The extinction of the human race

[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.

[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.

[Omnimorph]

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

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.

[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_a...t/10340488.stm