Evolution Question... please enlighten me!

[_EAllusion]

Nucleic acids, including genes, and their protein army reproduce because they are physically structured in such a way that they will reproduce. It is as simple as that. Understanding the "why" here is a matter of understanding basic physical chemistry and reaction rates. If you ask why this chemistry occurs, then you are dealing with physics and forces. You can keep on asking why, and you'll eventually just be left with some set of brute facts that are answered, "I don't know. It just is."

[_Some Schmo]

I agree, except for this...

I suspect that what we think about sex is merely our conscious mind interpreting the impulses we have wired into us. It’s not like we consciously think, “I like sex. It feels good. Therefore, I shall seek more” and our bodies respond to it.

Actually, that is precisely how it happens in most cases. The only kind of sexual attraction humans are familiar with is the conscious kind. It isn't as if a male blind from birth could someday rub up against a woman and get aroused because his body just has that sexual attraction "wired" into him. He has to be conscious of what it is, along with an expectation of the pleasure that would come from it.

So then every other organism on the planet that desires sex does so because they made a conscious decision to like it, or due to their instincts? Do instincts only apply to animals? I hate to break it to you, but humans are animals too.

It seems rather obvious to me that instincts come first, and consciousness comes second (in the process of interpreting instinctive impulses). That you'd attempt to dispute this says more about your desire to debate than it does your interest in being accurate or truthful.

Obviously, it’s the other way around, and our brain is articulating (and making assumptions which are most definitely subject to error about) what the body is telling it.

I've seen no evidence for this.

Then you aren't looking for it. I can't say I find this particularly surprising.

Whether on the prowl at clubs or masturbating alone at home, sexual gratification is a conscious act. It is usually premeditated and as TD correctly pointed out, humans have figured out that the brain is the most powerful sexual organ there is. Some of the best orgasms out there involve one person acting alone. Whether we're talking about wet dreams or the unintended boner, it is the conscious mind that sparks sexual impulses, not vice versa.

You think it's your conscious that directs giving you wet dreams and boners? Seriously? Do you mean to use the word 'conscious' interchangeably with 'will'? Just because you think something doesn't mean you are trying to think it. If boners were willed, why would anyone need Viagra?

Again, if you really think that your consciousness directs your instincts, well... there's nothing anyone can say to you. I imagine you'd have a very hard time finding anyone with any knowledge on the subject backing you up, but so be it.

[_truth dancer]

Thanks to all those who are sharing insight and information!

Y'all rock!

That said, sometimes not having children is the wise decision. It is quite common among mammals for species to avoid reproduction in times where it appears the resources aren't there to sustain the offspring. Not "wanting" to reproduce isn't that uncommon.

Hi EA,

Thanks for your thoughts.

So here is the thing... how do these species "know" there are not enough resources? And, could it be that there is something in the human, (I'm talking very, very primitive), that "knows" (in the way animals know), that our species must limit its numbers?

In other words, while we think our move toward fewer, or no children is because we just don't want them (not me personally but generally), could it be that it is really a "sense" that our planet can't provide for unlimited numbers of people?

Along with the knowledge perhaps there is this sense?

I wonder if by being educated, a new (perhaps unconscious) "awareness" (not sure the right word to use here) comes forth that in some ways helps our species adapt to the current world, but at the same time it is thwarting the continuation of the DNA of those who are better educated, which would mean they are not the "fittest" assuming the fittest survive.

Does that make sense?


~td~

[_JAK]

truth dancer,

Most species are able to recognize environmental changes which are threatening. While we live in heated and air-conditioned places, if we were forced to live anywhere outside, we would understand the effects of diminished food, cold, heat, and any other factors which would inhibit our natural inclinations. We need food to survive. If food were in very short supply, that search for food would take priority over other things. If we were forced to survive in the outdoors in temperatures below our comfort level, we would spend our time searching for a warmer place.

There are numerous reasons in our human, thoughtful assessment of our condition (which includes our wealth, our personal interests, goals, or ambitions) which affect our desire to have children (or even to have sex). Those reasons, as we think or experience harshness of elements or societal situation all play a role in what we know and how we interpret and respond to that.

In lower animal forms, while they don’t think in the way we can, they are aware of the comfort zone in which they exist. Pollution, for example, affects the “life” of frogs or earthworms or any of many living organisms which may survive in marginal environments. But, as conditions become more harsh, the number of a species is diminished. Consider the reduction of the polar bear population. We humans can account for conditional changes that have reduced their numbers. While the polar bears don’t think as we do, they still recognize the environmental changes which reduce their food supply, their normal climate, and their reproductive capacity.

Unlike many in the animal world, we have controlled our environment more directly. As conditions for a given animal or even tree or flower become unfriendly, they have some capacity to adapt. But they lack the capacity which we have, with wealth, to alter our environment for survival.

Humans who are homeless, live on the streets, lack medical care, and all the rest that goes with being homeless. They are unable to control their environment in the same way we with computers have the capacity to adapt to changes that threaten us. (If we have computers, we likely have homes, apartments, cars, etc.)

If we lacked sufficient food, we would recognize that. Lower animal forms also recognize a reduction in available food supply. It is interest to note that much sea life in the deep parts of the ocean has little to no need to evolve because conditions have remained the same for tens of thousands of years. Organisms which live on the surface of this planet have been subjected to much greater change in their environment. Prehistoric man (no language, no recorded history) sought environment of more comfort generally. They did not always succeed, and we know from artifacts about the disappearance of species. The dinosaur, for example, could not survive environmental changes which likely occurred rapidly. Since their time to reproduce was longer than their time to adapt to radical change in their environment, they became extinct. Dinosaur Extinction.

Your original question: “…how do these species ‘know’ there are not enough resources” is a good one. They do know, but they don’t know in the same sense that we humans who process much information. Threat of starvation, for example, reduces the quantity of a species. Those who do starve faster than they reproduce their species are diminished in the total number of the species. Reality of living conditions is imposed upon all species. Each responds to its environment.

This said, we also understand that too favorable conditions cause species to become so prolific as to crowd out others (and ultimately threaten themselves). What is very favorable for one species is certain to be less favorable for another. (Big fish eat little fish). A species threatened by situation must adapt. It must increase its reproduction rate or risk becoming extinct. Or, it must move to a location in which it is less threatened by the environment. Again the knowledge is not processed in language as we humans process knowledge. But the reality of environment is recognized. Threat is recognized.

[_truth dancer]

Hey JAK,

Thanks for your insights.

So, is it possible that our conscious choice to not reproduce may actually be in response to a sense that we are becoming too prolific, even as we believe it is because we just don't want children?

Also, what do you think about the idea that, (since the more education the less children), those whose offspring will survive will be those who are less educated? In other words, the less educated adapt the best.

Might our very knowledge (awareness, desires), at this point in history actually be thwarting our survival?

And then again, as has been pointed out, the Muslim population seems to be the group that is producing offspring faster than about any other but I still think the education = less children phenomenon still applies.

Thanks again to all those who are shedding light on this topic for me.

:-)

~td~

[_JAK]

truth dancer,

You refer to “TAK” after a post of mine. I may have missed it.

JAK here:

It is indeed not only possible but likely that some people choose not to have children. We have several friends (married couples) who have no children, and it is by choice. The reasons are different. But present information makes it quite possible for couples to remain childless by choice. That might have been more difficult in times past before reliable birth control and information about birth control.

Generally, the people we know are not much concerned about global overpopulation. They have more personal concerns such as propensity for congenital disease in both families, careers which are fulfilling and demanding on each, and one couple which is byracial. They felt (rightly or not) that having a child or children would be challenging to both them and their children. It’s far more common now and accepted than at the time they chose to remain childless. But, it was a choice.

With a limited income, more children often can reduce the quality of life and the quality of education which people can afford for their children. We also know some couples who have two children and no more. It was a choice. They felt they wanted to provide maximum educational benefits as well as enjoy their own lives. Their choice was planned parenthood. We think they are good parents. Had they kept having children, there is no question that they would have been unable to provide the level of experience and education which they have been able to provide for their two.

Our “survival” once was dependent upon having more children. Disease and death threatened in a way they do not today. That is not to say we don’t have disease and death. Of course we do. But the opposite is likely the case with regard to preservation of human life. That is, too many people for the planet to support, at a consumption rate that depletes the capacity of the planet to support that life, is a greater threat. Humans are not presently an endangered species as a result of reduced births by choice. We are endangered by too many people and too little food and resources to support growing population globally.

If humans contribute to a climate change that goes beyond recovery that will support human life, the human species will diminish or disappear. Most scientific estimates are that 95 to 99% of ALL species that have existed on this planet over its 4.5 billion years are now extinct. So even if we take the low estimates, human survival as a species is unlikely over much time. There are many possible events which could terminate the human species beyond the control of any humans. While the dinosaurs lasted 165,000,000 years by best scientific analysis, dinosaurs as they once were are gone. We have evidence of them because they were large. We have artifacts. But much smaller life forms have come and gone. We have no trace of many or most of them. They have been absorbed by the planet. The fossil fuel on which we rely is provided by long-since dead living organisms.

As the Muslim population may well join the world of the better educated, their culture (like all cultures) evolves into something different as generation builds on previous generation. Muslims are no more static than any other group (culture). Modern women in Islam are becoming educated. They are abandoning some of their previous, mandated dress codes. Many of these women are becoming business women with an independence not previously enjoyed by Muslim women. Muslims (both men and women) also travel more. They see what is happening in countries like the United States so far as legal treatment of men and women.

[_truth dancer]

Hey JAK,

Sorry about the mistake, my fingers often type something other than what my mind is thinking!

Thanks again for your insights.

Yeah, I'm thinking humans are not going to be around for long (comparatively speaking). I think we will invent some artificial intelligence that will ultimately replace (or overtake), humans, but that is a ways off! :-)

I do wonder what sorts of traits or abilities will help humans survive into the next millennia. I'm thinking those who can manage or reduce stress in their lives would be one of the main ones. Also, those whose physiology can manage carbohydrates better than we, as a species currently do. As always those with more resources will do better.

And, as you mention it seems those with only one or two children can provide better for them physically, emotionally, and educationally which of course is a great advantage (think China).

I think you are right that the traditional Muslim population will eventually move toward the rest of civilization regarding human rights and equality. It is slow going but I do see it happening right here in the US.

But then again, the Rapture may happen and we will all be destroyed!

:-)

~td~

[_JAK]

That’s quite all right. After all, you had two out of three RIGHT.

It would be interesting to be around in 100 years to see the status of global pollution and what the global human population is then.

Date for the following: 10-02-2000

1 Billion humans = 1830

2 Billion humans = 1925

3 Billion humans = 1960

4 Billion humans = 1975

5 Billion humans = 1988

6 Billion humans = 1999

JAK

[_truth dancer]

Hi JAK,

Interesting stats! WOW!

So the first billion took about 150,000 years (or so... smile).

The second billion, 95 years.

Third billion 35 years.

Fourth billion 15 years.

Fifth billion 13 years.

Sixth billion 11 years.

It has been ten years and we still have not hit seven billion so maybe we are slowing down a bit?

~td~

[_JAK]

Evidence

Malnutrition and starvation make immediate threat on half of the 6 billion. Procreation may be slowing. Even if it is, it’s a serious question as to whether even the present population may have pushed the ecology which supports human life too far. We will not live long enough to witness that.

This assumes there is no catastrophic event such as an asteroid (perhaps miles in diameter) striking the earth. Such an event would result in lowering of global temperatures by perhaps 100 degrees or more. In such a case, humans might disappear as quickly as did the dinosaurs. They occupied the planet earth from their early evolution to 65,000,000 years ago.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2 Scroll down for the timeline.

“The era from about 240 million years ago to about 65 million years ago is called the Mesozoic Era. At the beginning of this era, the earth still had just one giant continent, Pangaea, but by the end the land had drifted apart until the continents were separate and almost like they are today. The Mesozoic Era is called the age of reptiles, and that includes DINOSAURS! During the almost 200 million years of the Mesozoic Era many, many kinds of dinosaurs lived on earth from little ones about the size of a chicken to the giant of giants, the 85 foot long Brachiosaurus. At the end of the Mesozoic Era all of the dinosaurs died out in a huge extinction.”

Exhibit 3 Scroll to the bottom.

There is much more, but I’ll not bore you. 