Thread: THE SURVIVAL OF OUR RACE - looks grim

I think we need like, one evil, like an alien attack, or a worldwide flu epidemic, that threantens our survival, so people will rise up and fight together, instead of against each other.

Unfortunately a big catastrophe such as aliens invading is not that likely, i could be wrong though, but global warming for example is not been taken much care of, unless we cut down the size of our population by alot we are pretty much doomed species.

um... yeah, my bet isn't on global warming. Overpopulation is bound to happen eventually, but if you guys are looking for a "most likely scenario" of world destruction, i'd bet on either CME (coronal mass ejection) or nuclear war.

Oh, and as far as you guys who say "we just need to get along" or "we just need to be united by one tragity", you're wrong. Humans have been fighting eachother since the beginning of time. If there are more than 100 humans in existance there will always be conflict going on, it is the essence of our humanity, conflict, competition, and intellectual development as a result of conflict and competition. As far as the "we just need to be united by one tragity", look at the previous examples in world history.

0 AD: (for those who believe) christianity began, it was a religion based on helping your fellow man, and all that good junk... this was supposedly the uniting event of mankind...
1095 AD: Christians start killing people in the name of their god

or... how about 9/11, the event that united america
in 1 month, we start killing people in afghanastan
in just 6 years, the country was already split up worse than before and half opposed the war, and half supported the war

or... how about another event that "united us"
1776 AD: america was united in its rebellion against england and killed loads of people to get its freedom
1850 AD: america splits up right down the middle, they both believe they are fighting for what's right

the list of these events go on and on, the truth is, there is NO event that will truely "unite humanity" in eternal peace. The only event that can even create stability in the world is eternal war, states orwell in 1984, "war is peace".

From my own personal experience, I think if everyone could understand things they way they really are and not the way their imaginations make them out to be, humanity could join together as one. We are evolving, the past is full of mistakes and stupidity, but we've learnt from them (at least I have), and now I think we are getting closer and closer to discovering humanitys true place in this world, and when we do that I believe we will unite as one.

That is, if we don't destroy ourselfs first.

Nothing will change us, so we will all die from nuclear war, or even global warming. Lots of people don't give a rats ass about you, just their self. We are a doomed race, all we know is negativity and fighting since the beginning of time so IMO we are not worth saving.

I think that Roger Waters' album Amused To Death pretty much says it all in a nutshell. When I get to feeling "that way" I throw that disc on and re-confirm my suspicions. If you haven't heard it I strongly urge you to check it out, especially if you're a Pink Floyd fan. Yeah sure it's way depressing, but sometimes I'm just in the right kind of mood for that, perhaps you may know vaguely what I mean... ("I sit back and smoke away huge chunks of memory.. as I slowly inflict upon myself a full labotomy.. call it pointless!" -PRIMUS)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...pons_in_space/

The paper stated that it is essential for the United States to deny its adversaries strategic access to space; success ''will require [the] full spectrum, sea, air, and space-based offensive counterspace systems" that the military can muster. The Pentagon has always examined space as a possible battleground, but the budget request marks a transition from laboratory theory to reality. And the Bush administration has sought to keep the military's options open despite international opposition to weapons in space.
Indeed, for the first time ever, the United States voted last fall to block a UN resolution calling for a ban on weapons in space. In the past, the US delegation abstained from voting on similar measures.

--

Arms-control advocates believe the space projects in the defense budget, which is under congressional review, explains the opposition.
According to a joint analysis by defense specialists at the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Center for Defense Information, several of these space programs, if brought to fruition, will create ''facts in orbit" -- weapons in space before a public debate is complete.

Im no doomsayer, but while the most powerful countries in the world lead with examples like this the only conclusion i can come to is that things arn't looking too rosey.
Ultimate power should lie with the people, we entrust a small minority to act on all our behalfs and to do whats right for us. If enough of us, e.g. a large majority believe a particular and important decision is wrong, and those in charge ignore this, then you begin to realise the role of government is more to simply control then to represent us.
I think it takes people to turn off reality TV and think about who they are, their own lives and how they fit into the world... and to realise they don't just have to play the role of consuming, complaining zombies, if they have a strong view they can do something about it.

Survival of our race....

I have absolutely no doubt that our race "Homo Sapiens" in all of it's varied forms will survive for many hundreds of thousands if not millions of years

Now, our modern culture and modern civilization, that is another thing. That is much more transient and delicate. Look at how many civilizatiobns have come and gone over the last 6000 years or so.

Originally Posted by RooJ

Arms-control advocates believe the space projects in the defense budget, which is under congressional review, explains the opposition.
According to a joint analysis by defense specialists at the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Center for Defense Information, several of these space programs, if brought to fruition, will create ''facts in orbit" -- weapons in space before a public debate is complete.

...begin to realise the role of government is more to simply control then to represent us...

As far as the last statement, yes it is getting to look that way, that the concept of a republic is not very good, and a pure democracy is the only way to ensure the power is put into the hands of the people.

Um, ok, not sure how much of this i can say, but they've had space based weaponry in the congrssional budget for decades, even before the moon landing. Currently, the only declassified thing that we know about that is close to space weaponry is "dark keyholes", satellites which have unknown capabilities in orbit over the dark side of the earth, which can be moved to any location once then self destruct by reentry.

But, hey, this is good news for aerospace engineers who are gonna be in demand if this stuff goes through. But in all seriousness, i believe this space weaponry crap is not a step backward, rather a step forward. Many great achievements have come from projects said to herald the doomsday, ICBM technology brought us forms of GPS, smaller computers, and technology now being used in satellites and mars landers. If we are to voyage deeper into the concept of space weaponry, who knows what technology can come out of it? The ICBMs we built sit in their silos because of the concept of MAD, and the space based weaponry will surely meet a similar fate whilst we use the knowledge we have gained from the endeavour as a springboard to the stars.

But in all seriousness, i believe this space weaponry crap is not a step backward, rather a step forward. Many great achievements have come from projects said to herald the doomsday

It's very true, many great achievements in understanding and technology have come from warfare and the pursuit of better ways to kill people. Its almost an evolutionary process that see's top predators turning on themselves to further the species. Personally I think we're at a stage where we need to start growing up though, we can develop technology just the same without war or fear as a catalyst.
Its like children, they grow up arguing and fighting with their siblings, but usually they reach a point where they can communicate without fighting.. With the advent of nuclear weapons its a different ball game, mankind needs to move out of its infancy before someone does something stupid.

I want a 3rd option named: "Stuff just like happens".

The very fact that you said 'advancement of the human race' or something like that is just silly. You don't actually mean a genetic advancement? An advancement by who's standards. Evolution has no goal.

Anyhow, I think there is a 40% we blow ourselves up, 20% we get blown up somehow, 20% we get melted or something, and about 20% we will live some 1000 years.

What about

C) Flourish in individual liberty, as advancing knowledge and technology, encouraged and rewarded by laissez-faire capitalism, ushers in the dawn of the next age of human advancement

Why does survival have to be coupled with "unification?"

We're fucked.

Well, I don't see much hope if people keep fighting each other. Eventually something really bad is going to happen if this behavior goes on (shit, it already has).

Originally Posted by Neruo

The very fact that you said 'advancement of the human race' or something like that is just silly. You don't actually mean a genetic advancement? An advancement by who's standards. Evolution has no goal.

Anyhow, I think there is a 40% we blow ourselves up, 20% we get blown up somehow, 20% we get melted or something, and about 20% we will live some 1000 years.

Well, technically if you like to think outside the box a bit, you could consider AI/biotech the advancement to the human race. It would in fact be the evolution of a new species, one which we have created. I believe that is the closest thing we are going to get to "evolution". We're never going to get the literal definition of evolution "homo sapien sapien sapien" because there is no more fighting for survival based on individual strengths and genetic mutations, if someone is born with a fu*ked up heart, we give them an artificial heart instead of them dying, we value every human life and therefore we have brought evolution (at least in the civilized world) to a halt, i believe this is what Neruo in some manner is referring to (if you weren't then i'm just ranting i guess :p).

lastly, yeah, in terms of percentages it all depends on some key advancements in human technology, however i believe the ultimate fate of humanity on earth is: 70% we blow ourselves up, 1% we get blown up by an asteriod or some other natural disaster, 15% we use the technology to explore space, 14% something utterly unpredictable.

Originally Posted by trigotron

Well, technically if you like to think outside the box a bit, you could consider AI/biotech the advancement to the human race. It would in fact be the evolution of a new species, one which we have created. I believe that is the closest thing we are going to get to "evolution". We're never going to get the literal definition of evolution "homo sapien sapien sapien" because there is no more fighting for survival based on individual strengths and genetic mutations, if someone is born with a fu*ked up heart, we give them an artificial heart instead of them dying, we value every human life and therefore we have brought evolution (at least in the civilized world) to a halt, i believe this is what Neruo in some manner is referring to (if you weren't then i'm just ranting i guess :p).

Not exactly. Of course, I wouldn't deny that probably the current human race is less suited to survive in the jungle or something like that. After all, I would get owned by tigers if I lived in the jungle with my bad eye-sight.

However, I don't see why people only call evolution evolution if it means only 'the strong' survive. Evolution is a passive progress. It 'just happens'. Lets say, if people all of a sudden decide to let retarded people have a lot of babies, being retarded becomes the new beauty-standard, how is that less evolution then peacocks digging some nice and useless tales?

What I mean is, is that our Society is the new kind of environment, an environment that just happens to let certain individuals survive and recreate that wouldn't survive in an Other environment (wild nature). That doesn't mean evolution 'stopped' or something, it just means the environment changed so drastically that evolution no longer causes selection of species that are good in surviving in harsh conditions.

Also, A.I. and biotech are great and such, I personally think progress in those regions are cool and great. My problem isn't that you call a certain direction to be advancement, my problem is that you call any evolutionary direction advancement. I just don't agree with the term 'advancement' when it comes to evolution. If you look really really out of the box, realy objective, a single celled organism isn't more or less 'valuable' or 'advanced' then the homo sapiens. It always come down to subjectiveness. We say people are the most successful species, but that is only by our standards. We don't have the most individuals alive, probably we will live shorter as a species then crocodiles have, we aren't the biggest, ect. We could define 'advancement' as intelligence. And with that comes complex language, tools, changing the surface of the earth, inter-planet travel. However it just happened to be so, that being intelligent was useful in the environment the homo sapiens first came to be. In by far most environments, having a big brain just costs valuable energy. So basically, our species is just a result of environment, so in no saw are we objectively better than rocks or bacteria. (I just personally, subjectively, like people more than I like rocks )

lastly, yeah, in terms of percentages it all depends on some key advancements in human technology, however i believe the ultimate fate of humanity on earth is: 70% we blow ourselves up, 1% we get blown up by an asteriod or some other natural disaster, 15% we use the technology to explore space, 14% something utterly unpredictable.

Yeah, actually, it is almost impossible to do any predictions... =)

The only thing I care about is that we don't blow ourselves up (while I am still alive), that would be a bloody shame

You brought up some interesting stuff in here =)

Originally Posted by Neruo

However, I don't see why people only call evolution evolution if it means only 'the strong' survive. Evolution is a passive progress.

No, this is absolutely 100% completely wrong. People with a unfavorable genetic attributes have to die for evolution to work, in today's world the only people who are dying are soldiers and random people from diseases (random death doesn't do anything).

It 'just happens'. Lets say, if people all of a sudden decide to let retarded people have a lot of babies, being retarded becomes the new beauty-standard, how is that less evolution then peacocks digging some nice and useless tales?

that's called genetic atrophy and let me put it this way, if the retarded took over the earth and it became the "norm", nobody would know the difference, except for the fact that eventually we could not use our technology and if they became "the new beauty standard" and the lowest intelligence had the most offspring then we will eventually devolve back into a race fighting for survival.

That is how i can define advancement, getting to a point where we have transcended all the barriers of the animals before us.

Hmm. I agree with Seeker. I think that something will happen soon, whether it be overpopulation or a man-made disaster remains to be seen, but we will have to change the way all human life is set up. The Earth just cannot sustain the mass amount of people for very long. Maybe going back to a similar lifestyle w/o machines and technology. Humans have this unique ability called reasoning that allows us to adapt to new situations.

I've been doing a lot of research on the lifestyles of Mexico before Spain came over and well, the model their civilization was based on was small, sprerad out communities that were self-sufficient. They lived in an agricultural society that could thrive for a long time without any interference.

Hey if were lucky enough, it might just happen in our lifetimes.

Its probably gonna be a 3rd world war... we can already see how it will happen
http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._exit_strategy

Exit trough iran? LOL read this :
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei welcomed the exit plan.

"Let the Allied armies come to Iran," Khamenei said. "I believe I can assure you that, if they do withdraw here, their brothers-in-arms in the Islamic Republican Army, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Quds special forces units, and the Basij Popular Mobilization Army will no doubt do everything they can to make the troops' trip back home memorable."

So they need 187 billion $$ to safely retreat +72 tanks +additional aircraft?
Iran is USA next target and this shows how they will apply it into action

Originally Posted by trigotron

You brought up some interesting stuff in here =)

That's the goal : )

No, this is absolutely 100% completely wrong. People with a unfavorable genetic attributes have to die for evolution to work, in today's world the only people who are dying are soldiers and random people from diseases (random death doesn't do anything).

'for evolution to work'? So in some cases, things can not be called evolution? If certain environmental settings cause a bunch of individuals to die, or Not to die (in large numbers), that all of a sudden isn't evolution? Where do you draw the line? Was it still 'evolution' when people found out some plants can make you better when you are ill? Or did evolution stopped 'working' when the first person came up with the idea to duct-tape a plank to someones leg so he could hunt again some time? I mean, what is your motive to stop calling the current human condition a part of evolution?

Remember, evolution is survival of the fittest. Not of the 'strongest' or 'best'.

I personally interpit that in a way, that a certain species or individual is successful if it has a shitload of children. Face it, stupid people are better suited for modren day society, they have more children then smart people.

But there is no de-volution. Evolution is just a direction, a completely relative one. We as a species are heading in a certain direction that is somewhat different then 50 years ago, and a great deal different then 250 years ago, and maybe completely different then 5000 years ago.

As long as individuals have different succes-rates in reproduction and survival caused by any environment (including our cultivated one), I personally call it evolution.

(I might not be following the exact definition, but I think there is a reasonable chance I am)

that's called genetic atrophy and let me put it this way, if the retarded took over the earth and it became the "norm", nobody would know the difference, except for the fact that eventually we could not use our technology and if they became "the new beauty standard" and the lowest intelligence had the most offspring then we will eventually devolve back into a race fighting for survival.

Ah.

Like I said. In what way does 'devolution' exist? By who's standards is something better? Actually, devolution is a paradox. If a species becomes more abundant, that is because it is better suited for it's environment. Being less intelligent (by having a small brain) can for instance be a great help in an environment where the individual's intelligence does not really affect the amount of food it acquired. Then, a brain is just a burden.

Losing our tail, was that de-volution? We can't swing trees anymore.. Or losing our huge gut? We can't eat as grassy-a-stuff as 'we' used to could eat (appendix).

I think 'evolution' is a bit of a confusing word, for I must admit it holds the notion of progress, advancement. While adapting to environment doesn't really have to do with that.

That is how i can define advancement, getting to a point where we have transcended all the barriers of the animals before us.

Ok, that can be called advancement. But really really really intristicly, looking at it as if you were a completely objective observer, how is a homo sapiens better then a moose? It can be said we have a more complex brain perhaps. But even 'complex' is often loaded with subjectiveness..

-

I think it's just a matter of opinion between us weather objective value can be given to results of evolution (i.e. us húmans)...

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.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Was it still 'evolution' when people found out some plants can make you better when you are ill? Or did evolution stopped 'working' when the first person came up with the idea to duct-tape a plank to someones leg so he could hunt again some time? I mean, what is your motive to stop calling the current human condition a part of evolution?

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.

I personally interpit that in a way, that a certain species or individual is successful if it has a shitload of children. Face it, stupid people are better suited for modren day society, they have more children then smart people.

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

But there is no de-volution. Evolution is just a direction, a completely relative one....As long as individuals have different succes-rates in reproduction and survival caused by any environment (including our cultivated one), I personally call it evolution.

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.

Losing our tail, was that de-volution? We can't swing trees anymore.. Or losing our huge gut? We can't eat as grassy-a-stuff as 'we' used to could eat (appendix).

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.

how is a homo sapiens better then a moose?

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

Perhaps Global Warming will be what unifies us, or destroys us.

I'm not worried about global warming this month. It's so last month. Global cooling is going to make a comeback. I'm old school, and global cooling was the trendy panic when mustaches were in style and Peter Frampton was selling out stadiums. The 1970's will ride again! The cool people are already talking about global cooling again. If you want to be with it, you've got to get with it.