the idea of "devolution" is absurd, if you understand evolutionary theory. it makes a great plot device in science fiction, though.
Totally wrong. Understanding evolution should mean a better understanding of the desasterous long term effects of medical science. But we don't have to worry, that is a problem for some other distand future generation to worry about. Also medical science is hard at work developing 'super bugs' (as you mentioned) for future generations to enjoy as well.
from the wikipedia article on
biological devolution:
"In common parlance, "devolution" is the perceived evolution of a species into more "primitive" forms. From a biological perspective, devolution does not exist.[1] Lay people may see evolution as "progress", reflecting the ideas of Lamarckism, but scientists recognize that evolution by natural selection is directionless, and so "devolution" is still actually evolution."
nature isn't a person. nature is a category, an idea. sometimes it's put in opposition to artifice, sometimes civilization, sometimes man, and sometimes intelligence. but if you grant that human beings are animals who evolved 'naturally,' then everything we do is our natural behavior. this includes medical technology.
Nature is a rock solid mathematical force applied to all life and governed by the laws of physics in its utelisation of the recources it has available to it.
Nature is also very strongly governed by history; ie all the pieces that have been in play for long periods of time. Technology introduces many new unhistorical radical elements into nature, i mean it is almost like what happens to a body when exposed to high dodes of radiation.
In all of history, on a planitary scale, there is no greater force of distruction than technology,,, except perhaps the occasional asteroid strike!!! so i guess if technology can save Earth from another asteroid then perhaps that will make up for all we have destroyed??
make it up to whom? to "nature"? is she sitting at her desk thinking, "these humans cost me so much"?
it seems like either you didn't get my point, or that i didn't see how what you said relates to it. or not, i dunno. the root of my point was philosophical-epistemological, and it had to do with categories of knowing. nature isn't "a rock solid mathematical force applied to all life and governed by the laws of physics..." Rather,
natural phenomena are rock solid forces which can be
described mathematically and
reduced to processes described by the presumably knowable laws of physics. there's a difference. we group those phenomena into a category we call nature, and when it's useful to us we group other phenomenon into other categories (such as sociality, spirituality, or art). but why we categorize them in that way has nothing to do with those phenomena as they are, but rather our perception of them. if we, human beings, are natural phenomena, and everything we do can be reduced to terms of physics (which i believe is likely), then those other categories aren't inherent, but merely convenient.
the conception of nature you employ can enable certain fallacious lines of thought, for example that nature utilizes resources available to it. life forms do that, but not "nature" herself. in this particular case, this is the
reification fallacy:
"Reification (also known as hypostatization or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not one. When people describe nonbiological events (like a geyser) or social institutions (like government) as alive, they are committing a reification fallacy.
Note that reification is perfectly acceptable in literature and other forms of discourse where reified abstractions are understood to be intended metaphorically, for example, "Justice is blind." The use of reification in logical arguments is a mistake (fallacy), for example, "Justice is blind; the blind cannot read; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In rhetoric it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly.
Pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy (in literature known as personification) is a specific subset of reification, where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but human-like and intelligent."
i think your definition of nature could contain an implicit contradiction. you say nature can be reduced physical processes defined in mathematical terms. this is agree with; this would seem to be an argument arising from
philosophical naturalism. but you then say that nature uses resources, not only personifying "her" but also imbuing her with a purpose (using resources), which is
teleological. the only way i can see that these two things might be reconciled logically is if you believe in some kind of mother nature spirit; i wouldn't argue against that, out of respect for others' beliefs, though i do think for the sake of clarity it's something that should be explicitly stated if it is part of your reasoning.
the "misconceptions about evolution" section to the devolution line i provided above has many similar points:
Misconceptions about Evolution
Species evolve because they need to in order to adapt to environmental changes.
Biologists refer to this misconception as teleology, the idea of intrinsic finality that things are "supposed" to be and behave a certain way, and naturally tend to act that way to pursue their own good. As the fossil record demonstrates that more than ninety nine percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct it is clear that most species do not evolve despite radical environmental changes. From a biological viewpoint, when species evolve it is not a reaction to necessity, but rather that the population contains variations with traits that favour their natural selection.
Evolution means progress to more advanced organisms.
This presumes that there is somehow a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, for example that "feet are better than hooves" or "lungs are better than gills", and can lead to the idea that change to "less advanced" structure can be called "devolution". To biologists this is an aspect of teleology, the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. A biologist sees all such changes as evolution, since for the organisms possessing the changed structures, each is a useful adaptation to their circumstances. For example, hooves have advantages for running quickly on plains as horses do, and feet have advantages in climbing trees as the ancestors of humans did.
Humans are the ultimate product or goal of evolution.
This belief is related to anthropocentrism, the idea that human existence is the point of all universal existence, and is a variation on the idea of "progress". To a biologist, describing the biological evolutionary process as goal-oriented would seem as ludicrous as a physicist claiming that the ultimate goal of gravity is to keep the Earth in its present orbit.
Increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution.
Biologists have evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution. The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a decrease in complexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hoofed toe. Modern humans may be evolving towards never having wisdom teeth, and already have lost the tail found in many other mammals - not to mention other vestigial structures, such as the vermiform appendix or the nictitating membrane.
GalCiv2 Forums
