It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whats next in human evolution?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
from the link

When Nicolas Cage and John Travolta swapped faces in Hollywood action film Face-Off, most viewers thought they were watching a far-fetched fantasy.

But US scientists have already carried out face transplants on dead bodies donated for medical research. They are now awaiting approval to do the same on living people with disfigurements.



How did they know if it would work? if the new face would have normal movement, sensation, etc? Modern frankensteins! I never want a dead persons face or any part that is not a vital organ, liver, kidney, heart, lungs ,etc. even eyes would be freaky! How bout that clint hallam guy who had a dead guys arm grafted on..

on the other hand there talking about stem cell research that might allow you to actually grow a new limb, like a lizards tail ! Worse still imo.

My prediction is we will evolve into huge fat legless blobs, with no arms, fed by machines! We get lazier everyday. A machine or applience to do every little task that our grandfolks had to do by hand.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by instar]



Nox

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Nothing!

We've come to a point where population is so high, and the concept of "equality" is so great that classical Darwinian evolution won't have a great impact.

On a higher level (let's call it Grand Evolution), we'll evolve socially.

Just like how subatomic particles evolved very quickly to form atoms. Just like how unstable atoms somehow managed to last longer than more stable, advanced atoms by evolving into molecules.

Just like certain unstable molecules manage to evolve into single cell organisms which can reproduce.

Single cell organisms evolve on the single cell level, but they also evolve on a grand evolution scale by becoming multi-cell organism.

Multi-cell organism go through classical Darwinian evolution to become humans.

We'll evolve (we've already begun doing so) by forming societies.
I belong to an entity called the USA. I'm one of the brain cells.

I don't know what's next, perhaps "alliances"? Worlds? Hell, I sure HOPE our technology will be advanced enough to get us off this rock some day!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The reason for atoms to group into molecules is to create something wich is more than the sum of the parts. The new creation has a greater stability and lifespan than any of the individual parts.

Molecules group into what becomes singular celled organisms. In other words: They organize into something with a higher level of order. This organism has a grater life expectancy than the individual molecules it is made up of.

Organism group into what we call animals, taking new steps toward prolonging their life. So an molecule existing as an part of an animal has a "better life" than one roaming free in the wild. The same can be said regarding the cells that constitutes the human body, they actually live a "perfect life" as viewed by the cells. This they obtain by the way they are organized and cooperate. They create something wich is more than the sum of the parts.

But do they have a clue as to what they are a part of and why their life is as it is?

Now take these principles and aply them to humans. Evolution is phase shifts in organization and cooperation. We have to create something that is more than the sum of the parts (humans) to be able to take the next step up the ladder of evolution.

This would probably be some kind of collective mind where each individual human works in the same way as the cells of our body does. It would be The Mankind - an existense that would take on a life of its own and by its actions further its own interests, and therby the interests of its parts.

But what it actually would be like is as difficult for me to say as it is for a cell in my body to tell what I am... '
'



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Well, this is a possible scenerio:

-We will develop Nano-Technology which constantly regenerate our cells so we will never die
-We will not procreate due to overpopulation
-We will not have offspring which can evolve
-We will change our selfs to whatever we wish to be

So, There you have it...

However it seems quite likely that the Greys actually used to be related to us, since they are compatible with us in the first place...

The way I will change my self is to make my self more stronger and resillient, hopefully I will have bullet proof skin



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peeder
It would be awsome if we could develop powers like in the X-men series. Just imagine what we could accomplish with powers like that. Reptilian aliens wouldnt stand a change against one of us (if we were to develop incredible powers like that). We would make them OUR ginnie pigs!!!

But thats just me talkin nonsense. hahaha




Don't think its all that much nonsense. Scientists have developed a material that "sticks" to surfaces without adhesives its called gecko tape. We could use nanotechnology to create skin grafts(permanent or temporary is both possible). We could also create artificial eyes that could use some form of laser rangefinding don't know how you would get it powerfull enough to destroy stuff like cyclops though. Wolverine, well people have been getting titanium joints and bones that can "grow" with the patient(it doesn't really grow it uses telescopic trusses ie joints like an extendopole.) Scientists are producting spider silk in goats mamary glands for industrial tests right now. Scientists have also developed a technology that allows you to speak without saying anything verbally. and beaming it wirelessly to someone else equipped with this technology, its based off of bone conduction technology. Lots and lots of stuff coming that could enable super-human capabilities but isn't that how new technology always looks when its "new"



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
i have to agree mostly with kinglizard and surf.

i dont think much will happen, really, by the product of nature. grow taller. maybe lose the pinky toe (some of us have a really underdeveloped one, its useless other than aesthetic reasons). id like to see the appendix gone, or reintegrated to perform some purpose, whatever it may be. the latter is mostly wishful thinking. also, i believe blondes are going to be extinct by roughly 2100. males apparently prefer brunettes dyed blonde to the perfect blonde, and so its possible they could be all but gone in the next 100 years. (in unrelated news, the average global IQ will jump 30 points)

most/all major changes will come through DNA manipulation. whether the religious like it or not, its here. the ability to sustain and mold life will, now or at a later date, become the focus of our culture. once we attain this power, Gattaca style, we'll either destroy our guarantee our civilization. we need to be visionary enough to know that we cant make everyone a perfect being. we need imperfection.

computers will play a large part as well. as we become more global, our languages will eventually melt into a single language spoken everywhere. if engineered properly, this will also be a language capable of being understood by a computer. this wont mena so much evolutionary, not immediately, but it will give us vast resources that we are only beginning to touch on. this could cause a (slow) growth of brain power.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
We'll probably lose our toes, since we dont have a use for them like primates do, also our appendix (said above) our sense of smell will probably dull and our nose get smaller to the point of nasal slits.
Our hair also. (Said earlier).



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   
As the sophistication of our technology increases, so will the cognitive skills required to operate those technologies.

MK



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
We'll probably lose our toes, since we dont have a use for them like primates do, also our appendix (said above) our sense of smell will probably dull and our nose get smaller to the point of nasal slits.
Our hair also. (Said earlier).


we can lose the four smaller toes, but we need the large one for balance. i think well keep them, however. ive yet to meet a girl who thinks two toes as opposed to ten is sexy. quite the contrary however.

i like the idea of nasal slits, but why do you think our sense of smell will dull? wouldnt it be advantageous, even in todays age, to have a good sense of smell? at the very least, you can charm the above ladies over a meal better if you can smell it.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Sardion, on that note, do you think in the future subservient forms of humans will be genetically engineered to perform certain tasks?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mephorium
Sardion, on that note, do you think in the future subservient forms of humans will be genetically engineered to perform certain tasks?


It is quite possible, but is it desirable? I don't think so. Why when we will eventually be able to build bots that can do almost any menial labor without the need of being self-aware. I am very inorganically biased in this arena, because I generally believe anything that can be achieved through Genetic Engineering and Biotech, can be done with Nanotechnology only better. Here is a quote from what I said in a different thread, "We all know how well Biology stands up to a chainsaw
"



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Is nanotechnology not but a robotic form of biology: creating from nothing, something, anything, we program it to; performing any task which we desire?



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mephorium
Is nanotechnology not but a robotic form of biology: creating from nothing, something, anything, we program it to; performing any task which we desire?


Well it really depends on how you look at nanotechnology. The Industry defines Nanotech as "As any feature of a product that can be measured in the sub-micron scale(ie Nanoscale)" The Drexlerian definition is as follows

ASSEMBLER
"A molecular machine that can be programmed to build virtually any molecular structure or device from simpler chemical building blocks. Analogous to a computer-driven machine shop. (See Replicator.)"

DISASSEMBLER
"A system of nanomachines able to take an object apart a few atoms at a time, while recording its structure at the molecular level."

REPLICATOR
"In discussions of evolution, a replicator is an entity (such as a gene, a meme, or the contents of a computer memory disk) which can get itself copied, including any changes it may have undergone. In a broader sense, a replicator is a system which can make a copy of itself, not necessarily copying any changes it may have undergone. A rabbit's genes are replicators in the first sense (a change in a gene can be inherited); the rabbit itself is a replicator only in the second sense (a notch made in its ear can't be inherited)."

So I guess the answer to your question is...not yet but in the near future we should have the capabilies of the three devices above and it will be interesting to see how they do it. Whether it will be some sort of Desktop Manufacturing process or through the use of AI controlled Nanobots. I believe the safer version is the one Drexler is now invisioning, here is a pic.





posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Remarkable, thank you for the info.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mephorium
Remarkable, thank you for the info.


Glad I could be of assistance
If you want to learn more about Nanotechnology I highly recommend you visit these links:

www.nanodot.org... -- Blog about Nanotech run by the Foresight Institute.

www.foresight.org... -- The Book that pretty much started the industry all though Drexler has been forced into obscurity for the time being:mad
if you want to learn more about that well I'm too biased to really say anything impartial so just look around these links and you should find it, for contrairian look at some Scientific American articles..probably wil be on www.foresight.org though), I believe he will have his revenge some day(hopfully not involving swarms of homicidal nanobots
)

www.betterhumans.com... -- A science news site that really knows its stuff, features Nanotech articles quite frequently.

robots.net... -- This blog has nothing to do with Nanotechnology......yet
Keep an eye on it.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The reason I think our sense of smell will dull is because we dont have the same important use for it as our primate ancestors, that being detecting food and predators at a distance.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
The reason I think our sense of smell will dull is because we dont have the same important use for it as our primate ancestors, that being detecting food and predators at a distance.


Which is exactly why some people will get smell augmentations, espially special forces. Being able to track through smell alone will give great advantages. Dogs can sniff out Drugs, Bombs, and Cancer(yes Cancer). Being able to replicate this would be a great boon to any military IMHO.

EDIT: You would also be able to tune it to detect Chemical and Biological weapons as well.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
yeah i agree with *kinglizard* which was on of the first posts,
i would have said it, but i just got to this forum to late

the imperfected or the weak are not dying and humans that are dumb will survive and the smart will survive and have offspring, equally each other out to a certain extent. so yeah, natural selection is over for us humans with our complex societies.
maybe we should bring natural selection back in. and ban warning signs
lol no im only joking... but yeah, interesting.....



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
the imperfected or the weak are not dying and humans that are dumb will survive and the smart will survive and have offspring, equally each other out to a certain extent. so yeah, natural selection is over for us humans with our complex societies.


its not over, as such, its just taking a different route. raw, physical strength is less attractive, responsibility and success are far more attractive. we've just evolved to a higher plane of selection. i agree though, that a number of people survive that really, really shouldnt. the warning signs and labels idea is a real famous one, and not necessarily all that bad. in moderation.

anyway, thats what the darwin awards are for. reminding us that yes, natural selection does still work.


Nox

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I anyone else reminded of the "Darwin Awards"?

It's about stupid people doing humanity a favor by eliminating themselves from the gene pool.







 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join