> 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?
Comments
> 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?