Are humans inefficient and overcomplicated pieces of code?

[Somelauw]

Often when amateur programmers try to fix or improve some code, they often tend to be focussed on getting the code to work instead of making code efficient, readable or maintainable. The outcome is usually considered spaghetti code by more experienced programmers.
An idea which is generally accepted in science is that humans are developed by evolution combined with survival of the fittest. You can probably notice that humans getting adapted by evolution and survival of the fittest is analogous to a programmer randomly adapting his code until it works. And in analogy with that, humans are inefficient and overcomplicated pieces of code.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

Driving evolution in a directed and non-random manner to achieve efficiency and simplicity in the human design reminds me of nazis.

[Somelauw]

Driving evolution in a directed and non-random manner to achieve efficiency and simplicity in the human design reminds me of nazis.

Then let's not do that. I'm just philosophizing about the way humans work.

[Radnom Games]

Nah, it's actually very clever. It's more like a programmer coding a piece of code that optimises itself over time.

[DarkFlame]

It's more like a programmer coding a piece of code that optimises itself over time.

And then eventually falls to pieces.

[Takagi]

I think of it as those games that auto-detect lag and change the settings accordingly (less explosions and effects).

[Andy]

And then eventually falls to pieces.

That is being a negative Nancy. Be a positive Sally.

[mixxedstuff]

How about an indifferent Irma?

[ghg]

Or a nihillist Ned.

[Andy]

I guess I am kind of a Ned. The only purpose I need in life is pleasing myself. Simple. I don't need any higher purpose. I don't believe in any higher purpose. As for morals, they are just our creation. I don't see why any of that is negative. I am God in my eyes. You each should be your own God to.

[ghg]

You just came off like the most selfish, self-centered person in the universe right there O_o.
But yeah, I get your point.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

There has got to be a name for that view of the world. Solipsism is very similar I'm sure.

[Somelauw]

There has got to be a name for that view of the world. Solipsism is very similar I'm sure.

solipsismn simply means that one believes that he/she is the only person who has consciousness.
Andy seems more like a (newstyle-)hedonist to me.

[ghg]

Those hedonists, always spending their lives on nerdy internet forums.

[Andy]

Hedonists seem to have close beliefs compared to mine. I am also into Transhumanism. I don’t feel immortality / invincibility is realistic but I do feel we all move along a random circle of life so to speak. When we die I feel the matter and energy that makes us will continue and go into other things. Maybe the dance of energy and matter will play out this timeline again. All that is speculation though – I focus on this life because I know I have it.

[Thomas]

I guess I am kind of a Ned. The only purpose I need in life is pleasing myself. Simple. I don't need any higher purpose. I don't believe in any higher purpose. As for morals, they are just our creation. I don't see why any of that is negative. I am God in my eyes. You each should be your own God to.

This highly parallels Satanic religions.  Most "true" Satanists don't worship Satan or even believes he exists as a deity.  They believe that the only change can come from YOURSELF.  They also strongly advocate individuality, creativity, indulgence, and other aspects more associated with viewing your life as fleeting.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I was going to make that point but when I looked it up on Wiki I couldn't find anything like that mentioned.

[SanMan]

It depends how you look at it. Certainly morpholigically humans are very athletic creatures. While not being the best at any one thing we are definately a jack of all trades type of organism. This enables us to fill a variety of niches in our environment so that the species could expand over a vast area of land in pre-technological advanced (well when compared to today) times. Humans vertical leap, sprinting ability, long jump, swimming, strength, etc, are all decidedly average compared to other animals. We are neither good nor bad in those regards. However we do excel at distance running when compared to mammals of comparable size. This to me shows that we have been driven to efficiency in a variety of environments.

War and technology have both driven this efficiency even further. Technology is obvious because it is what enables us to live in conditions that biologically we shouldn't be able to live in. It has increased the human carrying capacity of earth incredibly. War acts along with this to ensure that only the most capable human beings will continue to live. I try not to think of a race or species as individuals but the sum of its parts. In human terms there could be an argument for grouping us by geographical differences. In terms of life what seperates us from the technology that we would be unable to survive without. The food supply systems of our society are akin to the circulatory systems of the individual. [might flesh out some sort of argument here later.]

Anyway I realise all thats a bit disjointed. I was just about to go out and thought I'd make a quick reply here which was a bit too quick for my brain to keep up.

[Yourself]

Certainly morpholigically humans are very athletic creatures.

Nevermind that in terms of physical strength we are comparatively weak, especially when contrasted with other great apes, we are definitely the weakest.  Physically we're entirely unremarkable save for our bipedalism, which doesn't confer an athletic advantage in its own right.  What really sets us apart from everything else is our intelligence.  Last I heard the driving forces believed to be involved here was constant and rapid environmental change.  If the environment changes within one generation, then that's quicker than natural selection can optimize for.  Unless natural selection starts selecting for individuals that are capable of adapting to these rapid changes within their own lifetimes.  We wouldn't have gotten very far out of Africa were it not for our intelligence. 

I think we hit some kind of tipping point, some bare minimum requirement for intelligence that allowed us to develop writing.  Once you have writing, you can start saving knowledge between generations reliably (as opposed to unreliable oral traditions).  This allows quicker development and knowledge to start growing with time.  Each time there's been a new development in the way information is stored or propagated, there has come an explosion in the rate of progress.  It's getting to the point where it's impossible for any single individual to keep up.

Driving evolution in a directed and non-random manner to achieve efficiency and simplicity in the human design reminds me of nazis.

Not everything the Nazis did was evil.  Genetic engineering will be showing up again, but not for a while.  Humans aren't anywhere near perfect.  There's a host of genetic diseases and flaws that could be fixed.  One difference from the Nazis is that most people appreciate diversity and the scientists involved in genetics typically understand why diversity is important.  I doubt there will ever come a point where we're all clones of some ideal human since there is no such thing.

[Bami]

For what I've heard, humans are also pretty good long-distance runners. Used to be anyways, before TV.