, but that's not everyone.


----------



## Ressurection

millenniumman75 said:


> Brawndo has what plants crave....they have electrolytes.
> 
> .....and yes, I would have to agree.....right down to the Costco Porn Palaces and the President - already similarities.
> 
> Because Brawndo has what plants crave.....they have electrolytes.


Go away I'm bating.

From that point on, I was hooked.


----------



## Serpentes

Haha Idiocracy was so stupid it was really funny. Seriously tho it's also kinda scary how much of a real possibility it is. :um


----------



## RelinquishedHell

Serpentes said:


> Haha Idiocracy was so stupid it was really funny. Seriously tho it's also kinda scary how much of a real possibility it is. :um


Can't wait to get my Extra Big Azz Taco.


----------



## millenniumman75

Serpentes said:


> Haha Idiocracy was so stupid it was really funny. Seriously tho it's also kinda scary how much of a real possibility it is. :um


Uh yeah, it's pretty close now. We have casinos all over and it's not Las Vegas here.

Brawndo has what plants crave....they have electrolytes.


----------



## Katze

Uhm, humans aren't devolving. There isn't such thing as "devolve". Either you survive, breed and adapt to your environment or you go extinct. What we see as "disadvantages" can be for nature an advantage to adapt to our giving environments (big cities, global communication, various foods and new technology etc.). 
Our bodies and brains are more flexible and adaptable then you give them credit for. 

But being a slight misanthrope, I hope for intelligent androids and cyborgs to take over the world and replace all humans. 
I'm just fed up with all the childish drama going on in our world.


----------



## whatever234

No species can devolve, as we can only adjust to our surroundings, so if there's a trait that we don't use anymore, the best would be to get rid of it.


----------



## ugh1979

Indeed, there is never biological devolution. Biological evolution never objectively reverses.

However, an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as a tail, or less intelligence, so it's plausible that we actually aren't as intelligent as our ancestors, probably because we just don't need to be as we live in much safer secure tech based societies.

Our tech magnifies our collective intelligence immensely though so while us as individuals may not be as intelligent our society underpinned by our technology is far more intelligent, and it's societal intelligence that is more important and enduring than individual intelligence.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> ...an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as a tail, or less intelligence...


"less intelligence" isn't some vestigial trait - it's a measure of an existing trait - so it's rather meaningless to talk about it as "re-evolving".


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> "less intelligence" isn't some vestigial trait - it's a measure of an existing trait - so it's rather meaningless to talk about it as "re-evolving".


I used the term re-evolving very loosely. Nothing re-evolves, it just evolves, but may occasionally be similar to ancestor states so some states can be said to have re-emerged when considering the ancestry of an organism.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> I used the term re-evolving very loosely. Nothing re-evolves, it just evolves, but may occasionally be similar to ancestor states so some states can be said to have re-emerged when considering the ancestry of an organism.


Umm, that's not what my post was about.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Umm, that's not what my post was about.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say then.

My point remains that our lineage has changed its capacity for intelligence over millions of years, and we may have passed a peak and now be evolving less capacity, which would put us in line with our more distant ancestors.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say then.
> 
> My point remains that our lineage has changed its capacity for intelligence over millions of years, and we may have passed a peak and now be evolving less capacity, which would put us in line with our more distant ancestors.


You used "less intelligence" as an example of a vestigial trait, which can re-emerge, though you didn't put it in those exact terms.

My point was that "less intelligence" isn't some vestigial trait - it's a measure of an existing trait, which is why saying "_an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as_ [...] _less intelligence" _is meaningless.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> You used "less intelligence" as an example of a vestigial trait, which can re-emerge, though you didn't put it in those exact terms.
> 
> My point was that "less intelligence" isn't some vestigial trait - it's a measure of an existing trait, which is why saying "_an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as_ [...] _less intelligence" _is meaningless.


I'm sorry you thought I was inferring it was a vestigial trait. I was just talking about a similar state emerging again at a different point in time.

I appreciate my choice of words was sloppy Princess Pedant. :b


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> I'm sorry you thought I was inferring it was a vestigial trait. I was just talking about a similar state emerging again at a different point in time.


You mean like a vestigial tail?  You ran a comparison between a vestigial tail and "less intelligence". That's not a bad choice of words. That's pure ignorance, regardless of whether you call me pedantic or not.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> You mean like a vestigial tail?  You ran a comparison between a vestigial tail and "less intelligence". That's not a bad choice of words. That's pure ignorance, regardless of whether you call me pedantic or not.


No I didn't run a comparison between a vestigial tail and "less intelligence". I simply mentioned our ancestors had a tail and had less capacity for intelligence than we have now at certain points in history. Those two points are simple facts of natural history. The idea of comparison is of your own making. How would one compare them? Isn't that like comparing apples with oranges? That's why I didn't, but simply acknowledged two aspects of our ancestors. To reinforce my actual point again, it may be noted in the future that our linage evolved less capacity for intelligence compared with certain ancestors.


----------



## aaaa1111bbbb2222cccc3333

Mankind in 2015


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> No I didn't run a comparison between a vestigial tail and "less intelligence". I simply mentioned our ancestors had a tail and had less capacity for intelligence than we have now at certain points in history. Those two points are simple facts of natural history. The idea of comparison is of your own making. How would one compare them? Isn't that like comparing apples with oranges? That's why I didn't, but simply acknowledged two aspects of our ancestors. To reinforce my actual point again, it may be noted in the future that our linage evolved less capacity for intelligence compared with certain ancestors.


Ugh, I am not debating your overall point. What I have an issue with, and what you seem to be dead set on brushing under the carpet, is that you put "less intelligence" in the same category as tail, i.e. traits that an organism may have had that have potential for re-emergence. This is by definition drawing similitude/comparison. And this came from you. This was not my interpretation. All I did was put a name to that category - vestigiality.

Following from that, I then pointed out that "less intelligence" is not a trait - it is a measure of an *existing *trait, so it is meaningless to speak of it as something our ancestors "*had*" that is capable of "re-evolving". If I wanted to be pedantic, I would have pointed out that intelligence itself is not a trait but an ill-defined term that encompasses all sorts of traits, and comparing ancestral intelligence would be pointless without first stating which traits you are measuring and how you would be quantifying the results. I don't particularly care about the last part because this thread doesn't particularly demand that close a scrutiny and I'm happy to accept the layperson's definition, however I stand by my original comment.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Ugh, I am not debating your overall point. What I have an issue with, and what you seem to be dead set on brushing under the carpet, is that you put "less intelligence" in the same category as tail, i.e. traits that an organism may have had that have potential for re-emergence. This is by definition drawing similitude/comparison. And this came from you. This was not my interpretation. All I did was put a name to that category - vestigiality.
> 
> Following from that, I then pointed out that "less intelligence" is not a trait - it is a measure of an *existing *trait, so it is meaningless to speak of it as something our ancestors "*had*" that is capable of "re-evolving". If I wanted to be pedantic, I would have pointed out that intelligence itself is not a trait but an ill-defined term that encompasses all sorts of traits, and comparing ancestral intelligence would be pointless without first stating which traits you are measuring and how you would be quantifying the results. I don't particularly care about the last part because this thread doesn't particularly demand that close a scrutiny and I'm happy to accept the layperson's definition, however I stand by my original comment.


Well it's your mistake to choose to put them into a category called vestigiality, not mine.

Mentioning two facets of our ancestor species in one sentence doesn't mean I claimed they are comparable, both vestigial, or traits. You've decided that's what I was saying but you are seriously overreaching. The simple sentence was:

"an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as a tail, or less intelligence"

I accepted it was sloppy of me to say re-evolve, and noted what I meant was facets can appear again later in the lineage. That's it. Whatever else you think i'm saying is in your own head so you are arguing against your own straw men. It's unarguable that many of our ancestors weren't as intelligent as us. I agree this term is used loosely as it encompasses a whole range of factors but we are capable of making basic judgements on what species are regarded as more intelligent than others.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> Well it's your mistake to choose to put them into a category called vestigiality, not mine.


Again, I didn't put them into the category of things ancestors had - you did. I simply gave it a name, which, considering the definition of _vestige_, wasn't far off the mark.



ugh1979 said:


> Mentioning two facets of our ancestor species in one sentence doesn't mean I claimed they are comparable, both vestigial, or traits. You've decided that's what I was saying but you are seriously overreaching. The simple sentence was:
> 
> "an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as a tail, or less intelligence"


Precisely, Ugh, it is a simple sentence. One that doesn't require great deal of biology, history, or event semantic to understand, which is why I find it so amusing that you choose to go to such lengths to avoid admitting that you put your foot in it. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised, right... 



ugh1979 said:


> I accepted it was sloppy of me to say re-evolve, and noted what I meant was facets can appear again later in the lineage. That's it. Whatever else you think i'm saying is in your own head so you are arguing against your own straw men. It's unarguable that many of our ancestors weren't as intelligent as us. I agree this term is used loosely as it encompasses a whole range of factors but we are capable of making basic judgements on what species are regarded as more intelligent than others.


I don't care about re-evolve. I know what you meant by it, and it wasn't far off the mark. But the "less intelligent" bit, well, that was... how can I put it... less intelligent of you.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Again, I didn't put them into the category of things ancestors had - you did. I simply gave it a name, which, considering the definition of _vestige_, wasn't far off the mark.


If you want to call them vestiges so be it. I personally wouldn't use that term to describe intelligence. Something like a tail yes, but intelligence no.



> Precisely, Ugh, it is a simple sentence. One that doesn't require great deal of biology, history, or event semantic to understand, which is why I find it so amusing that you choose to go to such lengths to avoid admitting that you put your foot in it. But then again, I shouldn't be surprised, right...


Great lengths as in clearly admitting it was a poor choice of word? How is that anything but admitting the confusion using that term could cause? tbh I have no idea how you've managed to drag this pendant-fest on as long as this. :lol



> I don't care about re-evolve. I know what you meant by it, and it wasn't far off the mark. But the "less intelligent" bit, well, that was... how can I put it... less intelligent of you.


Are you trying to say there weren't ancestor species to ours which weren't _arguably in general_ less intelligent than us? As that's all I was saying. What ever else you think I'm saying about that point is of your own making.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> If you want to call them vestiges so be it. I personally wouldn't use that term to describe intelligence. Something like a tail yes, but intelligence no.


Well, human tail is a vestige. It is not the question of what I want to call it - it simply is. And, yes, it can and often does re-emerge. And I am sure, if human survival and reproduction depended on it, it could become a common trait again. And you are right, it wouldn't be de-evolvement but an adaptation. What I don't understand is, if you wouldn't describe intelligence as a vestige why the hell did you put "less intelligence" in the same category as vestigial tail as if it were an evolutionary trait?



ugh1979 said:


> Great lengths as in clearly admitting it was a poor choice of word? How is that anything but admitting the confusion using that term could cause? tbh


No, failing to admit that "less intelligence" is not a trait capable of re-emerging whilst focusing on everything else other than the point I had raised_ is_ going to great lengths to save face. 



ugh1979 said:


> I have no idea how you've managed to drag this pendant-fest on as long as this. :lol


So what you are saying is that it was pedant of me to point out that an already existing trait can not re-emerge the way a vestigial tail can? Or that less of something is not a thing it's a measure of a thing?

I have said this in our previous disagreements, you have a tendency, having said something really stupid, to try and spin a simple statement in as many different ways as possible until people can no longer remember the gravity of your original error. The problem with this is - a turd will remain a turd, no matter how much you try and cover up its stink.



ugh1979 said:


> Are you trying to say there weren't ancestor species to ours which weren't _arguably in general_ less intelligent than us? As that's all I was saying. What ever else you think I'm saying about that point is of your own making.


No, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make any such assertions without first determining what it is I am comparing/measuring.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Well, human tail is a vestige. It is not the question of what I want to call it - it simply is. And, yes, it can and often does re-emerge. And I am sure, if human survival and reproduction depended on it, it could become a common trait again. And you are right, it wouldn't be de-evolvement but an adaptation. What I don't understand is, if you wouldn't describe intelligence as a vestige why the hell did you put "less intelligence" in the same category as vestigial tail as if it were an evolutionary trait?


I didn't. As I'll tell for what I think is the third time, me mentioning facets of a ancestor species doesn't imply I'm categorising them as anything other than facets of an ancestor species.



> No, failing to admit that "less intelligence" is not a trait capable of re-emerging whilst focusing on everything else other than the point I had raised_ is_ going to great lengths to save face.


All I said is that a state we can regard as less intelligence (compared with current human intelligence, obviously!) was possible in the past and will probably be in future.

I don't know how I can make what I've said much clearer. Your string of straw men are ridiculous.



> So what you are saying is that it was pedant of me to point out that an already existing trait can not re-emerge the way a vestigial tail can? Or that less of something is not a thing it's a measure of a thing?


No I was just talking about you picking me up on using the word re-evolve. My points about tails and a different level of intelligence being possible in the future as they were in the past stands.



> I have said this in our previous disagreements, you have a tendency, having said something really stupid, to try and spin a simple statement in as many different ways as possible until people can no longer remember the gravity of your original error. The problem with this is - a turd will remain a turd, no matter how much you try and cover up its stink.


What have I said that was really stupid? Sloppy use of the word re-evolve?

What's stupid is that you just keep telling me what I said when it's clear to all that I didn't, and I'm telling you again and again what I said with added clarification, so it's ridiculous to say I'm actually saying something else that you have plucked from your own mind and I hadn't mentioned at all. :?

Also, you can be sure the other things I've said in other threads which you think were stupid are typically errors in the other persons interpretation, hence why I need to keep repeating what I said until they can comprehend it. If i've made a mistake i'll admit it, as I clearly and quickly did in this thread. I won't be admitting to making the mistake implied in one of your straw men arguments though. Now that would be stupid. :lol



> No, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make any such assertions without first determining what it is I am comparing/measuring.


I told you from the very beginning what was being compared. Intelligence, which we do have the means to analyse and make judgements based on our current level of intelligence for example. (Not vestigial tails compared against intelligence level as you insist I somehow said)

How you aren't understanding or accepting this very simple statement without inventing your own interpretation that is vastly different to the one I'm telling you it is I've no idea.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> I didn't. As I'll tell for what I think is the third time, me mentioning facets of a ancestor species doesn't imply I'm categorising them as anything other than facets of an ancestor species.
> 
> All I said is that a state we can regard as less intelligence (compared with current human intelligence, obviously!) was possible in the past and will probably be in future.
> 
> I don't know how I can make what I've said much clearer. Your string of straw men are ridiculous.
> 
> No I was just talking about you picking me up on using the word re-evolve. My points about tails and a different level of intelligence being possible in the future as they were in the past stands.
> 
> What have I said that was really stupid? Sloppy use of the word re-evolve?
> 
> What's stupid is that you just keep telling me what I said when it's clear to all that I didn't, and I'm telling you again and again what I said with added clarification, so it's ridiculous to say I'm actually saying something else that you have plucked from your own mind and I hadn't mentioned at all. :?
> 
> Also, you can be sure the other things I've said in other threads which you think were stupid are typically errors in the other persons interpretation, hence why I need to keep repeating what I said until they can comprehend it. If i've made a mistake i'll admit it, as I clearly and quickly did in this thread. I won't be admitting to making the mistake implied in one of your straw men arguments though. Now that would be stupid. :lol
> 
> I told you from the very beginning what was being compared. Intelligence, which we do have the means to analyse and make judgements based on our current level of intelligence for example. (Not vestigial tails compared against intelligence level as you insist I somehow said)
> 
> How you aren't understanding or accepting this very simple statement without inventing your own interpretation that is vastly different to the one I'm telling you it is I've no idea.


To be honest with you, I really can't be bothered responding to all of the above nonsense. Your lack of integrity here is staggering and frankly not worth the effort of breaking it apart. All I can say is, whilst I recognise your ability to accept mistakes that can easily be verified on google, you go to great lengths not to admit errors out of which you can get out by twisting their semantic context.

In the end, all people have to do is put two of your statements together - the original one and whatever mutated version of it that you ended up with - and see whether they convey exactly the same information.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> To be honest with you, I really can't be bothered responding to all of the above nonsense. Your lack of integrity here is staggering and frankly not worth the effort of breaking it apart. All I can say is, whilst I recognise your ability to accept mistakes that can easily be verified on google, you go to great lengths not to admit errors out of which you can get out by twisting their semantic context.
> 
> In the end, all people have to do is put two of your statements together - the original one and whatever mutated version of it that you ended up with - and see whether they convey exactly the same information.


Well all I can say is that the same can be said of you IMO. You love to play the semantics game. I've seen you do it a few times as you twist what others have said to some imagined meaning of your rather than their choosing.

Likewise people just need to read the thread to see all the nonsense you chose to imply I said even when I expressly kept telling you that you were mistaken, but you just couldn't seem accept you had made an error.

It's fine, I know you won't back down, but this unfortunate tirade is a black mark in my book against your otherwise usually excellent record IMO. How you managed to transform something like this into verbal abuse towards me (i.e. saying I say stupid things) is bizarre and frankly unbecoming of what I know of you from our previous exchanges. I just don't see the need and am sure there are much better things we could discuss without getting bogged down in this boring exchange.

btw are you really that angry with me that you can't respond to the friendly PM I sent much earlier? It was going to initiate a way to resolve this minor issue amicably in private as it's desperately dull for a public forum.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> btw are you really that angry with me that you can't respond to the friendly PM I sent much earlier? It was going to initiate a way to resolve this minor issue amicably in private as it's desperately dull for a public forum.


Are you really that butthurt to bring up a personal issue like my not responding to your PM in the forum?


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> Are you really that butthurt to bring up a personal issue like my not responding to your PM in the forum?


Well since you aren't responding to the PM where else do you suggest I mention it? It's not like I'm discussing confidential personal content. I wouldn't to that.

I like you Azazello and almost always respect what you have to say, enjoying many of your well informed posts. You're one of my favourite people here, and we've got on well in the past, so it's a bit disappointing for you to be acting like you are in this thread.

I know how infuriating I can sometimes be on forums though so it's OK, I understand and am happy to forgive you for being nasty to me. If you can't forgive me and let us forget about this unfortunate exchange so be it, but I'd like to draw a line under it and move on, hopefully to a topic we can have an interesting discussion on again as per usual.


----------



## Azazello

ugh1979 said:


> Well since you aren't responding to the PM where else do you suggest I mention it? It's not like I'm discussing confidential personal content. I wouldn't to that.
> 
> I like you Azazello and almost always respect what you have to say, enjoying many of your well informed posts. You're one of my favourite people here, and we've got on well in the past, so it's a bit disappointing for you to be acting like you are in this thread.
> 
> I know how infuriating I can sometimes be on forums though so it's OK, I understand and am happy to forgive you for being nasty to me. If you can't forgive me and let us forget about this unfortunate exchange so be it, but I'd like to draw a line under it and move on, hopefully to a topic we can have an interesting discussion on again as per usual.


How about you don't mention what goes on outside of public forum at all.

As for the rest of it, don't make me laugh, mate.


----------



## ugh1979

Azazello said:


> How about you don't mention what goes on outside of public forum at all.


I'm happy to mention it since you weren't replying for some reason. As I say, no private information was shared.



> As for the rest of it, don't make me laugh, mate.


That's sad if you don't think I'm being genuine.


----------



## EmotionlessThug

@twitchy666



> How can we prove we haven't killed anyone?
> 
> What is there to stop people doing what they can do? The employer only accepts people who looks the same as the employer's brother or sister and does exactly the same, all their lives


Can you rephrase this for me a little better, and what are you trying to say?


----------



## EmotionlessThug

Mankind is so lazy, too busy relying on technology as masterminds to make analysis, analyzations, movements with people Role-Status, to push the human ego surpass its capacity to quickly.

Artificial Intelligence concentration camp.


----------



## kageri

I don't understand the need for people to learn to do things without a calculator these days. Sure when I was a kid it was an issue and sometimes I was doing fairly complex stuff in real life like determining the various measurements of geometric shapes for horse training pens and courses. I took over training the horses when my grandma passed away when I was a teenager. In the past 10 years I have never been anywhere that someone didn't have a calculator. Computers, cell phones, even watches if you want to invest in one of those.... In college we were doing something with horse weights and no one could do the math in their head. My old cell phone then had a calculator and problem solved. It's just not necessary to do math yourself. It's a pointless skill today. 

There's the chance such skills will be needed again but how many skills have we quit using and even quit teaching because they were needed so long ago and haven't come up again yet? Generations before mine were far more creative in building, reusing, and fixing things. Many many skills were lost between my grandpa's and uncle's generation and mine. I walk in my uncle's old stone garage and see such interesting things and improvised materials.  Along with things he built from acquired materials. The way the beam supports are done and the moveable grain bin with metal reinforced ribs and hardwood floor. I will never see anything like it built and I don't really need to for any reason but nostalgia. He built things that lasted for me to see but they will not last forever. My aunt is even thinking of burning the grain bin down. Things change with time and what is important now is not what was important when you were in school. It is not always better and it is not always worse. It is just different.


----------



## refined_rascal

ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, there is never biological devolution. Biological evolution never objectively reverses.
> 
> However, an organism could re-evolve something it's ancestor had, such as a tail, or less intelligence...


Not sure, but I think the term for a trait lost in ancestors but reemerges in later generations is called an ativism.


----------



## ugh1979

refined_rascal said:


> Not sure, but I think the term for a trait lost in ancestors but reemerges in later generations is called an ativism.


Thanks, I didn't know there was a word for it. 



> Atavism is the tendency to revert to ancestral type. In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before.


----------



## migs7792

Regarding the impact of technology on human 'evolution' or 'devolution' to idiocracy, I think this growing dependence to technology is a result of technology's growing sophistication. And with growing sophistication, newer problems appear as a result. These problems might be due to most human's growing negligence or control on smaller aspects of their life due to this dependence of technology or certain aspects of technology in conflict with many of our needs and pre-conditioned responses to particular situations. Hence humans become more attached to technology than ever, sacrificing their own ingenuity in dealing with ambivalent situations for the seeming convenience of technology. More sophisticated solution generates more sophisticated problems and with the fast rate of innovation (due to our capitalist system) we could not keep up with the state of things. And it doesn't help that most people are born to be consumerist than producers, giving up their sense of power and control to a minority of people responsible for finding solutions to everyday problems.


----------



## EchoIX

No such thing as devolving. Just branching out. 
Traits that were adaptive 50 years ago, perhaps no longer have the edge they had.
A billion years from now, our "descendants" may look, act, and think nothing like us. Or maybe there will be several different versions, with "us" just being a common ancestor. 
No such thing as "devolving," but merely adaptations to pressures.


----------

