Subject:
|
Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:23:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
927 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > >
> > > > That may be so, but I would think that most people who have a middling
> > > > understanding of evolution would agree that intelligence has little (if any)
> > > > effect on it.
> > >
> > > Except to stop it. Which we are in the process of doing, and which was my
> > > original point!
> >
> > We may, in the end, cause our own extinction, in which case I guess you could
> > say we're currently in the process of stopping our evolution, but I think it's
> > a pretty big stretch. As I've said before, I think humanity will eventually
> > become extinct anyway - so I guess we're witnessing our extinction.
>
> I understood Larry's point differently, in that optimistically we might
> never go extinct (technology propelling us beyond the earth, the solar
> system, the galaxy, the universe...), but in terms of biological evolution
> we're more or less at a dead end (deliberate genetic manipulation aside[1]).
Right. Or at least closer. What I'm getting at is that evolution is a
natural process that produces changes in organisms in response to changes in
environment (including the changes that occur in other organisms) but that
we are now choosing, at least in part, what environmental factors to
completely disregard. I am not saying that humanity will not change at all
any more. I am just saying that barring a collapse in civilisation, our days
of changing involuntarily are more or less over. (that doesn't mean we're at
a dead end... well it sort of does but not in a BAD way)
To Ross's point, yes, we may well make ourselves go extinct. It cannot be
ruled out. But I consider it highly unlikely already. We are at/close to a
cusp in the probability... As soon as we escape this basket, even if just to
other parts of this system, the chances go way further down. They go down
again, to almost nil, once we start colonising other systems. I don't see
1000 years as an at all unreasonable time estimate for when we will have
several viable colonies in other systems. (the fraction of the total
population outsystem may still be small but that doesn't matter)
> I think speciation of humans on earth is unlikely: if anything we're
> homogenising. Once we colonise space though I think it's almost inevitable,
> if fertile humans can be conceived and born in non-earth gravity.
>
> Of course all this flesh based evolution will be academic when we
> collectively upload to the net. Could be useful as a source of new
> personalities I suppose.
>
> --DaveL
>
> [1] That's a whopping aside. I think the ethicists are way behind the eight
> ball on this.
> My tips, and you heard it here first:
> 2002: designer human v1.0
> tested for genetic abnormalities, gender in vitro
> 2003: first cloned human being born
> 2004: designer humanoid v1.0
> nonhuman DNA incorporated in a viable human embryo
> 2005: first fatherless girl born
> 2006: genetic therapy in post-natal humans begins
> 2007: designer human v2.0
> selected for intelligence, attractiveness etc
> 2009: designer human v2.5
> this tiime selection for traits actually works
> 2012: designer human v3.0
> gene therapy in utero, both on clones and naturals where necessary
> in vitro selected naturals comprise 10% of births
> 2013: designer humanoid v2.0
> first humanoids born with a partially non-human phenotype (super strength)
> 2015: designer human v4.0
> complete control over recombination: any combination of parents possible
> 2020: artificial womb
> first motherless children born
> 2025: post-natal genetic manipulation for non-therapeutic purposes
> ...
I agree with the sequence but the timeline may be a bit optimistic.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) Not a bad point, but it must be stipulated that since humanity is *part* of nature, then the traits we, as agents of nature, elect to favor will survive and be passed on in a manner exactly consistent with evolution. I'm not sure that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) I think these points interact in an interesting way. (...) I'm no physiologist, and this is largely based on mediocre SF, but I think it's quite possible that humans will evolve rapidly as a response to low gravity conditions (if that's not a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) I'll have to partially disagree. Humankind has done a lot to *lessen" selection pressure on ourselves but we, to my knowledge, have not found a way to eliminate an environmental factor (in the broad sense). However, humans will continue to (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) Yes, the total population outsystem won't really matter - as long as there are a few HUNDRED beings concentrated in one place (to handle rearing of crechebabies), and sufficient genetic stock stockpiled in many different places, we should be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff)
|
| (...) I understood Larry's point differently, in that optimistically we might never go extinct (technology propelling us beyond the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...), but in terms of biological evolution we're more or less at a (...) (23 years ago, 30-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
