Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thouhts on the future of human evolution...

Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 4:42:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

Then lets take it down that path. Lets assume natural evolution is out of the picture and human guided evolution is the solution. I believe that it may lead to our extinction. As I said, if humans stumble onto something we aren't prepared for it could destroy us.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 7:26:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

Truth.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 7:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Well, humans are evolving. Take wisdom teeth, for example. People frequently get them removed these days, because they're compacted or they're crowding posterior teeth. But, this is because people's jaws are literally getting smaller. I genuinely believe that people are naturally becoming what we'd perceive as more beautiful, and certainly, more capable. Animals mold themselves in a way, selecting characteristics that fit some preconceived ideal. The reason why nature has so much to do with it, is because those characteristics need to be such that the animal survives its environment long enough to be capable of procreation. However, that's less and less a problem with humans, who are now capable of generally surviving long enough to procreate in all cases, unless there is a harmful genetic mutation, which are relatively rare. The result is that for many generations now, our evolution has resulted almost entirely from whatever we've selected in each other -- in ourselves. Human standards are pretty high these days. We're all forced to meet pretty high standards of sexual attraction. I honestly believe that most women these days are at least pretty. Celebrities don't even look that impressive anymore. I've definitely met prettier girls in person than any popular female celebrity. I think this is a fairly recent development, too. I can still remember the Eighties somewhat, and even then, women weren't nearly as pretty as they are now. It wasn't until the late 90's that generations started looking generally more attractive, and by the mid-2000's, I started seeing real knockouts everywhere. Like, everywhere. It's crazy these days. But, that's just my observation. Maybe it's just me. But, really, I notice that a lot fewer people have acne these days, people keep their hair natural, but healthy, hygiene is a lot more pervasive, fashion isn't all extreme or wildly eccentric, and we're all a product of someone who could get laid.

The world is quite pretty these days.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:59:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.

Thoughts evolve, the body evolves, humanity evolves in many ways and everything has come out of nature, out of the earth, out of the universe, out of the multiverse, out of (insert).

In my opinion, separating 'true nature' from 'human nature' is a straw man since it assumes that humans (and their thoughts and actions) aren't natural, but i believe that they are natural since they evolve from a reactionary evolution that perpetually exists within the Earth within the Universe.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:15:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

Exactly my first thoughts.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:32:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
the trend is towards lower intelligence. The people who are having the most kids are the people that have below average IQs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:34:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:32:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the trend is towards lower intelligence. The people who are having the most kids are the people that have below average IQs.

No research required to accept that statement.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:34:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:32:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the trend is towards lower intelligence. The people who are having the most kids are the people that have below average IQs.

No research required to accept that statement.

Are you asking me to source that or telling me that its an obvious statement so no source is required. Its hard to tell whether one is being sarcastic or not on the internet.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:36:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:34:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:32:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the trend is towards lower intelligence. The people who are having the most kids are the people that have below average IQs.

No research required to accept that statement.

Are you asking me to source that or telling me that its an obvious statement so no source is required. Its hard to tell whether one is being sarcastic or not on the internet.

No, to me it seems obvious. A quick stroll from the hills to the ghetto proves it in any area.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Neither was sarcasm
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 2:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:46:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Well, humans are evolving. Take wisdom teeth, for example. People frequently get them removed these days, because they're compacted or they're crowding posterior teeth. But, this is because people's jaws are literally getting smaller. I genuinely believe that people are naturally becoming what we'd perceive as more beautiful, and certainly, more capable. Animals mold themselves in a way, selecting characteristics that fit some preconceived ideal. The reason why nature has so much to do with it, is because those characteristics need to be such that the animal survives its environment long enough to be capable of procreation. However, that's less and less a problem with humans, who are now capable of generally surviving long enough to procreate in all cases, unless there is a harmful genetic mutation, which are relatively rare. The result is that for many generations now, our evolution has resulted almost entirely from whatever we've selected in each other -- in ourselves. Human standards are pretty high these days. We're all forced to meet pretty high standards of sexual attraction. I honestly believe that most women these days are at least pretty. Celebrities don't even look that impressive anymore. I've definitely met prettier girls in person than any popular female celebrity. I think this is a fairly recent development, too. I can still remember the Eighties somewhat, and even then, women weren't nearly as pretty as they are now. It wasn't until the late 90's that generations started looking generally more attractive, and by the mid-2000's, I started seeing real knockouts everywhere. Like, everywhere. It's crazy these days. But, that's just my observation. Maybe it's just me. But, really, I notice that a lot fewer people have acne these days, people keep their hair natural, but healthy, hygiene is a lot more pervasive, fashion isn't all extreme or wildly eccentric, and we're all a product of someone who could get laid.

The world is quite pretty these days.

First, "HAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA."

Second, here's a video you might want to watch: [http://www.wimp.com...]

When I go to Israel I notice that the girls there are a lot less attractive on average. It has nothing to do with inferior genes and everything to do with cultural insecurities.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 2:47:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 2:42:05 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:46:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Well, humans are evolving. Take wisdom teeth, for example. People frequently get them removed these days, because they're compacted or they're crowding posterior teeth. But, this is because people's jaws are literally getting smaller. I genuinely believe that people are naturally becoming what we'd perceive as more beautiful, and certainly, more capable. Animals mold themselves in a way, selecting characteristics that fit some preconceived ideal. The reason why nature has so much to do with it, is because those characteristics need to be such that the animal survives its environment long enough to be capable of procreation. However, that's less and less a problem with humans, who are now capable of generally surviving long enough to procreate in all cases, unless there is a harmful genetic mutation, which are relatively rare. The result is that for many generations now, our evolution has resulted almost entirely from whatever we've selected in each other -- in ourselves. Human standards are pretty high these days. We're all forced to meet pretty high standards of sexual attraction. I honestly believe that most women these days are at least pretty. Celebrities don't even look that impressive anymore. I've definitely met prettier girls in person than any popular female celebrity. I think this is a fairly recent development, too. I can still remember the Eighties somewhat, and even then, women weren't nearly as pretty as they are now. It wasn't until the late 90's that generations started looking generally more attractive, and by the mid-2000's, I started seeing real knockouts everywhere. Like, everywhere. It's crazy these days. But, that's just my observation. Maybe it's just me. But, really, I notice that a lot fewer people have acne these days, people keep their hair natural, but healthy, hygiene is a lot more pervasive, fashion isn't all extreme or wildly eccentric, and we're all a product of someone who could get laid.

The world is quite pretty these days.

First, "HAHHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA."

Second, here's a video you might want to watch: [http://www.wimp.com...]

When I go to Israel I notice that the girls there are a lot less attractive on average. It has nothing to do with inferior genes and everything to do with cultural insecurities.

Wow! Now that was entertainment!
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 5:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://beardeertshirt.files.wordpress.com...

Duh.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 7:49:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Evolution is too slow and unpredictable. Bioengineering is the future.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 9:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:38:17 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:36:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:34:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:32:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the trend is towards lower intelligence. The people who are having the most kids are the people that have below average IQs.

No research required to accept that statement.

Are you asking me to source that or telling me that its an obvious statement so no source is required. Its hard to tell whether one is being sarcastic or not on the internet.

No, to me it seems obvious. A quick stroll from the hills to the ghetto proves it in any area.

That is to unintelligent of a statement for you to be commenting on this post. It's a product of stereotyping, not a tool of evolution.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.

I disagree. Doesn't all evolution start with just organism. Maybe that on change is the beginning of some type of chain reaction.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:00:39 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.

I disagree. Doesn't all evolution start with just organism. Maybe that on change is the beginning of some type of chain reaction.

It's not up for disagreement; this is basic science. If an individual human mutates wings, then it's not evolution- it's simply a mutation. If this mutation gets passed down to future offsprings, then it's evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:30:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:00:39 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.

I disagree. Doesn't all evolution start with just organism. Maybe that on change is the beginning of some type of chain reaction.

It's not up for disagreement; this is basic science. If an individual human mutates wings, then it's not evolution- it's simply a mutation. If this mutation gets passed down to future offsprings, then it's evolution.

If the mutation gets passed down to future offspring's that would mean him mutating wings is the beginning of that evolutionary string. That would make "him" sprouting wings evolution. You statement is only true if wings don't get passed down to future generations. For the sake of argument we are assuming it did.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:43:17 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:30:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:00:39 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:57:46 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/14/2012 11:50:07 AM, Df0512 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:58:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/13/2012 5:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:46:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's unlikely that the future of human evolution will be anything major because evolution has to do with differential reproductive success. Humans have altered the environment so much that there are very little natural evolutions which will cause humans have more reproductive success.

Human guided evolution on the other hand.... is a different issue.

I totally disagree. There is no difference between 'natural evolution' and 'human 'guided' evolution'.

Humans are a product of the Earth.
Products of the Earth are natural.

When we think of something being unnatural, we think in largely skewed terms. As if there was some incredible force that demanded that the industrialization of Earth was never to happen. It happened, it was the natural progression, it is the natural progression.

You say that 'humans alter the environment so much' without realizing that this in itself is the natural evolution of life on Earth. Just because we as humans react to certain situations on an emotional level doesn't mean to say that creating a plastic and burning it (whilst releasing toxic fumes) is unnatural. There is no grounds to say that the burning of plastic is unnatural other than the way you assume the world should be.

The distinction of natural or unnatural on something is completely based off of personal preferences.

Nobody ever said that "natural selection" is inherently natural/unnatural while human guided evolution is inherently natural/unnatural. They are just labels that humans slap onto the same process with different causes. Just as there are different names for DNA unzipping itself in the human body and humans performing polymerase chain reactions on it, there are different names for different ways that evolution can happen.

I agree. I also agree that there isn't really a difference. What is the next step in human evolution is similar to Mass Effect. What if one day you can wake up and decide to get a implant in your eye to make you see further or one in your arm to make you stronger. And let me say I would be the first in that line lol. Im sure we aren't to far off from that reality as it is already.

I think evolution is change no matter where the change originates. My question is what are we changing into?

Evolution is change over time. Change within individual organisms is not evolution.

I disagree. Doesn't all evolution start with just organism. Maybe that on change is the beginning of some type of chain reaction.

It's not up for disagreement; this is basic science. If an individual human mutates wings, then it's not evolution- it's simply a mutation. If this mutation gets passed down to future offsprings, then it's evolution.

If the mutation gets passed down to future offspring's that would mean him mutating wings is the beginning of that evolutionary string. That would make "him" sprouting wings evolution. You statement is only true if wings don't get passed down to future generations. For the sake of argument we are assuming it did.

Evolutionary string? Wouldn't it just be considered human evolution, and therefore have started at X amount of years ago?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:52:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well i guess I could see that... I would consider humans to be part of Universal evolution so there is a micro/macro to it.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 10:33:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:46:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Well, humans are evolving. Take wisdom teeth, for example. People frequently get them removed these days, because they're compacted or they're crowding posterior teeth. But, this is because people's jaws are literally getting smaller. I genuinely believe that people are naturally becoming what we'd perceive as more beautiful, and certainly, more capable. Animals mold themselves in a way, selecting characteristics that fit some preconceived ideal. The reason why nature has so much to do with it, is because those characteristics need to be such that the animal survives its environment long enough to be capable of procreation. However, that's less and less a problem with humans, who are now capable of generally surviving long enough to procreate in all cases, unless there is a harmful genetic mutation, which are relatively rare. The result is that for many generations now, our evolution has resulted almost entirely from whatever we've selected in each other -- in ourselves. Human standards are pretty high these days. We're all forced to meet pretty high standards of sexual attraction. I honestly believe that most women these days are at least pretty. Celebrities don't even look that impressive anymore. I've definitely met prettier girls in person than any popular female celebrity. I think this is a fairly recent development, too. I can still remember the Eighties somewhat, and even then, women weren't nearly as pretty as they are now. It wasn't until the late 90's that generations started looking generally more attractive, and by the mid-2000's, I started seeing real knockouts everywhere. Like, everywhere. It's crazy these days. But, that's just my observation. Maybe it's just me. But, really, I notice that a lot fewer people have acne these days, people keep their hair natural, but healthy, hygiene is a lot more pervasive, fashion isn't all extreme or wildly eccentric, and we're all a product of someone who could get laid.

The world is quite pretty these days.

This post was immensely astute, analytical, and thought provoking; my comprehension of modern human society is better for having read it. +1. Humans in the industrialized world are so sexually picky these days, the standards for good - even perfect - looks so incredibly high, I think it's kind of ridiculous. Like, chill man, we're just primates who can make tools and use language, that's freaking it. I agree that most girls I see are generally at least cute/pretty, verrrry few are not at all physically attractive to me. What I take from your post is that human evolution is occurring and will occur in the future, but we will probably adapt to the more idealized versions of ourselves, which is one of the most amazing and interesting concepts my mind has ever pondered. By the way, it's clear from the way you speak and some of your insights that you've received great insight from psychedelics/mind-altering drugs. You don't have to respond to this if you feel uncomfortable addressing it in this thread, I just found it interesting that it really shows in your train of thought and the manner in which you express it. This reinforces my belief that most people would benefit in the long run from an experience or two with shrooms.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 1:34:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 10:33:55 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:46:06 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

Well, humans are evolving. Take wisdom teeth, for example. People frequently get them removed these days, because they're compacted or they're crowding posterior teeth. But, this is because people's jaws are literally getting smaller. I genuinely believe that people are naturally becoming what we'd perceive as more beautiful, and certainly, more capable. Animals mold themselves in a way, selecting characteristics that fit some preconceived ideal. The reason why nature has so much to do with it, is because those characteristics need to be such that the animal survives its environment long enough to be capable of procreation. However, that's less and less a problem with humans, who are now capable of generally surviving long enough to procreate in all cases, unless there is a harmful genetic mutation, which are relatively rare. The result is that for many generations now, our evolution has resulted almost entirely from whatever we've selected in each other -- in ourselves. Human standards are pretty high these days. We're all forced to meet pretty high standards of sexual attraction. I honestly believe that most women these days are at least pretty. Celebrities don't even look that impressive anymore. I've definitely met prettier girls in person than any popular female celebrity. I think this is a fairly recent development, too. I can still remember the Eighties somewhat, and even then, women weren't nearly as pretty as they are now. It wasn't until the late 90's that generations started looking generally more attractive, and by the mid-2000's, I started seeing real knockouts everywhere. Like, everywhere. It's crazy these days. But, that's just my observation. Maybe it's just me. But, really, I notice that a lot fewer people have acne these days, people keep their hair natural, but healthy, hygiene is a lot more pervasive, fashion isn't all extreme or wildly eccentric, and we're all a product of someone who could get laid.

The world is quite pretty these days.

This post was immensely astute, analytical, and thought provoking; my comprehension of modern human society is better for having read it. +1. Humans in the industrialized world are so sexually picky these days, the standards for good - even perfect - looks so incredibly high, I think it's kind of ridiculous. Like, chill man, we're just primates who can make tools and use language, that's freaking it. I agree that most girls I see are generally at least cute/pretty, verrrry few are not at all physically attractive to me. What I take from your post is that human evolution is occurring and will occur in the future, but we will probably adapt to the more idealized versions of ourselves, which is one of the most amazing and interesting concepts my mind has ever pondered. By the way, it's clear from the way you speak and some of your insights that you've received great insight from psychedelics/mind-altering drugs. You don't have to respond to this if you feel uncomfortable addressing it in this thread, I just found it interesting that it really shows in your train of thought and the manner in which you express it. This reinforces my belief that most people would benefit in the long run from an experience or two with shrooms.

I was all with you until that last part lol. How can we benefit fro that?
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 1:54:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some of the trippiest folk i've met have never even tried psychedelics. But i do advocate using these substances to most intelligent peeps.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2012 12:09:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 1:11:22 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I was checking out the Mass Effects 3 endings wiki on ign.com and the Synthesis ending got me thinking about where humanity was heading. I realize Mass Effect is a game, but obviously human evolution is inevitable. So I would like to know your thoughts on the what the most logical scenario would be.

I personally believe that will, if we havn't already, stumble upon the key to the next gaze in human evolution. Some type of catalyst connecting everything. I also don't believe we are ready for that knowledge yet. But if it did, what would it lead to?

A one world government/religion where everyone is controlled by a chip in their hand or forehead, the destruction of Jews and Christians, and peace peace until..

Every eye shall see and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..

And the man of sin shall be destroyed by the coming of His splendour!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)