Subject:
|
Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:38:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
722 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > > We'd have to come up with some sort of practical interstellar travel • technique
> > > first - the solar system's gonna get unlivable way before the death of the
> > > universe. But (IMO) we're gonna be history way before that.
> >
> > How do you figure?
> >
> > In part it depends on your definition of "we". Humanity has "stopped
> > evolution" recently,
>
> When? No-one told me...
Me either! Wow, cool--LUGNET is the apex of evolution! :D
> > and is poised to "take control of evolution" with
> > genetic engineering of ourselves. I say "we" are what we make ourselves
> > into, but others might say as soon as there is genetic divergence it's not
> > us any more. I'd bet anything that we will not be the same genetically in
> > 100,000 years. But still human nonetheless.
>
> I don't totally agree. Evolution turned chimps into humans. We definitely don't
> consider them "humanity" though they may well consider us "chimpity"(tm). At
> some point, humans will likely evolve into a different species. It's possible
> "humanity" will still be around in it's current form (or something close) as
> well.
*HAHAHA* "Chimpity?" I love it! Oh, yeah, forgot the little ™
(Alt+0665 to make the spiffy extended-char trademark symbol)
But, as a matter of point, evolution didn't turn chimps into
humans. Evolution turned something "apey" into chimps *and*
human beings, which is an important distinction. It indicates
that we've grown and changed; whatever that earlier being
considered "human", it wouldn't recognize us at first--but it
wouldn't have to, because it's not still around. It's *become*
us, in effect, as well as becoming chimpity™.
> But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking more about balance,
> cycles, that kind of thing. Relatively soon, the human population will stop
> growing exponentially. Bad things will start happening (have they already?)
> like massive famines, etc. Our resources (for nourishment) will be unable to
> sustain us. We'll become more susceptible to things we can currently control.
> Something else (bacteria, insects, ???) will be able to handle this better than
> us. And that's discounting other (natural & not) disasters...
Malthusian disasters have been in vogue for centuries--and
every time one looms, we find some way around it. I'm not
saying that we shall forever find workarounds, but it's very
possible that before a final Malthusian demise can come, our
numbers will peter out by conscious control. However, the
continuing poverty of much of the world encourages rapid
population growth in those areas for a lot of reasons.
> Sure, inter-planetary migration may alleviate this a little (how much resource
> is practically available in our solar system?), but if we can't work out
> inter-stellar travel fairly soon, we've got problems, 'cos all this'll reduce
> our resources for that too.
The hardest part of all of this is that, like SETI, it's
based on assertions of what's possible rather than what's
likely--the true values shall be a matter for debate until
either we're irrevocably on our way out, or we're out there
among the stars.
> > But I'm pretty confident that unless the luddites get their way we will be
> > colonizing this solar system soon enough (within a hundred years) and will
> > be colonizing nearby ones shortly after that (within a thousand years) even
> > if it has to be done non-FTL.
>
> Colonising this solar system is a lot different to colonising others. I think
> your 100 year prediction is certainly in the realms of probability, but I'm not
> so confident about the other.
It depends on what problems we run into in the process. As
Eugene Mallove said: "If interstellar space is filled with
iron basketballs, we're going to have a difficult time going
there."
> > I'm betting intelligence is rare
>
> I'm betting livable planets are pretty rare too...but then perhaps we can take
> our own (space 1999?)
A livable planet like Earth would require a relatively well-
developed flora and fauna that's based on a similar metabolism
(CO^2/O^2 cycle, nitrates, H^2O as a life solvent, etc). So
I'd suggest that yes, they'd be less than ordinary.
Making our own is a real possibility, though--but I think the
latest pie-in-the-4-millibar-sky scenario for terraforming Mars
suggested that at least 500 years would be needed to generate
something that could be worked with, even assuming leaps in
technology at the pace of the last 50 years.
Mars's biggest problem, as I see it, is a lack of major tectonic
activity and volcanism, the things that replenish much of
Earth's atmosphere directly *and* indirectly. (Well, yes, the
latter is sort of related to the former...)
> > and so we've got lots of room to expand
> > into, probably thousands and thousands of systems, which reduces the
> > likelihood of a catastrophic extinction to nil.
>
> Again, assuming we figure out how to (in time)...
Such is the gamble! We should take it as a challenge. Once
it's seen that way by a majority of people--or as an imperative--
something will be undertaken. Whether it'll be enough, who knows?
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) technique (...) When? No-one told me... (...) I don't totally agree. Evolution turned chimps into humans. We definitely don't consider them "humanity" though they may well consider us "chimpity"(tm). At some point, humans will likely evolve (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
