Human Evolution

[joigus]

8 hours ago, Saber said:

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   

Make Homo sapiens great again?

[Sensei]

Exponential growth in the non-mathematical physical world (i.e., with limited resources) is just temporary..

[Genady]

16 hours ago, Saber said:

Do you think that the human evolution in terms of civilization &  technology  and also   social evolution  would be exponential ?

I think, with some fluctuations here and there, it will keep advancing for the next 1-10 million years. OTOH, I don't think it ever was exponential. Rather an unevenly moving frontline.

[Saber]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Make Homo sapiens great again?

I was  fit.......physically & mentally   those  days........😆  i could  make  it  great  again.....

 

 

Good  old  days........

Now im  physically & mentally  fat........
We  have a  proverb here in Iran    that  says : a fit & powerfull mind could be  inside a fit body....

 

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Exponential growth in the non-mathematical physical world (i.e., with limited resources) is just temporary..

Exactly.......i was  looking  for  this.......

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Saber said:

Exactly.......i was  looking  for  this.......

But what is the limit? How long is 'temporary'? Does technological / societal progress mean using more or less resources?

[Saber]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

But what is the limit? How long is 'temporary'? Does technological / societal progress mean using more or less resources?

in my  opinion wait   about  2  decades.......and  see  for  yourself

The  limitations  are the our greed to grow exponentially financially &  economically..............and spending our time & resources for fighting each other.....and  not concentrating on scientific & mental growth....

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Saber said:

The  limitations  are the our greed to grow exponentially financially &  economically..............and spending our time & resources for fighting each other.....and  not concentrating on scientific & mental growth....

These limitations are not new, and the progress happened anyway, averaging over time. Why would it be different this time? Why wouldn't it be another temporary fluctuation until new solutions are found?

[Saber]

Just now, Genady said:

These limitations are not new, and the progress happened anyway, averaging over time. Why would it be different this time? Why wouldn't it be another temporary fluctuation until new solutions are found?

Im not 100 % sure  myself....maybe  yup  its a temporary  flux......

But i  wish  its not........from  when i was a kid.......i really  wanted to see humanity  collapse.....
Not to be able to do the  repopulating  thing.......But  rather to  see the nature   gets its revenge  from  humanity......

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, Saber said:

But  rather to  see the nature   gets its revenge  from  humanity

Isn't humanity a nature's product?

[Saber]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't humanity a nature's product?

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't humanity a nature's product?

Yup  it  is  exactly......the  industrial  age..... .is a  small malfunction....in nature......a 200 year period in a 13B  year  process....or in a 4.5B  year  planetary  evolution  process.....

Edited March 26, 2023 by Saber

[hantaba]

Human evolution refers to the biological process by which modern humans, known scientifically as Homo sapiens, have evolved over time from earlier hominid ancestors. The study of human evolution is based on a combination of fossil evidence, genetic analysis, and comparative anatomy.

The evolutionary history of humans stretches back millions of years, with our earliest ancestors being members of the hominid family, such as Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and various species of the genus Homo. These early hominids possessed traits that were transitional between apes and humans, such as bipedalism (walking on two legs) and a gradually increasing brain size.

One of the key milestones in human evolution is the emergence of Homo sapiens, which occurred approximately 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens developed distinct anatomical and behavioral characteristics, including a large brain, advanced tool use, and complex social structures. The exact mechanisms and factors that drove the evolution of Homo sapiens are still subject to scientific investigation and debate.

Over time, Homo sapiens dispersed across the globe, with different populations adapting to various environments and developing diverse physical traits. This process, known as human dispersal or migration, led to the emergence of different human populations with genetic variations. Genetic studies have shown that all modern humans share a common ancestor who lived in Africa.

It is important to note that human evolution is an ongoing process, and our species continues to undergo genetic changes. However, the pace of evolutionary change in modern humans has slowed significantly due to advancements in technology, medicine, and cultural adaptations that have reduced the selective pressures on our species.

Studying human evolution provides insights into our origins, the development of our unique characteristics, and our place in the natural world. It helps us understand our shared ancestry with other living organisms and sheds light on the complex interplay between genetics, environment, and natural selection in shaping the human species.

 

[mistermack]

51 minutes ago, hantaba said:

Human evolution refers to . . . . . . 

This has the whiff of copy and paste about it. Do you have a link to what it's from? 

[iNow]

Likely a bot in training 

[Ken Fabian]

For technological progress I expect S-curves, not exponential ones - they just look similar... for a while.

Even aside from the physical impossibility of endless exponential growth there are limits - like limits of physical properties of materials, like limits to return on investment.

Aircraft can exceed the sound barrier - it is not an absolute limit - but it costs too much to become widely used. We may get working fusion power plants but if the engineering requirements are too exacting they may be too costly. We can launch people and materiel into space but as long as it costs too much and delivers too little there won't be space colonies.

I suspect we are already overshooting the environmental limits of our world and unless clean energy tech advances a lot more (and quickly) the economic impacts of climate change will impose limits on how much nations can afford for far reaching R&D. Those impacts are going to get a lot more serious over the next few decades given total emissions are still rising and opposition (out of ignorance and apathy and out of being misinformed) to taking sufficient aggressive action remains strong.

Living within our means means setting aside some aspirations whilst some are just made a lot harder.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Aircraft can exceed the sound barrier - it is not an absolute limit - but it costs too much to become widely used. We may get working fusion power plants but if the engineering requirements are too exacting they may be too costly. We can launch people and materiel into space but as long as it costs too much and delivers too little there won't be space colonies.

Of course in the end there are limits. But sometimes, one discovery can cause an explosion of activity, and change the world out of all recognition. Like fossil fuel did, for example. Fusion energy could do likewise. Or not, if as you suggest a roadblock pops up that brings progress to a grinding halt. But I suspect that it will eventually be providing all of the power we use. The possible road blocks are already being shrunk, with progress on systems, such as superconductors. 

The informed estimates of the size and cost of commercial fusion plants are dropping rapidly so while it won't happen soon in a commercial way, it's getting more certain all the time.

On space colonies, I think they are inevitable, and the cost of launching materials is a short term problem, not long term, as there are materials up there, on the moon and other space bodies, that can eventually be used and don't have the inherent cost of launching. And if fusion power eventually becomes cheap, then you can make cheap hydrogen to fuel take-off rockets in a cheap and clean way. 

Once living in space colonies gets mastered, the potential is there for explosive growth, because space and energy are almost limitless, for practical purposes, whereas on Earth they are approaching close to the limit. 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Of course in the end there are limits. But sometimes, one discovery can cause an explosion of activity, and change the world out of all recognition. Like fossil fuel did, for example. Fusion energy could do likewise. Or not, if as you suggest a roadblock pops up that brings progress to a grinding halt.

Evolution can never halt, but when you limit it too human's we enter a type of 'zeno's paradox'.

Quote

Zeno's paradoxes of motion are attacks on the commonly held belief that motion is real, but because motion is a kind of plurality, namely a process along a plurality of places in a plurality of times, they are also attacks on this kind of plurality. Zeno offered more direct attacks on all kinds of plurality

.

47 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The informed estimates of the size and cost of commercial fusion plants are dropping rapidly so while it won't happen soon in a commercial way, it's getting more certain all the time.

Exactly... 😉

[mistermack]

The way I see human evolution going, is for local differences and characteristics to fade, and we end up with a bland mass of fairly similar humans. With genes no longer trapped in a locality by deserts or rivers, they are inevitably going to end up in one huge monochrome soup. What might change that, is artificial gene interventions. Who knows where that will go ? 

[Genady]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

The way I see human evolution going, is for local differences and characteristics to fade, and we end up with a bland mass of fairly similar humans. With genes no longer trapped in a locality by deserts or rivers, they are inevitably going to end up in one huge monochrome soup.

But how long will it take? Is there any quantitative estimate? Would it happen before humans go extinct?

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

But how long will it take? Is there any quantitative estimate? Would it happen before humans go extinct?

What is extinct? We say that dinosaurs are extinct, but we have billions of birds, that are their descendants. Humans could go extinct, via a truly lethal pandemic, but it would be fairly easy to avoid that. Especially if we had reached the stage of living in space colonies. 

And if there was a truly lethal pandemic, then there are more extreme measures that can be taken, to prevent contagion. Actually, the more lethal the pandemic, the more likely it is to be rapidly eliminated. Shut down of movement would be more extreme, and elimination of outbreaks would be more certain.  

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What is extinct? We say that dinosaurs are extinct, but we have billions of birds, that are their descendants.

Yes, in the same sense that dinosaurs are extinct. Even if there will be some space dwelling monsters that are human descendants.

Do you assume that humans will not go extinct in the biological species sense? Or do you rather talk about their descendant species? If these descendant species live in distinct space colonies, they are as or more isolated than humans used to be by deserts and rivers.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Yes, in the same sense that dinosaurs are extinct.

Most biologists will say that dinosaurs are not extinct, because birds ARE dinosaurs. However, most dinosaurs are extinct, because T Rex etc have no extant descendants. 

In 50 million years in the future, you wouldn't say that mammals are extinct, if all but rats and their descendants were extinct. You would still consider mammals to be not extinct, and the same applies to dinosaurs. Even if the rats had evolved into thousands of different species, they would still be mammals, and birds are still dinosaurs, in exactly the same way. 

As far as humans go, in pure speculation, I would expect average intelligence to drop a tiny bit, because more intelligent people are having smaller families. (I'm guessing, I don't have figures for that).

Other than that, I can't see any selective pressures that favour one characteristic over another. Maybe gene manipulation will end up having a bigger effect than natural selection. If that's the case, I wouldn't expect space-dwelling monsters to evolve from humans. Most people would opt for their kids to be more normal, not more extreme. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Most biologists will say that dinosaurs are not extinct, because birds ARE dinosaurs. However, most dinosaurs are extinct, because T Rex etc have no extant descendants. 

In 50 million years in the future, you wouldn't say that mammals are extinct, if all but rats and their descendants were extinct. You would still consider mammals to be not extinct, and the same applies to dinosaurs. Even if the rats had evolved into thousands of different species, they would still be mammals, and birds are still dinosaurs, in exactly the same way. 

As far as humans go, in pure speculation, I would expect average intelligence to drop a tiny bit, because more intelligent people are having smaller families. (I'm guessing, I don't have figures for that).

Other than that, I can't see any selective pressures that favour one characteristic over another. Maybe gene manipulation will end up having a bigger effect than natural selection. If that's the case, I wouldn't expect space-dwelling monsters to evolve from humans. Most people would opt for their kids to be more normal, not more extreme. 

Yes, dinosaurs and mammals are not species. Humans, i.e., Homo sapiens, are. So, my question was, "Do you assume that humans will not go extinct in the biological species sense?" Your answer is, yes. To me, the reasoning, "Most people would opt for their kids to be more normal, not more extreme" is not sufficient because of at least two issues: (1) Parents are not necessarily in control of this, and (2) What is considered normal is evolving as well.

Even in this case, regarding the possibility of a total mix, would it happen before the humans split into distinct space colonies which will be separated from each other as or more than humans used to be by deserts and rivers?

[mistermack]

I still think that extinction means that you have no descendants. So some dinosaurs are extinct, others are not, in my book.  

And separation doesn't necessarily mean the evolution of differences. You need the pressure of natural selection to give evolution a kick. You can get slight changes through "drift" but it takes much longer. 

And humans on space colonies don't have to be isolated. You could send frozen sperm and eggs for very little cost to maintain genetic diversity. And in any case, travel between space colonies should not be expensive. You only need energy for starting and stopping. You don't need an engine running to maintain speed. Moving parts will be minimal, so wear and tear on space vehicles should be very low. 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I still think that extinction means that you have no descendants.

That would be extinction of a lineage. Extinction of species is different.

 

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And separation doesn't necessarily mean the evolution of differences.

Not necessarily evolution of differences, but different evolution. Even with the same selection pressures, separated organisms find different solutions and evolve along different trajectories.

 

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And humans on space colonies don't have to be isolated. You could send frozen sperm and eggs for very little cost to maintain genetic diversity. And in any case, travel between space colonies should not be expensive. You only need energy for starting and stopping. You don't need an engine running to maintain speed. Moving parts will be minimal, so wear and tear on space vehicles should be very low. 

This is so speculative, that number of arguments one way or another is not only infinite, but uncountable.

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

That would be extinction of a lineage. Extinction of species is different.

I don't think so. The scientific meaning of extinction means no descendants. It doesn't mean change to something new. T Rex went extinct when the last one died. That was species extinction. Which means that homo erectus is not extinct, it's evolved. There never was a last homo erectus.