Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A lot of these 'flaws' aren't so much flaws as necessary compromises, or aren't even really flaws at all. Narrow hips are a necessity for the ability to run. The primary reason women suffer lower body injuries far more frequently than males do during activities like running is because they have much wider hips than men, and similarly it's one of the main reasons men are faster runners on average despite being larger and heavier.

Lower back pain isn't an inherent function of the human body, it's a function of the modern western lifestyle. Back pain of that sort is far, far more rare in eastern nations where people spend much less time sitting and much more time squatting and kneeling. In the west, though, from a very young age all the way through adulthood, basically everyone spends most of the day almost every day sitting in a chair. By the time you get out of school, you're already stuck with extremely tight hip flexors and hamstrings, which pull your spine out of alignment and putting you at far greater risk for back problems later in life.

We never evolved to grow extra teeth later in life because it wasn't until the last couple hundred years that the average person lived through their thirties.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal sums some of the other responses up pretty nicely:

Reminds me of an old article

"If humans were built to last"

http://www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/138975AC-B110-4D1E-902F-81C8E69BF9A0/122868/IfHumansWereBuilttoLast.pdf

 DarkLink wrote:
A lot of these 'flaws' aren't so much flaws as necessary compromises, or aren't even really flaws at all.

I was thinking the same thing. For example, our ancestors lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C. Long before that, the ancestors of all animals lost the ability to photosynthesise energy from the sun. While these might seem like glaring "mistakes", they were things that we obviously didn't need, else losing them would have been selected against. We don't know how shedding these traits might have also benefited us. The mutation might be neural, or it might have been selected because it is better in some other way. Of course, there is a big difference between the type of compromise evolution would make, and the type of compromise a designer would make.

One of the most fundamental "design flaws" in living organisms is the choice of materials. Virtually all biological structures are made from protein based fibrous materials, sometimes strengthened with inorganic compounds like calcium. Even though the shape of these structures can gradually change from one generation to another, nature is much less creative when it comes to improving the materials themselves. We've been stuck with pretty much the same materials for billions of years. Bone is a good example: bone is largely made up of the protein collagen, and calcium phosphate. These are absolutely abysmal materials, but nature, through its endless tinkering, has managed to weave and honeycomb them into something surprisingly strong and light. But evolution managed this in spite of the materials, not because of them. Materials like steel, carbon fibre and titanium are superior in almost every way (even without any tinkering).

There is really no reason biological organisms couldn't build structures out of metal. We process iron in our bodies to make blood cells (Cephalopods alternatively use copper), so it isn't a matter of it not being possible, or a matter of it not being as good. It appears that nature just hasn't developed it yet.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Has anyone brought up the appendix yet? It doesn't do much other than be a potential hazard to your health.

It actually looks like it has a function in the immune system as well as the general health of your intestinal flora. It is likely not a useless organ.

 Ouze wrote:
As an interesting aside, dolphins can put half their brains to sleep at a time while remaining otherwise active - they never "fully" sleep (or they'd drown).

Space Marines can as well. Or at least they could, in like the mid-90s. It might have changed a bunch of times since then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal sums some of the other responses up pretty nicely:

That cartoon spends a lot of time making fun of impractical places to move the poop shoot, but doesn't spend any time on the possibility of moving the love truncheon. It seemed a silly cartoon as a result.

 Ouze wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I can't think of any mammalian life that doesn't have a "sleep" period, and there are plenty of quadrupeds that spend more time sleeping or at rest than humans.

As an interesting aside, dolphins can put half their brains to sleep at a time while remaining otherwise active - they never "fully" sleep (or they'd drown).

Because dolphins are space marines

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I can't think of any mammalian life that doesn't have a "sleep" period, and there are plenty of quadrupeds that spend more time sleeping or at rest than humans.

As an interesting aside, dolphins can put half their brains to sleep at a time while remaining otherwise active - they never "fully" sleep (or they'd drown).

Because dolphins are space marines

They do make great suicide bombers and underwater soldiers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I can't think of any mammalian life that doesn't have a "sleep" period, and there are plenty of quadrupeds that spend more time sleeping or at rest than humans.

As an interesting aside, dolphins can put half their brains to sleep at a time while remaining otherwise active - they never "fully" sleep (or they'd drown).

Because dolphins are space marines

They do make great suicide bombers and underwater soldiers.

My cousin was killed by a dolphin suicide bomber.... the dolphin was... a jiwater...

The biggest flaw lies in the way our brain is wired, we are to aggressive for our own good, what i mean by that is that it seems with greater brain capacity comes also the increase of animal instincts that were beneficial when were still crawling in the mud but now are hampering us, and may cause our destruction.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
The biggest flaw lies in the way our brain is wired, we are to aggressive for our own good, what i mean by that is that it seems with greater brain capacity comes also the increase of animal instincts that were beneficial when were still crawling in the mud but now are hampering us, and may cause our destruction.

There's a lot of aggression, sure, but there's also a lot of fear and panic wired in there as well. I read an interesting argument a while back that humans shot up the food chain far quicker than evolution could really catch up. We raced to the top of the food chain, but we've still got a small primates brain that's constantly on the look out for any kind of lurking danger.

You don't see lions getting scared of small stuff. They're king of their turf and they know it. We're far more dominant, and spend all our time afraid of threats that are either wildly overstated, or almost entirely fictional.

 sebster wrote:
There's a lot of aggression, sure, but there's also a lot of fear and panic wired in there as well. I read an interesting argument a while back that humans shot up the food chain far quicker than evolution could really catch up. We raced to the top of the food chain, but we've still got a small primates brain that's constantly on the look out for any kind of lurking danger.

You don't see lions getting scared of small stuff. They're king of their turf and they know it. We're far more dominant, and spend all our time afraid of threats that are either wildly overstated, or almost entirely fictional.

I'm not certain that tiny primates are scared of small stuff either. A big hairy tarantula is probably a welcome snack for a lot of those little guys. I think many of our phobias are actually learned to some extent. I would also offer that our brain evolved as a response to other people. People are especially complicated and dangerous, and I think that is reflected in our psyche. Which is perhaps why things like cannibals and zombies (and perhaps home invasion) are uniquely terrifying.

One of the main "problems" is that mankind's very own evolution has outlived natural evolution. Our bodies were built to weather nature and withstand mostly physical challenges, but today's society requires much different skills for a large part. There certainly still are a lot of jobs that greatly play into our physical aspect, but on the other hand, a lot of them require excellent and critical thinking which isn't something our brains were built for and both human "versions", i.e. male and female, are "defective" or, rather, not optimally equipped for said task. While males are highly aggressive and use said natural ability for success in a highly competitive environment compared to females who tend to be less offensive, males are severely lacking in the communications department and are troubled in mano-a-mano conversation. A huge part of our behavior is still encoded in our brains since the Stone Age and the difference between a succesful and an unsuccessful person is very often defined by how well you handle what's given to you.

Another huge "problem" is the lack of natural selection. With societies protecting those that would have normally died ages ago, evolution is certainly hindered as it's built upon survival of the fittest. If you combine both issues, the next problem is that a big part of the population, namely the upper parts, reproduce far less than the lower parts of the population, thus meaning that reproduction is going the exact opposite route of where business is heading. It's really interesting thing to observe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:
A lot of these 'flaws' aren't so much flaws as necessary compromises, or aren't even really flaws at all. Narrow hips are a necessity for the ability to run. The primary reason women suffer lower body injuries far more frequently than males do during activities like running is because they have much wider hips than men, and similarly it's one of the main reasons men are faster runners on average despite being larger and heavier.

The main reason is higher muscle mass and higher adrenaline output. Men excelt at pumping out adrenaline and while women can also produce it to a large degree, they require different triggers and, in general, it's harder for women to "activate" an adrenaline rush as they are less prone to such outbursts.

 Sigvatr wrote:
One of the main "problems" is that mankind's very own evolution has outlived natural evolution.

Sort of, ish, maybe.

The 'West' has outlived 'survival of the fittest' in the classical sense, although sexual selection is still going strong. This has only been the case for the last century of or though (depending on location, social class and other factors) which is far too short a time to have any act of the human genome. Large parts of the world are still feeling strong evolutionary pressures and who knows what will have happened in 500 years?

Evolution will adapt to any environment. Our future adaptions will probably have a lot less to do with finding food or evading pathogens than they will to do with living, and reproducing, longer, surviving high sugar diets and generally adapting to a world without predators and hunger (hopefully).

 Smacks wrote:
I'm not certain that tiny primates are scared of small stuff either. A big hairy tarantula is probably a welcome snack for a lot of those little guys. I think many of our phobias are actually learned to some extent. I would also offer that our brain evolved as a response to other people. People are especially complicated and dangerous, and I think that is reflected in our psyche. Which is perhaps why things like cannibals and zombies (and perhaps home invasion) are uniquely terrifying.

No, not small stuff like literal small animals like spiders. Small stuff like things that are actually quite small threats, whether they're more direct physical threats from the wild, or even threats to our material position. We have a pretty clear drive to constantly spot threats, and a really pronounced flight or fight mechanism to kick in once that threat comes to life.

As you say, we have very complex psyches. One of the weirder parts of that psyche is how quickly we will believe bad news, and how reluctantly we'll accept bad news. Tell someone the murder rate is up and they'll lap it up, and start talkign about everything wrong with modern society that's driving such an awful trend. Tell them murder rates have been in steady decline for 100 years, and they'll demand you show them multiple peer reviewed article before they even accept that it might be possibly true.

You don't see that in creatures that have been apex predators for a really long time. You think if lions became sentient they'd spend any of their timing creating elaborate stories about the fall of lion civilisation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Another huge "problem" is the lack of natural selection. With societies protecting those that would have normally died ages ago, evolution is certainly hindered as it's built upon survival of the fittest. If you combine both issues, the next problem is that a big part of the population, namely the upper parts, reproduce far less than the lower parts of the population, thus meaning that reproduction is going the exact opposite route of where business is heading. It's really interesting thing to observe.

This is one of those things people have been claiming for a long time now, and it really doesn't work. For starters, it assumes that people at the top are genetically superior. It relies on them first of all on people in higher socio-economic groups being more intelligent, and then it relies on that intelligence being the product of genetics, rather than the result of greater education, greater opportunities and greater expectations.

So if we had a true meritocracy, where the most gifted were given the most training and resources, and placed in higher socio-economic positions, leading them to choose to have less children, then the argument would maybe kind of work (though then there'd be an issue of how long such a system would have to be in place before you'd see any results). But we don't have that society.

 sebster wrote:
No, not small stuff like literal small animals like spiders. Small stuff like things that are actually quite small threats, whether they're more direct physical threats from the wild, or even threats to our material position. We have a pretty clear drive to constantly spot threats, and a really pronounced flight or fight mechanism to kick in once that threat comes to life.

As you say, we have very complex psyches. One of the weirder parts of that psyche is how quickly we will believe bad news, and how reluctantly we'll accept bad news. Tell someone the murder rate is up and they'll lap it up, and start talkign about everything wrong with modern society that's driving such an awful trend. Tell them murder rates have been in steady decline for 100 years, and they'll demand you show them multiple peer reviewed article before they even accept that it might be possibly true.

Yeah that's very interesting, I suppose it's related to "why is the news always bad?". You might have come across the wiki page, where people have compiled quite an extensive list of different cognitive biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases it's quite fun to read through (if you haven't already) some of them are really funny.

I suppose all of them must have served (or still serve) some evolutionary purpose. I came across an interesting article recently (this one), which proposes that humans are bad at reasoning, because our reasoning skills are focused around winning arguments against other people for social status, rather than actually being right about anything (which explains quite a lot on OT).

On the other hand I have read studies that suggest people are able to notice very complex patterns and even solve math problems subconsciously, without actually being aware of it. Which might be why we often find ourselves at odds with statistical data, which is more often than not quite misleading. For example (and I may be proving your point here) I'm quite skeptical that flying really is the "safest way to travel". Statistically it is, but when you actually look more closely at the statistics, they often measure it in passenger miles, which I think is very misleading. For example if 300 people fly from London to NY (~3500 miles) without incident, then that's over a million safe passenger miles right there, even though the journey was considerably shorter. If you flipped that around and measured it in number of fatalities per journey in minutes it might look a lot different. You also have to account for the fact that most people who die in car accidents, die because of collisions with other cars, while planes hardly ever collide mid air. I don't think mid air collision is a big concern for passengers in planes. I think more people are worried about the malfunction related explosions, and collisions with the ground. If you were to plot out safety based on the probability of a malfunction per journey, times fatalities per malfunction. I'm almost certain it would show that apprehension about flying is a lot more justified than the regular statistics make out.

 sebster wrote:
You don't see that in creatures that have been apex predators for a really long time. You think if lions became sentient they'd spend any of their timing creating elaborate stories about the fall of lion civilisation?

Heh, I guess we'll never know. Though the ability to extrapolate hypothetical danger is probably closely tied with intelligence. I think you might be selling humans a little short, in terms of "curiosity" humans are positively brazen compared to most animals, and I think bravery is a uniquely human trait. Most other animals are actually quite shy and skittish, including lions:

 Smacks wrote:
Yeah that's very interesting, I suppose it's related to "why is the news always bad?". You might have come across the wiki page, where people have compiled quite an extensive list of different cognitive biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases it's quite fun to read through (if you haven't already) some of them are really funny.

That's a great link, thanks for picking that out. By complete coincidence I was in a course yesterday that included a bunch of the biases in that link, but nowhere near all of them. I'll be bookmarking that in order to read it a bunch more times.

I suppose all of them must have served (or still serve) some evolutionary purpose. I came across an interesting article recently (this one), which proposes that humans are bad at reasoning, because our reasoning skills are focused around winning arguments against other people for social status, rather than actually being right about anything (which explains quite a lot on OT).

I've read a very similar article before. And yeah, I've seen so many arguments where one side has completely and utterly shown it is right, but the other side keeps going because status (or ego, as I've come to see it), just won't let them concede.

On the other hand I have read studies that suggest people are able to notice very complex patterns and even solve math problems subconsciously, without actually being aware of it.

Walking across a room is actually a really complex bit of maths - judging distance and size to calculate a path. When they first started calculating AI it took them a few years to build a system that could get an A in the Harvard calculus exam. They're only just now reaching a point where a robot is even close to being as good as a human as walking across a room with objects in it.

Which might be why we often find ourselves at odds with statistical data, which is more often than not quite misleading. For example (and I may be proving your point here) I'm quite skeptical that flying really is the "safest way to travel". Statistically it is, but when you actually look more closely at the statistics, they often measure it in passenger miles, which I think is very misleading. For example if 300 people fly from London to NY (~3500 miles) without incident, then that's over a million safe passenger miles right there, even though the journey was considerably shorter. If you flipped that around and measured it in number of fatalities per journey in minutes it might look a lot different. You also have to account for the fact that most people who die in car accidents, die because of collisions with other cars, while planes hardly ever collide mid air. I don't think mid air collision is a big concern for passengers in planes. I think more people are worried about the malfunction related explosions, and collisions with the ground. If you were to plot out safety based on the probability of a malfunction per journey, times fatalities per malfunction. I'm almost certain it would show that apprehension about flying is a lot more justified than the regular statistics make out.

It isn't so much that there's lots of people on a plane, because ultimately you're still one person. I think the misleading part is more that it's measured per mile - the car is going maybe 30 miles on average, the plane is going 300 miles. So a 1,000 mile journey is crammed in to two hours in a plane, but stretched over two or three days by car. All the risk with the plane is concentrated in to a shorter period.

That said, it is pretty straight forward maths that if you have a given distance to travel, the method by which you are least likely to die is by plane. I know that, but I'm still a really nervous flier.

Though the ability to extrapolate hypothetical danger is probably closely tied with intelligence.

That's a pretty good point. I guess if another species were to become as intelligent as us, it would change them as that intelligence has changed us, and perhaps that would lead them to be just as scared.

I think you might be selling humans a little short, in terms of "curiosity" humans are positively brazen compared to most animals, and I think bravery is a uniquely human trait.

I think bravery is in a lot of pack species.

But it's a far point that I've probably given humans far too harsh a hearing in this thread. It wasn't really my intention to try and talk down human intelligence. Just to try and continue the conversation that Jehan started, that how we think is driven by our brain wiring as much as anything else.