Thread: THE SURVIVAL OF OUR RACE - looks grim

Originally Posted by trigotron

Ok, there's a few things that i really really like in that post, and a few that even made me admit you were right, but there are still a few kinks in your argument.

I have to agree that it is a very interesting and good discussion indeed.

ok this is the first kink. Evolution is a very specific and very long term definition for a phenomenon that is native to all living organisms. What you are talking about when you call "duct taping a plank to someone's leg" is called adaptation and it is a short term equiviliant that is not genetically passed on to the next generation. Even though you could pass the knowledge about taping planks to stumps of legs onto your next generation, the next generation will not genetically grow a duct taped plank if their leg is cut off. That is the difference.

Hmmmm... Yes, good point. I didn't really thought of that. The big difference with modern society and 'normal' evolution is that our society is knowledge-based instead of genetically-based.. Our very chance of survival is now-a-days greatly determined by the knowledge around us (medicine and such), rather then purely our genetic make-up.

Now I am confused.. That isn't always a bad thing, it makes me think..

I mean, the whole knowledge-of-medicine stuff, that makes each human individual far more likely to survive, isn't it just another kind of environment? I mean, people with genetic diseases that would normally have killed them, but thanks to technology they can have a normal life, aren't such people just genetically better equipped to live in our environment in comparison to the exact same genetically-coded person 5000 years ago would have been?

You got that right, i forgot to mention this in my last post even though i tried to touch on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I really gotta watch that movie. I'll watch it some day soon

This is the part that changed my mind about it. You're completely right, there is no such thing as devolution, i used the term genetic atrophy because i didn't want to use the term devolution, and this is a perfect example why. Evolution is simply the process of change not necessarily change for the better or worse in a relativistic sense, but simply change so suit the environment. However, the reason why i used the word genetic atrophy is where we are going now, even if retarded people ruled the earth, is in fact cyclical in nature (people get stupid/overpopulated/anti-intellectual and humanity evolves to be stupider, can't use or has destroyed the technology it has created, then has to fight for survival, a large brain becomes advantageous again and we return to the same point as where we were before)... that is, assuming nothing like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_ark which personally i think is a milestone for a species to transcend the barriers of the animals before us so completely as to escape the very planet we have evolved on.

Would we return to the same point? I don't know. I mean, homo sapiens came to be in africa.. what if a certain animal just happened to have evolved there, that would make our existance hard? I mean, there wern't intelligent mammals around during the Millions of years the dinosaurs roamed the earth. I find it pretty hard to estimate how likely it is for an intelligent species to be evolved into existance..

Anyhow, I doubt we will let it come to 'idoicracy'-like things...

An interstellar ark would be awesome. A species that colonizes other worlds, that's pretty awesome indeed...

But actually, I think we will first let robots to the colonizing for us. Like, send self-recreating robots to other planets... would be cool, if you got like a robot-evolution causing the robots to better themselves, and such... : )

I couldn't agree more, this is not devolution, simply evolution to suit our surroundings, however this is in contrast to the idiocracy situation because we will no longer need our appendixes or tails because we have destroyed and conquered the environment which once gave us need for those organs. Also, in contrast to the idiocracy situation, if humanity were to evolve back to having tails and appendixes (because people with tail-like asses became attractive somehow), it would in no way hinder our current state as humans, we would still never have to fear predators, and we would still be on the top of the food chain.

Okay! I agree too.

Because we hunt mooses for fun. That's the definition of genetically superior.

Actually, I think this is the point we have a certain disagreement. I personally can't think you can put value-ratings objectively on anything. I mean, we are just a bunch of atoms and molecules, that happen to be clustered in a certain way. Plants and animals exist, just because they do. They just came to be...

I find it hard to say "people are better then X", because if I think of it objectively, I see a bunch of random atoms.

But I do guess "shooting moosses for fun" is as of good of a definition of "Superior" from a biological viewpoint as it gets.. =)

-

I'm going to think about your first paragraph some more...

Seeker said "our race, "Homo Sapiens" in all of it's varied forms" will survive for thousands of years. So he is saying that while our human race may not live much longer in terms of the history of the world, an offshoot of humans could survive based on whatever adptations they would recieve after evolution.

Humanity has changed the world forever and I find it unlikely that we will ever be completely gone. If another breed of homo arises, we will probably co-exist with them and survive together. A lot of evidence suggests that there has been more than one breed of Homo living at the same time. But due to competition in the natural world over resources, the more fit race survived.

If your into this kind of thing just PM me and we could talk on AIM or something.

Originally Posted by LBT Petrie

If another breed of homo arises, we will probably co-exist with them and survive together.

A new breed of homo has already arisen, its name is: Richard Simmons

But in all seriousness

But actually, I think we will first let robots to the colonizing for us. Like, send self-recreating robots to other planets... would be cool, if you got like a robot-evolution causing the robots to better themselves, and such... : )

Is very true, based on our current strategy towards space exploration i believe you are much more correct than I am. The idea of this was actually thought up first by a guy named John von Neumann who was a pioneer in nanotechnology. He came up with the idea of von neumann machines, nano machines which could self replicate (recursion basically) using only the elements on a planet's surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe
However, such experiments with self replication carry massive risks, larger than that of even the largest nuclear weapons, and virtually unstoppable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo It is this weaponization of the technology which i believe will drive us toward perfecting it, like so many technologies before it, however, this is one technology where one chernobyl-esque accident may spell the end of us. With nuclear, the worst that can happen is a one mile blast radius and some fallout, with antimatter weaponry perhaps ten times such, and with biological weaponry perhaps kill 30% of the world's population, but if this stuff ever happens, it could destroy the planet itself.

The human race CAN'T survive for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of yers, Seeker, unfortunatley. Our evolution can only continue for 5-10000 years more, then we'll all die out, just like H. Erectus, H. Neanderthalensis, etc.

ok seriously man u just pulled that number out of your ass. what happens in 5 years, even more pertinient, what's so special about 10,000 years either?

Self destrucion via nuclear war is in my opinion how we're going to go...

But seriously on a different level, flora/fauna will evolve or die out... humans will struggle.

I think humans are going to colonize space, starting in the next few decades, and live on at least until the end of matter, and maybe even past then. We might learn interdimensional travel in upcoming centuries and become immortal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think humans are going to colonize space, starting in the next few decades, and live on at least until the end of matter, and maybe even past then. We might learn interdimensional travel in upcoming centuries and become immortal.

lol! Next few decades! You're way off. Here's my timeline (very aproximate, not even predicting this to be anything close, considering that we even survive until this stuff happens)

~2100-5000 - humans power up the "time telephone" and begin receiving messages. This technology seems like the only one that has a possibility of working in the near future.
~2200 - humans colonize either the moon or mars or titan (somewhere easy, with water, no terraforming required.)
~3000 - humans create a matter/antimatter reactor or some other form of mass/energy equivilance type of generator, able to produce large amounts of electricity or heat.
3000-4500 - the technology to cryogenically freeze humans and resessutate them is invented, thus enabling the use of sleeper ships. Shortly after, a sleeper ship is launched to alpha centauri or a similar system with the possiblity of supporting life
4500-5000 - humans successfully terraform a solid rock planet or moon to be able to support life (eg. oxygen atmosphere, water, no temperature swings, etc.)
5000-20000 - some kind of space folding/faster than light travel/instantaneous travel is discovered that allows humans to travel between stars/galaxies.
20000+ - who knows... there is a possibility of interbraneial travel (travel between dimensions as you put it), however it is not even known if M theory/the false vacuum even exists, and if it doesnt, this universe is all we have.

I think that timeline assumes that technology progresses linearly (whatever that means hahaha). I think the huge unknown is when we make certain critical discoveries, and after that, things will snowball for a while (e.g. the transistor).

Originally Posted by trigotron

lol! Next few decades! You're way off.

Dude, we already have astronauts staying in space for months at a time. The first private/civilian space flight has already taken place. Space stations are being worked on as we speak. Plus, I have a cousin who is a rocket scientist at NASA. Yes, I'm serious. I heard it straight from the horse's mouth that we are within decades of the time when rich people will be taking vacations on space stations and having vacation homes in space. Just sit back and watch it happen. You heard it here first.

By the way, I like your timeline. That's a trip.

Originally Posted by Replicon

I think that timeline assumes that technology progresses linearly (whatever that means hahaha). I think the huge unknown is when we make certain critical discoveries, and after that, things will snowball for a while (e.g. the transistor).

That snowball effect has been happening for a while. Do you guys remember when Super Nintendo came out? It was the coolest shit ever. Now i was so bored with my XBOX 360 that i sold it. Its happening really fast.

To the concern of space travel, a single scientific discovery will revolutionize everything. We dont understand space, and all we can do is observe and adapt to it. Once this discovery is made, faster-than-light-speed is a possibility.

Although i know i won't be alive when/if it happens, the discovery of ET life would be absolutely mind blowing. Or even a planet untouched by technology and a paradise. These thoughts get me depressed.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Dude, we already have astronauts staying in space for months at a time. The first private/civilian space flight has already taken place. Space stations are being worked on as we speak. Plus, I have a cousin who is a rocket scientist at NASA. Yes, I'm serious. I heard it straight from the horse's mouth that we are within decades of the time when rich people will be taking vacations on space stations and having vacation homes in space. Just sit back and watch it happen. You heard it here first.

ooooh u mean rich people... yeah i misunderstood your first quote, sorry. Yeah if by colonize space you mean build a few residential space stations for the super rich people, yeah, maybe, i could see that happening. However, i don't think they'd even let the super rich stay in space as a permanent residence, its just too dangerous. First of all, theres the muscular atrophy/deterioration aspect where after 6 months all but the most trained air force astronauts loose 50% of their muscle mass from not having gravity (that's genetic, theres no technology that's going to change that except artificial gravity by centrifugal force, which is a multi billion dollar project not even bill gates could afford to build his own wheel model space station). Also, there's the very very real danger of solar events once you start building space stations outside the earth's magnetosphere, and even within the current satellite orbit, astronauts still experience almost a 40% increased risk of developing cancer due to the massive amounts of largely unfiltered solar radiation they receive. As far as the commercial space flights are concerned, they are still very far from commercial, right now all they've launched up there is a trained test pilot and 3 human weight sandbags, even the plans for virgin galactica's new rocket is only a 6 seater designed to stay up in space a matter of minutes. Until some major technological breakthroughs happen, spaceflight is still in the realm of science fiction. However, i agree with the "exponential" argument, people were only put in space 40 years ago and already we have reusable shuttles and space stations, so it might be possible if some technological improvements come along (like the space elevator concept), but from what i'm seeing now, people staying in space enough to consider it colonized is still at least 100 years off. It's a nice thought, but realistically, i believe we have more humans in Antarctica than we do in space. Personally i think that's ok, i mean, the universe is not designed for stuff to exist in space, building your own environment in space takes a lot more work than building on another planet or moon, i could see colonies on the moon or a water containing planet way before colonies in space, it's just a lot more economically feasible.

By the way, I like your timeline. That's a trip.

thanks

I was just saying we will start to colonize space in the next few decades, with the first baby steps. You are right that making that way of life really take off for the masses would be a major bitch, but I am optimistic. I am mainly saying that because we are so close to the beginnings of space colonization, or what I think will eventually lead to the colonization of other planets, we can have enough humans living away from Earth by the time Earth is unlivable. That is why I think humans will live on way after life on Earth has ended.

I was talking to my brother about this last Friday night. He said he really thinks humans are just going to become extinct and that all life that came from Earth will just be gone. I hope that's not true. It would really be cool if humans, or whatever humans end up becoming, will exist in 10 billion years, when Earth is something that lives on in historical knowledge as the place where life originated. Imagine Earth being something that people go their whole lives without ever perceiving, only learning about it as something very ancient but extremely important historically. If that happens, I wonder what all they will know about the 21st Century. I think it will be known as the century when private space travel began.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was just saying we will start to colonize space in the next few decades, with the first baby steps. You are right that making that way of life really take off for the masses would be a major bitch, but I am optimistic. I am mainly saying that because we are so close to the beginnings of space colonization, or what I think will eventually lead to the colonization of other planets, we can have enough humans living away from Earth by the time Earth is unlivable. That is why I think humans will live on way after life on Earth has ended.

My thoughts exactly

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If that happens, I wonder what all they will know about the 21st Century.

They will know we were primitive fools. Interstellar space travel to those people would be as entertaining as a garbage disposal is to me.

I don't understand how people really believe in possobility of all out nuclear war. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory says that the launching of nuclear missile(s) by any one country would result in a chain reaction of responses from countries all over the world with equal or greater force. The chances are that nobody would be left alive.

Every single government in the world who has access to nuclear warheads knows this. Now, can any of you tell me a government that wants to exterminate the human race? No you can't. Because if you did we'd already be dead.

The only other way of starting a nuclear war that I can think of is if somebody gets drunk and falls onto the little red button.

Originally Posted by badassbob

I don't understand how people really believe in possobility of all out nuclear war. The MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory says that the launching of nuclear missile(s) by any one country would result in a chain reaction of responses from countries all over the world with equal or greater force. The chances are that nobody would be left alive.

Every single government in the world who has access to nuclear warheads knows this. Now, can any of you tell me a government that wants to exterminate the human race? No you can't. Because if you did we'd already be dead.

The only other way of starting a nuclear war that I can think of is if somebody gets drunk and falls onto the little red button.

This is the danger involved with fanatical muslims getting nuclear warheads. If they use them, nobody can attack them. Or, somebody could attack back, and it would start the chain reaction you were talking about. We are talking about people that don't care if the whole world dies.

OK, science tells us Homo Sapiens as a race became dominant about 12,000 years ago. There have been some changes in that time, but not a whole lot. There is nothing really driving Homo Sapiens to evolve at this time. Perhaps if we do something stupid to ruin our civilization so we are at the forces of nature again, then we might adapt. I'm still betting on at least 20K years though.

Originally Posted by Seeker

OK, science tells us Homo Sapiens as a race became dominant about 12,000 years ago. There have been some changes in that time, but not a whole lot. There is nothing really driving Homo Sapiens to evolve at this time. Perhaps if we do something stupid to ruin our civilization so we are at the forces of nature again, then we might adapt. I'm still betting on at least 20K years though.

Homo Sapiens are experiencing negative evolution right now. With the advances in technology we are losing our abilities to survive in the wild. Also, because of technology, "inferior" humans with genetic abnormalities that would have died in the wild are surviving and passing on their genes. But, I guess the evolution of the brain will continue to make up for our negative evolution.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

But, I guess the evolution of the brain will continue to make up for our negative evolution.

Not if people with superior intelligence are getting less action than trailer trash and moronic football players. Evolution doesn't work if the people with "favorable" traits don't have sex and the people with "unfavorable" traits don't die. That's the problem we've got in society today where we have removed all the naturally selective elements in our world which causes this to happen, as you've stated in your post

"inferior" humans with genetic abnormalities that would have died in the wild are surviving and passing on their genes.

although you don't see mentally handicapped people getting too much action either.

All in all, there's little or no evolution going on in the world today because for the most part, death is limited to random deaths, and sex is limited to random attractiveness trends associated with various regions of the world, and even though this could cause the various countries of the world to slowly become even more racially dissected, humanity as a whole is not evolving, simply becoming differentiated. Where this differentiation between regions leads is anyone's guess though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Dude, we already have astronauts staying in space for months at a time. The first private/civilian space flight has already taken place. Space stations are being worked on as we speak. Plus, I have a cousin who is a rocket scientist at NASA. Yes, I'm serious. I heard it straight from the horse's mouth that we are within decades of the time when rich people will be taking vacations on space stations and having vacation homes in space. Just sit back and watch it happen. You heard it here first.

By the way, I like your timeline. That's a trip.

The first "private/civilian space flight" was nothing more than a plane that went Really high, really. Isn't actually leaving the earth, like at least 15.000 miles high, a rather big difference?

-

Nah, it doesn't really matter. Only the ultra-rich elite can at this point afford civilian space travel. I think the day that everyone that can afford a jacuzzi can take a space flight will take some 50-100 years or so.

But, what really grinds my gears, in 50-100 years, how will we get those space shuttles into the air? Without fossil fuel. I mean, as far as I know, we are still flying into space with relatively crude fuel-burning devices...Or is like, hydrogen the answer? And when will we get to mars? That is still a loooonggg way. And why should we really go there? Unless someone finds gold on mars, no one would want to pay millions and millions to get there

(Actually, getting a gram of gold from mars would cost far more than gold on earth costs )

But you get the point. We don't really have much to do in space, until we have some better,cheaper way of transport.

Have you heard of Mark Shutlworth?

Originally Posted by Snooze

<Zeratul> Indeed. </Zeratul>

I dont think we'll ever unite, unless it is as different groups.
The human mind is so different from other human minds, our way of thinking, of solving problems, of our likeness towards certain objects, even our beliefs. There is no way we will ever unite as a whole. We'd probably just start a war against one another and whoever came out on top, well, they won obviously. So our world WOULD unite under one group, just, everyone else would be dead. Then they would probably start fighting till one person was left and they died of some disease or another. Whether it be a mental or physical disease.

Or! There would be a world wide disaster even, like the sun exploding, AIDS takes over the world; possibly another meteor, or the world is burned by our atmosphere catching fire, and then frozen over from the lack of heat by the exploding sun. I don't think I'll live to see the day of Armaggedon, (sp?), so I try not to worry about it.

Actually, In our current world, I think the last thing that would happen is destruction. I hate the current situation of the world tremendously, but It isnt like it will destory itself anytime soon, Thats almost what our current system is trying to prevent. Although we got pretty close in the cold war.

Haha i love it when somebody starts me off on rocket technology! Thank you neuro!

Originally Posted by Neruo

The first "private/civilian space flight" was nothing more than a plane that went Really high, really. Isn't actually leaving the earth, like at least 15.000 miles high, a rather big difference?

My point exactly, couldn't agree more. "Space ship one" was no more than a feeble attempt at prize money by meeting the minimum required altitude that the FAA considers "space" (100 kilometers from earth's surface at sea level), the thing didn't even complete a full orbit, it just went up, then kindof coasted down, didn't even bother with a heat shield for reentry because there was just no real need at those heights.

But, what really grinds my gears, in 50-100 years, how will we get those space shuttles into the air? Without fossil fuel. I mean, as far as I know, we are still flying into space with relatively crude fuel-burning devices...Or is like, hydrogen the answer? And when will we get to mars? That is still a loooonggg way. And why should we really go there? Unless someone finds gold on mars, no one would want to pay millions and millions to get there

Ok, you cover about 5 issues in this paragraph and i will try to address each of um to a degree.

1. There's a difference in rocketry between space shuttles and space ship one. Space ship one used rubber (a fully renewable resource) as fuel while government space shuttles use PBAN/APCP/powdered aluminum in the solid rockets (the big tube like things on the side of the shuttle, not the orange one), and liquid hydrogen/LOX in the main shuttle engines and large orange tank, also fully renewable fuel sources.
2. Hydrogen already is the answer to rocketry, it has been for quite a while, liquid hydrogen/LOX (also known a liquid propellant rocketry) is the most efficient (pound for pound) form of rocket engine, however it is quite expensive. No known rocket today uses "fossil fuels" except for the occasional homemade rocket using kerosene or everclear.
3. Yes mars is a looooonnnggg way, and it's not just the distance/velocity we need that's the problem, there is a big cost difference between sending robots and sending humans to mars, the difference i am talking about is around 3 tons of food, water, life support, cabin space, larger diameter rocket, and loads of other crap i cant even think of now. Also, i mentioned solar events which will surely increase astronauts chance of developing cancer or other diseases because of radiation load weakening their immune system, so stronger radiation shielding needs to be added (which means lead, which means more weight =\ ). Not to mention 0-g muscle atrophy which means we will need to develop a form of centrifugal gravity so that the astronauts still have muscles when they actually get to mars, another large technological step and another few tons of weight i'm sure.
4. Why should we really go there? This is a biggie, and i don't have the complete answer to this but i'll try my best. Because redundancy and good. What i mean by this is exactly why this topic was created, if a catastrophy/war/disease erupts on earth there is still colonies on mars that can sustain life, advance technology, retain knowledge. And for all intents and purposes, the more planets a species exists on, the less that species has to fear from anything but self-destruction. Now i'm not saying that the end result of putting a man on mars is colonization, after all, how could we decide who stays and who goes? What i'm saying is if we want there to be a possibility of colonization in the future, we have to start developing the technology to get 3 people there safely, today.
5. Your last statement about resources is an interesting one, what economically would make us want to go to mars. Firstly you have to understand that there are a lot more valuable things than gold, and i'm not just talking about antimatter and iridium, i mean knowledge. For example: we want to see if global warming is real on this planet, and we know that greenhouse gasses have collected on mars following the same laws that they would on earth, so if we create a geological history of the planet mars, then we may be one step closer to understanding the workings of our own planet, and thus be able to make wiser judgements about all this global warming bullshit.

But you get the point. We don't really have much to do in space, until we have some better,cheaper way of transport.

And finally, never ceasing to astound me, you post this. In fact there is a project underway which may enable very cheap transport to space, the space elevator. This is where the nanotechnologists of today come into the equation, if we can develop a material which can restrain an asteroid before apophis begins its approach in 2029, we may be able to push it into orbit around the earth and eventually tether it in geosynchronous orbit, and create the space elevator.

Personally if we had to put a nail on what the "end result" of all this space exploration is going to be, i'd say it's a space-based economy. What i mean by this is infinite resources, therefore generating infinite need of jobs and therefore... dare I say... eliminating the economic problem of scarcity which is the foundation upon which economics is built. With no scarce resources, just a monetary risk in building craft to obtain them, the economy would then take over space travel and pursuits of greater and greater resources would replace curiosity as the prime mover in space travel, which is a monsterous achivement.