We are too humane.

I think maybe we can become something resembling gods, (if thats the word to use). Chiefly I think this because Humans do do somethings which animals don't. one is the manufacturing of machinery ,computers etc and another is purposful self alteration. Put these together with sufficient skill and you could have evolution at will.
minds could go into machines etc. Who is to say that this isn't something that can't be classed as evolution.

I've just thought of something actually... I'm gonna say this as daft as it may sound, maybe purely for the sake of arguement, I'm not sure but here goes.
Maybe the physical fusion of mind and machine IS a requirement of information perpetuation. All of our means of biotic survival Will be destroyed at some point. Further more, I would like to suggest that, in keeping the "deleterious alleles" around, we further our ability to create work arounds for this, thereby actually increasing our potential to evolve.
Think about the diabetic and the efforts made to simplify insulin administration. Or at a more mechanical level, think about the intubated patient who only breathes because he is, temporarilly part of a machine, albeit a rudimentary one. Think of the advancement in prosthetics and their increasing integration with the host's nervous system.
On an individual level, the means of biotic survival known as the body will die. It is programmed to do so. Medical research and techniques are able to delay this for longer and longer and for more and more people.
Death can occur early in even the non "deleterious alleles" and, in this sense, our mortality us all potentially deleterious.
The idea that, at some point, ageing and dying could be a thing of the past is not inconceivable. (not saying this is desirable, just possible). This could be done through either genetic or mechanical means but either would be a case of auto-evolution if you like.
More specifically I guess, at some point, our sun and everything in our solar system will die also. The biotic survival unit known as Earth will also end. To survive, humanity will have to move home. But that's very tricky in this flimsy self destructive body. We could put ourselves into machines and fly off in those I guess but in such a large universe it might be more effort than it's worth, especially when we'll have to do the same thing all over again within a few billion years. It might be easier to integrate ourselves with our technology thus transforming into bio-machine hybrids that are hardier and more durable. I don't necessarily mean robotic bodies with whirring servos and a large battery back-up but maybe into nano-bots. What the hell.. whilst we're in such fanciful realms why not download our entire consciousness into something resembling a stream of photons. This way we can flit around the galaxy at light speed although that would be irrelevant as we would have eternity to get from A to B.
I guess what I'm getting at is that at some point, humanity will have to expand into the cosmos or die. Our biotic means of survival have a finite time limit on them and this throws a real spanner into the works as far as evolving any further is concerned. The kit given to us by Mother Nature, (read evolution), is so far, not up to this task and, frankly, probably never would be. Humans will have to integrate themselves with technological solutions, (in whatever form), and the best way to really understand how to do this is to beat mortality and morbidity with technological means.
maybe... I think This message has been edited by Orlando Dibisikitt, 06-02-2005 03:43 PM

Gonna try to be a bit more serious this time. I've got some trouble with the idea that keeping some peolple alive somehow detracts from our ability to evolve...
Understand that I am not a genetecist (I'm sure you've already noticed!) but I do have a rudimentary understanding as I'm an A+E nurse and as such, did have to learn a little about genetics in training. Also, and probably more importantly, I spend most of my working life with the "deleterious alleles" of which we speak. My main concerns, I guess, are this... at what point do we consider "alleles" to be "deleterious"? and what do we consider to be "humane"?.
You touched on something earlier regarding Stephen Hawkings saying that although physically he is "unfit", mentally he is more evolved than most. I think this is imortant to expand upon for several reasons. Firstly, it is easy to see that if this "deleterious allel" hadn't been kept alive, we wouldn't have had his input into science but also, I see this as an indication of how many shades of grey there are here. Are any of us as "smart" as the following... Beethovan, Einstein, John Nash, Mozart and many other people of their ilk??? No I think not but there is strong evidence to suggest that all of these people were cyclothymic, bipolar or may have had some degree of autism, (Nash of course was a schizophrenic), and, therfore, by the standards mentioned here, all come under the catagory of "deleterious alleles" despite the fact that they have all done more to further humanity than any of us non-deleterious types in this discussion. You could argue that they are the exception to the rule but, in my experience, this is not so because most of the people with "true" mental illness that I meet tend to be very bright in deed. Unfortunatly, because they often find it hard to function, they have little chance to shine. Usually when they do it is because fate will lead them down whatever avenue turns out to be theirs.
And as far as "avenues" are concerned... how many of us would survive if all the farmers were suddenly to die out. How many would survive if all the water workers were to die out. What I'm getting at here is that most people have a role to perform and "intelligence" is not necessarilly a requirement for these roles. Strength, dexterity, speed or stamina are not pre-requisits for other roles either. The way our society is organised, (as a result of the type of organism we are), means that people of differing abilities in differing areas are needed in order to push humanity forward. If all of a sudden all were left but the academically "smart", humanity would cease to exist very quikckly. In reality, there is a possible role for people with all but the most severe of handicaps to play in our society and, indeed, in our further evolution.
It could be questioned then, what role do people with those "most sever handicaps" have to play?. I think there are several answers here.
Firstly, I'm thinking that the fact that we do look after these people is an indication of how highly evolved we are. We are now so comfortable in our environment that we can expend time and energy keeping these people safe and comfortable. Maybe if we were to change into a species that didn't do this we would actually be devolving if you like. You said something about preferring death to integration with technology. I for one would rather our race died out than evolved into something that didn't look after its unfortunates in the hope of evolving into even more of a super-race than we already are.
Secondly, I'm thinking that the numbers of people unable to contribute to society/humanity directly (because I guess thats what we are talking about), are so small that it could make little difference to our over all ability to evolve.
Finally, I'm thinking that if we didn't face the challenges of preserving life in whatever condition (up to a point obviously), and of improving quality of life, we would have nowhere left to evolve to. There would be no reason to further our development and, like the rest of the animal kingdom, we would find ourselves trapped in time where the slightest alteration in our environment could potentially wipe us all out.
I guess I'm back on the technology thing again here. Does anybody on this board take medication to keep their heart beating properly or to keep their blood pressure within normal limits. Even if you don't I'm sure you know somebody who does. At this point, a person is already integrated with technology. The chemicals we have created are now part of these peoples organic form and it is this that keeps them alive and functioning. Many people of reproducing age benefit from these and other teatments and go on to create offspring with possibly the same problems as themselves. Except that this isn't a problem however, as the condition no longer confers any major disadvantage allowing them to contribute whatever specialist skills they may have to human betterment aswell as their own genetic material.
I guess, to sum up, because of what we have evolved into, It's not as easy as describing disabled people as "deleterious alleles" and citing this as a cause of reduced evolvability. I think we have reached a point where we can bypass our genetic insufficiencies and we're getting better at it all the time. Its more accurate to say that any delay in evolution is caused by societies inability to accomodate and fully integrate the "deleterious alleles" than by the "deleterious alleles" themselves. This message has been edited by Orlando Dibisikitt, 06-03-2005 09:09 AMThis message has been edited by Orlando Dibisikitt, 06-03-2005 09:15 AMThis message has been edited by Orlando Dibisikitt, 06-03-2005 09:18 AM

wish i'd said it like that

sorry about the 'deleterious allele' thing.. you have to understand that it's along time since I studied such things and most of my genetic terminology is long since forgotten. Please also understand that I'm thinking as I go along here so please have patience if I say stupid things.
Presently I'm thinking that the problem isn't the faulty gene itself but the pathology it causes. For example, the problem with Phenylketonuria manifests itself in the lungs. Therefore, I'm not 100% sure that wiping any gene out is a good idea, (only about 99%). Other methods to work around the problem would be just as valid as any tinkering with the genetic pool and a lot less open to issues of morality. Imagine being able to whip out the lungs and replace them with some other mechanical device which could provide the body with oxygen. In a senario like this, the existance of such a gene becomes irrelevant. What if the functions of the nervous system could be reproduced in some other more mechanical means thereby making Huntington's and other simlar afflictions irrelevant. Again, getting rid of the gene in the first place would probably be a good thing but, as you say, this presents so many moral problems in terms of eugenics etc...
Also, no matter how well we could refine our gene pool, wouldn't other genetic mistakes start happening? Some would be good and some would be bad as they are now?. Maybe the fact that we use such a fragile medium with which to pass our code on is, in some ways, a hinderance to further evolution???