Scott on :
Trek West 5 rocks. I wish they would podcast twice a week.
Monday, June 22. 2009Podcast 23: A perfect 10? or Why won't Joey shut up?
I couldn't decide which title to choose for this podcast, so I figured why not use a throw back from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle days. We did indeed see our first rating of 10 (though it does have an asterisk). And lastly, Joey really had a ton to say about The Nth Degree. We actually cut a bunch more that didn't make it in. Thankfully I am in charge of telling Joey what to cut. :) This podcast covers episodes 17-20 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 4.
Various topics discussed in this podcast include: Listener comment/question - Leah Locked in Syndrome Dreaming - Directed or otherwiseXKCD comic What is your fear? Joey plots the next step of human evolution Joey won't shut up about the Nth Degree The difference between fantasy and acting Becoming who you want to be What sort of boss should I be? Direct MP3 Download RSS Feed Subscribe Using iTunes Here are the ratings that we gave for each show: Night Terrors: 34min 27sec
Peter: SciFi - 6 Television - 3 Joey: SciFi - 6 Television - 3 Identity Crisis: 25min 56sec Peter: SciFi - 8 Television - 4 Joey: SciFi - 7 Television - 4 The Nth Degree: 55min 23sec Peter: SciFi - 10* Television - 5 Joey: SciFi - 9.5 Television - 5 Qpid: 43min 14sec Peter: SciFi - 4 Television - 7 Joey: SciFi - 6 Television - 5 If you have something to say then we welcome your comments below, or feel free to email us at [email protected]. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Johnny Elbows on :
Regarding your human evolution question, I think that in a lot of ways, humanity is and will continue to be stagnant.
Evolution requires evolutionary pressures, or systems that favor the reproduction of certain genotypes. Our medical advances have made it so that, by and large, people with all genotypes have the ability to reproduce. As a result of this, evolutionary pressures have been greatly reduced, and so, I doubt that evolution will really proceed in any meaningful way until some evolutionary pressures emerge. Radar on :
I was about to disagree until I read the word meaningful. I think we are continually evolving in some form or another. Are we growing a third arm? No, but other changes are happening. Consult your local scientist for a list of such changes.
A question I would like to pursue is, does evolutionary change have to mean a good change? Typically I think of evolution as a species getting "strong/smarter/better" in some measurable way. Perhaps evolution should also mean negative as well. Increased rates of cancer or heart disease could be our environment trying to keep us from growing too strong. Johnny Elbows on :
You're making it sound like increased rates of heart disease and/or cancer are a result of evolution. I would disagree. I would say that these are caused by poor diet, lack of exercise, and increased pollution. This is not evolution.
Evolution is gradual change in genetic makeup. This change usually enhances the viability of the species, because, at least in the past, only the organisms that were most fit would survive to reproduce. We have changed that dynamic through our medical technology, and in so doing, we have caused our genetic makeup to stagnate. You also seem to be implying that our environment is taking intelligent action against us. I really don't think that our environment is taking active action against us. Rather, we have made our own environment toxic, and we are suffering the consequences. Radar on :
You are right, I did anthropomorphize nature for the sake of my argument. It makes it easier to explain in my mind.
Evolution happens because of changes in environment. Whether those changes are caused by the environment itself, or what man has done to the environment, or some big asteroid makes no difference in my mind. Some species begin to thrive in those circumstances and others fade out. Either way the weak are culled. Colon cancer can be argued, in my mind, a type culling. Heart disease is a culling. I am curious why you think our medical technology has caused our genetic makeup to stagnate. Is it because people aren't being removed from the gene-pool? Johnny Elbows on :
You're right, colon cancer and heart disease are a culling. However, this culling isn't happening before the individual carriers reproduce, so they are passing their susceptibility to colon cancer and/or heart disease on to their children. These propensities never become less prevalent, because our medical technology and the late onset of these diseases means that the carriers are alive long enough to reproduce.
If the culling that you refer to occurred before they reproduced, then the propensity for colon cancer and/or heart disease would gradually disappear from the gene pool. This is evolution. However, since the pressures that keep diseased individuals from reproducing have been reduced, evolution has slowed, and our gene pool is stagnating. Radar on :
You are right. Perhaps a better analogy would be what, Autism? Does the end effect of evolution mean that one is unable to pass along their genetic code? That is a pretty limiting definition of evolution isn't? Couldn't it be broadened? Perhaps in this conversation we have limited ourselves due to the examples we used.
Here is one other question to pose to you: Is environment the only means of imposing/allowing evolution? Or does "environment" because the catch-all for everything? Johnny Elbows on :
Evolutionary pressures favor the reproduction of some individuals, and inhibit the reproduction of other individuals. That is how genetic evolution works: the genotypes that are able to reproduce most often become more common, and the genotypes that are able to reproduce less often become less common. In genetic evolution, the environment is the only source of evolutionary pressures, but the environment can include the society of the individual.
There are other types of evolution, eg. societal evolution, but in my opinion, societal evolution is cyclical, not progressive, while genetic evolution is progressive. Radar on :
So where does our species take it's next step? Where should we go? Joey surmised that it would be an intellectual step.
Johnny Elbows on :
Like I said before, while I think that our society will continue to change, I think that we, as a species have stagnated. I don't think that we will change as a species except to become more and more reliant on our machines to isolate us from our environment. I don't view this as evolution, because it isn't a permanent change to our genetic makeup, but rather as a change to our habits.
Ancient of Days on :
The Robots have informed me that they are please with Johnny's proposed future for mankind.
The Mad Giggler on :
Is this a reference to Jon Madsen's blog?
Radar on :
I think this is more of a reference to a comment Joey made in the podcast about robots. But I could be wrong, Joey?
Ancient of Days on :
It was a reference to a conversation I had with my brother, known here sometimes as 'Anon', where he opined: "Why don't you guys just hurry up and create SkyNet already so I don't have to worry about [the consequences of some action he'd taken]?"
That may have been mentioned on the podcast, but perhaps not - I can't recall anymore what parts of my life are real and what parts are just "between podcasts". The Mad Giggler on :
I think we'll see an inclination towards lower IQ emerge as the driving evolutionary force. Studies show that people with more education have fewer children.
Radar on :
Is that because they spend so much of their time in "other" pursuits. Or is it because dumb people are so limited that the only "fun" things that they can think to do are sex?
The Mad Giggler on :
I don't think the studies have really investigated causation, merely correlation.
Ancient of Days on :
"the genotypes that are able to reproduce most often become more common, and the genotypes that are able to reproduce less often become less common"
So, this sort of answers my earlier question, causing me to feel the need to refine it. You seem to be asserting that there is no longer an environment where certain genotypes are able to reproduce more easily than others. I reject this assertion, and have begun an article stating my case, as what I've written thus far is already well over the limit of characters allowed in a comment. Ancient of Days on :
Also: How many people do I need to...err, make that, 'need to die'...in order to create 'evolutionary pressure'?
Johnny Elbows on :
Your plans for world domination must ultimately fail. :)
I think you would have to kill a lot of people to introduce evolutionary pressure. Radar on :
Don't put it past him. AoD is a very resourceful person. but don't worry, one day I will "chip" him and then we will be able to follow him wherever he goes.
Daboo on :
I don't think you'd necessarily have to kill a lot of people. Just a lot of females. If there were fewer females, the males would have to compete harder to be able to reproduce. As it is, if you strike out with one girl you just move on to the next. You cads. ;)
Ancient of Days on :
Are you asserting that the only significant evolutionary pressure is what Radar is referring to as "culling"? What about the tendency of people to seek a particular type of mate, or the environmental conditions we've created, etc.? Are not these valid sources for "evolutionary pressure"?
Johnny Elbows on :
The environmental conditions that we've created also create a culling effect. For example, environmental conditions have caused the average sperm count to go down. This means that fewer couples are able to produce viable offspring, so even though the couples are alive, they are culled from the gene pool. We are, however, in many cases, overcoming this effect through fertility treatments, thus making it so that couples that would have been culled from the gene pool by evolutionary pressures are able to reproduce.
As for the tendency of people to seek a particular type of mate, there are parts of that tendency that are genetic, and parts that are societal. Since I can't think of any evolutionary pressures that are currently affecting the genetic portion of that tendency, I would assume that it is remaining static. As for the societal portion, I believe that it is cyclical, and will thus have a net zero effect on human evolution in the long term. The Mad Giggler on :
Dang it. Now I'm going to have to investigate cloning. I can't have my genes removed from the gene pool. The world deserves me.
Radar on :
I agree, the world should be infected with more Giggles.
joN. on :
shee-oot, i'm obviously a couple of days late. i was gonna say that i didn't believe the next step of evolution was gonna be intellectual, but cosmetic -- which i think is more of a societal thing. elbows made some good points that such things are cyclical which is probably true, unless we never grow out of our current hatred for body hair and all things mammalian. body hair is unattractive so i'd guess our next step is to go more reptilian.
actually with genetic stagnation could come the effect of devolution. you know the band devo? the guys who sing "whip it"? their whole band concept is based on devolution which is where they assume humanity is heading. this is very possible especially considering that for some reason smart people have evolved to the point of not procreating anymore for whatever reason. ever see the fifth element? remember how annoying chris tucker is in that movie? you think, why is he so popular, but bruce willis's character is such a stud, yet he's a lowly cab driver? the ideals of strength, agility and intelligence had gone all dodo. |
Items of InterestTrekWest5 Subscriber Count: Syndicate This Blog |
