90 réponses à ce sujet

[abstractwhiz]

 It's not that we've stopped evolving, it's just that the pace of evolution is ridiculously slow when compared to that of technological development. Recorded history isn't long enough to expect major evolutionary changes. Nature took millions of years to figure out eyes - we went from making lenses to cameras in a couple of centuries. 

That said, we certainly experience much less selection pressure from our environment than other species. Put a bunch of chimpanzees in a really hot forest, and after half a million years or so (probably more) you have a distinct species of heat-adapted apes. 

Do the same to a bunch of humans, and we wind up building air conditioners instead. 

Also, a species can evolve to become less intelligent just as easily as the other way around. There's no preferred direction to evolution, it's just whatever works (guarantees the survival of your genes in later generations). If we're not getting any smarter, it's because there's no need to. Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest so much as survival of the just barely adequate.  Sure, it would be nice if we were smarter, but unless being smarter increases your reproductive success, higher intelligence won't spread through the population. 

Modifié par abstractwhiz, 13 mars 2010 - 01:46 .

[Zulu_DFA]

madisk wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The question to be answered before
beginning to ponder on "transhumanism", is: What is "human"? No
consenus on that has been achieved.

That's because no one brings it up for public debate. The general population is simply unaware of these ideas. I however think this question is up for every individual to decide for themselves, provided however that one thoroughly consider all viewpoints instead of hastily running into conclusions. It's not a simple question and it requires a lot of research and philosophical pondering to answer.

No question ever has beed answered positevely in a "public debate". At best "the public" was inspired to accept the answer a small group of individuals came up with. In extreme cases "the public" was forced to accept the answer of a single man.

That's because, as you point out correctly "it requires a lot of research and philosophical pondering to answer". Which is not what people generally do.

As to the middle part of your statement, that it "is up for every individual to decide for themselves"... Well, I'll just say that it gives away certain preconceptions it is based on. And those preconceptions effectively prevent "every individual" with coming up with any answer, that don't fit into them. In practice, deciding for themselves got most of the individuals to fall in the warming embrace of the nearest church without second though.

[madisk]

Suron wrote...

personally I think we've hit a stagnant point in our evolution...we've advanced technology far enough that we aren't advancing as a species anymore and probably won't.

Natural evolution is out of the question because it's time scale doesn't keep up to that of technological advance.

Suron wrote...

We evolve to overcome obstacles etc and this takes a long time...however our technology has made humanity lazy...as an overall our race is actually getting dumber....we're not evolving anymore due to machines and technology..we're stunting ourselves in that regard....average IQ's are dropping because we have made our lives too easy.

honestly unless there's a catastrophe that destroys our way of life
that forces us to evolve..I just don't see humanity itself evolving
farther then we have (on a human standpoint not technology standpoint.)

I disagree. Well, I agree that some people are getting too comfortable with their life, that's true, however I believe the root of that problem lies in our society. Technology has always been used to overcome the limitations imposed by our environment. From the wheel that allowed us to carry heavier loads to the microprocessor that allows us to do incredibly accurate floating point calculations in insignificant timespans. We've reached the point where instead of adapting to the environment, we're beginnging to engineer the environment (and ultimately ourselves) to our liking.

You're saying that in order for us to evolve we must have a catastrophical event that destroys our technological civilization in order to evolve as humans? First of all, biological evolution will take millions of years. Secondly, if we wish to evolve our moral and cultural values then nuking our civilization is the worst possible way to accomplish that. Technology and culture have always evolved hand in hand - they're codependant, one sustains the other. With new scientific discoveries come new understandings of how the universe works and our place in it. Without technology, our moral values and societal ideals would still be the same or very similar to the christian dark ages.

Abolishing our technological society would send our culture back to the dark ages. No amount of biological evolution will never take us closer to the evolutionary plateau - without culture and technology there will be no progress. Sitting around for a million years and hoping the nature (which works by randomizing genetic information through mutations) to do the work for us is ridiculous

Technology exists to augment and improve our abilities, allowing us to do things otherwise impossible. The reason why most people don't realize this and instead waste their lives away in this comfort lies in our society. People are simply unaware of all these technological discoveries and the implications they carry. We're conditioned to be mindless consumers, driven by the need to live as comfortably as possible, living day to day without giving a second of thought to our existence and our place in the world. Most of the people seem to go trough life without ever once thinking about the fact that they're an infinitely small amount of cosmic matter that has just randomly assembled itself at a certain place in the universe and by some scientific miracle has achieved sentience, and the implications that would have for our species as a whole. Even if one happens to find themself in an existential crisis one day and starts pondering about its place in the world it lives in, they're still limited by what ideas they've been exposed to. The most common ideas in our society involve economy and capitalism, republicans vs democrats, et cetera, so in the end they're usually just contempt with working away their whole life to buy more **** they do not need.

In order for humans to evolve we must go trough a cultural and scientific revolution. The second half of this equation is well underway, but the society as a whole is still largely unaware of the possibilities of us controlling our own evolution, our own solar system and even the very fabric of space and time itself. There's so many possibilities for our development as a species that the general population is unaware of. Tell me, how many times did you hear about subatomic particles in your entire high school course? That there's a realm of even smaller, subatomic particles - bosons, quarks, leptons, muons, hadrons etc. inside the atoms, and that they behave in a way that's completely out of bounds from our everyday newtonian physics? Discovering the quantum field theory forever changed the way I perceived myself and the universe. It made me start asking questions about my environment again. Everything from why the sky is blue, why do complex organic molecules form, to why am I sentient? In our society, when a child asks a question about the nature of the world around them, most often they're just told to mind their own business instead of answering it and encouraging people to question the world around them. We're conditioned to not think and strive for mindnumbing comfort.

If we want humanity as a species to evolve, we must first evolve our societal ideals. Instead of being driven by comfort, we should be driven by self-improvement and discovery of the universe around us. Once we're capable of that as a society, then we're ready to take the evolution of our species to our own hands. And really, the possibilities are limitless - from greatly extended life spans and physical capabilities to immense mental capabilities infused with computer technology that could eventually make us able to exchange thoughts and ideas at near light speed, allowing us to build consensus as a single gestalt consciousness, if that's what the society wants (inb4 further discussion about individuality).

[madisk]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

No question ever has beed answered positevely in a "public debate". At best "the public" was inspired to accept the answer a small group of individuals came up with. In extreme cases "the public" was forced to accept the answer of a single man.

Doesn't mean that public debate is an exercise in futility. It's all about educating the public and broadening their perspective so they can better understand what they're debating. In the past this has been relatively impossible to achieve, but with the advent of the Internet and a little bit of effort on our own part to improve our society, public debates will eventually become viable for creating a general consensus, even if it will take decades to find it - after all, ideas need time to propagate. The transhumanist ®evolution won't happen before the Human species as a whole comes to accept it as the next natural step in our development as a whole. Either that or all the technological benefits will be available to only the 'ruling' elite (or no one at all, should we destroy ourselves instead, clinging to our old ideals and fighting over religion and fossil fuels), while the general population will continue to waste away their life in simple existence. (instead of automating most of the industry and thriving for self-improvement instead).

I find that living your entire life thriving for simple pleasures and comfort is a waste of sentience.

Modifié par madisk, 13 mars 2010 - 02:39 .

[Zulu_DFA]

madisk wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

No question ever has beed answered positevely in a "public debate". At best "the public" was inspired to accept the answer a small group of individuals came up with. In extreme cases "the public" was forced to accept the answer of a single man.

Doesn't mean that public debate is an exercise in futility. It's all about educating the public and broadening their perspective so they can better understand what they're debating. In the past this has been relatively impossible to achieve, but with the advent of the Internet ...

The lenght of this thread is a sorry witness of how eager "the public" is to get educated and broaden their perspective. Compare it to any character-love thread, same-sex-love thread, humorous thread or to the number of threads with senile theories about the Shadow Broker being Miranda's dad. And don't tell me it's a game forum. "The public" is on the game forums, and this game at least provokes this sort of discussion. And the advent of Internet signifies only the shift in vices, not abandoning them. People are getting even more detached from reality, then in the age of paper propaganda.

I find that living your entire life thriving for simple pleasures and comfort is a waste of sentience.

Have you come up with something special, aside from enkindling "the public"? Mind sharing?

[Ray Joel Oh]

Organic transistors that mimic brain synapses will connect your brain to the internet one day.

[Mooner911]

Ah yes, the Transhuman Achievement: the point at which we collectively recognize that we are no longer what we once were. Most people hang this momentous event on a limited but clearly obvious group of biological differences that set us apart from our ancestors. Since we still have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers, etc., etc., any english school boy of 6 can tell you that we are the same as we were 1000 years ago. After all, most agree that evolution is a result of natural selection, but our species has removed much of that fate from our genetic destiny. Ergo, genetic stagnation. Hmmm. Not so.

Natural selection governs all non-sentient organisms via the natural environment in which each species must exist. Species have come, evolved, and died off at the whim of mama earth. Humans though are creating an artificial environment which removes that genetic grim reaper from our evolutionary house. But few yet recognize that environmental natural selection has been replaced by a social selection criteria which embodies a much more immediate and wide-spread effect.

For instance: Diet. In the past 100 years humans have learned to manufacture our nutritional requirements. Much of what we eat is no longer food but rather manufactured 'life-sustaining' consumables that cause wide spread and rampant physiological, psycological, and biological aberrations such as obesity and allergies, dementia (alzheimers, depression, bipolar disorders), and lupus and cancers. These are new to the state of the 20th and 21st century human and all play a significant role in determining procreation of successive human generations.

To support our game of dietary russian roulette we have medicine. Perhaps the most recognizable and consequentially ignored example would be antibiotics. The greatest double-edged sword humans have yet created. They're in everything from food, air, and water to cosmetics and detergents. On one hand they allow many of us to survive an inhospitable environment, but on the other they ultimately lessen our ability to do so. All medicines alter the rules and outcome of human natural selection and they do it in less than the time frame of a single generation. The 20th century was called "The Atomic Revolution". The 21st century has been heralded as "The Biological Revolution". Optimists believe subsequent human evolution will be self determined but realists believe our evolution will be an unintended consequence of our intellect.

Lastly, but certainly not conclusively, is our societal construct. Religion, politics, morality, money, all are players affecting procreation choices. Who is suitable or unsuitable for procreation is severly swayed by the 'mood' of society. At this moment, we are enduring a free-market phase of society that is the foundation for all choices we make. For good or bad, this current 'mood' has affected the fundamental criteria that attracts our genders. Procreation is no longer an effort to ensure the continuation of our species, rather, it's a result of achieving a learned happiness that's defined by society's mood. And since conformance to the moods of society has been a survival requirement since civilization began, humanity has, to varying degrees, removed itself from the traditional Darwinian natural selection process.

So. What about the transhuman? We always have been and always will be transhuman. I have no doubt that any Asari would be shocked at how quickly we're evolving and alarmed at how uncontrolled it is (for a 'sentient' species).

[abstractwhiz]

Mooner911 wrote...

For instance: Diet. In the past 100 years humans have learned to manufacture our nutritional requirements. Much of what we eat is no longer food but rather manufactured 'life-sustaining' consumables that cause wide spread and rampant physiological, psycological, and biological aberrations such as obesity and allergies, dementia (alzheimers, depression, bipolar disorders), and lupus and cancers. These are new to the state of the 20th and 21st century human and all play a significant role in determining procreation of successive human generations.

I'm pretty sure these things have always been around (especially cancer), just undiagnosed or confused for other stuff by primitive medical science. Also, people who had the more dangerous versions of these just died early - remember that people used to pump out kids regularly, and most wouldn't even reach adolescence. It's like war and violence - despite the fact that our militaries are insanely powerful now, we're actually living in the least violent times in human history. By that same token, I'm fairly certain that we're living in the healthiest times in human history, it's just that more sick people stay alive now rather than just dying at the drop of a hat. 

Obesity makes some sense, after all for most of human history the average person was more likely to starve than have enough food to overeat.

As for psychological disorders, I don't think I know enough about this stuff to venture an opinion. It appeals to the intuition to some extent, since the intellectual environment in the present day is ridiculously different from the state we evolved in, and largely remained in for most of our existence. Not sure either way though. 

Modifié par abstractwhiz, 14 mars 2010 - 12:43 .

[Zulu_DFA]

abstractwhiz wrote...
I'm fairly certain that we're living in the healthiest times in human history, it's just that more sick people stay alive now rather than just dying at the drop of a hat.  

Yes and no. Or , more precisely, no and yes. It's affirmative that modern medicine can perform miracles and schedule them by the hours and numbers. But this leads to the degeneration of the "natural health". And unless humanity adopts eugenics as the primary birth-control objective, in 200 hundred years we'll turn into something like the Quarians.

Of course, it can be easily avoided by following the Drell or the Krogan path to self-destuction... At least we'll be in peace with our gods and philistine ignorance.

[Xaijin]

Mooner911 wrote...

Ah yes, the Transhuman Achievement: the point at which we collectively recognize that we are no longer what we once were. Most people hang this momentous event on a limited but clearly obvious group of biological differences that set us apart from our ancestors. Since we still have 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers, etc., etc., any english school boy of 6 can tell you that we are the same as we were 1000 years ago. After all, most agree that evolution is a result of natural selection, but our species has removed much of that fate from our genetic destiny. Ergo, genetic stagnation. Hmmm. Not so.
Natural selection governs all non-sentient organisms via the natural environment in which each species must exist. Species have come, evolved, and died off at the whim of mama earth. Humans though are creating an artificial environment which removes that genetic grim reaper from our evolutionary house. But few yet recognize that environmental natural selection has been replaced by a social selection criteria which embodies a much more immediate and wide-spread effect.
For instance: Diet. In the past 100 years humans have learned to manufacture our nutritional requirements. Much of what we eat is no longer food but rather manufactured 'life-sustaining' consumables that cause wide spread and rampant physiological, psycological, and biological aberrations such as obesity and allergies, dementia (alzheimers, depression, bipolar disorders), and lupus and cancers. These are new to the state of the 20th and 21st century human and all play a significant role in determining procreation of successive human generations.
To support our game of dietary russian roulette we have medicine. Perhaps the most recognizable and consequentially ignored example would be antibiotics. The greatest double-edged sword humans have yet created. They're in everything from food, air, and water to cosmetics and detergents. On one hand they allow many of us to survive an inhospitable environment, but on the other they ultimately lessen our ability to do so. All medicines alter the rules and outcome of human natural selection and they do it in less than the time frame of a single generation. The 20th century was called "The Atomic Revolution". The 21st century has been heralded as "The Biological Revolution". Optimists believe subsequent human evolution will be self determined but realists believe our evolution will be an unintended consequence of our intellect.
Lastly, but certainly not conclusively, is our societal construct. Religion, politics, morality, money, all are players affecting procreation choices. Who is suitable or unsuitable for procreation is severly swayed by the 'mood' of society. At this moment, we are enduring a free-market phase of society that is the foundation for all choices we make. For good or bad, this current 'mood' has affected the fundamental criteria that attracts our genders. Procreation is no longer an effort to ensure the continuation of our species, rather, it's a result of achieving a learned happiness that's defined by society's mood. And since conformance to the moods of society has been a survival requirement since civilization began, humanity has, to varying degrees, removed itself from the traditional Darwinian natural selection process.
So. What about the transhuman? We always have been and always will be transhuman. I have no doubt that any Asari would be shocked at how quickly we're evolving and alarmed at how uncontrolled it is (for a 'sentient' species).

Bingo.

Per the above post : the individual living does not necessitate a better outcome for the species. Humanity as a whole has lost a great deal of adaption potential in order to adhere to social conventions, the fact there are way more humans around than there should be kinda helps that one.

That stated, I found Dr. Mordin's "great range" speech pretty funny because human variation is actually extremely narrow, and much narrower than it used to be due to two previous NELEs.

Modifié par Xaijin, 14 mars 2010 - 01:46 .

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Of course, it can be easily avoided by following the Drell or the Krogan path to self-destuction... At least we'll be in peace with our gods and philistine ignorance.

Unless the Protheans and mass relays actually exist in real-life, that's probably the fate of humans. Running out of resources and then going to war over basic necessities, all because we couldn't discover the ability to travel to another habitable planet outside the solar system in time.

At least we'll all have died of old age before that happens... I hope.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Of course, it can be easily avoided by following the Drell or the Krogan path to self-destuction... At least we'll be in peace with our gods and philistine ignorance.

Unless the Protheans and mass relays actually exist in real-life, that's probably the fate of humans. Running out of resources and then going to war over basic necessities, all because we couldn't discover the ability to travel to another habitable planet outside the solar system in time.

At least we'll all have died of old age before that happens... I hope.

We don't need mass relays. We need commitment.

http://en.wikipedia....zation#Starship

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2010 - 02:00 .

[cronshaw8]

abstractwhiz wrote...

glasgoo21 wrote...

If we consider that we only use a fraction of our humain minds, Biotics aren't far away, who knows, interesting topic you wrote

This is a total canard, but it's been repeated so many times that it probably wins the prize for most believed myth ever. Hell, I can't even understand how one could make measurements to back up such a statement. It probably started as a random quote, and was then repeated heavily by psychic frauds (and amplified by science-illiterate media) trying to justify their money-making rackets. <_<

The myth debunked here.

[Mooner911]

abstractwhiz wrote...
I'm pretty sure these things have always been around (especially cancer), just undiagnosed or confused for other stuff by primitive medical science. Also, people who had the more dangerous versions of these just died early - remember that people used to pump out kids regularly, and most wouldn't even reach adolescence. It's like war and violence - despite the fact that our militaries are insanely powerful now, we're actually living in the least violent times in human history. By that same token, I'm fairly certain that we're living in the healthiest times in human history, it's just that more sick people stay alive now rather than just dying at the drop of a hat.

The point is, all these things affect the potential direction(s) of the human genome. The human evolutionary process is moving faster, or perhaps becoming less stable, because it's  being moderated by an artificial environment. We no longer die for simple reasons. So the question is: although human population in the last 200 years has increased at a staggering rate, has the variety of humans increased even faster?

abstractwhiz wrote...
Obesity makes some sense, after all for most of human history the average person was more likely to starve than have enough food to overeat.

hmmm. off topic but. The primary cause of obesity is not over eating. It's primarily caused by an inability to properly manage one's diet. An inability that is directly linked historically to the introduction and ever increasing prevalence of manufactured food. A carrot is a carrot but a triglyceride is a... um... I think it's good for you 'cause it's on my "organic" cereal box.

cronshaw8 wrote...

abstractwhiz wrote...

glasgoo21 wrote...
If we consider that we only use a fraction of our humain minds, Biotics aren't far away, who knows, interesting topic you wrote

This is a total canard, but it's been repeated so many times that it probably wins the prize for most believed myth ever. Hell, I can't even understand how one could make measurements to back up such a statement. It probably started as a random quote, and was then repeated heavily by psychic frauds (and amplified by science-illiterate media) trying to justify their money-making rackets.

The myth debunked here.

But it's a useful stepping stone to allow some individuals to understanding humanity can be more than it is. Perhaps the greatest good we can do for ourselves is to debunk all the myths and falacies that distort truth and reality. Myths that are so comforting and cherished though. They're built and supported by humanity's oldest institutions: politics and religion. How can our seemingly innate belief system be dismantled and replaced with a less than tasteful appetite for reality? If we don't have the guts to do it on our own, maybe a quick Geth invasion wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[madisk]

Mooner911 wrote...

The 20th century was called "The Atomic Revolution". The 21st century has been heralded as "The Biological Revolution". Optimists believe subsequent human evolution will be self determined but pessimists believe our evolution will be an unintended consequence of our intellect.

Fixed that for you.

Mooner911 wrote...

So. What about the transhuman? We always have been and always
will be transhuman. I have no doubt that any Asari would be shocked at
how quickly we're evolving and alarmed at how uncontrolled it is (for a
'sentient' species).

So, we've always, throughout our entire existence used science and technology to directly improve our mental and physical characteristics and capacities? I honestly wasn't aware of any silicon chips in my brain allowing me to store and process data a million times more efficiently than I'd normally be able to or nanorobots patrolling my bloodstream, fighting infections and eliminating cancer cells before they have a chance to colonize my body.

[Ecael]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Of course, it can be easily avoided by following the Drell or the Krogan path to self-destuction... At least we'll be in peace with our gods and philistine ignorance.

Unless the Protheans and mass relays actually exist in real-life, that's probably the fate of humans. Running out of resources and then going to war over basic necessities, all because we couldn't discover the ability to travel to another habitable planet outside the solar system in time.

At least we'll all have died of old age before that happens... I hope.

We don't need mass relays. We need commitment.

http://en.wikipedia....zation#Starship

Your avatar fits well with what you just said.

"Commitment to the advancement and preservation of humanity..."

Now we just need an organization like Cerberus to actually fund a giant project to build a ship. Even then, the amount of energy, manpower and materials to build an 'ark' viable for space are enormous, and the chances of finding another habitable moon or planet are slim.

Modifié par Ecael, 14 mars 2010 - 07:35 .

[madisk]

Mooner911 wrote...

abstractwhiz wrote...
I'm pretty sure these things have always been around (especially cancer), just undiagnosed or confused for other stuff by primitive medical science. Also, people who had the more dangerous versions of these just died early - remember that people used to pump out kids regularly, and most wouldn't even reach adolescence. It's like war and violence - despite the fact that our militaries are insanely powerful now, we're actually living in the least violent times in human history. By that same token, I'm fairly certain that we're living in the healthiest times in human history, it's just that more sick people stay alive now rather than just dying at the drop of a hat.

The point is, all these things affect the potential direction(s) of the human genome. The human evolutionary process is moving faster, or perhaps becoming less stable, because it's  being moderated by an artificial environment. We no longer die for simple reasons. So the question is: although human population in the last 200 years has increased at a staggering rate, has the variety of humans increased even faster?

You're right, the process has been sped up (or destabilized)  due to artificial environmental conditions, unintentional consequences to medicine, manufactured goods, etc (unintentional artificial selection). It's also true that we've only just mapped the human genome, but we haven't cracked the genetic code itself. Once we fully understand our genetic makeup, then we will be able to take the course of our evolution into our own hands. I'd say that's a natural transition period between the age of discovery and age of mastery.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Yes and no. Or , more precisely, no and yes. It's affirmative that
modern medicine can perform miracles and schedule them by the hours and
numbers. But this leads to the degeneration of the "natural health".
And unless humanity adopts eugenics as the primary birth-control
objective, in 200 hundred years we'll turn into something like the
Quarians.

Hoping to achieve better genetic qualities trough selective breeding is equivalent to hoping to win the lottery. We've reached a point in science where modifying the genome of a fetus in future seems at least a thousand times more plausible. Either you hope for the best genetic makeup trough selective breeding (which is still a heavily randomized process, so your chances of success are relatively low) or you use gene therapy to iron out the imperfections before birth. In short, eugenics is pseudoscience.

Ecael wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Of course,
it can be easily avoided by following the Drell or the Krogan path to
self-destuction... At least we'll be in peace with our gods and
philistine ignorance.

Unless the Protheans and mass relays
actually exist in real-life, that's probably the fate of humans.
Running out of resources and then going to war over basic necessities,
all because we couldn't discover the ability to travel to another
habitable planet outside the solar system in time.

At least we'll all have died of old age before that happens... I hope.

Way too much negativity here, so here's a bit of lighthearted optimism - We're on the verge of several breaktroughs, from self-sustaining nuclear fusion to nanotechnology and room-temperature superconductivity. I sincerely doubt that the brightest and most powerful people would allow the world to degenerate back into the dark ages when we're on the verge of transforming our society forever. Eventually we will move on from fossil fuels and manual labor to automation and sustainable energy sources.

Modifié par madisk, 14 mars 2010 - 07:41 .

[madisk]

Ecael wrote...

Now we just need an organization like Cerberus to actually fund a giant project to build a ship. Even then, the amount of energy, manpower and materials to build an 'ark' viable for space are enormous, and the chances of finding another habitable moon or planet are slim.

Insufficient data available. We don't have the means to accurately say how many terrestrial planets there might be in our solar neighborhood. However, we've recently discovered more (by pure chance) than scientists thought was likely 50 years ago.

[Ecael]

madisk wrote...

Way too much negativity here, so here's a bit of lighthearted optimism - We're on the verge of several breaktroughs, from self-sustaining nuclear fusion to nanotechnology and room-temperature superconductivity. I sincerely doubt that the brightest and most powerful people would allow the world to degenerate back into the dark ages when we're on the verge of transforming our society forever. Eventually we will move on from fossil fuels and manual labor to automation and sustainable energy sources.

Aren't we always on the verge of nuclear fusion?

Insufficient data available. We don't have the means to accurately say
how many terrestrial planets there might be in our solar neighborhood.
However, we've recently discovered more (by pure chance) than scientists
thought was likely 50 years ago.

Insufficient data is the problem. There are probably hundreds of habitable planets out there, but how can we navigate toward them? It's not like we can travel in a straight line.

[madisk]

Ecael wrote...

madisk wrote...

Way too much negativity here, so here's a bit of lighthearted optimism - We're on the verge of several breaktroughs, from self-sustaining nuclear fusion to nanotechnology and room-temperature superconductivity. I sincerely doubt that the brightest and most powerful people would allow the world to degenerate back into the dark ages when we're on the verge of transforming our society forever. Eventually we will move on from fossil fuels and manual labor to automation and sustainable energy sources.

Aren't we always on the verge of nuclear fusion?

Well, maybe for the past 50 years, but we're getting closer and closer alright.

EDIT: Oh, you mean the Sun? You're such a joker.

Ecael wrote...
Insufficient data is the problem. There are probably hundreds of habitable planets out there, but how can we navigate toward them? It's not like we can travel in a straight line.

Billions of self-replicating Von Neumann probes (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) to scout out terrestrial environments, then colonizing suitable worlds.

Modifié par madisk, 14 mars 2010 - 08:09 .

[superimposed]

They still eat, ****, ****** and ****. Until one of those things is no longer necessary, they're completely human no matter how much magic they can throw about.

[madisk]

superimposed wrote...

They still eat, ****, ****** and ****. Until one of those things is no longer necessary, they're completely human no matter how much magic they can throw about.

So eating, reproduction and waste excretion makes us human? 

[superimposed]

madisk wrote...

superimposed wrote...

They still eat, ****, ****** and ****. Until one of those things is no longer necessary, they're completely human no matter how much magic they can throw about.

So eating, reproduction and waste excretion makes us human? 

Pretty much. Nothing about our species is unique, except for delusions of grandeur.

[madisk]

superimposed wrote...

madisk wrote...

superimposed wrote...

They still eat, ****, ****** and ****. Until one of those things is no longer necessary, they're completely human no matter how much magic they can throw about.

So eating, reproduction and waste excretion makes us human? 

Pretty much. Nothing about our species is unique, except for delusions of grandeur.

So cybernetic, genetic and nanotechnological enhancements to our physical form will not make us less human, but say, eliminating waste excretion, solid food consumption or sexual reproduction would suddenly make us not human?

That's a very entertaining notion.

Modifié par madisk, 14 mars 2010 - 08:44 .

[abstractwhiz]

superimposed wrote...

madisk wrote...

superimposed wrote...

They still eat, ****, ****** and ****. Until one of those things is no longer necessary, they're completely human no matter how much magic they can throw about.

So eating, reproduction and waste excretion makes us human? 

Pretty much. Nothing about our species is unique, except for delusions of grandeur.

Well, it's true that we're not supernaturally special or anything, but we are rather unique in some interesting ways.