# Human Evolution - What Next?



## vampiregenocide (Jul 16, 2009)

So, I've been thinking, an ability that I have been blessed with, about the future of the human race. And I'm not entirely sure where we are heading. 

Are we so destructive that we will commit mass suicide and wipe out our own species? Or will we elevate ourselves to a new evolutionary stage with technology? Perhaps technology will completely replace us in the form of AI?

I know this is the stuff of science fiction, but I think it would be interesting to see your ideas on where our kind will be in a hundred, thousand, million or even more years time.


----------



## Randy (Jul 16, 2009)




----------



## caughtinamosh (Jul 16, 2009)




----------



## Senensis (Jul 16, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> Are we so destructive that we will commit mass suicide and wipe out our own species?



This, with the added coolness of wiping 99% of every other living creature at the same time.

mankind.

(And yes, from my point of view, that's the most likely ending. The other, less likely I think, being a couple of groundbreaking discoveries that completely change the way we behave. Yeah, right.)


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 16, 2009)

everything will end up like Minority Report and I, Robot.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 16, 2009)




----------



## stuh84 (Jul 16, 2009)

Women will physically have scrotums in their hands, rather than having men by the balls every time they wear something provocative.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 16, 2009)

Tiger said:


> http://marvel.com/universe3zx/images/thumb/7/71/OmegaRed_Head.jpg/440px-OmegaRed_Head.jpg



That's got to be the most awful looking version of Omega Red I've ever seen. Jim Lee or STFU. 

Anyway, I think we're devolving honestly. At least intellectually speaking.

I want to have faith that through the careful use of technology we may some day travel the galaxies and find more answers about the nature of consciousness, but I really doubt it. I think it's much more likely that some random day some random country is going to nuke some other random country and start the chain of events that basically wipe us all the fuck out in a couple of days.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 16, 2009)

synrgy said:


> That's got to be the most awful looking version of Omega Red I've ever seen. Jim Lee or STFU.



Its O-Dave Mustaine-a-red


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm pretty sure we're fucked. And I doubt that evolution is going to change that. If anything, any evolution the human race does will be for the worse. We've gotten way too lazy and dependent on the things we've built to actually grow any further physically. We'll probably get weaker and lazier, while we watch our creations live our lives for us.

Then there's the issue of everything else we've destroyed, or are in the process of destroying. Now, if we would just be alright with leaving things as they are, I have a feeling that things would eventually correct themselves because life is resilient, but unfortunately, we're not. So once we destroy enough to disturb any eco-system in a disastrous way, everything's going to hell. And honestly, fuck global warming. What we're doing to the ocean is what's going to screw us. Since the 1980's, the shark population has declined by roughly 90%. If it keeps up enough, then there simply won't be enough sharks to feed on the smaller, plankton-feeding sea creatures. Therefore that population will balloon, and plankton will be ridiculously scarce. About 70% of the oxygen on our planet is produced by plankton. So all in all, we (and pretty much everything else) could essentially be wiped off this planet because we a) are afraid of sharks and b) like eating soup with their fins in it.


----------



## BurialWithin (Jul 16, 2009)

Well just think, the worlds has drastically changed in the last 100 years. Can you imagine a thousand years from now??? Wow


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 16, 2009)

BurialWithin said:


> Well just think, the worlds has drastically changed in the last 100 years. Can you imagine a thousand years from now??? Wow


----------



## synrgy (Jul 16, 2009)

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm pretty sure we're fucked. And I doubt that evolution is going to change that. If anything, any evolution the human race does will be for the worse. We've gotten way too lazy and dependent on the things we've built to actually grow any further physically. We'll probably get weaker and lazier, while we watch our creations live our lives for us.
> 
> Then there's the issue of everything else we've destroyed, or are in the process of destroying. Now, if we would just be alright with leaving things as they are, I have a feeling that things would eventually correct themselves because life is resilient, but unfortunately, we're not. So once we destroy enough to disturb any eco-system in a disastrous way, everything's going to hell. And honestly, fuck global warming. What we're doing to the ocean is what's going to screw us. Since the 1980's, the shark population has declined by roughly 90%. If it keeps up enough, then there simply won't be enough sharks to feed on the smaller, plankton-feeding sea creatures. Therefore that population will balloon, and plankton will be ridiculously scarce. About 70% of the oxygen on our planet is produced by plankton. So all in all, we (and pretty much everything else) could essentially be wiped off this planet because we a) are afraid of sharks and b) like eating soup with their fins in it.



Don't forget about the bees, either. No bees-->no trees-->we're fucked.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Jul 16, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Don't forget about the bees, either. No bees-->no trees-->we're fucked.



Very true, sir. I don't think there are many people out there actively hunting bees  but yes, there's also always the issue of the destruciton of their habitat.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 16, 2009)

Well sorry to be a wet blanket but I think as a species we're royally fucked. I just can't see us making it as a whole. Certainly not in the long long run. We've made more technological advances in the last 100+ years than in the entire span of recorded history.

But in those 100+ years while our standard of living and creature comforts have been increasing steadily so too have the weapons and new ways we've devised to divide and destroy ourselves.

I personally don't give a rats ass about Global Warming. Real or not, man made or not, I just can't bring myself to give a fuck. Sorry. I think the planet will rebound and survive loooooooooooong after we fuck it up. Provided you trust in science, the Earth is what? ~4.6 billion years old? Come on, you think 100 years of an industrial revolution and its associated pollution is going to ruin everything? Irrevocably? Sorry, but I don't think our impact is that significant. Sure within our and the next few generations life times' things will change, possibly in drastic ways, but I don't think we're going to turn Earth into a giant frigid wasteland (ala Planet Hoth from Star Wars) nor do I think it's going to turn into Waterworld either.

Now *we* as a species may not survive, and the whales may die out and the sharks and every other species we've fucked with or hunted but the rest will find a way. Nature will find a way around things regardless. Not saying we should start going around burning and raping the environment (some will argue we already did and continue to) but I just think we're not the "Gods" we make ourselves out to be. We have immense power but we've only just reached conscious infancy as a species. 

In a few thousand years I doubt humans will exist, certainly not the way we think of them anyway. If we can somehow get past this technological infancy without destroying ourselves as well as to start viewing each other as all part of the same human race, regardless of nations, governments, religions, etc, then maybe, just maybe we'll reach an enlightened platform to continue.

orb.............


----------



## cycloptopus (Jul 16, 2009)

We will become aliens.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 16, 2009)

JeffFromMtl said:


> Very true, sir. I don't think there are many people out there actively hunting bees  but yes, there's also always the issue of the destruciton of their habitat.



I don't pretend to know the cause, I just know I've read a lot of reports in the last decade that suggest their numbers are decreasing at pretty scary rates.


----------



## BinaryTox1n (Jul 16, 2009)

I don't believe that humans will physically evolve, in the sense that first there were monkeys, then neanderthal man, then present man. I believe we are pretty much saying no to natural selection, as with our new technology, everyone lives, good bad or ugly, but if something different were to evolve our scientists would probably scoop it up and test it until it dies, therefore preventing it from reproducing and contributing to the evolution of our species. 

As far as technology goes, however, the sky is the limit, and we are putting almost no boundaries on ourselves as far as that goes, we've made nukes and all other sorts of horrible chemical weapons to advance the science of destruction, therefore why would we think twice about advancing something that doesn't have the express purpose of destruction (but could be just as deadly)?

There are so many things to think about on this subject that any one post here could only really scratch the surface.


----------



## Fionn (Jul 16, 2009)

"The Singularity is Near" by Ray Zurweil has all the answers!!!


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2009)

Let's see... how long have people been convinced that mankind will soon destroy itself?

Wankers across the globe during the Cold War: Check.
Wankers in Europe during and after WWII: Check.
Wankers in Europe during and after WWI: Check.
Wankers watching France take itself over several times and have no idea what's going on: Check.
Wankers watching the empire of Christendom collapsing: Check.
Wankers watching the fall of Rome: Check.

Yeah, going to happen *any fucking day now*, with such a track record of accurate predictions in the past.

BinaryToxin, do a little more reading. Human evolution is still going on - big changes will still take a while to see, but we've stopped by no stretch of the imagination.

It's also important to note that destruction is incredibly fucking easy - that's a big reason why it advances so quickly. Research in constructive parts of applied physics will *always* be slower than research in destructive tools, for two reasons - the first is that destroying shit is easy and the second is that just about any botched experiment results in a new way to ruin something.

Some of you guys are making cynicism look *really* fucking bad here.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2009)

Fionn said:


> "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Zurweil has all the answers!!!



You simply must be kidding. It's one thing to be another Kurzweil zombie, but if you can't even spell his name right I really have to hope you're making fun of something.

Jeff


----------



## cycloptopus (Jul 16, 2009)

check this out:

Powerful Ideas: Military Develops 'Cybug' Spies - Yahoo! News

and this:

Monkey Fitted With Hi-Tech Chip Moves Robot Using Mind Control, Thomas Moore Reports | UK News | Sky News

and finally (for now) this:

Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com


Gentlemen, the future is now.

We will become biomechanoids.


----------



## Empryrean (Jul 16, 2009)

cycloptopus said:


> and finally (for now) this:
> 
> Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
> 
> ...



Wouldn't we eventually eat at our own flesh if we were given that ability?


----------



## Pauly (Jul 16, 2009)

Transhumans, hopefully!


----------



## cycloptopus (Jul 16, 2009)

Empryrean said:


> Wouldn't we eventually eat at our own flesh if we were given that ability?


Hmmm... 

perhaps. 

Then we shall become cannabalistic biomechanoids!

The future is bright for death metal!


----------



## troyguitar (Jul 16, 2009)




----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 16, 2009)

Pauly said:


> Transhumans, hopefully!



This is my personal idea.

Though we as a race are very destructive, there is one trait we have which exceeds this, and that is our desire to live. We are resilient, and thosuands of years of war, plague and fear have shown this. We overcome obstacles, its what we do. I think the idea of us wiping out the planet in a nuclear holocaust is while very possible, unlikely. Its a case of everyone has a gun pointed at each other, so no one is really going to fire. The only people with the real potential to use a nuke are terrorists, in which case these weapons certainly wouldn't have the wide-scale apocalyptic effects we imagine. Any small group who even thinks about firing a missle would find themselves jumped on by just about every nation with a bigger gun. Everyone wants potential threats destoryed as soon as possible.

Secondly, global warming. This is happening and fast regardless of what people say. It is an acclerated natural process, and it will if not slowed down soon, cause a lot of damage and a lot of people will die. Equatorial countries will obviously suffer the most, and many others will become much warmer. Rise in ocean levels will mean a lot of low lying alnd will be flooded, again, killing those who do not evacuate. Now, we have to scenarios which would be very important in the immediate future of man. If the people in sub-ovean level places were evacuated before the flood, this would cause over population and resource shortage in the land that is left. If it is too sudden and a lot of people die, population density in teh remaining dry land will be tolerable. Smaller land area and higher temperatures will most likely mean a humid, tropical climate in quite a lot of places, especially across a lot of the coatsal USA and Europe. So while a lot of land would be lost, the land that would be left would be fairly fertile, though with a more agressive climate. 

So, humans would survive global warming. As animals have survived several wamring events in prehistory. Our numbers would be lower, but we would still be a dominant species. Disregarding any other extinction events (e.g. viral or space born), we would be able to survive quite a while. Long enough to build up successful space travel and further general scientific knowledge. War will obviously still occur, but as I said, high yield weapons are unlikely to be used to such effect and any wars we have are generally low fatality rate in the scheme of things.

With the advent of space travel, the human virus gains the ability to spread to the stars, and it is not out of the question that we could find or terraform hospitable planets. 

If we survive long enough like this, as extinction events occur at some point, technology will create the next synthetic step in evolution, making us to different to be considered humans, and instead transhumans. This won't be for a very long time though, as we would have to ascend several technological tiers to get to this point.

I believe that at some point down the line we do need a mass extnction to cut our numbers down, or we will over populate and that wil be the kicker. We'll go to war over a bottle of water. Countries will fight over resources and we'll end up creating the extinction we so need. Like an octopus biting off its arm to escape a trap, we will do anything we need to survive, if it means killing a few people. And that is why in my opinion, we won't die out for quite some time.

Unless of course I'm wrong and a big meteor/acid nebula/super Jesus kills us all.


----------



## synrgy (Jul 16, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> Unless of course I'm wrong and a big meteor/acid nebula/super Jesus kills us all.




Damn. I always forget about Super Jesus.


----------



## BinaryTox1n (Jul 16, 2009)

JBroll said:


> BinaryToxin, do a little more reading. Human evolution is still going on - big changes will still take a while to see, but we've stopped by no stretch of the imagination.



Have any links? That sounds interesting...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jul 16, 2009)

Randy said:


>



RAWR.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Jul 16, 2009)

if anything, we'll end up looking like our beloved and classic idea of aliens; the grays.

Our heads and brains get bigger as we become smarter and smarter. Our jaws get smaller because we don't need to rip meat off bones or use them for defense like our ancestors. as all the cultures of the world combine from breeding we end up with some kind of gray colored skin and we have no real need for hair anymore either.

thus we end up looking like the classic alien, which in reality aren't aliens at all, they're just humans from the future.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 16, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> if anything, we'll end up looking like our beloved and classic idea of aliens; the grays.
> 
> Our heads and brains get bigger as we become smarter and smarter. Our jaws get smaller because we don't need to rip meat off bones or use them for defense like our ancestors. as all the cultures of the world combine from breeding we end up with some kind of gray colored skin and we have no real need for hair anymore either.
> 
> thus we end up looking like the classic alien, which in reality aren't aliens at all, they're just humans from the future.



Apparently our brains have already near enough maximised to the size they could grow to, and biologists don't think they'll increase anymore, but rather the number of cells and synapses will increase so thought recations/intelligence will become quicker.

Skin colour could change depending on if we had a major climate shift, but I can see everyones skin tone becoming similar due to breeding. Cranial, facial and hair like that would be necessary still, but I think busy hair will disappear.

That my opinion anyway, though it would be a mindfuck if some greys came down and started calling us children


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2009)

There's no reason for our brains to grow, large jaws and hair have (at least for males) one-night-stand benefits, and no skin color change would really benefit us much.

Jeff


----------



## Fionn (Jul 17, 2009)

> You simply must be kidding. It's one thing to be another Kurzweil zombie, but if you can't even spell his name right I really have to hope you're making fun of something.
> 
> Jeff



LOL how fucking dumb am I, I didn't even notice how i'd spelt it! Oops!

I'm not a Zombie I just think some of his ideas are possible (interesteing), I guess my "has all the answers" was a bit strong, but yeah I am quite into the idea of shedding my skin and becoming a compuer model of myself! Sounds like fun!!!

Why you not keen on Kurweil?


----------



## splinter8451 (Jul 17, 2009)

A LOT of people are way too into the "we will destroy ourselves it is inevitable we as a species are shit" idea. 

I think by the time someone starts launching nukes like a bunch of retards defense systems in the intelligent countries will be good enough to stop what the crappy little countries can send out. Then the retaliation from the said countries will wipe all the dumb little countries who only want to fight like ignorant children off the Earth and then we can start worrying about exploring the universe... instead of bickering with each other. 

As for us actually evolving more? I do not know what to say about that. I am sure our features will change and eventually we will inner breed enough with all the other races that we will all have close to the same characteristics as a whole. Though that will not be for a LONG time. 

What NEEDS to happen is... some alien race needs to threaten our existence so the world can come together to fight it and we can get over our differences. 

And JBroll I totally agree with that first post you put. Well said.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 17, 2009)

I think we are straight. For a while. I do think standard of living is going to decrease relatively steadily for a while. But we are a pretty durable species.


----------



## BrainArt (Jul 22, 2009)

troyguitar said:


>




A new society created by Bill and Ted? With awesome music by Steve Vai? I could live with that, it would be most excellent!


----------



## cycloptopus (Jul 22, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Damn. I always forget about Super Jesus.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 22, 2009)

I think that we may be on the verge of or approaching some major breakthroughs in the way we think, and therefore, the way we live. That being said, I don't think I can make any accurate predictions as to how life will be for us, but I must be one of the few that thinks the future is pretty bright. As someone said earlier - we're a pretty durable species, and along with most other species on the planet, we can adapt in absurdly short amounts of time to all sorts of environmental changes.


----------



## Zak1233 (Jul 22, 2009)

these are quite interesting to read

22nd century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
23rd century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
24th century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for teh LULZ:


> The *30th century* of the anno Domini (common) era will span the years 29013000 of the Gregorian calendar.
> The human being will probably abandon Planet Earth and colonize Gliese 581c. Also, God will be known and exercise a great influence in outer space politics.


fuck knows how they come to the conclusion that god will be known by the 30th century


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jul 23, 2009)

If anything we are devolving...DE-DIGIVOLVING!

DIGIMONNNN DIGITAL MONSTERS DIGIMON ARE THE CHAMPIONS


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 23, 2009)

CrushingAnvil said:


> If anything we are devolving...DE-DIGIVOLVING!
> 
> DIGIMONNNN DIGITAL MONSTERS DIGIMON ARE THE CHAMPIONS


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 23, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


>



qft


----------



## defchime (Jul 26, 2009)

First- intellegence isnt measured by the size of you head, so a large head would not mean anything other than that we physically need a larger one to survive (or smaller for that matter)

seccond- no one knows to what extent life is, we could all be plugged into a machine for all we know (sorry Matrix reference, but matrix is stolen from socrates)

I think global warming will continue and the worlds axis will flip making north, south, and east, west. in this process many people will die(good). Sorry to say it but I really wish there was less people on earth. I think as far as evolution goes, we've just about finished evolving physically so we need to evolve mentally (not only by drugs) and we will find that we are physically disposable...I also think that we will find technology to be a way of perfecting ourselves, technology should not be feared (I robot).

sorry for the movie referances but its easier to explain shit like that.


Edit- im the kinda person who wants the world to end, and i hope im alive to see it end


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 26, 2009)

defchime said:


> First- intellegence isnt measured by the size of you head, so a large head would not mean anything other than that we physically need a larger one to survive (or smaller for that matter)
> 
> seccond- no one knows to what extent life is, we could all be plugged into a machine for all we know (sorry Matrix reference, but matrix is stolen from socrates)
> 
> ...



Well in nature most of the time a larger head = more developed brain, whether thats for sensory or intellectual purposes. Either way, considering the size of our brains, which have increased by 3x in size over a few thousand years, only a small amount of their power is used. A lot of the brain has infact become vestigial.

I agree an extinction event would actually help humanity in the long run though, we are far too over populated as it is, and in the coming decades we will see this in a lack of rescources. I wrote a hefty paragraph earlier in the thread on what I thougth global warming would do, and the shifting of the poles isn't such a great deal. It has happened a lot over history and just disorients nature a bit, but its just teh way of things. Won't be a problem.

The subject of a higher state of conciousness (e.g. the Matrix) is interesting, I've always thought there was something else to life.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 26, 2009)

How exactly are we overpopulated? Mismanaged, no argument - but you can't say a word about overpopulation unless you're ignoring the fact that we still produce enough resources to handle many more people and have plenty of land unpopulated, not to mention the means to make much more out of the land we already use. Also, defchime, you're simply dead wrong about the end of physical evolution - just a few seconds on Google can fix missteps like that.

Ross, you might want to quote a proper source on brain vestigiality - some people go through life without thinking things through, but that doesn't necessarily mean the brain is vestigial.

If you're concerned about overpopulation, the first steps are in your hands. Unless this is pseudointellectual posturing, I trust that you'll do the right thing.

Jeff


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 26, 2009)

JBroll said:


> How exactly are we overpopulated? Mismanaged, no argument - but you can't say a word about overpopulation unless you're ignoring the fact that we still produce enough resources to handle many more people and have plenty of land unpopulated, not to mention the means to make much more out of the land we already use. Also, defchime, you're simply dead wrong about the end of physical evolution - just a few seconds on Google can fix missteps like that.
> 
> Ross, you might want to quote a proper source on brain vestigiality - some people go through life without thinking things through, but that doesn't necessarily mean the brain is vestigial.
> 
> ...



We are having a tremendous negative effect on our environment, to the point where we have wiped out hundreds of species and accelerated global warming. All in the effort to cater to the needs of an ever growing civilisation. In my opinion, when a species becomes so prominent it has a negative effect on its own environment, that is over population. Its the same with any animal. Too few and they do not fulfill their niche in nature, too many and they have a negative impact e.g cane toads. Maybe that fits into your idea of mismanagement, but I think its just part of human nature. We are a parasitic race, and that won't change.

And I don't mean the brain is literally vestigial, what I was referring to is the fact that there is a large part of the brain that has become underused because of our easier, modern lifestyles. Senses and parts of the brain that our ancestors used when they where running about, are now left largely unused by us. A lot of scientists believe there is potential to our brains that we have not unlocked, all down to our lifestyles. We simply don't have the need to push ourselves mentally, and I don't mean doing sums or anything, I mean getting in touch with nature, which requires a much deeper understanding and mental connection than we are currently capable of on the whole. Though the size of our brains has increased, our use of them hasn't.

Also I agree with you about physical evolution actually, but I think any evolution we may have in the future may be detrimental to our species because of the way we live.

And man, I resent being called a pseudo-intellectual. I hold my opinions based on what I know, and that is not posturing. Its simply the nature of believing something. I don't know everything and I acknowledge that, no one does. If some thing I say are wrong, so be it. I can only talk about what I know, and I try to make as informed but opinonated responses as possible.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 26, 2009)

We can go without the massive environmental impact, and killing us all off carelessly would leave most of our damage done - that's hardly anything resembling a solution. 

Again, if you cite sources on vestigiality I'll be more convinced. The brain does quite a good job of repurposing things that aren't in use.

A little more detail on the detrimentality of evolution would be nice, as we've only been gaining ability to thrive on stranger methods of subsistence last I've checked.

The pseudo-intellectual jab was actually directed at the guy above you. (Clarification: you didn't say that it would be good that many people would die as a result of some nonsense like polar shift.) Seriously... if your arguments are works of fiction, your doomsday scenario is a jumbled mashup of polar and magnetic reversal, and you blather about evolution without knowing anything about recent evolutionary progress (can you say milk?), *you're* what the world needs less of.

Jeff


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 26, 2009)

JBroll said:


> We can go without the massive environmental impact, and killing us all off carelessly would leave most of our damage done - that's hardly anything resembling a solution.
> 
> Again, if you cite sources on vestigiality I'll be more convinced. The brain does quite a good job of repurposing things that aren't in use.
> 
> ...



A reduction in human population would give our planet enough time to heal a bit, less humans in the world would certainly not be a bad thing for the environment. Though as you say, a lot of the damage has been done. I don't want a lot of people to die, as a human my instinct is to survive and that goes for my whole race not just me. However, our numbers are too big and we either need to find a better way of dealing with it or it will have catastrophic effects on future races. A few people believe our destructive/consuming nature makes us a sort of evolutionary cleanup crew. We come along and in a few thousand years destroy so much of nature there is little left. Then when we die out, nature has room to regrow and renew itself. Without destruction, there is no room for construction. Don't know whether I believe that, but its an interesting concept.

As I said, I don't believe the brain is vestigial, I was simply using that term to get my point across. I do think a lot of the brain goes unused, and while some of it has been repurposed, I and I know quite a few others believe that older parts of the brain tracing back to our ancestors, are becoming less and less used. Our senses for instance are not as developed as they used to be. While they are more advanced than most people think, if you think in relation to the animal kingdom, where senses are vital to survival, we don't have the constant competition of life and death, or the need to hunt etc. Because these situations in which we use are senses are less and less common, they are becoming more relaxed as it were. As I say, most of this is educated opinion, I don't have the factual knowledge to know whether everything I say is true or not  its simply pieced together from reliable things I've read and learnt from always being interested in nature.

I think that out evolution will be detrimental because as we settle into a lifestyle where the amenities of life become more readily available (which will only become a worse as technology advances), our bodies become used to having things at hand. Everything is done for us, with very little exertion needed. If evolution takes this into account, it will devolve to suit this lifetsyle, and if the time came where these things were not available to us, we could suffer. But thats just an opinion, and about as certain as whether a coin will land heads or tails. 

And my apologies, such are the limitations of communication via text.


Also, I should point out that grammatical errors and hypocrisy may be a plenty in my responses, as it is past midnight and I never make much sense anyway.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 26, 2009)

By what measure are our numbers too big? That's the point you keep trying to make, but you're dancing around it - we could live with much smaller impact *very easily* and still sustain ourselves. There's plenty of room for construction without destruction, and there are far easier and more effective ways of 'saving the planet' if that is your goal.

However, this still avoids the issue that we are part of nature and part of the planet. The fact that we are above nature in a few senses is hardly anything to be ashamed of. We're here, and the fact that we have an advantage in keeping ourselves in motion is exactly what nature 'intended' - if you feel bad about being part of a successful species, you are defying 'nature' or 'the planet' or whatever other gushy nonsense you want to consider us a part of.

The 'unused brain' myth needs a bit of work, but the fact that we (hopefully) learn every day and continually make ourselves better makes it hard to claim that much of the brain is unused.

The portion of the population that could breed into dependence on amenities is *incredibly* small, and we haven't seen any such adaptation to my knowledge - so far we just have things like our digestive system adapting to newer sources of nutrition, not our asses fitting toilet seats any better or our hands molding around steering wheels. This argument will not hold.

Jeff


----------



## defchime (Jul 26, 2009)

Im tired so im not reading any of what you posted....all im saying is what I think based on no evidance, just my own thoughts and idea... you could call me a visionary of some sort LOL.

I actually change my mind physical evolution will happen and most likely is happening right now.

Posting anything here isnt going to do anything so im done lol


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> By what measure are our numbers too big? That's the point you keep trying to make, but you're dancing around it - we could live with much smaller impact *very easily* and still sustain ourselves. There's plenty of room for construction without destruction, and there are far easier and more effective ways of 'saving the planet' if that is your goal.
> 
> However, this still avoids the issue that we are part of nature and part of the planet. The fact that we are above nature in a few senses is hardly anything to be ashamed of. We're here, and the fact that we have an advantage in keeping ourselves in motion is exactly what nature 'intended' - if you feel bad about being part of a successful species, you are defying 'nature' or 'the planet' or whatever other gushy nonsense you want to consider us a part of.
> 
> ...




Okay, in our current status and the way we are using our resources, our population is too big. If we adapted our resources, housing etc and were more adapted to maintaining a large population with little environmental impact, then theres no reason we could'nt carry on with increasing numbers. However, at the current way in which we operate, I think we are too destuctive as a race and therefore either need to re-evaluate ourselved or slow population growth. Theres a lot of 'if' and 'buts' in terms of what we could do to lessen our impact on the environment, and the fact of the matter is that our rate of change is slower than the rate in which we are having an effect. Therefore, the argument that we could lessen our impact on the environment and still maintain a large population, is just wishful thinking. Believe me, I want to save the trees and polar bears, but I don't see it happening.

And true, I am part of a species and part of nature which means I want me and my species to survive. However, as part of nature we are meant to keep an equilibrium, and that currently isn't the case. Far from it.

By all means I think our brains are becoming specialised in new and inventive ways, but I do think we are losing some older less explored parts of our brain due to underuse. I mean this is largely theoretical, and while a lot of people believe that parts of the brain are regressing, these parts haven't been proved, so its just opinion. By all means our brains are getting better at some things, but not some others.

And I think that scenario is just a possible one, not definite by any means.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 27, 2009)

It would take quite a bit of population decrease for our numbers to drop past the point where we're impacting the environment. That plan fails both in lack of practicality and moderation, since it's even more wishful to think that our population decreasing by an order of magnitude isn't extremely harmful for other reasons and that the resulting change in our environmental impact will be comparable to what we had if we had just thought things out a bit more.

We are not meant to keep an equilibrium, nature intends to do that itself - the balancing acts are 'too many tasty animals hopping around attract predators and get eaten' and 'too many hungry animals fight over not enough food and some of them die'. Neither of those cases are happening, and nowhere is 'preserving the balance' in our orders as living things - we're humans, not bloody Jedi knights...

Jeff


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It would take quite a bit of population decrease for our numbers to drop past the point where we're impacting the environment. That plan fails both in lack of practicality and moderation, since it's even more wishful to think that our population decreasing by an order of magnitude isn't extremely harmful for other reasons and that the resulting change in our environmental impact will be comparable to what we had if we had just thought things out a bit more.
> 
> We are not meant to keep an equilibrium, nature intends to do that itself - the balancing acts are 'too many tasty animals hopping around attract predators and get eaten' and 'too many hungry animals fight over not enough food and some of them die'. Neither of those cases are happening, and nowhere is 'preserving the balance' in our orders as living things - we're humans, not bloody Jedi knights...
> 
> Jeff



I disagree with most of that (except Jedi knights part), but since we seem to be going in circles I'll leave it there


----------



## defchime (Aug 6, 2009)

to jeff- 

we do not belong here, look at us we're driving in cars, building houses, blowing up the planet...do you see dogs or cats doing anything like us? Humans are the only thing on this planet that have the ability/power/determination/hate/etc to destroy life on earth (lack of a better phrase). 

I for one think that we are alien to this planet and we all need to fuck the fuck off and die. lol go ahead and give me more negative rating because i could care less what anyone on this planet thinks about me.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 6, 2009)

If it weren't from the fact that we came from the nature that supposedly so abhors us, I might buy that. However, plenty of animals build shelter and craft tools - and despite popular fearmongering we don't blow up the planet nearly as often as things like flying goddamned rocks from space. If you think you don't belong here, feel free to find yourself a better place - but you're certainly not speaking for too many people.

Jeff


----------



## ToniS (Aug 6, 2009)

My feet don't ever smell, like when I haven't even showered in 3 days. I'm thinking of joining X-men.


----------



## defchime (Aug 6, 2009)

JBroll said:


> If it weren't from the fact that we came from the nature that supposedly so abhors us, I might buy that. However, plenty of animals build shelter and craft tools - and despite popular fearmongering we don't blow up the planet nearly as often as things like flying goddamned rocks from space. If you think you don't belong here, feel free to find yourself a better place - but you're certainly not speaking for too many people.
> 
> Jeff


 
just because a monkey picks up a stick and uses it as a tool doesnt make him any sort of genius. I dont think we belong here, but that doesnt mean we cant enjoy arguing about random shit that could just end with us being a shit stain on gods (?) underwear.


----------



## Bound (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't know if anyone really touched on the original post, but vampiregenocide brings up an interesting idea about technology as an external influence on our evolution. I know you brought up AI but just the technology at our disposal is enough to change the who nature of the species. Take for instance certain medical problems that are inherited genetically. Some of these diseases wouldn't allow for a person to even reach to the age of reproduction, but we now can keep them alive until they can reproduce (like type 1 diabetes) and pass on the 'bad' genes.

As far as any kind of significant evolution It's probably unlikely that it will happen as it hasn't happened because there's been no significant changes to the environment we live in. Think of the world at the time we were evolving as compared to now. It was a little rougher, pretty tumultous. But think of the events that must've forced certain mutations to be advantageous. It wasn't as easy as some monkey talking to another. Believe me (and go ask some scientists) we definitely earned what we have. Other than the cooking with fire thing (Cos we had huge balls apparantely).

Point is, we are keeping ourselves in such a comfortable state, that the external world would probably have to be in such a horrific state to force any kind of drastic changes. What we are doing is mixing in a bunch of what would have been 'undisireable' traits. So it's not really fun and fantastical as we'd like it to be, as it probably won't be like 'hey, check out my sweet bone armor' it'll be more like ' hey, my mom gave me Congenital Osteosclorosis'

Plus we tend to shun people with any kind of 'wierd' mutations anyways, which may have proven advantageous in the wild. Think of the chick with the third working arm how usefull would that be to a hunter-gatherer? Instead we're like " Oh that's not ascetically right so it needs to go".

Defichme:

You can think we're special because of the hundreds of years of work and dedication of a few men (like in the advancement of the automobile) but when it all boils down to it we're not destroying the planet because we want to do it, we're doing it because all life on this planet is about the struggle for energy and we figured out a way to get a lot of energy to a lot of our species. We're really only learning in the past 50 years the price of all that energy. Wether it be food or oil or anything we use to enjoy the quality of life we do, it comes at a very heavy cost to the rest of the world. But in a way that's the natural order of things, we're just doing it on such a large scale we're out-competing a lot things at once. Instead of a lions pride out competing a puma, the human race is out competing the whole planet.


----------



## s_k_mullins (Aug 6, 2009)

tongarr said:


> My feet don't ever smell, like when I haven't even showered in 3 days. I'm thinking of joining X-men.


----------



## defchime (Aug 6, 2009)

very good point...Bound, but i still think theres more to life on earth than what most people think


----------



## JBroll (Aug 6, 2009)

Defchime, I was pointing out that it's very hard to take your claim seriously when you're arguing that from a presumably air-conditioned room with a networked computer (easily one of the high points of human development) - that doesn't exactly indicate that you're taking things too seriously, and my response was that you should act in accordance with the things you claim to believe in.

Bound, how much reading on recent human evolution have you done?

Jeff


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 6, 2009)

Bound said:


> I don't know if anyone really touched on the original post, but vampiregenocide brings up an interesting idea about technology as an external influence on our evolution. I know you brought up AI but just the technology at our disposal is enough to change the who nature of the species. Take for instance certain medical problems that are inherited genetically. Some of these diseases wouldn't allow for a person to even reach to the age of reproduction, but we now can keep them alive until they can reproduce (like type 1 diabetes) and pass on the 'bad' genes.
> 
> As far as any kind of significant evolution It's probably unlikely that it will happen as it hasn't happened because there's been no significant changes to the environment we live in. Think of the world at the time we were evolving as compared to now. It was a little rougher, pretty tumultous. But think of the events that must've forced certain mutations to be advantageous. It wasn't as easy as some monkey talking to another. Believe me (and go ask some scientists) we definitely earned what we have. Other than the cooking with fire thing (Cos we had huge balls apparantely).
> 
> ...



Exactly. Thats just what I mean. Technology is replacing things that give us healthy competeition from nature, and as such our bodies are not having to cope with external threats so much. I mean we've already seen our bodies de-evolving to suit our new lifestyles. Wisdom teeth, the appendix etc are examples of organs that have become pretty much vestigial because of our changes in lifestyle. Minor changes they maybe, it represents what could come in the future.


----------



## Bound (Aug 6, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Defchime, I was pointing out that it's very hard to take your claim seriously when you're arguing that from a presumably air-conditioned room with a networked computer (easily one of the high points of human development) - that doesn't exactly indicate that you're taking things too seriously, and my response was that you should act in accordance with the things you claim to believe in.
> 
> Bound, how much reading on recent human evolution have you done?
> 
> Jeff



a fair amount, why?


----------



## JBroll (Aug 7, 2009)

> As far as any kind of significant evolution It's probably unlikely that it will happen as it hasn't happened because there's been no significant changes to the environment we live in. Think of the world at the time we were evolving as compared to now. It was a little rougher, pretty tumultous. But think of the events that must've forced certain mutations to be advantageous. It wasn't as easy as some monkey talking to another. Believe me (and go ask some scientists) we definitely earned what we have. Other than the cooking with fire thing (Cos we had huge balls apparantely).



Apparently some more is necessary, because while the way we've been progressing has changed we've certainly been undergoing some renovations even in the last few centuries. Unless I'm misreading this quote completely, it seems like you're looking for changes in the wrong place or expecting them on the wrong time scale.

Jeff


----------



## damigu (Aug 7, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> Exactly. Thats just what I mean. Technology is replacing things that give us healthy competeition from nature, and as such our bodies are not having to cope with external threats so much. I mean we've already seen our bodies de-evolving to suit our new lifestyles. Wisdom teeth, the appendix etc are examples of organs that have become pretty much vestigial because of our changes in lifestyle. Minor changes they maybe, it represents what could come in the future.



actually, recent research has shown that the appendix and tonsils are *NOT* vestigial.
they are both lymphoid tissue (part of your immune system) and play a significant role in fighting infection, particularly in babies.

as for physically de-evolving...
there are people who can run a mile in under 4 minutes, or deadlift 1000 lbs, etc, and you expect me to believe that humanity is DE-evolving and is weak and physically incapable?

the human body is extremely adaptable.
if all you do is sit in front of a computer at work, then go home and sit in front of a TV and computer, you will be pale and wimpy and fatty.
if you exercise a lot (and eat right), you will be in amazing physical shape and can be every bit as strong and fit as the earliest modern humans 60,000 years ago.

the fact that the average american is obese isn't a matter of evolution at all. in fact, *NOTHING* that has changed about humans physically in the written history of humanity has to do with evolution--we're still genetically homogeneous with the ancient romans, ancient greeks, ancient egyptians, ancient mesopotamians, and even further back.
genetic migration studies can't even determine anything less than 15,000 years old due to that homogeneity.
any physical changes in humanity in the recorded history of humanity has had to do with nothing more than nutrition and cultural preference of looks of the human form (granted, sexual selection *IS* evolution in process, but my point is that it hasn't resulted in any evolutionary changes over the last many millennia).


----------



## JBroll (Aug 7, 2009)

The changes we see are usually related to our inner workings - digesting different types of food (trust me, this has changed - and we have Irish Cream, cappuccinos, and ice cream as a result), for example - and while I think some small changes in stature and 'normal' shape have taken place I agree for the most part. The Human Genome Project is being undertaken to see more about what has been changing recently.

Jeff


----------



## Looneygah1 (Aug 7, 2009)

I think you will see alot more of this is technology gets way way up there!







lol


----------



## Bound (Aug 7, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Apparently some more is necessary, because while the way we've been progressing has changed we've certainly been undergoing some renovations even in the last few centuries. Unless I'm misreading this quote completely, it seems like you're looking for changes in the wrong place or expecting them on the wrong time scale.
> 
> Jeff



I'm not saying we havn't changed, because we certainly have. Though what has changed isn't really any kind of significant difference for quite some time. I really wouldn't say its a necessity either but more of a product if mixing genes and the ease of life.

We're, on a percentage getting taller, (and fatter) This usually happens to all animals when the fight for energy gets easy. And certain bone structures are altered (and still shifting, slightly)

But necessity is the mother of invention and we've really removed ourselves from any significant changes. I had an evolutionary bio teacher who said it best . 'A turtle is really good at being a turtle because it's had time and it needed to be good at what it does. A human isn't really good at being a human yet, but we won't ever be good at it because we've removed ourselves from the need to.'

Point being modern medicine is doing more to alter what's in our gene pool than nature itself.



> The changes we see are usually related to our inner workings - digesting different types of food (trust me, this has changed - and we have Irish Cream, cappuccinos, and ice cream as a result), for example - and while I think some small changes in stature and 'normal' shape have taken place I agree for the most part. The Human Genome Project is being undertaken to see more about what has been changing recently.



A lot of this stuff isn't in the 'human' realm of evolution. Yes we have an appendix which is from some ancient mammalian ancestor. We also had a tail at one point. But all of these vestiges of our ancestry weren't around for a good chunk of the higher end of our evolution. 

As far as our diet, it's suspected that we evolved into the last 'homo erectus' with fire in tote, so that's a big part of how we eat. We can however, eat what would be suspected as our natural diet raw without consequence. We've never really gotten used to digesting corn products or other animals milk amongst other things and there's a bunch of dietary illness to stand as testament to that. But we can eat things like lamb, fish, and eggs raw without consequence along with berries and fruit. But eating corn fed beef has never gotten along with anything. Even corn feeding the cow cuts the life expectancy of the cow by 75%. 

So if you think that corn fed steak with a fructose corn syrup based Coke comes without consequence because surely we must be evolving to handle it, you're wrong. Enjoy the dietary illnesses you're inflicting on yourself.

We can and always will be able to physically digest a lot of different things because we have to. Doesn't mean it'll be good for us. It would, in the natural sense, just mean another day of survival.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 7, 2009)

damigu said:


> actually, recent research has shown that the appendix and tonsils are *NOT* vestigial.
> they are both lymphoid tissue (part of your immune system) and play a significant role in fighting infection, particularly in babies.



Tonsils have a use, but the use of the appenidix is debated. Some do as you say believe it fights infection, while others believe it harbours more negative bacteria than positive.


----------



## damigu (Aug 7, 2009)

Bound said:


> We're, on a percentage getting taller, (and fatter) This usually happens to all animals when the fight for energy gets easy. And certain bone structures are altered (and still shifting, slightly)



you're still confusing the issue of human biological adaptability with that of evolution.
studies have clearly linked good nutrition with height. the healthiest nations in the world also have the tallest average heights. it's also why the average height of the japanese (who now have a more varied diet than before WWII) is on the rise in the last 50 years.
however, that does *NOT* translate to an evolutionary change. evolutionary changes are on the genetic level, not the environmental/nurture level. the genetics remain the same--the way they are expressed as a result of input into your body is different.
(though i'm sure there is something to say for epigenetic's role in evolution, but that's still a relatively new area of research and no conclusions can be drawn yet)



Bound said:


> Point being modern medicine is doing more to alter what's in our gene pool than nature itself.



i'm not so sure it is. if you look at the way the earth's population has been increasing--even before modern medicine--it was pretty much on the projected path that we're at right now.

the vaccinations given to children (and students entering college) are for diseases that most people would live through just fine. measles and mumps, for example, have mortality rates in the single digits. eliminating a couple percent of the population doesn't put much of a dent in the population rise.
those vaccines are merely a preventative thing because they spread easily and cause significant interruptions to school (since people would be absent for weeks at a time).

as for the number of people who would have died before reproducing without modern medicine to save them, that number is relatively small. for example, most incidences of cancer are in older people who have probably already procreated, so the illness didn't prevent them from contributing to the gene pool anyway.

of the people i've met in my life that have been allowed to procreate (contribute to the gene pool) solely as a result of modern medicine, they are an exceedingly tiny fraction of all of the people i've met and known.

so, no, i don't take stock in the argument that modern medicine is causing weaknesses in our gene pool by allowing otherwise sick people to procreate.



vampiregenocide said:


> Tonsils have a use, but the use of the appenidix is debated. Some do as you say believe it fights infection, while others believe it harbours more negative bacteria than positive.



if by "some" you mean "people without medical knowledge" then you are correct.
the consensus among researchers and doctors, however, is that the appendix does have important lymphatic duties, and also helps in the maintenance of the beneficial/symbiotic bacteria that live in the intestines.


----------



## Bound (Aug 7, 2009)

You can read one post a little out of context all you want, but talking about height is in context with Jbroll's response to my original stance of ' humans havn't really changed all that much since homo erectus first hit the scene' I was just concurring that yeah there have been small adaptations, but we still havn't really evolved all that much in the past several thoasand years. One small adaptation has been a little more height thanks to a little more energy, but it's not really a significant evolutionary step.

I think you're confusing the congenital diseases i was referring to (like diabetes and osteosclorosis) with the kind of diseases that can be vaccinated for. I'm not saying the flu is evolving bad things into us, I'm saying that medicine on a whole is allowing people with bad genes to reproduce and pass along nasty congenital diseases when they otherwise may not have reached maturity.

And never had I said that everybody is doing it, I was merely pointing out an instance in which we are altering our own genetics, because by and large no significant changes really occur. So you can put words in my mouth if you want by I was never like 'oh gods all of humanity willz change coz science is mezzin my gene poolz'


----------



## synrgy (Aug 7, 2009)

Look, I just want Wolverine's healing powers. Okay?


----------



## -mouse- (Aug 7, 2009)

It's hard to say... Humans have been trying to wipe eachother off the face of the planet since they were there to do it. Its in the nature of humans (and living beings really) to fight and kill. Only time will tell, really...


----------



## JBroll (Aug 7, 2009)

Bound, modern medicine has been around for a fairly short period of time and evolution tends to take a while - it does seem to be going faster now, but don't expect modern medicine to have too much of an impact.

Jeff


----------



## Varcolac (Aug 7, 2009)

Bound said:


> medicine on a whole is allowing people with bad genes to reproduce and pass along nasty congenital diseases when they otherwise may not have reached maturity.



It's okay. Along with nasty congenital diseases I've got a terrible personality. Problem solved.


----------



## damigu (Aug 7, 2009)

Bound said:


> You can read one post a little out of context all you want, but talking about height is in context with Jbroll's response to my original stance of ' humans havn't really changed all that much since homo erectus first hit the scene' I was just concurring that yeah there have been small adaptations, but we still havn't really evolved all that much in the past several thoasand years. One small adaptation has been a little more height thanks to a little more energy, but it's not really a significant evolutionary step.
> 
> I think you're confusing the congenital diseases i was referring to (like diabetes and osteosclorosis) with the kind of diseases that can be vaccinated for. I'm not saying the flu is evolving bad things into us, I'm saying that medicine on a whole is allowing people with bad genes to reproduce and pass along nasty congenital diseases when they otherwise may not have reached maturity.



i addressed that.
i said quite clearly that the percentage of people who are solely reliant on modern medicine to have procreated is actually *VERY* small compared to the whole population.
so their impact on the gene pool is quite minimal. arguably inconsequential in the overall arc of any current phase of human evolution.


to be perfectly honest, if you want to worry about the gene pool, worry about the fact that poor/undereducated people tend to have twice as many children on average as economically stable educated people.

don't worry about the less-than-1% of people who only managed to procreate because of science.


----------



## Bound (Aug 8, 2009)

damigu said:


> i addressed that.
> i said quite clearly that the percentage of people who are solely reliant on modern medicine to have procreated is actually *VERY* small compared to the whole population.
> so their impact on the gene pool is quite minimal. arguably inconsequential in the overall arc of any current phase of human evolution.
> 
> ...



I'm sure you would worry about poor and undereducated people when you live in one of the most segregated cities in the country. Don't worry though, your government relies on those poor, undereducated people to fill it's army. So it all balances out. But that's a discussion for another day.

I love how you're arguing a point to me I agree with, but talking about being poorly educated, I guess reading is sub-par in the middle of the country. I was never arguing the significance of stuff like congenital diseases. I was merely pointing out that in some messed up way that's evolving in messed up genes. In fact in almost every post in this thread ( i think this the third or fourth now) I've said we havn't undergone ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AS A SPECIES SINCE WE FIRST EVOLVED INTO A HOMO-SAPIEN. Maybe the caps will help. I was merely pointing out what (if any) changes were happening. I've never argued the fact that they bear no real relevance on us as a species because they don't. 

Christ, I guess you people are as thick as your pizza.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2009)

Bound said:


> In fact in almost every post in this thread ( i think this the third or fourth now) I've said we havn't undergone ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AS A SPECIES SINCE WE FIRST EVOLVED INTO A HOMO-SAPIEN.



In fact, in every post where you've stated this you've been wrong. Who's 'thick', now?

Jeff


----------



## Bound (Aug 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> In fact, in every post where you've stated this you've been wrong. Who's 'thick', now?
> 
> Jeff




I don't think you understand what the word significant means, especially with regards to evolution.

Believe me, I'm aware of all the buzz around about 'super-speedy human evolution'. Here's the deal though. Mixing of genes from generation has in fact hastened due to population. But by and large most scientists agree that simply mixing genes from generation to generation doesn't typically acount for most evolutionary steps. Mixing the right genes in a natural environment which would isolate desireable traits can certainly hasten the process. Without any kind of selection human evolution is a little less like evolution at this point and more like a retarded kid smearing finger paints around a canvas.

Look at something simple like what we did to African wild cats through eugenics. Look at the animal at the start then go look at the anatomy of a house cat. There's a lot of physiological changes. Now in that same time span ( and this is only a couple of thousand years) look at the difference between humans then and now. We're relatively unchanged. If you can find some physiological differences other than slight variances that account for nothing between species and population, by all means share it. 

Again, I'm not saying we're not changing but physiologically (and this is what determines evolutionary steps) we're not that different from where we started. We've been homo-sapiens for 300,000 or so years and we probably will be for another.


----------



## damigu (Aug 8, 2009)

Bound said:


> I'm sure you would worry about poor and undereducated people when you live in one of the most segregated cities in the country. Don't worry though, your government relies on those poor, undereducated people to fill it's army. So it all balances out. But that's a discussion for another days.



people in glass houses...
worcester has *literally* half the percentage of all minorities that just about any other big city in america has. you live in an area hardly representative of the typical american distribution.

anyway, i think it says more about *YOUR* state of mind than mine that you assumed i was making a dig at the poor/undereducated in a racial way.
i might have actually been complaining about the fact that well-to-do and intelligent people don't have enough children.
or i might have been pointing out something that should ideally result in everyone working harder to bring the poor/undereducated to a higher level.

but your own world view on the matter seems to revolve around race, which actually had nothing to do with what i said (since even poor whites have more children on average than well-to-do people).


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 8, 2009)

I can't wait till we have 6 fingers


----------



## Rick (Aug 8, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> I can't wait till we have 6 fingers



Shredding will increase.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 8, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> I can't wait till we have 6 fingers



One of the members of Slipknot had six fingers (Polydactylism), but he had it removed as a child.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2009)

If my only claim were that mixing of genes led to fun things happening, I'd be in trouble. Your claim is either transmitting no information (as in 'my definition of significant is so large that what is stopping 'significant changes' is the timescale I'm looking at) or wrong. Unless your idea of 'large' changes is explicitly cut off for *any* organism with a nontrivial time between generations by that timescale - which would really just be silly, because big changes take far too much time - it's not all there.

Jeff


----------



## Leon (Aug 8, 2009)

troyguitar said:


>




QFT.


----------



## victor5464 (Aug 12, 2009)

watch wall-e....thats our fate

hopefully optimus will defend us


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 12, 2009)

I cannot wait for women to grow a second pair of breasts. That is the kind of evolution I want to happen NOW.

Women, get workin' on growing some extra boobs.


----------



## Empryrean (Aug 12, 2009)

Then shopping for bra's would take twice as long! :[

I just want humans to have wings.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 12, 2009)

Empryrean said:


> Then shopping for bra's would take twice as long! :[
> 
> I just want humans to have wings.


Why? I prefer breasts NOT mauled by bra's, thank you.

And it would be neat for a human being to have angel wings.

Hmm... Four breasts and angel wings. That is good stuff in my book.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 12, 2009)

everything will be like it is in Total Recall.

I bet someone has already said that but it's worth saying again.


----------



## Empryrean (Aug 12, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Why? I prefer breasts NOT mauled by bra's, thank you.
> 
> And it would be neat for a human being to have angel wings.
> 
> Hmm... Four breasts and angel wings. That is good stuff in my book.



I meant like, bat wings
Oh god, if we had angel wings, molting would stop me from eating in public.

If more than 2 breasts. why not just 3? I could dig three


----------



## victor5464 (Aug 13, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I cannot wait for women to grow a second pair of breasts. That is the kind of evolution I want to happen NOW.
> 
> Women, get workin' on growing some extra boobs.



I hope this theory is SEPERATE from the one of all of us becoming fat and lazy. I'm not a chubby chaser and extra breasts would just look like more fat in the obese world


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 18, 2009)

Empryrean said:


> I meant like, bat wings



Yay, bat wings would be badass!

And maybe two extra fingers so you can play faster ^^
And we should get that camouflaging-thing with our skin goin. Just like chameleons!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 18, 2009)

I want bat wings, super strength and camouflage abilities. I shall be called camobatman.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 18, 2009)

I vote for wings as well. We should just make a poll and ask what people would want included in our next upgrade, then we'll do our best to make sure it happens. I know I definitely wouldn't mind goggles.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 18, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I vote for wings as well. We should just make a poll and ask what people would want included in our next upgrade, then we'll do our best to make sure it happens. I know I definitely wouldn't mind goggles.



Mind goggles?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't even know what those are, but just regular goggles would work. I don't want to buy any, so when evolution day comes, I hope to be issued a pair.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 18, 2009)

victor5464 said:


> I hope this theory is SEPERATE from the one of all of us becoming fat and lazy. I'm not a chubby chaser and extra breasts would just look like more fat in the obese world



A little chub is a good thing in a woman. There is still such a thing as "too much of a good thing", though.



Empryrean said:


> I meant like, bat wings
> Oh god, if we had angel wings, molting would stop me from eating in public.
> 
> If more than 2 breasts. why not just 3? I could dig three



3 breasts would probably imply 3 inline, whereas 4 would mean another row of breasts. 3 breasts would have to be abnormally narrow, or require a wider chest, or any of a variety of upper skeletal modifications, whereas 4 would simply require the torso be slightly longer.

Also, angel wings AND bat wings, and which you got was based on genes. Remember, the whole human race doesn't necessarily evolve together.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 18, 2009)

You could have four inline or three in a triangle pattern. That said, what are you going to do with three if you only have two hands for them? Play fucking Whack-A-Mole?

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 18, 2009)

If Angels would come breed with our current race like some of the stories in the bible claim to have happened, we'd have a shot at these angel wings at least. Now let's get to work!



JBroll said:


> You could have four inline or three in a triangle pattern. That said, what are you going to do with three if you only have two hands for them? Play fucking Whack-A-Mole?
> 
> Jeff



It depends on the positioning - a mouth and two hands is a very versatile triangular setup.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 19, 2009)

New Update available:
Human Race 1.5

Coming with:
- Camouflage
- either angel's or bat's wings
- one to two extra breasts
- and an epic misanthropy leading to complete annihilation!


----------



## cycloptopus (Aug 19, 2009)

Konfusius said:


> New Update available:
> Human Race 1.5
> 
> Coming with:
> ...


Can I put a request in for back breasts? It sometimes gets a little awkward to do the ol reach around from behind on standard breasts, but then I'm not sure how that would affect the bat wing placement, but of course I might find it hard to know where I'm at with the whole Camouflage option. Decisions desicions...


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 19, 2009)

I think a boob on the back would be to unconfi for women, so i would really say that we should stay with the good ol reach-around.


----------



## fretninjadave (Aug 19, 2009)

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww38/elles13/stop-thumb.gif


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 19, 2009)

So you're not including goggles?! Wtf... what about gills that we can activate when necessary? Now that shit would be great... granted, we'd need antigravity to deal with the immense water pressure in the great deep. If we got some sort of antigravity upgrade, the wings wouldn't be necessary, but I'd still want them for sure


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 19, 2009)

Feel free to post another update


----------



## lnname (Aug 19, 2009)

Can i suggest that we evolve to be more like jeff walters from annihilator, or that we move to the plant kingdom and start photosynthesising. 

Either is good. we just need to make up our mind and start a good old fashioned eugenics program


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 19, 2009)

I think we should be able to survive in a vaccuum.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 19, 2009)

I think we should be able to create and destroy vacuums!


----------



## fretninjadave (Aug 19, 2009)

Konfusius said:


> I think we should be able to create and destroy vacuums!


 


You might have if you've ever drank through a straw or opened a pickle jar.


I think the next stage is antlers and anti-freeze blood


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 19, 2009)

Wait a second.... fuck, we already are blessed with those super-powers, so we might be stuck concerning the real good things as camo and wings and shit... fuck!


----------



## damigu (Aug 20, 2009)

Konfusius said:


> I think we should be able to create and destroy vacuums!



just take an engineering class. they're actually not that hard to build. and even easier to demolish.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 20, 2009)

I actualaly kinda thought.... like... with our will!
Like we used the force, dude!
Yeah, that would be rad: having the force, fuck everything else, i want the force!


----------



## damigu (Aug 20, 2009)

but why would you want to make a vacuum of all things? cleaning is such a chore!


----------



## JBroll (Aug 20, 2009)

Simple - nature abhors a vacuum. Fuck nature.

Jeff


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 20, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Simple - nature abhors a vacuum. Fuck nature.
> 
> Jeff



That is the point of it.
Well... not exactly, more like... fuck natural physics.
I love nature.... I adore trees and stuff...


----------



## damigu (Aug 21, 2009)

so you want to vacuum trees?


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 21, 2009)

Naw, but I wanna have powers I can give the finger to physics with.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 21, 2009)

Don't count on it, physics typically gets the last finger in.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 21, 2009)

JBroll said:


> You could have four inline or three in a triangle pattern. That said, what are you going to do with three if you only have two hands for them? Play fucking Whack-A-Mole?
> 
> Jeff


Whack-A-Titty.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 21, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Don't count on it, physics typically gets the last finger in.



That is what I wanna change.
If I cant find another way I ll fist physics. Without lube or warning if i must.


----------



## damigu (Aug 21, 2009)

why are you so upset with physics?

aside from being beautifully elegant in its simplicities and emergent complexities, it is the reason we're all here and able to have this conversation.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

Do I really have the answer? This is going to far.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 22, 2009)

You're the one who complained about physics and started hugging trees.

QFT > trees.

Jeff


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

Yeah, but you are the ones questioning it.
It is the circle of... uhm... something.
Canceled.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 22, 2009)

I was enjoying the ridiculousness of it. Let's keep that up instead.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

Me, too. But I was about to get trapped and then they d have nailed me on talkin nothin but nonsense.

What do you think: Should we be able to cancel food and water and live of nothing but the suns power?!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 22, 2009)

Photosynthesis and the ability to absorb minerals through our skin would be cool, but food tastes delicious.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

Have you ever tasted sunlight? Does pizza feel nice on your skin? No, it doenst really. At least by far not as good as sunlight does. But we simply cant taste sunlight now.... but when we are able.. it will be the tastiest thing ever!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 22, 2009)

Good point, although I meant we'd just be absorbing minerals, not actual food products as we know them, haha.


----------



## damigu (Aug 22, 2009)

Konfusius said:


> Me, too. But I was about to get trapped and then they d have nailed me on talkin nothin but nonsense.
> 
> What do you think: Should we be able to cancel food and water and live of nothing but the suns power?!



didn't know you were just being nonsensical. rock on, then! 


i think defenestration power would be advantageous. i'm not strictly sure how it would be so helpful, but just think it would be.


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> didn't know you were just being nonsensical. rock on, then!



... but you noticed the direction this thread was going, right?


----------



## JBroll (Aug 22, 2009)

I think you missed the point more than Damigu, if he even missed it.

Jeff


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I think you missed the point more than Damigu, if he even missed it.
> 
> Jeff



Thats why I hesitated for about 10 minutes to post what I had written ^^

Just the headbanging smily didnt seem very ironical to me. Plus: I might have been ironic, too and maybe you are the one who didnt get it...
And as far as my experiences go: no one gets irony and sarcasms if he aint from the german speaking countries.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 22, 2009)

You assume too much and overlook the subtleties of others' posts.

Jeff


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

JBroll said:


> You assume too much and overlook the subtleties of others' posts.
> 
> Jeff



I ve been up for about.... 15 hours now, i am allowed to do that.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 22, 2009)

No problem, I'm no stranger to insomnia myself... but when I'm up that long things just get weird. I'll be posting something, and next thing I know I've declared Rick a saint in an imaginary church and sent Sebastian out to fight in a holy war.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Aug 22, 2009)

I'm having hardcore insomnia right now too - the weirdness is not unlike being stoned, except that there's numbness and pretty extreme disorientation, as well as increased clumsiness - I've been running into shit for about three hours now


----------



## Konfusius (Aug 22, 2009)

Biggest shit you ran into obviously is this thread....


----------



## Koshchei (Aug 26, 2009)

vampiregenocide said:


> So, I've been thinking, an ability that I have been blessed with, about the future of the human race. And I'm not entirely sure where we are heading.
> 
> Are we so destructive that we will commit mass suicide and wipe out our own species? Or will we elevate ourselves to a new evolutionary stage with technology? Perhaps technology will completely replace us in the form of AI?
> 
> I know this is the stuff of science fiction, but I think it would be interesting to see your ideas on where our kind will be in a hundred, thousand, million or even more years time.



Do you know what evolution is? What it ISN'T is a coupon that you pass down to your great grandkids, who can then redeem it for the super-power of their choice (assuming we're not extinct), which is what you're describing.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 26, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Do you know what evolution is? What it ISN'T is a coupon that you pass down to your great grandkids, who can then redeem it for the super-power of their choice (assuming we're not extinct), which is what you're describing.



Thats not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the way we change the way will live now is going to effect how future generations live, and over a long time space, they will evolve to adapt to this new lifestyle, depending on how extreme these changes are.

You make it sound like I'm saying one day everyone is going to change, which I'm not. I'm saying the way we as a race have changed is dramatic over just a few thousand years, and it would be interesting to see how this changes the way we are in the future.


----------



## damigu (Aug 26, 2009)

our biology hasn't really changed at all in "just a few thousand years" except that we're a bit taller and fatter (both related almost exclusively to diet).


without meaning to reignite a dead issue from earlier in this thread, i just came across an article regarding current research on the appendix:
Researchers Say Appendix Has Uses


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 27, 2009)

damigu said:


> our biology hasn't really changed at all in "just a few thousand years" except that we're a bit taller and fatter (both related almost exclusively to diet).
> 
> 
> without meaning to reignite a dead issue from earlier in this thread, i just came across an article regarding current research on the appendix:
> Researchers Say Appendix Has Uses



Nah I wasn't saying our biology has changed much (noticeably anyway), but our lifestyle has which would in turn affect future evolution.


----------



## damigu (Aug 27, 2009)

its true that our proliferation and technologies have freed us up from the "survival of the fittest" aspect of evolution. so long as we can maintain the technologies that allow us to be the ultimate apex creatures on earth, our evolution will be based primarily on sexual selection.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 27, 2009)

damigu said:


> its true that our proliferation and technologies have freed us up from the "survival of the fittest" aspect of evolution. so long as we can maintain the technologies that allow us to be the ultimate apex creatures on earth, our evolution will be based primarily on sexual selection.



I think our metabolism will change too, because on the whole we consume far more calories now than we used to, so our bodies may adapt to that.


----------



## damigu (Aug 27, 2009)

that's assuming that we'll continue eating particularly high calorie diets for millions of years.
i find that unlikely since we've only been eating a higher calorie diet for less than 100 years (and attitudes are already changing toward healthier ideals). the history just isn't there to assume that it is the way of the long term future.


----------



## Rick (Aug 27, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I'll be posting something, and next thing I know I've declared Rick a saint in an imaginary church and sent Sebastian out to fight in a holy war.
> 
> Jeff



Fine by me.

I can't wait to start flying everywhere.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Aug 27, 2009)

damigu said:


> that's assuming that we'll continue eating particularly high calorie diets for millions of years.
> i find that unlikely since we've only been eating a higher calorie diet for less than 100 years (and attitudes are already changing toward healthier ideals). the history just isn't there to assume that it is the way of the long term future.



Pretty much all of this thread is based on the assumption that things carry on the way they are going. Who knows, a few hundred years time we could be a healthy, peaceful, eco-aware race.


----------



## damigu (Aug 28, 2009)

peaceful is unlikely. there is nothing in all of known human history to indicate that we are capable of wide-spread and long term peace.
every known era of humanity (even those before recorded history) has been rife with wars/battles.


----------

