Dubstepforum.com

m8son wrote:Why would a species evolve to help other species?

I'm not sure of any altruistic mechanics at work, or what other species have to do with it.

If that were true and a certain intelligence stopped us procreating then the trait would die out as the ones with the level of intelligence needed to decide to not breed would not pass it on.

I'm not saying stop I'm saying inhibit. We're no longer subject to survival of the fittest or the passing of traits via procreation as we look after our vulnerable, less genetically advantaged. obviously we have technological advances, but these stem from our sentience as a species in the first place. To be able subjectively assess our impact and sustainability, then make decisions against our genetic drives but benefit us as a species.

EDIT - loads of replies since I wrote this,

pete bubonic wrote:I've been thinking recently that sentience, or at least some level of it, is an evolutionary trait designed to inhibit the need to procreate and therefore actually only be an advanced form of natural population control. One much needed when a species reaches the top of the food chain and dominates natural resources as we have.

I'm not sure it's thinking that you've been doing here.

Thinking has however allowed us to support a human population currently hundreds of times larger than the planet's natural resources would support. Short of stemming our reproductive abilities our applied intelligence has given us farming allowing us to feed far more than nature ever could, high rise buildings allowing us to fit more of us into the limited space nature provides, medicine so that we can live and reproduce longer than nature ever 'intended' and, well...... invitro fertilisation.

But there doesn't have to be a purpose when we are talking about evolution, it's not planned. Which your logic hints at.

Yeah but a species is not going to evolve to reduce reproduction when that is the sole aim of evolution.

If you could imagine a situation where only the type within our made up species, that doesn't have the ability to procreate survives, then it could happen.

With plants, there definitely could be a location where a plant could grow but there wasn't space for the seeds, so it evolved into a plant that only for a very brief period held on to the seeds. Maybe even at one of the former stages of what would become a seed later in a different location.


Need a big spliff now

wub m8 u never seen men in black? glaxay in the cat collar?

wub wrote:

rockonin wrote:But if i had to guess I reckon we are made by some higher intelligence. Maybe earth is nothing more that a science project. If you look at the patterns of life, living, creating things, procreating, advancing in technology etc You would think that cycle never breaks for a reason. Maybe humans/animals genetics also play a big part in our existence.

Earlier you said you're an atheist...so would I right in saying that you consider a 'higher intelligence' to be aliens?

Yes. Maybe aliens, maybe something else our minds can't comprehend. But then the cycle of, if they created us who created them starts.

Do you believe in Darwin's Evolution Wub, what are you thought's?

Darwin was 200 years ago, no one's claiming he got everything spot on

Is actually still considered just a theory?

because what is empirical evidence then?

rockonin wrote:

wub wrote:How did humans exist then. Where did we come from?

If i knew that answer to that I probably would probably not be human.

plenty of people are fairly aware of how it happened tbh man
if u wanna hear it in laymens terms watch the first couple of episodes of "Wonders of Life" - brian cox presents it. or if u wanna read a load of complicated science shit google "abiogenesis".


interesting and slightly related fact:
the distance between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons is like 5000 widths of the nucleus, wheras the distance from the earth to the sun is like .... 50 suns or something i dunno i cant remmeber

we're a simulation I reckon.

so dear developers and researchers running this simulation, please tell me where my fucking post has gone.

magma wrote:

pete bubonic wrote:I've been thinking recently that sentience, or at least some level of it, is an evolutionary trait designed to inhibit the need to procreate and therefore actually only be an advanced form of natural population control. One much needed when a species reaches the top of the food chain and dominates natural resources as we have.

I'm not sure it's thinking that you've been doing here.

Thinking has however allowed us to support a human population currently hundreds of times larger than the planet's natural resources would support. Short of stemming our reproductive abilities our applied intelligence has given us farming allowing us to feed far more than nature ever could, high rise buildings allowing us to fit more of us into the limited space nature provides, medicine so that we can live and reproduce longer than nature ever 'intended' and, well...... invitro fertilisation.

Hence "at least some level of it". As with all evolutionary traits, it will take hundreds of thousands to millions of years for it to take effect and longer to reach maturity on a global scale. All the things you have mentioned have been developed in the last couple of thousand. With over population of the species soon to be our all encompassing crisis, I reckon that the subjective and logical reasoning that advanced evolved intelligence gives us, ends with 'un'natural population control (though if anything I think it's probably the most natural outcome).

hubb wrote:But there doesn't have to be a purpose when we are talking about evolution, it's not planned. Which your logic hints at.

For a trait to become dominant and inherent it almost has to have a purpose surely, otherwise how would it proliferate?

m8son wrote:Why would a species evolve to help other species?

XDDD this is such a mason thing to say

hubb wrote:Is actually still considered just a theory?

because what is empirical evidence then?

A theory is a framework of knowledge supported by evidence that accounts for known facts. To say things evolve is to say things change over time. This is a fact. Natural selection is the theory that explains how this change occurs. When people say "just a theory" they are typically have the definition of hypothesis in mind. Gravity and germs are also theories. We actually understand a lot more about natural selection than we do about gravity. The empirical evidence comes in a variety of forms from genetic and biochemical to anatomical (including vestigial structures and atavisms) and the geographical distribution of species. The applications of understanding this process has also allowed us to Vaccinate against a variety of diseases which, without knowledge of natural selection, would not be possible. Whats really cool is the laboratory experiments that have demonstrated selection processes in action. My two favorites being Richard Lenski's experiments on bacterial strains and John Endler's experiments on the phenotypic balance between natural and sexual selection achieved by guppies when placed in environments with or without predators present.

As far as the original question goes, I wouldn't say there is an overarching meaning that applies to everyone. Its down to the person to find/construct their own meaning. Passing on genes is all well and good but your genetic contribution is halved for each generation that passes so, while the individual gene is potentially immortal, it doesn't take long for the collection of genes that currently make up who you are to be filtered to a negligible level (the gene is the unit of selection not the individual organism). Compared to just passing on genes, contributing things like ideas, music, literature and the like offer much greater longevity as these things pass through countless generations mostly still in tact and still influence people. I would, for example, see a piece of music that was written hundreds of years ago and still has the ability to move people today as the extended phenotype of that musician that has long outlived their genotype.

hubb wrote:
But there doesn't have to be a purpose when we are talking about evolution, it's not planned. Which your logic hints at.


For a trait to become dominant and inherent it almost has to have a purpose surely, otherwise how would it proliferate?

Well, a trait doesn't have to be inherent in every type within the species, to secure all the species. Only one odd mutant is needed for the species to have that odd trait collectively.
What actually is dominant is specific to the situation or the context the 'types' exist in. If a situation occured where those exact mutant specifixxx were needed then the whole species' genetic memory would still survive on account of that single one.

I mean what truth isn't a theory then?

I think life on earth was created by seas bashing different chemicals up against each other for eons
until some good ones got together and started trading electrons
...and then they got charged and busted into copies

maybe mutations happened - and then other chemicals got in on the mix...
eventually like a coral reef - where organisms started getting enveloped by other organisms
-and became like...pancreases..etc

and then we all ran around for a long time just beating the shit out of each other...

and then eventually we said - no, this is rough...and started co-operating

and some people figured out methods of structure that worked
and some figured out methods to exploit...
which became - and is - another round of beating the shit out of each other...

and until those vampires start acting right - we are caught in the machine.

Yeah - like one batch of slime...got next to a pancreas
and the pancreas was just kicking out lots of sugar...
and the one slime was like...

- I'm pickin' up this candy bitch....I'm gonna feed it...

and he enclosed it within it's belly fold and got mad sugar strength
to be fast - and catch other slimes and weirdos - to feed his pancreas...
and he laughed a monsterous laugh and just got bigger...and bigger...and faster...

and that's the parasitic nature of all things...

From a purely mechanistic point of view, the meaning of life is to temporarily hold off entropy (or provide short-term order to a system) for as long as possible.

From a philosophical point of view, the meaning of life is to find life's meaning.

I realized recently that human potential is way vaster than we generally give it credit it for, and thats pretty dope. Like at this moment in time and in every moment after that until I take my last breath I can do what ever the fuck I want. There are obviously consequences to every action, but the fact that we have so much individual power is pretty cool. It sounds stupid and obvious but when I realized it, it felt like a revelation because I FELT it.

not really a meaning of life per say, but an outlook/perspective. we all have a ridiculous amount of potential and ability, whatever the circumstances, just by virtue of the fact that we're conscious. idk if that makes any sense and/or sounds ridiculous, but it makes sense to me haha

completely irrelevant hunter s. thompson quote:

“Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”

meaning of life is 2 fuck. that's why everyone does everything, even if they don't seem related.

imo