24 replies to this topic

[Yabisi]

What do you think humans will look like in the far future?

I think it's an interesting thing to talk about, since we've evolved quite a bit from our little time on this planet.

Some scientists say we'll look different, some say we'll stay the same, and some even say we'll become cyborgs (I think that's the right name) Here's a link discussing 4 ways we could evolve.

http://news.national...-evolution.html

The second link shows detailed pictures of what we could possibly look like based on a time scale.
http://www.msnbc.msn...cience-science/

An older article, but still interesting. It says that humans may split into two races based on natural selection of desired genes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6057734.stm

Of course, these are all just theories as we don't know how we will look like or evolve in the future. For now, we can only look to how we've evolved in the past in order to have ideas for the future.

---------

Before posting, please refer to the rules and regulations of the serious discussion forum. I posted this in here in hopes that some kind of in-depth, intellectual conversations will be started.

Edited by Yabisi, 28 November 2009 - 09:26 PM.

[mlyap7_boa]

Interestin topic to bring up Yabisi...  Never really expected this to come into discussion, you should put this in the normal discussion section to get more replies but I guess you want in-depth stuff as you said...

I dunno, IMO, I don't think we're gonna change much but I kinda recall readin that we're gonna keep gettin shorter though... And humans are gonna look more and more weird... I do know abt weird news like that fish man in Indonesia which is a giant fish with human features & limbs...   As well as some other weird stuff but I seriously don't know how much we humans are gonna change...

Cyborgs would be weird though...

[Kung Fu Hung-Su]

I'm a transhumanist, so this is one of my favourite topics hehe xD

Humans are by nature, anti-nature. We typically reject any kind of restrictions imposed upon us, and one such restriction is our genetics. People born with pale skin often wish for dark skin, people with dark skin often wish for lighter skin etc. "Natural selection" will become largely inconsequential in a couple of decades, sparked by such things like The Human Genome Project and the Genomics X Prize.

Humans will eventually be able to change not just the genetics of our children (designing our babies) but also of already living humans. Given this ability to change our own genetic makeup means a couple of things which are of interest to me.

Hardening of the human body. People keep saying that the human body is remarkably resilient, but I feel it is remarkably fragile. We are one of the few creatures on the planet who has no real "armour". We are so weak we need to build shelters, and cover our soft skin with more durable clothes. Genetic enhancement of the human body to withstand rigour would hopefully mean a world where the old are not ushered to one side as being "senile" and useless, but revered for their experience. From a more...scientifically explorative...viewpoint, enhancement of the human body to withstand harsh conditions opens up the possibility of humans living in environments completely unlike the earth, such as the Moon and Mars.

Aesthetics, as you asked. I don't know what trends will exist in the future, though soft uniformity of skin seems to have been a consistent one for thousands of years - look at the ancient greeks and egyptians - and I don't see it changing. What once concerned me was the possibility of humans becoming "changelings", forever changing themselves so much that people could not attach a face to a name. This no longer concerns me, as I believe that humans would find a "look" that they love and augment and perfect as they see fit over time - social pressure these days seems to reject many sudden and enormous transformations that people make.



Genetics aside, the appearance of humans will definitely change in many ways as well. As I said, humans reject restrictions, and we seem to reject nature itself. Natural things like symmetry, a limited colour pallete among mammals and so on - we reject all these by wearing clothes and augmenting our bodies with tattoos, hair dye and so on. The breadth of non-genetic human augmentation will be huge in the future. I see hairstyles and fashion only becoming more complex and generally easier to obtain/achieve as the wealth of first world nations continues to rise and we spend more on making ourselves pretty.



That's enough from me for now, might post more later.

EDITS: Those articles are kind of interesting. The MSNBC one makes some valid points and presents interesting possibilities but the art they use for everything (wtf is with the Astran's conehead?) is a little ridiculous.

Edited by Kung Fu Hung-Su, 28 November 2009 - 10:24 PM.

[--e n k y o r i*]

I believe humans will eventually get to a collective consciousness, or shed their bodies entirely.

The thing I've noticed most about humans is that we seem to have come to a point where our bodies evolve less than our minds. The result is that we CREATE what we need instead of becoming it. For instance, if we need to go faster, we make a car instead of getting quicker bodies. If we need to go high, we make an elevator instead of getting taller. If we need long distance communication, we create it instead of become physically more able to do so, ect ect. Its like what HungSu said about clothing and shelter. I agree we have weaker bodies, but this is because our mind is so advanced we don't NEED stronger bodies.

If we had a fist fight with a bear, we would lose.
Brutally.

But we are still at the top of the food chain because of our cunning.
We could commit the genocide of all bears if we wanted, even though alone we couldn't kill a bear.
And, even in some circumstances we could still outwit the bear when the time came
(though its unlikely, we're still capable)

I believe technology is the next state of evolution.
I mean our technology currently is what I believe to be an extension of ourselves.

Also, there is a theory that people will detach their consciousness from their minds and come into a worldly collective consciousness state. When you think of the world wide web, you realize its this insane collection of almost all the data in the world you can think of. You can connect to someone half the world away in milliseconds, and there's a shit-ton of information on the internet at your fingertips. So the theory is basically if there were a way to hook OURSELVES up to a computer, which in a 1 000 000 years would probably be possible since we're already putting mechanics in our bodies to better them, then you would have access to all that information and to anyone else hooked up to this technological web.
Thus the world would then have a collective and instantaneous consciousness. Of course we'd need bodies and minds evolved enough to sustain that sort of overload. We've already gotten this smart in such a small timeframe, I don't think its impossible.

Thats not to say that I believe thats what will happen though, either. Its just one of the many many possible theories.

Another reason I think it would be possible eventually to hook oneself up to a computer in the far future is because---
If I have a fake arm, I'm still me, and human right? So if a person were to slowly replace themselves with false parts, slowly, wouldn't they still be the same person but no longer human? Its like how we shed our skin entirely for a new one every 7 years or so. We're still us, even though everything that was our human visible shape is gone and replaced.

Also, whats basically the number one ability today's technology is aimed at?
Communication. Faster, Clearer, Improved communication.
So a collective consciousness theory for me only seems inevitable.

But who knows.

But then there's the argument that consciousness doesn't exist, which I almost agree with.
But that is SUCH a whole new topic I'm not even gonna get into it right now.

[Kung Fu Hung-Su]

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

I believe humans will eventually get to a collective consciousness, or shed their bodies entirely.

Not in the next couple of decades, which is all I care about right now hah xD

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

The thing I've noticed most about humans is that we seem to have come to a point where our bodies evolve less than our minds. The result is that we CREATE what we need instead of becoming it. For instance, if we need to go faster, we make a car instead of getting quicker bodies. If we need to go high, we make an elevator instead of getting taller. If we need long distance communication, we create it instead of become physically more able to do so, ect ect. Its like what HungSu said about clothing and shelter. I agree we have weaker bodies, but this is because our mind is so advanced we don't NEED stronger bodies.

If we had a fist fight with a bear, we would lose.
Brutally.

I don't think you phrased that quite the way you wanted to. YOu said we create rather than become, but I think more precisely, we intelligently create and modify rather than naturally adapt and evolve. Humans currently take significant measures to modify ourselves, to become something else. We work out and train, get surgery, take drugs and medicine - things that animals certainly don't do. I still believe we need stronger bodies for the reasons I mentioned above - resist diseases and maladies like old age and cancer - and to survive in environments we have not yet survived in such as the Moon and Mars.

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

I believe technology is the next state of evolution.
I mean our technology currently is what I believe to be an extension of ourselves.

Also, there is a theory that people will detach their consciousness from their minds and come into a worldly collective consciousness state. When you think of the world wide web, you realize its this insane collection of almost all the data in the world you can think of. You can connect to someone half the world away in milliseconds, and there's a shit-ton of information on the internet at your fingertips. So the theory is basically if there were a way to hook OURSELVES up to a computer, which in a 1 000 000 years would probably be possible since we're already putting mechanics in our bodies to better them, then you would have access to all that information and to anyone else hooked up to this technological web.
Thus the world would then have a collective and instantaneous consciousness. Of course we'd need bodies and minds evolved enough to sustain that sort of overload. We've already gotten this smart in such a small timeframe, I don't think its impossible.

Not in the immediate future. The current developments in info systems are:

• 80-20, or separating the good stuff from the chaff. The worldwide accessibility of the web means any idiot can put stuff on there, which means there's a lot of crap. Bringing the good stuff to light is what makes google so successful, what makes Digg so important, and this idea and its improvement will be important forever.
  
• Improved accessibility - Without accessibility and usability engineering, we would still be using punch cards and magnetic tape to use computers. Now, we have big round buttons in the middle of the screen that say CLICK ME. Any idiot can make one click. But even then, improved usability applications and technology keep turning up, and their development is what is leading us to this "collective consciousness" ideal. Usability technology like password savers, awesomebar URL navigation, multitouch, 10GUI, even voice recognition - all very exciting, making accessing technology and information ever easier

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

Another reason I think it would be possible eventually to hook oneself up to a computer in the far future is because---
If I have a fake arm, I'm still me, and human right? So if a person were to slowly replace themselves with false parts, slowly, wouldn't they still be the same person but no longer human? Its like how we shed our skin entirely for a new one every 7 years or so. We're still us, even though everything that was our human visible shape is gone and replaced.

A modified human is a Transhuman. A human that has been modified so extensively as to no longer have original human body is a Posthuman. Hope those are of use to you! As for hooking up to a computer...I don't know. I think improved forms of Identification will be developed in the future, so that humans may use a system without dealing with all these heavy passwords so much, but an actual connection is not something I see within the next decade at least.

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 1 2009, 08:11 AM, said:

Also, whats basically the number one ability today's technology is aimed at?
Communication. Faster, Clearer, Improved communication.
So a collective consciousness theory for me only seems inevitable.

It's been something we've desired since the dawn of intelligent communication. Diplomats, translators, messengers, delivery. Reducing communication and transport costs is always of interest. Communication which costs nothing will always result in the best outcome for all - this is the Coase theorem in economics.



But back on topic...

Edited by Kung Fu Hung-Su, 30 November 2009 - 03:03 PM.

[--e n k y o r i*]

^ Woah, I am SO not taking about in the near future O_O
What made you think that? Lmao thats absurd.

I don't think you phrased that quite the way you wanted to.YOu said we create rather than become, but I think more precisely, we intelligently create and modify rather than naturally adapt and evolve.

That is indeed what I meant, you're right when you specify that I meant "Naturally".
I get what you mean by how we modify, but that still isn't a bodily evolution to me,
Since we have to make the pills with our intelligence before we take them.

I know that in the near future all those things are very impossible.
I'm talking about stages upon stages of evolutionary eras later, based on the direction we've been going in.
Annnd, I didn't know those terms, thanks! Sounds neat.

[Kwcty6888]

I think we'll definitely evolve eventually, but the natural selection doesn't really apply to humans because the weak survive as well. Yeah, helpful mutations will be passed down, but they probably won't be spread to the rest of mankind as fast or at all, because the weaker ones without the mutation will still survive, thus reducing chance of actual evolution.

[Airforce]

so if what these articles are saying is correct, based on its description we'll eventually evolve to look like these curious little creatures



Awesome!

[mlyap7_boa]

^ OMG I don't want my future generation to look like that...  LOL

[Kwon Ji Kyo]

^ OH MY GOODNESS..
I also dont want my future generation to look like this..

Edited by Kwon Ji Kyo, 01 December 2009 - 11:37 PM.

[Kung Fu Hung-Su]

Kwcty6888, on Dec 1 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

I think we'll definitely evolve eventually, but the natural selection doesn't really apply to humans because the weak survive as well. Yeah, helpful mutations will be passed down, but they probably won't be spread to the rest of mankind as fast or at all, because the weaker ones without the mutation will still survive, thus reducing chance of actual evolution.

This is true, and call me evil, but this is part of why I don't really support many human rights movements. Animals will kill off their young if they're a burden, yet we humans believe all other humans have some "right" to live regardless of whether they can contribute to society or not.

Wonder what morals and ethics will look like in the far future...

[Airforce]

Kung Fu Hung-Su, on Dec 3 2009, 12:20 AM, said:

This is true, and call me evil, but this is part of why I don't really support many human rights movements. Animals will kill off their young if they're a burden, yet we humans believe all other humans have some "right" to live regardless of whether they can contribute to society or not.

Wonder what morals and ethics will look like in the far future...

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!

[--e n k y o r i*]

^ Wow you did a good job of making Hungsu's good argument look retarded.
What the hell kind of reason is "like we need to get rid of 'em man...they're fudged up"
That's like the most stupid thing I've ever heard. And then with the "CHINKS" comment.
Can you get any more idiotic?


Anyway, Hung Su, I agree that the Darwinist way is important.
I'm sure I wouldn't want it to happen to me if I were defected,
but for all humanity it technically is much better.
Or at least, thats what I used to think because,

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)

I'm sort of on the fence about it. There wouldn't be people suffering if we put them out of their misery right away.
There are people born with ailments that will torment them for life. And its sort of selfish to string them along.
People are so touchy about death and say "this is wrong" When they don't even have a good reason for why its wrong.
Its just that they were brought up to be emotional about things like that without any real basis. Its a piss off.

[Kung Fu Hung-Su]

--e n k y o r i*, on Dec 4 2009, 07:37 AM, said:

^ Wow you did a good job of making Hungsu's good argument look retarded.
What the hell kind of reason is "like we need to get rid of 'em man...they're fudged up"
That's like the most stupid thing I've ever heard. And then with the "CHINKS" comment.
Can you get any more idiotic?


Anyway, Hung Su, I agree that the Darwinist way is important.
I'm sure I wouldn't want it to happen to me if I were defected,
but for all humanity it technically is much better.
Or at least, thats what I used to think because,

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)

I'm sort of on the fence about it. There wouldn't be people suffering if we put them out of their misery right away.
There are people born with ailments that will torment them for life. And its sort of selfish to string them along.
People are so touchy about death and say "this is wrong" When they don't even have a good reason for why its wrong.
Its just that they were brought up to be emotional about things like that without any real basis. Its a piss off.

Well, that's why we have these discussions, to argue about these grey areas in some attempt to make them black and white (even though that's impossible haha)

I'm still on the fence myself. Call me geeky, but there are two anime and manga series which come to mind - Gantz and Death Note. In Death Note, Light makes the hard decision of killing off the world's criminals. This is in disagreement with a great deal of the world's ideals, but in the face of Light being seemingly unstoppable for such a long time, the world changes its ideals to fit Light.

In Gantz though, there are a couple of people who wander around Tokyo killing homeless people. The homeless people aren't really contributing to society, they stink up whatever areas they inhabit and are an eyesore etc. Unlike Light though, these people are just doing it on a small scale. Other people find out about them, and this of course is in disagreement with their ideals. The homeless killers are themselves killed.



What is "good" and "right" is only a construct of humans - things are only good and right because a large enough power says so. I certainly can't tell the world that my view - being born and being human, is not enough to have any rights/privileges - is the "correct" view that we all must adhere to. It is simply my view, and I'm rather happy to be in a world where I'm able to create my own ideals instead of externalising them as many other people do - through religion and other groups. I would encourage other people to do the same (create and decide upon ideals of their own accord) as permitting individual thought can only be good for innovation in all forms. New technology and art especially.




I'm humans splitting into an elitist top and separate bottom is interesting. I keep walking into cafes and shopfronts and being real happy to be served by nice people and I wouldn't really want that to change. I'd talk more but i'm late for work hehe.

Edited by Kung Fu Hung-Su, 03 December 2009 - 01:29 PM.

[--e n k y o r i*]

^ I am very much of the belief that there is no TRUE Right & Wrong.
I agree, it is just a human creation and without people everything would be neutral, whether or not the galaxy was destroyed by some natural disaster, without thought applied to it, it is of no difference.
Its like a saying, I think Kierkegaard said it, but
"You can prove torturing a baby hurts it, but you can't prove its wrong".

The only thing objectionably true about an object is that it exists.
Everything else, no matter how much of a societal norm it is, is only an opinion.
Things aren't more true because more people believe it,
nothing is really right or wrong in a DEFINATE sense,
right and wrong only exist in an individuals mind.  
The only way to prove its wrong is if there truly was a higher power.
Hell, even if there WAS a higher power, his thoughts would still only be an opinion.
I mean, I'm a higher power than a squirrel but that doesn't make my thoughts any less of an ordinary opinion.

Soooo really in an area like this I'd say...
Its only another matter of opinion.
I'd let nature take its course because honestly,
Its easy to say that only the strong should survive but the truth is,
Even we'd be weeded out too, Unless we were the top of the top.
That means both physically and mentally. And you can't just look good,
you have to be super fit, beautiful, intelligent, useful, wealthy, resourceful, reliable.
The rest would be on a bottom rung of people who keep the world together doing the little things for little benefit.
So I'm gonna be selfish on this one and say.... maybe not?
Man I'm still on the fence XD I dont know.

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

I suppose there are those jobs that are really nice even if they're simple,
But at the same time there are a lot of people who would crave more.
Plus if we got really split up in that way there'd be a bigger gap
between the rich and the poor and the wages might go down.

Edited by --e n k y o r i*, 03 December 2009 - 05:16 PM.