Author Topic: Let me............... Tel-e-port you!  (Read 39099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Selection pressure is not the only means to evolve.

It is, however, the one that moves quickest. It would take significantly longer even in geological terms to get anywhere without it. (In fact a situation without it is effectively impossible, because there will always be a negative interest to it as all other methods will not necessarily be beneficial.)

So by the time you've made it without selection pressure, it's probably too late anyways. :P
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable

The real question is, is there any real NEED to improve the basic healthy human body?
For example if a human wants to become a better explorer so they give themselves night vision like a cat is that an improvement? Being afraid of the dark is a fundamental part of human existence, especially childhood. How will we be without fear of the dark, fear of the unknown? For example, if "the dark" is a simply a physical manifestation of "the unknown" in general how will humans interact and think about the unknown? Will there be less incentive within the human psyche to explore and pursue the unknown?

We don't know.

Here's a nice little thought: It is uncommon nowadays to live without a mobile Phone. GPS devices in Phones become more common by the day. Very soon, we will live in a world where "being lost" is an unknown concept for kids. That, I believe, is as much a part of human nature as fear of the dark, and somehow I doubt that removing these things will lead to a dehumanization of some kind.

Quote
All we know is that the human race has achieved an incredible amount of knowledge, creativity and technology with our current limitations. If those limitations are taken away will we be better for it? If all humans are born with the same superior eyesight we lose individiuality. If we're born with the same photographic memory and same higher intelligence we lose identity. Will the human race have the same potential without the individuality? If we're all factory made carbon copies where is ambition? the drive to do better?

You people should all turn off your computers, go to Rogers and rent Gattaca.

And you should read Iain M. Banks' Culture Novels.

Now, again I ask: Where and When do you want research in medical science to stop? Where will YOU draw the line of "good medicine that enhances and empowers humans" and "bad technology that dehumanizes people"?
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Isn't converting your sentience into a machine mobile form in order to inhabit less hospitable environments also making up for physical shortcomings in much the same way? A Pacemaker is designed to make up for a heart that can no longer handle the stresses placed upon it, an artificial body used to survive an otherwise hospitable environment is exactly the same thing, without the prosthetic, be it heart, bones, or even the entire skeletal and muscular system, the person would die, so artificial constructs are required to maintain it.

Even the possibility of transferring consciousness back into vat-grown organic bodies once the climate has been tamed is perfectly acceptable, I suspect that, like you, many humans would have an inate fear of losing their 'humanity' if they lost their bodies, but at the end of the day, our physical bodies are slightly modified apes, it's the brain, the mental functions, that make all the difference. In essence, the body is an engine, it's the brain that is the driver.

The only scientific hiccup I could see would be procreation, I think it would be extremely difficult to create a technological solution to procreation, but then, if humans were rendered practically immortal, procreation would drop massively. Is that a good thing? I really couldn't say, my instincts say 'No', that procreation, and old things dying to allow the newer, different perceptions to rise, are a vital part of life, but, at least from my point of view, Homo-Sapiens is not the same as Human, Homo-Sapiens is that physical entity, and isn't really all that different from a primate, but a Human is a mental construct, and something far more special and delicate, but it doesn't depend on Homo-Sapiens for it's existence, it's lumbered with it.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 08:28:12 pm by Flipside »

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Selection pressure is not the only means to evolve.

It is, however, the one that moves quickest. It would take significantly longer even in geological terms to get anywhere without it.

Cite please? If that's so, why are human beings evolving so quickly today?

(And there is a quicker method...*innocent whistle*)

Quote
(In fact a situation without it is effectively impossible, because there will always be a negative interest to it as all other methods will not necessarily be beneficial.)

So by the time you've made it without selection pressure, it's probably too late anyways. :P

Um, again, so why are human beings evolving so fast today?

And a big +1 to Flipside, and a comment:

Quote
The only scientific hiccup I could see would be procreation, I think it would be extremely difficult to create a technological solution to procreation, but then, if humans were rendered practically immortal, procreation would drop massively.

We're already biological machines. Technological machines reproduce the same way we do: assembly!

Quote
but a Human is a mental construct, and something far more special and delicate, but it doesn't depend on Homo-Sapiens for it's existence, it's lumbered with it.

And that's really rather well-said. We will remain human once even if we shed our current trappings. A man with two artificial limbs is human, a man with an artificial heart is human - the only way to stop being human is if you decide to stop calling yourself human any more.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Agreed, but the mutations and random combination of genes from the two parents would be, I think, harder to perform in a technolgical sense, but then, in fairness, since we are talking about a humanity that is capable of transferring consciousness, we may well have overcome that hurdle as well by then :)

 
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Uh, okay, I think you're just spouting religion. I can't see any empirically valid points in there, and a few that are even philosophically absurd.

Religion? No the simple core of it is that I think in philosophical meaning of life ways. You think in a science textbook.
I'm Roman Catholic but lukewarm at best. My ideas do not spawn from any religious basis merely my experience and my own spirit.

Quote
Quote
But that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them.

Absolutely no question of that. We are ill-suited compared to some hypothetical species that are better suited. We are, after all, engaged in an exercise of the imagination here.

The problem with your imagination is that it has no core behind it. Things don't pop out of mid-air, they come into being for a reason. How did that species get to where it is? To everything there is a reason.
For example, take what I said before, if a creature can adapt well to its environment what need is there for tools? Without tools there is no technology, without technology there is no space exploration.
Or then we have your other argument about a species reinventing itself. Well, who'd want to do that? Let's say a species creates a sub species for space exploration. Why would that come about? One might say to avoid the dangers of exploring. But this idea misses the core idea that explorers want to explore. The old explorers in the Age of Sail, Captain Cook, Columbus, etcetera they didn't hire a crew and set them loose. They went out themselves. So if there is space exploration the people who want to explore it will want to do it themselves, in the flesh, because sending out some robot surrogate proxy is not the same as doing it yourself. Likewise creating some super human and sending it out won't satisfy the explorers.

Then to that you might say, well maybe this magical species doesn't have the same drive to explore. Maybe they're content staying at home and sending out some new hybrid. Well if they don't want to explore why are they creating these explorers in the first place. Everything in life is cause and effect.

The human race is who it is today because of what we are, not what we aren't. Our creations are as much as a product of our shortcomings as of our strengths, remove those shortcomings and where is the creation?

I'm not afraid of change. I see no need for it.

Quote
Quote
You say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation.

Why aren't machines species?

Because they're tools.

Quote
Why is it a good thing to stay the same species?

Why is it a good thing to change species?

Quote
What's wrong with genetic manipulation? We do it all the time already. How are you going to decide who to marry? Your genes are looking for compatible partners to hybridize with - and you're making conscious designs about a good mate.

Oh sorry. Wrong word for the science guy. Genetic ENGINEERING. Which is what you mean when you say a species redesigns itself.


Quote
Quote
While I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.

Why?

Why's that a bad thing? Why would we want to keep the core of being something obsolete?

Why would any intelligent free thinking species reject technology and consciousness in favor of their animal roots?

Again, you're straying from the argument and trying to manipulate my words.
I am talking about GENETIC ENGINEERING, so are you. But you keep changing this to be an anti-technology. Animal roots??
There is a difference between TOOL technology and manipulating your body. There is also a difference between correcting faults, and replacing PERCEIVED problems. Why does a human need better sight? Why do we need more strength? Why do we need to breathe underwanter? We can achieve all of this with tools, there is no need to change the body.

Quote
You just argued that animals would be against genetic engineering. There are plenty of humans around you who are pro-genetic-engineering. Just by that alone we can see that there's no reason to believe everyone would be as scared of change as you are.

I'm not scared of change, I'm simply comfortable with what I am. I realize that the human experience is based upon the limitations of the human form and without that form the human experience would never be the same.


Quote
Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.

Quote
Why is our irrationality at the core of being human?

Again, what's the problem if the human race dies or speciates? Would you have rather stayed as homo habilis?

The most irrational human quality is love. Love is at the core of all artistic creation. Without love there is no art, and without art we're just machines. Hell without art there's not storytelling and without storytelling there's no passing and accumulation of knowledge, and without that accumulation of knowledge we're still in the dark ages.





Quote
Quote
Without the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?

Any evidence?

Are people more creative if they only have a lifespan of 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Where does it start dropping off?

It's just a silly superstition.

Evidence evidence evidence. You're incapable of understanding basic concepts without evidence. Or more to the point, you adamantly refuse the truths of life without evidence. Do you do more work close to a deadline, yes or no? If yes. Then there's your evidence.

What about the idea that people with terminal illness often drop everything and do everything they've wanted to do? Travel the world, see the sights. Without that illness, would they have ever gone there? Ever done those things? Or would they still be packing bags at Walmart for the rest of their life?





Quote
Er, so, how do brain implants hurt...? We're better at thinking than homo habilis was.

The problem with your argument is you keep comparing us to what we're not than what we are.
Is there a need to improve or are humans fundamentally "perfect" in the loosest sense of the word, and of course we're not perfect but if our world is defined by our imperfections will removing those imperfections create a better world?


Quote
Quote
Of course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof.

Evidence for any of that? Do uneducated third world sweatshop workers make better poets?

You mostly sound very afraid. Which is fine. Nobody's forcing anything on you.

Don't be an idiot.
You're seemingly incapable of any real thought provoking argument because you consistently FAIL to understand my core message by bringing up inane, irrelevant situations. Every scientist who has ever postulated the rules of the universe has done so out of a lack of understanding. Without that lack of understand there is no need to create.

As someone who actually likes to write poetry from time to time, poetry is often simply an attempt to put into words something that cannot otherwise be put into words. An attempt to describe the indescribable. To describe the human experience. It is that lack of understanding that drives the creation of poetry because the poem is as much a tool to help the poet understand as it a tool to help the audience understand.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Okay, I simply can't understand what you're saying any more. It seems to be largely your reflections on life, which, while nice, are no more valid than anybody else's. The only way to conduct a debate is through logic and evidence.

Quote
My ideas do not spawn from any religious basis merely my experience and my own spirit.

Unfortunately, these techniques are riddled with heuristic flaws. They generally lead us to conclusions like 'the Earth is flat', 'left-handed people are sinister', and 'a human being with a gene to give her perfect memory has lost the will to live/create/inspire.'

If you've made deeper points than 'we're good how we are' then I can't understand them. Restate in clear, complete sentences, please.

Quote
Don't be an idiot.

Come on, now. I'm happy to continue the debate, but if this turns personal, I really don't want to fight.

I have no problem if you disagree with me profoundly. I get enough agreement to know I'm not crazy.

You seem to be arguing madly against something that is, so far as I can tell, utterly unrelated to anything I'm saying.

Could you go back and answer the question you're interested in?

Quote
Okay, here, I'll give you the simple point I've made again and again.

Which is more efficient:

A ship that must carry a full life support biosphere for a living crew?

Or a ship that must carry minor life support for a crew capable of biological hibernation?

We'll proceed from there.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 08:52:51 pm by General Battuta »

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Cite please? If that's so, why are human beings evolving so quickly today?

Oh come now. You know as well as I that sentience gave us the ability to direct it and delibrately pursue it. You also know as well as I that I'm discussing the evolution of sentience rather than post-sentience, because that's what all my posts in this thread have been about.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Quote
Every scientist who has ever postulated the rules of the universe has done so out of a lack of understanding. Without that lack of understand there is no need to create.

No offence, but scientists had a lot more understanding when they postulated their theories than the writers of the Bible did when they postulated theirs.

This isn't about creativity, creativity is a part of humanity itself, it would be transferred with everything else, but the idea that someone who has a terminal illness will suddenly do everything they wanted all at once has a few flaws, because the number of people who get terminal illnesses and the chance to do all these things is actually extremely small, and, I'm sure if you asked them, they'd swap the opportunity for the chance to be healthy again.

One could also argue that those who had near-terminal diseases and survive suddenly go out and do all the things they planned to because they realise how precious their life is, which is the other side of the coin, mortality functions heavily in human culture because it is there, like a brick wall at the end of our lives, and it looms ever larger. Who's to say that, if you took that wall away, we would stagnate, we've never had the wall taken away, so any conjecture is theory, for all we know, it could open up humanity to its full potential, allow him to appreciate the true majesty of the universe instead of sitting around on a ball of dirt complaining prosaically.

Death does not define us, it's an immutable part of organic life, it's defined as the great enemy, or the great challenge, but what do we know? In truth, it's the first enemy, the first challenge, but that doesn't mean it is the only one, or, indeed, the greatest or most inspiring, but you have to get over the first hurdle to start running towards the next.

 
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Quote
Don't be an idiot.

Come on, now. I'm happy to continue the debate, but if this turns personal, I really don't want to fight.

I have no problem if you disagree with me profoundly. I get enough agreement to know I'm not crazy.

You seem to be arguing madly against something that is, so far as I can tell, utterly unrelated to anything I'm saying.

Could you go back and answer the question you're interested in?

I'm not calling you an idiot I'm saying don't be an idiot. There's a fundamental difference.



Quote
Quote
Okay, here, I'll give you the simple point I've made again and again.

Which is more efficient:

A ship that must carry a full life support biosphere for a living crew?

Or a ship that must carry minor life support for a crew capable of biological hibernation?

We'll proceed from there.

Basing the response on worldly evidence, creatures which hibernate do so out of necessity not choice.
Therefore while the ship with minor lifesupport will be a more efficient ship, the ship with a full biosphere will have a more efficient crew because they will be conscious and capable of productive work for a greater length of time than a species which by necessity needs to habitually hibernate for several months of the year.

The answer also depends on the capabilities of the ship. If you're talking about a slow non-FTL ship then sure, but if the ship has FTL and is capable of transiting systems at high speed and there is no "downtime" then where is the need for hibernation?

Anyway I'm off to Karate so don't expect an answer for hours.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
You give me hope for humanity, Flipside!

Cite please? If that's so, why are human beings evolving so quickly today?

Oh come now. You know as well as I that sentience gave us the ability to direct it and delibrately pursue it. You also know as well as I that I'm discussing the evolution of sentience rather than post-sentience, because that's what all my posts in this thread have been about.


Huh? All I asked for was a citation on the fact that natural selection was the fastest driver of evolution.

Well, I'd be hasty to say we're evolving towards post-sentience. We can't even say we're fully sentient yet.

Quote
Therefore while the ship with minor lifesupport will be a more efficient ship, the ship with a full biosphere will have a more efficient crew because they will be conscious and capable of productive work for a greater length of time than a species which by necessity needs to habitually hibernate for several months of the year.

Nope, we said capable, not mandated to hibernate. They can stay awake whenever they please.

A human crew capable of hibernation, whether through external or internal means, has all the capabilities of a baseline human plus one: they can hibernate. They win. You could have the same number of live crew as on a regular ship plus extra crew hibernating if you wanted.

Quote
The answer also depends on the capabilities of the ship. If you're talking about a slow non-FTL ship then sure, but if the ship has FTL and is capable of transiting systems at high speed and there is no "downtime" then where is the need for hibernation?

Ironic that your mind revolts at the idea of giving a woman a genetic tweak so she can have perfect memory - and in fact you argue, based solely on your own poetry, that this would rob her of humanity - but then you throw 'FTL' out there rapidly.

You're content to say 'humanity is fine as is; if we improved at all, we'd stop improving', but that same argument could have been made when we were even more limited.

What evidence do you have that our current suite of limitations is the correct one?

None.

(And I want to clarify, here: my argument is that there is no reason to avoid cybernetic or genetic augmentation of the human being, because we have already been practicing such alterations for thousands of years, every time we healed a wound, set a limb, stopped a baby from dying of a congenital disorder, or put a man on a dialysis machine.

We alter our environment; it's what we do. Our bodies and even our minds are part of our environment. The human spirit is to take control of things from nature, and we might as well have control of ourselves, instead of leaving it up to random chance. If people like Akalabeth Angel want to impose limitations on themselves, they will be free to do so, but the important thing is that we will have a choice.)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 09:04:54 pm by General Battuta »

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Huh? All I asked for was a citation on the fact that natural selection was the fastest driver of evolution.

Well, I'd be hasty to say we're evolving towards post-sentience. We can't even say we're fully sentient yet.

Yes, but then you effectively agreed it was later in the reply so I figured you'd found your own citation. :P As it is the only really directed method possible without concious thought, it will allow the quickest progress. I shouldn't even need to cite this. Yes, in theory the other methods available without thought could randomly move faster, but the law of mediocrity says that's most likely not going to happen, and certainly not going to sustain.

I'm not using the terms the same way you are, either, post as in post-evolution-of, and sentient as in whatever you want to call our capablity for thought. I'm trying to avoid the sci-fi here.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Quote
Therefore while the ship with minor lifesupport will be a more efficient ship, the ship with a full biosphere will have a more efficient crew because they will be conscious and capable of productive work for a greater length of time than a species which by necessity needs to habitually hibernate for several months of the year.

Nope, we said capable, not mandated to hibernate. They can stay awake whenever they please.

A human crew capable of hibernation, whether through external or internal means, has all the capabilities of a baseline human plus one: they can hibernate. They win. You could have the same number of live crew as on a regular ship plus extra crew hibernating if you wanted.

All animals in nature hiberate according to the seasons as far as I know. How do you magically create some optional hibernation ability in humans that allows them to sleep for as long as they want. Furthermore, I have noticed in myself the ill effects that long periods of sleep has on the human body (a headache for one). How is that overcome? And if a human needs rest subconsciously to recharge and hibernation is essentially rest how can they choose to wake themselves up without conscious thought?

You see, it's all well and good to say "if humans could hibernate" but there's no basis for it being possible. I could say "If humans could walk though walls they'd be better spies than humans who could not" but so what? I can pull any crazy idea out of thin air. Cause and effect. There needs to be some basis for things. If all we do is pull ideas out of the air what's the point? That's brainstorming not a discussion.




Quote
Quote
The answer also depends on the capabilities of the ship. If you're talking about a slow non-FTL ship then sure, but if the ship has FTL and is capable of transiting systems at high speed and there is no "downtime" then where is the need for hibernation?

Ironic that your mind revolts at the idea of giving a woman a genetic tweak so she can have perfect memory - and in fact you argue, based solely on your own poetry, that this would rob her of humanity - but then you throw 'FTL' out there rapidly.

You're content to say 'humanity is fine as is; if we improved at all, we'd stop improving', but that same argument could have been made when we were even more limited.

I'm sorry, are we sticking to your new discussion? Or are you avoiding the previous post except for picking out random things to use at your discretion? If you want to narrow it down narrow it down. I'm simply saying that if the ship is FTL hibernation is irrelevant.



Quote
What evidence do you have that our current suite of limitations is the correct one?

None.

What evidence do you have that it isn't?

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
It like how a Medieveal Knight, for example, made extensive modifications to his exterior, making a prosthetic carapace in the manner of beetles in order to protect himself from arrows and swords, that's really no different in a way, it's modifying the human body with technology in order to cope with the environment it is in, in this case, a battlefield. It's a prosthetic that can be removed once the environment is safe, but that's not really important, as I said before, if we can transfer consciousness, then the construct need not be a permanent residence either, but the mentality, the humanity behind the concept is exactly the same.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Yes, but then you effectively agreed it was later in the reply so I figured you'd found your own citation. :P

I did?  :nervous:

Quote
As it is the only really directed method possible without conscious thought, it will allow the quickest progress.

Wait, progress towards what? Sentience? Sexual selection can (and has been postulated as) leading to sentience too. What about social selection?

Quote
I shouldn't even need to cite this. Yes, in theory the other methods available without thought could randomly move faster, but the law of mediocrity says that's most likely not going to happen, and certainly not going to sustain.

Er, vis a vis social selection or sexual selection? I should think it has to be cited. Evolution can occur very rapidly even via genetic drift.

I'm not sure what you think I'm taking issue with here, but my objection is simply to the idea that evolution will slow down without selection pressure. That's factually untrue.


Quote
Quote
What evidence do you have that our current suite of limitations is the correct one?

None.

What evidence do you have that it isn't?

Ah, and there it is - the great weakness!

My evidence is the fact that none of the previous suites of limitations, all the way back to single-celled life, were the correct ones. Thus your choice of our current state is arbitrary and rooted in simple satisficing behavior.

As for your objections regarding hibernation, I'll just refer you to Flipside's wonderful last post. The armor had tradeoffs, but nonetheless, it had a net benefit.

The gist of the argument with the hibernating astronauts was that it showed a way that a simple tweak could make us better at space travel.

Another one might be if we gave all the astronauts perfect memories so they didn't have to carry checklists. That should be less contentious for you, and I hope you can agree it's a good change.

The existence of tradeoffs to a strategy does nothing to change the fact that it may be a good strategy.

As a side note, could you just chill out a bit? I really dislike how personal you're making your arguments. It makes me not want to debate with you. I recall this from prior debates, you were jumping all over me even when I was practically agreeing with you.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 09:18:20 pm by General Battuta »

 
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Ah, and there it is - the great weakness!

My evidence is the fact that none of the previous suites of limitations, all the way back to single-celled life, were the correct ones. Thus your choice of our current state is arbitrary and rooted in simple satisficing behavior.

As for your objections regarding hibernation, I'll just refer you to Flipside's wonderful last post. The armor had tradeoffs, but nonetheless, it had a net benefit.

The existence of tradeoffs to a strategy does nothing to change the fact that it may be a good strategy.

Okay so now we're abandoning your simple question for something else entirely are we? Your simple question basically being "Tell me I'm right" to which I responded "no, it's broader than that" to which you proceeded to ignore it entirely. I see how you like to discuss now.

The problem with your "great weakness" idea is that no organism has achieved what we have. No organism in the millions upon millions of years of life on this planet has achieved what we have achieved in the smallest, tiniest, minute amount of time. So I would propose that this is evidence for humans being "just right".


Dinosaurs evolved into pigeons. Was that an improvement?

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Quote
The problem with your "great weakness" idea is that no organism has achieved what we have. No organism in the millions upon millions of years of life on this planet has achieved what we have achieved in the smallest, tiniest, minute amount of time. So I would propose that this is evidence for humans being "just right".

Ah, but we achieved what we have through continuous forward progress. A million years ago, what were we? Nothing of significance. We only arrived in our current state an eyeblink ago and already we are moving past it. Why should we freeze right here, as you're advocating?

I don't understand the rest of your post. If you're referring to the astronaut example, it's discussed extensively in the post you quoted. Why are you ignoring that?

EDIT: Looks like you may have started drafting early and missed an edit, sorry about that. In fact it looks like you've missed a lot of them, which might explain your confusion. Might want to read back.

Quote
Dinosaurs evolved into pigeons. Was that an improvement?

Evolution is not directional. Human design, on the other hand, could be...which is why it would be lovely if we had a hand in our own direction as a species.

Again, in the vein of the spaceship question, would you object to the elimination of cancer? That makes us profoundly more suitable for long-distance space travel. And we've done it before - we've basically eliminated polio from our population. Yet that's the very kind of engineering I'm advocating: taking traits of the human organism and changing them.

And, on an earlier note, how can you say that we've done things no other species has done? We've barely been around for a blink. If we kill ourselves off in the next few hundred years, which we could easily do (but hopefully won't), we aren't exactly a shining success, my friend.

Lastly, please stop ignoring the other posters who have addressed your points.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 09:28:49 pm by General Battuta »

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
Just FYI, post was edited.

And let me hit up a good point while I'm at it:

Quote
The problem with your "great weakness" idea is that no organism has achieved what we have. No organism in the millions upon millions of years of life on this planet has achieved what we have achieved in the smallest, tiniest, minute amount of time.

Exactly. And we did it by thinking and reasoning and creating.

So why stop now?

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
This is frustrating. I feel like you think there's some kind of agenda behind my opinion that I myself am not aware of.

Could you lay out exactly what you object to with the notion that a species capable of transbiological augmentation via cybernetic or genetic means (you keep focusing on the genetic ones...) may have an advantage in space colonization over a species that does not use such means?

Secondly, could you lay out any objections you may have to the notion that there may be species out there which are better thinkers than us, better colonizers than us, or both?

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: The Earth is uninhabitable
As far as Dinosaurs and Pigeons go, the way I look at it, there are a lot more Pigeons about than Dinosaurs these days, so yes, it may not look ferocious, it may not be as aesthetically riveting, it may not capture the imagination, but a pigeon, simply by its existence, has proved its point.

Edit: And lets face it, a large degree of the success of Pigeons has been because of mankind, I certainly wouldn't go to Trafalgar square to feed Dinosaurs, so it seems to me that they are actually a very good example of how something has adapted to make the most of its environment by appearing to 'lose' something.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 09:46:03 pm by Flipside »