Homo spiritualensis?

Homo spiritualensis?

Homo perfectus ...

thru biogenetic-engineering, our evolutionary future is now in our own hands to direct ... what ever direction we want to go ... I suspect that may be many different directions ... a single outcome on a multivariate pathway is impossible to predict ... except, ultimately, it seems that, if we don't weed-out our inherent human traits of aggressive competition, then I predict there must be fighting among the different successor [types/races] to see who shall be master of all

Dear Maria and Marcel,

Homo perfectus is impossible to be evolved. Marcel’s option, Homo spiritualensis may be a better guess. However, I am afraid that a subspecies or variety of H. economicus, the H. economicus ssp. opportunisticus will win.  I think the real winner should be H. ethicus ssp. altruisticus.    

All of us did need to be enculturated in order to become humans.  To become humans is a biological process in the first few months after conception but even prior to the birth, the enculturation process begin.  Humans are heading where their cultures/enculturation are heading and not where their biology is heading.  Our biology is not an obstacle to our cultural evolution.  For more than 50 000 years now, human evolution is not a biological evolution but a cultural evolution. So "let us constantly cultivate the divine force of our mind" Vico

At the beginning of the school's year, Vico was saying to his pupils:''So you see, I do ask of you things greatly surpassing the human: the near-divine nature of your minds—that is what I am challenging you to reveal"

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anth/AnthDubo.htm

In the realm of human biology, the main unknown variable in any future evolutionary scenario seems to me to be time. If one looks at the time scales involved to get from the early hominids to H. sapiens sapiens it seems at least questionable, given global demographic trends (not to mention environmental, social, political, etc. developments), that any "major" evolutionary changes may yet happen on their own.

As previous commentators have noted, humans now have so much influence on species-innate biology that human-caused changes are likely to outpace possible "natural" developments. This of course includes adverse effects like diseases related to the modern sedentary lifestyle which arguably are part of evolutionary (or rather devolutionary?) change in their own right.

Dear Louis,

If you like it, the presence of the H. economicus ssp. opportunisticus was the result of a cultural and not biological process. The problem is that they have been already here and their number is increasing.  I can meet them everywhere.

It is interesting to consider that some of the possibly coeval early hominids developed due to geographic isolation or restricted gene pools. One classic example is the Mowa Creek Indians in Alabama, whose sinus structure differs from other Creek Indians.

While considered all Homo sapiens sapiens, the various genetic differences in complexion, facial features, etc. has come about only in the last ca. 60,000 years. These genetic differences are the result of populations that dispersed to different regions, and thus were isolated to develop separately. However, in today's world and the world of the future, with our constant movement across the globe, it has been proposed that there is a merging of these different traits into an eventual single genetic type.

Still, depending on the acceptance of the public and scientists, there could be genetic modifications in the future in order to allow humans to live in previously inhospitable environments.

Dear all, thanks a lot for all your answers.

So at first sight now, it Looks to me as if we have 3 directions:

The homo spiritualis on the left side, the homo economicus/culturalis in the middle and the homo bioingenericus on the right side.

How about if all of them start by now alreadey and in some far away time are so different, that they cannot interbred anymore? So of which line you will be one of the ancestors?

I think we should be wary of assuming the continued influence of technology in our evolutionary trajectory.  The modern industrial-scientific complex is still very new in evolutionary terms and is neither universal in its impact nor maybe sustainable.

 Our "modern"  way of life only really started with the industrial revolution 150 years ago only really got going with the use of electricity in the late 1800s and has only been extended to some countries in the last 70.  150 years ago, ordinary people in Britain and Germany lived very impoverished lives with animal-dependent energy sources i.e. the mode of energy production was the same as it was 1000 years before that.  A large number of people (perhaps most) are still living lives that are scarcely different to those of 150 years ago (think of the poor classes throughout Asia, Africa and South America).

Perhaps this modern lifestyle will expand to all of humanity but perhaps it won't.  There is nothing inevitable about technological progress.  I imagine that during the Roman Empire (or the Aztec, Inca, Indus, Ming or any other major technological civilization), citizens might have had similar ideas about how technology was improving their lives -- they did not forsee that it all could crash -- which it did in every case.  It is very conceivable that modern civilization despite its hegemony at present, could come crashing down.  We have only to look at Syria to see how quickly a middle income country can be reduced to essentially iron-age conditions through regional conflict.  Nuclear war, disease, a catastrophic environmental event, the collapse of democracy as a viable system, financial crashes, or government policy could all cause the edifice to collapse.

In particular, the notion of "science"  and "technology" as we understand them now are very precarious.  Advances in medicine, genetics, electronics etc. all depends on very particular social circumstances (including funding and a scientific world view) that have only been achieved in relatively few places in a few countries.  The advances in these sectors tend to come from a very special type of person in a very special type of cultural environment. 

More generally, it is clear to me that our sources of energy are not sustainable (in general) and in particular, not sustainable if all humans are allowed access to the technological lifestyle.  i.e. I don't see how we can get to a situation where the whole world has similar levels of energy consumption as inhabitants of North America or Western Europe without environmental devastation.  That energy has to come from somewhere and it's not clear to me that it is available, barring a fusion breakthrough.  It also seems to me that the levels of toxins we are producing as a civilization (especially if it expands to include all humans) are long-term unsustainable. 

 I'm not saying it is inevitable that the modern system will collapse; I'm just saying that it is not inevitable that our civilization will necessarily continue in its current form.  So I'm afraid that I disagree with an idea of evolution linked to such a cultural system.  Especially if that system remains dominated by a relatively small proportion of the world's population.  

This means that Homo Bioingenericus is not really an option simply because it is limited to such a small population who may have access to it.  Homo culturalis/economicus and homo spiritualensis:  in a general sense, we have been spiritual, cultural and engaged in economiies for probably around 130 000 years already so that just describes us for who we are as a species. In the particular sense pertaining to "modern"  culture and economic systems, it is too linked to what might be a very short-term phenomenon anyway.

Sorry for the long response: I find it a lot of fun thinking about these things!

:)

Mark 

Dear George, There is no atheist on this earth I can swear. They lie. When you meet a presumed atheist in an electric elevator, please just let someone stop it in the middle, or take him in a skiff and let it drown, you will hear his prayers loudly.

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifrao.com%2Fart-and-perception%2F

Sylvia Fein wrote:

Ellen Disanayake, whose What is art for? is composed of clear essays on the place of art in human evolution, and whose 'Homo aestheticus' is acclaimed by Nature as 'probably one of the most intellectually enriching interdisciplinary studies that has ever been written'

This is not my area of knowledge, however, I suppose that this is also a problem of time scale. Any person can suggest or affirm any assumption, at least in long term, because it will be never confirmed in our life time or in the life time of many of next subsequent generations? Many times, humans are practically unpredictable. A guess or a bet are also always possible.

Humans can control their surrounding environment until some extent, however, according to the well-known expression it looks that

“the future belongs to God”.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/Bible-Prophecy-News/NS-hyl85nbI

Human beings' development should be examined in a holistic approach. Technology, political circumstances and other significant situational and historical factors have serious impact in an over-informed society. As it is stated in the comment above, human beings develop in order to accomplish several goals which, according to them, will lead humanity a step closer to perfection. Since goals change, human beings develop in order to accomplish them. However, we should consider whether the accomplishment of goals leads to development or the qualitative change in goal setting leads to development? A significant factor which should, also, be examined is the control that human beings believe they have in their environment. 

Dear all - after the summer vacation hope you all had a good time - thanks for your comments.

I think it is interesting that we have genes from the chimpansee which come from a time Long after our two lines separated.

And we know now, that several Cousins of us (besides the wellknown Neandertal man) existed untill only a few thousand or even hundred years ago (as i  wrote in my book, showing also that Darwin is oldfashioned).

So i am wondering if here or there exist mixtures of us which have more to offer and what could that mean?

Evolution goes on more in the interior physiology and as well in some cognition related aspects. - But where does this lead us? More fraternity, more equal caring for each other and our surrounding nature???