# Why we get lost in Books



## Vladd67 (Aug 15, 2009)

It's happened to all of us at one time or another
Why We Get Lost in Books « Derren Brown Blog


----------



## Granfalloon (Aug 15, 2009)

Perhaps the guy in the picture (in the link) gets stimulated upside-down and backwards.


----------



## skeptical (Aug 15, 2009)

A related question I have pondered is why we get lost in fantasies.   We have all of us (and especially scifi fans) found ourselves daydreaming about being in some fictional situation. 

So I asked myself why humans would spend time in a mental fiction.   In what way is this an evolutionary advantage?   I concluded that it was a mental modelling of a possible future situation.   Of course, the process is not perfect, and we spend a lot of time simulating in our minds situations we are not remotely ever likely to encounter.  However, many of our daydreams will be situations we may some time encounter, and the daydream helps us pre-plan.

Imagine you (assuming that you are heterosexual and male) see a beautiful woman.   It is not at all unlikely that you will fantasize a situation in which you approach her with a suave and clever pick up line, whisk her off on a date, and eventually bed her.  If we see this fantasy as simulation of a possible future event, and as pre-planning so as to know how to behave on that event, then there is an obvious survival (or reproductive) advantage in engaging in that fantasy.

It would not be excessive to see getting lost in a book as an extension of this mental process.


----------



## Nik (Aug 15, 2009)

Hmm: One of my writing problems is that I don't consciously read fiction. Literally, I don't see words, sentences, paragraphs. Or, d'uh, punctuation. A page goes in a couple of zig-zag saccades. My Mind's Eye untangles the pieces and turns them into a movie for me to watch...

Per the appropriate thread, switching to the HiVis, neo-retro 'ProggyFont' for editing has done wonders for my proof-reading. Snag is the novelty is wearing off, and I'm starting to miss stuff again...


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2009)

Even with ProggyFont, I'm surprised you don't miss things.

The writer (this one, at least) has a particular problem when reading their own work. An error in someone else's work, one that might leap off the page, can sit there unobserved in your own WiP for reading after reading. I guess it's partly because the writer has already seen (if you see the story, that is) what's happening. Things that don't fit seem to be suppressed; things that aren't there, but "always have been there" (except that they're not on the screen or piece of paper, but only in the mind) are often included in this picture. The same seems to apply to many typos. The mind reads what ought to be there, not what actually is.

Reading the text out aloud - to oneself, to others - can help. I find myself sayings things that are different to what's in front of my eyes, but now at least I notice the differences and can correct the text.

Time can also play its part: I often see old posts of mine and wonder how the errors remained unseen, even in posts which I know I edited and "corrected".


----------



## Nik (Aug 15, 2009)

"Even with ProggyFont, I'm surprised you don't miss things."
;-((
Miss really, really obvious stuff.
Like an 'excersise' on page 13 which I spotted when I didn't have a pen to mark the page, so lost it again for a fortnight. Or the 'consultantcy' on page 1. I was displeased about that...

But, Murphy's Law's corollaries mean there's always one last typo.

And, yes, there's at least one more hiding in the dreaded BlindSpot. 

And, d'uh, given my savaged posts in the Critiques section, you'll agree I can only spot errors which I know are errors...

Even so, mistakes are still much easier to spot in ugly, mono-spaced ProggyFont than in pretty, kerned Arial.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Aug 16, 2009)

Huh.

And here I thought it was just a good way to avoid the reality that is my life. My very messy, dirty laundry and dirty dish riddled life.

And a great way to ignore my kids. I just let them fight it out and it doesn't bother me if I have a good book in my hand.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 16, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> Even with ProggyFont, I'm surprised you don't miss things.
> 
> The writer (this one, at least) has a particular problem when reading their own work. An error in someone else's work, one that might leap off the page, can sit there unobserved in your own WiP for reading after reading. I guess it's partly because the writer has already seen (if you see the story, that is) what's happening. Things that don't fit seem to be suppressed; things that aren't there, but "always have been there" (except that they're not on the screen or piece of paper, but only in the mind) are often included in this picture. The same seems to apply to many typos. The mind reads what ought to be there, not what actually is.
> 
> ...


 
Amen to that Ursa.

I've read some of the things I posted in the past (and will in the future no doubt) that I know I spell checked and read three of four times and think to myself "What the hell was I on?". Which is most annoying because I'm rarely on anything.

Sometimes the old spell checker is responsible in that it says you've made an error and you just click on the first suggestion in the list because you're not paying attention in the heat of the post. I've stopped using Iespell because of this as it only highlights the next error and you can tend not to see the overall picture. IE own spellchecker is much better as you get them all at once. Which can be quite sobering when you see every other word has a type or daft error. That's when you know you've been drinking too much and should possibly give the post a miss.

Course tiredness plays it's part. When you're tied to the chair and forced to post 23 hours a day some mistakes can be expected. Not to mention the painful "treatments and procedures" they put you through to stop the room stinking and the "bed sores" from sitting on your arse all the time. They can be quite distracting, but hey, that's old news to us die hard posters.

Anyway the real question is :-

"Even with ProggyFont"

What's Proggyfont?


----------



## The Ace (Aug 16, 2009)

I always thought the answer was, 'Because we can.'


----------



## The Procrastinator (Aug 16, 2009)

I would imagine its down to the imagine. Ation. As in some people have more than others. Some people imagine quite compulsively, hence daydreaming. The ability to imagine is a heck of an evolutionary advantage, though you don't want everyone doing it or who would harvest the wheat or design tax forms?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 16, 2009)

Or harvest the taxes for that mater.


----------



## Nik (Aug 16, 2009)

"What's Proggyfont ?"

An UGLY, but effective and free HiVis editing font.

Google for proggyfont.

I got the 'clean, true-type, slashed zero, bold punctuation' variant, run it at size 16.


----------



## The Judge (Aug 16, 2009)

skeptical said:


> So I asked myself why humans would spend time in a mental fiction. In what way is this an evolutionary advantage?



Perhaps the ability to tell stories is the human equivalent of a peacock's tail - very flashy but simply there to attract the birds.  

In evolutionary terms an intelligent mate is likely to be better for a woman in that he will be able to find prey etc, and his intelligent genes will mean her child is likely to be intelligent, and therefore more likely to survive until adulthood, and is more likely to mate so her genes are passed on. (Obviously when we get to the state of super-intelligence and geekdom, this last stage of likely mating no longer applies. ) 

Intelligence can manifest itself in many ways, but I'd have thought the ability to thrill people with a story while you're sitting round a camp fire is a good one.  And those who are most able to produce mental images and lose themselves in them are presumably more able to tell good stories.

So.  Story tellers get laid more often.  You knew there was a reason you wanted to be a writer...



skeptical said:


> Imagine you (assuming that you are heterosexual and male) see a beautiful woman.   It is not at all unlikely that you will fantasize a situation in which you approach her with a suave and clever pick up line, whisk her off on a date, and eventually bed her.  If we see this fantasy as simulation of a possible future event, and as pre-planning so as to know how to behave on that event, then there is an obvious survival (or reproductive) advantage in engaging in that fantasy.



And does this work??

Hands up anyone who has fantasised about bedding a beautiful woman after a suave and clever pick up line, and then has had it turn out like that in real life.  Because I know for sure it doesn't happen in reverse - I've been fantasising about my reply to George Clooney's suave and clever line - and the damn man still hasn't had the grace to come and deliver it in person.  

J


----------



## skeptical (Aug 16, 2009)

To The Judge

If your theory about story telling being a mate attractant is true, then we can make certain predictions. I am comparing story telling to joke telling.
1. Story tellers will mostly be male, much as most stand up comedians are male. 
2. Females will be fascinated with stories. Studies have shown that females are most attentive to male jokes, especially when the male in question is otherwise attractive to them, but rarely tell witticisms to males.
4. Story tellers will be extremely successful sexually. I have seen little evidence of this, apart from the most famous. Even very moderately successful male comics, on the other hand, get laid rather often!

If you will excuse me, I find your hypothesis a little unlikely. Lots of top flight writers are female, and males appear to be just as fascinated with a good book as females. In fact, you can go further. The most successful female writers, as measured by income, write specifically for women, such as romances. The most successful male writers tend to write for men. eg. thrillers and male centred sexual stories - a la James Bond. Unless we assume they are all gay, this is hardly a sexual attractant!

This makes your hypothesis seem a little weak. I think the concept that story telling, and fantasizing is a mental preparation for the real world to be a bit more likely.

Re my example of the fantasy about a beautiful woman. Sure, I agree that the mental imagery probably will not get you laid with a gorgeous woman. However, rehearsing the strategy mentally with the unattainable target may prepare the guy for an encounter with a more attainable female. The end result is the same, even if the woman is less attractive physically.


----------



## The Judge (Aug 16, 2009)

Damn.  Another good idea gone west!

Incidentally, skeptical, did you know that Jacob Bronowski shared your idea about preparation for real life?  He called it 'forward-looking imagination'.  Only he was using it in the context of cave art rather than story-telling. His view was that in the dark caves light would be flashed onto the pictures of bison etc to make hunters (presumably young boys) familiar with the sight of sudden danger. 

Not sure I agree with that, but it makes for an interesting idea.  As does yours.  Though, as you acknowledged, we do tend to fantasise about things that will never happen (viz George Clooney) - any thoughts about that?  Other than it's extremely pleasant while it's happening?

J


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 16, 2009)

The Judge said:


> Perhaps the ability to tell stories is the human equivalent of a peacock's tail - very flashy but simply there to attract the birds.
> 
> In evolutionary terms an intelligent mate is likely to be better for a woman in that he will be able to find prey etc, and his intelligent genes will mean her child is likely to be intelligent, and therefore more likely to survive until adulthood, and is more likely to mate so her genes are passed on. (Obviously when we get to the state of super-intelligence and geekdom, this last stage of likely mating no longer applies. )
> 
> ...


 
So throwing a few cents in of my own. 

I have seen/read somewhere that one of the first things that women use in selecting a potential mate is it's sense of humour. I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I owe my own success to my Adonis like figure and good looks and sensation repartee. (So that'll be my total failure then) 

((((not true I have the lovely Mrs Tein)))

I suspect that there is some genetic predisposition/memory programmed into the female. By tradition story tellers were travellers and would seem attractive to females. This coupled with the stories of far of places and tales of daring do would appear to your average medieval peasant girl as someone to widen the gene pool with.

As for your premise suggesting that men fantasise about bedding a beautiful woman Judge I have to inform you this just doesn't happen. This is a typical sterotype that women have of men and I must say it's wearing a bit thin. I might even suggest it's insulting.

Men will fantasise about bedding anything in skirts and beauty only rarely enters the into the thought patterns of the one 'brain cell' most men possess.


----------



## Nik (Aug 16, 2009)

Um, I used to invent SciFi bed-time stories for my little brother. He needed a lot less sleep than I did, but half an hour of space battles and wondrous tech would send him off to zzzzz-land without fail...

When my potential fianceé was stuck in hospital, going cabin-crazy with boredom, I took her some of my Mereland fantasy tales. Plan-B was that she'd finally realise I was mad and dump me...

Instead, she was charmed. I was terribly shy and invariably tongue-tied, but here were tens of thousands of my words, intelligently and amusingly arranged. My use of English was odd, my punctuation was erratic, but I had such wondrous ideas, a wicked sense of humour, the tenacity to write so much and the courage to let her into my head...

;-))


----------



## skeptical (Aug 16, 2009)

Nik

Hate to disillusion you, but your fiancee belonged to that large group of women, known as *smart*.   You did not have to hook her.  But she knew how to hook you!

To The Judge

About fantacising about things that will never happen.
Absolutely.  I agree with you.   My thesis is that the tendency to day-dream (fantacise) is the result of evolution.   And evolution is a shockingly imperfect process.   Just think about the human appendix for example!

I think there are a lot of human traits that are essentially evolutionary mistakes.   Evolution not quite getting it right.   Thus, evolution gave us the ability to day dream, but no inbuilt brake to stop us daydreaming about things that will never happen. 

Another good one is human altruism.  Lots of pundits in the game of evolutionary theory agonise about why humans show altruism to strangers.  After all, those strangers are not kin and will be unlikely ever to return the favour.

My thesis is that it is an evolutionary mistake.   Evolution built into us altruism when we were tribal apes, because helping our fellow tribe-apes would lead to greater survival of close relatives, and lots of others helping us in turn.   However, evolution got it wrong, and did not build in a stop switch to prevent us extending altruism to strangers, since those tribesapes rarely met strangers.   Thus humans today are in the habit of giving money to charities that help the starving in Africa, even when there is absolutely no benefit to them.   And long may that last!


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2009)

I refuse to accept that my puns are an evolutionary dead end. 


(And some of you ladies may want to help help me prove that they aren't. )



* Ursa gets his coat.... *


----------



## skeptical (Aug 16, 2009)

To Ursa

Actually, studies of humour appear to show it to be definitely related to sexual attractiveness.   Women nearly always claim that a sense of humour in a man is attractive.   When researchers eavesdrop on male/female conversations, they find that the vast bulk of jokes and witticisms are given by the males, and the vast bulk of expressed appreciation by the females.   The game goes on......


----------



## The Judge (Aug 16, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> (And some of you ladies may want to help help me prove that they aren't. )
> 
> * *Ursa gets his coat..*.. *



Why?  You don't imagine that you've pulled already do you?

Incidentally, if that is your idea of a suave and clever pick up line, my advice is to stick to the puns.  Someone, somewhere must find them funny. p)

TEiN - profuse apologies for maligning the male sex with my shallow categorisation of their attitudes towards beautiful women.  I stand corrected.

J


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 16, 2009)

Ooops Sorry J


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2009)

The Judge said:


> Incidentally, if that is your idea of a suave and clever pick up line, my advice is to stick to the puns. Someone, somewhere must find them funny. p)


 
I've heard it on good authority that George Clooney uses lines like this all the time. (So you have a real treat awaiting you**.)






** - I'm referring to your forthcoming meeting with George, by the way.


----------



## Nik (Aug 17, 2009)

Sorry, Skeptical: Twenty years of hindsight allows me to state that you are mistaken.

Please do not run off and hang yourself in despair-- K & I are a statistical anomaly...


----------



## Granfalloon (Aug 17, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Imagine you (assuming that you are heterosexual and male) see a beautiful woman.   It is not at all unlikely that you will fantasize a situation in which you approach her with a suave and clever pick up line, whisk her off on a date, and eventually bed her.  If we see this fantasy as simulation of a possible future event, and as pre-planning so as to know how to behave on that event, then there is an obvious survival (or reproductive) advantage in engaging in that fantasy.



ROFL. *Cough*. Er, I must tell you that a friend of mine has the ability to do this all of the time, and it has very little to do with his story-telling ability. It's all about charm and confidence. The question you should be asking, and possibly helping lead us back to the topic is, What does he get out of it? My friend is one who I really used to admire for this, but a closer look reveals a man looking for the perfect woman and never finding one. Hmm... "She complains too much. The one before her was no good in bed, the one before her was an alcoholic, and the one before her smelled like vegetable soup." It's always the same, he finds fault with the one he's with, and so goes out and uses his charm to seduce another. It might look good at first glance, but I feel sad for him that he can never get through the roughest part of the relationship when you see the worst of the person, and still chose to focus on the positive because you believe in that person. 

Back on topic - I like to lose myself in another world, and thereby escape this one. Yes, I admit it. It is a coping mechanism for me whether I am reading the story or writing it. Sometimes I just need a break from this frikkin' planet. What a mess! Dave Matthews says "I hear more than I'd like to, so I boil my head in a sense of humor. I laugh at what I cannot change, and throw it all on the pile again." Some of us boil our heads in an imaginary adventure. Think of it as a kind of "vacation."


----------



## skeptical (Aug 17, 2009)

Granfalloon
You asked "What does he get out of it?"

In an evolutionary sense - plenty. The whole aim of the evolutionary process is to increase gene frequency, through increased chances to survive and reproduce. Admittedly, in today's world, simply having lots of sex does not ensure reproduction. However, through most of human history and prehistory, it did. Hence a man who could get lots of sex was enhancing his chances to pass on his genes.

If you are talking about personal satisfaction, then each of us has to answer that for ourselves. But Mother Nature (the personification of the evolutionary process) does not care. Happiness or sadness, satisfaction or frustration, mean nothing to her. She only wants successful passing on of genes.

Our instincts are 'designed' to satisfy this requirement. They do not need to create any happiness, satisfaction, or pleasure. A male chases meaningless sex for reproductive success. A female chases a long term romantic attachment in order to achieve successful passing on of her genes, for evolutionary reasons, even if she is totally unaware of that fact.

Using fiction for escape?
Sure. Don't we all. However, I do not think that is the evolutionary reason we have this ability to lose ourselves in books. Much more likely that this is an extension of the mental pre-planning that occurs in daydreams. However, our conscious rationalisations why we do things are often quite different to the true evolutionary reason we do those things.


----------



## Granfalloon (Aug 17, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Granfalloon
> You asked "What does he get out of it?"
> 
> In an evolutionary sense - plenty. The whole aim of the evolutionary process is to increase gene frequency, through increased chances to survive and reproduce. Admittedly, in today's world, simply having lots of sex does not ensure reproduction. However, through most of human history and prehistory, it did. Hence a man who could get lots of sex was enhancing his chances to pass on his genes.
> ...



Yes, I see the cold, scientific angle you are taking on reproduction. I see human beings as much, much more than animals. 

If there is really such a thing as the "true evolutionary reason" for anything I assure you that there is not one human being that can define what that is. 

I was simply telling the truth about my fascination with fiction - in other words - I wasn't rationalizing.


----------



## skeptical (Aug 17, 2009)

Granfalloon

I am not accusing you of failing to tell the truth.  I feel exactly the same way.   Just that the real reason for something is not always the reason we feel.  One of my favourite quotes is :  "Man is not a rational animal.  Man is a rationalising animal."

Sure, I may seem to be taking a hard hearted view point.  However, this is the science/nature part of the forum, and I am describing things from the viewpoint of science/nature.

True evolutionary reason?   Yes, there usually is one, though it is not always evident, and often human actions are quite contrary to the obvious action giving evolutionary advantage.   As I said before, evolution is extremely imperfect, and often results in 'mistakes'.   On top of that, human intelligence allows for wide variability in behaviour, meaning that actions are often not what we would expect to give true evolutionary advantage.   After all, lots of people commit suicide, and there is clearly no evolutionary advantage in that!

I am afraid that the 'Darwin Awards' view of improving the species does not fit, though there are lots of occasions when I would like to believe it did.

However, at the end of the day, most common human behaviours do have a reason in evolutionary terms.  Not all, and certainly not the rare aberrent behaviours.   But most of the common ones.

To truly understand human behaviour and nature, you need to fully appreciate genetic variability.   Sexual reproduction involves substantial genetic shuffling.  This results in offspring that are genetically different from parents, and often in quite random ways.  Some of these variations make the individuals involved subject to natural selection, and they leave the gene pool.  Other variations are useless, but not sufficiently harmful to be weeded out by natural selection, and result in 'strange' behaviours.  Overall, these genetic variations, exaggerated by social and cultural variations, leave _Homo sapiens_ as a genuinely weird species.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 17, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Granfalloon
> You asked "What does he get out of it?"
> 
> In an evolutionary sense - plenty. The whole aim of the evolutionary process is to increase gene frequency, through increased chances to survive and reproduce. Admittedly, in today's world, simply having lots of sex does not ensure reproduction. However, through most of human history and prehistory, it did. Hence a man who could get lots of sex was enhancing his chances to pass on his genes.
> ...


 
I'm not convinced by your increase the gene argument being the reason and therefore the justification for his actions. In a real caveman back to basics situation your friend would be an outcast (as would most of us) because the head honcho would not suffer other non genetically linked sub dominant male to live in the pack. (See lions)

In this situation any of his advances toward the harem would result in his death - He would be both weaker from lack of a good kill rate since he had no females to fetch and kill for him and he would be less attractive since he wasn't the strapping hulk and obvious bed partner for the vast majority of the women in the pack. Not to mention the penalties that may be involved should any female get caught "at it".

There is some indication that in chimps some females will seek out wandering males for a little illicit sex. Now to be a little controversial these wanderers would need the planning and devious thinking to make it possible to arrange these affairs whereas, and here I use a wide brush, the dominant male is incapable of this planning and is probably incapable of imagining that this could go on.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Aug 17, 2009)

Don't forget mother nature has other things in mind than the survival of individuals. She strives for complexity and diversity. Imagination, the ability to see, hear etc what isn't there, could be there, or might have been there, is part of our species diversity. It might be what makes humans different from other animals. Or it might not - who knows where cats go in their heads when they do that zone out thing...

Humans don't exist purely to survive. I think we exist as a building block on the way to something. Of course the building may turn out to be foundationally flawed, in which case it might be back to the drawing board time. Maybe this is what happened to the dinosaurs. But if our species has a destiny, our ability to imagine (and its outwardly manifesting sister, creativity) is a big part of it.


----------



## Nik (Aug 17, 2009)

OT: Cats *do* dream, and about hunting / running / jumping / being scared etc as you might expect...

Our old Siamese would run around in his sleep, chase invisible mice, bottle-brush, howl, yowl, face-down invisible foes, bounce up walls etc etc. 

His double-take when he woke from vivid dream else-where than his bed was quite some-thing...


----------



## Granfalloon (Aug 17, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Granfalloon
> 
> I am not accusing you of failing to tell the truth.  I feel exactly the same way.   Just that the real reason for something is not always the reason we feel.  One of my favourite quotes is :  "Man is not a rational animal.  Man is a rationalising animal."
> 
> ...



No disagreement on that last point! 

Well, I'm certainly pleased that you did not lash back at me - I decided afterward that I could have been a bit more tactful in my response. Apologies. The one fact that seems to blare out against the argument of some innate evolutionary need to insure the survival of the species (Homo Sapiens in this case), is that I think we've already overdone that part a bit -(Now someone could accuse me of being cold and scientific). We certainly have no need for more humans at this point, and if you want to take a scientific approach, I would say we need to decrease in population if we want to guarantee our survival. 




skeptical said:


> True evolutionary reason?   Yes, there usually is one, though it is not always evident, and often human actions are quite contrary to the obvious action giving evolutionary advantage.    ...



I'm curious. Are you more or less equating instinct with the term "True evolutionary reason"? If not, instinct must at least be a subset of what true evolutionary reason comprises (?), and if there is more to the term than innate instinct, what else does it involve? Where did you get that term? 



skeptical said:


> I am afraid that the 'Darwin Awards' view of improving the species does not fit, though there are lots of occasions when I would like to believe it did.
> 
> However, at the end of the day, most common human behaviours do have a reason in evolutionary terms.
> 
> ...



I am also a believer in science and Darwinism; I've had some college courses to shore up the evidence for it. Although the statement "To truly understand human behaviour and nature... etc." is quite a bold one. I believe that to truly understand human behavior and nature, you will need much more than a full appreciation for genetic variability. You will need much more than current day medical science or psychology has to offer, and  more than current day philosophy or religion has to offer. In short, I'm not convinced that it is in any way possible at this time in our history for any human, no matter how intelligent, to truly understand human behavior and nature.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 17, 2009)

Granfalloon said:


> No disagreement on that last point!
> 
> Well, I'm certainly pleased that you did not lash back at me - I decided afterward that I could have been a bit more tactful in my response. Apologies. The one fact that seems to blare out against the argument of some innate evolutionary need to insure the survival of the species (Homo Sapiens in this case), is that I think we've already overdone that part a bit


 
Perhaps, but this is a _very recent_ occurence. Homo sapiens sapiens didn't become the dominant human (sub-) species until 30,000 years or so in Europe and didn't exist anywhere as a variety of human 200,000+ years ago.


----------



## Granfalloon (Aug 18, 2009)

> Homo sapiens sapiens didn't become the dominant human (sub-) species until...


 
Sorry, I'm not sure I see a point to your comment. If you are talking about the splitting off of the "sapiens sapiens" limb, How does that change the fact that we've overdone it? Also, you might have noted that it is only extremely recently that we have "overdone" it. (We might not have quite overdone it all the way just yet.) Still, it is in the last 400 years or so that we are growing exponentially:

*1750......790 million*
*1800......980 million*
*1850...1,260 million*
*1900...1,650 million*
*1950...2,555 million*
*2000...6,080 million**


*For most of human history, up to around 10 thousand years*
*ago (generally accepted by science, although some place*
*the time a few thousand years earlier), Earth's human*
*population remained stabilized at around 8 to 10 million. *
*Since then it has grown, at varying rates, to reach its*
*present level of over 6,200 million (6.2 billion). **

** Population Statistics - Earth's Population Statistics and Growth Problems*


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 18, 2009)

You seemed to be doubting the usefulness of what would be beneficial evolutionary characteristics to a less dominant species by saying that _we_ don't need them, given that we are so numerous and dominant. But until very recently we were neither as numerous nor as dominant. (And seen from the perspective of the evolutionary timescale, our period of dominance and of (over-)abundance is but the blink of an eye.)


And who says we won't need these beneficial characteristics in the future?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Aug 18, 2009)

Well....

I for one 

Granfelloon: Whilst I agree three or four billion less humans would be good for the planet I would suggest (had we the time) that there is the possibility that the current batch is not the pinnacle of human development.

I can conceive of those evolutionary processes producing something more than what we have become. Perhaps there is a reason for the hideous expansion numbers we find ourselves amongst. 

The bigger the primordial soup that humanity is, the more chances that something will crawl out of the muddy morass.

So we could, in the time we all have left, watch this space.


----------



## skeptical (Aug 21, 2009)

A couple points on overpopulation (note how we have veered form the thread topic?  I am not complaining.  This is interesting.)

Overpopulation ....

If you look at it purely from the viewpoint of evolution, achieving a large population size and maintaining it is, in fact, a sure sign of a successful species.   And of course, we can do exactly that, as long as we are prepared to accept a price.  Said price includes lots of other species going extinct.

However, we should not speak too soon.   If you check United Nations data (www.un.org/popin)  you will find that the rate of growth has been dropping drastically, and the projections are that humanity will reach a peak around the year 2040 of about 9 billion, and the world population will fall thereafter.    It is very noticeable that peoples that have the ability to control their own fertility almost inevitably choose less than two children per couple.

And a point on genetic variability.  I said we need to appreciate that variability to appreciate human nature, and that is true.  Of course we do need to study lots of other things also.  But if we do not understand genetic variability we fall into the old, old trap of assuming other people are, at a basic level, like ourselves.   That is simply not true.  We are all truly different from everyone else.  There is not a single human trait that does not occur in a manner diametrically opposite in at least some people.   We do need to understand variability (and genetics is the basic source of this variability, though exacerbated by other factors).

It is a bit like the loving mother who speaks of her son, just convicted of serial murder and rape, by saying :  "He really is a good boy at heart!"  Not so.   At heart he is a totally evil *******.   Most humans have a conscience, but there are plenty who totally lack that feature.


----------

