The future of the human race

[Midnight shadow]

Will humans ever evolve? With so many advances in medicine and technology, I think we have halted our evolutionary path. Think about it, what causes evolution? Evolution is the natural adaptation to one's surroundings and lifestyle over many generations. Evolution is triggered by natural selection where those who are born lacking certain attributes cannot survive long enough to reproduce. All creatures go through this, however as humans we have circumvented this natural order by creating devices and medicine that allow those who normally cannot survive to do so.

The other consequence of this is that natural disasters have little effect on us as a species. Again through technology we are able to save the lives of those who normally would die, thus ruining the natural order of things.

Will humans ever evolve, or will we continue to use technology to defy the natural order?

 

[gimmepie]

I can see other primates continuing to evolve. Humans, no. As we are, technology is it for us, there's no reason for our brains or bodies to evolve now that technology can handle all of our needs. Or at least, it will be able to in the future.

 

[Esper]

We might evolve by means other than natural selection. We have the technology to edit genes, for instance, and with the worries about designer babies come true then the successful people will have different genes that make them better adapted to survive. Not survive "the wild" but society.

Also, there are diseases which affect people differently and they might change how we evolve as a species. Our technology might also cause us to evolve, not with genetic editing like I mentioned, but in the kind of way that happens with epigenetics, where certain genes/traits manifest in response to the environment. As far as I know epigenetic traits might be inheritable. So, for instance, our constant use of phones and tablets might cause people's eyes to change over time, or our hands.

 

[Nah]

Humans stopped evolving naturally a long time ago, and we'll never naturally evolve again. Advancements in technology, medicine, etc allow individuals to live who would otherwise be unfit in nature and die, and there's no going back really. Going back to evolution via natural selection would mean that millions of people would be left to die.....which wouldn't fly in society.

Esper brings up an interesting point though that we may still eventually cause evolution in ourselves from side effects of our technology and such, though that's still not exactly the same as natural evolution.

 

[Midnight shadow]

Esper does bring up a very good point, one that I haven't considered. Given how relient we are on our fingers I can actually see us evolving to having thinner, longer fingers, more suited to typing on a keyboard or touch screen. That is unless technology advances to the point where we don't need our fingers as much (e.g. voice commands and mental manipulation).

 

[Her]

Transhumanism seems to be the inevitable path for humanity's evolution, if it can be called evolution. But the idea of whether it is 'true' evolution is a simple matter of semantics - whatever the case, humanity would have changed. If we don't wipe ourselves out due to war or an unprecedented X-event, it seems likely that humanity will become unrecognisable to people born today. I dont think we'll naturally evolve in the sense that our species will respond to the technological advancement around us with physical adaptations, that would take far too long and if humanity isn't extinct/wholly unrecognisable by then, we'd have certainly superseded the the traditional idea of evolution by that point. Any change will be by our own hands and marketed. Perhaps we will change down at the very genetic basis, with not simply wide-spread designer babies but designer lifespans as well. If we survive long enough, who knows what we could do. We could very well cease being human in physical form as well - we could become AI or another idea of inorganic life. As you can see, I've played Mass Effect.

In any case, I'm echoing the common sentiment throughout the thread - the future of humanity lies in our hands, our understanding of the scientific universe. How we go about that is probably the true question. What would we be leaving behind? How would we implement these changes? Would the earth even be able to handle it?

 

[Midnight shadow]

Transhumanism seems to be the inevitable path for humanity's evolution, if it can be called evolution. But the idea of whether it is 'true' evolution is a simple matter of semantics - whatever the case, humanity would have changed. If we don't wipe ourselves out due to war or an unprecedented X-event, it seems likely that humanity will become unrecognisable to people born today. I dont think we'll naturally evolve in the sense that our species will respond to the technological advancement around us with physical adaptations, that would take far too long and if humanity isn't extinct/wholly unrecognisable by then, we'd have certainly superseded the the traditional idea of evolution by that point. Any change will be by our own hands and marketed. Perhaps we will change down at the very genetic basis, with not simply wide-spread designer babies but designer lifespans as well. If we survive long enough, who knows what we could do. We could very well cease being human in physical form as well - we could become AI or another idea of inorganic life. As you can see, I've played Mass Effect.

In any case, I'm echoing the common sentiment throughout the thread - the future of humanity lies in our hands, our understanding of the scientific universe. How we go about that is probably the true question. What would we be leaving behind? How would we implement these changes? Would the earth even be able to handle it?

Ah yes, designer babies. Now there is a mire of a debate that no doubt will happen here at some point (if it hasn't already). Of course, right now we don't know how much of someone we can actually change through genetic engineering, so it's hard to say how much of an impact it will have on human evolution. Could we for example change our dna to such an extent that we could survive the atmosphere of the other planets in our galaxy? That could be instumental in humanity's survival.

 

[Somewhere_]

As long as we have a demand for labor-saving devices and capital goods then I doubt there would be further evolution because it is not needed.

 

[Esper]

Could we for example change our dna to such an extent that we could survive the atmosphere of the other planets in our galaxy? That could be instumental in humanity's survival.

It's not completely unfeasible. I've heard that people in Tibet have a much easier time breathing at higher elevations where the air is thinner. And that's, you know, the "natural" way.

But of course all this about changing our genes and DNA is conditioned on whether we'll allow that. Morals and ethics and all that. There's certainly a strong feeling among lots of people that we shouldn't mess with human DNA even if it's supposedly for the greater good.

 

[Midnight shadow]

It's not completely unfeasible. I've heard that people in Tibet have a much easier time breathing at higher elevations where the air is thinner. And that's, you know, the "natural" way.

But of course all this about changing our genes and DNA is conditioned on whether we'll allow that. Morals and ethics and all that. There's certainly a strong feeling among lots of people that we shouldn't mess with human DNA even if it's supposedly for the greater good.

I didn't know that about the people in Tibet, very interesting. In terms of the ethics behind it, DNA manipulation is nothing more than a tool, and can be used for good or bad purposes. Using it to cure disease or allow us to live in different climates is a very good application in my opinion. Using it so rich people can craft their "perfect" child is not.

 

[Esper]

In terms of the ethics behind it, DNA manipulation is nothing more than a tool, and can be used for good or bad purposes. Using it to cure disease or allow us to live in different climates is a very good application in my opinion. Using it so rich people can craft their "perfect" child is not.

There is still the chance for unintended consequences. You might only be trying to help people and do good and be fair, but you could make mistakes or could create something that gets passed down into further generations that causes damage that no one realized at the time. It's one of the reasons why there is so much resistance to the idea. We don't know all the possible consequences of changing DNA might be so we have to be very cautious and hold back a lot.

 

[Nah]

Another problem I could imagine with genetic manipulation of humans is the cost and implementation of it throughout the world. I doubt it'd be cheap and easy to alter a person's genome, early on at least. Would the government be willing to pay for and set up the services required to alter its people's genetics? Or would it be privatized and the only the upper class can give themselves/their children the genetic benefits? Either way it'd kind of be difficult to completely avoid a scenario where some people are genetically "superior" and others are genetically "inferior". I would not really trust humanity as a whole to not discriminate based on genetics.

It'd be great though someday to have humanity overall be stronger, smarter, and more resilient to disease and harsh conditions, but it's unlikely that path will be only smooth sailing.

 

[Exodrake]

To a limited extent, yes. People look different now than they did 100 years ago due to facial feature selection. I don't see anything major happening though, since we disregard potentially good mutations such as a child being born with an extra arm as "deformities". We are too self-aware now to select for major mutations.

 

[Kanzler]

I think genetic manipulation is a dangerous path that we should definitely hesitate going down. But at the same time, I believe that it will inevitably develop. Anything that gives humanity power can never be halted indefinitely.

I think it will begin in the private sector. I don't know if would be banned or considered lawful. I don't know how you could ban someone for creating super children. You can't undo whatever harm you may have caused society without removing the children. It seems like a slippery slope towards a genetically divided society once you get the ball rolling.

But now that I think about it, I don't think you could get the ball rolling for a long time. I don't think we understand human gene interactions enough to make those kinds of manipulations. The human body and the human genome are incredibly complex, and whatever trait you're interested in - intelligence, physique, creativity - would be the result of so many gene interactions. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think we have a strong understanding about how genes affect intelligence. And even if we did, we might find that the environment that a person is raised in is much more influential on their abilities than genetics - although you could make the case that predisposition to intelligence is enough of an unfair advantage, even if it's not definite.