Saber Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 (edited) Do you think that the human evolution in terms of civilization & technology and also social evolution would be exponential ? and we would be exploring the galaxys an the universe in the future ? and like curing all types of diseases and these king of stuff ? Or like me do you think our advance & evolution has limits and its limited by our own nature and it would have a peak and after that everything would start to fall apart ? And our civilization would start to gradually collapse In my opinion we have past the peak and started to downfall for about a decade or so Edited March 25, 2023 by Saber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 19 minutes ago, Saber said: we would be exploring the galaxys an the universe in the future ? Why in the future? We are exploring the galaxies and the universe now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 Environmental forcings govern evolution. And by environmental I mean everything from societal, geographical, predators and prey, climate and air quality, to basically everything that has an effect on our lives. If our technology is advanced enough such that we can 'insulate' ourselves from these environmental forcings, and 'cure' any mutations that might arise, evolution would come to a stop for us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 1 minute ago, MigL said: If our technology is advanced enough such that we can 'insulate' ourselves from these environmental forcings, and 'cure' any mutations that might arise, evolution would come to a stop for us. Not necessarily. Fundamentally evolution is just a change in the gene pool over time. In order for it to happen one would need a situation that fulfils the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Which also includes no sexual selection, sufficiently large population to eliminate stochastic effects and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Saber said: Do you think that the human evolution in terms of civilization & technology and also social evolution would be exponential ? No. 1 hour ago, Saber said: and we would be exploring the galaxys an the universe in the future ? If you mean traveling to other galaxies, I would say, absolutely not. 1 hour ago, Saber said: and like curing all types of diseases and these king of stuff ? I'm sure more cures for diseases will be found. 1 hour ago, Saber said: Or like me do you think our advance & evolution has limits and its limited by our own nature and it would have a peak and after that everything would start to fall apart ? Since there is no end point to evolution there is no peak. To expound on this just a bit, if in the future humans have half the brains size that we currently have, that wouldn't mean anything other than a human with smaller brains would be more adapted to that environment. 1 hour ago, Saber said: And our civilization would start to gradually collapse There have been many civilization collapses in the past which did not mean the end of mankind. 1 hour ago, Saber said: In my opinion we have past the peak and started to downfall for about a decade or so Not sure exactly what you mean since we are more advanced technologically speaking than 10 years ago. As far as civilization in general that would all depend how you measured the level of 'civilization'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 (edited) If by stochastic effects you mean random mutations, CharonY, a sufficiently advanced technology would be able to scan and fix errant genetic material; that would also take care of any 'disturbances' to the H-W equilibrium ( had to look that one up 🙂 ). Edited March 25, 2023 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 Not too sure about any of this. The tread is entitled Human Evolution. Isn't this a strange idea ? After all if we evolved would we still be human ? I suppose it depends what you mean by 'evolution' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 30 minutes ago, MigL said: If our technology is advanced enough such that we can 'insulate' ourselves from these environmental forcings, and 'cure' any mutations that might arise, evolution would come to a stop for us. 25 minutes ago, CharonY said: Fundamentally evolution is just a change in the gene pool over time. 4 minutes ago, studiot said: if we evolved would we still be human ? I understand that the OP does not refer to biological evolution: 1 hour ago, Saber said: human evolution in terms of civilization & technology and also social evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted March 25, 2023 Author Share Posted March 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Genady said: Why in the future? We are exploring the galaxies and the universe now. We havnt gone more than our own moon and that was because the US had a space race with its opponent..........from those days we havnt gone any further........ And also for the other explorations its only remote exploration.......and for those remote explorations also i think they sent some rovers to mars and venus in the 70's and some probes to the outer solar system and beyond.......i dont think we have pushed that much further from half a century ago.... From 1903 to 1969 we went from first flight to landing on the moon in just 66 years but from 1969 till 2023 thats 54 years....we havnt gone much further Same in the other fields too....in medicine for example ....i think our advancements and achievements in the late 1800's and early 1900's we much more innovative and progressive............than the recent era..... i mean our advances were more ground breaking in the past werent they ?? 1 hour ago, Genady said: I understand that the OP does not refer to biological evolution: Exactly .......i said civilization And tech also social .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 7 minutes ago, Saber said: Exactly .......i said civilization And tech also social .... So what do you mean by evolution ? Do you mean change? That is a perfectly acceptable usage. Rocks 'evolve'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 1 minute ago, Saber said: We havnt gone more than our own moon and that was because the US had a space race with its opponent..........from those days we havnt gone any further........ And also for the other explorations its only remote exploration.......and for those remote explorations also i think they sent some rovers to mars and venus in the 70's and some probes to the outer solar system and beyond.......i dont think we have pushed that much further from half a century ago.... From 1903 to 1969 we went from first flight to landing on the moon in just 66 years but from 1969 till 2023 thats 54 years....we havnt gone much further Same in the other fields too....in medicine for example ....i think our advancements and achievements in the late 1800's and early 1900's we much more innovative and progressive............than the recent era..... i mean our advances were more ground breaking in the past werent they ?? Exactly .......i said civilization And tech also social .... Regarding the galaxies and the universe, most of the exploration is done by telescopes, which are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. A completely new kind of exploration, based on gravitational waves, has been added recently. Regarding the medicine as well, diagnostics and treatments are much more advanced and capable today than in the past. Also, more affordable and accessible to wider population. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted March 25, 2023 Author Share Posted March 25, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bufofrog said: There have been many civilization collapses in the past which did not mean the end of mankind. yes but i mean a total collapse of the whole specie as we were never so complicatedly been connected as a whole community............now the whole world is dependent on each other......like never before........ 2 hours ago, Bufofrog said: Not sure exactly what you mean since we are more advanced technologically speaking than 10 years ago. As far as civilization in general that would all depend how you measured the level of 'civilization'. Yes i agree we are more advanced................but the speed of our advance............is not like for example the early 1900's till the 70's and maybe till the 80's .... if we for example graph our over all advancment i think the incline of the graph is still positive but less positive.....( the derivative of the Function of that graph is still positive but a smaller number ) 9 minutes ago, studiot said: So what do you mean by evolution ? Do you mean change? That is a perfectly acceptable usage. Rocks 'evolve'. i personally believe rocks also evolve...............a rock in a river evolves to a smoother shape to have less drag...........but its evolution is not self driven.........its done by its environment....... it evolves as a part of that river........the river does that so it has a better flow Edited March 25, 2023 by Saber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 11 minutes ago, Saber said: i personally believe rocks also evolve...............a rock in a river evolves to a smoother shape to have less drag...........but its evolution is not self driven.........its done by its environment....... it evolves as a part of that river........ Yup MigL has said it simply 2 hours ago, MigL said: Environmental forcings govern evolution. Nothing wakes up one morning and decide I am gong to 'evolve'. There is a whole formal theory of rock structure evolution. 16 minutes ago, Saber said: Yes i agree we are more advanced................but the speed of our advance............is not like for example the early 1900's till the 70's and maybe till the 80's .... if we for example graph our over all advancment i think the incline of the graph is still positive but less positive.....( the derivative of the Function of that graph is still positive but a smaller number ) I don't agree. The Romans had piped fresh water and centrally heated buildings. 2,000 years later do we have better? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted March 25, 2023 Author Share Posted March 25, 2023 (edited) Amid this topic another question came up to my mind Were does science draw the line of self awareness according to science is an amoeba self aware ? lower than them how about complex and heavy molecules ? Edited March 25, 2023 by Saber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, MigL said: If by stochastic effects you mean random mutations, CharonY, a sufficiently advanced technology would be able to scan and fix errant genetic material; that would also take care of any 'disturbances' to the H-W equilibrium ( had to look that one up 🙂 ). No stochastic would also includes who get to have children. If not every carrier of certain alleles reproduce at the same rate (because some folks don't have kids) it will shift the frequency. To avoid that you need everyone to mate randomly and have a large pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 Punctuated equilibrium may be a useful concept to consider here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 4 hours ago, Genady said: I understand that the OP does not refer to biological evolution: Might be, but outside of biological evolution, the term is rather poorly defined. 2 hours ago, Saber said: Amid this topic another question came up to my mind Were does science draw the line of self awareness according to science is an amoeba self aware ? lower than them how about complex and heavy molecules ? I do not think that we have a very stringent definition of awareness. That being said, all existing attempts are tied to higher mental functions and require a brain of some complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted March 26, 2023 Author Share Posted March 26, 2023 5 minutes ago, CharonY said: Might be, but outside of biological evolution, the term is rather poorly defined. I posted this in the philosophy forum if i meant biological it must be in the Biology forum .... 6 minutes ago, CharonY said: That being said, all existing attempts are tied to higher mental functions and require a brain of some complexity. Yes but here i only want to see where does science draw the line..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 2 minutes ago, Saber said: Yes but here i only want to see where does science draw the line..... I am not aware that we draw lines, we try to define things mostly to help our methodological approaches, but often times these are definitions based on convention or convenience. Historically we defined bacterial species based on >70% divergence in DNA hybridization assays. There is no reason to believe that e.g. 69% or 71% would not be similarly reasonable. As the definition of awareness is fuzzy, the "line" would be fuzzy, too. Most would assume that we would have to look at vertebrates (and potentially some mollusks) at minimum. But I don't think (though I may be wrong) that we have something much more concrete. There are some tests (like the famous mirror test) but quite a few folks challenge the validity of them for such classifications (passing might be sufficient, but not neccessary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 With changes brought by global warming and other rapid environmental stressors, any H-W eq. seems like an impossibility. I would be unsurprised to see human cladogenesis, if there is a collapse of tech civilization and we have populations that have remained in the tropics and are geographically isolated. Throw in some mutagenic agents left over from tech civilization and you've got a potential for founder effect groups to pop up all over the globe. They could be composed of small islanded bands of survivors of societal collapse, especially if there "death zones" from a nuclear war that deterred migration/exploration for many generations. Say that survivors of global nuking fled to Bonaire, and an ensuing nuclear winter picked off all but a hardy subset of refugees, and perhaps a couple of Russians and one Azerbaijani. The refugees would be mostly young and nubile, and would need the remaining locals to help repopulate.... I may need some red wine to finish working this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 40 minutes ago, Saber said: but here i only want to see where does science draw the line..... 42 32 minutes ago, TheVat said: I may need some red wine to finish working this out. Or a cold shower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted March 26, 2023 Author Share Posted March 26, 2023 (edited) 48 minutes ago, CharonY said: There are some tests (like the famous mirror test) but quite a few folks challenge the validity of them for such classifications (passing might be sufficient, but not neccessary). I dont mean that that animal or organism knows him self if for example it sees its reflection in a mirror .......but i rather meant that organism knows that it is something beyond its environment and can alter its environment on its will......... 47 minutes ago, TheVat said: The refugees would be mostly young and nubile, and would need the remaining locals to help repopulate.... When i was like a child like under 10-12 i always thought about this that in that case ( in the case of society collapse resulting in a large percentage of people being wiped out )......if i manage to survive........i have to do my part in regenerating the homo sapiens I though in that case it would be a very good time to be alive.......so i tried to stay fit and acquire survival skills in the nature to increase my survival potential.... i also thought about parallel universes later like when i was around 13-14 ......when ever i wanted to choose between two situations of doing that or that......i used to run a little simulation in my mind to see what happens if i did each......thus to decide better...... in fact i tried to forecast the future in both scenarios with this technique ......... And once suddenly a bizzare thought came to my mind that what if @ the point of deciding .......i split in to 2 and each version goes in to a different world.....one going that and the other doing the second....... And i always knew i have to keep my mouth shut about these kind of thoughts........or people would start to mock me........and i thought maybe im a little retarded......to have these stupid thoughts until i was like 18-19 i saw a documentary on TV about the parallel universes.....and it was that moment i was thinking that maybe i was not retarded ......and maybe this phenomenon really does exist..... Also i had some other thoughts.......that i think talking about them would really result in people making fun of me.... later in life like after 20 or soo i didnt follow those kind of thoughts any more...... Edited March 26, 2023 by Saber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 Pro tip: One of those words you used twice in your post has fallen out of parlance and tends to be considered unacceptable. Try liberal or woke next time. They’re the latest moniker for the misinformed folks not burdened with an abundance of education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 3 hours ago, CharonY said: No stochastic would also includes who get to have children. Advanced technology, such as genetic scanning, and a certain measure of control ( a la Handmaid's Tale ) would eliminate that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 Sure or just freeze everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now