The extinction of the human race

[Taxi]

See: The black cloud spreading in the gulf of mexico.

Build more bombs, monkeys.

[President]

I have been thinking about this a lot... It seems there could be far reaching consequences we may have yet to realize. Obviously I have no fucking clue about chemistry or weather but I would hate to see rain cloud with oil contamination. Or thinking about going down to the supermarket and not being able to get salmon/tuna/etc(I know, a ridiculous luxury 50% of the world doesn't have.. but..). Tourism on the beach literally stopping in Mexico and in the US.. possibly further depending on when it stops. Thousands of fishermen out of the job. Oil prices - yet again - rising. .. the list goes on..

[bionicbadger]

Its not like the extinction of the human race would be a big loss. The planet would be better off without humans

[Goobles]

Its not like the extinction of the human race would be a big loss. The planet would be better off without humans

500 years without humans, and it would look like Pandora. Without all the sci fi shit, obv.

[Zordana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo&feature=player_embedded

[stormlord]

The earth is a fkin spaceship. Things need to operate normally. It's leaking oil. Need to fix it. The vast circle of life is just a roundabout way of giving us an atmosphere, water, food, air, natural wonders and security. But just like a spaceship, the earth isn't impenetrable, or infallible either. We gotta keep it in good shape.

I'm assuming we own it and thus it's our property. Do we co-own it possible or maybe we don't even own it at all? Is there any way to know? Fuk that. I say we own it. And we gotta fix it too.

[stormlord]

500 years without humans, and it would look like Pandora. Without all the sci fi shit, obv.

Ya, I saw that on the history channel. Life after people.

I had a physics class where we were drilled about overpopulation. How it would solve most of our problems if we stopped having so many kids. The problem is predominantly one that less developed countries have to cope with. The more educated people have less children. If you look at the earth as a spaceship, that has requirements and limits, then it's not such a commie idea to consider soft population control as acceptable. Best way to go about doing it without draconian measures is to give the developing a countries a leg up so that their poorer population can get educated. What should follow is reduced population growth.

[Taxi]

I'm assuming we own it and thus it's our property. Do we co-own it possible or maybe we don't even own it at all? Is there any way to know? Fuk that. I say we own it. And we gotta fix it too.

We can be like benevolent gods to other animals, or we can be gods of destruction. If the latter part ends up winning, we better build a fucking monolith on the moon imo cuz we lose, GG human race. At least in 65 million years when some monkey-lizard ends up on the moon, they can see a picture that tells "Hi, we were the human race, dont fuck up like we did"

[stormlord]

We can be like benevolent gods to other animals, or we can be gods of destruction. If the latter part ends up winning, we better build a fucking monolith on the moon imo cuz we lose, GG human race. At least in 65 million years when some monkey-lizard ends up on the moon, they can see a picture that tells "Hi, we were the human race, dont fuck up like we did"

Hey you know, WTF do I care about a dolphin on this planet. I want to leave this sh**hole and live in a nebula or a giant asteroid like darth vader or in a double star system on a lifeless blue moon. When we're able to travel cheaply between planets and stars, nobody is going to be concerned with the fking animals on this planet except the same people who have always worried about them. You know, the peta members, the farmers, the animal lovers? We won't be any more godly than we're now. We just won't live here anymore.

We should be working to get out of here, not to baby this place like an ageless caretaker. We were meant to expand and explore. The few people who stay behind to be caretakers are not the majority.

[Taxi]

We should be working to get out of here, not to baby this place like an ageless caretaker. We were meant to expand and explore. The few people who stay behind to be caretakers are not the majority.

I also think we should be working on exploring space, but we still have probably a couple of centuries left before that happens, and right now the chances of surviving those few centuries look slimer with each day that passes by. All our eggs are in a basket called earth, and im not sure what kind of catastrophic event its gonna take for humanity to get its shit together.

Religion sure doesnt help by pushing this toxic idea that its all in god's plan, and that what matters is this hypothetic afterlife, not what we have here right now. Some apocalyptic christians for example not only think that rapture is coming, they are actively working toward making it happen.

Heres a great hour and a half documentary on apocalyptic nuts if anyone is interested:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6439295521791525424#

Yes, im ranting.

[Omnimorph]

nobody is going to be concerned with the fking animals on this planet except the same people who have always worried about them. You know, the peta members, the farmers, the animal lovers?


Farmers don't really care about animals, they care about money :p

[JayDee]

Mister Anderrrson

[Ossigor]

What the hell is that religious doomsday crap video you posted Taxi? Has no bearing in this thread... We're talking about mans self destruction, not some hokey 'zomg jesus gunna zap us' nonsense.

[pickled_heretic]

funfact: time and the universe will eventually cease to exist; it matters not to the cosmos whether we are around for 5 more years or 5 million more years. =)

[guineapig]

I'm so glad I'm a vegetarian and only shop organic.
Shit's so contaminated nowadays....

[Ihealyou]

funfact: time and the universe will eventually cease to exist; it matters not to the cosmos whether we are around for 5 more years or 5 million more years. =)

Are you talking about the end of life, or the end of existence? Assuming that there is an existence outside of the mind, how can existence cease to exist?

Also, organic food contributes to world hunger :p

[Aeolwind]

lol, I've never considered you much of a troll till this post Taxi. All fanatics are fools, regardless of which side of the ball you sit on.

There are less funding cuts to nasa because of religion than healthcare, bailouts or pay raises for the jack asses in Washington.

[mgellan]

All our eggs are in a basket called earth, and im not sure what kind of catastrophic event its gonna take for humanity to get its shit together.

Actually, you're taking the environmentalists at their word that things are getting worse. In reality, if you look at the trends (rather than cherry picking short durations like they do) things have improved in most areas since the movement started in the 70s. The environmental lobby is BIG MONEY and, like all things, they need to stay on the doom and gloom message or the money pipe will slow to a trickle.

Sure there are setbacks (like the BP debacle, and for me the jury is still out on Global Warming) but the news is good on most fronts - read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" or see this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

Very controversial work, but makes a lot of sense that the scientists are chasing their grants and the environmentalists are chasing their donations, so it's understandable that the opposition has been fierce, but the work has stood up to scrutiny.

Regards,
Mg

[pickled_heretic]

Are you talking about the end of life, or the end of existence? Assuming that there is an existence outside of the mind, how can existence cease to exist?

Also, organic food contributes to world hunger :p

the universe will either die of entropy or collapse, depending on who you ask. In either outcome, time and existence as we understand it will cease. One or the other (or both) are going to happen with 100% probability, and either outcome will mean the eradication of anything even vaguely resembling life in the universe, so for our purposes the difference is not significant.

Also, play around with this neat little flash animation and then come back and try to tell me anything the human race does will ever matter:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

[guineapig]

Also, organic food contributes to world hunger :p

Not as much as livestock does.

[Ihealyou]

Not as much as livestock does.

Yeah, thats a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of growing organic fruit and vegetables vs. non-organic. Non-organic crops have a higher yield than organic ones.

While we're on this point, you could say that sugar tarrifs lead to increased global hunger too. Farmers grow corn in the US to make corn syrup since its expensive to import sugar, and there is little domestic sugar production. Instead of growing corn to eat or other edible crops, farmers are just making us fat. On a more global scale, places that grow sugar cane, such as South America, are worse off due to the US not importing their sugar.

the universe will either die of entropy or collapse, depending on who you ask. In either outcome, time and existence as we understand it will cease. One or the other (or both) are going to happen with 100% probability, and either outcome will mean the eradication of anything even vaguely resembling life in the universe, so for our purposes the difference is not significant.

Also, play around with this neat little flash animation and then come back and try to tell me anything the human race does will ever matter:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

First, that flash thing was cool :)

I wasn't trying to say that humans matter in the grand scheme of things, or that existence ends with the end of life. If the universe consisted of only a single rock, there would still be existence as the rock needs a framework to exist in.

There are some pretty strong philosophical and physics based arguments for the eternity of existence. Philosophically, it can be argued that existence must have always existed. If there was a time before existence, how was it created? If it was God, what framework did God exist in? There must have been some existence for God, or whoever/whatever created existence, to exist in.

As for the end of existence, mass and energy must be conserved. There would be no way to destroy the energy and mass from the objects already in the universe. Therefore existence must continue, since mass and energy cannot be destroyed and the fact that they need a framework to exist in.

[pickled_heretic]

First, that flash thing was cool :)

I wasn't trying to say that humans matter in the grand scheme of things, or that existence ends with the end of life. If the universe consisted of only a single rock, there would still be existence as the rock needs a framework to exist in.

There are some pretty strong philosophical and physics based arguments for the eternity of existence. Philosophically, it can be argued that existence must have always existed. If there was a time before existence, how was it created? If it was God, what framework did God exist in? There must have been some existence for God, or whoever/whatever created existence, to exist in.

As for the end of existence, mass and energy must be conserved. There would be no way to destroy the energy and mass from the objects already in the universe. Therefore existence must continue, since mass and energy cannot be destroyed and the fact that they need a framework to exist in.
In the case of death by entropy, all of the energy and matter of the universe will be distributed evenly across a plane that is infinite in size. The only way that we can describe this state is timeless nonexistence. The example of your rock is meaningless. If all of the matter in your rock could be said to exist evenly across a plane of infinite size, the rock would not be observable and it could be said to not exist. In addition, time is relative - it is a tool to measure change. if nothing ever changes anywhere (as it would in a system that has reached an absolute state of entropy) time can be said to be stopped. Both time and existence require some sort of uneven distribution of energy and matter to mean anything; as soon as all matter and energy are completely dispersed they are both meaningless concepts.

In the case of death by collapse, on the other hand, we will pass into the singularity and all methods of explaining time and existence are useless.

[mixxit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqSPahiMxw

[guineapig]

While we're on this point, you could say that sugar tarrifs lead to increased global hunger too. Farmers grow corn in the US to make corn syrup since its expensive to import sugar, and there is little domestic sugar production. Instead of growing corn to eat or other edible crops, farmers are just making us fat. On a more global scale, places that grow sugar cane, such as South America, are worse off due to the US not importing their sugar.



I'm glad you bring up corn. I totally agree with you about corn syrup thing.

On the flip side recently they have started making plastics out of corn which is very exciting! 100% biodegradable packaging... I'm even told that if you at the container, your body would digest it! (I'm not going to test that out however.)

Sorry, I got sidetracked...

[stormlord]

I also think we should be working on exploring space, but we still have probably a couple of centuries left before that happens, and right now the chances of surviving those few centuries look slimer with each day that passes by. All our eggs are in a basket called earth, and im not sure what kind of catastrophic event its gonna take for humanity to get its shit together.

Religion sure doesnt help by pushing this toxic idea that its all in god's plan, and that what matters is this hypothetic afterlife, not what we have here right now. Some apocalyptic christians for example not only think that rapture is coming, they are actively working toward making it happen.

Heres a great hour and a half documentary on apocalyptic nuts if anyone is interested:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6439295521791525424#

Yes, im ranting.

Sadly, you're correct. Religious zealots see most big disasters, even human-caused, as a confirmation that the arrogance of mankind is bottomless. It only deepens their faith and resentment towards the original sin committed by adam and eve. In the past, disasters were seen as a sign of gods wrath. Now, increasingly, they're seen as a sign that the end times are near. I think the idea that humans might one day leave earth soon, or that the earth could be destroyed by humans alone, is reason enough for most religious extremists to suspect that something is up, something big, at least in their crazy swiss cheese mind.

Imho, the bible is a 2000 year old rule book. It might have worked 2000 years ago, but it doesn't work in the 21st century. The 3 major monotheistic religions, which also tend to be the most intolerant, are: judaism, christianity, islam. They're all based on the bible in one form or another - there's just 3 different versions, but it's thrown together like patchwork. Each one considers itself correct, without any room for error. Each one has extremists that go on radio shows or tv shows and talk about the end times and how there's going to be a big war in the middle east. Believe it or not, they ALL say that. Is that what they actually want?

Of all religions, I prefer those that're pagan. That's because they recognize multitudes of gods and, predictably, are usually more tolerant of other people. In the globalized world we live in, you must be tolerant of others beliefs and values. It's increasingly important. Intolerance creates division, and division denies government the ability to govern effectively. Sooner or later, one side or the other will strike back.

North vs South. Black vs White. Holy vs Unholy.

For a taste of christian zealotry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

I've seen the same sh** in judaism and islam. I've seen islamist extremists dancing with joy, screaming death to america, death to israel. Iran's leader is a psycho that believes he spoke with god and that he might bring about the coming of Hadhrat Isa. I've seen israeli settlers, that establish communities in what're essentially illegal settlements, riot for the total annihilation of arabs and invasion of their lands. They all wear a different color, wield a different flag, but they see the same thing: armageddon. These religions, the big three, interpret the bible differently, with predictable results. Essentially, the results favor them, their beliefs and values.

[Ihealyou]

The example of your rock is meaningless. If all of the matter in your rock could be said to exist evenly across a plane of infinite size, the rock would not be observable and it could be said to not exist.

This plane of infinite size would have to reside in some existence, and as you said, the rock exists inside of the plane. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it no longer exists. I can't see the back of my head, but I'm pretty sure it exists. Although the matter of the rock is infinitely dispersed, it hasn't been destroyed. In the case of the singularity, even if everything in the universe was consumed by it, the singularity would still have to exist in some framework. There cannot be something in nothing.

I'm even told that if you at the container, your body would digest it! (I'm not going to test that out however.)


I ate some corn packaging peanuts once :p It kinda tastes like bad popcorn with no flavor.

[Excision Rottun]

I ate some corn packaging peanuts once :p It kinda tastes like bad popcorn with no flavor.


At a trade show last summer I saw a children's "building block" toy made from these that were died with food colouring.

They do indeed taste like bad popcorn / flavourless Corn Pops.

[guineapig]

Delicious!!!

[pickled_heretic]

This plane of infinite size would have to reside in some existence, and as you said, the rock exists inside of the plane. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it no longer exists. I can't see the back of my head, but I'm pretty sure it exists. Although the matter of the rock is infinitely dispersed, it hasn't been destroyed. In the case of the singularity, even if everything in the universe was consumed by it, the singularity would still have to exist in some framework. There cannot be something in nothing.


You're not getting it. If a finite mass resides in an infinite space, it is infinitely insubstantial. It no longer exists in the sense we think of. Our physical definitions of existence are not adequate for the extremes in the universe, only for states of matter that we can observe that are very close to our own.

Likewise for the singularity. No physicist can step through the singularity and theorize what things look like on the other side because the conventional laws of physics (and thus, the laws of all matter and energy) break down at that point. "I don't know" is the best explanation and anyone who says otherwise is a self-important assclown.

[stormlord]

You're not getting it. If a finite mass resides in an infinite space, it is infinitely insubstantial. It no longer exists in the sense we think of. Our physical definitions of existence are not adequate for the extremes in the universe, only for states of matter that we can observe that are very close to our own.

Likewise for the singularity. No physicist can step through the singularity and theorize what things look like on the other side because the conventional laws of physics (and thus, the laws of all matter and energy) break down at that point. "I don't know" is the best explanation and anyone who says otherwise is a self-important assclown.

I think it's cool that the calculated pull between galaxies is too small to account for the observed gravity. They justify this discrepancy by referring to dark matter and/or dark energy as the culprit.

That to me is basically admitting we don't know.

Another example is the orbit time of stars with respect to their distance from the galactic center. When they made the observations it did not correlate with their calculations. Keep in mind that "calculations" means current, cumulative science. If science is unable to predict what's later observed, that puts into question whether the science is even valid. They then proceed to add to the theory or revise it, but the whole affair makes me doubtful that we're 100% correct. Any theory only has to be correct for what's currently known. None of the theories work perfectly in all matters. Whether we're talking about quantum or classical physics, or future observations that don't jibe with our expectations, either way, nothing has 100% explained everything.

Other issues i've seen are the seeming lack of great portions of anti-matter. Where is it? There're supposed to be anti-matter galaxies, but i don't think we've seen them, yet. We have a lot to learn.

If a theory is 99.999999999999% percent correct or it accounts for 99.999999999% of observed phenomena, that's actually very poor. Why? Because even if it accounts for 99.99999999999999% of what's observed, that leaves out millions of years of future advancement and future observation in space/time. We have only seen a small portion of our universe yet we pretend to know almost 100% of it. Great minds in the past made the same mistake. They were right probably 99.99999999% of the time about the observed universe. They assumed that meant that they were close to 100%. We're doing the same thing anytime we say we're close to 100% since our theories account for 99.99999999999999999999999% of observations over time and space.

I'm not saying we should stop researching it. Science, i believe, is the greatest expression of being. It's the language of the universe. It's incredibly important to our survival and growth. I'm only saying that certainty about theories seems to be so commonplace. I don't feel equally certain, but I do think theories are worthwhile. Our theories help us to function well within the known universe, and for that they're necessary.

[Taxi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqSPahiMxw

Were going away, pack your shit folks!

Haha i love George Carlin, never saw that one before

[Omnimorph]

Nothing we do to this planet is something it hasn't had before.

Take the oil leak for example, oil deposits from over millions of years then seismic movement would cause these to release at some point ( I imagine this must have happened ) and you'd have practically the same situation we have now.
Carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, look at various volcanic eruptions throughout history.

It'll all work out :D

[Stickyfingers]

Overpopulation due to technology will probably get us. By this, I mean nanotechnology (or even smaller in the future) and the ability to artificially produce white blood cells and tons of other different cells. If WBC's are continually available and there is never a shortage, people could begin living 400-500 years longer. I have even heard that the life expectancy could be live 900 in the next 60 years or so.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/Art_Gallery/tim-fonseca.htm

Of course, this tech is still being worked on and isn't really a reality yet, but I could see it becoming huge eventually....maybe the first step into seemlessly integrating humans with computers? Who knows.

[pickled_heretic]

Ironically, almost every nation who would have access to technology like this has a declining population and a birth rate at below replacement levels.

[Omnimorph]

Ironically, almost every nation who would have access to technology like this has a declining population and a birth rate at below replacement levels.

I offer my services to solve this situation. My only condition... no fat chicks.

:D

[Stickyfingers]

Ironically, almost every nation who would have access to technology like this has a declining population and a birth rate at below replacement levels.

This is true. However, that doesn't mean the immigration rates to these countries is going down, or the while population for that matter. If the U.S. or Japan (U.S. has the largest # of immigrants in the world, U.S. gains more immigrants than all of the other countries in the world combined....Japan has a negative birthrate) were the only countries to obtain this technology, I think people from all over the world would probably immigrate to get it.

[pickled_heretic]

This is true. However, that doesn't mean the immigration to these countries is going down, or the while population for that matter. If the U.S. or Japan (negative birthrate for Japan) were the only countries to obtain this technology, I think people from all over the world would probably immigrate to get it.

I'm sure this hypothetical therapy would become exorbitantly expensive, even if it didn't start out like that. The gross uneven distribution of capital in these two countries would guarantee that only a select few would have access to the treatment. Human rights issues would obviously develop which could easily result in violent class struggle (thus reducing the population).

[Stickyfingers]

I'm sure this hypothetical therapy would become exorbitantly expensive, even if it didn't start out like that. The gross uneven distribution of capital in these two countries would guarantee that only a select few would have access to the treatment. Human rights issues would obviously develop which could easily result in violent class struggle (thus reducing the population).

Well, I don't forsee it being a "Therapy" as much as it would become a way of life. I could see nanochips being implanted into every newborn that could monitor heartrate, BP, cell count, etc. and instantly upload it for access every second of the day 24/7.

Imagine perfect preventative medicine because you no longer have to go to the doctor to see whats wrong, your doctor already knows what is wrong, because the exact instant there was a problem, it was already available for him to see and could be cured by other bots within your body.

The ability to identify and zap cancer cells at any moment in time and if its uncurable by bots, at least you know what you have before its too late.

[Omnimorph]

These nanobots would violate your privacy rights. Keep your commiebots to yourself!

[pickled_heretic]

Well, I don't forsee it being a "Therapy" as much as it would become a way of life. I could see nanochips being implanted into every newborn that could monitor heartrate, BP, cell count, etc. and instantly upload it for access every second of the day 24/7.

Imagine perfect preventative medicine because you no longer have to go to the doctor to see whats wrong, your doctor already knows what is wrong, because the exact instant there was a problem, it was already available for him to see and could be cured by other bots within your body.

The ability to identify and zap cancer cells at any moment in time and if its uncurable by bots, at least you know what you have before its too late.

Lol, what precedents do you have to think that this would become a "way of life?" all life-extending therapies are considered not necessary and aren't covered by any univeral health care plan or insurer in any country now, why would it be different for this? When you look at what kind of care you can get at a clinic or hospital, you can go there to get something fixed if something isn't working properly, and that's about it. I'm positive based on past history that this would become an expensive elective operation and people who couldn't afford it would get pissed.

[Stickyfingers]

Lol, what precedents do you have to think that this would become a "way of life?" all life-extending therapies are considered not necessary and aren't covered by any univeral health care plan or insurer in any country now, why would it be different for this? When you look at what kind of care you can get at a clinic or hospital, you can go there to get something fixed if something isn't working properly, and that's about it. I'm positive based on past history that this would become an expensive elective operation and people who couldn't afford it would get pissed.

Really? Last time I checked Open Heart Surgery is covered by insurance and pretty much any other life threatening disease....and last time I checked, when they cure these things it extends your life? Also, it's not covered by insurance because it doesn't exist yet. Why wouldn't insurance companies want this anyways?


It costs them shitloads when people have large and expensive surgeries, if they could monitor people to prevent the need for the surgeries it would save them a ton of money. This would take a lot of pressure off the healthcare system as a whole since there wouldn't be suprises (unless new disease arises).



Also, Omnimorph, this isn't what I want to occur, living for 900 years would suck frankly. This is merely what I believe is very possible to occur with technological advances being the way they have been.

[Taxi]

Well, I don't forsee it being a "Therapy" as much as it would become a way of life. I could see nanochips being implanted into every newborn that could monitor heartrate, BP, cell count, etc. and instantly upload it for access every second of the day 24/7.

Imagine perfect preventative medicine because you no longer have to go to the doctor to see whats wrong, your doctor already knows what is wrong, because the exact instant there was a problem, it was already available for him to see and could be cured by other bots within your body.

The ability to identify and zap cancer cells at any moment in time and if its uncurable by bots, at least you know what you have before its too late.

I was saying this as a possibly interesting development of medecine to a friend of mine, and he said something to me that still resonates hard, made me reflect how we are still monkeys playing god and sometimes not calculating well the risks associated with technology.

What he told me was: "What happens if some catastrophy happens and humans lose the capacity to produce these medical nanobots? What happens to an immune system which had things done for it for generations? Will it be in a decrepit state and our bodies have forgotten how to fight against outside interference on its own?"

So many aspects of technology and pollution these days makes us guinea pigs in a test tube. Global warming, eating strawberries crossed with fish genes. I think often the ethics of technology are not considered, and as we become more technologically advanced the consequences will be potentially exponentially dangerous to play around with. I think it would be a fatal mistake to let corporations play god like that without ethical supervision and legislation, we can already see as an example of what can happen when they are given a free rein, in the gulf of mexico right now.

But i guess they can just go in poor countries and evade all these regulations...

Hudson: [after the drop ship crash] That's great, this is really fuckin' great, man. Now, what the fuck are we supposed to do? We're in some pretty shit now, man.
Hicks: [Grabs him by the shirt] Are you finished?
Newt: Guess we're not gonna make it, are we?
Ripley: I'm sorry, Newt.
Newt: Don't be sorry, it wasn't your fault.
Hudson: That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over, what the fuck are we supposed to now, huh, what are we gonna do?
Burke: Maybe we can build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh, how about we try that.
Newt: We gotta get inside. It's gonna be dark soon, and they mostly hunt at night. Mostly.

[pickled_heretic]

Really? Last time I checked Open Heart Surgery is covered by insurance and pretty much any other life threatening disease....and last time I checked, when they cure these things it extends your life? Also, it's not covered by insurance because it doesn't exist yet. Why wouldn't insurance companies want this anyways?
Please. Open heart surgery is to "fix something wrong," not to artificially extend life. And aside from that, insurance costs money, and you STILL have to pay a lot of money EVEN IF YOU ARE INSURED to get open heart surgery. Thousands of dollars. Furthermore, insurance companies DO NOT COVER elective operations. You can't get your insurance company to give you lasik, and you're not going to be able to get them to pay for your life-extending nanobot treatment either.

It costs them shitloads when people have large and expensive surgeries, if they could monitor people to prevent the need for the surgeries it would save them a ton of money. This would take a lot of pressure off the healthcare system as a whole since there wouldn't be suprises (unless new disease arises).
There is no financial incentive for preventative medicine in health care. Insurance companies still get paid if you go to the ER 3+ times a year for a cold. This isn't going to change with your super therapy either.

[Stickyfingers]

I was saying this as a possibly interesting development of medecine to a friend of mine, and he said something to me that still resonates hard, made me reflect how we are still monkeys playing god and sometimes not calculating well the risks associated with technology.

What he told me was: "What happens if some catastrophy happens and humans lose the capacity to produce these medical nanobots? What happens to an immune system which had things done for it for generations? Will it be in a decrepit state and our bodies have forgotten how to fight against outside interference on its own?"

So many aspects of technology and pollution these days makes us guinea pigs in a test tube. Global warming, eating strawberries crossed with fish genes. I think often the ethics of technology are not considered, and as we become more technologically advanced the consequences will be potentially exponentially dangerous to play around with. I think it would be a fatal mistake to let corporations play god like that without ethical supervision and legislation, we can already see as an example of what can happen when they are given a free rein, in the gulf of mexico right now.

But i guess they can just go in poor countries and evade all these regulations...

Hudson: [after the drop ship crash] That's great, this is really fuckin' great, man. Now, what the fuck are we supposed to do? We're in some pretty shit now, man.
Hicks: [Grabs him by the shirt] Are you finished?
Newt: Guess we're not gonna make it, are we?
Ripley: I'm sorry, Newt.
Newt: Don't be sorry, it wasn't your fault.
Hudson: That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over, what the fuck are we supposed to now, huh, what are we gonna do?
Burke: Maybe we can build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh, how about we try that.
Newt: We gotta get inside. It's gonna be dark soon, and they mostly hunt at night. Mostly.



Very good points. Looking at micro evolution and the effect that technology has/might have on humans is really interesting to look at. I think your cell counts would remain the same as they are when you began using this technology. The thing is, creating cells is an automatic response by your body, when you get a cold or virus, your body begins to pump out large amounts of WBC's and other things, so the question would be, would your body eventually cease to do this, because it already has a sufficient amount? Or would it still see it as a threat and create even more?

Also, genetic crossing is more of a Biological innovation, I think we can only do so much in terms of Biology because I think there are limits, but technology is wide open IMO.

Also, perhaps we could change evolution? Create nanotech that talks with your body, so when something happens, it sends a signal to your lymphnods to release more lymphocytes? Imagine if we could match this signal with what your Brain sends, you could essentially keep your body taught what it needs to do with false signaling.

[Omnimorph]

As i like to steer every topic to mass effect, i'll say look at the quarians from that game :p their immune systems are shot from leaving their home planet. They have to move around in bio-containment suits.

[Branaddar]

All conversations should lead to Mass Effect and away from politics. As a Canadian, I em entitled to my snooty eye-rolling whenever American politics comes up.

But in all seriousness, we are definitely weakening ourselves as a species. Fertility treatments, cures for genetic diseases, etc all weaken our gene pool by allowing bad genes to propogate. I know that sounds sociopathic of me, and I mean no disrespect to people that have had to deal with these conditions.

I'm just saying that it's not about "survival of the fittest" with our species, it's about "survival of the richest." How much will those millions of dollars help you if society collapses and we have to rely on our base skills to go back to a hunt/gather society? Whatever the cause, at some point human civilization will crumble to some basic level.

I'm guessing if it was a sudden thing instead of drawn out over generations, a lot of people would die off fast. You see a lot of post-apocalyptic games and movies and such, but they always seem to be within 100 years of the apocalypse or so.

I'd be curious to see what happens to us 500 years after one, when we've scavenged all their is to scavenge and shot all the bullets and eaten all the canned foods.

Would it be a reboot of the human race? There's no way we could pass on all the technological knowledge we've gained to our great great great great grandchildren. So much would get lost, it would become like magic to them.

I think the only real modern skills we would pass on would be some construction, farming and basic medical knowledge. Why waste time teaching children quantum physics and particle theories and all that? We'd teach them what they needed to survive.

I forget if I had a point in any of this... I like to ramble :P

[pickled_heretic]

But in all seriousness, we are definitely weakening ourselves as a species. Fertility treatments, cures for genetic diseases, etc all weaken our gene pool by allowing bad genes to propogate. I know that sounds sociopathic of me, and I mean no disrespect to people that have had to deal with these conditions.

It is clear to me from reading this statement that you do not understand much about genetics. Treatments such as the ones you have listed all proliferate genetic diversity. There is not a geneticist alive in the world that would tell you that genetic diversity is a bad thing.

In the natural order of things, times where a species can proliferate easily allow increased genetic diversity. Human beings have had an unprecedented period of proliferation compared to most recent species. This is a good thing for our future survival.

The benefits of increased genetic diversity come when some sort of event causes the proliferation to end, and a bottleneck begins. A species with a high degree of genetic variance is better equipped to survive when only certain phenotypes are selected for. Famine or disease, for instance, could eliminate a huge portion of a species. If there's some sort of phenotype that allows a certain portion of this species to survive this period of famine or disease, having it equally represented across all genetic profiles (e.g. in a species with a high degree of genetic diversity) will increase the species' chances of survival during and after the genetic bottleneck occurs.

Even if a species survives a genetic bottleneck, it will be less equipped to deal with future bottlenecks because its genetic diversity is decreased. Take, for instance, our bodies' inability to create its own source of vitamin C. The vast majority of mammals have the ability to generate their own vitamin C without requiring external dietary sources. At some point, a genetic bottleneck eliminated that ability in our ancestors, and most hominds lack the ability to produce their own vitamin C. This has not manifested itself as a problem for primates because the diet of many primates is rich with vitamin C. However, this defect (which all humans contain - there is no human alive who can generate his own vitamin C) has manifested itself as a problem in many societies, particularly poorer societies with inadequate nutrition.

The genetic diversity that existed in primates before the bottleneck occured allowed them to survive, even if they survived with this phenotypic defect. This allowed the human species to come to fruition. Proliferation of diverse alelles, whether or not we ascribe to them malignant phenotypes, allowed the human race to exist.

[stormlord]

The arguemnt that we would be helpless if the nanobots died because our immune system wouldn't know what to do is the same kind of argument that we would be helpless if our electrical grid shutdown, our computers shut off, and we had to live off the land. Look, we will always have vulnerabilities. Always.

You can't eliminate failure. All we can do is move forward. Once we can program the body ourselves and guide evolution directly, the importance of natural evolution will lose some of its value. At that point in time, people won't be so judgmental because the evidence will be straight in front of them.

Making hypothetical arguments, like what would we do if armageddon happened and suddenly we had to depend on our natural genetics, are spurious at best. There're many cases where, if we had to do it ourselves, we would fail (catastrophically). What would happen if the computer chips on a spaceship failed and the astronaut had to guide the spacecraft manually? It would crash or burn. People aren't capable of piloting a spacecraft manually without computer assistance because extremely precise calculations and movements are required. So if a human was forced to pilot it, they would have already failed, so there's no point to make. People aren't always the answer. We're feeble and there're many tasks we cannot perform well at all.

And the earth only has a 100 million human carrying capacity. If we lost our technology, billions would perish in the aftermath due to lack of food and water. We exist BECAUSE of technology, not because we're doing things naturally. If we were, most of us wouldn't exist. And not because we didn't know how to do it ourselves.

Case in point, I likely wouldn't be alive if I had been born 100 years ago. I was 3 months premature.

Besides, if we had to live in the stone age again, I'd rather be dead anyway.

[Goobles]

The earth is a fkin spaceship. Things need to operate normally. It's leaking oil. Need to fix it. ....... I
'm assuming we own it and thus it's our property. Do we co-own it possible or maybe we don't even own it at all? Is there any way to know? Fuk that. I say we own it. And we gotta fix it too.


This quote is amazing, adding it to my signature.

[Taxi]

The arguemnt that we would be helpless if the nanobots died because our immune system wouldn't know what to do is the same kind of argument that we would be helpless if our electrical grid shutdown, our computers shut off, and we had to live off the land. Look, we will always have vulnerabilities. Always.

You can't eliminate failure. All we can do is move forward. Once we can program the body ourselves and guide evolution directly, the importance of natural evolution will lose some of its value. At that point in time, people won't be so judgmental because the evidence will be straight in front of them.

Making hypothetical arguments, like what would we do if armageddon happened and suddenly we had to depend on our natural genetics, are spurious at best. There're many cases where, if we had to do it ourselves, we would fail (catastrophically). What would happen if the computer chips on a spaceship failed and the astronaut had to guide the spacecraft manually? It would crash or burn. People aren't capable of piloting a spacecraft manually without computer assistance because extremely precise calculations and movements are required. So if a human was forced to pilot it, they would have already failed, so there's no point to make. People aren't always the answer. We're feeble and there're many tasks we cannot perform well at all.

And the earth only has a 100 million human carrying capacity. If we lost our technology, billions would perish in the aftermath due to lack of food and water. We exist BECAUSE of technology, not because we're doing things naturally. If we were, most of us wouldn't exist. And not because we didn't know how to do it ourselves.

Case in point, I likely wouldn't be alive if I had been born 100 years ago. I was premature by 3 months.

But like i was saying, the more forward we move with technology, the higher the risk. Im not a luddite, i understand technology can be a good thing. But right now youve got insanity like designing plants that dont produce seeds just so you can sell the seeds to a farmer instead of him getting his seed from the plant each year. They even named the technology the terminator technology, and it can pollenize other crops and contaminate them. You dont find that kind of technology troubling in the least?

Playing with our bodies like that is not just like putting on glasses to correct vision. It is in a way, but it has to be done in a responsible way, if youre playing with genes without caring about consequences just for a quick buck, thats a really scary thought to me. It comes back to the unchecked greed i was talking about in my first post, unchecked greed gives us oil spills, unchecked greed could be the end of us. Thats what im more afraid of, not really the tech itself but what unscrupulous individuals would do with it.

[Omnimorph]

But like i was saying, the more forward we move with technology, the higher the risk. Im not a luddite, i understand technology can be a good thing. But right now youve got insanity like designing plants that dont produce seeds just so you can sell the seeds to a farmer instead of him getting his seed from the plant each year. They even named the technology the terminator technology, and it can pollenize other crops and contaminate them. You dont find that kind of technology troubling in the least?

Playing with our bodies like that is not just like putting on glasses to correct vision. It is in a way, but it has to be done in a responsible way, if youre playing with genes without caring about consequences just for a quick buck, thats a really scary thought to me. It comes back to the unchecked greed i was talking about in my first post, unchecked greed gives us oil spills, unchecked greed could be the end of us. Thats what im more afraid of, not really the tech itself but what unscrupulous individuals would do with it.

Exactly, it has to be wielded with responsibility!

Technology can be used to further mankind's evolution, or impede it.

[pickled_heretic]

Technology can be used to further mankind's evolution, or impede it.

Evolution isn't some sort of enthalpic process which always tends to higher states of order. Evolution is simply a mathematic equation, a law of biology. If the environment demands that homo sapiens become a simpler organism to survive, then so be it, and technology is just one way that humans interact with their environment.

[Excision Rottun]

SKYNET has just become self-aware.

[Taxi]

See this is the kinda shit we would be worried about if we werent run by a bunch of short-sighted domineering oligarchs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10340488.stm