Will Man ever become extinct??

[Skye]

Damned semantics...

 

Sayonara originally used the term "armed forces", and people joining them. This doesn't imply simply soldiers or armies. It can be inclusive of militaries, armies, navies, paramilitaries, terrorist militant factions, etc. Without any of these kinds of organised, armed groups it's essentially impossible, by definition, to have a war. By inferance, if nobody joined these groups it would also be impossible to have a war.

[Sayonara]

Thank you Skye

 

If anyone thinks that's "wishful thinking", they may try considering what that phrase actually means.

[blike]

nm

[IMI]

Semantics? It's not semantics when you are using an erroneous definition of a word. The word "war" does not, in it's base form, imply participation by organized military/combatant units.

 

Say, for instance, you there are two groups of people, say two tribes of nomadic herders, each of whom is affiliated with their respective groups for reasons other than to serve as a cohesive military unit. Both groups happen upon the same plot of land, one that is optimum to sustain the herd, and themselves, but will only support one group or the other. This is the only area of sustenance for quite some distance. As a result the tribes engage in combat to decide who shall inhabit the land. One tribe eventually drives off the other ending open combat. The other tribe retreats but is still determined to take the land. They resort to skirmkish tactics which prolongs the unrest. These tribes, it can certainly be said, are in a state of war with each other despite the fact that they are not specifically military units in any way, shape, or form.

 

These groups may be transformed into military type units, but they weren't so to begin wtih, which brings me to my next point.

 

Militaries evolve in respone to conflict, and not the other way around. To say that to rid the world of militaries is to rid the world of war is erroneous. Strong militaries, more often than not these days, prevent wars. The Cold War is a perfect example of this. The fact that China had a surmountable military, in concert with their relationship with the Soviet Union (who also had a mighty military), convinced the US not to attack China for their forays during the US-North Korean War.

[Sayonara]

IMI said in post #29 :

Semantics? It's not semantics when you are using an erroneous definition of a word. The word "war" does not, in it's base form, imply participation by organized military/combatant units.

The only time I queried the functional definition of "war" was in response to YT's post. Semantics has nothing to do with my original post re: human nature needing to change.

 

Say, for instance, you there are two groups of people, say two tribes of nomadic herders... etc

A fair enough point, but they are just as likely to solve it with a couple of strategic marriages, thereby strengthening the genetic integrity of future generations in their own tribes.

If you disagree, then you're lending strength to my "human nature needs to change" argument.

 

 

Militaries evolve in respone to conflict...

Another good point, but the extinction of this trend was actually what I was discussing, not some magical pixie land where it doesn't exist.

 

I know I asked you how war would occur with no militaries, but the question is meant to be answered under the assumption that we removed the military due to the changes in our nature I was discussing.

 

 

Blike: I know what you meant; the spirally badness of the thread is making me lose track of who's replying to what

[IMI]

I couldn't agree with you more that human nature must change to avert disaster (getting back to the original subject of the post). If "survival of group" could overtake the current "survival of self" mentality the world would be a far better place. Do I think it will happen? Yes, but unfortunately not until after some cataclysmic event.

[Skye]

On topic: Forever is a really long time.

[Sayonara]

Cataclysmic - I like that word. That's going to be word of the day on my blog

[Guest desaia]

We will die sometime it is already apparent that we are inferior in survivability to microbes and bacteria

[JaKiri]

If you think microbes are immortal, you're wrong.

[matter]

war is ingrained in our primtive brain. fact is people like to kill people, especially in war. when bullets start flying, you're going to be happy to kill the person thats trying to kill you. anyone can be converted into a killer, even if they join the military for the economical benefits. I think someone who likes war is not any more likely to die in combat before anyone else. if anything, they'll survive longer on instinct.

[Sayonara]

By definition, joining the army cannot give you instincts.

 

"fact is people like to kill people, especially in war. when bullets start flying, you're going to be happy to kill the person thats trying to kill you" ... hence the need for people to accept responsibility for themselves and effect a long-overdue change in our species.

[MrFoxington]

*taps into his super duper psychic powers* The end of human kind will occur within a 38 hour period.. where the entire world population drops dead suddenly.. the unniverse is vast and we know nothing of it.. something nasty will find us very unprepared.. it wont be a meteor, nuclear war, water, blah blah blah.. we will just all die and never know why.

[DarkApostle]

MaxCathedral said in post #1 :

Yes, yes..its time to think about our own species. Are we destined for the big check out soon?

 

Will an asteroid do us in, like one did for the dinos.

 

(Whispers:) They say the big one is coming in 2014.

 

Or will some super Virus, like Captain Trips in King's The Stand, do us all in or a super Alien Invasion for our precious metals or maybe just water be our demise?

 

Will one day we be nothing more than a gigantic archelogical dig for some aliens?

 

First and formost we must understand the age in which we live in, the age of suicide. With scientific technology on the brink of enhancement unlike anything we've ever seen(genetic cloning and such) it is very unprobable that the human race will ever completley die out. Millions have died already and look at the numbers of the planet. Many also argue we are over populated but don't worry, more will die. Humans are self-destructive animals by nature anyhow. I say drop the fear.

[alt_f13]

When I move to Mars, I envite all of you to come with me.

[phoenix]

on the original topic:

 

the best prevention of extinction has often been diversification. Don't see any chance of that for us since we now interbreed globally without many remaining impediments, so based on correlative evidence, one should foresee doom.

 

However, human beings are quite unlike any other species, and we have the chimps as backup.

 

Just my two cents...

 

Phoenix

[fafalone]

Hopefully we'll move to other planets and other solar systems and colonize before the even that takes Earth out, which WILL eventually happen, either by natural (or man-made) disaster, or, failing that, the sun going nova.

[-Demosthenes-]

Of cource, all species are bound for destruction. To think otherwise would be ludicrous.

[admiral_ju00]

damnit, i've missed out on so many good topics.

 

by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species.

[MishMish]

Ju00:

 

"by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species."

 

"The" theory?

[Sayonara]

Whose theory is that?

 

I know it's a prevailing belief among the countless armchair evolutionary biologists who seem to roam the web, but I've not heard of any papers on this. Any linkage?

[Marz Man]

Ok. I love the theory of evolution. I just had to post.

 

 

It is very possible man will become extinct. As said, natural disaster, man made... or I think once we evolve mentally beyond our limitations. Say your planet has fought its way to the top as a civilization, from the beginning. occupying multiple galaxies. Would you stop at nothing to limit others from over taking you? I would say so. Also, as said we do not live in a utopia nor would any other life form existing in with us in this age, even if it is billions of light years away. We are being watched, anybody smarter than an ape can tell that.

 

The chance of us not forcefully, or naturally becoming extinct depends on many variables. Some of which we control. We have to play our cards right when the time comes. With all the Science Fiction in Hollywood, we have seen many instances of destruction. One day, we will be prepared, but will it be to late?

 

And... in reply to somebody who said we have reached our evolutionary limit. That is false. The only limit on evolution is time. Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet, by no circumstances is this our final time on it. Take a look at the past 100 years. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to fly. 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we have now. 100 years ago, we didn't have the vast communication we have now. These are all forms of evolution.

 

Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.

[admiral_ju00]

Ok. I love the theory of evolution. I just had to post.

 

And... in reply to somebody who said we have reached our evolutionary limit. That is false. The only limit on evolution is time. Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet' date=' by no circumstances is this our final time on it. Take a look at the past 100 years. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to fly. 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we have now. 100 years ago, we didn't have the vast communication we have now. These are all forms of evolution.

 

Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.[/quote']

 

Here's one perspective on the biological evolution.

"...specific(as in the case of Gregory R. Smith) evolution will likely continue as long as there is biological life on the planet."

"However, for General biological evolution to continue would require that a biological life form more advanced than ourselves(homo sapiens) would come into existence"

"Furthermore, it would require that this life form be the result of biological Continuity, Innovation and Extinction....."

 

This was cited from a work by John A. Busch, Ph.D and Gladys Masih Busch, Ph.D

 

By the way, if you were referring to me, I never said anything along the lines of "Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet, by no circumstances is this our final time on it. " I said that we as a species will have reached our evolutionary limit. And by the way, time is not a limit on evolution, it is the force that is driving it.

 

While there may be individual variation within a species (as in the case of Gregory R. Smith's case),however, we as a species most likely will not evolve any further. Kind of like what the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium proposed.

 

 

Or are you saying that in 2014 we (humans) will go through more or less of an Adaptive Radiation and most of us will be of the same level as Gregory R. Smith? Thereby those who will share his genes will be more fit and those that don't(most of the species) will perish?

You are right there there are many great minds out there, they are not however the majority and their genetic makeup will not become the dominant makup for the entire species. Just a few, Isolated cases, is what we have now, and what we will continue to have.

 

 

Unless indeed, something drastic does happen, such as if something were to happen to all of the world's plants, algae and other O2 producing elements and we as a species had to rely on some other form for respiration, etc.

 

I also need to appologize for my haste last time, to those who pointed out that it is not a theory, but a prevalent notion among many scientists. that indeed is the case and I didn't think twice about using the term "the theory" as a few of you suggested.

[Sayonara]

I said that we as a species will have reached our evolutionary limit. And by the way, time is not a limit on evolution, it is the force that is driving it.

No it isn't.

 

so yeah while there may be individual variation within a species (as in the case of Gregory R. Smith's case),however, we as a species most likely will not evolve any further.

I don't see how the excerpt from John Busch's paper leads you to that conclusion, because the evolutionary ascension of one species does not necessarily require the "end of evolution" for any other.

[admiral_ju00]

No it isn't.

 

 

I don't see how the excerpt from John Busch's paper leads you to that conclusion' date=' because the evolutionary ascension of one species does not necessarily require the "end of evolution" for any other.[/quote']

 

Indeed it does not, and again you're taking what I said in a totally different direction.

 

But tell me this though, at a level of Macro-Evolution, what specific evolutionary changes have we as a species undergone or will likely to attain in the future?

 

You're may say things like: melanin, sickle-cell, height, etc, but those can be logically explained in terms on Inbreeding, Area(amount of UV present or lack thereof), nutrition, etc. They are also tend to be found concentrated in certain areas as opposed to be evenly(globaly) spread among the species, granted some variation may occur.

 

The only things that I see as an exception are the Hymalayans and their tolerance for high-altitude regions and the Australian aboriginals who defy our "race" roots and classification . But again, even this, does not reflect a major evolutionary change of the Homo Sapiens world-wide. For all we know and see, these adaptations, were the result of their environment, where to be otherwise probably meant to be "unfit". Which inturn could have risen in a form of a mutation?

 

But please, tell me where do you see the evolution take the Homo-Sapiens (at a Macro-elolution) in say a few hundred or thousand years, assuming that things (natural\ecological environment) will remain the same as we now know.