[Deepwater6]

For anyone interested, there is a program on the history channel called "Earth 2100". The shows description is the possible fate of the Earth and it's natural resources in the future.

[fahrquad]

Deepwater6, on 18 May 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

I was reading the article below about how SETI should be looking for intelligent machines not biological systems. It got me thinking what people on this website would think we might evolve into a few thousand years from now? Let's assume for the sake of argument we don't exterminate ourselves before that, and no astreroids hit us in the mean time.

I have always assumed that we would all get smart chips in our bodies and be able to talk to each other by thought alone, but beyond that can we expect to have medical devices that will turn us into machines for the sake of immortality? Will we be able to walk into a convenience store and pick up a new liver after a hard night of drinking?

In the movie "Bicentennial man" (which is great movie by the way) The leading counsel tells the robot who has become human from implants in his entire body except for his positronic brain. I beleive the quote goes something like this "Humanity can tolerate a eternal machine, but it will never tolerate an eternal human. It arouses too much suspician and jealousy."

I can't say I agree with that statement, but I would have to give it some additional thought. I guess having a coworker who has hundreds of years of experience on me would put me at a disadvantage when applying for a job. I myself don't think I would like to live that long. What say you?

http://www.popsci.co...seti-astronomer[/media]

If you may recall he was finally given full human status by accepting death. There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.

[Deepwater6]

fahrquad, on 26 October 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

If you may recall he was finally given full human status by accepting death. There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.

There was also a point in the movie ("Bicentenniel man") that his human wife almost expressed a desire to die. Although physically she could have lasted a lot longer she stated the following "There is a order to things, humans are only meant to be here for a time, then move on." It was almost as though she had something in her internal clock telling her to move on, or maybe she was just getting a little sick of living for all those years.

SigurdV, I haven't given much thought to that far out. When the last star finally burns out it's going to be a very eerie silence.

[arKane]

fahrquad, on 26 October 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

If you may recall he was finally given full human status by accepting death. There are groups out there like Humanity+ who believe in enhancing the human body and mind by genetic and technologically means, but I disagree with tampering with the natural process of evolution. Some propose tampering with the human form to make people better able to work in specific environments, but ethically speaking we would be creating a slave class.

Are you that sure that natural human evolution does not include our ability to understand and make changes for the better? This world isn't going to support the ever increasing population forever. Without some major changes to the way we do business, I would hazard a guess that in 2 or 3 hundred years, things will be radically different, and not necessarily for the better. If the purpose of evolution is to promote the survival of the species, I would hesitate to put restrictions on our ability to evolve as fast as possible.



Now you are being presumptuous. You don't really know what would happen. So making that statement about a slave class is unfounded. Anything they were enhanced to do better would make them very valuable to us. Just might be the difference in our ability to survive and become a multi planet species.

[fahrquad]

arKane, on 26 October 2011 - 05:17 PM, said:

[/color]Now you are being presumptuous. You don't really know what would happen. So making that statement about a slave class is unfounded. Anything they were enhanced to do better would make them very valuable to us. Just might be the difference in our ability to survive and become a multi planet species.

Now who is being presumptuous? What defines us as human is the desire to be free. How can one be free in a body designed for a particular purpose? Your destiny has been chosen for you.

[arKane]

fahrquad, on 08 November 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

Now who is being presumptuous? What defines us as human is the desire to be free. How can one be free in a body designed for a particular purpose? Your destiny has been chosen for you.

Because you have enhanced abilities, you think your destiny has been chosen for you? I don't follow that. For example if your body was radiation resistant and able to live in zero gravity without ill effects would not necessarily mean a restrictive unhappy life. In fact you would have more options than the unfortunates that are unenhanced. Because you can choose to live and work in space. I'm thinking if you grew up enhanced you would actually feel sorry for the less fortunate unenhanced humans.

[Deepwater6]

http://whatsnext.blo...f-science-2021/

I found this link about shaping the future on all different kinds of fronts in the CNN tech section site.

[dduckwessel]

If this information is up to date, the oldest person on record lived to be 122 years old (Jeanne Calment):
http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment
http://www.nealirc.o...anLifespan.html

The human body appears to be preprogrammed for a maximum life span of around 120 years (even then that's rare). I think the only way to the fountain of youth is if our brains were transferred into a robotic body (with human appearance).

Which leads me to ask the question, "If a brain was maintained at maximum health, I wonder how long it could survive (assuming there was the means to keep it alive outside a body)"?

I've heard it said that a human brain (if well maintained at optimum levels) could long outlive the rest of the body. Or is that wrong?

[arKane]

dduckwessel, on 17 November 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

If this information is up to date, the oldest person on record lived to be 122 years old (Jeanne Calment):
http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment
http://www.nealirc.o...anLifespan.html

The human body appears to be preprogrammed for a maximum life span of around 120 years (even then that's rare). I think the only way to the fountain of youth is if our brains were transferred into a robotic body (with human appearance).

Which leads me to ask the question, "If a brain was maintained at maximum health, I wonder how long it could survive (assuming there was the means to keep it alive outside a body)"?

I've heard it said that a human brain (if well maintained at optimum levels) could long outlive the rest of the body. Or is that wrong?

It sounds like you don't believe we will be able to prolong human life? I think they are getting close to cracking that problem. Anyway when you think about keeping a human brain alive in a robotic body, Well that's a much tougher problem. Without sensory input from a living body, I'm not very convinced the brain wouldn't go insane in short order.


Currently when you talk about living to 120 years old. That sounds amazing except when you realize that 60 years of that life was spent living as an old person. If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.

[Eclogite]

arKane, on 17 November 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.

This echoes your horror at the thouhgt of being trapped like Stephen Hawkings in a non-functioning, or poorly functioning body.
Who cares? All the interesting stuff takes place in the mind. As long as that is healthy the condition of the body is secondary. Great if you can run a two hour marathon, but it's not that important.

[arKane]

Eclogite, on 18 November 2011 - 06:23 AM, said:

This echoes your horror at the thouhgt of being trapped like Stephen Hawkings in a non-functioning, or poorly functioning body.
Who cares? All the interesting stuff takes place in the mind. As long as that is healthy the condition of the body is secondary. Great if you can run a two hour marathon, but it's not that important.

If you were Stephen Hawking, wouldn't you care? I care about having "a quality of life". Stephen is making the best of a bad situation, but what happens if his condition reaches a point where he can't communicate with the outside world?

[Deepwater6]

http://www.cnn.com/2...lear/index.html

I think it's important to remember along with our evolution in the future there will be the evolution of wildlife. We often use a device called a "shark" in our large water storage tanks and delivery mains. This allows us to inspect them without taking them out of service. As the article states it saves alot of money, but beyond that it's alot safer then sending someone into a dangerous place.

[Turtle]

Deepwater6, on 28 November 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

http://www.cnn.com/2...lear/index.html

I think it's important to remember along with our evolution in the future there will be the evolution of wildlife. We often use a device called a "shark" in our large water storage tanks and delivery mains. This allows us to inspect them without taking them out of service. As the article states it saves alot of money, but beyond that it's alot safer then sending someone into a dangerous place.

i think they call similar devices in oil lines "pigs". very cool.

now what I think is important is to clarify that it is incorrect and misleading to not specify when talking about "biological evolution" vs. social, cultural, technological, etcetera "evolution". in the former the "gradual directional change" is genetic, whereas in the latter "evolution" is "any gradual directional change". making ourselves into borg's is not biological evolution, nor even is altering an individual's genes unless they somehow breed/reproduce [succesfully]. then too there is all the time natural genetic drift occuring and there is no guarantee that genetic enhancements will take, or take as expected, many generations down a breeding line.

we have not biologically evolved to be technological, we have biologically evolved the ability to be technological. the biological evolution of wildlife has a tougher road to hoe as by all accounts they have not co-evolved technological abilities anywhere on the order of ours. hopefully we humans are making a gradual directional change toward acting like good stewards.

ps when are they supposed to thaw out ted william's head?

[Deepwater6]

Turtle, on 28 November 2011 - 10:35 PM, said:

i think they call similar devices in oil lines "pigs". very cool.

now what I think is important is to clarify that it is incorrect and misleading to not specify when talking about "biological evolution" vs. social, cultural, technological, etcetera "evolution". in the former the "gradual directional change" is genetic, whereas in the latter "evolution" is "any gradual directional change". making ourselves into borg's is not biological evolution, nor even is altering an individual's genes unless they somehow breed/reproduce [succesfully]. then too there is all the time natural genetic drift occuring and there is no guarantee that genetic enhancements will take, or take as expected, many generations down a breeding line.

we have not biologically evolved to be technological, we have biologically evolved the ability to be technological. the biological evolution of wildlife has a tougher road to hoe as by all accounts they have not co-evolved technological abilities anywhere on the order of ours. hopefully we humans are making a gradual directional change toward acting like good stewards.

ps when are they supposed to thaw out ted william's head?

That's a good point Turtle they would be two diiferent things. I had not looked at it in that light and there is definite distinction between the two. There is one certainty though, as we move hundreds or even millions of years in the future humans will continue to replace/add our body parts with artificial ones. Anything from a contact lens to a to our heads floating around on a levitating disc, but I agree with you none of that would be biological evolution.

[dduckwessel]

arKane, on 17 November 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

It sounds like you don't believe we will be able to prolong human life?...Currently when you talk about living to 120 years old. That sounds amazing except when you realize that 60 years of that life was spent living as an old person. If I'm going to live a longer life, I want a young vigorous healthy body for most of it.

I would like to think we could live longer but unless there's quality of life, why would anyone want to? Then there's the idea that we're biologically programmed to die, the ceiling being 120 years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...er_script.shtml

Other's believe the fountain of youth can be found in a bottle:
http://www.lieberton...9/rej.2010.1085