Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Human Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#18 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:49 PM

If you may recall he was finally given full human status by accepting death. There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.


There was also a point in the movie ("Bicentenniel man") that his human wife almost expressed a desire to die. Although physically she could have lasted a lot longer she stated the following "There is a order to things, humans are only meant to be here for a time, then move on." It was almost as though she had something in her internal clock telling her to move on, or maybe she was just getting a little sick of living for all those years.

SigurdV, I haven't given much thought to that far out. When the last star finally burns out it's going to be a very eerie silence.

#19 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:53 PM

If you may recall he was finally given full human status by accepting death. There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.



Are you that sure that natural human evolution does not include our ability to understand and make changes for the better? This world isn't going to support the ever increasing population forever. Without some major changes to the way we do business, I would hazard a guess that in 2 or 3 hundred years, things will be radically different, and not necessarily for the better. If the purpose of evolution is to promote the survival of the species, I would hesitate to put restrictions on our ability to evolve as fast as possible.



Now you are being presumptuous. You don't really know what would happen. So making that statement about a slave class is unfounded. Anything they were enhanced to do better would make them very valuable to us. Just might be the difference in our ability to survive and become a multi planet species.

#20 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:38 PM

[/color]Now you are being presumptuous. You don't really know what would happen. So making that statement about a slave class is unfounded. Anything they were enhanced to do better would make them very valuable to us. Just might be the difference in our ability to survive and become a multi planet species.


Now who is being presumptuous? What defines us as human is the desire to be free. How can one be free in a body designed for a particular purpose? Your destiny has been chosen for you.

#21 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 01:34 PM

Now who is being presumptuous? What defines us as human is the desire to be free. How can one be free in a body designed for a particular purpose? Your destiny has been chosen for you.



Because you have enhanced abilities, you think your destiny has been chosen for you? I don't follow that. For example if your body was radiation resistant and able to live in zero gravity without ill effects would not necessarily mean a restrictive unhappy life. In fact you would have more options than the unfortunates that are unenhanced. Because you can choose to live and work in space. I'm thinking if you grew up enhanced you would actually feel sorry for the less fortunate unenhanced humans.

#22 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:10 PM

http://whatsnext.blo...f-science-2021/

I found this link about shaping the future on all different kinds of fronts in the CNN tech section site.

#23 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:40 PM

If this information is up to date, the oldest person on record lived to be 122 years old (Jeanne Calment):
http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment
http://www.nealirc.o...anLifespan.html

The human body appears to be preprogrammed for a maximum life span of around 120 years (even then that's rare). I think the only way to the fountain of youth is if our brains were transferred into a robotic body (with human appearance).

Which leads me to ask the question, "If a brain was maintained at maximum health, I wonder how long it could survive (assuming there was the means to keep it alive outside a body)"?

I've heard it said that a human brain (if well maintained at optimum levels) could long outlive the rest of the body. Or is that wrong?

#24 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 02:21 PM

If this information is up to date, the oldest person on record lived to be 122 years old (Jeanne Calment):
http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment
http://www.nealirc.o...anLifespan.html

The human body appears to be preprogrammed for a maximum life span of around 120 years (even then that's rare). I think the only way to the fountain of youth is if our brains were transferred into a robotic body (with human appearance).

Which leads me to ask the question, "If a brain was maintained at maximum health, I wonder how long it could survive (assuming there was the means to keep it alive outside a body)"?

I've heard it said that a human brain (if well maintained at optimum levels) could long outlive the rest of the body. Or is that wrong?


It sounds like you don't believe we will be able to prolong human life? I think they are getting close to cracking that problem. Anyway when you think about keeping a human brain alive in a robotic body, Well that's a much tougher problem. Without sensory input from a living body, I'm not very convinced the brain wouldn't go insane in short order.


Currently when you talk about living to 120 years old. That sounds amazing except when you realize that 60 years of that life was spent living as an old person. If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.

#25 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1,115 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:59 AM

If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.

This echoes your horror at the thouhgt of being trapped like Stephen Hawkings in a non-functioning, or poorly functioning body.
Who cares? All the interesting stuff takes place in the mind. As long as that is healthy the condition of the body is secondary. Great if you can run a two hour marathon, but it's not that important.

#26 arKane

arKane

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:05 PM

This echoes your horror at the thouhgt of being trapped like Stephen Hawkings in a non-functioning, or poorly functioning body.
Who cares? All the interesting stuff takes place in the mind. As long as that is healthy the condition of the body is secondary. Great if you can run a two hour marathon, but it's not that important.



If you were Stephen Hawking, wouldn't you care? I care about having "a quality of life". Stephen is making the best of a bad situation, but what happens if his condition reaches a point where he can't communicate with the outside world?

#27 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 28 November 2011 - 01:38 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...lear/index.html

I think it's important to remember along with our evolution in the future there will be the evolution of wildlife. We often use a device called a "shark" in our large water storage tanks and delivery mains. This allows us to inspect them without taking them out of service. As the article states it saves alot of money, but beyond that it's alot safer then sending someone into a dangerous place.

#28 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,751 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:11 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/tech/innovation/snake-arm-robot-nuclear/index.html

I think it's important to remember along with our evolution in the future there will be the evolution of wildlife. We often use a device called a "shark" in our large water storage tanks and delivery mains. This allows us to inspect them without taking them out of service. As the article states it saves alot of money, but beyond that it's alot safer then sending someone into a dangerous place.


i think they call similar devices in oil lines "pigs". very cool.

now what I think is important is to clarify that it is incorrect and misleading to not specify when talking about "biological evolution" vs. social, cultural, technological, etcetera "evolution". in the former the "gradual directional change" is genetic, whereas in the latter "evolution" is "any gradual directional change". making ourselves into borg's is not biological evolution, nor even is altering an individual's genes unless they somehow breed/reproduce [succesfully]. then too there is all the time natural genetic drift occuring and there is no guarantee that genetic enhancements will take, or take as expected, many generations down a breeding line.

we have not biologically evolved to be technological, we have biologically evolved the ability to be technological. the biological evolution of wildlife has a tougher road to hoe as by all accounts they have not co-evolved technological abilities anywhere on the order of ours. hopefully we humans are making a gradual directional change toward acting like good stewards. :earth:

ps when are they supposed to thaw out ted william's head?

#29 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:31 PM

i think they call similar devices in oil lines "pigs". very cool.

now what I think is important is to clarify that it is incorrect and misleading to not specify when talking about "biological evolution" vs. social, cultural, technological, etcetera "evolution". in the former the "gradual directional change" is genetic, whereas in the latter "evolution" is "any gradual directional change". making ourselves into borg's is not biological evolution, nor even is altering an individual's genes unless they somehow breed/reproduce [succesfully]. then too there is all the time natural genetic drift occuring and there is no guarantee that genetic enhancements will take, or take as expected, many generations down a breeding line.

we have not biologically evolved to be technological, we have biologically evolved the ability to be technological. the biological evolution of wildlife has a tougher road to hoe as by all accounts they have not co-evolved technological abilities anywhere on the order of ours. hopefully we humans are making a gradual directional change toward acting like good stewards. :earth:

ps when are they supposed to thaw out ted william's head?


That's a good point Turtle they would be two diiferent things. I had not looked at it in that light and there is definite distinction between the two. There is one certainty though, as we move hundreds or even millions of years in the future humans will continue to replace/add our body parts with artificial ones. Anything from a contact lens to a to our heads floating around on a levitating disc, but I agree with you none of that would be biological evolution.

#30 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:40 PM

It sounds like you don't believe we will be able to prolong human life?...Currently when you talk about living to 120 years old. That sounds amazing except when you realize that 60 years of that life was spent living as an old person. If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.


I would like to think we could live longer but unless there's quality of life, why would anyone want to? Then there's the idea that we're biologically programmed to die, the ceiling being 120 years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...er_script.shtml

Other's believe the fountain of youth can be found in a bottle:
http://www.lieberton...9/rej.2010.1085

#31 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 03:57 PM

I often visit a 91 yr old relative of mine in a nursing home. She is still of sound mind and except for losing some sight in one eye her quality of life is fairly good. Still, She often complains to me that she has lived too long. All her brothers died years ago as did her only daughter in 1993. She has stated many times that people shouldn't out live their children and that she should have died years ago.

I'd be interested to find out how the rich oil man's family in dd's BBC article would handle this situation. Let's say ten yrs from now he is still alive, but has serious dementia. The family follows his last wishes and gives him the fountian of youth Kool-ade. If he lives another 200 yrs with that mind would he still be OK with that if asked today? If doctors in the far future could re-programme his mind with new characteristics and personality to rid him of the dementia would the family do that? If so who's mind would they use as a model for this new personality? Either way you will never get dear ole gran papy back the way he was, and like you stated earlier dduckwessel without the quality of life staying alive would become more of a chore as opposed to the precious span of time that it is for us now.

#32 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7,123 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:55 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/living_forever_script.shtml

From this 2000 article:


NARRATOR: Inside this limousine is a Texan oil millionaire and he wants to live forever, but he’s already nearing the end of his life. Miller Quarles is 85. He has offered a fortune to anyone who can prevent him from dying.

MILLER QUARLES : I’m leading an extremely happy life and that’s one of the reasons I’m willing to spend a lot of money to just to stay this way. I believe that, the cure of old age has got to come, it’ll come very earliest within a year, 5 years probable, 10 years a cinch.

From this 2010 obituary:


QUARLES, Miller W., 95, retired geophysicist, of Austin, formerly of Houston, died Tuesday


Quarles’s belief that he could avoid dying was mistaken, demonstrating that which, for most of us I expect, needed no demonstration: that the opinion of an oil millionaire on the subject of life extension isn’t more authoritative than anyone else's, and less that that of the many physiologists who believe medically induced immortality remains a hard-to-achieve goal.

#33 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:41 PM

Quarles’s belief that he could avoid dying was mistaken, demonstrating that which, for most of us I expect, needed no demonstration: that the opinion of an oil millionaire on the subject of life extension isn’t more authoritative than anyone else's, and less that that of the many physiologists who believe medically induced immortality remains a hard-to-achieve goal.


Reading the obituary you provided, he died at 95 (which in itself is longer than most but I don't know if he enjoyed quality of life!). Though I think that we are preprogrammed to die I also believe that we can live to be much older and healthier than many presently do. The average life expectancy in Canada is 80.7 (2009 figures - http://www.google.ca...life expectancy) and the U.S. (Virgin Islands are slightly higher than rest of US) slightly lower than Canada at 78.1 (again using 2009 figures).

I think if we lower our caloric intake and eat only very healthy foods, drink red wine in moderation, exercise moderately and take ta-65 we just might be able to add 20 years (give or take) of quality living to our lives.

#34 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:07 PM

If you were Stephen Hawking, wouldn't you care? I care about having "a quality of life". Stephen is making the best of a bad situation, but what happens if his condition reaches a point where he can't communicate with the outside world?


I think you're right, Mr. Hawking has made the best of a bad situation and I'm sure invested lots in the hopes of finding a cure for his condition, which I read is progressive in nature. I personally think that any future cure for a condition such as his must be administered inutero, before the damage becomes irreversible.

I can't help thinking that something like Lorenzo's Oil (http://en.wikipedia....oleukodystrophy) is the key because some of the same symptoms that affected Lorenzo, also affect Mr. Hawking...