> Humans haven’t literally evolved that much in 200 years.

You’re being generous. I would say we haven’t evolved in thousands of years.

I mean sure, the tech is better but we’re the same self absorbed, careless bipeds we’ve always been.

Both you and the parent seem to assume that 'evolution' means 'improvement'

Humanity has clearly evolved, even in the last 200 years.

Doesn't mean we are getting better

Our software has improved since the domestication of animals and crops.

Our hardware has not changed and we are still on H. Sapiens 1.0.

I hope you’re correct. All our domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild cousins. If the phrenologists hadn’t been so focussed on proving their racist fantasies, would they have found our skulls a few marbles smaller than our ancient (modern human) ancestors?

Will CRISPR on humans usher in Homosapiens 2.0 in our lifetimes?

Isn't it the other way? Hardware has changed as massive inventions have augmented our living standards. While at the same time, the software (IE human mentality) hasn't over 1000s of years, except for maybe hard disk usage (which is human knowledge).

The hardware they were referring to is the human body. All that’s changed is we know how to maintain it better and can fix more types of premature breakdowns. It’s essentially the same hardware, just better maintained.

I think there is an individual and a meta/society level. I think both me and GP were referring to the individual/micro level.

And I think the person you are responding to was acknowledging that evolution didn’t just stop…as long as there are babies there are mutations, and the environment will select for some qualities over others.

If you meant super micro, then the same can be said of your immune system / gut flora, though I’m not certain of the relevance.

The point is that “evolution” doesn’t magically direct to some better outcome, or even towards a more sustainable local maxima.

> I would say we haven’t evolved in thousands of years.

We’ve become slightly more lactose-tolerant!

And with bowels 300% more irritable!

And the appendix became seemingly useless.

1. If the appendix was both useless and deadly (before procreation), there would be a strong evolutionary pressure against it, so it likely is unobviously useful

2. Western diet possibly causes problems with the appendix - "Appendicitis is uncommon in rural Africa and Asia"

3. Anatomy involved with immune function or microbiome is hard to understand function.

From links:

The peak incidence occurs in the 15- to 24-year-old age group. However older individuals are more likely to have complications and die from the malady. Symptoms of appendicitis in older people frequently are not as clear-cut as are symptoms in younger people.

People with acute appendicitis often think they would feel better if they just could move their bowels. To encourage a bowel movement, they take a laxative. This is a serious mistake, one that may lead to rupture of the appendix.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-04-14-87012404...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-funct...

Also interesting is the idea that the appendix is a local optimisation. If a smaller appendix was more likely to get appendicitis, it might remain a vestigial organ rather disappearing completely, even it the organ has no function, because there is an evolutionary advantage to having the current rather than the smaller size

Very smart!

One of my favourite pastimes with Hacker News is thinking about how commenters have been trained by playing games to follow incentives and game optimisation (gaming the system).

Slightly off topic, the surgeon who had to remove his own appendix.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32481442

There are a couple more up to date theories on its current utility

Lactose to the rescue!!!

I took a course on Plato’s republic back in school. Our class conclusion was that nothing has changed in the last 2000 years in terms of society/issues since that book was written!

"Progress" is a Western myth. Perhaps "progress" is The Western Myth. Things simply change.

TIL from my Classical Archaeology professor.

You can't say this kinda stuff on HN since too many people associate their job with creating said progress. Michel Foucault spent his whole life making this exact argument - things simply change.

you can say it. they just did

For context, grandparent was in the grey at the time of my posting and I was responding with my dismay that such a perspective was striking whoever as not only controversial but also not worthy of a proper reply given that ostensible dismay.

I still believe our social evolution is possible. We have to talk about those things and take a break on economics.

We’ve seen the value of modern technology. There’s no need to continue to obsessively speculate about the advantages they provide to daily life.

Having beers with a grey haired VC yesterday, I couldn’t help but think this guy really just wants to feel relevant. These guys are the real energy vampire; IMO. Constant reverence is exhausting. It started to feel like he was one of those guys who peaked on the high school football team. “Yes, I’d like to hear about your car collection. Again.”

> I couldn’t help but think this guy really just wants to feel relevant

Great insight. Now apply it to everyone you know. We ALL want to feel relevant and we all want to feel like what we are doing matters.

Everyone does and this is, in a twisted way, one way we are trying to achieve immortality. You do stuff, you make an impact, you leave your mark.

I just watched the documentary on John Delorean on Netlfix. It’s very interesting and reminds me of this. Check it out if you have a chance!

I just watched the documentary on your recommendation. There's so much more to the story that I had no idea about. Thanks for the tip.

I think what he said still mostly applies to landlords. Maybe even more so as real estate enjoys several tax and policy advantages that other investments don't.

Yes I get that economic rent seeking is huge and things like patent trolls financial lobbyists are problems but his comment fits traditional landlords best.