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.

 

"We Will Alter Human Evolution Within 20 Years"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
No, nanotech is altering the course of a species natural evolution. Nor is the human species the ultimate stage of evolution in the entire universe. The human species is the most developed on this planet would be the correct thing to say, but you have no idea what's outside this planet. There could be other forms of life much better then the human species.



Originally posted by apc
Point being, locally we are the ultimate stage in the evolution of our entire universe, not just life on Earth.

Of course there could be higher forms of life elsewhere. But, as of yet, there is no direct evidence to support this conclusion. To our current knowledge, we are the farthest the evolution of the universe has come.



Without using nanotech to alter the course of human evolution, we would eventually change and evolve overtime into a different form. Unless we are at our most efficient form. Which I don't think we are because the human species is still changing a little.

Nanotech would be a forced alteration on the course of a natural evolutionary path.

Humanity is nature. Nature is everything in the observable universe, including us. What we create is a creation of nature. Natural selection and survival of the fittest. The species that develops the ability to alter its evolutionary course is going to be either most likely to survive, or not. As modern medicine has increased our population exponentially over the past three hundred years, Im leaning towards the former. Many will die in order for our species to succeed, but those who survive will carry forward superior knowledge and ability (compared to the last time our population was at this low level).

Nature at its best...




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   


To our current knowledge, we are the farthest the evolution of the universe has come.


To this planet. Our current knowledge does not permeate the entire universe and life containted within it. Just this itty bitty lil rock.




Natural selection and survival of the fittest.


Natural selection is a genetic and enviromental trait. The survival of the fittest aspect of humanity has slightly decreased thanks to medical technologies and higher standards of living. But technological alteration's of the human genome or form is not a course of natural selection. Nor is it survival of the fittest, as the natural course of human evolution and those who would be most fit to evolve into the next evolutionary stage are being altered through technological mean's.


apc

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Once again, I said LOCALLY. I am clearly confirming that the real extent of this assumtion is entirely enclosed within Earth. Until it is proven that there is more advanced life elsewhere, the evidence clearly suggests that we are the best there is. This is because there is no evidence, at all, of there being anything else. Period.

And, once again, WE ARE NATURE. NATURE IS US. If we eradicate a certain species, that is NATURE eradicating it. If we kill ourselves in nuclear fire, that is NATURE eradicating us. Why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Could you please provide an example of a nuclear bomb evolving through natural selection and survival of the fittest and eradicating a species? A nuclear bomb is an artificial contruct built by man. All technologies are artificial construct's built by mankind. Any artificial construct used by mankind to alter the course of natural human evolution would be an alteration of the natural (left alone state) evolution of our species. If we never devoloped technology, our course of evolution would take a different direction, but with technology we are altering that natural course.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I agree with apc, the difference between Artifical and Natural is completely subjective and when you break it down to it's most basic components they are one and the same.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by sardion2000]


apc

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Any artificial construct used by mankind to alter the course of natural human evolution would be an alteration of the natural (left alone state) evolution of our species. If we never devoloped technology, our course of evolution would take a different direction, but with technology we are altering that natural course.


Nature made us. We are nature. Whatever we create is nature. Nature is everything.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Never heard of this before ... Elaborate? What skill set's have you picked up in this manner?


Borrowed Genius

I've done it to alter some of my thought habits, sports, and studying.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Yes, everything is of nature. But we're talking about natural evolution and artificial evolution. Technology doesn't evolve on it's own through a course of natural selection and survival of the fittest. There is no natural process for technology to develop without the aid of the human species. Using the artifially devloped to alter the natrual process of human evolution imo would be an alteration. Unless of course someone could please point out a nuclear bomb evolving on it's own without the artificial processes of human intelligence constructing such a bomb.




en.wikipedia.org...

Another approach is to distinguish natural processes and artificial (man-made) processes. In this viewpoint, a process is deemed to occur either at the behest of man, or not. For example, flipping a light switch might illuminate a room, or perhaps a sunrise might illuminate that room. In this viewpoint, the sunrise would be termed a natural process; the decision of a human being to flip the light switch would be termed an artificial illumination, in contrast. In this viewpoint, artifice (art or literature) is clearly the result of willful human action; furthermore, the act of stating a philosophical position could also be a willful action (and hence at the behest of man), whether or not the content of the philosophy were to be about science.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
This is because there is no evidence, at all, of there being anything else. Period.


Actually, there's plenty of evidence suggesting life is possible elsewhere.

For one, we're here. Also, many of the thing's required by life, all the chemical's have been seen inside nebula's. Hydrocarbon's make up most of titan's surface. Hydrocarbon's also criss cross the surface of europa and evidence suggest's that underneath that sheet of ice could be liquid water with a decent temperature allowing for life to develop there. Also, there has been sign's of life in the martian meteor's.

So yes, there is evidence that life elsewhere is a possibility. How advanced that life is, where it is, etc. isn't known as of yet. But we are sure now that we're not alone.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Evolution is a reaction to the environment. New technologies like nanotechnologies are therefore going to be part of our natural evolution. Simply by using them to boost the human body, maybe to live forever.

When those technologies are going to be available, they will be used because no one would like to be left behind. Or can you exist between people with a QI of 500
... who look perfectly young and beautyfull, who have instantly access to Internet by thought, who are never ill ...

I don't have one million years of time to see this come by "normal" evolution.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I don't mind using nanotech for one-time treatments, but not as a permanent addition to "human evolution."

You take Aspirin to make your headache go away.

You take Immodium to make your diarrhea go away.

You take Nanobot Crunchies to make your [whatever] go away.


Originally posted by looofo
Or can you exist between people with a QI of 500


Maybe we need to raise the general IQ of the population so that they can spell the initials IQ the right way.
jk


[edit on 16-2-2006 by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama]


apc

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Yes, everything is of nature. But we're talking about natural evolution and artificial evolution. Technology doesn't evolve on it's own through a course of natural selection and survival of the fittest. There is no natural process for technology to develop without the aid of the human species. Using the artifially devloped to alter the natrual process of human evolution imo would be an alteration. Unless of course someone could please point out a nuclear bomb evolving on it's own without the artificial processes of human intelligence constructing such a bomb.



en.wikipedia.org...
...


You have to look at the whole picture. It's like comparing pumpkins to squash... theyre both still gourds.

If you are focused on human evolution, then the only thing that can truely alter human evolution is something outside our environment. But then zoom out, and even that external influence is a part of the whole of nature. Us, and a big rock from the sky... we are one in the same.


So yes, there is evidence that life elsewhere is a possibility. How advanced that life is, where it is, etc. isn't known as of yet. But we are sure now that we're not alone.

Precisely. At this exact moment in time, we can safely make accurate calculations (whatever the context) based on the assumtion that we are the best there is. If there is ever evidence to the contrary, then the variables change and thus do the equations. This particular aspect of the discussion is rather moot, as I mentioned it as a demonstration of how humanity is simply the latest stage in the evolution of the universe (from our current perspective). I never said there was not life elsewhere. I said there is absolutely no evidence toward the existance of a species more advanced than our own. If you feel the need to debate this issue further then please U2U me or start a new thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hell yes! I want some nanotech flowing through my veins. I want to design my own robot body and transfer my conciousness into it.

I for one welcome our nanotech overlords.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
ok this is just dumb.


Download your consciousness into a harddrive?
sounds like some people have watched too much Sci-Fi channel.
So what about your soul? does that transfer around too?

oh great I can see it now.... I'm sorry Mrs Smith, your husband's harddrive crashed and now he's dead, and his soul is lost forever.
Should have done that DVD backup!

A hive mind? So it would be like 1 person left alive thinking, and a bunch of robots doing It's bidding?
Great life.... Count me out.
Then in a million more years the hive mind will wonder what it's like to have individuals, and love, and pleasures of the flesh, and start bio-egineering a planet's animals to house souls, and experience individual life...
hmmm.... maybe thats what has been happening ..... Naw!!!


I'll be part of the resistance, thats far damn sure. no hive mind, or hardrive brain for me thanks.


Ya'll should be happy with the existence given us. It might be the best form of existence there is, and here you are.... crapping on it.... because you want bionic brains or some crap.



[edit on 16-2-2006 by MonoIonic_Gold]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
What I've been thinking about is what the hell we're going to be doing if we're in the hivemind, if we're perfect in every way. I mean, what is there to do? Do you have to work anymore? How will they pay for it?

You guys are missing the point at how much these implants may cost. They might cost $100...they might cost $10,000. Not everyone will be able to afford it either, so therefore I think only the upper class will be able to do these things. But, it may be cheap, but I seriously, seriously doubt that. I think these technologies will lead to the middle class being destroyed. It's either pay all of your money or be left behind. And the majority will be left behind, while the upper class thrives on these technologies.

Another thing I was thinking about is the funding for these projects. It will cost millions, if not billions, maybe even trillions to fund these gigantic projects. The question is if our governments can even afford it, and if they'll even do it.

I say...sit back and watch, and panic at the same time.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Amschel Rothschild]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The thing that is so silly about this all is that if we did download our intellect into a computer it would just sit there.

It is our chemical imbalances that make us Human.

Think about it - if you wern't constantly feeling different "moods" due to the constant interaction and bio-feedback of hormones and our nervous system in our bodies - we would all want to go to the lowest point of energy usage.

Essentially - remove those influences and you become a sedintary non-entitiy - with no motivation or ambition.

Until we can acurately create a sophisticated bio-feedback system that duplicates this effect in our new mechanical vessels it will be useless to transfer our consiousness anywhere.

Maybe in a couple of thousand years - but until then I find it highly unlikely.

(much as I might wish it were otherwise)



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amschel Rothschild
What I've been thinking about is what the hell we're going to be doing if we're in the hivemind, if we're perfect in every way. I mean, what is there to do? Do you have to work anymore? How will they pay for it?

Why are people concentrating on the hivemind aspect of all this? It's but a tiny portion and not an even desirable one at that of what is a gigantic field of study which is currently being research for more prosaic things like better brain to computer interfaces for Quadrapaligics, Genetic Treatments for Muscle Distrophy, Memory Implants to Stave off Alzheimers etc etc etc.


You guys are missing the point at how much these implants may cost. They might cost $100...they might cost $10,000. Not everyone will be able to afford it either, so therefore I think only the upper class will be able to do these things. But, it may be cheap, but I seriously, seriously doubt that. I think these technologies will lead to the middle class being destroyed. It's either pay all of your money or be left behind. And the majority will be left behind, while the upper class thrives on these technologies.

People said similiar things about the Automobile, Telegraph, Trains, Planes, Computers and finally the Internet. You are also forgetting about a large aspect of this which is Open Source. After Molecular Manufacturing gets invented say within the next 20-50 years people will just be able to download the necessary specs and take the finished implant to the surgeon or in the case of a Genetic Mod or Life Extension treatment pop a pill or injection. See how hard the Movie and Music industry is having with stemming the flow of people downloading their wares for free? Also notice the rapid proliferation of OSS projects like Firefox? The ONLY way to make sure this is available to as many people as possible is to get involved YOURSELF and make your research freely available through various non-profit orginisations. Even when the computer was first invented the people who were in the business selling them never thought there was a market for more then a dozen computers worldwide. Overly Pessimistic Predictions are usually just as incorrect as the overly optimistic ones. Yes in this day and age we have Billions of people under the starvation line(let alone poverty line) but if you look at it in a pie chart you'll see that thing overall ARE GETTING BETTER economically speaking. I know downturns and trends tend to bring the doomsayers out of the woodwork but they are usually wrong as well. I remember clearly during the early 90s that many people were ranting and raving on how the Computer and the Internet was going to be catastophic to society that will lead us into another great depression. Didn't happen. My point is don't count your chickens before they hatch as you will most likely be wrong about most of your ASSumptions.


Another thing I was thinking about is the funding for these projects. It will cost millions, if not billions, maybe even trillions to fund these gigantic projects. The question is if our governments can even afford it, and if they'll even do it.

See above. I noted Open Source and Multi-Use technologies. I highly doubt that there will be projects in the market place to bring about these specific technologies, that's not how progress works. They are created unintentally or via convergence with related but separate technologies that reach a level of maturity and then BOOM! Someone comes out with a killer app and we're all amazed and wowed and it slowly becomes common place after that. The Internet is an example of that as no one was setting about trying to create a World Wide Web. If you were to go back in time to the offices of the people who were instrumental in it's creation and describe what we now take for granted they would think you're absolutely nutz just as some have already said on here already.


I say...sit back and watch, and panic at the same time.

Fear is the mindkiller, if you panic while siting back, twiddling your thumbs and doing absolutely nothing you have no right to complain should things go horribly wrong. Also Fear impairs rational thought.


Maybe in a couple of thousand years - but until then I find it highly unlikely.

Yes but in the meantime we could send out generational slow ships to colonize...wait you're not talking about colonizing the galaxy you're talking about technologies that are being developed right now. You should check out some of the links I posted above and quite frankely if people in both the Neoluddite Left and the Evangelical Right are concerned and afraid of these technologies then you gotta ask yourself, why are they so afraid if I ASSume they are thousands of years away from being realized hmm? Even Einstein arguably one of the most brilliant Scientists of the 20th Century thought it would take Centuries to crack the power of the Atom.

Gene Doping (PDF WARNING!)

Here is another link and here are the others I posted above for easier reference.

Monkey Brain Rewires To Use Robotic Arm

Mighty Mice Regrow Organs

Can computers be creative?

I reiterate my point that Technological innovation is speeding up exponentially


[edit on 16-2-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Nooo...

Evolution is a natural progression. Nanotechnology would not be natural progression. We would be altering human evolution unaturally.

Sorry to nitpick


See I believe that whatever we humans do is natural, I guess it would be me nitpicking. AAC (Nanotechnolgy is made from protiens and acids, these are natural compounds).



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Messing with mother nature is probably not the best idea. I say let it be.

Do these scientist want to play God?

I have no doubt in my mind that this project will result in some sort of tradgedy.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
Messing with mother nature is probably not the best idea. I say let it be.

Do these scientist want to play God?

Do you say we should let Quads remain Quads? Should we just let our parents degrade into Alzheimers? If that's playing god then by all means let us become GODS!


I have no doubt in my mind that this project will result in some sort of tradgedy.


George Orwell
So long as human beings stay human, death and life are the same thing.



Voltaire
Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.


You think life has been so peachy over the past 2000 years? Should we just ban technology alltogether and go back to the status quo which is pretty much Anarchy interspersed with brief flashes of Civilization?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by sardion2000]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join