Future of our Species?

[GAHD]

:) somehow I think that if we're not wiped out in the next 25 years medical advances will assure that we are one ofthe last few generations of humanity. Simply put: if you live for 1000+ years you really don't want to be cranking out more 1000+ year offspring, the population problem is bad enough with 60-100 year lifespans.

 

Even if we wiped out every last naturally occuing living thing on the planet but ouselvs, we could still clone or chemicly create the necessities for survival. We might not be able to do it efficiently enough to support current population levels, but we could definatly keep pockets of breeding stock alive.

 

This is assuming no idiots detonate 'planet buster' nukes and shatter the mantle. No land= no place for bipeds.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the keys for survival is to evolve with the planet, instead of try to make the planet evolve with us. For example, if global warming makes the ocean levels rise, we can build bigger dikes and dams, so we can live below sea leve. Or we can go with the flow of the earth's cue and move to higher ground. Higher ground will better assure survival while building a better dike; one can see what happened to New Orleans. It is not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

[coberst]

Our species shall be short lived unless the species changes the prevalent attitude held by most.

 

Our technical ability (our instrumental rationality) far outstrips our ability to understand how to communicate and act in concert with one another.

[coberst]

One of the keys for survival is to evolve with the planet, instead of try to make the planet evolve with us. For example, if global warming makes the ocean levels rise, we can build bigger dikes and dams, so we can live below sea leve. Or we can go with the flow of the earth's cue and move to higher ground. Higher ground will better assure survival while building a better dike; one can see what happened to New Orleans. It is not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

 

 

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

 

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to but more appropriately larger than that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

 

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

 

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

 

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of a whole people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based.

 

A compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

 

If religion were capable of creating this sense of stewardship the next problem would be how to create a credit/debit technique which would allow a nation to develop a balance between what is subtracted from the legacy to that which is added to the legacy. How to place a value upon the creation of additional highways which might balance the effect of destroying so many acres of a forest. How to value the development of a new vaccine and how to value the increase in atmospheric CO2. The people must have an easily understood valuation scheme so that they could make the necessary judgments to maintain the balance sheet.

[Kayra]

One of the keys for survival is to evolve with the planet, instead of try to make the planet evolve with us. For example, if global warming makes the ocean levels rise, we can build bigger dikes and dams, so we can live below sea leve. Or we can go with the flow of the earth's cue and move to higher ground. Higher ground will better assure survival while building a better dike; one can see what happened to New Orleans. It is not nice to mess with Mother Nature.

 

Genetically, we have truly stopped evolving the day we changed our environment to suit ourselves.

 

Fortunately, we have a rather plastic brain that allows evolution of our way of thinking even within our lifetime and ourselves. I take it this is the evolution you are speaking of?

 

As to Mother Nature, she still has much to teach us, but it is more akin to what I have to teach a 18 year old before they leave home. We take most of her lessons with us, but we will likely soon exceed our progenitor.

[skuzie]

Genetically, we have truly stopped evolving the day we changed our environment to suit ourselves.

 

We will never stop evolving, unless we engineer our reproduction to be 100% predictable with no errors, ie no mutations. Even then, what about the existing gene pool by our species, lots of people dont have offspring and thus reducing the occurences for certain traits/genes of our genome.

 

I think in the last 50 years humanity has seen the greatest evolutionary change in our genome yet to date (at least in the developed part of the world), and it all has to do with condoms and abortion. Already in the mid 90s there was a sudden drop in violent crime in the US becasue of abortion which became legal in parts of states in the 70s.

 

So you have to ask yourself how will we look like in the future? just look at the types of people that have kids today and look and the types of people that dont have kids today. In the future people will be very more like the people that have kids and less and less like the people that dont have kids. It makes you think dosent it.

[Kayra]

We will never stop evolving, unless we engineer our reproduction to be 100% predictable with no errors, ie no mutations. Even then, what about the existing gene pool by our species, lots of people dont have offspring and thus reducing the occurences for certain traits/genes of our genome.

 

I think you are confusing mutation with evolution.

Mutation is a tool used by evolution. Mutations are required in order to evolve. Evolution is the process by which mutations harmful to a species are removed, and traits desirable (encourage reproduction of the genome) proliferate. The harsher the environment, the greater the value of good mutations and the greater the harm of bad mutations. This has the effect of accelerating evolution. Since we are in a completely benign environment, with no weeding process at all (in fact medical science works against us in that regard) then mankind is likely mutating without evolving.

 

I think in the last 50 years humanity has seen the greatest evolutionary change in our genome yet to date (at least in the developed part of the world), and it all has to do with condoms and abortion. Already in the mid 90s there was a sudden drop in violent crime in the US becasue of abortion which became legal in parts of states in the 70s.

 

Societal, not evolutionary changes. The wonders of a plastic brain that allows changes in behavior to suit an environment, without the requirement of actual evolution. (which requires many many generations)

 

So you have to ask yourself how will we look like in the future? just look at the types of people that have kids today and look and the types of people that dont have kids today. In the future people will be very more like the people that have kids and less and less like the people that dont have kids. It makes you think dosent it.

 

The future of our evolution lies in 2 directions (that I can see). Third world countries that still have environmental pressures (and therefore evolutionary processes), or genetic engineering.

 

Interestingly enough, you make a point though. If enough people decide to never have children, people with those tendancies will eventually be removed from teh gene pool.