|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6422 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The next stage of human evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
If civilization lasts that long? 500 years isn't a long time. Rome was around longer. As were the egyptians. The chinese much longer. western civilization, based off of the greek and roman worlds has been around much longer.
And who will we be?I'd say that in five hundred years we'll still be primates. We'll still be H. sapiens sapiens--we have been for roughly twenty thousand years, why not an extra five hundred? As to us going to some fantastic place--I agree. There is nothing like the thrill of the future, and what it might me like. I'm not saying we've reached our evolutionary finale. We aren't done. But, what environment can we not change to suit us? There is none I can think of, besides the center of the sun or earth, and those places may soon be able to be lived in (soon as in next thousand or so years). What other body has such a high degree of manipulation capability, especially physical? What part of us can't we augment with our technology? As I see it, there's not that much more to be done with us. what major flaws can't we fix in our body? Intelligence is one of the greatest survival tools in existence, and it's a shame we waste it in today's world. yeah, I'm an optimist.and yeah, not much of this makes sense. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
kuresu writes: I'd say that in five hundred years we'll still be primates. We'll still be H. sapiens sapiens--we have been for roughly twenty thousand years, why not an extra five hundred? I don't want to drag this off topic, but we are looking at what human life will be like in the future. This is the first time in over 20,000 years that we have hundreds if not thousands of fanatics that are more than happy to blow themselves up in order to kill people they've never met. How long 'till these guys have nuclear weapons? We have been over using anti-biotics for so long that we are now vulnerable to a pandemic caused by some super virus that has evolved far beyond anything we've had to deal with before. How about super volcanoes such as Yellowstone Park. At some point in time one of them will blow and people who study these things believe they will cause a world wide nuclear winter. http://www.geocities.com/Northstarzone/VOLCANO.html I hate to sound so pessimistic but we are very used to the Earth being a very friendly environment. That can all change in a heartbeat. At any rate there's not much that we can do so sleep tight. Edited by GDR, : typo Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
well you know, I live in a very dangerous area--Boulder, Colorado. When yellowstone goes, this place is screwed. worldwide nuclear winter from it? Don't think so. Climate will be affected worldwide, but it's not as if we haven't had yellowstone go off before. granted, not while H. sapiens has been around.
but who says we can't figure out how to survive that blast when it comes? If we can't, I say our intelligence is highly overrated. But I think we will. yeah, I'm an optimist . . . All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4492 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
well as we are not a finished product immediate area s for evolution would seem to be those dealing with our bodies current weak areas ,a better spine for the upright stance is a good example .
given the way we have changed our life style with technology prehaps better systems for living to age 80 plus , ie longer lasting teeth , hip and knee joints , and the general retarding of the effects of aging . As we have minimised many of the natural pressures from our enviroment any adaptive changes will really only come when we either move to new enviroments eg space , or low gravity worlds like moon and mars or when the enviroment of earth changes beyond our coping . Techno-lution is still the realm of sci fi what ifs , and is dependant on sovling world energy , food and population issues , unless you are looking at a small selective population .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes!!
quote: See
quote:We have yet to “straighten” this situation out. The problem has gotten worse since 61 when this was written. There is a thread on EVC for a discussion of this: Cavediver started Butquote:is the opposite of what I was thinking. I think that BY looking at small selective populations techno-solutions will fall behind biological resolutions (unless artifical selection is itself considered a “technical” rather than a “natural” means). I suspect that the application of evolutionary theory TO nature (applied evolution) will enable future adaptive capacity to be monitored and increased but presently we are not in a state/stage of peace where this kind of ethically questionable but doable action(s) might be conserved. Instead we have single cell issues (stem cells etc) rather than small population ones (except by war). My reason for this positive evaluation stems from my feeling that Gould’s notion of “order for free”(Kaufamann) is false when co-ordinate transforms (of D’Arcy Thompson) are measured (if). Jazzns’ recent observation of one of my posts on EvC, that any notion of information increase (and this applies to “techno-lution” of humanity) must be bounded is an example of a partial communication of this potential resource. The discussion must move however hierarchically from the small to the large rather than the large to small as is occurring on-line at the present. We often go too fast to the big, by-God, here. We only need to draw the threads out longer and have people able to follow the "twists and turns."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
but you know, at least global warming wouldn't be a problem for a little while
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4492 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
what i ment by " a small selective population " being effected by techno-lution is that currently the inherent cost of developing , making and maintaining such ideas would limit them to the rich and powerful elites , .. a nice sci fi plot for a divergemnt split in the evolution of humans ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Of course, and if we restrict this "future" to that group and Do do some changes to to their reproductive potential with respect to the rest of us... I am only indicating that this will open up research for other creatures' small groups and wider changes for humanity on the whole biologically.
The elite would split but it would be their down fall for unlike economics ecology is not(that).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Mitchell
mitchellmckain writes: Without the force of natural selection on the human gene pool, genetic deficiencies will only increase and the handicapped will become an increasing portion of the population. However our medical technology and other technological compensations and augmentation will race forward even faster so that technological capabilities will soon become more important than the biological ones. The variety of man will keep increasing. This all assuming that no retro-conservative forces get too powerful, and that we do not make the mistake of excessive tampering with the human genome. Unregulated tampering with the genetics of next generation would be very dangerous for I think it will most likely reduce genetic variation by dangerous proportions.In much less than five hundred years from now computer enhancement to brain function will be routine and close to universal. Computer terminals and tv-sets outside these enhancements will cease to exist as obsolete. On the other hand, since these will most likely take no more room than wall posters, they may be quite common even if nobody needs them. Automotive transportation will become more scarce due to rising costs and a greatly reduced need to go anywhere to get things done, so I predict a great increase in the popularity of walking, cycling (and wheelchair transportation?). Higher education and office work will no doubt be almost entirely virtual. Beyond a great increase in the variety of human appearances, whether cosmetic or fundamental technological alteration, I cannot say what people would look like. As always has been the case in the past, the most radical changes are completely beyond our ability to imagine them. The more I think about this, the more I think you make a very good point. It will be a brave new world. You say that, "Unregulated tampering with the genetics of next generation would be very dangerous for I think it will most likely reduce genetic variation by dangerous proportions". I agree with that but I also think that it presents risks to society on both biological and sociological grounds. I also think that the temptation to engage in genetic manipulation will be too powerful to avoid. I'm sure people are even experimenting with it already. We can easily wind up with a nazi style super race. I think that it is great that you're looking ahead like this. The trouble with advances in technology is that we just look at the short term benefits and we don't look ahead at the long term ramifications. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6422 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
GDR writes:
I have mentioned one of the biological reasons, I was wondering if there were any others reasons you had in mind. As for sociological grounds, I very much agree. One such sociological reason is that I think parents have too much control over their children's lives as it is, and I think genetic manipulation will make it far worse both in terms of unrealistic parental expectations and the resentment of the children for excessive control.
I agree with that but I also think that it presents risks to society on both biological and sociological grounds. I also think that the temptation to engage in genetic manipulation will be too powerful to avoid. I'm sure people are even experimenting with it already. GDR writes:
We may fall to the temptation of such but it would be chasing an illusion. Perfection does not exist in this. Sexual reproduction was one of the greatest innovations in evolutionary history for producing adaptable populations. Short circuiting this would be a terrible mistake. Real strength comes from diversity. We can easily wind up with a nazi style super race. See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
I don't have any knowledge of genetics but I remain unconvinced that genetic manipulation won't have long term negative biological ramifications.
The sociological ramifications are really frightening IMHO. Greg Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I think mitch is agreeing that it will have long term consequences--that whole point about diversity at tne end of his post regarding the false hope of creating a super race.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Gattaca anyone?
But besides that, what is alarming is the drive to remove all hereditary diseases. I'm not sure I agree with that. Some genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia have side affects that give immunity to contagious diseases. For instance Sickle-cell gives those with two dominant (or it is recessive?) alleles complete immunity to malaria. Those with one recessive one dominant have 50% immunity. Those with two recessive have no immunity. What's to say that we have all kinds of similar traits steming from hereditary dieases? We might remove our cure in the search for perfection. Scares me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
dude, you don't want to be homozygous for SCA. (two same alleles present)
why? It kills you by, like, age 5. you want to be heterozygous. (two different alleles) that way your survive both SCA and malaria. can you tell me the benefits of having down's syndrome? it too, is genetic--three chromosomes at the 21? pair. nondisjunction (i think that's the term) might actually be a good thing to be rid of. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mitchellmckain Member (Idle past 6422 days) Posts: 60 From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Joined: |
This is why I specifically said "unregulated tampering". The possible horrors are no reason hide like frightened children and deprive ourselves of any possible benefit. Flat universal policies are rarely helpful. This is a complex issue and complex issues require deep thought and difficult decisions.
See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024