An evolution paradox

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
If you believe in PAST evolution, then what do you believe for future evolution? Do you believe that man will "evolve" into a passive peacelover? This doesn't seem to be the case. As our new technology gets more and more complex we may brag that we are "more evolved" now , but killers and madmen will make use of the new technology for "mass destruction". Then what will your "survival of the fittest" do? The "fittest" will be the one with the most powerful weapon and the "fittest" may exterminate the entire species!

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com

---

Why would man evolve into a passive peacelover?What would be the evolutionary advantage of that?Man as a species has survived as well as it has by being
aggressive, and by its ability to create tools which make
up the for the shortcomings of the form.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:

The problem with your statement (at least the major one) is that our technology has largely taken us out of speciation by natural selection.

---

I've been thinking about that ... I wonder if some traits
in modern western humans make them less likely to crash
their cars ... that, considering the numbers of deaths on
the roads, would tend to be a selective influence I think.Largely though, I agree. Most selective pressures have been
eliminated by modern western life (note:western).

I think perhaps DrT meant physiological evolution.I'm not sure about social evolution being restricted to
humans either ... pack and pride beahviours are pretty
complex too, and must have 'evolved' somewhere along
the lines.

If they don't tely on it or make use of it, why
have it ?

I think I see what you mean.