very simply, we are the ground-breaking species on earth. We will continue to evolve, much faster than before, because man is so smart and blessed , and though the decendants of humans millions years from now will have little resemblance to modern man (definitely intelectually, probably physically), they will continue to label themsleves human beings. Why, because i think we are the genesis of it all and at no point would that kind of declaration be made. But in effect, by modern standards, it would be a new species, and there will probably be a little Martin in the year 4510000 AR (After Rand) lamenting that a new species name is required, as said by 3 out of 4 published scientist. ah, but then they would have to admit that the great Ayn Rand was a different species from themselves. That would not be tolerated.
right so all along you have been arguing that humans will continue to exist in the sense that they won't, and something different will replace them, but you guess they might call themselves humans. so all you are saying is that you think evolution will continue (amazing!), and that you irrationally refuse to accept that events like meteors could kill us. smart.
I think it was clear. The "decendents" of man (call them whatever you want) will continue to the end of time. this branch, chain, whatever, will never be stopped. And like i said before, near the end will be "near-to-gods". And a hundred years from now i betcha man could stop pretty much any meteor from striking earth. And nothings on the forecast to strike us for the foreseeable future, according to the scientist men. So we're home free. Hooray for man! Viva Yo!
Not by a long shot, amigo. Well, yes. You aren't explaining yourself very well. That's a very simplistic description of evolution. Mutatation and displacement by superior forms doesn't account for speciation in itself. There are many other factors involved. You seem to argue that a species cannot go extinct by disease or disaster, which is just hogwash. This has been observed many times. There are many more evolutionary dead-ends than success stories. Not hardly. This isn't even a debate, not yet. You've made a bunch of pronouncements which have been challenged and you have produced no evidence to support your argument. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but I just don't think you've studied this closely. I ask you to back up these remarks with some evidence. 1. "This simple epidemic hasn't gotton us nor or species links in over a billion years, and now all of a sudden there's a good chance?" Explain to me again how there is no such thing as an epidemic causing an extinction. 2. "Look, we humans are at the top of our game, crossed the threshold basically into imortality as a species."Immortality, huh? I really, really want to hear this one. 3. "We will be around until the end of time". Not a chance. Other species that derrive from us may live long past all our memory, but until the end of time? Prove it. 4. "No, the logical assumption is that we will now be around forever. Deal with it." I don't have to. You have presented no logical basis upon which to form a logical assumption. Much less convince a skeptic. Well, thanks for the sage wisdom, professor. You know, you're lecturing the two biggest disagreers on the forum, for heavens sake. I rarely agree with martin's odd politics, but he's right in calling you for ignoring obvious facts. We're both wholehearted, bigoted devotees of independent thinking . . . but not to the point of bending scientific truths just to be different. I think I understand what you are trying to say. I read Sci-fi, too, and there are some fascinating scenarios involving advanced post-human civilizations. And it could all happen just that way. But, it would be a speculation based on fantasy rather than a logical hypothesis of the future based on observations of past phenomonon.
okay, i think this is my biggest disagreement. You would have to admit that an epidemic causing an extinction has not elimanted man or his forerunners (at least to the point where the latest species was off and running). I can believe that an epidemic could cause an extinction, (although i can't think of one now, can you or martin--just curious) I'm saying that my reasoning suggest that the chances of an epidemic getting us now is extremely tiny. We seem to be rather robust, i think. I think that you think we have been lucky? Anyway, and now we have the power of science and technology, to help stop an epedemic with catastrohic proportions, further putting the odds in our favor. I say again, i think the chances are extremely tiny. ...But, i'll admit, i'm not as well read as you or Martin in this subject, so you've both informed me, repeatedly.
LOL, I have to laugh a bit at this thread. Thank God I haven't been in the middle of this one! God knows, I've had my share of being in the middle of these threads before. :hihi:
Well it was started as a thread where you can express your views and beliefs on the end of the world and not have to worry about the shots being taken at you for youe ideas. It started out that way!
i dont even care much about the thing we are mostly discussing, becuase we are just making predictions. the scientific community will point to all sorts of things that could end our existence, and i dont see how that is really disputable. especially when you consider what a relatively tiny and insignificant amount of time we have existed. we may be around in some form for a while, but then, again, maybe not. there is really lots of things that could take us out, even massive geothermal activity or things you wouldnt really think of. might not happen for a half a million years, but thats not so long. the question of robotics and our future is much more of a fascinating topic. i think many people think that human brains are somehow special in the their computational power, creating conciousness. but i think that is a silly sort of self-centered way to look at it. conciousness is merely the result of massive computational power on the part of our brains. and we do not have a monopoly on computational power. the wet logic gates in our heads are no different in function than the brains of computers. they are just much much more powerful. we already have computers that are as smart as insects. eventually they will be as smart as stupid animals, then smarter animals, then humans. there is no magical line between people and animals and robots. we are just smart monkeys. we are just wet robots, with electrical/chemical computation machines running in our skulls. this is one of the 4 or so topics i have been obsessed with, like urban legends and evolution. my current obsession is japanese baseball.
Computational power does not result in self-awareness, I don't see that. How could you ever program real "self awareness" into a machine, besides a line of program in C3P0 where he says "I am aware of myself!", or some more elaborate facade Which is all it would be. Now by "self-awareness" I mean real "thought" itself, a conscious mind. Not a number crunching computer, a statistical bitch.
