The extinction of the human race

[Stickyfingers]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Stickyfingers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Stickyfingers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Taxi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 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]

Originally Posted by Branaddar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.