"dragged into degeneracy"

[Steve James]

Yeah, the Darwin Award shows that some individuals can devolve, but they find it harder to pass on their genes. If they do manage, fewer of their offspring will survive. Hey, there are humans with little or no fear of heights. It could be a great advantage, but the majority of people have the fear of height gene. Fewer of them get killed climbing, though.

[Giles]

"Devolution" as a word has been used in the political sphere: to describe the process of provinces or nations that were once incorporated into a greater whole (e.g. Scotland becoming part of Great Britain / the 'United Kingdom') regaining a measure of self-government and semi-independence. Hence a kind of 'regression' that reverses previous 'progress' (please note the inverted commas I use!!).
It was a big thing in the UK in the 70s, 80s, 90s. True political independence as a sovereign nation goes beyond the normal process of devolution, as far as I understand this.

As far as evolution and intelligence are concerned: like the cave-dwelling species that become blind over generations, you can see the effect in some farm animals. Farmed sheep and cows are clearly 'dumber' than their wild counterparts, as there is no evolutionary pressure to be smart. I guess it's more complex with dogs, depending on the race (can we still use that term in this context?).

[everything]

There are those sheep who cannot shed their wool without humans.

Suppose it’s symbiosis.

A scary thought where the “species” that preys on a stupid voter base and said voter base rely on each other.

Should be good setting for near future sci fi drama.

More “intelligent” AI or engineered humans are here.

“Devolved” humans and their politicians are also here.

What could possibly go wrong? /s

[Steve James]

Afa the word "devolution," yes, the word was originally used in reference to property. When applied to countries/land, it meant "handing over" [control]. That usage goes back to the 1600s. However, afa biology, "devolution" as degeneration or the opposite of evolution was used by Darwin's opponents in the 19th century. But, it's not accepted in biology nowadays.

Afa dumber animals, they didn't evolve to be stupider. They've been chosen, domesticated and bred by humans for qualities that benefit humans. I don't think it's legit to argue that domesticated dogs are less intelligent than wolves. Some of them are probably less able to survive in the wild; others will do just fine. Pigs are also good examples because domesticated pigs will become wild. In Canada and the northwest, we're being invaded by super pigs who've cross bred with wild ones. I don't know that would qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. It's not a product of natural selection.

[everything]

If we say we can only say "evolution" or "adaptation" as ChatGPT and Dmitri suggest, some kind of changes in response to other conditions, "Florida Man" is "adapting" to certain changes, but what changes? It's not a Darwinian sense of survival and passing on genes. In a country where obesity is more of a killer than poverty, there are other problems. There is no Darwinian need to be clever in the way that Silicon Valley technologists creating "artificial life" need to be clever. There seems to be a key underlying assumption:

belief in ABSOLUTE TRUTH

that underlies "the masses" in all phases of history. We can see this need expressed here on the RSF board.

* There was an appeal to otherworldly truth or the truth of "God". Humans can be fallible, but God is omniscient and omnipotent.

* Or if we don't understand something, we think an ancestor or someone wiser who came before probably did, and we as individuals are simply not as talented or hardworking. So Yang understood taijiquan, but we do not. Or someone who taught Yang must know more. Of course this is a fallacy because we'd get collectively less knowledgeable over time.

* Or some people think there is a "Science" that "knows all". This is a fallacy as science starts with some assumption of ignorance. We don't presume Einstein knew everything. We presume there are unanswered questions. And we know we will never know WHY there was a Big Bang, even if we become more convinced there is strong evidence there definitely WAS a Big Bang.

There seems to be a Florida Man who wrongly thinks that "liberals" "believe" in "Science" (AFAIK people, especially in Silicon Valley, might believe in an idea of progress based on improved technology based on science to solve more problems over time, but there isn't some "liberal agenda" that wrongly believes there is monolithic "Science") the way some Florida Men believe their "Religion", and that belief in Science (and other religions) is somehow "wrong". But that would be a strawman, probably incorrect altogether, and I doubt Florida Man could follow any of these logical statements in any case.

Basically there is some lack of thinking ability, lack of self-awareness of said inability, and some deep seated need to believe in the "correct" Absolute Truth or to believe in some Alternative Complete Untruth. But why? Much harder to figure out. Cognitive dissonance, some kind of perceived suffering, perceived lack of control, lack of understanding of what is happening in the world due to such fast changes, child-like lashing out.

[BruceP]

ott

[Dmitri]

If we say we can only say "evolution" or "adaptation" as ChatGPT and Dmitri suggest, some kind of changes in response to other conditions, ...

There's "evolution" in the biological sense, and then there's the other meaning of that word - development; increase in complexity, functionally, etc. In that second sense, "devolution" is a perfectly normal term, denoting (obviously) the opposite; a regression of sorts. We just need to be clear, when using these two, which one we're talking about.

Interestingly, (disclaimer - the following is from Google's Bard)

Darwin did not use the term "evolution" because it means progress and his theory was non-progressive. Instead, he referred to the evolution of organisms as "descent with modification"

[everything]

Whichever word means “dragged into degeneracy”.

[everything]

On a side note of this side topic

Animals in my neighborhood since the pandemic seem far less afraid of humans.

Hares let me stand super close by.

Ducks just jump into the pool when they want and don’t flee from the humans.

Probably been several generations or more of hares since the animals “reclaimed” space temporarily when Homo sapiens stayed holed up inside.

Maybe some “evolution” going on already.

Not sure it’s a safe adaptation for them in the next few years.

[Steve James]

Darwin didn't invent the term "evolution" in biology. Charles Lyell who coined it in the 1830s. Darwin used the term once in Origin of Species because he wanted to separate the contemporary idea from his theory, as you point out, of "descent with modification."

Darwin uses "evolution" in the last paragraph of the last chapter. I was trying to get the text from Gutenberg, but maybe you can find it. But, this is interesting. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/lyell-and-evolution-an-account-of-lyells-response-to-the-prospect-of-an-evolutionary-ancestry-for-man/CCC726D00BD20B4484503A0023D1BC7F
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 0023D1BC7F

[Dmitri]

"loss of human dignity"

[Steve James]

"loss of human dignity"

Yeah, if you argue that humans are at the top of the evolutionary pyramid, then you gotta explain why. If you say it was an accident or part of a natural (selection) process, that sorta brings us down. Of course, you can argue that humans are a specific creation of an intelligent designer, or you can say that it's just this way and always has been.

Well, you can see why this issue was so important in the 19th century. It spurred debates/explanations on the origin of mankind, and mankind. H.G. Wells also came from that period. Are Martian invaders are a threat because they're more 'evolved'? In the movie, the protagonists end up in a church praying. But, the narrator notes what really saved humanity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbNqBpmzmY

[Dmitri]

Heh... But then, in the very last few words, the narrator still ends with "God" (which, of course, wasn't what H.G. Wells wrote). Although, given the time in which that movie was made, that's not surprising at all. We're still reaping the awful side effects of religion permeating the society so completely, and for so long.

Which sort of brings us all the way back to the OP, where this very type of dogmatic thinking, learning to regurgitate others thoughts and ideas without a critical assessment, is conducive to persisting delusion and "degeneracy" on a larger scale.

[Quigga]

You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone can think critically, or maybe even that they should be able to do so

[Steve James]

It's a Hollywood ending. Who created aliens anyway? What did they evolve from? Maybe that's why the gubmint won't tell us the truth. Questions, questions, questions.

The dogmatic thinking comes from making up answers and demanding they are believed because someone thinks the answers are correct. It's not just the belief, it's what people do because of them. Afa the op, I think there's a natural desire to explain the unknown. Every culture does it in order to explain where it came from. Except, like the "big bang," nobody who tells the story was there when it happened. But, history shows that people will kill each other over that story, even over the details. (Reminds me of Gulliver's Travels). Maybe the species can "evolve" to be less self-destructive, but it'll happen because it becomes necessary.