Since every specie that has ever been around has gone extinct and the trend is sure to continue, one wonders if the next phase in evolution (human) is going to be at the same slow pace like before or is it going to be faster? Especially since we possess consciousness (though others before us did too but at very low level) and know what is going around, we may consciously try to find ways to adapt to environment. Any thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I think science is already predicting that as the merging of man and machine.
America is going to eat itself to death.
Humanity will extinct itself. The cockroach will invent Trans-Warp Drive. The honey bee will invent Trans-Dimensional Vectors. The ant will invent Quantum Tunneling Stargates.
rmfr
Homo sapiens will acquire a sixth finger to better operate computers, notebooks and cell phones. It is happening now:
Fiingers
- see particularly ulnar or postaxial polydactyly.
If you currently only have five fingers you are already losing the struggle for survival.
The extra digit will enhance productivity in the workplace hence help ensure continued employment and income and therefore, survival in times of high unemployment..
We will also acquire a second pair of eyes, or at least a third eye. on our foreheads to ensure we do not walk into sign posts in the street, or into flowing traffic, while texting.
The next step would be most significantly represented by genetic engineering.
Humans will evolve themselves by using genetic engineering and Cybernetics.
My guess: cybernetic helper monkeys.
Or at least according to Sheldon...
@Hitch
If humans manage to keep up the ever increasing pace of advancement they have had in the last 100 years into the next 1000 and not suffer some sort of slow down/dark age like event, I suspect that yes, we would ever increasingly modify ourselves via machine, something that has been underway for a long time but will as with everything else continue to increase. Heck we may even be able to upload our consciousness into an advanced internet of sorts and take command of highly complex robot bodies, split our consciousness, duplicate our selves (electronically) etc.
Human/machine advancement and augmentation has been on going for quite a while, even basic reading glasses that corrects near/far sightedness is in a way a machine that augments us to improve ourselves. This trend will continue as we continuously tread into designer baby territory, as well as continue to improve upon electronics such as the smartphone, smart wearables like iwatch etc. all of which augments us, without it being as scary as installing computer chips in our heads. Already most of us in the western world have grown used to and take advantage of the fact we can talk to almost anyone almost anywhere at any time, as well as look up the information that would normally take a gigantic library to hold, all within seconds on our phone.
However as human population continues to increase and global resources continues to dwindle, there is a very real chance the environment that allows us to innovate so quickly may disappear. Heck Trump can decide he is having a bad day because someone made fun of him, and start a nuclear war that wipes us all out tomorrow, basically we humans now have the capability to either slowly or quickly doom ourselves, will humans advance enough quick enough to save ourselves from ourselves? We will probably find out that answer within the next 100 years, if not, far less than that.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hitch,
"Any thoughts?"
Try these thoughts =
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/what-will-hu...
Someone, probably in China, will start producing genetically enhanced babies with IQs in the 500s and super-strong, disease-proof bodies. These new people, homo super-sapiens, will be practically eternal and will see standard homo sapiens as a threat to their habitat. They'll create viruses to eliminate us. Maybe if we're lucky they'll keep a few of us in zoos.
@LogicFTW
Agreed. We are already augmenting ourselves with machines. I think in the next say 500-1000 years, humans from one part of the planet will differentiate significantly from those residing other parts of the earth. E.g. Compare people in UK and middle east.
I think it is likely that that difference may result in speciation. Although there will be gene flow between them but if the same trends continue speciation is likely.
People in the third world are likely to remain undeveloped (because of various factors e.g. terrorism) and people in developed countries are likely to develop further (and likely snatch resources from third world which becomes another factor in lack of development in third world). If such trends continue for long, speciation will be very likely.
Just my thoughts!
P.S. by speciation i mean the initial separation
Genetic engineering is next. Technology will dictate its pervasiveness...and technology advances significantly faster than nature. Good or bad, it's already here.
So many answers but nothing interesting.
I have a basic understanding of evolution so correct me if I make a mistake here:
All posts seem to answer what will happen to human beings next or how will humans look in the next 500-1000 years or how will technology influence the human future etc., but I think the most interesting aspect to discuss is how would natural selection alter our species in the future (next 10,000 years and further).
Taking an example of how the bears evolved into the polar bear (based on a documentary I saw, I might be wrong). The bears that lived in the snow had a tactical advantage to hunt and hide if their fur was white and hence the genes responsible for this got passed on into the next generations. The brown bears in the snow weren't at an advantage and hence couldn't pass on their genes. And the only way genes pass on to future generations is if you can mate. So, MATING is basically a test for the right gene.
In the present context, there is absolutely no fixed/consistent reason as to why one would not mate with the other (ignoring the diseases/disorders). So, how will natural selection work? Will all the genetic changes be passed on to future generations (so get ready for more diversity) as there is not a single consistent advantageous gene change?
All this might sound Rickdiculous. But hey, that's me.
@Rickdiculous
I actually think we already mostly stopped natural selection for humans. As the far and away premier apex species on the planet that completely dominates all other life on the planet, natural selection for many humans is at a virtual stand still, even the mighty mosquito is being tamed in many places, including africa. With average life spans hitting 70+ we are more or less dying of old age instead of dying off via natural selection. If the human race and all we built regresses, (a sustained global total collapse of all economies along with the collapse of all pre-built infrastructure, then maybe natural selection will start to come back into play in a major way for humans.
In the first 100,000 years or so of human evolution, if you were born blind, or deaf, or missing a limb, it was likely natural selection would kill such a person long before a chance to mate. Not true anymore for humans.
We humans have already mostly circumvented this. I could freeze my sperm and if a female so chose to, 1000 years from now and the cryo storage of the sperm lasted that long they could choose have my gene offspring, 1000 years after I died. I can even pick the gender and other desirable traits or eliminate undesirables, designer babies are already here, it just is limited in scope mainly due to morality issues. Lots of people take issue to playing "god" with genes and fear the rise of super humans that have more advantages than simply being born to the right parents.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
LogicFTW: "I actually think we already mostly stopped natural selection for humans."
I agree. Once we started caring for the invalid members of our species, natural selection partially ended, but not completely. And what I mean by invalid members can include those with poor eyesight by correcting it with glasses, those born with genetic malformities such as rheumatoid arthritis, etc., etc., etc. The list is endless. I know this may seem cruel, but it is also true. What is that old adage about the truth? It hurts. Sometimes terribly. However, who, in today's society, is going to agree with a species-wide eugenics project to only breed children with excellent genetics? I would not. Besides, with today's advanced medical science, many of those malformities can be corrected. A good example is our twin daughters. They were born with the genetic malformity of a mild form of leukemia. It was eradicated. However, that did not mean they would not encounter further problems as they aged. Additionally, the would have passed on those genes to their offspring.
Basically, the human species is still evolving through natural selection. Regardless of what others may think to the contrary. Currently, we are having to deal with the anthropogenic modifications we have made to the biosphere, mainly the greatly increased amount of carbon dioxide we have dumped into the atmosphere. In one research paper I wrote in college, one interesting fact I discovered is that about one in three children today have some form of asthma. Mainly due to the fact that the largely accepted maximum level of CO2 in atmosphere is 300ppm. And we have exceeded this level since 1989. Humans today, are evolutionarily having to deal with this problem. However, it will probably take about another 10 to 20 generations before this is compensated through natural selection.
Another example. The continued high levels of lactose intolerance. Where did this come from? Geneticists have found that the modern human species was actually entirely lactose intolerant. However, due to the manufacturing of butter, cheese, and other "milk" products, the human species has been evolving to be able to gastroenterologically process lactose. And this is something that genetically may never be gotten rid of, even through natural selection because the genes will still be present.
rmfr
@arakish
I find the debate on eugenics a fascinating one, -IF- the religious crap does not get into it. On a strictly scientific basis I feel the argument is wide open, and I am not even sure where I stand on it, which is probably why I find it a very interesting debate, other subjects like if there's a god or not, or right to live vs right to choose is pretty much settled in my mind, eugenics, I am not sure yet.
I am quite against a "master race" idea or white supremacy, additionally I think designer babies will only further widen the inequality gaps, as currently designer baby stuff is only available to the very richest of people. However, I think if one or both parents carry a highly undesirable genetic trait that they would want their kid(s) to be free of, it should be allowed to do so, especially for the most crippling of "genetic disease."
Where and how do we draw the line? Can we tell parents they can edit out down syndrome, but they are not allowed to choose eye color or gender, (both of which to my understanding, is actually quite a bit easier?)
What about sickle cell anemia? It only affects about 1 in 100,000 people but, 1 in 13 black or african-american babies are born with sickle cell trait. However people with sickle cell disease seem to have a stronger resistance to malaria. If humans conqueror Malaria to the point it is almost non-existent, should everyone be allowed to screen out dna that leads to sickle cell anemia?
Will be interesting to see what happens with asthma rates moving into the future, air pollution rates are down in much of the US compared to last century, but certainly air pollution is going up in other countries. However there is more then simply outside air pollution. Many people live in modern highly sealed homes now. Small particulate pollution can be much worse inside a home then outside if people are not careful, burning incense, candles, and especially those automatic "glade" like scented plug ins, dumps tons of tiny particulate in the air that can harm lungs, especially that of a child. Cooking in a well sealed home w/o running the fan, a real fireplace that the chimney/flue is not cleaned or working properly, living in a basement with high radon, etc etc the list goes on. And then there of course is: parents that smoke, probably the biggest single cause. If everyone took care of these indoor sources of air pollution asthma rates will likely decrease drastically.
Did not know that about lactose intolerance. I always wondered who were the first people to decide oh hey, this here gentle domestic animal, that will allow us near its mammary glands if we feed it and care for it, we will go ahead and eat/drink that. Or seperate it out some then let parts of it go bad in a controlled way, yeah let's eat/drink that! Pretty messed up when you think about it, imagine if people did the same to their large female pet dogs (drink their milk when they are lactating), a thought almost so revolting to just about everyone, I could get in trouble just mentioning it.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
Yeah, eugenics is a fascinating subject. However, to use it for a "master race" or "genetically pure" humans is not what it should be used for. Then I have to ask, what is a "master race" or "genetically pure" human? There is far too much poisons we dumped onto old Mother Earth for us to probably even create a "genetically pure" human. There are also far too many other mutative factors about the world for "genetically pure" to ever be accomplished.
My whole take on any eugenics project would be, "Just let nature and natural selection take its course." If we should fail to survive as a species, then how is that any different than the many other mass extinctions that occurred on this planet?
And yeah, artificial genetic manipulation would be nothing more than a huge divide amongst the species. As you said, only the very rich would be able to afford it. That is why I do believe there should be some controls emplaced. Then you have the black market to deal with. And some countries who would not control it, rather further it to allow them to become dominant.
That is a mess. I feel if artificial genetic manipulation to get rid of the "crippling" genetics malformities should be available to all regardless of ability to pay.
Then comes a really good question. If we could know our daughters did have the possibility to have leukemia, would my wife and I have opted for genetic manipulation to rid them of that possibility before they were born? That is a tough question. My immediate response would be yes. However, how would we know that manipulation to get rid of that leukemia would not have created any worse problems later on down the road? And that is the question that should be thought over very hard.
As for the lactose intolerance thing, what you said reminded me of what Sam Kenison once said about the oyster. Whatever made the first person look at an oyster and think it would be good to eat. Think about it. When you open an oyster, it looks like something that fell out of an oxe's nose. Still cracks me to this day.
And definitely. It has been proven that the air inside a house can actually be more polluted than outside air. However, during the winter, how many are going to spend all day outside in the cold? Obversely the same for summer.
Human pollution and poisoning of the biosphere is the biggest problem we face. Are we going to clean up our mess? Or, are we going to leave for our descendants to evolve into adapting to it?
I always love that one saying that Cherokee Native American said to me once, “We do not inherit the land from our ancestors. We are borrowing it from our descendants.”
rmfr
@arakish
Agree with all you wrote, good post.
HAH! now it will crack me up when I see one. Also have you seen the recent meme going around about oysters? For a laugh, google "moister than an oyster"
Good question. Air pollution is pretty insane, one we humans have gotten better with in western countries compared to mid 20th century, but still needs a lot of work. Everyone is so worried about radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, as well as they should be, but at the same time coal burning releases far more nuclear waste, strait into the air. We are all breathing in radioactive particles everyday in low concentrations thanks to coal plants, that people insist on having over nuclear because nuclear is to crazy. In the US no one has died from nuclear power plant accident, but the number of people that have had their lives cut short by coal burning power plant pollution? Many thousands. (add in the coal mining industry and that number goes up even higher.)
That is a great quote, will have to remember that one.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I think you are missing a key element to natural selection. Diversification of species generally occurs after massive disasters, when populations dwindle. Survival has been of a pretty level playing field for the past few thousand years and human beings have flourished. We have seen increases in longevity, intelligence, immunity, and later menopause for women. Emphasis in the modern world has moved from muscle strength to mind strength and this has placed a woman's ability on par with a man's. We are still evolving. Each generation is a movement in some direction. Which changes will best adapt to the next global disaster is up for grabs. Those will be the surviving traits passed on to humankind.
Personally, I am anxiously waiting for bionic hearing and x-ray vision. Especially x-ray vision. That would be awesome... *sigh*... *far away dreamy stare*....
For humans, I think wisdom teeth will go, followed by the wee toe. I also think that what is commonly thought of as racial differences will go away.
With advances in technology and our interaction with such I expect our bodies would become smaller and much less muscular. Our cranial size should increase to accommodate larger data processing. I believe our eyes would still be used as an interface, and would grow larger and darker to accommodate the technology. Since we wouldn't use spoken word in machine interface due to the complexities and variations in speech, and also the change to a mostly liquid diet, our mouth's would decrease in size significantly. Because sexual selection is no longer a deciding factor we would lose all our hair. Due to the pure nature of our food we would lose the function of our kidneys causing a 'grey' appearance of the skin.
Then once we realize that our genetic extinction is inevitable, we will invent time travel and come back to this time in disc like time machines to get primal genetic samples by abducting people and probing them.
@Fallen Re: "With advanced technology...."
Thank you, you little scamp. That was a good chuckle... *chuckle*... *big grin*...
Interesting topic this...however it is noticeable that jaw sizes have decreased over the last 10,000 years allowing for a larger cranium and some dentists are now reporting that jaw sizes of modern day children are smaller than the 19th century. Unfortunately for many kids, teeth have stubbornly retained their old size and shape causing severe problems in some cases.
Although the the evidence is mainly anecdotal there is a large study now underway ...and fashion pics do tell the story for the millenials! Compare their faces to those of the twenties and even the fifties.
I reckon the biggest change will be in the shape of the face with smaller jaws giving a much more triangle like appearance this will give the appearance of larger eyes and a larger head...and may indeed result in those changes. Here's an interesting digest of the changes to our teeth and jaws...https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/103618
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I woke up this morning with an extra penis on my forehead! EVOLUTION! It's real!!!
Dickhead!
I meant that In the nicest possible way for calling someone a dickhead..
When I dunk my head under the water it Bobs.
For all the posts which predict natural changes in our anatomy, how do you think all that is gonna happen?
I mean, like I explained before, if there is no consistent reason as to why one would/would not mate, I do not expect to see any trend in evolution. All gene changes (if they happen) will be passed on to future generations. I would expect a more diverse human population in the future.
Speciation - Evolutionary Magic. How do you think we got Tin Man and typing monkeys or trees that talk?
Hey. I resemble that remark.
;-P
rmfr
@Cog Re: "How do you think we got Tin Man..."
I was told I was made from parts of the back seat of a '67 Chevy and a bunch of scrap metal from a drive-in theater. Of course, I was really young when I was told that, so I could have heard it wrong.... *scratching chin*...
Pages