I recently had an elevated debate with a fellow professor from the University of Prague, on whether people follow evolution and its characteristics, or whether we say it has failed? I was, and is of the belief that man as such follows evolution in the sense that we think of continuing our / the species' genes, but in addition we are able, in several cases, to override this. Should we completely disregard the brutish demands to keep the family further, we would soon be a thing of the past, but as I said, I believe that we can perform actions which are either irrational or so obscure that they can not be pursued for the purpose of example, provide food which is an essential means t to put progeny in the world, and thus realize its genes, or we can withdraw from evolution by simply not having children. Just the last tanks differs fundamentally from the animal world. We see no animals are not trying to have offspring. So therefore I came to my mind and attitude, I suppose it's basically an attitude issue that we to some extent follows Evolution "laws" but that we are in relation to animals have far more parameters than just being good to obtain food. And we just by being able to question the idea of having children jump a level of animal evolution. As an example, I took the fact that today we are saving thousands of people in the animal world would not survive. In this way we ensure not only the best genes, but also the "weak", not survival talented genes. My opponent believes that this might be an advantage for the species as such and that we therefore, subconscious, yet follows natural laws. Where I believe that we have set ourselves over evolutionary race, and can use resources on things that do not promote our species survival and dissemination, such as helping the sick, making art, abstract and much more.
I will now come with a little thought experiment: It has a well-functioning, intelligent, young and women of childbearing potential. Was not she a woman, but a guinea pig, she would urgently find a mate and get some offspring. But she is not a guinea pig, and thus an expanded consciousness (we assume). She will then take the choice that she will not have children, but instead will devote himself tommelfingertrilleri, so she moves out into the deep Siberian forest and trills thumbs to his final days. This is not inconceivable strange, but nonetheless plausible. How could this woman's choices and opting out of keeping his excellent genes, could favor the species Homo sapiens sapiens (which also means "knowing / thinking person")?
We were unable to reach agreement, but stood by each our position. I menende that man with his consciousness has set itself above or outside of evolutionary patterns, and my opponent that everything we do is ultimately done to ensure the species.
