Forums > Social Discussion > Terminator and the Matrix
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
member
47 posts
Location: Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
member
47 posts
Location: Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
Posted:
I don't know if the following is depressing or not, but I am looking at my toaster in a new light 
The first users of tools were not men – a fact appreciated only in the last year or two – but prehuman anthropoids; and by their discovery they doomed themselves. For even the most primitive of tools, such as a naturally pointed stone that happens to fit the hand, provides a tremendous physical and mental stimulus to the user. He has to walk erect; he no longer needs huge canine teeth – since sharp flints can do a better job – and he must develop manual dexterity of a higher order.
These are the specifications of Homo sapiens; as soon as they start to be filled, all earlier models are headed for rapid obsolescence. To quote Prof. Sherwood Washburn of the University of California’s anthropology department: “It was the success of the simplest tools that started the whole trend of human evolution and led to civilisations of today.”
Note that phrase – “the whole trend of human evolution.” The old idea that man invented tools is therefore a misleading half truth; it would be more accurate to say that tools invented Man. They were very primitive tools, in the hands of creatures who were little more than apes. Yet they led to us – and to the eventual extinction of the ape-man who first wielded them.
Now the cycle is about to begin again, but neither history or prehistory ever exactly repeats itself, and this time there will be a fascinating twist in the plot. The tools that the ape-man invented caused them to evolve in to their successor, Homo sapiens. The tool we have invented in the latter part of the twentieth century is our successor. Biological evolution has given way to a far more rapid process – technical evolution. To put it bluntly and brutally, the machine is going to take over.
“Greetings carbon – based Bipeds”
Arthur C. Clarke
I don't know if the following is depressing or not, but I am looking at my toaster in a new light The first users of tools were not men – a fact appreciated only in the last year or two – but prehuman anthropoids; and by their discovery they doomed themselves. For even the most primitive of tools, such as a naturally pointed stone that happens to fit the hand, provides a tremendous physical and mental stimulus to the user. He has to walk erect; he no longer needs huge canine teeth – since sharp flints can do a better job – and he must develop manual dexterity of a higher order.
These are the specifications of Homo sapiens; as soon as they start to be filled, all earlier models are headed for rapid obsolescence. To quote Prof. Sherwood Washburn of the University of California’s anthropology department: “It was the success of the simplest tools that started the whole trend of human evolution and led to civilisations of today.”
Note that phrase – “the whole trend of human evolution.” The old idea that man invented tools is therefore a misleading half truth; it would be more accurate to say that tools invented Man. They were very primitive tools, in the hands of creatures who were little more than apes. Yet they led to us – and to the eventual extinction of the ape-man who first wielded them.
Now the cycle is about to begin again, but neither history or prehistory ever exactly repeats itself, and this time there will be a fascinating twist in the plot. The tools that the ape-man invented caused them to evolve in to their successor, Homo sapiens. The tool we have invented in the latter part of the twentieth century is our successor. Biological evolution has given way to a far more rapid process – technical evolution. To put it bluntly and brutally, the machine is going to take over.
“Greetings carbon – based Bipeds”
Arthur C. Clarke
Crime does not pay ... as well as politics.
A bowl of soup with some one you love is better than steak with some one you hate. Proverbs 15, 17
GOLD Member
Neo - Hippie
358 posts
Location: Sala, Slovakia
Neo - Hippie
358 posts
Location: Sala, Slovakia
Posted:
seeing that the human genome is getting weaker and weaker and the whole human race getting more and more lazy and stupid and the enviroment polluted and faster nd more intelligent machines are being invented very rapidly.. I actually expect this for a long time now..: )
seeing that the human genome is getting weaker and weaker and the whole human race getting more and more lazy and stupid and the enviroment polluted and faster nd more intelligent machines are being invented very rapidly.. I actually expect this for a long time now..: )
Smile.. It confuses people..:)
Wonders never cease as long as you never cease to wonder.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
First of all, it will be interesting to see if humans even exist in, say, ten thousand years.
Assuming they do, I predict evolution, at least if you define evolution as a change in a species over time via natural selection, will stop.
We've already gotten to part of it with medicine. Think about it. If you're a woman with a pelvic outlet that's too small, you'll die in childbirth and possibly take the baby with you. Ergo natural selection selects for women with larger pelvic outlets.
Well, it *DID*... it doesn't anymore because now we have cesarian deliveries.
And likewise for many other medical developments from tonsillectomies to appendectomies to glasses.
And now that we have the genome, I give it three decades TOPS before we're doing pre-conception (or immediate post-conception) genetic engineering to (first) eliminate genetic diseases and (subsequently) choose traits for the baby. I feel this is inevitable, like it or not.
And so evolution in any sense of natural selection will come to an end for humanity.
First of all, it will be interesting to see if humans even exist in, say, ten thousand years.
Assuming they do, I predict evolution, at least if you define evolution as a change in a species over time via natural selection, will stop.
We've already gotten to part of it with medicine. Think about it. If you're a woman with a pelvic outlet that's too small, you'll die in childbirth and possibly take the baby with you. Ergo natural selection selects for women with larger pelvic outlets.
Well, it *DID*... it doesn't anymore because now we have cesarian deliveries.
And likewise for many other medical developments from tonsillectomies to appendectomies to glasses.
And now that we have the genome, I give it three decades TOPS before we're doing pre-conception (or immediate post-conception) genetic engineering to (first) eliminate genetic diseases and (subsequently) choose traits for the baby. I feel this is inevitable, like it or not.
And so evolution in any sense of natural selection will come to an end for humanity.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Member
232 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Member
232 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
We don't need natural evolution when we have genetic engineering. We can do a better job ourselves.
Tools are just fooling humans into helping them evolve, they are laughing at us as we ignore there movie explanations of what they're going to do...untill its too late.
Its only a matter of time before something wipes us out. I'm betting on it being related to arrogance
.
EDITED_BY: Kieron (1134047673)
We don't need natural evolution when we have genetic engineering. We can do a better job ourselves.
Tools are just fooling humans into helping them evolve, they are laughing at us as we ignore there movie explanations of what they're going to do...untill its too late.
Its only a matter of time before something wipes us out. I'm betting on it being related to arrogance
.EDITED_BY: Kieron (1134047673)
"I'm quite good at darts, though i often miss" - Kylie
"I'm not a bad driver, I just panic when theres other cars around" - Sarah
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I have serious doubts about humanity surviving more than 200 years on this planet anyway, so it's a moot point for me...
I have serious doubts about humanity surviving more than 200 years on this planet anyway, so it's a moot point for me...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
Computers are not illegient, they use "brute force" - listing all possible options (inclueding the pointless, stupid ones) and running algorithums to deside the "best" course - This is how things like chess programs work. (Incidently humans tend to work from templates "This has worked before in a similar situation - if I change this it should work in this situation")
Even with medical advances and GM natural selection always occurs. Selection is not just about "advancement", it's a stablising force too. Doc, in your example it's true that the woman is the small pelvis can reproduce but if the offspring has a mutation (something that occurs naturally) that means the child won't work (putting it bluntly) like having the chest not close properly during development, there will be a miscarriage. Genes for faulty chest development have been selected out of the population.
As for the "advancement" side since we live in a fairly stable enviroment with few selection pressures to change design, selection continue and design will change but not spectacularly. Ever so slightly different proteins will appear in blood but serve the same function in very nearly the same way. Perhaps some of them will also cause slight resistance to particular diseases, these will proliferate but slowly since (due to modern medicine) the selection pressure for them has been reduced.
I'm actually optimistic about our future as a species and don't believe that we'll wipe *ourselves* out. Whether we can survive an "Act of God" is a different question but so long as we can get off this planet before then we've got another chance if everything goes terribly, terribly wrong here. Plus, different planet (or even "ark-ships"...) = different selection pressures = change in design.
Roll on homo exterrestria
**Dons his space suit**
Computers are not illegient, they use "brute force" - listing all possible options (inclueding the pointless, stupid ones) and running algorithums to deside the "best" course - This is how things like chess programs work. (Incidently humans tend to work from templates "This has worked before in a similar situation - if I change this it should work in this situation")
Even with medical advances and GM natural selection always occurs. Selection is not just about "advancement", it's a stablising force too. Doc, in your example it's true that the woman is the small pelvis can reproduce but if the offspring has a mutation (something that occurs naturally) that means the child won't work (putting it bluntly) like having the chest not close properly during development, there will be a miscarriage. Genes for faulty chest development have been selected out of the population.
As for the "advancement" side since we live in a fairly stable enviroment with few selection pressures to change design, selection continue and design will change but not spectacularly. Ever so slightly different proteins will appear in blood but serve the same function in very nearly the same way. Perhaps some of them will also cause slight resistance to particular diseases, these will proliferate but slowly since (due to modern medicine) the selection pressure for them has been reduced.
I'm actually optimistic about our future as a species and don't believe that we'll wipe *ourselves* out. Whether we can survive an "Act of God" is a different question but so long as we can get off this planet before then we've got another chance if everything goes terribly, terribly wrong here. Plus, different planet (or even "ark-ships"...) = different selection pressures = change in design.
Roll on homo exterrestria
**Dons his space suit**
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
We're a long way away from thinking computers. Dimino is right, at the moment they are little more than glorified calculators. But there is no reason why they wouldn't be capable of anything a human mind can do in the long run. Humans have a very good chance of surviving quite a while into the future. No other species has fall-out shelters and tinned food which would allow at least some humans to survive even a global nuclear war (although the entirity of civilisation would end). Based on that I think that if the KT impact were to have happened today we would as a species survive it.
I don't think genetic engineering is going to put a stop to natural selection on the human race. I suspect that there will be people with a genetic predisposition for and against genetic engineering. If genetic enhancement turns out to be a selective enhancement then people who were more inclined to be modified because of their genome would leave offspring who themselves would be more inclined to be modified. Natural evolution thus wouldn't stop, just become more subtle.
We're a long way away from thinking computers. Dimino is right, at the moment they are little more than glorified calculators. But there is no reason why they wouldn't be capable of anything a human mind can do in the long run. Humans have a very good chance of surviving quite a while into the future. No other species has fall-out shelters and tinned food which would allow at least some humans to survive even a global nuclear war (although the entirity of civilisation would end). Based on that I think that if the KT impact were to have happened today we would as a species survive it.
I don't think genetic engineering is going to put a stop to natural selection on the human race. I suspect that there will be people with a genetic predisposition for and against genetic engineering. If genetic enhancement turns out to be a selective enhancement then people who were more inclined to be modified because of their genome would leave offspring who themselves would be more inclined to be modified. Natural evolution thus wouldn't stop, just become more subtle.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
not arguing with you doc, just pointing out that this actually makes us stronger in terms of genetics. We have more variation, sure some of that is bad genes, like short sightedness, but having more variation allows a species to react better to things that might kill it.
Example from school: healthy plants with good genes and sickly plants on the out skirts with bad genes. Virus comes along and wipes out healthy plants, but some sickly plants resist it due to weird genetics. Hence my hands are cold, and variation is good for survival of a species.
Written by: Doc Lightning
We've already gotten to part of it with medicine. Think about it. If you're a woman with a pelvic outlet that's too small, you'll die in childbirth and possibly take the baby with you. Ergo natural selection selects for women with larger pelvic outlets.
Well, it *DID*... it doesn't anymore because now we have cesarian deliveries.
And likewise for many other medical developments from tonsillectomies to appendectomies to glasses.
not arguing with you doc, just pointing out that this actually makes us stronger in terms of genetics. We have more variation, sure some of that is bad genes, like short sightedness, but having more variation allows a species to react better to things that might kill it.
Example from school: healthy plants with good genes and sickly plants on the out skirts with bad genes. Virus comes along and wipes out healthy plants, but some sickly plants resist it due to weird genetics. Hence my hands are cold, and variation is good for survival of a species.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
GOLD Member
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angels Landing, USA
Posted:
https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/index.html
Obligatory WHERE IS SARAH CONNER?
I think the scariest thing is when scientists and everyone else realize that neurons and bio-computers are FAR more capable computation devices than the silicon counterparts we have now. At least until we make a reliable quantum computer/processor.
*anyone else feel a disembodied zombie rat brain flying a plane is disturbing? 25000 neurons! The human brain has BILLIONS. Untapped potential just waiting to be unlocked.
https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/index.html
Obligatory WHERE IS SARAH CONNER?
I think the scariest thing is when scientists and everyone else realize that neurons and bio-computers are FAR more capable computation devices than the silicon counterparts we have now. At least until we make a reliable quantum computer/processor.
*anyone else feel a disembodied zombie rat brain flying a plane is disturbing? 25000 neurons! The human brain has BILLIONS. Untapped potential just waiting to be unlocked.
To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
Oi!
Written by: jeff(fake)
Dimino
Oi!
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Since when did natural selection exlude intelligence compencating for physical limitations?
Written by: Doc Lightning
And so evolution in any sense of natural selection will come to an end for humanity.
Since when did natural selection exlude intelligence compencating for physical limitations?
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Once again the Manichaean polarization between nature and culture rears its ugly head...
'Since when did natural selection exlude intelligence compencating for physical limitations?'
is addressing the problematic between natural selection and cultural innovation. As culture is undoubtedly part of nature, and cultural innovations alter the (imaginary) purity of nature the dualism falls apart.
Thus in a world where human cultural activity has altered atmospheric conditions and altered all systems of life on the biosphere we are living in what Bill Mckibben famously declared 'the end of nature.'
Equally, the introduction of technology into the daily fabrics of our lives, and bodies such as the Doc's example, along with dialysis machines, pacemakers, breast implants, contact lenses, air cushioned running shoes, etc led Donna Harraway to (ironically) declare that we are all cyborgs.
Remember kids... dualisms are bad. bad bad bad.
'I think the scariest thing is when scientists and everyone else realize that neurons and bio-computers are FAR more capable computation devices than the silicon counterparts we have now.'
Google communicative AI... there's a whole field (of scientists) currently looking into this. And they've had some pretty impressive results with things like human face recongition (which traditional computational AI cant)
Once again the Manichaean polarization between nature and culture rears its ugly head...
'Since when did natural selection exlude intelligence compencating for physical limitations?'
is addressing the problematic between natural selection and cultural innovation. As culture is undoubtedly part of nature, and cultural innovations alter the (imaginary) purity of nature the dualism falls apart.
Thus in a world where human cultural activity has altered atmospheric conditions and altered all systems of life on the biosphere we are living in what Bill Mckibben famously declared 'the end of nature.'
Equally, the introduction of technology into the daily fabrics of our lives, and bodies such as the Doc's example, along with dialysis machines, pacemakers, breast implants, contact lenses, air cushioned running shoes, etc led Donna Harraway to (ironically) declare that we are all cyborgs.
Remember kids... dualisms are bad. bad bad bad.
'I think the scariest thing is when scientists and everyone else realize that neurons and bio-computers are FAR more capable computation devices than the silicon counterparts we have now.'
Google communicative AI... there's a whole field (of scientists) currently looking into this. And they've had some pretty impressive results with things like human face recongition (which traditional computational AI cant)
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
The machine could well take over, if what I understand about artificial intelligence is true. Tools led to civilisation, but I don’t think they have anything to do with evolution; which is more than natural selection. The story I heard was that it took a million years from when we picked up a sharp rock to when we put a handle on it.
H. sapiens have not evolved, not one little bit. We are still the same as we were two hundred thousand years ago. The matrix is about living in the present, not the future. Though in some respects it shows the potential we have to evolve, and what can happen when we start tapping into cerebral cortex’s instead of living in out primate brain.
I'll be back
The machine could well take over, if what I understand about artificial intelligence is true. Tools led to civilisation, but I don’t think they have anything to do with evolution; which is more than natural selection. The story I heard was that it took a million years from when we picked up a sharp rock to when we put a handle on it.
H. sapiens have not evolved, not one little bit. We are still the same as we were two hundred thousand years ago. The matrix is about living in the present, not the future. Though in some respects it shows the potential we have to evolve, and what can happen when we start tapping into cerebral cortex’s instead of living in out primate brain.
I'll be back
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
'The tool we have invented in the latter part of the twentieth century is our successor. Biological evolution has given way to a far more rapid process – technical evolution. To put it bluntly and brutally, the machine is going to take over.'
Think about the scale of technical change involved since the introduction of the phonetic alphabet... The creation of abstract set of symbols which can be rearranged in various orders to signify any object, emotion, concept etc, allowed communication over space which had previously been limited to face to face encounters. The changes from ancient Greek society, in terms of technical and perceptual change (as well as societal) are fairly mindblowing.
To categorize computational tools as something we invented in the late twentieth century erases the complex historical network of thoughts and concepts necessary for the genesis of computational tools.
Ironically, within your time-frame, there have been advances in micro-biology which have seen the advent of GM, the mapping of the human genome etc, which have led to predictions of the twenty first century as the age of biology... as (culturally engineered) biological evolution becomes a far more rapid process (removal of mutant genes responsible for hereditary diseases etc)
one final point...
the machine is going to take over.
we are the machine. or a machine at least. recent (last 25 years) have seen a startling number of discoveries in inter-disciplinary research into dynamic systems and networks showing the similarities of areas as divisive as cell development, global ecological systems (as represented by the controversial Gaia theory and Lovelock’s Daisyworld simulation model), neuroscience, cybernetics, communicative AI and studies on the origins of life based on emerging chemical network theory. For a far less comprhendable (its French post-structrualist philosophy)account of the machinic nature of human check out Deleuze and Guattari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus)
'The tool we have invented in the latter part of the twentieth century is our successor. Biological evolution has given way to a far more rapid process – technical evolution. To put it bluntly and brutally, the machine is going to take over.'
Think about the scale of technical change involved since the introduction of the phonetic alphabet... The creation of abstract set of symbols which can be rearranged in various orders to signify any object, emotion, concept etc, allowed communication over space which had previously been limited to face to face encounters. The changes from ancient Greek society, in terms of technical and perceptual change (as well as societal) are fairly mindblowing.
To categorize computational tools as something we invented in the late twentieth century erases the complex historical network of thoughts and concepts necessary for the genesis of computational tools.
Ironically, within your time-frame, there have been advances in micro-biology which have seen the advent of GM, the mapping of the human genome etc, which have led to predictions of the twenty first century as the age of biology... as (culturally engineered) biological evolution becomes a far more rapid process (removal of mutant genes responsible for hereditary diseases etc)
one final point...
the machine is going to take over.
we are the machine. or a machine at least. recent (last 25 years) have seen a startling number of discoveries in inter-disciplinary research into dynamic systems and networks showing the similarities of areas as divisive as cell development, global ecological systems (as represented by the controversial Gaia theory and Lovelock’s Daisyworld simulation model), neuroscience, cybernetics, communicative AI and studies on the origins of life based on emerging chemical network theory. For a far less comprhendable (its French post-structrualist philosophy)account of the machinic nature of human check out Deleuze and Guattari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus)
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
master of disaster
3,354 posts
Location: New York, USA
master of disaster
3,354 posts
Location: New York, USA
Posted:
um, do people realize that humans aren't the only ones to use tools?
chimpanzees and orangutans, close to humans on the genetic and evolutionary level, are also users of tools. Also, chimps do walk upright.
I don't know, that whole argument just annoys me
first off: The development of bipedal locomotion was a very gradual process, not necessitated by the development of tools, nor was the evolution of the jaw caused by using tools. Its not as if in one generation a group's genetic structure would suddenly change. Besides, new evidence is being found all the time, and there is way too little evidence as is.
secondly: corrality (sp?) does not mean causality. Just because two things happen to occur, does not mean that thing a caused thing b. A correlation means that there is a relationship, but does not indicate that the relationship is a causal one.
third: to say that tools led to man is a VAST oversimplification. Factors not taken into account such as climate change, change in dietary habits, population changes, as well as tools. There was also a very long process, and to say that homo sapiens is the natural result of our ancestors using tools is just madness. Evolution is summed up by the saying 'survival of the most fit', be it physically, mentally, or just luck.
I've got more but I can't think of it all right now.
Anthropologically fascinating.
Written by: Rusto
The first users of tools were not men – a fact appreciated only in the last year or two – but prehuman anthropoids; and by their discovery they doomed themselves. For even the most primitive of tools, such as a naturally pointed stone that happens to fit the hand, provides a tremendous physical and mental stimulus to the user. He has to walk erect; he no longer needs huge canine teeth – since sharp flints can do a better job – and he must develop manual dexterity of a higher order.
These are the specifications of Homo sapiens; as soon as they start to be filled, all earlier models are headed for rapid obsolescence. To quote Prof. Sherwood Washburn of the University of California’s anthropology department: “It was the success of the simplest tools that started the whole trend of human evolution and led to civilisations of today.”
Note that phrase – “the whole trend of human evolution.” The old idea that man invented tools is therefore a misleading half truth; it would be more accurate to say that tools invented Man. They were very primitive tools, in the hands of creatures who were little more than apes. Yet they led to us – and to the eventual extinction of the ape-man who first wielded them.
Now the cycle is about to begin again, but neither history or prehistory ever exactly repeats itself, and this time there will be a fascinating twist in the plot. The tools that the ape-man invented caused them to evolve in to their successor, Homo sapiens.
um, do people realize that humans aren't the only ones to use tools?
chimpanzees and orangutans, close to humans on the genetic and evolutionary level, are also users of tools. Also, chimps do walk upright.
I don't know, that whole argument just annoys me
first off: The development of bipedal locomotion was a very gradual process, not necessitated by the development of tools, nor was the evolution of the jaw caused by using tools. Its not as if in one generation a group's genetic structure would suddenly change. Besides, new evidence is being found all the time, and there is way too little evidence as is.
secondly: corrality (sp?) does not mean causality. Just because two things happen to occur, does not mean that thing a caused thing b. A correlation means that there is a relationship, but does not indicate that the relationship is a causal one.
third: to say that tools led to man is a VAST oversimplification. Factors not taken into account such as climate change, change in dietary habits, population changes, as well as tools. There was also a very long process, and to say that homo sapiens is the natural result of our ancestors using tools is just madness. Evolution is summed up by the saying 'survival of the most fit', be it physically, mentally, or just luck.
I've got more but I can't think of it all right now.
Anthropologically fascinating.
kyrian: I've felt your finger connect with me many times
lou kitten: sneaky little meatball..
ezz: please corrupt me more
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Define Act of God? About the only one I can think of with enough global ramifications is a meteor strike, same as what took out the dinosaurs (apparantly).
No. We don't. Like you say, we're the only ones who will survive. How do you plan to survive when everything *else* is dead? Up to and including the vast majority of animals, grass, crops, etc etc. There is no possible way for us to suvive a nuclear winter that lasts for more than about 14 days. This could result from Nukes or a meteor strike.
Spaceships are not viable alternatives, because no-one has yet found a practical way to get out of our own solar system. We have no "Faster than light drives" and no "Suspended animation Units". The odds of us being able to build a large enough colony ship with sufficient food and crew space in time to avoid the disaster is minimal.
Human caused climate change or War will kill us. End of story. Maybe enough microbes/animals will survive to evolve again.
Written by: Domino
I'm actually optimistic about our future as a species and don't believe that we'll wipe *ourselves* out. Whether we can survive an "Act of God" is a different question but so long as we can get off this planet before then we've got another chance if everything goes terribly, terribly wrong here.
Define Act of God? About the only one I can think of with enough global ramifications is a meteor strike, same as what took out the dinosaurs (apparantly).
Written by: jeff(fake)
Humans have a very good chance of surviving quite a while into the future. No other species has fall-out shelters and tinned food which would allow at least some humans to survive even a global nuclear war (although the entirity of civilisation would end). Based on that I think that if the KT impact were to have happened today we would as a species survive it.
No. We don't. Like you say, we're the only ones who will survive. How do you plan to survive when everything *else* is dead? Up to and including the vast majority of animals, grass, crops, etc etc. There is no possible way for us to suvive a nuclear winter that lasts for more than about 14 days. This could result from Nukes or a meteor strike.
Spaceships are not viable alternatives, because no-one has yet found a practical way to get out of our own solar system. We have no "Faster than light drives" and no "Suspended animation Units". The odds of us being able to build a large enough colony ship with sufficient food and crew space in time to avoid the disaster is minimal.
Human caused climate change or War will kill us. End of story. Maybe enough microbes/animals will survive to evolve again.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
The average lifespan for a species is 2-4 million years. 99.9% of known species that have ever existed no longer do so, so something takes them out and other species diverge to fill the gaps.
During the 18th century a persistant volcanic eruption of Hekla in Iceland changed the climate sufficiently that up to an estimated 1/3 of the population of northern Europe died from intense winters, lack of summers and crop failures, and this was one relatively little eruption. Now, every single mass extinction even has an associated large-scale volcanic eruption period, these things apparently have taken out up to 95% of known genera, and yet life persists.
Has anyone else read Dixon's Man After Man, one group of men head for the stars, returning many generations later as semi-robotic creatures that can't exist without machines, to find that all other branches of mankind have evolved into something else.
Personally, I'm looking forward to having opposable toes.
The average lifespan for a species is 2-4 million years. 99.9% of known species that have ever existed no longer do so, so something takes them out and other species diverge to fill the gaps.
During the 18th century a persistant volcanic eruption of Hekla in Iceland changed the climate sufficiently that up to an estimated 1/3 of the population of northern Europe died from intense winters, lack of summers and crop failures, and this was one relatively little eruption. Now, every single mass extinction even has an associated large-scale volcanic eruption period, these things apparently have taken out up to 95% of known genera, and yet life persists.
Has anyone else read Dixon's Man After Man, one group of men head for the stars, returning many generations later as semi-robotic creatures that can't exist without machines, to find that all other branches of mankind have evolved into something else.
Personally, I'm looking forward to having opposable toes.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Because, quite simply, the survivors of the human race will have taken seed stock with them into their bunkers. It would be an relatively easy to start replanting argriculture using hardy disease resistant strains once the winter had passsed (three years in the case of the KT impact). Till then we would have all the tinned food (which can last for hundreds of year) and cockroaches you could eat. Plant seeds will have gone dormant underground till new light as they did during the last impact and emerge afterwards so the new world won't be quite as bleak and desolate as you think it'll be.
Written by: SethisWritten by: jeff(fake)
Humans have a very good chance of surviving quite a while into the future. No other species has fall-out shelters and tinned food which would allow at least some humans to survive even a global nuclear war (although the entirity of civilisation would end). Based on that I think that if the KT impact were to have happened today we would as a species survive it.
No. We don't. Like you say, we're the only ones who will survive. How do you plan to survive when everything *else* is dead? Up to and including the vast majority of animals, grass, crops, etc etc. There is no possible way for us to suvive a nuclear winter that lasts for more than about 14 days. This could result from Nukes or a meteor strike.
Because, quite simply, the survivors of the human race will have taken seed stock with them into their bunkers. It would be an relatively easy to start replanting argriculture using hardy disease resistant strains once the winter had passsed (three years in the case of the KT impact). Till then we would have all the tinned food (which can last for hundreds of year) and cockroaches you could eat. Plant seeds will have gone dormant underground till new light as they did during the last impact and emerge afterwards so the new world won't be quite as bleak and desolate as you think it'll be.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
Meteor. Doomsday virus. Alien attack. Spicegirls reunion. Take your pick from any Hollywood movie.
There have been at least 6 mass extinctions, killing at least 80% of all life.. Life's pretty damn hard to get rid of.
Written by: Sethis
Define Act of God?
Meteor. Doomsday virus. Alien attack. Spicegirls reunion. Take your pick from any Hollywood movie.
Written by: Sethis
Maybe enough microbes/animals will survive to evolve again.
There have been at least 6 mass extinctions, killing at least 80% of all life.. Life's pretty damn hard to get rid of.
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Correction, killing 80% of all species. The extinctions probably killed about 99.99% of all complex life at the time. But each species would only need a few survivors to continue after the rubble settled.
Written by: DominoWritten by: Sethis
Maybe enough microbes/animals will survive to evolve again.
There have been at least 6 mass extinctions, killing at least 80% of all life.. Life's pretty damn hard to get rid of.
Correction, killing 80% of all species. The extinctions probably killed about 99.99% of all complex life at the time. But each species would only need a few survivors to continue after the rubble settled.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
I stand corrected but the basic point reamins in tact
I stand corrected but the basic point reamins in tact
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
With the example of Nuclear war:
1. How do you plant seeds in Radioactive ground?
2. How do you plant under a layer of Ash/Dust?
3. How do you plant with Chemical Warfare consequences?
4. More to the point, how do you survive with approximately 0.0000000001% of the worlds population? How do you re-populate?
Oh, and you've got no electronics because odds are that some EMPs will have gone off.
Oh, AND you have to factor in the death of almost all other animals, and the survivors have to *evolve* to survive under new conditions. That takes millions of years. You'll be dust by then.
With the example of Nuclear war:
1. How do you plant seeds in Radioactive ground?
2. How do you plant under a layer of Ash/Dust?
3. How do you plant with Chemical Warfare consequences?
4. More to the point, how do you survive with approximately 0.0000000001% of the worlds population? How do you re-populate?
Oh, and you've got no electronics because odds are that some EMPs will have gone off.
Oh, AND you have to factor in the death of almost all other animals, and the survivors have to *evolve* to survive under new conditions. That takes millions of years. You'll be dust by then.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
1. The worst of nuclear fallout has a very short half-life. After about a month the radioactive levels are relatively safe. After three year they would be at worse 2 to 3 times above the pre-catastrophe background levels. Additionally plants are much more resiliant against radioactivity than animals. Since they don't rely on every part of their body working in harmony they can survive cancers quite happily. There are plants growing in ruins of Chernobyl after all, don't underestimate them.
2. You plant on top of the ash and dust (in the event of a astroid collision). In a nuclear catastrophe the ash and dust is unlikely to be more than a few milimeters thick at most.
3. Skim off the top soil and plant again. But there aren't enough chemical weapons to coat the Earth so it doesn't really matter.
4. You underestimate human resiliance. Already there are probably several thousands of people world wide with their own fallout shelters and that's assuming that you would need one to survive. In a realistic scenario you would probably have about 1 to 10% of the population surviving. Even if an absolute worst case scenario came about a few hundred people would provide an adequate breeding stock.
Written by: Sethis
With the example of Nuclear war:
1. How do you plant seeds in Radioactive ground?
2. How do you plant under a layer of Ash/Dust?
3. How do you plant with Chemical Warfare consequences?
4. More to the point, how do you survive with approximately 0.0000000001% of the worlds population? How do you re-populate?
Oh, and you've got no electronics because odds are that some EMPs will have gone off.
1. The worst of nuclear fallout has a very short half-life. After about a month the radioactive levels are relatively safe. After three year they would be at worse 2 to 3 times above the pre-catastrophe background levels. Additionally plants are much more resiliant against radioactivity than animals. Since they don't rely on every part of their body working in harmony they can survive cancers quite happily. There are plants growing in ruins of Chernobyl after all, don't underestimate them.
2. You plant on top of the ash and dust (in the event of a astroid collision). In a nuclear catastrophe the ash and dust is unlikely to be more than a few milimeters thick at most.
3. Skim off the top soil and plant again. But there aren't enough chemical weapons to coat the Earth so it doesn't really matter.
4. You underestimate human resiliance. Already there are probably several thousands of people world wide with their own fallout shelters and that's assuming that you would need one to survive. In a realistic scenario you would probably have about 1 to 10% of the population surviving. Even if an absolute worst case scenario came about a few hundred people would provide an adequate breeding stock.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Plus, theory says the radiation would make them mutate and they would have a better opportunity to eventually evolve into superhumans. Nuclear war could be the best thing every to happen to our species.
Plus, theory says the radiation would make them mutate and they would have a better opportunity to eventually evolve into superhumans. Nuclear war could be the best thing every to happen to our species.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Are you serious ????????
Written by:
Nuclear war could be the best thing every to happen to our species.
Are you serious ????????
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I don't think so Stone. I imagine it's a take on the comic book cliche that radioactivity automaticly gives people super powers. 
Written by: StoneWritten by: Patriarch917
Nuclear war could be the best thing every to happen to our species.
Are you serious ????????
I don't think so Stone
. I imagine it's a take on the comic book cliche that radioactivity automaticly gives people super powers. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yeah, everyone knows that Nuclear fallout automatically gives you:
The ability to fly, OR
Laser Eyes, OR
Superhuman Strength, OR
Telekinesis, OR
Telepathy, OR
and...
A really cool haircut.
Yeah, everyone knows that Nuclear fallout automatically gives you:
The ability to fly, OR
Laser Eyes, OR
Superhuman Strength, OR
Telekinesis, OR
Telepathy, OR
and...
A really cool haircut.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
and the ability to look good in spandex.
and the ability to look good in spandex.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
'sif.
I look good in spandex anyway
'sif.
I look good in spandex anyway
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
MiG: No-one looks good in spandex... I suspect that your statemen leaves you open to charges of delusion and fantasy.
MiG: No-one looks good in spandex... I suspect that your statemen leaves you open to charges of delusion and fantasy.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Oh! I get it
Beam me up Spiderman
Perhaps we should start the spandex challenge.
Oh! I get it
Beam me up Spiderman
Perhaps we should start the spandex challenge.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com