Arts & Literature2 mins ago
Are We Doomed?
http://
and if so, is science to blame?
and if so, is science to blame?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Yes I believe we (I assume you mean our species and by doomed you mean extinction) should accept we will become extinct at some point in the not so distant future. Why? The simple answer is that we are collectively too primitive to ever reach a global consensus about how we may all learn to live together in a sustainable relationship with the planet we depend on...
01:25 Sun 24th May 2015
Yes I believe we (I assume you mean our species and by doomed you mean extinction) should accept we will become extinct at some point in the not so distant future.
Why? The simple answer is that we are collectively too primitive to ever reach a global consensus about how we may all learn to live together in a sustainable relationship with the planet we depend on for our survival.
I was in Creswell Crags a couple of weeks ago for a lecture on the Human presence in early Britain. How did we modern humans originating from today's Indian Ocean South African coast manage to break out of Africa and all that followed?
Chris Stringer's answer was nothing more than our breakout was more fortuitous in terms of the beginning of the current interglacial period we now take for granted than those who had gone before. His exact words were- 'We got lucky'.
Such good fortune breeds arrogance and even now a new World War between the Islamic State and the rest of the World seems as inevitable now as the war we belatedly waged against Hitler's Nazis.
It seems the climatic stability we have enjoyed has allowed an exploitative psychopathic genotype to be over-represented in our gene-pool and now it is only a matter of time till things go thermonuclear.
Does this depress me? As a granddad yes. As a scientist 'Hell No' as someone lost to history said recently. The Sun has billions of main sequence energy left in it to burn for billions of years to come.
For some time now mandrills have been periodically breaking out of the Congo forest and trying, as we did before, to create an enclave. When we are gone it is almost inevitable in the time-span available for other species to reach the same heights as we have, that another species, perhaps the mandrills, will succeed.
Perhaps the only way our species will ever be remembered in galactic history will be as a species whose crass and imbecilic mistakes served as an example to other sentient species who followed us of what not to do.
Why? The simple answer is that we are collectively too primitive to ever reach a global consensus about how we may all learn to live together in a sustainable relationship with the planet we depend on for our survival.
I was in Creswell Crags a couple of weeks ago for a lecture on the Human presence in early Britain. How did we modern humans originating from today's Indian Ocean South African coast manage to break out of Africa and all that followed?
Chris Stringer's answer was nothing more than our breakout was more fortuitous in terms of the beginning of the current interglacial period we now take for granted than those who had gone before. His exact words were- 'We got lucky'.
Such good fortune breeds arrogance and even now a new World War between the Islamic State and the rest of the World seems as inevitable now as the war we belatedly waged against Hitler's Nazis.
It seems the climatic stability we have enjoyed has allowed an exploitative psychopathic genotype to be over-represented in our gene-pool and now it is only a matter of time till things go thermonuclear.
Does this depress me? As a granddad yes. As a scientist 'Hell No' as someone lost to history said recently. The Sun has billions of main sequence energy left in it to burn for billions of years to come.
For some time now mandrills have been periodically breaking out of the Congo forest and trying, as we did before, to create an enclave. When we are gone it is almost inevitable in the time-span available for other species to reach the same heights as we have, that another species, perhaps the mandrills, will succeed.
Perhaps the only way our species will ever be remembered in galactic history will be as a species whose crass and imbecilic mistakes served as an example to other sentient species who followed us of what not to do.
colm; Do you know of W.D. Hamilton, the evolutionary biologist ?
http://
One of his propositions which I find hard to ignore is the manner in which, by constant medical intervention, we are weakening the human genome. It is a terrible dilemma, every time we save the life of a sick child (and who wouldn't?) the potential weakness is passed on. In the domesticated animal world we do the very opposite, as a vet, you will know for example, how by selecting the best with the best we can produce the very finest race-horses, it of course smacks of eugenics, but it makes you think.
http://
One of his propositions which I find hard to ignore is the manner in which, by constant medical intervention, we are weakening the human genome. It is a terrible dilemma, every time we save the life of a sick child (and who wouldn't?) the potential weakness is passed on. In the domesticated animal world we do the very opposite, as a vet, you will know for example, how by selecting the best with the best we can produce the very finest race-horses, it of course smacks of eugenics, but it makes you think.
//In that case Khandro, why are we living longer? //
Yes, in what we call 'The West' individuals surviving birth and infancy unlike a couple of centuries ago, now live longer due to hygiene, diet and medical intervention, but as a species, becoming more dependant on artificial aid, we may be less 'successful' than inhabitants of the rainforests or Nepal, for example.
Hamilton talked of the increasing use of childbirth by caesarean section ultimately, (of course very long term) leading to the burgeoning of a race of narrow-hipped females, in which it might be the only way they could give birth at all.
Yes, in what we call 'The West' individuals surviving birth and infancy unlike a couple of centuries ago, now live longer due to hygiene, diet and medical intervention, but as a species, becoming more dependant on artificial aid, we may be less 'successful' than inhabitants of the rainforests or Nepal, for example.
Hamilton talked of the increasing use of childbirth by caesarean section ultimately, (of course very long term) leading to the burgeoning of a race of narrow-hipped females, in which it might be the only way they could give birth at all.
Hi Khandro,
The process of Darwinian evolution relies on natural selection. This mechanism relies on the increased survival of those best able to survive in any particular ecosystem as opposed to those who are less able.
Our species would perhaps appear to be leaving evolution behind by increasingly allowing survival of the weakest, at least in the countries like ours where our governments can still beg, steal, borrow or just print enough money to create the illusion and keep it going.
That's why human survival is ultimately threatened, for the illusion is not shared by everyone in the human global population, not even close. This leads to global hatred, instability, and conflict as the world's poorest become more desperate and fall prey to those that would turn them into soldiers fighting under a growing number of banners, one of the most recent of which is the black flag of IS.
The global pandemic that was spawned in the trenches of WW1 France killed more people than died in the war itself. Another pandemic may just be round the corner, and may even come from a weaponized virus or other pathogens such as Melioidosis (Burkholderia pseudomallei), also known as the Vietnam Time-bomb, which I remember reading about in Nature as a disease that could be weaponized by terrorists.
Add to that climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, ecosystem collapse, overpopulation...and things are far from peachy. I suspect in the end Darwinian evolution will have the final say.
Re- my earlier post, Miliband in fact said 'Hell yes', not 'Hell no'!
The process of Darwinian evolution relies on natural selection. This mechanism relies on the increased survival of those best able to survive in any particular ecosystem as opposed to those who are less able.
Our species would perhaps appear to be leaving evolution behind by increasingly allowing survival of the weakest, at least in the countries like ours where our governments can still beg, steal, borrow or just print enough money to create the illusion and keep it going.
That's why human survival is ultimately threatened, for the illusion is not shared by everyone in the human global population, not even close. This leads to global hatred, instability, and conflict as the world's poorest become more desperate and fall prey to those that would turn them into soldiers fighting under a growing number of banners, one of the most recent of which is the black flag of IS.
The global pandemic that was spawned in the trenches of WW1 France killed more people than died in the war itself. Another pandemic may just be round the corner, and may even come from a weaponized virus or other pathogens such as Melioidosis (Burkholderia pseudomallei), also known as the Vietnam Time-bomb, which I remember reading about in Nature as a disease that could be weaponized by terrorists.
Add to that climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, ecosystem collapse, overpopulation...and things are far from peachy. I suspect in the end Darwinian evolution will have the final say.
Re- my earlier post, Miliband in fact said 'Hell yes', not 'Hell no'!
The number of individuals in our species is so large it can absorb any weaknesses. There will always be a range from weakest to most fit. Saving folk simply increases variety as one can only cover so much variation with a finite set of genes and it's not unknown for a variation to be both strength and weakness depending on the environment.
Furthermore our advantage of intelligence gives the chance of understanding the genetic field intimately in the future and "correcting/improving" with useful changes
As for computers, ask the question again when they become sentient. Even then why would they not look after their creators ?
Furthermore our advantage of intelligence gives the chance of understanding the genetic field intimately in the future and "correcting/improving" with useful changes
As for computers, ask the question again when they become sentient. Even then why would they not look after their creators ?
OG;I'm glad you re-opened this thread. Have you seen this today?
http://
I don't want you to go to bed on a worried note, but it kinda makes sense I feel.
http://
I don't want you to go to bed on a worried note, but it kinda makes sense I feel.
Was simply bored with recent threads :-O and had a browse in the Science forum.
Yes had seen the headline but thought it old news that the planet was experiencing a mass extinction. Doubt humans will go yet. Although numbers may need to decrease if food supplies become more scarce. Not before time either.
Yes had seen the headline but thought it old news that the planet was experiencing a mass extinction. Doubt humans will go yet. Although numbers may need to decrease if food supplies become more scarce. Not before time either.
Much is made by the more optimistic among us of our superior intelligence in relation to other species on this planet.
While I don't deny our apparent cognitive superiority intelligence. Some including myself believe that the combination of our amplified emotional thinking, idealistic thinking, religious thinking (life after death and Gods of all kinds), and the presence of the psychopathic spectrum now spreading among us, could well have already turned the advantage of our seemingly more intelligent brains into a potential highway to our eventual extinction.
While I don't deny our apparent cognitive superiority intelligence. Some including myself believe that the combination of our amplified emotional thinking, idealistic thinking, religious thinking (life after death and Gods of all kinds), and the presence of the psychopathic spectrum now spreading among us, could well have already turned the advantage of our seemingly more intelligent brains into a potential highway to our eventual extinction.
Against all the odds I actually find myself believing in something, that being that I am a neo-Luddite!
I was going to paste in a good summation of their predictions from Wiki ut I see the site has been altered. Thankfully I copied what I found so persuasive from an earlier iteration,
"These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by genetically modified organisms, nuclear warfare, and biological weapons; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political inequality, widespread social alienation, a loss of community, and massive unemployment; technology causing environmental degradation due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding."
Predictions? Seems to be well under way already!
I think I now understand the destiny of Humanity. We will fail and become extinct. This is not sad because the Sun will still have billions of years to spare for another two or even three sentient species to step up to the plate.
In a sense we were unlucky to be the first. I'm sure the next species, knowing they were not the first, and learning from our moronic mistakes, will stand a far better chance of making it to the stars.
As for us I've stopped even thinking about it. Too primitive I'm afraid to say. No chance for us at all. But that's not to say all of what we did was wasted, far from it. Our legacy will be to make it far more likely for the next contender species to stand a chance.
I was going to paste in a good summation of their predictions from Wiki ut I see the site has been altered. Thankfully I copied what I found so persuasive from an earlier iteration,
"These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by genetically modified organisms, nuclear warfare, and biological weapons; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political inequality, widespread social alienation, a loss of community, and massive unemployment; technology causing environmental degradation due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding."
Predictions? Seems to be well under way already!
I think I now understand the destiny of Humanity. We will fail and become extinct. This is not sad because the Sun will still have billions of years to spare for another two or even three sentient species to step up to the plate.
In a sense we were unlucky to be the first. I'm sure the next species, knowing they were not the first, and learning from our moronic mistakes, will stand a far better chance of making it to the stars.
As for us I've stopped even thinking about it. Too primitive I'm afraid to say. No chance for us at all. But that's not to say all of what we did was wasted, far from it. Our legacy will be to make it far more likely for the next contender species to stand a chance.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Editor's Blog25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
