Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were. There are probably people who are perfectly capable of adapting to virtual reality worlds right now, just as there are those who can avoid getting obese despite the presence of vastly calorific foods and can avoid mental diseases despite the highly unusual (from a historical perspective) nature of modern society.
> Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were.
It's true because diseases kill unprepared and leave only the (more-less) adapted. So far neither obesity nor computer games were successful in killing people on the mass scale fast enough. Also, we're actively engineering the computer games to be as immersing as possible. If a 'resistant generation' pops up, it'll probably at some point engineer addicting games for itself.
Evolutionary speaking sterilization is as effective as death. And several diseases do reduce fertility which creates evolutionary pressure on par with deaths.
Susceptibility to addictive games is what makes us human - if you changed that in us, we wouldn't even be monkeys anymore. Would we be recognizable at all?
So yeah, maybe technical society is a nonviable evolutionary pathway in the long run. Why should I care?
You're right. some people will be. I rather not take my chances personally though. I'm humble enough to not want to fight against 1 million years of fine-tuned evolution.
Odd. Do you buy groceries, or are you posting this from your savannah hut? You're fighting a million years of fine-tuned evolution every time you turn on a light, sit in a chair, wear shoes, go to a store or restaurant, take a medicine, use a telephone, watch TV, read a book or magazine (let's not even talk about the Internet), eat potatoes (not like you evolved in the Americas), bake bread, eat baked bread, use money, sleep in a bed, wake up with an alarm, or let your wisdom teeth grow out because you lived past the age of 35.
You're so far off your evolutionary track there's simply no reason not to go further.
I don't watch tv. I don't eat bread. I don't eat potatoes. I don't wake up with an alarm. I prefer using a standing desk. I don't eat out often. I do use a phone and computer but only because they're necessities. I actually do think our modern lifestyle contributes to mental/physical diseases, so I'm not arguing our current life is the natural way at all. Medicine is a blessing, but when the rate of diseases like obesity and diabetes keeps rising, as well as suicidal rates/depression, there's many reasons NOT to go further.
I'm not saying live like the Omish, but we should look at our ancestors and see what we should retain, rather than change in order to make our life better.
Props for philosophical fortitude, but even the Amish are not even close to living the way we evolved. _Using a horse for agriculture_ is not what we're evolved for, see?
An aside for a moment: are you doing a paleolithic diet? We did that for a year or two while our daughter was going through Crohn's - the transition to it just about killed me. But saved her. So I know where you're coming from.
To address your main point, though: the decision as to what makes life better is yours, for you, and mine, for me - and if somebody decides their life is better because they can go virtual, well, that's none of your business or mine. I have very little patience for the ashes-and-sackcloth approach: whether it's dressed in evangelical or treehugging clothing, Puritanism just gets my goat.
Comments
Speak for yourself.
Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were. There are probably people who are perfectly capable of adapting to virtual reality worlds right now, just as there are those who can avoid getting obese despite the presence of vastly calorific foods and can avoid mental diseases despite the highly unusual (from a historical perspective) nature of modern society.
> Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were.
It's true because diseases kill unprepared and leave only the (more-less) adapted. So far neither obesity nor computer games were successful in killing people on the mass scale fast enough. Also, we're actively engineering the computer games to be as immersing as possible. If a 'resistant generation' pops up, it'll probably at some point engineer addicting games for itself.
Evolutionary speaking sterilization is as effective as death. And several diseases do reduce fertility which creates evolutionary pressure on par with deaths.
Obesity and playing games whole day won't kill but could slightly lower physical attractiveness and number of mating occasions.
Susceptibility to addictive games is what makes us human - if you changed that in us, we wouldn't even be monkeys anymore. Would we be recognizable at all?
So yeah, maybe technical society is a nonviable evolutionary pathway in the long run. Why should I care?
You're right. some people will be. I rather not take my chances personally though. I'm humble enough to not want to fight against 1 million years of fine-tuned evolution.
Odd. Do you buy groceries, or are you posting this from your savannah hut? You're fighting a million years of fine-tuned evolution every time you turn on a light, sit in a chair, wear shoes, go to a store or restaurant, take a medicine, use a telephone, watch TV, read a book or magazine (let's not even talk about the Internet), eat potatoes (not like you evolved in the Americas), bake bread, eat baked bread, use money, sleep in a bed, wake up with an alarm, or let your wisdom teeth grow out because you lived past the age of 35.
You're so far off your evolutionary track there's simply no reason not to go further.
I don't watch tv. I don't eat bread. I don't eat potatoes. I don't wake up with an alarm. I prefer using a standing desk. I don't eat out often. I do use a phone and computer but only because they're necessities. I actually do think our modern lifestyle contributes to mental/physical diseases, so I'm not arguing our current life is the natural way at all. Medicine is a blessing, but when the rate of diseases like obesity and diabetes keeps rising, as well as suicidal rates/depression, there's many reasons NOT to go further.
I'm not saying live like the Omish, but we should look at our ancestors and see what we should retain, rather than change in order to make our life better.
> I do use a phone and computer but only because they're necessities.
Commenting on Hacker News is a necessity.
He's not claiming that he only uses his computer for necessities, just that he has one because it is a necessity.
Props for philosophical fortitude, but even the Amish are not even close to living the way we evolved. _Using a horse for agriculture_ is not what we're evolved for, see?
An aside for a moment: are you doing a paleolithic diet? We did that for a year or two while our daughter was going through Crohn's - the transition to it just about killed me. But saved her. So I know where you're coming from.
To address your main point, though: the decision as to what makes life better is yours, for you, and mine, for me - and if somebody decides their life is better because they can go virtual, well, that's none of your business or mine. I have very little patience for the ashes-and-sackcloth approach: whether it's dressed in evangelical or treehugging clothing, Puritanism just gets my goat.