:lame: Humans in 1000 / 10000 years - Urgent

[matter]

Sayonara³ said in post #24 :

The fact that some people die through causes they did not bring about does not negate the fact that higher intelligence makes the passing on of genetic material more likely, and the range of dispersal greater.

 

I guess I don't understand. Even the most average person can have kids and live out their life without dying "prematurely." Are you talking about being intelligent, getting a good education, getting a high paying job, buying a sports car, marrying good looking woman, then having good looking kids? I don't get it.

 

To me it just seems like we dont have have to work very hard anymore. Obviously you know there are people who haven't gone to college who earn 50 thousand a year, have a house and have children. 50 thousand dollars isn't a lot but it provides a comfortable living. You don't have to be super intelligent to get a partner to have offspring with. lol.

[YT2095]

no, and sadly alot of the times it seems that the "Grunts" of this world seem to have the most luck???

like the Forum title, "More degrees than dates" sad but true

 

but on an AVERAGE per head, the "smart" (not as WE may think of "smart") seem to get on quite well.

 

I guess no one ever said life was fair!

[Sayonara]

[To matter]

 

No, you're completely right. We do have many of the selective pressures removed artificially these days.

 

But any advantage that increases individual fitness (by which I mean evolutionary fitness, not fitness in the everyday conversation sense) still applies, particularly when you are considering evolution (since individuals don't evolve, populations do - which reduces everything to maths).

[matter]

k, I get it now. I was mistaking it for an individual basis. I forgot we were talking about evolution. I'm at work and I can't multi-task obviously.

[YT2095]

ya know, I recon that within 1,000 years or less, forget 10,000 years.

we`ll be like the Borg, it`s started NOW, Prof Kevin Warrick was probably the first. I think that Cybernetic Augmentation is the way of the future for us. I think we will design our OWN evolution!

be it genetic or instrumentational use and assimilation of our own technologies within us. this is how I firmly beleive we will go as our destiny. Borg!

and no I`m NOT kidding or tongue in cheek with this post. it`ll happen and within our lifetimes we`ll see the seeds of it.

[matter]

I wouldnt mind being half robot.

[YT2095]

nor me, but there`s certain parts *Ehem* I`de like to keep

[matter]

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post #30 :

ya know, I recon that within 1,000 years or less, forget 10,000 years.

we`ll be like the Borg, it`s started NOW, Prof Kevin Warrick was probably the first. I think that Cybernetic Augmentation is the way of the future for us. I think we will design our OWN evolution!

be it genetic or instrumentational use and assimilation of our own technologies within us. this is how I firmly beleive we will go as our destiny. Borg!

and no I`m NOT kidding or tongue in cheek with this post. it`ll happen and within our lifetimes we`ll see the seeds of it.

 

Using cybernetic implants is unlikely to affect us evolutionarily, or at least not in the way you might expect.

 

Think about it - you have your hand removed and replaced with a prosthetic in the fashion of the times. Does this result in people being born with 1 hand and 1 prosthetic-ready stump? No.

 

If the prosthetic hand is an evolutionary advantage, in that in some way it makes people more likely to pass on their genetic information (and to more partners) than people without prosthetic hands, there will be no specific genetic material passed on as a result of the presence of the prosthetic hand. Nor will there be any genetic material passed on that makes people more likely to have prosthetic hands fitted.

 

In short, the next generation are no more or less likely to have a prosthetic hand fitted than the last (due to any genetic reasons, anyway. Fashions and attitudes will undoubtedly vary).

 

There is no gene for "likely-to-have-a-prosthetic-hand-ness", nor are the genes that result in you having hands dropped out of your genetic code if you remove a hand. Therefore there is no way such a self-imposed modification can have any widely-ranging selective effect on a population.

[YT2095]

but in a broader sense, wouldn`t the ability to modify and adapt our own personage be a form of evolution? even the development of the Will to have it done. I realise that through genetic manipulation that currently we can screen out some undesirable traits before it becomes a human or animal or even a plant. such things as Downs Syndrome, Cystic fibrosis etc... from the parent carriers, but as yet, it`s in more of a passive role, we can say 4 of the 12 eggs harvested will not carry the defect, and then use those, but if all 12 carried it, we couldn`t fix it ,YET!

I think a more proactive role in this feild will happen, select your baby to have blue eyes or brown etc...

I see this as a form of evolution, not in the tradition "natural" sense, but as an Active deliberate sense by design. but non the less Evolution.

[Kedas]

matter said in post #31 :

I wouldnt mind being half robot.

 

I don't like it.

 

Imagine you are standing on the football field ready to play and then suddenly you remember that you forgot your oil !!

 

Or they drop an EM bom and you die.

 

Or you feel very attracted to a girl, after a while it turns out she was only carrying a very big magnet.

[matter]

lol.

 

Well I guess it would depend on what parts of me were mechanical. I want a terminator eye that scans everything.

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post #35 :

but in a broader sense, wouldn`t the ability to modify and adapt our own personage be a form of evolution? even the development of the Will to have it done. I realise that through genetic manipulation that currently we can screen out some undesirable traits before it becomes a human or animal or even a plant. such things as Downs Syndrome, Cystic fibrosis etc... from the parent carriers, but as yet, it`s in more of a passive role, we can say 4 of the 12 eggs harvested will not carry the defect, and then use those, but if all 12 carried it, we couldn`t fix it ,YET!

I think a more proactive role in this feild will happen, select your baby to have blue eyes or brown etc...

I see this as a form of evolution, not in the tradition "natural" sense, but as an Active deliberate sense by design. but non the less Evolution.

 

If we can easily screen for Down's Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis while it is still possible to prevent a birth through abortion etc, why do those medical conditions still exist? I somehow doubt that it is solely due to those mothers who - as is their right - refuse to abort.

 

I get what you're saying about evolution through a campaign of active interference by us, but this will only cause evolutionary responses if the changes made impose selective pressure significantly enough to cause speciation.

 

What I was trying to illustrate with the hand example is that this is easier said than done for a species like us.

[YT2095]

Not everyone can afford or wants these tests, some like to leave it to "God". and the abortion part is unnecesary now, it can be done in a petree dish as the zygote multiplies to about 16 cells, one is removed and tested, if it`s ok, then it`s implanted, 15 cells at this stage makes no difference.

[Sayonara]

When I say "abortion" in that context, I mean any termination prior to birth. I'm referring to the fact of the conception being aborted, rather than the process itself.

 

Anyhoo, my intention was to get you to think about what you'd said. Although in some cases Down's Syndrome sufferers have successfully produced offspring, most do not. Nor do most cystic fibrosis sufferers. The carriers do most of the reproduction.

 

Manipulating the frequency of such conditions within the population does not lead to significant selective pressures, hence the conditions not 'dying out'. Using our technology to screen for carriers through the means you originally suggested would exert significant selective pressure, but would also require that intervention occurred in a very high percentage of conceptions.

[YT2095]

I could see a time when the "State" required such tests prior to marriage, under the Guise of "protecting us" much in the same way as it`s law that immediate rellatives can`t marry. Sounds a bit Bleak sure, but they constanty slip stuff like that by us all the time and we have less and less rights as time goes by.

through the power of Media and "State indoctrination facilities" (Schools).

[Sayonara]

Even if that were applied rigorously to everyone in the US through some sort of NSA Birthing Programme, it would not change humanity at an evolutionary level. USA citizens make up 4.6% of the global population.

[YT2095]

4.6% is still a significant amount when taken over 40 generations (1000 years at age 25 per person to bear offspring).

each generation taking "onboard" how right it is to have your mating partner "checked out medicaly". and then cross cultural breeding, that 4.6 over 40 generation could be a significant percentage of the human populous, we only need to look at the spread of Aids within a single generation to gain an apreciation of what 4.6% NOW could do in 1000 years. I`de guess at 50% min erradicated as carriers.

[Sayonara]

AIDS doesn't spread. HIV spreads, as all good viruses do. This is in no way useful as a comparison to our problem, unless you can show that genetic information spreads virally between sexual partners.

 

I'm not sure what characteristics you imagine are being passed on via those 4.6%, but I don't think you're considering the full implications of even Mendelian genetics.

 

5% is nothing EVEN over 40 generations, if the part of the population having their births screened does not ever rise above 5%. In fact if there is interbreeding it will render the screening program useless wherever US citizens have children in other countries.

And of course, don't forget that someone from the US who was born as a consequence of the breeding programme can go to another country and breed there, but they won't leach the genes responsible for carriage of these syndromes out of whoever they mate with.

 

The reason it's difficult to even vaguely predict human evolution is because we mess with it socially AND scientifically at the same time - the two can't be separated out - and it's not possible to predict social change within or between cultures for the next 1000 years.

[YT2095]

I`m an indoctrinated US citizen (for example). it is NOW part of my psyche that phuking without a test would be like doing it with my own mom!

so I know it`s wrong, but ...I`m in love with a foreign girl... naturaly I want to have her tested 1`st, for things like, HIV, and carrier genes that make poorly children, I DON`T want to have a poorly child, so we get tested, she`s clear we mate and all goes well.

she gets tested and is a carrier, we DON`T mate, and all goes well (no poorly child).

do that over 40 generatios and tell me that wont drop the odds faster than nature ever could

[Sayonara]

All you've done is restate your last post as an illustrated example.

 

Your assumptions are:

 

(i) She'll accept your values as her own,

(ii) She won't mate with anyone else [whether she is a carrier or not],

(iii) You are not a carrier yourself,

(iv) This effect would be significant, even if every US citizen made it their duty to mate with "an outsider".

 

(i)-(iii) are by no means certain. Actually I find (i) and (ii) to be very unlikely.

 

(iv) is clearly not true, for the reasons already stated.

[YT2095]

1. she`de have no choice (no bouncey-bouncey else)

2. that would be her choice (but not one of the "Indoctrinated")

3. As an Indoctrinated citizen it would be my DUTY to never breed

4. It clearly WOULD have a significant impact, don`t see it from YOUR point of veiw NOW, Imagine THEN, and THEIR mentality

[Sayonara]

(i) Unless you're discussing raping someone, yes she would

 

(ii) The position of each choice is irrelevant. What matters is the genetic fitness of the population, and the movement of information.

 

(iii) Yes - and the only population that will affect significantly is this conditioned US population. See where this is going?

 

(iv) No, it wouldn't. See all of above posts.

[YT2095]

1. HUH? if her partner would not comply, then no bouncey bouncey. rape?????

 

2. An indoctrinated person would NOT mate with her tho, that`s my point, if she mated with someone else that would be up to her.

 

3. how do you work that out? there are MANY immigrants to the US and "mail order" brides done every day so sure it would the external populus slowly.

 

4. there`s no point to debate with 4. it`s not a point but a reitteration.

[Sayonara]

(i) I said she might not accept your values (IE - your decision to only allow non-carrier <> non-carrier copulation) as your own. You said she would have no choice. Cleary she does, because if she does not copulate with you as she does not advocate or accept your values she is exercising a choice.

The only situation where that choice is removed is if she is raped (not by you of course, by 'one').

 

(ii) Yes, it would. Would that somehow prevent carried genetic material from being passed on to her offspring?

 

(iii) Only if everyone on the planet comes to the US to breed using your system, and any other form of procreation is prohibited globally.

 

(iv) There's nothing to debate because the genetics speak for themselves. It would NOT be significant in an evolutionary sense.