Kevin's Watch

It's all speculative, of course. Personally, I just don't see humanity going out in a bang/destroying itself. I think it'll be an outside factor--a long-term habitat threat, such as environmental collapse. And then there's the whole "death-of-the-sun-and-subsequent-swallowing-of-the-earth".

But the sun's red giant stage is what, five billion years away? If we're not extinct by then, we'll surely have left this miserable rock! Hell--we might become extinct in the sense that we'll have evolved into some kind of posthuman form that would be unrecognizable today.

Another thing: I saw a program on Discovery some years ago. A lot of scientists thought humans would leave earth in a few million years, due to some projected global disasters/major changes. I can't remember all the details of what they said, though.

Even then, I don't think we'll get away in the end, since there's our friend entropy/the heat death of the universe.

Or maybe we're just a computer simulation that could be rebooted at any time.

Lord Foul wrote:It's all speculative, of course. Personally, I just don't see humanity going out in a bang/destroying itself. I think it'll be an outside factor--a long-term habitat threat, such as environmental collapse. And then there's the whole "death-of-the-sun-and-subsequent-swallowing-of-the-earth".

But the sun's red giant stage is what, five billion years away? If we're not extinct by then, we'll surely have left this miserable rock! Hell--we might become extinct in the sense that we'll have evolved into some kind of posthuman form that would be unrecognizable today.

Another thing: I saw a program on Discovery some years ago. A lot of scientists thought humans would leave earth in a few million years, due to some projected global disasters/major changes. I can't remember all the details of what they said, though.

Even then, I don't think we'll get away in the end, since there's our friend entropy/the heat death of the universe.

Or maybe we're just a computer simulation that could be rebooted at any time.

STOP!......Must stop....listening.......making me feel insignificant.......must...reach....Bible.............before....I...realize..........how...much
time......I....wasted.......doing.........stupid........things.........................

Yeah, the heat death thing really sucks.

Infinity and eternity.
Heavy subjects today dude!

There was an article in a science mag last year that explained a lot of this.
What I found most interesting is that, in the far furture, if somehow the human race manages to evolve into something that we'd recognize and if that human put whatever he/she had for an eyeball to a telescope that due to the expansion of the universe and the limits of light itself all that human would be able to see is star in the Milky Way galaxy.
All the other stars and galaxies will be too far away and expanding at the speed of light so their light will never reach us.
Each galaxy is going to be it's own "local" universe in a way.
I wonder if that's already happened?
And the universe that we know today is just a galaxy from a previous universe.................

ah, now my head hurts.

i heard there is an asteriod on the way.......

Somehow, someday, the POWERS that BE will have to realize that we are on an inevidable collision course with extinction--Since humans ona a whole don't take anything lying down; measures may be put in place to increase our life expectancy.

Undoubtably, expansion from our planet will eventually be couse that will be planned for. Unless the human population starts to acctually decrease. But with medical technology being what it is, that's highly doubtfull.

I feel that for any evolution past our current state to take place, it would have to be outside our realm of current habitation (ie: colonizing in space, or other planets)-That being said, it's highly conceivable that it could happen.

Say if we started living on other plaents or space staions 1000 years from now--what would the offspring look like in one million years?--Probebly hum-like..but quite different than how we appear on planet Earth.

-There was a poem I remember from school--acctually I only remember the last line (somewhat!)..The World will not end with a Bang, but with a wimper.

evolution of the human race will not occur as long as we carry on erasing survival of the fittest by preserving the lives of the weak and allowing people with genetic predispositions to disease to reproduce.

Yeah - even if we moved to other planets or into space, any deficiencies in our physique would do little more than use up medical funds. We'd keep as many people alive as possible, and continue on unchanging.
As for extinction? It's a long way off, and at the least outside of what I can expect to experience myself. Not something I'm likely to concern myself about.

thats just what the dinosaurs said...

Lord Foul wrote:Hell--we might become extinct in the sense that we'll have evolved into some kind of posthuman form that would be unrecognizable today.

Something of a tangent, but this reminds me of something someone once said about human evolution; that there will never be more than one species of human again. The theory is that there was originally some species that, through genetic isolation, evolved into several species that were cousins; and that one species, us, survived.

But there's no chance of geographical isolation of humans now. At least not on nearly the scale of time or size that would lead to the different groups evolving in different directions. But maybe if we go out to space, and different planets are settled, it could happen again.

Warmark wrote:thats just what the dinosaurs said...

Of course they did amke it for a bout 260 million years....what are humans on, like 1 million..?

Nathan wrote:evolution of the human race will not occur as long as we carry on erasing survival of the fittest by preserving the lives of the weak and allowing people with genetic predispositions to disease to reproduce.

Au contraire! Taking control of our own evolution is one of the steps on the road to becoming God. We can choose to decide whom is "fittest", based on more appropriate traits than the size of one's teeth or the willingness to throw the first punch.

Well said, Wayfriend. I assume all agree that the greatest strength of humans is our intelligence. And I'm sure some physically inferior people have made great accomplishments in various mental fields. If we stopped letting all, say, diabetics reproduce, would someone who would have discovered Faster Than Light travel, or the cure for cancer, not be born?

And for those of us who consider the arts to be absolutely essential, as individuals and as a species, the possible losses are terrifying.

Excellent posts. Although my initial reaction is probably to agree with Nathan, in the sense that we allow "genetic degradation", I must saythat I too think WayFriend makes an excellent point.

I especially like the bit about "more appropriate traits".

I could argue Fists point by saying that anything we don't have, we'll never know we could have, but in the end, I think their approach is probably a better one than mine.

--Avatar

Its easy to say we will never become extinct, BUT, seeing the history of things (everything, except the species currently living have extinctinated....well you know what I mean )

A nice size comet hitting earth would do a good job, but my guess would be a virus. The black death traveled pretty well in the middle ages, imagine how a serious virus would travel today (SARS x 10, West Nile Virus x 10, Avian Flu x 10). Its happened before, not only the black death, AIDS, but the Spanish Flu of 1918. Granted, these illnesses have crippled but not killed everyone. But what about those creepy new "hot" viruses, like (sheesh, I've read several books on them, but nothing is coming to mind) Mal....something.....Ebola! and other ones? Yes, some have survived these, too, but not many. And could the ones left behind continue? Will there be any left in the middle east to pump that oil, tote that barge and lift that bale? Will electricity stop? Christ, most of us in America don't even know how to keep warm without indoor heat, and how to poop in the woods without leading predators directly toward us, and heaven forbid we find a meal without fifty burger kings being within a two mile radius.

Its possible none of this will happen, but I think its the height of ignorance to consider yourself infallible.

Such a cheerful message, eh?

Avatar wrote:I could argue Fists point by saying that anything we don't have, we'll never know we could have,

Certainly true. I just figure, why take chances on losing any of our true strength by weeding out the less important characteristics. Birds wouldn't concentrate on their sense of smell if they didn't know how it would effect their ability to fly. Without any help from us (genetic engineering, selective breeding, etc), nature made us physically inferior to the rest of the animals when it made us smartest. Chimps are stronger than us, and not just proportionally. Claws have become fingernails, which can't be used nearly as well for digging, fighting, or bringing down prey. We die if it gets too hot or too cold. Etc. There's no physical characteristic in which humans are supreme in the animal kingdom.

Yet our intelligence lets us find ways to compensate for our weaknesses. It even lets us rule the world. This is the hand we've been dealt, and I don't see that we really need to try changing the weakesses.

Of course, someone could reply that we use our intelligence to keep people alive that would certainly die in the natural world; the world that dealt us this hand. True enough. But it seems humans have to act in some way or other. I guess my conscience wants us to act in one way, rather than another. At the same time, it keeps more genetic material in the system, rather than keeping just the physically superior DNA, which will not be the mentally superior in all cases. After all, people with genetic frailties must have made some significant contributions now and then.

Fist and Faith wrote:Of course, someone could reply that we use our intelligence to keep people alive that would certainly die in the natural world; the world that dealt us this hand.

Yep, that would be my reply, if I felt particularly argumentative about it. Afterall, it's true. Very true.

But I certainly agree that the physical weaknesses are not whats important. Question is though, how many mental weaknesses are we allowing to breed in? And what effect do physical ones have on mental ones? No effect? Some effect, sometimes? I don't know. But those mental "weaknesses" are troubling to me. Maybe we could even define them as "moral" weaknesses, except I know there are millions who would accuse me of moral weakness, simply because I disagree about their concept of "morality".

Can we differentiate between the physical and the mental "weaknesses"? I'm not sure. Do we even dare? As Fist says, we may run the very real risk of losing something that we didn't even know was connected.

This is a great topic for me, I just read Day of the Triffids yesterday, and as always, the thought of some global catastrophe that wipes out nearly everyone is appealing to me. Thing is, despite everybody saying how unlikely it is, it's not. It's actually pretty much inevitable.

The only question is when?

Massive (and I mean massive) chunks of rock hit the earth fairly (geologically speaking) regularly. www.solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm

Barringer Meteor Crater, Arizona
35°02'N, 111°01'W; diameter: 1.186 kilometers (.737 miles); age: 49,000 years.

Chicxulub, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico
21°20'N, 89°30'W; diameter: 170 km; age: 64.98 million years.

Aorounga, Chad, Africa
19°6'N, 19°15'E; diameter: 17 kilometers; age: 200 million years.

And these are just some of them. Youngest one on that list is 49,000 years old. In fact, statistically speaking, the next one should be reasonably soon. Of course, in these time scales, reasonably means anytime from now for the next 100,000 years or so, but it could be any time.

Virus' and plagues? Well, as Lady Revel mentioned, the 1918 influenze epidemics killed somewhere in excess of 50 million people. With todays rapid transport, that number could be multiplied a thousandfold quite easily.

Oh, BTW, the one you couldn't remember there was the "Marburg" virus, similar to Ebola. Over 300 people dead in Angola so far. (And nobody survives this one. Every infection leads to a death.) The only thing that keeps it in check is the remoteness of the locality, and the fact that most people die so quickly that it "burns" itself out. Easily changed if we're unlucky.

Oh yeah, events with the possibility, even the probability, of causing our extinction are literally only a matter of time.

(This, by the way, was a great documentary which I saw fairly recently:
www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/end_day.shtml)

Have fun folks. It might not last.

--Avatar

But no overall progress as a species (evolutionary) will be made while the weak breed with the strong (when I say weak and strong I just mean undesirable/desirable characteristics).

Evolution depends on a random mutation being better at something than another, and therefore surviving more often and eventually becoming more prolific than the non-mutated "parent" species/. However, the way we're running the world it doesn't matter what your genetic makeup is because everyone else will keep you alive anyway.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with you. No matter how much the "gene pool" is diluted, it will still be the "strong" characteristics/traits that remain dominant. Possession of such traits must, in some way, enhance your chance for survival and procreation.

At worst, we may be putting a severe brake on the process, by "artificially" preserving the negative characteristics. In the end, the "strong" traits must still have a better survival chance, and will be propogated.

All we've done really may be to prolong it for an indeterminate period of time.

--A

Nathan wrote:But no overall progress as a species (evolutionary) will be made while the weak breed with the strong (when I say weak and strong I just mean undesirable/desirable characteristics).

(You forgot to add something about the purity of the Arian race, no?)

Do you really think that randomly mutated humans trying to kill each other off for the right to reproduce is the way to go?!?!

That's how non-sentient species evolve. We're sentient. We're even (sometimes) intelligent. So let's not behave like rats and bugs. Let's behave like beings who have matured enough to take care of themselves and own their own future.

If you explore the future of genetic testing and right-to-reproduce, you will find that it leads to a very grim end. Who decides who should not live? And, when they all don't live anymore, do you stop? Or do you continue the pogrom, find more kinds of people who should not live? And more, and more? Do we all end up looking like Orlando Bloom? or Michael Jackson?

Point being: That's not Evolution! That's Statis. You've frozen the human genome to what is considered the perfect human in the early years of the 21st century.

I believe that we are God's children. When children grow up, what do they become?

Avatar wrote:Have fun folks. It might not last.

You're, like, a total bummer, man!


And yes, all arguments you bring up are valid. I think it's a crap shoot. We can't possibly know if doing X, doing Y, or doing nothing will make the species smarter, no matter how we want to define smarter. So I figure that leaves us basing our decision on what we think is right. And I think it's right to try to save anyone we can.

In his book, Our Final Hour, Sir Martin Rees (the UK's Astronomer Royal) brings up a modern philosophical argument that says humanity's future is bleak. This argument was invented by Brandon Carter, a colleague of Rees and a pioneer in the use of the "anthropic principle" in science (the idea that laws governing the universe must have been very special in order for life and complexity to have emerged). Anyway, Carter came to the conclusion that intelligent life was rare elsewhere in the universe, and that even though the Sun would keep shining for billions of years, the long-term future of life was bleak.

I'm nervous about trying to explain this philosophy and potentially botching it up, so allow me to quote liberally from the book:

This "Doomsday argument" depends on a kind of "Copernican principle" or "principle of mediocrity" applied to our position in time. Ever since Copernicus, we have denied ourselves a central location in the universe. Likewise, according to Carter, we shouldn't assume that we are living at a special time in the history of humanity, neither among the very first nor among the very last of our species. Consider our place in the "roll call" of Homo Sapiens. We know our place only very roughly: most estimates suggest that the number of human beings who have preceded us is around 60 billion, so our number in the roll call is in this range. A consequence of this figure is that 10% of the people who have ever lived are alive today.

At first sight this seems a remarkably high proportion, given that mankind can be traced back through thousands of generations. But for most of human history--the entire preagricultural era before (maybe) 8000 B.C.E.--there were probably fewer than 10 million people in the world. By Roman times, world population was around 300 million, and only in the 19th Century did it rise above a billion. The dead outnumber the living, but only by a factor of ten.

Now put on the table two scenarios for humanity's future:

a pessimistic scenario --> our species dies out within one or two centuries (or has a much diminished population if it survives longer) so that the total number of humans who will ever exist is 100 billion.

an optimistic scenario --> humanity survives for many millenia with at least the present population (or maybe even spreads far beyond Earth with an ever-growing population) so that trillions of people are destined to be born.

Brandon Carter argues that the "principle of mediocrity" should lead us to bet on the pessimistic scenario. Our place in the roll call (about halfway through) is then entirely unsurprising and typical, whereas in the optimistic scenario, where a high population persists into the far future, those living in the 21st Century would be early in the roll call of humanity.

A simple analogy brings out the essence of the argument. Suppose that you are shown 2 identical urns: you are told that one contains just 10 tickets, numbered from 1 to 10, and the other contains a thousand tickets, numbered from 1 to 1000. Suppose you pick one of the urns, draw a ticket from it, and find that you have drawn the number 6. You would then surely guess that you had, very probably, picked from the urn containing only 10 tickets: it would be very surprising to draw a ticket number as small as 6 from the urn containing a thousand tickets.

Carter argues, along the same line as in the case of the two urns, that our known place in the roll call of humans (about 60 billion human beings have preceded us) tilts the argument in favor of the hypothesis that there will be only 100 billion humans, and would disfavour an alternative supposition that there would be more than 100 trillion. So the argument suggests that the world's population cannot continue for many generations at its present level; either it must decline gradually, and be sustained at a far lower level than at present, or a catastrophe will overcome our species with a few generations.

So, can pure thought alone determine if humankind's days are numbered? Or is this just some philosophical sleight of hand? According to Sir Martin Rees, Carter's hypothesis has "weathered a good deal of scrutiny" already. But people are complicated beings capable of surprising things, so can our future truly be pre-determined in this fashion?

This is where Wayfriend comes in. I like his answer (in reply to Nathan):

We're sentient. We're even (sometimes) intelligent. So let's not behave like rats and bugs. Let's behave like beings who have matured enough to take care of themselves and own their own future.

Sir Martin echoes Wayfriend's sentiments in his words:

Obviously, humankind's future cannot be stripped down to a simple mathematical model. Our destiny depends on multitudinous factors, above all--a main theme of this book--on choices that we ourselves make during the present century.