The Argument-
Shenk argues that “few of us ever
get to know our own true potential, and that many of us mistake early
difficulties for innate limits” (12).
This is certainly proved to be true in humans continually becoming
smarter, more athletic, and better at virtually everything over time “The
record speed for the mile, for example, was cut from 4:36 in 1865 to 3:43 in
1999…The 200-meter freestyle swimming record decreased from 2:31 in 1908 to
1:43 in 2007” (111). Is there any
limit to how great humans can become?
While the environment plays a role in cultivating genius, will there
ever be a point where genes limit humans or organisms in general from
developing any further? Relate
your response to evolution.
Arguably, organisms have continually become more advanced over time as a
result of natural selection and evolution. Does anything limit evolution from infinitely continuing on,
with organisms continually becoming better and better?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn humans a natural limit does exist as we are made of many tissues formed into muscles and organs that all do have a limit in effectiveness. Bones do shatter at certain point and muscles can be overworked, and even though in the past we have seen improvements in our abilities, we also are built with an internal limit. David Shenk calls this limit our “potential”, and argues that very few have reached this threshold, but still acknowledges its existence. The quote used by Brad in the question highlights this as Shenk describes how “few of us ever get to know our own true potential, and that many of us mistake early difficulties for innate limits” (12). This “innate limit” that David Shenk mentions is the limit that an individual will be unable to pass. It may differ from person to person and in this day, and age it may be that if you even get any where near this limit you may overcome many in your abilities, but still stands at the point where we would be unable to improve ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn our cardiovascular unit we have discussed one of these limits as we studied how the heart is able to push blood throughout the body to deliver oxygen. Taking the example of Lance Armstrong that was presented, we may assume that he has made great leaps into the field of cycling and has pushed himself closer to his potential than most people in the world have. We heard that his resting heart rate was 30 beats per minutes, but that even though his heart was beating at less than half the speed of an average human, it was compensated for by a stroke volume much greater than a normal human. This allowed Lance Armstrong to move huge amounts of oxygen around his body when he increased his heart rate and aided him in pushing his muscles farther than everyone else, winning cycling races because of this ability (Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News). But with his extreme example, we can see that there are not much more improvements that can be made. Even if Lance Armstrong was able to increase his stroke volume even more and decrease his resting heart rate even more there will be a limit to the speed at which he can send blood around his body. There is only so much room in his chest cavity for his heart and therefore only so big it can grow. This shows some of the restrictions on the human body. Akshay mentions how improved technologies have helped us overcome many former records, but eventually the human body will be restricted by itself and only able to grow so much. There is a limit no matter if it is called a potential or not that is the threshold where genes will start limiting human greatness instead of our unwillingness or our environment.
The one exception to a human limit may be if humans are to evolve to be able to overcome any limit. As our study of evolution has showed us, life has found ways to overcome almost all of the obstacles placed in its way. We have studied organisms like those in Domain Archaea, known for there extreme living conditions. Campbell mentions species like Geogemma barossii and organisms in genus Sulfolobus who live in environments with such high temperatures that many other species would burn to death if even exposed to these places for seconds (Campbell 566-567). These two examples are extreme thermophiles, but many other extremes exist when it comes to the world. There are also halophiles and methanogens who live in similarly inhospitable environments in our opinions. Life has overcome these challenges through the process of natural selection, so as to a limit on how far life can improve; there is none to be observed anywhere in the near future. But if humans are to undergo evolution this extreme to be able to overcome their limits are they really human anymore? Or have they evolved into another species? Homo sapiens may one day become an extinct species if the right selective advantage transforms the race into a new species, but if this new species overcomes our achievement then it may not be right to count this as humans having no limit.
One other issue that exists though is the use of how evolution has made life “better”. It may not be right to define evolution as a process of making one species “better” than another, as sometimes when a new species branches off, the old one does not die off. This is what has led us to the vast diversity of life that exists on earth, as a new species may have changed niche as to not compete with related species. This does not necessarily define this new species as “better”, but different as they have a different role in how the ecosystem they are a part of functions. Now it may be appropriate to define one species that out performed another species to extinction that belonged to the same niche as better, but that is only as they have been forced into a direct comparison in competition for resources. So evolution may continue to improve features of organisms and also allow new species to perform certain tasks better than others but may not introduce “better” organisms. Through this process, evolution may have no limit as certain organisms continue to improve at certain things as we have seen life overcome so many different obstacles on earth in order to habitat even the most inhospitable places we can imagine.
ReplyDelete-Kyle Nelson (kynels21@gmail.com)
Shenk first states that the differences in our genes yield both advantages and disadvantages, and these differences can have "profound consequences" (12). Furthermore, he is reassuring us that human's have a potential that is undiscovered and at times we choose to not "tap into" our true potential and capacity as humans. As for "underachievers", Shenk states that they are not prisoners of their own DNA and that there are conscious choices being made in the talented society that we live in. Shenk believes that there is a point at which will have no control over the outcome of who we are and that our environment will also impact the way we develop as humans.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Campbell, there are many factors that will ultimately limit a population from reaching over its "carrying capacity" (1183). Although, there may be a limit to the size of a population, I believe that development and hence evolving, as a population will not come to a point where further improvements can't be made. Also, taking into account the changing environment around us, as humans we will have to learn to adapt to the changing surroundings.
Within our own human bodies, as Kyle wrote about above, the human body within can be limited. However it doesn't suggest that technology can eventually help and increase, for example, our life spans and make living longer lives a normal condition.
I would agree to the statement that the earth's food supply could ultimately be a factor that limits certain types of populations on earth. Humans also have a definite physical capacity as to developing muscle and improving cardiovascular health. Kyle mentioned Lance Armstrong and his incredible capability to pump blood through his entire body efficiently through his extensive career of cycling. I would also agree with the idea that our population will never stop evolving. We will continue to look for good traits and improve our offspring. For example, using invitro fertilization and the selection of genes for embryos to create a "designer baby" is becoming a topic discussion. For example, in an interesting article, a baby in London was born free of genes that code for a type of breast cancer (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/is-this-the-start-of-designer.html). As it can be used to test for diseases, this has raised many concerns and questions if the process would be legal when addressing physical characteristics rather than scanning for faulty genes.
Evolution is inevitable and will continue, however, as humans we may choose to fight against the natural process. We have already taken steps and identified the entire human genome. This theme is apparent everywhere, and will ultimately test our capacity to change our bodies and organisms around us. I feel that we have surpassed great troubles in the past, and with technology dominating most of our lives, there may be fewer obstacles to overcome.
(Weronika Dudkiewicz wpd1414@gmail.com)