Wait. Are you saying that we as a species are incapable of evolution beyond an external impetus? Is evolution limited to genetic variation sans a human observer or manipulator?

If we as a species were to harness cellular rejuvenation, even utilizing gene splicing and stem cell regeneration, in order to produce new organs and tissues from our own DNA, would you say that the resulting increase in longevity was a natural development? And if our species--assuming we are still around--were to achieve the technology to create a Borg-like amalgam of human tissue and machine, would you insist that this development is 'impossible?'

Great strides have been made in designing neural interfaces between the human body and machines. Ocular implants, cochlear implants, and prosthetic arms and legs that move like natural limbs and provide sensory feedback are already a reality. This certainly represents a step towards some kind of new human (if a cyborg can be considered human). And, perhaps even more significant is the progress being made in understanding and manipulating DNA. The field of molecular biology is arguably still in an early stage. Down the road, combining genetic engineering with robotics, who knows what is possible? This is not to say that I am in favor of such change. It seems alien and cold to me. And l suspect that any attempt to do an end run around nature is bound to have negative consequences. Sooner or later, natural selection is bound to have its say. Which brings up another question. Haven't we already created a civilization populated with people whose immune systems would be inadequate for survival without the help of vaccines and other miracles of modern medicine? Any large-scale breakdown in the delivery of such modern developments is bound to result in a massive dieback, as less fit individuals face environmental challenges they are simply not equipped to overcome. And if we leave it up to humans to design themselves, instead of letting nature take its course, aren't we just crawling further out on a slender limb? In biology we have a sub-field called population dynamics. One of its lessons is that when any population, whether it be bacteria bats, grows beyond the carrying capacity (a population size that the environment can sustain indefinitely) there will come a drastic rise in the death rate due to limiting factors such as the buildup of wastes (think greenhouse gases and the global warming they cause), or introduction of contagious disease (for instance, a virus like SARS CoV2 only more deadly). I personally have little faith in mankind's ability to design better than natural selection trims. But that's just me.

To hell with the walrus. I am the pineapple. When The Judge comes down to speak, he/she/it has a good bit of explaining to do.

Great analysis!

Years ago the Discovery Channel had a series titled "The Science of Sex." [medium.com]. There was a ton of information showing we hadn't a clue when it comes to this subject. Our bodies, most of the time, rule and the basic idea is to push us into mating to creating offspring and cares not a bit if we are happy. Bottom line, we may think we are in control but are not. With all our 'intelligence' we still cannot see the destiny of our and millions of other species if we continue on the road of destruction we are on. Emotions still drive us and reason often is sleeping in the trunk.

As per the last paragraph I see many of us 'atheists' as still clinging on to the idea, somehow we are the center of the planet (libertarians). Our wants always comes first. I was aware of a scenario done at MIT decades ago but is still on track. I wanted to post it but would get a lot of negative comments.

[medium.com] ”A computer program developed at MIT predicts that we will see the end of our civilization in 2040. We must expect the first catastrophes already in 2020.MIT researchers originally developed the “World One” program in 1973 to simulate global sustainability — instead, it predicted the end of the world. In contrast to various other theories about the end of civilizations and ultimately the world, the predictions made by the computer in the 1970s have so far proved to be true to an alarming degree of accuracy and variety. The program produced the required model, but in a form that the scientists had not expected. It predicted that population and industry expansion would lead the world to global collapse by 2040. The first milestone set by the algorithm in 2020 was an abrupt drop in tstandard of living.” This is one of many predictions made in regards to the total unsustainability of overpopulation and a constant economic growth mantra.

Basically a FATALISIC philosophy. May as well simply roll over and die now and save the planet.

Interesting first 2 paragraphs, but the 3rd paragraph earns you an OHFERPETESSAKE.

I have never understood the ‘no free will’ argument. I think, because nobody gives a precise definition of ‘free will’.

So they are telling us we have no X but they won’t tell us what X is. So that is really no argument at all.

What is free will?

Sam Harris goes on at length telling us how free will is impossible, but then acknowledges that we do have ‘choice’.

What the …!

Dan Dennett says we have whatever kind of free will we would want.

What?!!

What is the scientific definition of free will?

Your opinion is noted.