TED Conversations

Ahmed Ben Yaghlane

Student,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does evolution destroy us?

Evolution occurs when a mutation is beneficial to survival right? Well with us humans, we have civilizations and surviving in our time means being educated and getting a job and making money. Well could the next stage of our evolution be us merging with technology to make us more efficient? Or on a scarier thought, could we create computers and robots that surpass us, take us all out, and those robots continuously build more robots that surpass the last in an exponential growth of inteligence?Could that be the future of human evolution?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 22 2013: I am not an archaeologist nor am I an anthropologist. However, in my novice opinion, I think what you are talking about is speciation.

    Homo Homo Sapien has reached an evolutionary standstill. Our physical bodies are no longer evolving to our Earthly environment. However, our brains seem to still be evolving at an increasingly rapid race. I remember reading a study, I don't remember the source of it, that said human IQ is increasing an average of 3 points per decade - which is remarkable because everyone today thinks we're growing increasingly dumber which is obviously not the case.

    I think that, with this increase in intelligence, we are obviously exploring new ways of expanding human life through technology. I think that the most overwhelmingly important distinction between humans and animals is our dire need to survive as long and as populously as we can, hence why we have an average life span of 85 years old today as well as a population of 7 plus billion people.

    Technology is obviously what we need to study if we want to further expand human existence and finally take our evolution one step further by synthesizing the means to create a more complex human species. But, referring to my original point, I think that technology would speciate (or create new, separate species within the original population of humans) our existence and create a whole new dichotomy that might end up very poorly.

    I would imagine you would have naturalists versus technology-supplemented humans fighting each other economically, politically, educationally, etc.

    We would have a species of technology augmented super humans that can work longer hours, learn more effectively during educational courses. I think that the beginning of this evolution would start with economics. Technology-augmented humans would be employed more readily and for longer periods of time over the naturalist humans. This would at the very least create a rally against augmented humans for naturalist discriminatio
    • Jun 23 2013: "Our physical bodies are no longer evolving to our Earthly environment."

      This simply isn't true.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.