The Problem With Intelligence?

I'm flattered I only vaguely remember writing about that, so it must have been a long time ago.Anyway... Well, it's evolution at work everytime we do something, no matter what it is.For example, I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the exotic species problem Australia's been having since... forever. In one particular case, in the early 90's, they released a pathogen designed to attack rabbits and nothing else. For a while, the rabbit population in Australia almost went down to zero, but it didn't. Now, Australia is facing a "super rabbit" population explosion. These new rabbits are completely immune to the pathogen that was designed to kill them a decade earlier.It is an inescapable fact that life will adapt to whatever challenges it meets. So, I don't believe that we are causing that much damage in the biological world. I'm more concerned with the environmental health issues. Actually, there is an international effort to wipe out certain diseases in the world once and for all. About 2 decades ago, people began to ask a very simple question: What if we completely immunize everyone in the world from __________ (place a disease in the blank spot)? The very simple answer is within a generation or so the disease would be gone completely. Currently, they are trying to do that with polio, measles, and several other diseases that were once common. Polio is completely gone from North and South America, Europe, and most of Asia. They're having trouble getting people to take the shots in Africa because of the damn witch doctors there.But anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing at all to wipe out certain diseases once and for all. Unlikely? I disagree with this. I strongly believe that we will one day overcome most of the obstacles in life and even find a cure for aging.

Gracias, Jack. But if the approval process takes a while, I'd appreciate it if you responded here.

Ok, I've got it up in proposed new topics if you want to respond to it there.

The approval process is normally quite swift (same day) providing the topic meets the mods 'standards' for a topic. The rules of this forum include sticking to the specified topic so I'll wait until the topic is approved before replying.

Hi Lam. One of the things you mentioned in your reply to Tusko represents a topic of especial interest to me. Although the idea here is waaay OT for this thread, I consider this attitude to be both incorrect and extremely dangerous. OTOH, it may simply be a case of me misunderstanding what you meant. However, if you would like to discuss it further, respond here and I'll propose a new topic.

This topic is so badly defined I'm kind of regretting starting it! I think I should have thought about it more before I just blurted it out. I really appreciate your responses, because they have helped me.Just to try to clarify my thinking angain.I don't think that we are putting the biological world in danger. Our interventions just demonstrate that common sense (lets kill those noisy snakes/breed fat sheep), technology (lets find ways to mitigate the effects of genetic and infectious diseases), and cultural desires (lets breed dogs that are really great at killing badgers) produce organisms and effects that wouldn't ever have been possible without intelligence.Our ability to unnaturally select - and I'm not saying that we really have an understanding of the outcomes of our selections, just that we can push life in directs that it wouldn't ever go down without us - is pretty unique, isn't it?We are populating the world with a menagery of oddities, and we are diligently maintaining and even adding to that collection. Of course, if we were to all disappear, then natural selection would kick in again. It just seems our effect, as a species, on the living things of this planet (hell, even those brown/white arboreal moths we all know and love!) is kind of trippy. Any thoughts?If not, then I'm sorry I mentioned it really. This Phi thing is interesting me though. I'm going to look into this.

Ok, I'll take that back. Look at the time when wrote the message. It was around 4 or 5 am. I just finished studying for an exam and wasn't really thinking.Yes, there are many things man can do to ruin life on earth. I'm a tarantula hobbyist and I am fully aware that there are many tarantula species in danger of extinction (at least the wild populations anyway) because there are places where people kill off every tarantula they could find. What I meant was that we can do a lot more damage by ruining the biosphere.But yes, I do agree with you to disagree with my tired self earlier this morning.By the way, I think I got everything right on my physics exam except for one thing. Right after I turned it in, I realized that I used (3/4)pi*r^3 instead of (4/3)pi*r^3. Only time will tell how many points the prof will take off that that incredible mistake.

arent you merely just talking about any difference of
artifical
and
natural
SELECTION,
then?My problem is that what is natural to one man is artifical to the wife. Of course things are easier if you dont think we are doing anything wrong.

Okay, ramble warning. I hope this post makes some sense.Before I start though, I'd like to say sorry for not responding, Brad. I was a bit scared by that first link you gave because I didn't understand it, I admit shamefacedly. If you wouldn't mind explaining what you meant for a simpleton like me, I'd love to hear what you have to say.Yes, I am just talking about the difference between natural and artificial selection I guess. It seems really incredible to me that we have stumbled across ways of influencing the patterns of life so profoundly. But I'm not just talking about the conscious decisions, modern fruit and vegetables, and "achievements" like the establishment of the Cornish Rex as a breed, but also the unforseen, counter-intuitive effects of our decisions: the super bacteria we make through having antiseptic conditions, the changes that we effect but don't understand. But with this post I'd like to focus on our conscious efforts to selectively breed. In a kind of roundabout way, I think that rather than demarcating the limits of species change and undermining the idea of macroevolution as some people suggest, the limits of selective breeding seem to sit alongside natural selection quite comfortably with me.In some ways the destinction between natural and artificial selection seems itself artificial, because its all just selection. But the products of artificial selection seem to me to be totally different from natural selection.I wonder what a creationist take on this difference is? It seems like most creationists tenitavely accept that there can be some degree of NATURAL selection, and of course everyone can see the products of artificial selection all around them. I guess you might say that humans aren't as good as designing as God because of genetic weaknesses that crop up the further we push an animal. I think humans over the millenia have demonstrated a great deal of ingenuity with very limited ends. The fact that artificial selection can produce such radically different results as the malmute and the chiwahwah(I dunno how to spell that), with all the limitations of artificial selection, is quite an impressive endorsement of the more powerful, though slower moving tool, natural selection.I need to clarify that slightly. By "the limits" of artificial selection, I mean that we don't select for the best chance of survival, but instead for various visible advantages (bigger, stronger, smarter) that may be twinned with invisible genetic disadvantages that nature would have unsentimentally weeded away. So it isn't as powerful as natural selection, because we tend to overvalue measurable physical advantages and undervalue invisible problems. Thats my understanding anyway.Thoughts?

Okay, I won't hold it against you. Good luck on your grade - I hate it when I transpose numbers like that.

I'm not ready for, me, yet. I merely noticed a possible change in your tone. No biggi.

phi = (1 + sqrt(5))/2 and is another number like pi and eWe have a poster here who could say more as he uses the number for his screen name.Assuming that any coincidence is proof of something is the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, as you need to show a causal relationship in each case.See Forbidden and the other logical fallacies for more.You could probably take any number and find an extraordinary number of times it shows up in natural systems, some of the more mundane ones, like 2, are so frequent that they are not noticed (GOSH! ALL Mammals have two sexes!!! It must be designed that way!!!!)I woulpd be more impressed if {pi} was 3 instead of 3.1415926535897932384626433832795....EnjoyThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10-15-2004 11:39 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I owned the test like it was nothing to me.

quote:

---

This topic is so badly defined I'm kind of regretting starting it!

---

Message 1 looks pretty good, but the topic title is pretty worthless. It's good to have a topic title that helps define the theme of the topic. My "off the cuff" suggestion would be something like "Adverse Long Term Effects of Artificial Selection".Why don't you compose a new message one, that picks up the best of this topic. Then propose a new topic (Go here to find the "Post New Topic" button. Include a link back to this topic.In general, this topic's a mess. Closing down.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

An added note:I do think that the core theme is very good, and most worthy of a topic. I don't think it is being served well by this topic.Too good of a theme, to allow to be lost in a "problem" topic.Now, closing again.Adminnemooseus