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.

 

Is man still evolving?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I forgot to add something.
What about researching into the hidden and unused parts of the mind.
Like Mind Studies, perhaps one day we might be like Kes from Star Trek Voyager?




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I tend to think that human beings are going to "clever" themselves out of existence in the relatively near future. We're a transitional species, and we're going to be victims of our own most positive traits.

In less than a thousand years (if we don't get hit by an asteroid before then), a blink of an eye in terms of global history and evolution, we are going to create intelligent, self-replicating machines that will move out into space and go places where we can't because of our inherent weaknesses and biological ties to this planet. "We" will evolve from carbon-based life to silicon-based life. We will be like the little bits of proto-biological pond scum from which the rest of life on Earth evolved.

Our machine grandchildren will move easily out into the galaxy, being able to essentially "shut themselves off" for a thousand years at a time. We'll be left behind to essentially rot and die in our own filth. A few natural and artificial pandemics or natural disasters will wipe us out, or we'll toy with our own genetics to such an extent that we'll no longer be considered human. And that will pretty much be the end of us as a species.

Live fast, die young. That's what being human is all about.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Ah man. You're giving me horrible flashbacks to sylandro probes!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
What about leaving a mark? What kind of mark/skidmark will humankind leave here?
Ha Ha I said skidmark, aren't I funny...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Doesn't disease ensure natural selection? We think we've got lots more clever since 100 years ago, but it's mainly better nutrition, especially in childhood. Women select their blokes for a variety of reasons, many expressed socially, many expressed chemically, we'll keep evolving.......



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


Yea but with medicine, disease doesn't hit us like it used to, apart from big ones like AIDs (which we are growing immunity to).

Thanks to modern medicine, environmental pressures from sickness have slowed down our rate of evolution incredibly.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by redled
 


Yea but with medicine, disease doesn't hit us like it used to, apart from big ones like AIDs (which we are growing immunity to).


That's nice, sentient beings can make each other better.



Thanks to modern medicine, environmental pressures from sickness have slowed down our rate of evolution incredibly.


Why does our rate of evolution need to be fast?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Why does our rate of evolution need to be fast?


I don't know that it does.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Cheerful sort, arent you?
Lol.

All kidding aside, you may well be right. And, that doesnt really bother me. After all, one way or the other humanity as we know it is doomed. It will evolve into something we are currently not biologically or otherwise, or go extinct. Its the game of life.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Yea but with medicine, disease doesn't hit us like it used to, apart from big ones like AIDs (which we are growing immunity to).


Yes, but that is proving to be an incredibly temporary situation. We are rapidly running out of the effective antibiotics which have allowed us this wonderful illusion of being above nature.

www.sciencedaily.com...


ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2008) — Doctors are running out of treatments for today's trauma victims and critically ill patients because of infections due to drug resistant microbes -- even after resorting to using medicines thrown out 20 years ago because of severe side effects, scientists heard April 1 2008 at the Society for General Microbiology's 162nd meeting at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre.


A friend of mine lost a child, an otherwise perfectly healthy little girl to a bacterial infection that 15 years ago we would have cured easily. Unless we find something miraculous, we are going to see the tide turn in our "victory" over illness.

We tout that statistic that humans only lived to an average age of 40 around the turn of the century but most people have no idea how misleading that is.

en.wikipedia.org...


Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century. These changes are the result of a combination of factors including nutrition and public health, and medicine only marginally. The most important single factor in the increase is the reduction of death in infancy.



If you factor out infant and early childhood deaths, I have seen some calculate the "gain" in life expectancy in adulthood at 4-7 years. Hardly the great gains we are always thumping one another on the back for.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
hhmm. I forgot about that.


Gosh, there is so many factors to consider.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
from some college classes long ago,

our lower jaws are getting smaller - our food isn't so hard to grind anymore

hence we have so many dental issues



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Hmm, I thought I posted on this thread earlier - but seeing that there is no posts of mine, I'll try it again; maybe I hit cancel last time instead of post button.

Anyways, I know that this thread is about 'evolving', which suggests improvement. But in Darwinian sense, evolution is not always improvement, sometimes things can devolve. In my opinion humankind is largely devolving, or what do you think when you look around you within society? Can this be called evolution? To my opinion, no. Of course there are some people who will leave behind evolved children, but most people do not care about themselves or their infants and therefore cause devolvement of the race. And sadly this part is the greater one in human socities. Those really evolving are now endangered 'species'.

It has been scientifically proven that DNA and heritage can change due the lifetime and -style. So, getting all the intoxicants and living in bad manners can really affect your infants. Also the society has something to do with the 'evolution' of mankind; in modern times it is rare to encounter a truly independent human being. I mean psychologically independent. Good example of this IMO are threads like this. On that thread, the OP is crying for government (mostly the new canditates) to prevent the abortion. Well heck! Why should government be nursing every aspect of life instead people themselves carrying the load of their actions? IMO this is the psychological interdependence, which is hazardous.

O well, so basically I am really saying that humankind in large is devolving. Of course this can be changed with increased consciousness, but I rather see it decreasing too. Maybe I am pessimistic, but pessimists never dissapoints


Sincerely,

-v



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Well I see what you mean but I look at society and see a spectrum. I see a lot of quality spawning quality- small communities and townships. But that said I see the nasty side of our society.

It certainly isn't so black and white though, while the isolation is gone, society isn't just blending to completion. While the boarders are gone, society and culture is still starkly different in all the different places of concentration.

I can only really see a caste system emerging.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 



Originally posted by Good Wolf
I can only really see a caste system emerging.


Yep, it certainly seems so. It is not first time tho; the indians (meaning those that live in India) tried it; while it may have been functional system for a time, eventually it is not a good thing, at least I think so. Who knows if it'll work if maintained properly?

-v



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
check this book out for a reet good read





for those that still believe in darwinism check this out]




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


I'll clarify. I see a 'genetic' caste system, as in the different castes have significantly distinct gene pools. I suggested this earlier.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Pardon me for being unable to read your every post. Caste is caste, whether genetic or social - they still exist for same purpose, to distuingish 'worthy' from others that is.

-v



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


I'm thinking an unintended caste system with the distinctions being genetic. Prehaps caste is the wrong term. i see the different classes in society becoming genetically distinct.

What would you call that?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Umm... Something that is between ape and man? Is that called 'species'?

Okay, that was 50% joke, but still it is something you are talking about. Maybe this kind of distinction has already took place with Neanderthal and modern man? Same origin, yet different species.

Sincerely,

-v

[edit on 17-9-2008 by v01i0]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join