Thread: The end of Humans....

damnit, forgot to log on...
that was me...

Originally posted by vasanth
Well Humans dont need to evolve.. I think we have reached a stage where we are able to create humans... Cloning!!!! Well when you clone there is no evolution the same genes are being copied... May be in future cloning will become as common as childbirth...

Ever since there were humans there's been a method of creating new humans, its called breeding :-).

And, why do people think that we'll be able to get cloning absolutely perfect? How are our cloning processes and subsequent cell growth processed going to be any more accurately controlled than the ones already used by biological organisms?
The possibilty for random change still exists there by mutation and possible evolution.

The process we're stopping\have stopped is evolution by natural selection, having removed ourselves from many of the natural selection pressures.

And the possibility for tinkering with a genome is definately there for cloning. Just look at the steps
Take cells from subject to be cloned.
Take DNA from subject.
Tinker with DNA if you like, otherwise make a clone.
Get recently fertilised ova.
Remove its DNA.
Add new DNA.
Gestate.
Get clone\ uber-being.

I imagine the expansion of a star like the sun would happen over a very long long time. Since such is probably the case, it is very well possible that outer planets will become habitable. (i.e. gases burn off and create a useable environment)

Imagine the expansion of the human project in the last two hundred years. It is very likely that we will have answers for these things as they come up due to the amount of knowlege we will have by that time.

Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? Could it be possible that 'Dune-like' space/time folding exists? Could it be possible that we could not even imagine our capabilities a hundred thousand years from now?

There is still reason to live, exist, share, love, think, etc. We are not doomed yet, and our children have a unique opportunity to live a great life even though the future resources seem bleak.... humans persevere.... it is what we do.

I do not worry about it much. Life is good. Have a beer, kick back, relax.....

Originally posted by vasanth
What will happen after the sun dies out.. WIll the human race continue.. I think we will die out in another few thousand decades.... If so what is the meaning of our life.. We strugle so hard day to day.. Have war fight for land etc etc.. But when we see the universe we are not even a dot in it...

the old dies, the new comes~

well wats the use.... We go on breedin and one fine day we are not there...

Errrr... excuse me guys, I just need to go and do some serious breeding

"Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? "

No, not possible.

"When scientists create a clone, the clone is not at all like a new being. It's cells still think it's as old as the one that was cloned. "

Interesting point, but not a problem that is insurmountable. (you would think that sperm and eggs would be the same age as the man/woman.....)

"But sometimes I think that we're messing with things that shouldn't be messed with"

There is no "should" and "should not" in any universal sense. If a change can benefit humanity, then using it is a good thing. The "humans should not mess with 'insert scientific development here'" argument surfaces from the public who do not have an adequate understanding of science. The victorian pubic had the exact same reaction to organ transplants, we see it in todays population with cloning/genetic manipulation.

"Our scientist make new discoveries faster that we can think about consequences"

Science is not about application, science is about discovering how and why the world works. That knowledge is then used if people want to use it. It can be used for social good or bad.

Having said that, many people trained in science do go into R&D to apply scientific knowledge, and society has a role to play in determining whether to hinder or encourage R&D in a particular area. The problem is that the public have a poor understanding of the issues and are swayed by the "people shouldn't be messing with this" type of argument instead of actually considering the pros and cons of a given development they often fall into hysteria.

I would also like to point out that evolution is not the force for "advancement" that many people seem to think it is. Evolution merely makes organisms better adapted to a given environment, it is also limited by its mechanism: changes are made gradually, you cannot have arches in nature (because an arch cannot be built up gradually, an arch missing any segment is totally useless).

What this means is that if there was a huge disaster, meteor hits Earth type stuff, it is quite possible that evolution would favour strength over intellect, further more, if an incurable disease sprang up up that could only be passed on male-> male or female -> female, society would disintergrate. Evolution would turn us back into non-social animals.

Basically evolution does not necessarily equal intellect. Furthermore there are several potent hinderances to evolution advancing our intellect any further, 1st off many people believe that we are at our peak intellect already because any increase in brain size means a decrease in brain speed. Even if this were not the case the 2nd problem is that head size is also constrained by the size of female hips, which in turn are limited by our bipedal nature.

It is also worth noting that certain elements of human evolution have been slowed by modern society: medicine, special-learning centres, etc.

Genetic manipulation combined with external gestation, (ie. false wombs) could result in humans with abnormally large heads and hence higher intellects, though as previously mentioned their processing speed and reaction time would be diminised (which could counteract the advantages of having a larger cranium). Stephen Hawking talks of the above scenario in his book "The universe in a nut-shell", i must say though that i find it extremely worrying, not because it would be "weird" or "unnatural" to have humans with large heads (thats just social conditioning) but because it would make humanity fully DEPENDANT on technology, to the point where a natural disaster or a war, if large enough, could totally destroy us. (Without artificial wombs our big-headed brethren would be unable to reproduce..... bye bye human race).

I think the future lies not so much in genetic maniplation (though un-doubtedly it will play a sizeable part; maximising genes for intellect/good looks/athleticism/etc.) but more in the interaction between computers and biology. Basically i reckon we'll all have chips in our head (not neccesarily made out of silicon mind you) that enhance our faculties, link us up to an uber version of the web, etc.

As for surving past the death of the sun, our only chance is to leave the Earth, when the sun forms a red giant, it will expand and heat the surface of the Earth to near 3000 degrees (i think thats the figure though i might be wrong, either way its too hot for life). If we (i say "we" in the most general sense of the word, since whatever "we" are by that point "we" will certainly not resemble todays humanity) are to go on we will we have to flee to space, and find ourselves a new home.

>Basically evolution does not necessarily equal intellect. Furthermore there are several potent hinderances to evolution advancing our intellect any further, 1st off many people believe that we are at our peak intellect already because any increase in brain size means a decrease in brain speed. Even if this were not the case the 2nd problem is that head size is also constrained by the size of female hips, which in turn are limited by our bipedal nature.<

>Genetic manipulation combined with external gestation, (ie. false wombs) could result in humans with abnormally large heads and hence higher intellects, though as previously mentioned their processing speed and reaction time would be diminised (which could counteract the advantages of having a larger cranium). Stephen Hawking talks of the above scenario in his book "The universe in a nut-shell", i must say though that i find it extremely worrying, not because it would be "weird" or "unnatural" to have humans with large heads (thats just social conditioning) but because it would make humanity fully DEPENDANT on technology, to the point where a natural disaster or a war, if large enough, could totally destroy us. (Without artificial wombs our big-headed brethren would be unable to reproduce..... bye bye human race).<

As I recall we already only use a small section off are brain's abilitys. Einsten used only a few percent more and is much more inteligent then anyone here. One could only imagin the possiblites if one could use his or her full brain capacity.

The claim over human brain usage is "humans only use 10% of their brains". What is often missed off is the rest of the sentance, "for conscious thought". A huge proportion, 40-60% appears to be entirely dedicated to seeing.

Nearly as misquoted as "The love of money is the root of all evil"

>>>"Could it be possible that we will be pure energy by that time? "

No, not possible. <<<<<


Yes it is.