Transhumanism: Should science evolve the Human race?

[The Caretaker]

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization) level of technological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology) advancement, based on the amount of usable energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) a civilization has at its disposal. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. A Type I civilization has available all the energy impinging on its home planet, Type II all the energy of its sun, and Type III of its galaxy. The scale is only theoretical and in terms of an actual civilization highly speculative; however, it puts energy consumption of an entire civilization in a cosmic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos) perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) astronomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) Nikolai Kardashev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Kardashev). Others have extended the scale to even more hypothetical Type IV beings who can control or utilize the entire universe, or Type V that control collections of universes. Other metrics other than pure power usage have also been proposed, such as 'mastery' of a planet, system or galaxy rather than considering energy alone[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#cite_note-0), or considering the amount of information controlled by a civilization rather than the amount of energy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Technology is expanding at unprecedented rates, in the last 150 years we have seen Humanity expand its collective knowledge of the physical universe, create the predecessors of artificial intelligence, create computers capable of incredible processes, and so much more. Above I have quoted the wikipedia link to the Nikolai Kardashev scale, which measures technological advancement. Currently, most scientists would agree that we are around a type 0.7 civilization. We at this point do not qualify for a type I civilization, but that could change over the next 50 years.

A question arises, can Humanity in its current state, survive future cosmic hurdles that could threaten our very existence? Are we intelligent enough? Can we stand the test of time? To be blunt, the surface of our own Earth will become inhabitable in about 1 billion years, as the Sun will begin the last stages of its life, hence it will expand and become hotter. Our Sun will not have a supernova explosion, rather it will rapidly expand (rapidly in terms of a cosmic life cycle) then slowly wither away. Back to my main point, we have a ticking time bomb, and that is assuming we even survive to that point, there are a vast array of cosmic and planetary mechanisms that could wipe us out in our current state. For us to survive we have to enhance our way of thinking, and look outwards towards space.

But before we are even ready to even think about traveling the cosmos, we need the technology to do it, and we simply are not there. We may never get there, many would say we simply are not intelligent enough or psychologically stable enough to do it. We are far too selfish, too engulfed with mundane pleasantries, political agendas, etc. It would take millions of years to biologically evolve, and we simply do not have that much time.

Let's just say that we are not content with being another blimp in the cosmos, let's just say that we want to expand our horizons and become a class III civilization and beyond. Let's say that we want to evolve into meta-humans, post-humans, to reach the technological singularity.



He says theoretically, at the rate our understanding is increasing, nanotechnologies capable of replacing many of our vital organs could be available in 20 years time.

Mr Kurzweil adds that although his claims may seem far-fetched, artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available.

Mr Kurzweil calls his theory the Law of Accelerating Returns. Writing in The Sun, Mr Kurzweil said: "I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogramme our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, ageing. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever.

"Ultimately, nanobots will replace blood cells and do their work thousands of times more effectively.

Within 25 years we will be able to do an Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath, or go scuba-diving for four hours without oxygen.
"Heart-attack victims – who haven't taken advantage of widely available bionic hearts – will calmly drive to the doctors for a minor operation as their blood bots keep them alive.
"Nanotechnology will extend our mental capacities to such an extent we will be able to write books within minutes.
"If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go. Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening.
"So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

Imagine a world where Humans are not only more physically capable, but mentally god-like. Using technology (specifically cybernetics, bionanotechnology, computer science, bioengineering) to give way to even more intelligent humans, as we evolve exponentially into cosmic beings of infinite capabilities, weaving the cosmos to our own will.

We have been set on this path over 40 years ago, while we may not biologically evolve with any amount of haste, technology and artificial intelligence evolves with each passing year. So my original question arises, should we bind our fate to our creations? Should we allow ourselves to evolve into something more then Human? Should we undergo synthesis with machines?

[No Excuses]

Who knows. Five hundred years ago, no one could have imagined the technological advancements we have today. We have great potential to advance ourselves.

And we're also less than a 100 years into a nuclear armed world which is pretty scary to think about. Our history of warfare scares me about the possibilities in the future. Our biggest hurdle might be overcoming our own stupidity.

[Jumbo]

Our biggest hurdle might be overcoming our own stupidity.

This has certainly been the case for me as an individual example. :)

Per the topical question, whether we should or not seems pragmatically immaterial since we absolutely will if we can. :)

[The Caretaker]

This has certainly been the case for me as an individual example. :)

Per the topical question, whether we should or not seems pragmatically immaterial since we absolutely will if we can. :)

That would be ideal, however I would think that the ethical side of it seems to be conflicting, religion in particular.

[Koolblue13]

http://badmitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ribs1.jpg

I think we're doing fine. :D

[No Excuses]

I was thinking of starting a thread about genetic engineering of humans. I think before we get to a stage of synthetically modified humans, we'll likely enter a stage similar to what was shown in the movie GATTACA.

Germline gene therapy (not for the purpose of medical reasons) will likely have unfavorable social consequences.

[grhqofb5]

The day someone tries to implant a computer chip in my body will be my last day on this earth, one way or another. **** living forever.

[Bang]

One could argue that creating and implementing such technology IS evolving...

and so I will.
if we create these miracles and we implement them within ourselves, than we have evolved.

~Bang

[Yusuf06]

The day someone tries to implant a computer chip in my body will be my last day on this earth, one way or another. **** living forever.
I think much of our technology, especially computers have outpaced our ability to interface with them for maximum value. Aside from that, mechanical/electronics have the promise of being able to correct a host of physical and other problems and possibly being the next big jump in life expectancy. But hey, speak for yourself. Personally I think the idea of cyborgs is about the coolest thing ever. I hope I manage to still be around when all of this stuff goes down.

[terpfan44]

I think much of our technology, especially computers have outpaced our ability to interface with them for maximum value. Aside from that, mechanical/electronics have the promise of being able to correct a host of physical and other problems and possibly being the next big jump in life expectancy. But hey, speak for yourself. Personally I think the idea of cyborgs is about the coolest thing ever. I hope I manage to still be around when all of this stuff goes down.

given the suppression of technology and patents like Tesla's works ....and the legal confiscation of inventions by a corrupt system...a shadow government and a shadow economy exist...the Eugenics loving elites have both an outline and a plan for their world/cosmos view....to say anything about ...a dynamic being outpaced...just cannot be made...things are way past linear calculations...or perceptions

[GibbsFactor]

We should just move our brains into a robotic shell like Robocop.

[Destino]

I'm all for humanity going ghost in the shell but I'm not swapping out organs until technology becomes a great deal more reliable and long lasting. Upgrade yourself with a microchip? Great... for the first year. Then suddenly you're slow as hell and experiencing all sorts of random problems, unless you over paid for an Apple. Sadly the Apple users will get the iphone treatment... software upgrades will be larger and aimed at newer models thus "motivating" those with older models to upgrade.

I think I'll leave the cyborg parts to those lacking alternatives. :)

[GibbsFactor]

One could argue that creating and implementing such technology IS evolving...

and so I will.
if we create these miracles and we implement them within ourselves, than we have evolved.

~Bang

Exactly. Where does it say you can't create evolution? Natural selection in the fact that we are smart enough to do it ourselves. Mother nature takes too long anyway. We've got places to go and people to see!

[grhqofb5]

I think much of our technology, especially computers have outpaced our ability to interface with them for maximum value. Aside from that, mechanical/electronics have the promise of being able to correct a host of physical and other problems and possibly being the next big jump in life expectancy. But hey, speak for yourself. Personally I think the idea of cyborgs is about the coolest thing ever. I hope I manage to still be around when all of this stuff goes down.

I read Tuck Everlasting in 5th grade. Immortality sucks. And just so everyone here knows, should this opportunity present itself to the public at any point during my lifetime, I will find a way to put my finger on "the button" and take us all down. So there's really no point in discussing this matter any further. Move along now everyone....

[GibbsFactor]

I'm all for humanity going ghost in the shell but I'm not swapping out organs until technology becomes a great deal more reliable and long lasting. Upgrade yourself with a microchip? Great... for the first year. Then suddenly you're slow as hell and experiencing all sorts of random problems, unless you over paid for an Apple. Sadly the Apple users will get the iphone treatment... software upgrades will be larger and aimed at newer models thus "motivating" those with older models to upgrade.

I think I'll leave the cyborg parts to those lacking alternatives. :)

They are beginning to print new organs one cell at a time. Think of those new 3-d printers but instead of plastic, the ink is actual cells. You could have organic bodies in your closet that you could "slip on" when the old body retires or falls out of fashion.

[Bang]

Exactly. Where does it say you can't create evolution? Natural selection in the fact that we are smart enough to do it ourselves. Mother nature takes too long anyway. We've got places to go and people to see!

We are products of nature, eh? So what we create is also a product of nature.
Although some folks are deadset on the idea of created evolution, and that isn't an argument I'mm getting into today :)




They are beginning to print new organs one cell at a time. Think of those new 3-d printers but instead of plastic, the ink is actual cells. You could have organic bodies in your closet that you could "slip on" when the old body retires or falls out of fashion.

If you're rich enough.

This sort of thing can definitely be used o get rid of the 'undesirables'.. no?



~Bang

[greenspandan]

"Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?"
- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Dynamics of Mind"

"Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself."
- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"

[Destino]

They are beginning to print new organs one cell at a time. Think of those new 3-d printers but instead of plastic, the ink is actual cells. You could have organic bodies in your closet that you could "slip on" when the old body retires or falls out of fashion.

Seems a bit ghoulish. Even if you could keep a cache of fresh bodies to parade around in, I don't think the brain is a plug n play organ. You might encounter some rather embarrassing wardrobe malfunctions.

[GibbsFactor]

We are products of nature, eh? So what we create is also a product of nature.
Although some folks are deadset on the idea of created evolution, and that isn't an argument I'mm getting into today :)


Even the worst stuff we make is natural. Synthetics are natural.



If you're rich enough.

This sort of thing can definitely be used o get rid of the 'undesirables'.. no?



~Bang

We will all be beautiful and perfect in 100 years. Every Sci-Fi futurist is worried about space and flying cars. Non-sense. The next "new" thing won't be how we get around or where we get around to, it will be a human technological jump.

---------- Post added July-6th-2012 at 02:54 PM ----------


Seems a bit ghoulish. Even if you could keep a cache of fresh bodies to parade about I don't think the brain is entirely plug n play. You might encounter some rather embarrassing wardrobe malfunctions.

The slip on bodies aren't quite here yet. But you know what you and I may be lucky enough to experience?

Say we are 70 and in need of a new organ. No more transplants. Doctors will just print us a new one using our own cells.

[Koolblue13]

We should just move our brains into a robotic shell like Robocop.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

[Destino]

The slip on bodies aren't quite here yet. But you know what you and I may be lucky enough to experience?

Say we are 70 and in need of a new organ. No more transplants. Doctors will just print us a new one using our own cells.
Yeah and I'm sure they'll sell the printers for next to nothing and kill you on the refill cartridges.

On a serious note if you can print pieces of people, you may as well just keep on printing and replace them almost entirely. It would be nice if we could make some changes to the new parts? It would be nice if Cee Lo Green could get arms that that were correctly sized.

[Jumbo]

It would be nice if Cee Lo Green could get arms that that were correctly sized. He's like a super-sized Gary Coleman.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hell no, seriously why do we have to repeat the Nazi's mistakes?!

[greenspandan]

Hell no, seriously why do we have to repeat the Nazi's mistakes?!

invoking naziism as a reason not to expand our understanding of humanity is like arguing against better public transportation infrastructure because mussolini made the trains run on time.

[Corcaigh]

invoking naziism as a reason not to expand our understanding of humanity is like arguing against better public transportation infrastructure because mussolini made the trains run on time.

Plus he violated Godwin's Law, which as a message board warrior is a huge faux pas. :evilg:

[Koolblue13]

Is this about fake boobs?

[Jumbo]

I think many people forget how many "nazis" we bribed into this country to use after the war (of course many were actually kept secret as to their identity), and who have had huge impact already on our current state of being, scientifically/technically (and thus in every way). 'Nazi' scientific/engineering/technical advancements permeate the globe. And just as another historical reminder, constructs of "eugenics" were borrowed by the nazis mainly from its manifestations in the good old USA. :D

There's my official nazi-defense of the day in the spirit of continuing a thread derailing. :evilg:

[The Caretaker]

I think a key aspect of all of this, is a internal question of why someone would want to live forever?

I think we as a race overestimate our mental capacity to comprehend what a immortal life-style would be like, we assume that we would not want it. But, when you attempt to understand it from a meta-human point of view, you are greater then human, your mental capacity has increased exponentially, and will continue to increase exponentially. There could easily be a alien race out there that is ten times as intelligent as we are, they could view us like we view dolphins or chimpanzees. Does the Chimp comprehend for example the laws of thermodynamics? Likely not, somewhat like we cannot comprehend what a eternal, transcendent life style would be like, somewhat like we cannot comprehend massive numbers past the trillions, etc.

Plants live at a extremely slow pace when you look at them, however, say you take a camera and fast forward a video of a plant over 30 days and you see vivid, vibrant life. Time moves differently for different beings. Even us humans view time as moving faster as we age older, perception is reality, anything else is merely speculation.

[AsburySkinsFan]

invoking naziism as a reason not to expand our understanding of humanity is like arguing against better public transportation infrastructure because mussolini made the trains run on time.
What attributes are we going to improve upon? Who determines what is better? Come on this is the exact same thing the Nazis did.


Plus he violated Godwin's Law, which as a message board warrior is a huge faux pas. :evilg:
It is only faux ps if it isn't germane to the discussion. When we talk about artificially perfecting the human race how are the Nazi ideals NOT relevant?

[Corcaigh]

When we talk about artificially perfecting the human race how are the Nazi ideals NOT relevant?

Perfecting the human race? No, we're talking about the singularity, when humans and machines merge. This welcomes everyone, and is nothing to do with silly Aryan ideas.

[mistertim]

Perfecting the human race? No, we're talking about the singularity, when humans and machines merge. This welcomes everyone, and is nothing to do with silly Aryan ideas.

Yeah but what if they're blonde haired blue eyed machines?

[Corcaigh]

Yeah but what if they're blonde haired blue eyed machines?

Will they have big boobs?

[DjTj]

What attributes are we going to improve upon? Who determines what is better? Come on this is the exact same thing the Nazis did.


It is only faux ps if it isn't germane to the discussion. When we talk about artificially perfecting the human race how are the Nazi ideals NOT relevant?I'm pretty sure that this thread is about the opposite of Nazis.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Captainamerica1.jpg/445px-Captainamerica1.jpg

[Bang]

I think many people forget how many "nazis" we bribed into this country to use after the war (of course many were actually kept secret as to their identity), and who have had huge impact already on our current state of being, scientifically/technically (and thus in every way). 'Nazi' scientific/engineering/technical advancements permeate the globe. And just as another historical reminder, constructs of "eugenics" were borrowed by the nazis mainly from its manifestations in the good old USA. :D

There's my official nazi-defense of the day in the spirit of continuing a thread derailing. :evilg:

I watched "The Right Stuff" with my son this week.
He kinda tripped when i explained who the rocket scientists were and why they were singng "Lilly Marlene"

~Bang

[The Caretaker]

Perfecting the human race? No, we're talking about the singularity, when humans and machines merge. This welcomes everyone, and is nothing to do with silly Aryan ideas.

^This

I am currently in the bioengineering program at GMU as an undergraduate, and they are doing research in this field, or more specifically, bionanotechnology. It is such a abstract idea but if you look at all the research, It is almost scary how close we are to achieving this, It is an exciting time for science. Immortality is actually one of the easier (relatively, not saying it is actually easy) transhumanistic concepts to achieve, cracking the neural code is a much more difficult feat, and will require the most research and time.

*Edit

And no, cracking the neural code is not synonymous with immortality. In other words, we do not need to completely understand something to fix it.

[mistertim]

Will they have big boobs?

Maybe they'll be engineered to have big boobs. Then we wouldn't have to have the debate about implants vs no implants.

As far as the "singularity" goes (or colonizing other planets, or creating true artificial intelligence, or whatever), I think we're going to have a pretty long time to wait for that. Ray Kurzweil is a smart guy who has some fascinating ideas but lets be honest here...one thing humanity has shown over the years is the propensity to vastly overrate where we'll be technologically at a certain point in the future (or at the very least completely miss the mark...so I find it more likely we'll have technology we didn't really even think of at this point). Kurzweil is fun to read but, IMO, he is overly optimistic to the point of it mostly just being science fiction.

[Renegade7]

Without death, does life lose some of it's value or luster???

[Corcaigh]

Maybe they'll be engineered to have big boobs.

They need to be programmable based on the situation. My wife is a runner and wants this feature. The right size depends on the circumstances.

[Mad Mike]

Science may well be on the verge of the creating the next stage of our physical evolution. But until we learn to develop our minds it will be an exercise in futility.

As for the Kardashev scale, I have serious doubts that a so called type II civilization is possible. And I imagine that any civilization that could reach that level would have been observed by us by now, meaning I don't think one exists. As I've said before, as much as I love the idea of mankind becoming children of the stars, I believe it is far more difficult than we can imagine to overcome the challenges presented by the vastness of both space *and* time. While billions of civilizations may exist at this very moment, I am doubtful that any of them will ever be able to contact another.

[Darth Tater]

^This

I am currently in the bioengineering program at GMU as an undergraduate, and they are doing research in this field, or more specifically, bionanotechnology. It is such a abstract idea but if you look at all the research, It is almost scary how close we are to achieving this, It is an exciting time for science. Immortality is actually one of the easier (relatively, not saying it is actually easy) transhumanistic concepts to achieve, cracking the neural code is a much more difficult feat, and will require the most research and time.

*Edit

And no, cracking the neural code is not synonymous with immortality. In other words, we do not need to completely understand something to fix it.
Most of this will be done step-wise and probably in a voluntary manner. For example, from Google Glasses to Google Contacts to Google Implants. Also, on the medical side, we already have medicine delivered by implants, How about making even smaller dialysis machines (the ones in 2012 are much smaller and more "bulletproof" than the first working ones)? I know pace makers already can be re-calibrated remotely. You need a good diagnostic on your body when you wake up, there's an app for that.

[alexey]

I think a key aspect of all of this, is a internal question of why someone would want to live forever?
Because it beats dying.

---------- Post added July-6th-2012 at 04:37 PM ----------


Without death, does life lose some of it's value or luster???
Maybe... So what? Life without death beats death without life.

---------- Post added July-6th-2012 at 04:38 PM ----------


The day someone tries to implant a computer chip in my body will be my last day on this earth, one way or another. **** living forever.
I don't think your principles re computer chips will override your strong desire not to die.

[PeterMP]

Perfecting the human race? No, we're talking about the singularity, when humans and machines merge. This welcomes everyone, and is nothing to do with silly Aryan ideas.
But the line gets very tricky and even very fuzy.

Look at the context of this thread and the words used in it and the talk about evolution and natural selection.

As we improve technology, if people desire, should they have the option to take on mechanical parts- probably.

I think living forever has some real issues with respect to resource allocation and resource use, but generally, I'd agree with the princple just like I have no issue with people getting artificial pace makers.

But that isn't evolution and doesn't represent natural selection or even indicate a mechanism by which humans will escape natural selection.

BUT when you take those same concepts and talk about them in the context of evolution (i.e. certain things are inferior with respect to other things in some context), you are going down the road of social darwinism, which is essentially what the Nazis were attempting to practice.

[DaGoonie55]

Great thought provoker.

I don't think we will ever achieve immortality. I think we can pretty much put 'death by natural causes' on the endangered list, though. A well aimed 7.62 round will end that discussion pretty quick. Even if the nano bots repair the tissues and the brain survives, the mind (what makes you - you) may be shattered because the electomagnetism has been interrupted. labotomy by bullet. It makes for an interesting night around a campfire with the boys this weekend. Definately will be brought up, and hopefully some trout too!!!

Thank you OP.

[Darth Tater]

They need to be programmable based on the situation. My wife is a runner and wants this feature. The right size depends on the circumstances.

Business appropriate...exercise appropriate...party appropriate. Wonder where you'd install the control?

[alexey]

BUT when you take those same concepts and talk about them in the context of evolution (i.e. certain things are inferior with respect to other things in some context), you are going down the road of social darwinism, which is essentially what the Nazis were attempting to practice.
Not necessarily... Not getting cancer is superior to getting cancer, for example. Using science to eliminate cancer could be called using science to evolve.

As I understand, human organisms include a lot of evolutionary biological tradeoffs or silly quirks which can, in theory, be removed using science.

---------- Post added July-6th-2012 at 05:26 PM ----------

"Darwinism" appears to be the default. What do you think will happen when every major organ below the neck can get regenerated for a million bucks?

[Yusuf06]

It would be nice if we could make some changes to the new parts? It would be nice if Cee Lo Green could get arms that that were correctly sized.
LOL! Emeril Legasse will be right behind him in line.


What attributes are we going to improve upon? Who determines what is better? Come on this is the exact same thing the Nazis did.


It is only faux ps if it isn't germane to the discussion. When we talk about artificially perfecting the human race how are the Nazi ideals NOT relevant?
Really? That's only true if the Nazi's gave the "undesirables" the choice to go to the ovens. In this case we're talking about individuals making the decision to do these things to themselves.

I agree it gets a bit nebulous once one starts considering "fixing" fetal birth defects or genetic engineering though.


Without death, does life lose some of it's value or luster???
It depends. If you're a follower of some faiths then you believe you'll have everlasting life. Many think that makes believers appreciate life less. Personally I don't see the difference between "heaven" and transferring human consciousness to a computer. Besides, I don't necessarily want to live forever, I just like the idea of extending a quality life as much as possible.


As I've said before, as much as I love the idea of mankind becoming children of the stars, I believe it is far more difficult than we can imagine to overcome the challenges presented by the vastness of both space *and* time. While billions of civilizations may exist at this very moment, I am doubtful that any of them will ever be able to contact another.
This is the reason that I don't think we'll ever make contact with other sentient life forms. The vast expanse of space and time between worlds means that the evolutionary windows of different worlds probably won't match up. So we'll probably already be extinct for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years by the time a civilization of intelligent aliens could find us or vice versa.

[PeterMP]

Not necessarily... Not getting cancer is superior to getting cancer, for example. Using science to eliminate cancer could be called using science to evolve.
It could be, but it wouldn't constitute what biologists refer to as evolution.

If you want to say that I think X is better than Y, and therefore eliminating X in favor of Y is evolution, then by those defenitions that would be evolution.

But realistically, those are definitions that you made up.

Are people that refuse cancer treatment for whatever reason inferior to those that don't?

As I understand, human organisms include a lot of evolutionary biological tradeoffs or silly quirks which can, in theory, be removed using science.
So?


Darwinism" appears to be the default. What do you think will happen when every major organ below the neck can get regenerated for a million bucks?
In what context?

---------- Post added July-6th-2012 at 06:20 PM ----------


This is the reason that I don't think we'll ever make contact with other sentient life forms. The vast expanse of space and time between worlds means that the evolutionary windows of different worlds probably won't match up. So we'll probably already be extinct for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years by the time a civilization of intelligent aliens could find us or vice versa.
This very much depends on what if any future propulsion/transportation systems we develop.

[GibbsFactor]

Science may well be on the verge of the creating the next stage of our physical evolution. But until we learn to develop our minds it will be an exercise in futility.

As for the Kardashev scale, I have serious doubts that a so called type II civilization is possible. And I imagine that any civilization that could reach that level would have been observed by us by now, meaning I don't think one exists. As I've said before, as much as I love the idea of mankind becoming children of the stars, I believe it is far more difficult than we can imagine to overcome the challenges presented by the vastness of both space *and* time. While billions of civilizations may exist at this very moment, I am doubtful that any of them will ever be able to contact another.

If we could engineer bodies that live beyond the 120 year threshold we currently have, perhaps we could overcome the vastness of space. Unfortunately, once you leave, nothing you left behind will be there when you return.

And what would happen to new generations? As mentioned, resources would quickly dry up on Earth if we keep producing at current levels and having the death rate dramatically altered. We'd have no choice but to Wall-E it out in space BattleStar Galatica style until we found a home planet. And even if we did figure out a way to travel at light speed, the closest galaxies are still over 100 light years away. We'd still need a way to live longer than the 120 year limit we currently have.

[alexey]

It could be, but it wouldn't constitute what biologists refer to as evolution.

If you want to say that I think X is better than Y, and therefore eliminating X in favor of Y is evolution, then by those defenitions that would be evolution.

But realistically, those are definitions that you made up.

Are people that refuse cancer treatment for whatever reason inferior to those that don't?

So?


In what context?
The OP question seems to assume that science CAN evolve the human race, so I was going with that. Personally, I think that it would be more accurate to use different terms for whatever happens with humans because culture plays such an important role.

As for my comment about "Darwinism..." I think people tend to overlook "social Darwinism" based on socio-economic status while making a big deal about other forms of it.

[mjah]

Let's just say that we are not content with being another blimp in the cosmos
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/bigelow/new/640/BA-330.jpg

Dunno... I'd be content with that these days.

[PeterMP]

The OP question seems to assume that science CAN evolve the human race, so I was going with that. Personally, I think that it would be more accurate to use different terms for whatever happens with humans because culture plays such an important role.
And my point is when you use the term evolution and natural selection, your walking a line.

If the OP had stated Transhumans: Should science continue to help humans survive that want to survive to the point of making them largely machines

The conversation would have taken a very different direction.

When you talk about it taking million of years for nature to evolve us and so we need to speed up the process.

You are walking a fine line that I'm not sure we really want to walk (Of course, your also just being wrong, but that's not really relevant to the OP).

As for my comment about "Darwinism..." I think people tend to overlook "social Darwinism" based on socio-economic status while making a big deal about other forms of it.
I don't think evolution driven by socioeconomic factors is normally considered social darwinims because it isn't really a societal decision w/ respect to who is better.

Society isn't trying to eliminate poor people. We don't have laws or really any preventative manner to keep poor people from reproducing.

In fact, generally, it is the poorest members of society and some of the poorest (not THE poorest) societies that are reproducing and leaving the most off spring.

That would be the opposite of socio-economic based Social Darwinism in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

[No Excuses]

And even if we did figure out a way to travel at light speed, the closest galaxies are still over 100 light years away. We'd still need a way to live longer than the 120 year limit we currently have.

If you are inside a spaceship traveling at the speed of light, you won't need to worry about age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_and_space_flight


Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human travelling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on Earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity) acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.

[alexey]

And my point is when you use the term evolution and natural selection, your walking a line.

If the OP had stated Transhumans: Should science continue to help humans survive that want to survive to the point of making them largely machines

The conversation would have taken a very different direction.

When you talk about it taking million of years for nature to evolve us and so we need to speed up the process.

You are walking a fine line that I'm not sure we really want to walk (Of course, your also just being wrong, but that's not really relevant to the OP).

I don't think evolution driven by socioeconomic factors is normally considered social darwinims because it isn't really a societal decision w/ respect to who is better.

Society isn't trying to eliminate poor people. We don't have laws or really any preventative manner to keep poor people from reproducing.

In fact, generally, it is the poorest members of society and some of the poorest (not THE poorest) societies that are reproducing and leaving the most off spring.

That would be the opposite of socio-economic based Social Darwinism in the manner you seem to be suggesting.
I did not understand the OP to mean "the same thing as evolution through natural selection but faster". My assumption was that OP meant things like body augmentation, targeted DNA changes, advanced medicine, etc. Judging by replies I was not alone.

You have a good point about social Darwinism. Cannot say that I am too worried about that coming about. Are you?

You are right - a different term would be more appropriate to describe what I consider to be an inevitable development of science and medicine where people who are well off have exclusive access to expensive life-prolonging treatments. I think such a development would create a lot of social tension and lead to significant changes. That would be an interesting thing to discuss, but i am not sure whether that discussion is appropriate for this thread.

[PeterMP]

I did not understand the OP to mean "the same thing as evolution through natural selection but faster". My assumption was that OP meant things like body augmentation, targeted DNA changes, advanced medicine, etc. Judging by replies I was not alone.

You have a good point about social Darwinism. Cannot say that I am too worried about that coming about. Are you?

You are right - a different term would be more appropriate to describe what I consider to be an inevitable development of science and medicine where people who are well off have exclusive access to expensive life-prolonging treatments. I think such a development would create a lot of social tension and lead to significant changes. That would be an interesting thing to discuss, but i am not sure whether that discussion is appropriate for this thread.

1. I think the OP strongly suggested what evolution through natural selection would give you, but faster:


But before we are even ready to even think about traveling the cosmos, we need the technology to do it, and we simply are not there. We may never get there, many would say we simply are not intelligent enough or psychologically stable enough to do it. We are far too selfish, too engulfed with mundane pleasantries, political agendas, etc. It would take millions of years to biologically evolve, and we simply do not have that much time.

(Note, I added the bold) w/o explicitaly stating it.

I'll also point out that I didn't start this conversation in this direction.

2. I certainly think advances in health care and there associated costs out pacing our resource use and sharing is a potential issue. Actually, I think it IS an issue. But that still doesn't make it social darwinism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Perfecting the human race? No, we're talking about the singularity, when humans and machines merge. This welcomes everyone, and is nothing to do with silly Aryan ideas.

Sure it won't, it is still a question of what aspects we choose to promote and which one's we choose to be lesser...one's that just happen to be genetically inherited. We're saying humans aren't good enough, and once we have this new cybernetic human they will be superior to normally evolved humans, at what point do those look at the rest as inferior? Seriously, didn't ya'll pay attention to Battlestar Gallactica? A cautionary tale if there ever was one.

[mistertim]

Seriously, didn't ya'll pay attention to Battlestar Gallactica? A cautionary tale if there ever was one.

Wait, what? BSG wasn't about human genetic/mechanical enhancement. It was about humans who built big frakking tin cans and then let them essentially run day to day life without wondering if it might be a bad idea that could eventually go wrong. Yes the cylons eventually made themselves more human but they were still toasters, not humans who experimented with eugenics. Besides...don't complain:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/4/3/7/7/3/5/i/7/3/1/o/Battlestar-Galactica-TriciaHelfer112.jpg

:D

[The Caretaker]

1. I think the OP strongly suggested what evolution through natural selection would give you, but faster:



(Note, I added the bold) w/o explicitaly stating it.

I'll also point out that I didn't start this conversation in this direction.

2. I certainly think advances in health care and there associated costs out pacing our resource use and sharing is a potential issue. Actually, I think it IS an issue.

Indeed, and speaking to the issue of social tension, ideally a greater being is not just one simply of greater intelligence and physical capabilities, the psychological predispositions, personalities, etc would be artificially "weeded out", this is where the ethics come in, but that is part of becoming a greater being, becoming greater then human. All these issues of social tension is one that ideally would only arise in a lesser civilization. A sort of equality with individuality would be reached. This is ideally. However, in my opinion, this HAS to happen in order for us to control these new gifts, there is no way in hell that humans as they are can handle (as a whole) this technology if greed, selfishness, etc remains.

To evolve means to transcend humanity in all ways, anything less would be catastrophic. imo.

[grhqofb5]

Our differences are what give our culture its strength. If "science" goes this route, we'll all just be a bunch of damn iPhones. Seems like a nice idea, until you notice that everyone just has the same apps.
'

[The Caretaker]

Our differences are what give our culture its strength. If "science" goes this route, we'll all just be a bunch of damn iPhones. Seems like a nice idea, until you notice that everyone just has the same apps.
'

I agree, Ideally (I use this word often :D) differences can be seen through other routes other then socioeconomic status. Through sports, talents, etc. We will still be at least half-biological, genetic differences will be evident, However to have more privileged meta-humans would potentially be dangerous. But another argument can be made that we would have no need for "cultural differences" as these are homo-sapient values, it would be difficult to perceive what the values and enjoyments would be of a bionic human.

[ixcuincle]

Interesting predicament. People are kind of wary of genetic engineering

I first pursued a Master's program in biotechnology before switching to something else. I remember reading a lot of biological studies.

If you're talking about stem cells, then yes, yes yes. And they aren't embryonic anymore, you can grow them from bone marrow, I believe. I haven't read the readings in a while, but they have developed more humane methods of farming these cells. And if these cells create replacement organs which help people in need, then they should definitely be used.

There is the risk of rejection, but modern science is working on that. I think it's less of a risk now than it was when I was doing research in the field.

Not sure how to feel about scientific improvements though. Stem cells should be a no brainer though. The line for organ donations is ridiculously long. If you can farm organs, you significantly reduce the time for a person in need.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wait, what? BSG wasn't about human genetic/mechanical enhancement. It was about humans who built big frakking tin cans and then let them essentially run day to day life without wondering if it might be a bad idea that could eventually go wrong. Yes the cylons eventually made themselves more human but they were still toasters, not humans who experimented with eugenics. Besides...don't complain:

:D
Actually if you watch Caprica (the prequel) you'll find that the cylons were created in order for a father to download his daughter's memory into a robotic form in order to bring her back from the dead from which she acheived a form of immortality, which then resulted in the toaster war.

[PeterMP]

Indeed, and speaking to the issue of social tension, ideally a greater being is not just one simply of greater intelligence and physical capabilities, the psychological predispositions, personalities, etc would be artificially "weeded out", this is where the ethics come in, but that is part of becoming a greater being, becoming greater then human. All these issues of social tension is one that ideally would only arise in a lesser civilization. A sort of equality with individuality would be reached. This is ideally. However, in my opinion, this HAS to happen in order for us to control these new gifts, there is no way in hell that humans as they are can handle (as a whole) this technology if greed, selfishness, etc remains.

To evolve means to transcend humanity in all ways, anything less would be catastrophic. imo.
And this type of thinking can quickly lead to social darwinism.

[mistertim]

Actually if you watch Caprica (the prequel) you'll find that the cylons were created in order for a father to download his daughter's memory into a robotic form in order to bring her back from the dead from which she acheived a form of immortality, which then resulted in the toaster war.

Ah, gotcha. I never watched Caprica. I kept meaning to but I sorta heard mixed stuff about it and I really liked BSG so I wasn't sure how that would sit with me.

[Koolblue13]

And this type of thinking can quickly lead to social darwinism.

Yeah, sure. It can also lead to an equal, kind society.

It sounds more like Ricky Bobby, than reality tough.

honestly, I can't really wrap my mind around this. I joke a lot about putting HGH in the drinking water, which is only half a joke.

I love my life, but if it ended tomorrow, I'd be happy. I'd never want to live forever. I think that desire is for people who spend too much time chasing things like money and stuff.

[Renegade7]

Because it beats dying.[COLOR="Gold"]


Maybe... So what? Life without death beats death without life.[COLOR="Gold"]


Idk, man, life will get old after a while, ya know? Forever is a long, damn time...





It depends. If you're a follower of some faiths then you believe you'll have everlasting life. Many think that makes believers appreciate life less. Personally I don't see the difference between "heaven" and transferring human consciousness to a computer. Besides, I don't necessarily want to live forever, I just like the idea of extending a quality life as much as possible.



Trust me, there's a difference, but I hear where you're coming from in quality of life. I've told plenty of people that if I'm turned to broccoli for whatever reason, shotgun to the head, please.