The Force: has Technology trumped evolution?


Well-Known Member
Reaction score
The Force: has Technology trumped evolution?

Darwin informs us that natural selection, i.e. evolution, has been the guiding force determining the course of biological change. Natural selection, i.e. evolution, operates far too slowly to compete with Technology in the present and future determination of biological change.

Just ask the Polar Bear!

Is Technology the “true” meaning of Intelligent Design?
could be, definitely one of the characteristics of it; heidegger certainly thought technology/equipment would supercede philosophy as a means to future intellligence..
Yes and no. Is it an accident? Thinking Gaia theory....taking all life on Earth as a single organism.... with the same biological imperative as any organism...survival for reproduction... to reproduce Gaia would have to produce an organ (us) that was not at the mercy of evolutionary time, able to harness resources in far more complex ways, rapidly. So perhaps not trumped at all but rather enhanced or accelerated.
Technology is a crutch.
A prosthetic.
The true strength is within and technology helps us to realize this, but in our laziness and our greed we have become dependent on it.
Addicted to it.
This pattern must be transcended if we are to get to the next rung.
has Technology trumped evolution?
can you say invitro fertilization? or bioengineering? or surrogate mother?

as the weak genes survive as man decides, as man creates new variants and species and opens pandoras box...

it is man who has trumped evolution, by modifying creation.
Humans are the result of natural selection. Humans have evolved with the ability to develop technology. Technology has become strong enough to overcome the influence of natural selection because technology changes the natural world much faster than natural selection can act thus aborting natural selection.

Technology replaces natural selection because natural selection no longer has time to act except perhaps with insects because they reproduce very rapidly.
Technology can do nothing on its own. Even after invented humans half to make hundreds of decisions to proceed and push all the buttons, pull all the levers, stand in line and then mess with evolution.
I agree with wil. Technology impacts evolution but does not trump it. Technology outmaneuvers the adapatations evolution has shaped, but that is different than replacing it. Our brains may allow us to adapt technologies which allow us to survive in less than suitable environments, but in the long run we will be less fit as the world degrades from our pollution.

We change the environment which is one of the factors effecting evolution, but the dynamics of evolution are unchanged. One possible (likely) event is that we will change the environment so fast our own species will fail to survive, along with countless others.

McLuhan was, I guess, the first to express the insight that technology is an extension of the human body.

These hand-held gadgets for communication might very well represent the end of ‘understanding’ for almost all citizens by 2050. I can see it already on the Internet discussion forums where communication is becoming a stream of consciousness without coherent grammatical or thoughtful content or construction.

I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.

Suppose we establish a knowledge-to-understanding ratio K/U, i.e. the amount we know divided by the amount we understand (i.e. need to create).

I would say that a frontier family might have K/U ratio of 20/1. As time passes and there is less need for understanding (creativity) and more need for knowing because the demands of the frontier diminish and ‘civilization’ encroaches I would say the K/U ratio might go to 50/1.

After one hundred years I suspect the ratio might easily move to 100/1; after leaving the farm and moving to town and going to work in the factory the ratio might very well go to 1000/1.

Today’s modern man or woman may very well have a ratio of 10,000/1. The person with a PhD might very well have a ratio 100,000/1.

I have heard college professors say that you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it. I suspect a PhD who is also a long time teacher might have developed an understanding of many things and thus dropped the ratio back to 10,000/1.

I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum. Do you agree?
all it takes is one big rock and its all over for technology and back to the stick.
McLuhan was, I guess, the first to express the insight that technology is an extension of the human body.

I think that within the next 50 years ‘understanding’ will be only seen in a museum. Do you agree?

no, as mentioned previously heideggar's phenomenology had 'equipment' as an [extended] mode of being for the human [dasein]. And if only humans will be exhibited in museums within the next 50 years then yes l agree!