you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

evolution supposedly boils down to randomness

Those who evolve at random, would be the first to die out. All cells constantly mutate. Our actions and lifestyle put all cells in our body under directed stress. Cells incompatible with our actions die faster. Compatible cells, prosper and multiply. This way, our evolution is not random.

Those who just endlessly run in circles won't win, even if they are in the lead. They'll only get better at running. Cheating can make one the first. But in this endless race, there are no victory conditions.

Controlled evolution is the way. Morality gives us more control over it.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

When you do something random, a few at the extreme ends of the curve will end up with the most desirable traits. And those will win out.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In our cells there are 4 very long DNA molecules. The coolest traits require different correct genes in all four working harmoniously. Randomness can easily damage one of your traits, but to create one, you would need some really extreme luck.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, and those with extreme luck are the ones that thrive and reproduce the most. It's all luck, and the lucky ones win and everyone else gets screwed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think you are underestimating the amount of luck required.

In practice, the difference between the most and the least powerful people always lies within the mind, and the mind is shaped by one's morality. Plus, complex animals don't suddenly give birth to their super version, any new trait will only help with reproduction if it is valued by the society.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The idea is that the ones with the most desired traits will be more successful at reproduction. At first it will be the extreme right side of the curve. But then next generation the size of that will increase exponentially. Then again and again and so on.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sure, if they have no childhood traumas. And their society cares about their trait. And their trait is attractive. Otherwise, this super rare improbable specimen will either perish, or live a relatively standard life.

Genghis Khan had many children, but how powerful were they compared to him? No one cares about your potential. Most living humans have enormous hidden potential they will never realize.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Nature still beats nurture unfortunately, those with huge potential simply learn they don't have to use it so it becomes their normal. And yes, the traits society cares about will be more successful, or the ones that allow for overthrowing others.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nurture can't force people to dream or to learn. Power comes from love and self mastery, not from nurture. And our nature is shaped by our will.

Evolution can be random, but it normally isn't. A land doesn't control its creatures, but they all develop similar traits. A creature doesn't control its cells either. But it can choose the conditions in which its cells live. Like the land shapes its creatures, the creature shapes its cells.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the ones that are suited best for that land survive to reproduce. Research natural selection. I personally kind of doubt evolution for the same reasons you say this isn't feasible, but that's how it's supposed to work.