How would you know?

When you make an outrageous claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. Given that there isn't a real indication of anything to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume reality is still the way it always was and humans are too.

▲

graemep an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Which is the outrageous claim? We normally require new medical treatments to be proved safe, rather than assume they are safe until proved dangerous.

▲

b112 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This feels hand wavy.

I could make the same claim of a bridge before it collapses, without realising the steel was weak, or had micro fractures.

Where's the proof? What an outlandish claim! Don't you see traffic flowing as normal?

Of course, we shouldn't drop all advancement due to worries. I do think we should study the results a bit more closely though.

	▲	grumbelbart2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Bridges deteriorate by default. That is a well understood process with well understood reasons, which we monitor and work against. Salt, thermal cycles, load, rust. Humanity does not deteriorate by default. Claiming it does so through some hand-wavy pseudo-evolutionary arguments is not a strong case, and requires at least some evidence to be taken serious. How about a (equally unfounded and just for the sake of argument) reverse claim: Humanity got more intelligent, because high child mortality favored physically strong children instead of mentally strong children.