Jump to content


Photo

Future Evolution in Humans


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16 Kwcty6888

Kwcty6888

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,227 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 05:31 PM

*
POPULAR

I agree with you there Hung-Su, especially the part where Animals kill off their young if they're a burden. That's what the Chinese have been doing for centuries with their one child policy, cos apparently their girls were a burden. I strongly agree with you in thinking how that's actually better for humanity and evolution cos I mean after all, we dun want any CHINKS in the armor now don't we (no pun intended). You aint the only one who dun understand why humans have "RIGHTS" to live regardless of whether they can contribute 2 society or not, I dun understand this myself! cos I mean if children are born with physical or mental disabilities, I agree with you that they're a burden to society and need to be dealt with accordingly... Like we need to get rid of'em man.... they're fudged up!


Uh, as far as I know, Chinese people didn't kill girls... They just had more children. And girls weren't burdens, they just weren't as useful. And if people are born with disabilities, you don't need to GET RID OF THEM. Just let nature run its course, if they can survive, they'll survive. What mankind is doing is making sure EVERYONE survives, or at least trying to.

#17 Airforce

Airforce

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:21 PM

But if I were to 100% agree,
Airforce would undoubtedly be the first person killed off.
Okay, I'll be nice now.


hahahaha, luv you to death enkyori! that's y your 1 of my favorites on Boajjang!

#18 --e n k y o r i*

--e n k y o r i*

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:10 PM

^ You're probably not even joking cause you're odd like that : /

#19 Landwand

Landwand

    I know BoA*

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 09:14 PM

Natural genetic evolution is far too slow, and our technology and our social networks make it all the more impossible for the rules of Natural Selection to ever apply. As many have touched on already, the mentally and physically unfit are allowed and encouraged to bear young, further multiplying their bad genetics into our societal sea.

I have qualms with this. But I am yet not a dictator, so I'm not in the position to DO much about it.

Physically, in the far, far future, I imagine that humans will have no bodily hair, become even smaller in size and more frail. We will no longer have fingernails or toenails and I doubt that we will have toes at all. But this will not be for a long, long time.

Technology will be our only means of evolution in the foreseeable future. Thankfully, technology can solve our problems stated above. Harmful genes can be 'edited out' by Playing God (no arguments from me!) . We may yet reach the point; if humans can ban together and come to a consensus and work toward a common and productive goal; in which our physical limitations need not matter anymore.

I can absolutely see everyone walking around in the future looking like an 'ideal' person - or at least a person who is deemed ideal by their parents (or those that engineered them). That begs to question: will we come to a point of sameness? Everyone wants to have beautiful, healthy, intelligent and strong offspring. Will we all end up being the same, I wonder?

Currently, we have an ironic war going on in each of us. We want to be like everyone else (perfect) and yet we want be set apart. We want to be unique -- but not weird. We compensate by dressing like them/ unlike them and style and colour our hair in an effort to announce our merits to the world.

Umm.. anyway, I suppose vanity is a very easy topic to cover. Programmable hairstyles - no longer needing bleaches and peroxides or perms and combs. Press a button on a computer screen (what have you) and BOOM. It's done. Maybe we can do away with the messy parts of ourselves, too. Removal of pores and the need to digest organic matter and expel waste.

I do have one worry though. No one wants to age and die. No doubt, it is not beyond the realm of humanity to say, make a perfect copy of your genes so that they stay on record in some computer. Perhaps an extension of that would to have nano-machines repair your cells so that they would perfectly replicate the same 'ideal' you of 20 years old. Basically, you'd be immune to disease and aging. But we all want kids ----

That's a problem.

I'm going to read through this topic again in the morrow. I find this very interesting. I regret a bit not finding this forum earlier.

Allow me to address these notions out of my own personal bias.

where do we draw the line?
Do we euthanize every person who gets an incurable disease immediately?
Do we start killing people of certain ages becuase they are dependent on us?
And if we did start doing that, we'd eventually become so elitist that only the top of the top would survive,
(Aside from a sub population, because every society needs average or stupid people to do its dirty work,
like cashiers and making clothes and basically the chores of the world that the brilliant don't usually do)


Yes. If it is infectious or contageous. Else, we can (at their choosing) let them lead lives as normal as possible so long as they are productive, positive contributions to humanity. But they will not be allowed to have children.

Yes. At the moment that a person becomes useless and ceases to contribute to the betterment of our world, then they go. It need not be an ugly process. The death could be celebratory and honourable.

No, there are no worries about elitism. I hope for a TRULY DEMOCRATIC society. Not representative democracy, but rather everyone who cares can vote on anything. There will be no currency, no government, no hierarchy or castes. This is what I think as an ideal society. People do what they want (so long as it is productive) and society helps people find their happiest, most fulfilling and productive niche to reside in.

But even if there is elitism. Perhaps they deserve it? Only the strongest male lions have offspring. Why should we be removed from natural selection? Because it is 'wrong' to throw a deformed baby off a cliff? (Think "300".)

Edited by Landwand, 12 January 2010 - 09:17 PM.


#20 --e n k y o r i*

--e n k y o r i*

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 17 January 2010 - 12:18 PM

^ No, because if we kill everyone who gets old,
No one will want to strive towards their future.
Most peoples biggest fear is death, even natural death,
If we tell everyone they have to die at the governments hands when they become too old,
No one in a DEMOCRACY would ever vote FOR that.
They'll be thinking about they're own mortality too much.

& I have trouble believing you yourself would want to be killed
the moment you got old/non contributory to society.

That would only be detrimental to society because,
It would deplete anyone's drive to be successful.
Especially the middle aged class, who would too much fear their oncoming death to concentrate on being successful now. Most people with careers at that age are saving for their retirement, not their death sentence.

#21 korniceman3000

korniceman3000

    Composer/Songwriter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,383 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 01:28 PM

Based upon the maddening trends in media, the human obsession with celebrities, and the endless line of beauty products/new cosmetic procedures, I can honestly say that without a doubt, natural human evolution will cease to exist. The miracles of plastic surgery can completely transform a human being from a natural state into an unnatural plastic state (human Barbie caricatures that seriously scare me) OR a beautiful"plastic fantastic" state (depending on your plastic surgeon and your own personal definition of beauty) OR serve as a corrective process for disfigurement/scarring/physical genetic disorder, etc. I would also assume that the environment, changing human genome, medical advances in science and technology, human behavior, and food supply will have a direct impact over how the physical human body will change in the future.... I will be satisfied as long as they don't pass laws that enforce everyone to dress like G-Dragon. His fashion statements should be outlawed....

#22 Landwand

Landwand

    I know BoA*

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 09:47 PM

^ No, because if we kill everyone who gets old,
No one will want to strive towards their future.
Most peoples biggest fear is death, even natural death,
If we tell everyone they have to die at the governments hands when they become too old,
No one in a DEMOCRACY would ever vote FOR that.
They'll be thinking about they're own mortality too much.

& I have trouble believing you yourself would want to be killed
the moment you got old/non contributory to society.

That would only be detrimental to society because,
It would deplete anyone's drive to be successful.
Especially the middle aged class, who would too much fear their oncoming death to concentrate on being successful now. Most people with careers at that age are saving for their retirement, not their death sentence.


That's quite a leap of logic you're taking there. Such as it is, none of us know WHEN we will die, but we all know that we WILL die. Does the knowing of death keep us from striving to the future? If you know that your test is Monday, will you not study extra-hard over the weekend? The knowledge that we are mortal is the very driving force that makes us accomplish a said thing in a limited span of time. This being our lives. Also, you're implying that I want people dead by a certain age. I did not say this -- so people will still continue to age and wither at different rates. If X ages well into 120 and continues to contribute to society, then they should carry on. If Y becomes a human vegetable at age 40, they should be killed.

As for me? I see no problem in death. Why would I fear the inevitable? If given a choice between a nursing home, pooping myself, forgetting my loved ones when they visit.. I'd gladly embrace the alternative. A dignified, chosen time of death. Why must death be at the moment in which you are withered and useless? Why not embrace it gracefully, without fear and head on?

Our current, over-pampered, over sensitive, overly PC society will be the downfall of us all. The weak, ill, stupid and lame will continue to propagate, ignoring the natural laws of evolution. This may just be our path, but it is really frightening.

#23 Kung Fu Hung-Su

Kung Fu Hung-Su

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,090 posts

Posted 22 January 2010 - 12:58 AM

That's quite a leap of logic you're taking there. Such as it is, none of us know WHEN we will die, but we all know that we WILL die. Does the knowing of death keep us from striving to the future? If you know that your test is Monday, will you not study extra-hard over the weekend? The knowledge that we are mortal is the very driving force that makes us accomplish a said thing in a limited span of time.

No it's not. I didn't join this forum because I wanted to talk to BoA fans before I die. I didn't reply to this thread because I wanted to reply to you before I die. I didn't start listening to BoA because I thought I'd miss the chance before I die.

I did them because I wanted to.

If death as we know it were suddenly removed, the people of the future would come up with their own philosophies of life that are just as good as ours. They aren't morons.



Also, you're implying that I want people dead by a certain age. I did not say this -- so people will still continue to age and wither at different rates. If X ages well into 120 and continues to contribute to society, then they should carry on. If Y becomes a human vegetable at age 40, they should be killed.

My thoughts on this have changed a bit now. Just thinking about, say, a person who has an enormous, ugly piece of furniture from a dead relative that they were very close to. A really ugly table, let's say.

Everyone hates looking at the table. People hate sitting at it, eating from it, being around it. But it is such a huge treasure to its owner, because its their only memory of said relative, no one would dream of telling the person to throw the table away.



Now replace the table with a vegetable of a person, the only son of a dead relative.




I don't think we should go out of our way to kill "useless" people. But, the only people who should bear the burden, are the people who CHOOSE to bear the burden. It isn't fair that the common people's tax dollars are used to look after such people - that burden lies with the people's carers, if they have any.


Our current, over-pampered, over sensitive, overly PC society will be the downfall of us all. The weak, ill, stupid and lame will continue to propagate, ignoring the natural laws of evolution. This may just be our path, but it is really frightening.

The smart, strong and beautiful will also continue to propagate. What I'm hoping is that in the future, economies as we know it will change. Can you imagine a future where you actually could download a car? Or maybe just download skills into their head like the Matrix - anyone and everyone can become unto saints, geniuses and models.

Gosh, that's a little bit scary actually O_O


#24 --e n k y o r i*

--e n k y o r i*

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,122 posts

Posted 24 January 2010 - 07:37 PM

That's quite a leap of logic you're taking there. Such as it is, none of us know WHEN we will die, but we all know that we WILL die. Does the knowing of death keep us from striving to the future? If you know that your test is Monday, will you not study extra-hard over the weekend? The knowledge that we are mortal is the very driving force that makes us accomplish a said thing in a limited span of time. This being our lives.

Knowing you can die is not the same as
knowing you will die as soon as you get too old to give other people things.

Not really a leap of logic.
Of COURSE I could die even tomorrow.
But I'm not COUNTING on it. Therefore I go on.
However if I knew for sure I was dying tommorow,
Do you really think I'd care about contributing to society before I croaked?
ESPECIALLY if the very society I am contributing to
is to be the very cause of my death.


Also, you're implying that I want people dead by a certain age. I did not say this -- so people will still continue to age and wither at different rates. If X ages well into 120 and continues to contribute to society, then they should carry on. If Y becomes a human vegetable at age 40, they should be killed.


Yeah great examples.
I dont know when the last time was
that you saw a 120 year old contributing to society
(or even a 120 year old at all)

Any old/ill person who can't contribute to society
Doesn't necessarily have the inability to enjoy life anymore.
But you would take it away because you don't want to pay taxes
and because you apparently LOVE the idea of dying.

As for me? I see no problem in death. Why would I fear the inevitable? If given a choice between a nursing home, pooping myself, forgetting my loved ones when they visit.. I'd gladly embrace the alternative. A dignified, chosen time of death. Why must death be at the moment in which you are withered and useless? Why not embrace it gracefully, without fear and head on?

Our current, over-pampered, over sensitive, overly PC society will be the downfall of us all. The weak, ill, stupid and lame will continue to propagate, ignoring the natural laws of evolution. This may just be our path, but it is really frightening.


This isn't really about your personal distaste of being old.
Its also not about what people should and shouldn't be afraid of.
Its what people are afraid of, being afraid of death is natural.
And most people would be terrified of becoming old, getting sick at all.

Whats the point of being "graceful" when someones about to kill you.
And "head on".... to what? To a casket? Nice.


Can you imagine a world where people are obsessed with their health to the point where they can't live comfortably because their thoughts are consumed by pushing their deadline further back? Sure, its good to look after yourself and not let yourself go and to be healthy, however with immediate death (well, murder really) as the result most people are going to take it to psychotic levels. And please don't reply with how YOU would feel. Its about society as a whole.

Being killed, murdered, thrown away,
Isn't the same as dying naturally, or dying in your sleep.
Even if you're put to sleep first, you still have to go through your last moments of life knowing you're going to be killed.

And it wouldnt happen right away.
You'd have to get evaluated.

You'd have to wait and hold your breathe
while people examine you and run tests
to make sure you're completely in the OkayToKill zone.

Personally I find that unusually cruel.
If you'd rather be killed than live an elderly life,
Thats just fine, but that doesn't mean others wouldnt enjoy their old age.

My grandmother is unable to contribute to society,
She's too old for a job. But she has more wisdom than anyone I know,
Enjoys her old age, loves basking in the love of her children/grandchildren,
Is the happiest person I know. Intelligent as well.

Why would I take her happy life away from her
Because she can't make minimum wage?

I'm willing to bet if you put that rule into effect,
There'd be a sharp spike in suicides at the ages of 25~40.

Edited by --e n k y o r i*, 24 January 2010 - 07:40 PM.


#25 kitzutsuita

kitzutsuita

    I can't get BoA off my mind!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts

Posted 11 February 2010 - 12:56 PM

Personally I find that unusually cruel.
If you'd rather be killed than live an elderly life,
Thats just fine, but that doesn't mean others wouldnt enjoy their old age.

My grandmother is unable to contribute to society,
She's too old for a job. But she has more wisdom than anyone I know,
Enjoys her old age, loves basking in the love of her children/grandchildren,
Is the happiest person I know. Intelligent as well.

Why would I take her happy life away from her
Because she can't make minimum wage?

I'm willing to bet if you put that rule into effect,
There'd be a sharp spike in suicides at the ages of 25~40.



I agree. An elderly person can also contribute to society by giving and showering her children with the wisdom she holds so that they may be better people of the society. And just that alone, she is already contributing to the society.

I also do not believe in killing people off just because they are of no use, with the exception of if they want to be killed because they feel that they cannot live like that.
However, all that is up to choice.

Evolution is like some what like a tree, a building, any object/living things. There is the start, then the growth/development. And then there is the highest peak of that growth or the most prosperous. Lastly, the growth will whither, and we become nothing more than which we came to the earth with.

It comes from a point of start, where people are ugly and know not much the knowledge that we do today.
And then that evolution goes to a climax, where all our knowledge starts to back fire at us.
Then we deteriorate, and go back to where we come from.

One could argue that the current looks of human are the greatest, and this time of the millennium is the peak or the most prosperous, but that all is subject to opinions.
We do not know how we will evolve, we can only assume and predict based on the past.
And since our technologies can only discover and unravel so much of the past--- all of which that we have learned about evolution is only as precise as one's memory of a year, 50 years ago from their life. We are at most thinking that we have unravel the mysteries of evolution through experiments, discoveries, and artifacts so that we may predict the evolution of the human race. However, how credible are these artifacts or discoveries? How do we know that the people working to pose their ideals of evolution, didn't tweak with the discovery---or rather, add in a little bit of their own thoughts and made it into a plausible fact? How do we know that because they want us to believe in their theories, that they did not tamper with the evidence?

All men wants people to believe in what they are trying to bring to the table. The evidence, experiments results, discoveries are only at most agreeable. However, agreeable doesn't mean that it's true.

So my point is, I don't know what or if there will be an evolution for humans. All I know is that, we could possibly follow the trend of all living things and object, deteriorate after so many years of existence. Being smart and technological could backfire one day... and who then who knows?

From there, life starts again, and evolution begins.

#26 pauloumulk

pauloumulk

    Who's BoA?

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 10:33 AM

I decided to add a poll since we now know the M4 GTS is a real model. With the M3/4 being the M divisions bread and butter, would a M2 CSL/GTS really fit in without cannibalizing M4 sales?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users