--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Re digital introspection - I wonder how long it takes for such > > > > brain changes to be established to the point they could be > > > > passed on to offspring. > > > > > > Basically forever, if you're talking about genetic > > > transmission. > > > > You're right. However, in a Darwinian sense, those with > > brains who do well with all this technology will be at an > > advantage and possibly pass along their genes more often. > > Yebbut...by the time natural selection would have > accomplished this feat, the technology will all be > vastly different, and those who had done well with > the old technology might have lost their advantage > to masters of the newer technologies long since. IOW, > natural selection is always going to lag far behind > the development of technology, and just when you're > ready to pass on your genes, your brain's abilities > are likely to have become out of date. ;-)
Hmmm. So, we have reached a stage where the environment we react to changes too fast for natural selection to matter, or perhaps even happen (since that environment shifts so often)! Someone needs to write an article about this. > > > > > > That would be called "inheritance of acquired > > > characteristics," and the notion--popularized by > > > Lamarck in the early 19th century--was ultimately > > > thoroughly discredited. > > > > > > Cultural transmission, of course, is a very different > > > story. > > > > > >
