Perceptions of Time and Lifespan- Are we evolving?

[Laurieheels]

I hit upon this theme in my diary, and I thought that it would be a good idea to bring it out of the ultra heels section and into a general discussion. The idea behind this is as follows. Days seem to move by with great speed and I wonder if it is part of our evolution. Technology connects us, makes time more important, and now, we seem to be losing sense of it. People live longer, yet days seem shorter. Is this longevity simply a response, then, to the perceived speed of our world? We live the same number of years through our perception, but our standard of measuring has not changed to match it. Thus, we only create an illusion of living longer. Our experience suggests we don't have more time than our great garndparents did. How soon until a week is a mere blink of an eye in our memories? Studying history has always shown me that people used to die at younger ages than they do now. The reasons are usually due to injury and disease, and war, of course. People worked their bodies all day long, and the flesh will wear out over time. Now, we have medicine curing many diseases that kill on a large scale. We are safer, we have machines to do work for us, and we can live longer in years. But does it really feel that way? I keep noticing that people are older, but don't look as old. We are doing more to take care of our bodies, and keep them younger and healthier despite some number ascribed to a person that we call age. So when someone is 75, maybe they only look 65. Or younger. Looking younger, and having time seem to move by faster, so that in seventy five years, maybe we only feel that we experienced the time that someone sixty or sixty five did. So what do people think? Despite this so called trend to live longer and healthier lives, are we actually experiencing that longevity? Or are our brains adapting to the pace of our technological society, so that everything seems to move faster than it did before? Basically, are our brains evolving? And if we can keep up with that faster pace, why aren't we thinking faster, and thus having a perception of more time? Discuss!

[xaphod]

Laurie, I saw a simpler explantion.... Life is like a toilet roll .... the more you unroll it, the faster it unwinds !

[Laurieheels]

Thanks, Xaph, very philisophical and insightful. I was hoping to get a good conversation going here, you know!

[azraelle]

As with most mutations, there are damn few of them in the human population, which is the only way the human brain could "evolve". Based on my 50 years of observing human behavior, the best I can come up with is that the vast majority of human brains are slowly retrogressing (the exact opposite of evolving). But then I'm a cynic. So I don't belong in this discussion, shutting up now, ma'am.

[Dr. Shoe]

Mankind will never evolve as long as he is aggressive, greedy, slothful, and gluttonous. The only reason we save lives is so we can waste more of them. The only reason we save money is so we can waste more of it. The only reason we save time is so we can waste more of it. The only reason we diet is vanity. (Ok, I know the grossly obese diet for medical reasons and they may have a gland problem etc.)

[Laurieheels]

Gee, Dr. Shoe, I think that your optimism is just wonderful! A ture inspiration! Have you thought about speaking to the youth of the world and spreading your unique brand of hope? People are motivated by fear, money is security to make fear go away, and well, and who has any free time to waste these days? Come on, there are some wonderful aspects of humanity, and I don't think we will wipe out our species so quick. And who says that we can't have a sudden evolution on a small scale over a few hundred years? Just because other species gave some guy a model and he wrote a book, does not mean we should confine ourselves to his theory. Okay, now, I have seen two different english dubs of the movie Akria. It is the only piece of japanimation I own, and likely to stay that way. But I like my version, as the one I saw on one of the movie channels was very, well, silly, and it undermined the depth that the plot actually holds. But in it, there was an interesting theory. Because humans have the ability to build rockets and all of these things. And imagine if somehow, an amoeba had that kind of ability? But all an amoeba does is consume everything it comes in contact with. I always liked that speech, when Kaneda and Kay were locked up and discussing that. Anyway, what is to say that with all of these abilities we have, we could not use them to greatly enhance some basic function, like neural function? Just as a means to keep up with the world we build around us? After all, the theory of evolution is supposed to be about adaptation for survival, and if we create a condition where severe adaptation is required to survive, why could we not achieve this, even if fpor a small percentage of the population? If we create a world that moves faster than we can comprehend, why can we not learn to think faster to keep up and survive?

[Dr. Shoe]

Gee, Dr. Shoe, I think that your optimism is just wonderful! A ture inspiration! Have you thought about speaking to the youth of the world and spreading your unique brand of hope?

I think that the youth of this world would truly benefit from having the kind of cynicism I have developed over the years!

People are motivated by fear, money is security to make fear go away, and well, and who has any free time to waste these days?

Fear arises out of aggression, without aggression we would not have fear. As far as time goes, you can create a full meal within 20 minutes and that includes buying the ingredients from the supermarket. You can buy your entire week's shopping within an hour, you can be sat down with a meal within 20 minutes of taking it out of the freezer. I can remember a time when it took my grandmother all day to do the shopping as she had to go to the grocer, greengrocer, butcher and baker and queue at each. In order to cook a meal took a minimum of an hour with peeling and preparing veg, cooking the meat in the oven and if the recipe involved pastry, you'd have to get out the flour, butter etc. now you get out the "jus-rol" unless the pie's already made by the supermarket's supplier!

How much time do you spend watching TV? How much time do you spend just hanging out in the mall? How much time did you spend on the web posting the above? I moan that I don't have enough time, but if I was honest I would say that I could devote 6 hours a day to any important project but I choose not to and say I don't have any time.

Come on, there are some wonderful aspects of humanity, and I don't think we will wipe out our species so quick.

Oh, absolutely! but the question was whether we're evolving, not how wonderful humanity is. We are moving our culture to amazing levels and we have much to be proud of, but we also have much to be ashamed of as well.

And who says that we can't have a sudden evolution on a small scale over a few hundred years? Just because other species gave some guy a model and he wrote a book, does not mean we should confine ourselves to his theory.

I don't subscribe to his theory anyway, I'm a creationist but that's another thread.

Okay, now, I have seen two different english dubs of the movie Akria. It is the only piece of japanimation I own, and likely to stay that way. But I like my version, as the one I saw on one of the movie channels was very, well, silly, and it undermined the depth that the plot actually holds.

But in it, there was an interesting theory. Because humans have the ability to build rockets and all of these things. And imagine if somehow, an amoeba had that kind of ability? But all an amoeba does is consume everything it comes in contact with.

I always liked that speech, when Kaneda and Kay were locked up and discussing that.

If the Ameoba had the ability to alter his environment to suit his life form then "evolution" would have stopped right there. That's one reason I don't subscribe to evolutionism because it depends on adapting to suit environment and if the environment hadn't suited the ameoba in the first place then it would never have come into existence and they wouldn't be around today. If it came down to environment, why is a mammal better than a reptile? And if a mammal is superior, why do reptiles continue to flourish?

Anyway, what is to say that with all of these abilities we have, we could not use them to greatly enhance some basic function, like neural function? Just as a means to keep up with the world we build around us?

After all, the theory of evolution is supposed to be about adaptation for survival, and if we create a condition where severe adaptation is required to survive, why could we not achieve this, even if fpor a small percentage of the population?

This is the nub of the debate. We do not adapt to environment, we adapt the environment. To colonise Mars we would "terraform" the planet or live in environmental domes, to evolve we should be prepared to genetically engineer people so that they can live on Mars as it is. The only way we would escape a major catestrophic change would be to escape to a benign environment like Noah did.

If we create a world that moves faster than we can comprehend, why can we not learn to think faster to keep up and survive?

Because we have computers to do the thinking for us.

[Laurieheels]

Big buzzer, I am afraid. On one point. Fear does not come from aggression. Aggression is a response based on two basic emotions. Fear being the major, and then supplemented by anger. So agggression comes from fear. All feelings can be reduced to seven basic emotions. It is a theory I really like. Happiness Love Lust Sadness Lonlieness Fear Anger Hatred? Fear and anger. Depression? Ah heck, any of the bottom six can combine to cause that! Strange how happiness is the only one that is always pleasant, and the other six can be other than that. As for computers doing things for us... well, maybe if the entire population becomes lazy. I once heard about a short story, where the most dangerous man in a computer run society was the janitor who watched the screens one day and learned about math. Simply put, many people will always crave knowledge, and computers cannot be everything for us. Yes, we adapt environments to suit ourselves, because we don't have the time it takes to adapt the environments. But I am not talking on such a grand scale. I am talking about subtle changes, and how any species can react to something subtle and learn to adapt. Why do reptiles survive? Because every species strives to survive, and some adapt to the environment, just as much as one will change that environment. Experiment - walk to work every day. In the winter, at first you will really feel the cold. Over some time, you adapt, you become acclimated to the lower temperature, and thus, it does not feel as cold. I lived that experiment this winter, and the one before it. It works. So I say we, as humans, can adapt, and if we can manage subtle environment changes, why can we not adapt as society speeds up? It's not about hjow fast we can cook, but about how fast things are presented to us. Movies, television, music, images are flashing by at incredible rates, and we can keep up with them, yet someone born eighty or ninty years ago may not. I think we do adapt as a species, if we grow up in a changed environment. As for creationism, we could have fun on that topic if we started another thread.

[azraelle]

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Laurie. Within a given species, such as humanity, there is an incredibly large "window" of possibilities for adaptation within the lifespan of individual members of the species to an equally large number of possible environmental differences. But for a change in the adaptability of the entire species as a whole to take place (in other words, to pass on the physical or mental adaptations your body has made to it's adopted environment in order to survive or make life less stressful, to your children, at birth) requires a genetic mutation (or more practically, a whole slew of interrelated mutations) to occur. Or for existing mutations to be selected out by survival of the majority of the population during some major catastrophe. Natural selection doesn't occur without life-threatening, extinction-oriented environmental stress. I can't see man "evolving" during the times of peace that you allude to--there just isn't enough extinction-oriented stress.

[Dr. Shoe]

Big buzzer, I am afraid. On one point. Fear does not come from aggression. Aggression is a response based on two basic emotions. Fear being the major, and then supplemented by anger.

So agggression comes from fear.

So you're saying that if someone was aggressive toward you, you would not feel fear?

I can see where you're coming from but that isn't what I meant. I meant that if someone is aggressive then the other person feels fear. Aggression also comes from ignorance, arrogance and assertiveness, none of which has much to do with fear.

All feelings can be reduced to seven basic emotions. It is a theory I really like.

Happiness

Love

Lust

Sadness

Lonlieness

Fear

Anger

Hatred? Fear and anger.

Depression? Ah heck, any of the bottom six can combine to cause that!

Strange how happiness is the only one that is always pleasant, and the other six can be other than that.

But feelings are emotions surely? Freud hypothesised that it all went back to sex, funny how all those you listed above can be applied to sex.

As for computers doing things for us... well, maybe if the entire population becomes lazy. I once heard about a short story, where the most dangerous man in a computer run society was the janitor who watched the screens one day and learned about math.

I think it was called "A Feeling Of Power" the guy was explaining to some mathematicians he did sums in head, interestingly, it was written twenty years before the first calculator was invented.

Simply put, many people will always crave knowledge, and computers cannot be everything for us.

Yes, we adapt environments to suit ourselves, because we don't have the time it takes to adapt the environments. But I am not talking on such a grand scale. I am talking about subtle changes, and how any species can react to something subtle and learn to adapt.

Adapting is not evolution, Growing a new appendage or organ to cope with an environmental change is. There is a moth that adapted it's colouring to suit the urban environment. In the country, it is mottled white but in the city it is black. It is the same species, it hasn't evolved but it's adapted. A poodle isn't a different species to a great dane it isn't even a "sub-species" it is just a variant.

If you took a Homo Sapiens from the late stone-age and put him in the modern world, he would adapt to his surroundings far quicker than we could adapt to his, in fact I doubt we'd survive long.

Why do reptiles survive? Because every species strives to survive, and some adapt to the environment, just as much as one will change that environment.

Reptiles survive in great numbers and diversity because they are successful. The drawback is, they cannot survive at the polar regions like certain adapted mammals like polar bears. However, they have one enormous advantage, they only need to eat on comparatively rare occassions and can thrive in places where man would die without clothing and/or shelter. Evolution by definition is reaction to catastrophic change in environment, if there was such a change that caused crocs to change into monkeys, why are the crocs so successful?

Experiment - walk to work every day. In the winter, at first you will really feel the cold. Over some time, you adapt, you become acclimated to the lower temperature, and thus, it does not feel as cold. I lived that experiment this winter, and the one before it. It works.

This is adaptation, in fact our ancestors wore few clothes only to protect from brambles etc. They would have been almost naked.

So I say we, as humans, can adapt, and if we can manage subtle environment changes, why can we not adapt as society speeds up? It's not about hjow fast we can cook, but about how fast things are presented to us. Movies, television, music, images are flashing by at incredible rates, and we can keep up with them, yet someone born eighty or ninty years ago may not.

I think we do adapt as a species, if we grow up in a changed environment.

As for creationism, we could have fun on that topic if we started another thread.

Oh absolutely, adaptation is one thing, evolution is quite another. There were two flocks of seabirds, one lived on a rocky island composed mainly of chalk and one lived on a island with plenty of long grass. Over the years, the darker coloured birds on the chalk island are picked off by predators so only the lighter ones survive long enough to breed. On the grassy island the pale birds are highly visible so they get picked off. Now you have two "species" of birds one black and one white but they are not different species at all any more than the poodle is a different species from a labrador.

[TallSwede]

I can only report my own, and some others that I have asked about this matter, findings; -It seems like the time speeds up when getting older/mature. A kid feels that a week in school takes forever, while that kids teacher feels that the week is gone in an eyeblink... This does not only relate to such issues, it seems like all occupations/activities appear and take place sooner/shorter depending on your age, at least from *my* references (fellow teachers of various ages and the pupils themselves). TallSwede

[Laurieheels]

Okay, so I did not get what you were trying to say. And yes, all emotions can come down to sex, but that is not exclusive. Personally, I see adaptation as a step towards evolution. It could bring about a change, but does not have to. So we're not growing new arms, we're not changing into a new species. But if we, as a planet of people, are all changing together, who is going to notice? After all, everyone will be the same. I think you and I have slightly different interpretations of the word evolution.

[jim]

Perceptions of Time and Lifespan- Are we evolving?

NOPE

[Francis]

are we evolving? Maybe! we don't evolve over a few generations, but many! due we perceive ourselves as evolving, no! mankind will evolve, but not a rate that our generation will notice.

[azraelle]

If I may inject a bit of Mormon Blasphemy here--this is a couplet attributed to the founder of the LDS Church (if you're a non-believer), or the first prophet in modern times (if you are a believer), Joseph Smith, to explain some fundamental ideas about origins:

As man is now, God once was.

As God is now, man may become.

Seems to me the ultimate definition of "evolution", don't you think?

[Slim]

I retired about 3 mo. ago. Time has gone like lighting. I don't have anything to do and don't seem to have the time to get it done!