[Atlantic] ...someone in this generation will be the last human to eat a bluefin tuna

I disagree with the connotation of "crutch". We've definitely evolved along with technology, such as a stomach that doesn't like raw meat, enzymes to digest lactose beyond adolescence, immunity to domesticated animals (pandemics still possible) and behavioral and physiological changes to handle the burdens of society.

While it's true that we're dependent upon technology for wholesale survival, how would that be different than fishes requiring certain acid level in order to reproduce or survive? Ecosystems are finely tuned machines sometimes with animals geared towards one specific environmental condition. Some elements of technology act the same way.

It's arguable that a human without gradual and subtle evolutionary modifications from technology would have a harder time living in an industrial society. Then again, even Karl Malone can spawn, so the question over its fitness might be a red herring.

 

blame the japanese. i'm japanese so i can say that.

i don't have the statistics, but the japanese eat more fish and seafood than any other countries in the world, and it's not even close.

having lived there and often visiting, it's true. people love fish there, and what's not to love about a bluefin tuna sushi.

 

What do you win for eating the last one and how do you prove it ?

 

Many aspects of the ecosystem are probably doomed to collapse considering the trends, the alarm bells, and yet the dearth of action to be taken. Critical points have come and past.

Sharks, fish, whatever - the oceans are not in good shape. There's a pile of cancer-causing soaked garbage swirling around in the Pacific leaking into the fish you eat after all.

Humankind doesn't have the short-term incentive to adopt, and even as many realize what's going on, it's not enough to stop the inevitable march of 6 billion human beings.

Blue fins are just one thing. I'm curious as to what kinds of foods will be available in 50 years. I could envision where much of what we eat is scientifically grown as other natural means are exhausted.

 

Tying that back to what is natural I would say that the evolutionary changes you have cited are very much a crutch. That technology has handicapped some of our biological functions where we are dependent on it.

That is very true but a key difference I think between what we are doing and another organism occupying a narrow ecological niche is that we have created that condition. At the sametime as I noted earlier it has also created a situation of maladaption such as in regard to obesity related diseases.

Let me be clear that I am not a Luddite or advocating social Darwinism or eugenics. In terms of our evolutionary fitness while I think technology has skewed us far beyond what we might've been if we were limited to natural selection I still think we can't ignore what is happening to the global environment if just for the potential repurcussions to us as a civilization. I agree that the argument of fitness in a Darwinian sense is out the door when it comes to humans but we can still use our technology to try to preserve what is left of environment.

As for Karl Malone spawning unfortunately being dirty and brutish is often an evolutionary advantage.

 

Praise from Ceasar. :grin:

 

Damn right! I'm the emperor of environmental arguments here, and don't you forget it.

 

I doubt we could spread across the globe by natural means, but in doing so humanity has become genetically diverse. With fast travel, I think it gives credit to the study that humans are still evolving and at a quicker pace.

Where you see crutch, I view technology as competitive dominance for the species that has it.

On a personal level, did you build your car or generate all of your own electricity? Or rather, are you able to drop your job and current life and turn around to create any condition you wish?

I would say society created "our" condition. How most of us act in it are mostly incremental modifications to the conditions imposed by society. There are always individual outliers but we're playing with averages on a long term evolutionary scale. So a permanent electrical brown out in a locked region would be as cataclysmic as UV rays killing some frogs.

Darwinism is all about survival and big families.

Whether or not those "bad" traits should be/would be weeded out is irrelevant. In time, it could be people who could subsist on twinkies or the prions from Soylent Green who outlive everyone else.

Whether one is content with his ancestors turning up like that should be our concern. That will be humanity's personal legacy for raping the environment without abandon.

Invisible Fan thinks the advantage comes from referring to yourself in third person.