Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

Auqakah · 2003-01-19 13:04:08

I was just thinking.

No, don't act all shocked. :;):

Seriously. I was thinking, 'Are humans still actually evolving, or are we doing something different?'

Assuming we 'evolved' as perception suggests, anyway. (Don't leap on me for that. I feel compelled to say it. Ignore it.)

I'm basing the question on one thing: in the last few hundred years, humanity has slowly gained more control over its future. Today, it /might/ be said that we have utter and complete control over the direction of our species. Not right now, perhaps, but the fact that that control is within grasp is a bit like the observer affecting the observed - we can see the benefits, and are thus affected by them even though they aren't yet available.

So the question is, are we still /actually/ evolving, or is what is happening a form of forced evolution?

In which case, can we expect far more turbulent times ahead than ever before due to the fact that the forced evolution will progress us at an unnatural rate?

And lastly, do you think the fact that humanity has spread to more areas of the globe in greater population density has affected the emotional stability of our species, due to a lower proportion of the general world population living in areas that recieve a higher proportion of sunshine the year round?

Adrian · 2003-01-19 13:20:57

Moved to Science and Technology forum.

Phobos · 2003-01-19 15:37:09

Seriously. I was thinking, 'Are humans still actually evolving, or are we doing something different?'

The consensus seems to be that natural human evolution will slow down to almost a standstill since the population is so large and highly mobile. Changes to the genetic code that would build up over time in smaller, more isolated populations become more diluted the larger, more spread out, and mobile a population is. I believe your right in that the future of our evolution will probably be consciously directed. I'm not sure though that that evolution will necessarily always be biological in nature. We could make ourselves far more intelligent and robust if we get to the point where we can merge with our own machines. I think things like AI augmentation and replacement of body parts with truly artificial but organic acting materials may eventually lead us to stray from the biological path altogether since an AI is far easier to design from the ground up and doesn't rely on slow chemical processes for thinking and acting. Nanotech is the technology that could make all of this possible but I guess time will tell.

soph · 2003-01-19 17:48:55

maybe if we did that, we wouldnt have to worry about radiation, and all those anti-nuclears could protest something else.

Auqakah · 2003-01-19 17:57:40

I don't think we need to merge with machines in order to fulfil our potential. Sure, symbiosis with some of the products of nanotech would be great - and I'm all for that. But I'm not all that keen on the whole 'augmenting' thing. Is a very dangerous road to go down, with our current society - with the haves, and the have nots, etc etc.

But rather I think that a better avenue would be simply using machines to deepen our understanding - and thus enhance our perception and get closer to our potential - of the universe, and using machines to do pretty much the same as they've always done - maintain us.

And we don't need to replace anything. Nanotech implants could flit around your brain, delivering messages far faster than chemical messages. And they could be designed to interact alongside those chemical messages - I don't see why we need to become machines, or leave the biological behind at all. That would be to deny what we are, I think, personally.

And that would be a bad thing, IMHO... because we do that too much already.

soph · 2003-01-19 18:13:30

Or we could have immunal nanobots that fight all types of disease-even AIDS.

Auqakah · 2003-01-19 18:31:47

Yup.

Thats exactly the sort of application I was talking about. :;):

Echus_Chasma · 2003-01-19 23:53:11

Would Nano-tech be able to counter the negative effects of increased/decreased gravity?

Auqakah · 2003-01-20 12:38:46

Hmmm.

Yup. Inert machines small enough could probably be used to reinforce every cell in your body, and non-inert versions could 'feed' boron and calcium into your bones, to increase their strength further.

So, yeah, probably.

soph · 2003-01-20 12:59:51

We're already researching medicines that could trigger an increase in protein production-so this could even be done with pharmaceuticals soon enough. ALl the nanobots would have to do is send signals to the chromosomes telling them to make more X protein (actually, more RNA, which codes for that protein).

Echus_Chasma · 2003-01-20 13:03:37

Sweet.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-04 14:08:51

putting nanotech in humans sounds pretty dangerous, and the benefits go only to those who are directly involved in the process. what if the nano tech was damaged by radiation and its own reproduction went out of control. . .it would be worse than cancer. fortantly, if it does, the bearer would probably be killed so quickly the cancerous nanobots would die and run out of energy before finding another host. The benefit sounds questionable at best, with augementation techologys. . .purhaps an inititative would better be suited to focus on the medical possiblitys. (in the short term, not more than, say, 2 weeks, and only with terminal conditions)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-19 13:04:08

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#2 2003-01-19 13:20:57

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#3 2003-01-19 15:37:09

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#4 2003-01-19 17:48:55

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#5 2003-01-19 17:57:40

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#6 2003-01-19 18:13:30

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#7 2003-01-19 18:31:47

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#8 2003-01-19 23:53:11

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#9 2003-01-20 12:38:46

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#10 2003-01-20 12:59:51

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#11 2003-01-20 13:03:37

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

#12 2003-07-04 14:08:51

Re: Human Evolution - :\ description far too large to fit :/

Board footer