21 replies to this topic

[Quill]

Hello,
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place, also, I'm sorry if this has been discussed before.
But...

Something I have noticed over the years is that many people think and/or feel that we as a species are "devolving" (not sure if that is the correct word) culturally, philosophically, even emotionally. People are often quick to point and blame the media, government(s), etc. (But who is fueling these organizations?)

My main question is:
What are we doing about it?

If the problem is that recognizable, why is nothing being done about it? Is it the "Well, since I'm not the only one who sees it, someone else is bound to take care of it" mentality?
Or is it complete apathy? "Oh, I see it, but I don't really care."

To turn these questions on myself, I realize that I'm not really doing anything. Why? To be honest, I would not know where or how to begin.

What do you think?

Thank you.
Quill

[Shankpin]

I wouldn't know where or how to begin, myself. All I can do is make the change (even small) in the world around me..but,  I can't change the world.

[cladking]

Much of the problem today is a problem of attitude and unrelated to biology.  People don't expect value or hold anyone responsible for failures.  

There probably is some deevolution of the species as well.  There is likely nothing that can be done about it but a great deal of evil might be perpetrated in the name of trying.

[(Moonlight)]

I wouldn't have a clue where to start either. But to be honest, I haven't noticed this. I've noticed other things, but not this. Perhaps it's because I'm too young to be taking notice of things like this, or because teenage emotions seem to run wild where I go to school.

Although now you say it, culture and a fair bit of philosophy seems to be getting neglected. Although, I still think that emotion is still greatly present.

Just my opinion, I guess.

[lmbeharry]

Shankpin on May 4 2008, 01:55 AM, said:

I wouldn't know where or how to begin, myself. All I can do is make the change (even small) in the world around me..but,  I can't change the world.

That's right. We can only take care of our little corner of the world. I am fond of telling my students this:
I am responsible to myself first, my family second, my community third, my country fourth, and then the world (though these days the world and my country are the same).
I think "human devolution" began when modern society started making man "soft." Read Marx and others for a take on how modern society "divorces" humans from our own productive capacity. Ages ago, there existed true craftspersons and true farming persons. Today, machines and technology break everything down so that people can't see the trees in the forest - we can only see the forest. And through this process, we become divorced from ourselves. Sit-coms do our thinking for us, and education is a mere shadow of what is used to be; by this I mean we no longer teach our children to think, but to react and use computers to solve problems. It's scary that we reasoned out the means to create the computer, but perhaps this type of reasoned logic is now becoming a thing that only the most "elite" of us will know in the future.
I was watching this broadcast: Beauty and the Geek a few weeks ago. The show made fun of the Beauties who could not hook up a computer, keyboard, monitor, and lan. It's not rocket science, and the plugs are even color coded. How unfortunate that this broadcast likely reflects the dumbing down of our children. That is, that our children no longer are taught to think and reason through a problem.

Human devolution. It is sad that it may be true!

[(Moonlight)]

lmbeharry on May 4 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

I was watching this broadcast: Beauty and the Geek a few weeks ago. The show made fun of the Beauties who could not hook up a computer, keyboard, monitor, and lan. It's not rocket science, and the plugs are even color coded. How unfortunate that this broadcast likely reflects the dumbing down of our children. That is, that our children no longer are taught to think and reason through a problem.

When you say that, in what aspect do you mean that we are no longer taught to think and reason through a problem? Is it because we are being taught to basically 'leave everything to the computer, for it shall do our thinking from now on.'

Actually, this might be true, and as someone still going through schooling now, I have noticed that we use calculators a lot in maths, a lot of work with computer programs that could easily be done by hand, heck, they even have the year 1s on the computer using a drawing program called Kid Pix instead of them doing it with a pencil. And then we still haven't covered Spell Check.
If this is what you mean by it, then I by all means agree with you.

[ROGER]

Gene Roddenberry and Al Gore have planted the seeds of our Worlds destruction. The Prime Directive states you do not give advanced technology to cultures that are not mature enough to use it wisely. The Internet , created as a source for sharing information, has become a tool of profiteers, malcontents and Government control of the masses. Give up your computers and cell phones. Your gaming machines and I-Pods. Return to the life and Morals of the 1950's!

   There, I feel better now.      But learning a little about how things work from the ground up is some thing young people have lost. I started out as a farm kid , shoveling cow manure every day. Any job I had after that was a step up.   Why have I fought to learn as much as I can. Because I know I can always go back to the shovel.

[lmbeharry]

ROGER on May 4 2008, 06:15 AM, said:

Gene Roddenberry and Al Gore have planted the seeds of our Worlds destruction. The Prime Directive states you do not give advanced technology to cultures that are not mature enough to use it wisely. The Internet , created as a source for sharing information, has become a tool of profiteers, malcontents and Government control of the masses. Give up your computers and cell phones. Your gaming machines and I-Pods. Return to the life and Morals of the 1950's!

   There, I feel better now.      But learning a little about how things work from the ground up is some thing young people have lost. I started out as a farm kid , shoveling cow manure every day. Any job I had after that was a step up.   Why have I fought to learn as much as I can. Because I know I can always go back to the shovel.

I posted elsewhere that the "Founding Fathers" of America (well most of them) could read and understand Greek and Latin. In fact, this was a mark of the best Preparatory Academies in the United States until about the 1970's [that's why many of them had the word: Latin in their name, and why elitist parents sent their children to these schools]. Why read Greek and Latin you ask? Because the roots of Western civilization, philosophical thought, and natural sciences are (best) found in the Greek and Latin writers of 2,000 - 3,000 years ago.

Granted, there is more knowledge out in the world today. And granted that computer technology is a great tool to make our lives easier (and to make calculations faster). But, in our view (ROGER and me), this ease in computation and the hijacking of internet, etc. by corporations and governments, tends to reduce the ability of our species to think and reason.

To Moonlight: there is absolutely nothing wrong with using computers and calculators - provided that we teach our young people the theory and the logic behind solving math, geometry, and even grammar and spelling problems. The act of reasoning through problems is exercise for our minds.

In fact, one of the primary reasons I come to this board is so that I can think, write, and respond to the arguments of others - in effect, exercising my mind. This, in my view, is much better than watching sit-coms and/or wiling away the days listening to the pop music of the moment. [And I am not saying that listening to pop music is bad. It's only bad if that's the only exercise we give our brains.] Our minds need variety in exercise: writing, reading, logic, computation, art, and many, many more things...

Back to ROGER. Yeah, I agree with you again about being a farm kid. Farmers know a great deal about life. Working with the land is an education in itself. It teaches about Nature, mathematics (how much and where to plant for best and efficient yield), about chemistry, meteorology. What a fine education. I live in Mongolia and I envy the children growing up in the countryside. They are strong, rugged people whose subsistence is milk, meat, potatoes and whatever herbs and vegetables they can put together in a nomadic existence. And the meat is delicious. Having said that I envy them, I also aspire to teach them something about technology - to find a good balance. I gave my wife's cousins a computer with some English educational software. They thoroughly enjoy the vocals and word games as an educational tool. I also was able to procure simulation software for physics and chemistry. I see these things as a good balance - insofar as they do not have laboratories in which to actually run experiments. They may learn virtually, until the schools can upgrade to teach these things - and inspire a future generation of engineers who may manage to incorporate the "best of the new" with the "best of the old."

[ROGER]

My wife plays Solitaire only, My sons Games, And Son in law off shore gambling.
And they call ME Strange.
I am glade you got my point. Thank you.

[lmbeharry]

ROGER on May 4 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

My wife plays Solitaire only, My sons Games, And Son in law off shore gambling.
And they call ME Strange.
I am glade you got my point. Thank you.

If your wife, son, and son-in-law are into these types of games, they - or in particular, your son, might enjoy this place: NetLogo at Northwestern University. I just discovered it yesterday, AND IT'S FREE!

Basically Northwestern University put this stuff online - simulation software for Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Social Systems. Your son might even enjoy it because he could see the computer code and augment the software to produce his own simulations and/or games. It's not simulations on the level of Sim City (which, I argue is good for education), but the simulations provide insights into how societies and biological systems respond to stress and other things.

And to Moonlight: You might enjoy Wolfram Mathematica. It's pretty expensive, but you might find a (less expensive) way to get a working copy. If you go to public school, you might even find a way to get Wolfram to donate some software for your school.

Anyway, Mathematica is high-end mathematics - and it can do many, many types of things - including 3D graphics. And the beauty of it, you learn as you solve problems. You have to reason out the method to ask the right question, and then once you've mastered the question, you build to create ever more intricate and elegant things. Physicists, for example, use Mathematica to create 3D graphics of black holes. Chemists and Biologists use it for modeling reactions, and financial engineers use it to model complex financial systems (that's what I'm trying to teach myself).

Anyway - let's keep learning and exercising our minds!

Edited by lmbeharry, 04 May 2008 - 06:14 AM.

[KBA]

How do you solve the problem?

Become the better suited mutation, by killing off the weak and letting the strong survive. Artificial selection.

And that's precisely why we will never solve the problem. That's never going to happen (And I'm not trying to say it should here).

And there are more practical ways, but none of them are actually very practical, nor would they be accepted by society. (Example: Requiring certain levels of intelligence or ability to be legally allowed to reproduce, etc.)

The problem arises from the fact that the talented and intelligent humans give society so many things, while the average and mediocre humans contribute comparatively little. In a life where we are given everything by the discoveries of other people, the average person adopts a lack of personal responsibility for the well being of his own life or of other peoples'. Hedonism will begin to dominate the cultural evolution of humanity, where as before.. we didn't have so much time for hedonism, and had to focus heavily upon survival. The most sexual and sexually attractive will reproduce more, the intelligent and talented will reproduce less... because their gifts to humanity are given to the weak as well.

It's interesting, there's a theory that eventually humanity will split into two species; one being a species of genetically altered humans, a technology that only the elite will have access to.. and the other being normal humans, regularly devolving as stated.

In short:

Intelligence used to help survival because there was so little technology, and every bit of discovery made great improvements to the ability to survive for a human. Intelligent people would survive much better than their fellow humans (Or maybe neanderthals, etc) in such times.

Fast forward to modern times, and the average person can not even know where to start when faced with the complexity of modern medicine, technology, etc. It is a field that only the intelligent can contribute to, but anyone can benefit from.. so intelligence becomes an unnecessary mutation for survival, and the collective intelligence of humanity can not rise any more through normal evolution. The only way to raise human intelligence further in a modern world is through artificial selection, which is a taboo to society. You can't stop de-evolution because you would become a criminal in the eyes of other people.

lmbeharry on May 3 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

I was watching this broadcast: Beauty and the Geek a few weeks ago. The show made fun of the Beauties who could not hook up a computer, keyboard, monitor, and lan. It's not rocket science, and the plugs are even color coded. How unfortunate that this broadcast likely reflects the dumbing down of our children. That is, that our children no longer are taught to think and reason through a problem.

Beauty and the geek demonstrates this concept well. If it were say, 30,000 BC right now.. the geeks would completely outlive and outsurvive the beauties... using tools, finding superior shelter, maybe planting crops, etfc. "Geekiness" would be much more important to the survival and continuation of the species than would beauty.

However, today, it's all changed. The beauties and the geeks now have equal access to survival technologies. Therefore, the favorable mutation is beauty, and geekiness is not important anymore. It's true that a geek might earn more money, but even poor people today will live a comparatively long life, often well into their 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. The beauties will all be able to find mates and have children (Also placing emphasis on beauty and not geekiness in their mates), whereas the geeks will have a harder time, thus devolving the human species.

Edited by KBA, 04 May 2008 - 08:21 AM.

[lmbeharry]

You are correct in many ways and "amoral" (not a bad thing) -at least you stated what's on your mind.
Past civilizations: notably Sparta and Rome culled their progeny for weakness. (Weak offspring were left to the gods of nature, wild dogs in Sparta, and wild dogs and the garbage pile in Rome).
But there is an inherent problem in testing for intelligence. Not all "gifted" people pass the test. Einstein was himself  "C" student...
Lastly, with regard to rich or "elite" people using genetic science to enhance their offspring, Star Trek TOS predicted this and it has already started. Hell, Hitler put it into practice 75 years ago, without the benefit of 21st century technology...
What a wondrous and scary time.. Just like all of human history...

KBA on May 4 2008, 08:15 AM, said:

How do you solve the problem?

Become the better suited mutation, by killing off the weak and letting the strong survive. Artificial selection.

And that's precisely why we will never solve the problem. That's never going to happen (And I'm not trying to say it should here).

And there are more practical ways, but none of them are actually very practical, nor would they be accepted by society. (Example: Requiring certain levels of intelligence or ability to be legally allowed to reproduce, etc.)

The problem arises from the fact that the talented and intelligent humans give society so many things, while the average and mediocre humans contribute comparatively little. In a life where we are given everything by the discoveries of other people, the average person adopts a lack of personal responsibility for the well being of his own life or of other peoples'. Hedonism will begin to dominate the cultural evolution of humanity, where as before.. we didn't have so much time for hedonism, and had to focus heavily upon survival. The most sexual and sexually attractive will reproduce more, the intelligent and talented will reproduce less... because their gifts to humanity are given to the weak as well.

It's interesting, there's a theory that eventually humanity will split into two species; one being a species of genetically altered humans, a technology that only the elite will have access to.. and the other being normal humans, regularly devolving as stated.

In short:

Intelligence used to help survival because there was so little technology, and every bit of discovery made great improvements to the ability to survive for a human. Intelligent people would survive much better than their fellow humans (Or maybe neanderthals, etc) in such times.

Fast forward to modern times, and the average person can not even know where to start when faced with the complexity of modern medicine, technology, etc. It is a field that only the intelligent can contribute to, but anyone can benefit from.. so intelligence becomes an unnecessary mutation for survival, and the collective intelligence of humanity can not rise any more through normal evolution. The only way to raise human intelligence further in a modern world is through artificial selection, which is a taboo to society. You can't stop de-evolution because you would become a criminal in the eyes of other people.

[Roughneck]

Shankpin on May 3 2008, 08:55 PM, said:

but,  I can't change the world.

Actually, by butterfly effect, we have all changed the world just by being conceived.  It just might not be as obvious or immediate as other actions, but our presence in this world has an effect on a lot of scenarios.

Imagine you having not been born, how much different would your family's life have been?  Your parents will interact with different people at different times in a different manner.  This simple alternate reality will have a huge butterfly effect over time that could and probably would lead to a world so different than ours in the far future, it would be considered 'alien'.

Now imagine how much different the lives of everyone you've met would've been.  Even someone you once spent only an hour of your life with will have done something different in that one hour if you hadn't been born.

*Runs off to watch Donnie Darko*

Edited by Roughneck, 04 May 2008 - 09:30 AM.

[KBA]

lmbeharry on May 4 2008, 02:26 AM, said:

You are correct in many ways and "amoral" (not a bad thing) -at least you stated what's on your mind.
Past civilizations: notably Sparta and Rome culled their progeny for weakness. (Weak offspring were left to the gods of nature, wild dogs in Sparta, and wild dogs and the garbage pile in Rome).
But there is an inherent problem in testing for intelligence. Not all "gifted" people pass the test. Einstein was himself  "C" student...
Lastly, with regard to rich or "elite" people using genetic science to enhance their offspring, Star Trek TOS predicted this and it has already started. Hell, Hitler put it into practice 75 years ago, without the benefit of 21st century technology...
What a wondrous and scary time.. Just like all of human history...

I certainly won't tell you I'm not "amoral"..
It's difficult, when you're someone like me.. logical interpretation of events have almost completely overtaken emotional interpretation. You feel inhuman and yet everything and everyone says that you are supposed to be a human.

Regarding testing, that's very true. Like I was saying, it's hardly practical. A test score can change greatly depending on the mood or preparedness of the test taker. Now, there are potentially more objective ways of knowing.. that's debatable of course. And obviously intelligence is not the deciding factor in one's worth when creating and discovering.. if someone is intelligent and yet completely unmotivated, they are as useless as someone with only the most basic human intelligence. I myself received many an F for this very same reason when I was in school. Hardly because I couldn't get an A.. but because I felt no motivation.

Wondrous and scary indeed. What will be the limits of human progress? How will we surprise ourselves? Pandora's box is lying on a table in front of us, begging to be opened.. I wonder what we will do.

Some groups of farmers have been breeding their cows to build more muscle for a long time, and they end up with "super-cows".. there's absolutely nothing but societal recourse and ethical barriers preventing someone doing that to humans, but instead increasing the size of the brain in proportion to the size of the body. What would such a human be like? Probably nearly on the level of a God when compared with a normal human... hell, our natural geniuses are already revered as something of the sort.

Edited by KBA, 04 May 2008 - 10:37 AM.

[John from Lowell]

lmbeharry on May 4 2008, 04:26 AM, said:

You are correct in many ways and "amoral" (not a bad thing) -at least you stated what's on your mind.
Past civilizations: notably Sparta and Rome culled their progeny for weakness. (Weak offspring were left to the gods of nature, wild dogs in Sparta, and wild dogs and the garbage pile in Rome).
But there is an inherent problem in testing for intelligence. Not all "gifted" people pass the test. Einstein was himself  "C" student...
Lastly, with regard to rich or "elite" people using genetic science to enhance their offspring, Star Trek TOS predicted this and it has already started. Hell, Hitler put it into practice 75 years ago, without the benefit of 21st century technology...
What a wondrous and scary time.. Just like all of human history...

Interesting observation in reguard to testing for intelligence. I myself have the gift of dyslexia. I am the classic "C" student yet some testing will rate me with an unlimited potential for accomplishment. I understand that you work in the field of education. From what you have said I do think that you encourage thought and reflection from your students. Yet most of the material that is taught is about absolute truth and validation. History, math, and reading skills are directed at a student profile that has not changed in 60 years. I am 65.

How can I ask this question is a truly respectful manner? What has the educational system done to identify and cultivate the Einstein students in our culture? The many ADD and autistic children that are here with us at this time. They are seen as problems for the System and not as the gifts that they truly are.

I hope you can appreciate why I have asked this particular question.

John