Artificial Evolution?

who says humans have stopped evolving?

>Clearly as a species we've stopped evolving so there's only stagnation which leads to decadence.
You fucken pinheaded cunt.
Humans are losing the bicuspid molar and lobate skulls are becoming more common. Nobody knows why. Australians as a group seem to have more veins in their arms, again nobody knows why. I spent 8 months dissecting and logging stats on preserved cadavers with hundreds of others. We did all these measurements and hours of data entry. 95% of science is just that.
The shit people say on the internet is astounding, when they've done zero work.

Well what if there's absolutely no complications to be had and we're just afraid of taking a leap forward?

You know we could pretty much die out as a species in 100 years if things continue the same way. By die out I mean civilization crashing with no survivors

((((some people)))) need to get the fuck out of the way.

Attached: saturn V.webm (720x404, 698K)

Yea I heard there's all sorts of genetic diseases that jewish people have thanks to inbreeding. In fact some of them are isolated to themselves exclusively.

>we interfere with natural selection.
To be honest maybe that's a good thing given how we're slightly incompatible with the nature of our planet. We had no fur so we learned to steal it from animals. We had no claw so we made weapons and tools. The nights were dark so we lit fires.

Technology is a crutch to help us move slowly around not a staircase. This is where bioengineering would help but we haven't even tried to make the smallest non-risky steps all because of some dude with a funny moustache who scared a few other people.

Not just them, everyone. Change will trample them.

>Clearly as a species we've stopped evolving

Might be one of the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board

Humans are natural beings. War, genocide etc. are just another type of natural selection. We call it artificial because we like to pretend we are not just another type of animal

There's nowhere to go from here but back into the jungle and forests.

Attached: devolution.jpg (513x226, 12K)

Devolution is merely a way to describe an evolutionary process we consider negative. Devolution is still evolution.

>Devolution is still evolution.
It would only prove our species is incapable and doesn't deserve to exist. Sure, if we keep going forward we may fall into a pit we didn't foresee but in the end it's stuff like that which test us and makes us wiser. We will either climb out of that pit stronger or rot in there if we just stopped or went back then everything we ever achieved would've been for naught.
Every life lived, pointless.

It's our moral obligation not just to ourselves as a species but to nature to be the best we can ever be.

If we evolve to become dumber it's because the environment requires it or at least allows it.

We should encourage smart people to have children, genetic engineering could lead to the stuff of nightmares, especially in the West. Imagine our countries in 50 years if this trend continues. Done? Now imagine them with governements able to change the genetic structure of human beings. Are you ready for 7 feet tall feminist women and men able to give birth?

>Done? Now imagine them with governements able to change the genetic structure of human beings
What's wrong with that? They could make a clone army if they want to instead.

>Are you ready for 7 feet tall feminist women and men able to give birth?
If that's what they want but they will be a minority if there's a moral doctrine in place that rewards good behavior deemed to help the collective instead of the individual without either sacrificing each other. The collective for the individual, individual for the collective.

Actually we are evolving.
>That race that now requires glasses
>That race that can't eat cheese without a lactose pill
>That race that has to have an inhaler
>That race that has no immune system, and has to constantly take pills.
This has happened in only a few generations, because evolution is strict when it comes to who is fit for survival.

We are still evolving though this does not mean we 'move in a direction' ... what we see is rather short term adaption of populations to their environment, and with this I mean mostly culture. If certain gene variants give you only a slight advantage (in success, reproduction, etc) within a certain cultural framework (which in turn is mostly created by the population's genetics itself, so we are talking feedback loop here) these gene variants will become more prevalent in the population rather fast.

Attached: why_are_you_looking_at_me.jpg (800x1136, 139K)

People just really don't get what's at stake so it's banned

>If that's what they want but they will be a minority if there's a moral doctrine in place that rewards good behavior deemed to help the collective instead of the individual without either sacrificing each other. The collective for the individual, individual for the collective.

The good of the collective for them is you being LITERALLY equal to women. You are literally asking to play with fire in a tank of oil

If you don't like it you could splinter since you're still an individual and find some other collective.

>deemed to help the collective

See there is a huge controversial point. Humanity has experienced a very early 'genetic split' when some of us switched from hunter-gatherer to the first primitive agriculture. These first farmer societies based on irrigation agriculture led to a selection towards a genotype favoring communal thinking (switch of aggression from individual to group, paranoid-delusional thinking with the impression of 'being watched' meaning organized religion, general loss in intelligence due to less required individual fitness as the group meant protection and success). In contrast, steppe nomad cultures which transitioned directly from hunter-gatherer to pastoralist retained most of these old hunter-gatherer traits like more competitive thinking, better visuo-spatial skills (also giving us a better ability to envision 3D objects before our 'mind's eye' making you a better engineer).

So in effect the best strategy I see would be selective breeding towards the old hunter-gatherer genes. Only problem that may arise is a higher level of competitiveness and aggression but technological progress would strongly benefit.

Attached: know_more.jpg (640x512, 39K)

Or maybe we avoid retarded genetic engineering by not allowing it at all

Also, how the fuck are you writing? Individual, collective? What are you? A Borg? We have nations and citizens and if my nation goes to shit I am fucked unless I turn into a refugee

>Only problem that may arise is a higher level of competitiveness and aggression
That's not really a problem. In-fact it will give them a stronger foundation than say a pacifist genotype which only uses negotiation and cunning. In the end though it doesn't really matter because these sort of people would be organized into sectors within the hive of humanity based on what they could do. Something like castes but more flexible and free.

This is the problem right here
>People aren't God
So? What does God have to do with this? Keep religion out of science. You're personal beliefe should not hinder advancement of technology and medical sciences based on a 1,500 year old book. I don't believe in your book, stop trying to force everyone else to live as if they do.

>We have nations and citizens
And they coexist and form said nations because they're a collective. Most of the time their interests and outlooks are the same as the country they are in which is made up of individuals.

Countries are organisms.

>>Some dude with a funny moustache
He managed to lift his nation up, that is a plus. On the other hand we have that glass of juice thing which unfortunately cancelled out previous achievements...

>Something like castes but more flexible and free

Exactly this I see happening practically ... a form of 'genetic feudalism'

In a primitive way we actually had this before in Eurasia during the Iron age dominance of the Indoeuropean steppe nomads. You can still see these genetic traces in modern Indians if you divide them by caste.

Attached: khaaaaan'd.jpg (358x828, 145K)

Human species are still alive to this day because they were careful about the "technological advancements" and their effects on humankind that would lead to destruction.
It's natural for a human to believe in a higher entity because human should control himself and NEVER try to be like the higher entity. You should never play to be God.
If humans didn't care about religion then humankind would have been wiped out of this planet centuries ago.

You have absolutely 0 evidence to back up that statement. It's your opinion, and until you provide proof, it will remain an opinion. It's natural for humans to shit where they stand and not wipe either. Are you advocating that as well? You don't get to come at me with your naturalist statements in the name of religion, which is the literal definition of super natural. Can you tell me which technological advancements humans were careful with? Which technological advancement did we make and then turn away in the name of God? Must have been penicillin. When people get sick, they're supposed to die. It's natural, right? You're an idiot, and you have no idea why.

Religion is a double edged blade. It could hinder or help humanity depending on the times. Usually though it's just a coping mechanism to help the population in times of dire need(such as war, famine and diseases when humanity wasn't so numerous). Just as it can help with the handling of technology it can also end up outright banning it which is what would most likely happen if say Islam were to become the only dominant religion. If you ask me it's better for it to either be replaced or removed because it leaves psychic imprints on everything, not just people. The gods/egregores we fashion can sometimes become too attached to us in the form of memes thus becoming a blockage in our spirit rather than an amplifier of our will.

>always have had pronounced arm veins
>always seem to get along with aussies more than other foriegners

AT LAST I TRULY SEE

you cant have a low iq slave caste if genetic engineering exists because everyone will be able to get high iq genes

This is probably a cop out, but what about the saying that goes: "Humanity is of God's creation, therefore the advancements of humanity are done out of the intentions of God's design of humanity" or something like that?