Do you think mankind is evolving or devolving?

On one hand, technology has progressed rather well, computerized age. Instant everything.

On the other hand...

well,

oi. :/

What are your thoughts?

I think technology has balanced us out as far as good and bad effects go.

We are more aware of things that are bad because of tech and it becomes an epidemic to some extent.
However we learn more about medicine and are slowly gaining momentum for the treatment of things both physical and mental.

Granted while our understanding of things brodens so does our ignorance on how to use the knowledge. But with each new thing discovered someone somewhere is doing something good with it.

Of course theres someone somewhere else doing something bad with it.

But now a days good and bad gets mixed up sometimes in perspective.

I think our moral standards are changing but that doesnt have to be a bad thing.

Speaking non-theologically of course.

One thing to consider today, is that technology has given us numerous ways to occupy our minds.
We have computers, video games, t.v., cell phones, etc., to keep our minds filled with busy-work.
I feel confident in venturing to say that we spend far less time contemplating than people did even 50 years ago.

We may also spend less time inter-relating.

What this will lead to, long term, is anyone's guess.

We are going backwards, we have come to a point where we believe ourselfs to be God like.

Do you think mankind is evolving or devolving?

On one hand, technology has progressed rather well, computerized age. Instant everything.Technology yields power.

The benefits are often overlooked. For me the great persuader is the recent international increase in life expectancy and quality. As far back as records go we can estimate it was less than 40 years for most of mankinds history. Then over the last 150 years it shot up to 60 or 70 in many countries. Indeed there are only a few isolated spots where it is lower than 40 (sadly Zimbabwe has joined the list recently).

Life expectancy is a misleading term of course and what really happened was international infant mortality rates dropped due to medical science. My own brother had to have an operation when he was 3 months old to save his life. It was a brand new technique and babies with his condition (ironically only a minor stomach defect but fatal if not addressed) just died only the year before.

Then there's Hirshima and gas chambers and surveillance technology in Soviet Russia and so on. But personally I don't think the bad has come anywhere close to the good. I think there is a very real and very severe danger due to the power of knowledge and technology, but what would humankind be if it never took risks?

Mankind continues to evolve.

Despite setbacks in certain areas when taken as a whole mankind is still evolving. We live longer and better than did our parents and grandparents and our children will live longer and better than we do.

Fewer people did of childhood diseases, fewer people starve to death, fewer people burn their bodies out by age forty.

The world is our oyster.

I've read from two sources that the IQs of Americans are increasing. Perhaps due to our higher technologies we've been introduced to.

You are a retard, Darth. Average IQ cannot increase, because it is a normalized measurement. The average IQ is always 100

Well gee, Napsterbater, then why oh why did I read an article on that very subject several years back?

You are a retard, Darth. Average IQ cannot increase, because it is a normalized measurement. The average IQ is always 100

Perhaps you were a bit harsh Napster...Darth never mentioned "average" IQ at all...he posted that the IQ of Americans was increasing.

Which is meaningless. Either they are scoring the tests wrong or they are doing it differently.

Life expectancy is a misleading term of course and what really happened was international infant mortality rates dropped due to medical science. My own brother had to have an operation when he was 3 months old to save his life. It was a brand new technique and babies with his condition (ironically only a minor stomach defect but fatal if not addressed) just died only the year before.which brings up what I was going to say. Physically we are devolving. Now thatnk to these new techniques as well as new medicine and the like these trait will not be weeded out of the gene pool but rather passed on and treated every time they occur.

Mentally we are evolving (ideas build upon themselves).

Here you go, Napster, read it and weep!


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html

If you were talking about the Flynn effect, you should have said so. Saying that IQ scores rise makes you look like a retard.

Technology has become our way of life,but morally I think we are going down the drain in every which way.

Fewer people did of childhood diseases, fewer people starve to death, fewer people burn their bodies out by age forty.
.

Instead of burning our bodies out at forty, we turn into slobs at 20, can I have fries with that. Kids are more obese then ever in history, this is not a good thing. We may have learned how to have food on the table that does not mean we know how to eat it. As far as the age rate goes this is to hard to compare for reason mentioned earlier. Take in the amount of people dying from disease and nothing as really changed except the living birth rate. We have pumped the planet full of toxins we are lazy and we except no responsibilty for our personal actions. This is not becoming better it is becomming lazier and it will bite us in the arse sooner or later.

Instead of burning our bodies out at forty, we turn into slobs at 20, can I have fries with that. Kids are more obese then ever in history, this is not a good thing. We may have learned how to have food on the table that does not mean we know how to eat it. As far as the age rate goes this is to hard to compare for reason mentioned earlier. Take in the amount of people dying from disease and nothing as really changed except the living birth rate. We have pumped the planet full of toxins we are lazy and we except no responsibilty for our personal actions. This is not becoming better it is becomming lazier and it will bite us in the arse sooner or later.

I agree with that

Over-eating is a problem, but a luxurious one. In my book it's on a different page to the abysmal tragidies that plague the life of poverty and manual labour most people throughout history have endured.

Instead of burning our bodies out at forty, we turn into slobs at 20,

The difference is, they burned out from necessity. We turn into slobs of our own free will.

Sure we are seeing more and different diseases. That is because people are living longer so that they can get them. Where children used to die before age five of such things as diarrhea, croup, polio, etc., they are now living into old age and dying of cancer and heart disease.

Instead of burning our bodies out at forty, we turn into slobs at 20,

The difference is, they burned out from necessity. We turn into slobs of our own free will.

Sure we are seeing more and different diseases. That is because people are living longer so that they can get them. Where children used to die before age five of such things as diarrhea, croup, polio, etc., they are now living into old age and dying of cancer and heart disease.
Surely they must have found the cure for cancer by now, don't you think so? ALLLL that money and research poured into that study. I think the only problem with that is only the rich can eat from that table. Just like those who get aids. Societys beloved can afford the life saving treatments, the poor die off.

But yes, although technology is advancing in great lengths and is a beneficial, I wonder if the train runs out of track when we finally lose that last strand of moral fiber though.
Yes, the difference between my generation and this is, I burned out my body living live to the fullest. These kids these days live their lives to the least. No drives, no desires, no ambition. Sad really.
I wonder what the worlds going to be like when they are in charge?

Surely they must have found the cure for cancer by now, don't you think so? ALLLL that money and research poured into that study. I think the only problem with that is only the rich can eat from that table. Just like those who get aids. Societys beloved can afford the life saving treatments, the poor die off.

It is a fact that the rich will get much better treatment.

But yes, although technology is advancing in great lengths and is a beneficial, I wonder if the train runs out of track when we finally lose that last strand of moral fiber though.

how much is going to be too much

Yes, the difference between my generation and this is, I burned out my body living live to the fullest. These kids these days live their lives to the least. No drives, no desires, no ambition. Sad really.
I wonder what the worlds going to be like when they are in charge?

Exactly, half{more} the kids I meet today don't even have an imagination. Take them away from their xbox TV or computer and they just stand there like mindless twits. Hardships make the mind work, luxuries make people stupid and lazy.

PS Oh, I'm not arguing the fact of eating better learning more medical etc...

how much is going to be too much





That's a million dollar question, my friend.

Your post is a bit misleading, Imp. You make it seem like the rich are living longer because they can afford medical treatment and the poor are dying off like flies. That simply isn't so.

While it is true the rich can afford better treatment the poor are also receiving better treatment than ever before.

Imp I had no problem understanding your point. I believe Frogger does also, deep down.

While it is true the rich can afford better treatment the poor are also receiving better treatment than ever before.

Just because treatments of today may be better then 1420 does not mean the poor are recieving it.

Imp I had no problem understanding your point. I believe Frogger does also, deep down.

Very well, that is good to know. :cool:
I often fail miserably in trying to communicate my feelings, esp. in text form.

Your post is a bit misleading, Imp. You make it seem like the rich are living longer because they can afford medical treatment and the poor are dying off like flies. That simply isn't so.

While it is true the rich can afford better treatment the poor are also receiving better treatment than ever before.


Let me ask you this, frogger. Do you think they have the cure for cancer yet?

I think they do. I think they may have had it for quite a while now.

When aids hit, they worked very fast to find the cure, which I believe they also have now.

What I was trying to say was, they have priced the medicine for the cure at outragous prices. You have to have loads of cash before they would consider giving it to you. It won't make sense to cure everyone of cancer, then folk would live longer lives, then comes over population,etc.

Look at Shaq

Just because treatments of today may be better then 1420 does not mean the poor are recieving it.The poor are receiving some of the treatments. This is may not be as much as the rich but is certainly much better than anything anyone could get in 1420. You only have to look at the success of international vaccination programmes. The life expectancy in all but a few forsaken pockets of the world are better now than for anyone back in the day.

Of course, medicine is not an exact science and, for example, although malaria was almost eradicated in the mid 20th century they screwed it up and it came back. Malaria is now one of the biggest killers in Africa because of lack of money.

But overall, generally, and with exceptions, life expectancy and quality has improved dramatically over the last 150 years or so. Those of you complaining about obesity or "moral decline" (heh - that tickles me. You'd think slavery, sexism and homophobia never existed reading this thread) are lacking a sense of proportion IMO.

Let me ask you this, frogger. Do you think they have the cure for cancer yet?

I think they do. I think they may have had it for quite a while now.Who are "they"? How many people have to be kept quiet to keep the lid on this? How are the thousands of experts and researchers round the world kept ignorant of this cure?

Drug price fixing and with-holding information goes on in the pharmaceutical industry, yes. But your conspiracy theory is far far more elaborate and improbable.

But your conspiracy theory is far far more elaborate and improbable.

Come on, Blob, it's obvious. They're going to make billions of dollars by not selling possibly the most important drug ever developed. It's genius!

Imp,

By saying you think they have a cure for cancer you show a lack of understanding as to what cancer is. Cancer is not a monolithic disease where a cure for one is a cure for all. Cancer is a specific type of diseasenot a single disease. There is Squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, mesothelioma, actinic keratosis, Karposi's sarcoma, etc.. Cancers also attack different parts of the body, ie, breast, liver, skin, blood, brain, prostate, esophagus, etc..

What works for one type cancer might not necessarily work for another type. As we slowly unravel what causes various cancers we are seeing then either being cured or at least life spans being vastly expanded.

The wealthy have always had better medical care and always will unless you want to make it illegal to pay for the best care you can possibly afford. The only wa to stop th wealthy from receiving better medical care is to forbid people to pay for medical care under penalty of law.

Even though the poor do not receive the same medical care as the rich they receive much better medical care today than ever before in history. Poor people receive AIDS medication subsidized by their less poor neighbors. Poor people in Africa receive AIDS medications paid for by people in wealthier countries. Walk in clinics are available in every large town where poor people can go for free care. Emergency rooms at hospitals must care for those who come in whether they are wealthy or not.

Of course there are differences in the ways people live and some of these differences are tied to wealth but to say the poor don't receive the benefits of our much better medical treatment as compared to the past is wrong.

Probably the difference lies in the fact that a person of wealth can afford better preventive medical care.
Early detection, supposedly, increases the chance of successful treatment.