|
Humanity's ultimate destiny
|
Man has been on this earth for more than 5000 years. Yet during this time, he has made many things some that have benefited the world, others that have wreaked havoc. So, what do u think is the way we're going? What is our ultimate destiny?  --> |
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-14 03:00:49 |
i don't know for sure but one things is obvious if we see all the inventions before us, to overcome any difficulties and boundaries of mankind. 
 |
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-14 10:58:29 |
|
Man (homo sapien sapien) has been on the earth a lot longer than 5,000 years! 200,000 years ago is a far more likely estimate. I would like to reply on topic, but will have to do so at a later date. 
|
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
|
Our ultimate destiny is extinction, whether by our own hand or something else's is up for speculation. Ultimately all species go extinct and we are no exception.  |
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-15 12:04:15 (edited 2007-12-15 12:06:27)
|
|
Diablo, I have one small problem with your response. We are living humans, but our descendants in a million years, if any are around, would likely be considered a different species. So, if homo sapien sapien goes extinct in the fossil record a million years from now, it wouldn't follow that we have no living descendants. That's another question onto its self. All species living today are examples of a lineage that did NOT go extinct. Albeit, more species are extinct than living, by several powers of ten. So, speaking mathematically, it is unlikely any humans living today will have living ancestors in a million years time. However, if we are lucky (read: smart), maybe some of our offspring will survive. The evolutionary pressures facing mankind are notably different than those faced by the dodo. To a large degree, we do control (and are therefore responsible for) our environment, which changes the game a lot for us.
|
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-15 23:18:47 |
extinction....i don't think any species will survive indefinitely  |
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-16 01:49:24 |
|
of course no species will survive indefinitely! eventually, the whole universe will suffer heat death. that's not the question being addressed. i'm sure gant's original intent is to discuss the next few billion years. it is entirely conceivable that descendants of living humans will be alive in 4 billion years time. how likely this is would be an interesting question to address. there are many dangers and hurtles that need to be overcome in order to reach this goal. the most immediate threat i see to our species survival in the short term is war. in the current socio-political climate, the impact our species has had on the planet is feared to be our downfall. this is true in that the damage to the environment will cost money and suffering. i feel comfortable stating that extinction due to environmental damage is extremely unlikely. biological and nuclear weapons, on the other hand, have the potential to end all human life. my personal feeling is that this risk is far more weighty than the risk of cultural domination. however, i can see how in WWII, for example, this was an unpopular view. assuming we don't blow ourselves up, the probability that life will leave the planet is significant. i do not expect we, as a global society, would grow tired of venturing into space. life tends to expand past any boundaries it is able. furthermore, the population of Earth has an upper limit, where space does not. the energy and resources that are required to colonize space exist. at this time, we (the scientific community) are knowledgeable enough to voyage into space. the question is not will we go, but when. it seems a bit off topic to discuss further the human potential in space, but that's a fun topic. i am interested in grant's focus on what we have MADE, both the positive and the negative effects of these creations. rather than get caught up in our effect on the environment, which bores me to death, i'd like to talk about biology. bioengineering is new. the history books a thousand years from now might summarize the 1900's as the millennium of the computer, and the 2000's as the millennium of DNA. it is a dangerous thing to say, but i have the balls to state that we've learned 90% of what physics has to offer. by this, i mean that inventions based directly on new discoveries in physics have peaked. if someone else said this, i'd probably argue with them about it, but, like i said, i'm feeling bold. the potential for radial new technology that lies in the biological sciences is enormous. after all, it was only a few years ago we mapped our own genome. i think that in the next few hundred years, the meanings of the words "species", "nature", "humanity", "life", and "good" will be changed dramatically. the current backlash against bioengineering is doomed to fail. i say this because, as the old saying goes, where there's a will, there's a way. as we've learned time and time again in history, once pandora's box is opened, it does not shut again. species: the distinction between groups of animals based on their effectual mating. in a world where cloning is commonplace, the species boundary doesn't matter as much. when chimera and recombinant hybrids are created, the line is further blurred. nature: this word is meaningless to begin with. it serves only to distinguish us from everything else. this is an egocentric viewpoint and one that will eventually be selected against by more rational alternatives. i can hardly wait. humanity: who are we? are we our genes? are we our culture? our experience? i suspect that this question will be answered quite differently in the distant future. life: is an artificial intelligence alive? what about an "artificial" life form? are all living things equally deserving of the right to live? good: what the heck is the greater good? is it the wellbeing of humans? of Earth's ecosystem? are some people's needs more important than other's? i ended up asking more questions than giving answers. get busy!
|
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-16 23:36:42 (edited 2007-12-16 23:37:02)
|
|
(okay, have time for a slightly longer reply now) well i'd say that there is a significant chance of mankind destroying itself within the next several centuries, if not, there will be some great revolution of society that will impede progress for a while, but when/if we do get back on track we will likely take the path prescribed by gendou towards space colonisation. in the slightly longer term of millenia, if we don't annihilate ourselves, it is likely some descendant of mankind will exist, but i predict our lineage will cut off within a maximum of 10,000-20,000 years, or only some primitive, insignificant species living on. |
|
Re: Humanity's ultimate destiny
Link |
by
on 2007-12-23 03:05:02 (edited 2007-12-23 03:10:22)
|
|
In address to the issue of magnetic poles, we're talking about the earth's magnetic poles. Magnetic poles on bar magnets stuck to your refrigerator would remain unchanged during this event. I don't see how the earth's magnetic field changing would make it "difficult to have a clearly defined electronic system". Our power grids rely on relatively stable solar weather, which is something that might need to change in the near future. The changing of earth's magnetic field to any large degree would mean increased penetration of charged particles ejected from the sun's corona. These particles have, during big solar storms, knocked out power grids and damaged orbital electronics. If the earth's magnetic field was significantly weakened, these particles could do much worse damage to our equipment and even our bodies. I am quite skeptical of the dipole oscillation theory, but am admittedly not well informed on the supporting evidence. On the other hand, it sure as heck happens in the sun, so it might as well happen inside the earth, too. All in all, doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. In response to the idea that the human race will split off into different species: It certainly is the trend that species diverge, and humans seem not exempt from the forces of evolution. However, in our global world, people of all sorts of different backgrounds (cultural, geographical, racial, religious, class, etc.) are able to interbreed and, in fact, drawn to do so instinctively. This instinct to seek out a dissimilar mate seems likely to serve the purpose of maximizing genetic variation. For this reason, our species may exercise a certain cohesion previously unseen in nature, due to our ability to overcome geographical isolation with a quick plain flight.
|