|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2005 : 19:59:28
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/
An interesting read.
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
latsot
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2005 : 08:10:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/
An interesting read.
Interesting, yes. But (I think) fairly dubious. A discussion on these topics might indeed be interesting.... Anyone up for that?
r |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 08:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But (I think) fairly dubious.
Dubious at the least.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 08:41:07 [Permalink]
|
Agree. I'm with Dawkins, here; I do not think it is possible to predict the evolution of any species beyond conjecture. We have little idea of what the enviornment will be like even a mere century from now, much less thousands of years into the future, nor how it might affect us for good or ill.
But, I suppose it's fun to speculate.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 08:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Speculating is fun, and a great imagination exercise.
I could add humans adapted to liquid environments, to total darkness, to low gravity, to extreme heat... the possibilities are endless. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 08:51:48 [Permalink]
|
This is actually a question I've thought about for a long time. I have tened to agree with Dawkins in that it's pointless to speculate, if only because the "circumstances in which "spin-off" human species could develop" are unlikely. Humans travel the world with ease and it's hard to imagine that a particular gene pool could remain isolated for that long. I mean, even if some odd mutations, etc., started to appear in North Korea, would that population remain isolated enough over time to see a true "spin-off" emerge? I doubt it.
Indeed, reading ahead in the article (I'm typing as I read), we read thatquote:
Biologists say that different populations of a species have to be isolated from each other in order for those populations to diverge into separate species. That's the process that gave rise to 13 different species of "Darwin's Finches" in the Galapagos Islands.
Of course, it then asks "but what if the human species is so widespread there's no longer any opening for divergence?" The answer posed is a "unihuman" race. Interesting concept, indeed. And while I don't know if that's possible, the worry that a more genetically uniform gene pool is a bad thing.
I find the doomsday scenario more likely:quote:
a civilization-shattering catastrophe serves to divide humanity into separate populations, vulnerable once again to selection pressures. For example, people who had more genetic resistance to viral disease would be more likely to pass on that advantage to their descendants.
If different populations develop in isolation over many thousands of generations, it's conceivable that separate species would emerge. For example, that virus-resistant strain of post-humans might eventually thrive in the wake of a global bioterror crisis, while less hardy humans would find themselves quarantined in the world's safe havens.
The "nuhuman" concept is also possible, though Garreau's speculation that it could happen in 20 years seems a bit far fetched.
The cyborg option is also viable, but I am also not sure that the technologies needed to fully integrate humans with computers/machines in a Star Wars/Star Trek sort of way (or even close) is really not so near.
I think one result of this article-- more than anything-- is that I'm going to have to get some of these books to read. If anyone else is interested, we can read some of these together and have a discussion over at the Book Reviews folder...
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 11:11:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by filthy:We have little idea of what the enviornment will be like even a mere century from now, much less thousands of years into the future, nor how it might affect us for good or ill.
quote:
Posted by Cune:I have tened to agree with Dawkins in that it's pointless to speculate, if only because the "circumstances in which "spin-off" human species could develop" are unlikely.
It fails to consider that evolution, for the most part, and especially in organisms with significant life spans, occurs over immense time spans. Hundreds of thousands of years, even for events like the Cambrian explosion.
A true speciation event for isolated populations of humans would take a long long time.
And, as filthy has said, we have no true way of predicting the environment's future. Any change catastrophic enough to currently exert selection pressures on H. sapiens is just as likely to cause our extinction. As our knowledge and technology increase in scope, this only becomes more true.
Out of all the scenarios presented in that article the cyborg is the only one that I think has any chance of becomming partially realized in the next few centuries. A blending of artificial tech with our biological systems seems inevitable. There is quite a bit of work currently underway on such efforts, I have read recent articles on implanting light sensors into eyes and directly stimulating the optic nerve(focused on blindness currently, but the implications....), and on implanted chips that allow quadraplegics to type out words.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 12:40:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A true speciation event for isolated populations of humans would take a long long time.
I would say it could take a long long time. There are several documented instances of fairly quick speciation events. In one example salmon separated in different pools evolved reproductive isolation in ~13 generations. That would only be roughly 250 years for humans. Still quite a while for a human population to remain totally isolated in today's environment.
However I think if the conditions were right 1) a fairly small founding population with 2) total genetic isolation and 3) a unique set of selective pressures and 4) the right set of mutations a new "human" species could evolve in less than 1000 years.
My point is that speciation doens't have to be a terribly long process and under the right conditions it appears that it can be fairly fast.
However I wonder how much human sexual behavior would slow this process. It seems that reproductive isolation would be harder to evolve in separate human populations than in fish or other animals that rely more on instictual behavior as opposed to cultural. If we see somthing that appears remotely human it appears we are quite willing to get busy with it (and in some cases not even remotely human >:-D) However for example birds will not reproduce with a prospective mate if the song is not the same.
Edited to fix spelling error |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 06/06/2005 12:41:51 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 13:15:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My point is that speciation doens't have to be a terribly long process and under the right conditions it appears that it can be fairly fast.
It can. But most often it takes significant ammounts of time.
N America as an example. How long were the native Americans living isolated from other populations of humans?
The selective pressures would have to be intense to have reproductive isolation among human populations in 1000 years, I think. And with every technological advance we seperate ourselves further from natural selection pressures.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 16:27:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Out of all the scenarios presented in that article the cyborg is the only one that I think has any chance of becomming partially realized in the next few centuries. A blending of artificial tech with our biological systems seems inevitable. There is quite a bit of work currently underway on such efforts, I have read recent articles on implanting light sensors into eyes and directly stimulating the optic nerve(focused on blindness currently, but the implications....), and on implanted chips that allow quadraplegics to type out words.
There are already chips that can be connected with nerves, allowing paraplegics to walk. My professor happens to work with research on that area. I've also seen something about a chip prototype that can be planted in a blind person's eye. Last time I saw anything about it, it caused people who had become blind due to accident/disease to see vague lights. This was a good two years ago. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2005 : 16:57:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Out of all the scenarios presented in that article the cyborg is the only one that I think has any chance of becomming partially realized in the next few centuries. A blending of artificial tech with our biological systems seems inevitable. There is quite a bit of work currently underway on such efforts, I have read recent articles on implanting light sensors into eyes and directly stimulating the optic nerve(focused on blindness currently, but the implications....), and on implanted chips that allow quadraplegics to type out words.
There are already chips that can be connected with nerves, allowing paraplegics to walk. My professor happens to work with research on that area. I've also seen something about a chip prototype that can be planted in a blind person's eye. Last time I saw anything about it, it caused people who had become blind due to accident/disease to see vague lights. This was a good two years ago.
Don't forget the Cochlea implant was the first of these types of implants and it is extremely successful. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 16:48:28 [Permalink]
|
Scientific American Frontiers recently aired a show about the cochlear implant and an experimental light sensitive chip implanted in the eye. Cool stuff, though still pretty rudimentary (compared to the biological equipment at least).
As for predicting where things are going, nobody has ever been very accurate. There is just so much we don't know and so many factors involved that it seems damn near impossible to nail the future down. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 17:37:28 [Permalink]
|
I finally found this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050129/bob8.asp
Controlling the mouse with your mind! I first heard about this a few years ago. Back then they could make the mouse move. They've really come a long way. I've also seen a picture of the same person in the above article drawing a circle.
There's also research being done on artificial muscles. But there was a contest recently and a 17yo high school girl beat the artificial arms.
http://ndeaa.jpl.nasa.gov/nasa-nde/lommas/aa-hp.htm
The cyborg option isn't just speculation, we're doing it now. The only question is when, and how wide spread is it going to be - will it remain a solution to those with disabilities or will other people get the same thing done to them? I, for one would love to control the mouse and a keyboard with my brain - no more RSI. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 18:51:21 [Permalink]
|
I know my wife would love to have a fully cybernetic spine. A more-or-less permanent end to her backaches.
And, of course, there's no reason to stop with a keyboard and mouse, when you "jack in" to the computer, it would also display information for you overlaid on your normal vision, and directly inject audio into your audic nerves. Personally, I want the version that also includes taste and touch inputs.
Just gotta read lots of "cyberpunk" novels to get into the mindset of wanting to have every natural system in your body replaced with hardware. And it's just a matter of time before that hardware becomes available. Well, most of it.
Off topic, but I once asked a dentist if I could have teeth like jaws. The dentist told me he could do the work for me, but he wouldn't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 10:47:39 [Permalink]
|
The future of human evolution is this,
1) humans develop huge dependencies on anti-viral/bacterials, super bug kills most of the humans, the rest of them are partially or totally immune.(I'll leave out Randy Flag)
Really I think the term evolution should be changed for any creature with the knowedge and most definite inclination to self-modify. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 11:27:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
The future of human evolution is this,
1) humans develop huge dependencies on anti-viral/bacterials, super bug kills most of the humans, the rest of them are partially or totally immune.(I'll leave out Randy Flag)
Really I think the term evolution should be changed for any creature with the knowedge and most definite inclination to self-modify.
Why? It's just change of genetic material over time. I'd say that however the fitness function is defined is irrelevant. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
