comparison

[tacoma_kyle]

You know Will, for some reason you are reminding me of that movie set 'Species.' Seen it? It is pretty much the worst series of movies of all time lol. But there are a lot of topless babes in it so its cool. Maybe not your type heh.

But it did follow some relatively basic principles of how a species will survive, which was interesting.

But there is some human/alien hybrid babe that wants to reproduce and scientists are trying to stop 'her' and she trys to fuck every 'suitable' (not sick, diseased and so on) male.

[Will]

Natasha Henstridge topless? Yeah, I've seen it.

Look at it this way, though:
- Most people are more attracted to thin people than fat people, even without hollywood
- Most people are attracted to people who are intelligent
- Many people are attracted to people in power
- Many people are attracted to athletes
- Most men love women with large breasts and "child-bearing hips", both of which suggest fertility
- Most women like men with lean muscular butts, which also suggests fertility (I can go into greater detail on this one if anyone doesn't get the connection)
- Symmetrical facial features are generally considered attractive

It's hardly something unique to me. I think most people do exactly what I do, but may not be conscious to why.

[McQ]

As I have expressed in other posts, I take a more or less dissenting view to those here on the issue of human evolution, aka. transhumanism (though these concepts are not necessarily the same thing).
To get back to the topic at hand: the question has been alluded to in this thread as to whether we should let evolution take its course in humans. First, an important point: evolution does not produce 'better' things, it produces changes to things that are required for their continued survival. Human beings tend to value survival, yet beyond this underlying assumption, questions of ethics are vastly more complex than merely identifying that which improves the overall survival of a species. Hence, let me emphatically state, I do not think there is any merit in deriving an ethical position from our observations of natural selection, much less applying one. Above all there are no rights in natural selection, no guarantees and no justice for the weak. I could never endorse Social Darwinism, period.

In evolutionary terms the survival of the human race is not at stake.

Some good points, PJ. One question, regarding the bolded sentence (bolding mine) in relation to everything you said right up to it. After all you said about evolution not leading to anything (which is quite true), and the paragraph in copied here from you, how is it that you are able to determine that in evolutionary terms, the human race is not at stake?

Do you know something about how we will evolve that the rest of humanity is unaware of? ;-)

Clue us in, man!

I'm being somewhat facetious obviously, but I am curious about that statement and want to know if you could clarify and/or expand the thought.

[pjkeeley]

how is it that you are able to determine that in evolutionary terms, the human race is not at stake?

Simple, I based that statement on the assumption that the evolution of homo sapiens has stopped or slowed as many people suggest. Supposing this to be true, I don't think it would make any difference to our survival; if we're still around in a couple of hundred million years there still wouldn't be a creature on Earth capable of overcoming humankind and our mastery of technology. As long as human beings have such a huge intelligence in comparison to other animals, we won't be rendered extinct by them, only by ourselves. That is what I mean when I say our survival is not threatened in evolutionary terms.

[nikkixsugar]

I do like your philosophy, but resent your statement that we as a species are done evolving. After we've gotten rid of the appendix, ectopic pregnancy, and wisdom teeth, THEN we're done with evolution at which point we start growing more penises. Hahaha!