Are we the last generation of homo sapiens?

MeatTwoVeg

Advances in biotechnology are likely to render our descendants more different from us than we are from the homininae we evolved from.

Should these changes be embraced or resisted?
Would you choose to re-engineer yourself to something different and near immortal if that choice was available to you?

howamidifferent

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Would you choose to re-engineer yourself to something different and near immortal if that choice was available to you?

Chrisht No! Life is hard enough without immortality or even additional longevity... :eek:

Knowing there's an end makes you appreciate the now.

The_Valeyard

We are the Borg. Resistance is futile.

Boom_Bap

Will I still love lasagne?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

IrishZeus

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Advances in biotechnology are likely to render our descendants more different from us than we are from the homininae we evolved from.

Should these changes be embraced or resisted?
Would you choose to re-engineer yourself to something different and near immortal if that choice was available to you?

I'd quite happily take additional longevity - few hundred years or so to witness the wonders that are to come.

Immortality could be a bit much.

Rhys Essien

OP,I fully agree.Arnie and friends will be back in the next few decades.Its rise of the machines.We had our few thousand years.

s15r330

IrishZeus wrote: »

I'd quite happily take additional longevity - few hundred years or so to witness the wonders that are to come.

Immortality could be a bit much.

Wonders?! The world is going down the toilet and its our fault.
The world would be a much better place if we weren't here!
The only way i'd take an extra few hundred years would be if proper space travel and exploration was an option.

I aint fer embracing no homo sapiens...

IrishZeus

s15r330 wrote: »

Wonders?! ... proper space travel and exploration was an option.

They would be big part of the wonders that I am referring to.

s15r330

IrishZeus wrote: »

They would be big part of the wonders that I am referring to.

Unless you are ultra rich, we're not gonna be experiencing those wonders.
If and when viable space travel to actual habitable planets becomes a reality, normal people will be left to scamble around in the gutter because thats all that will be left here in the coming centuries if population growth continues!

IrishZeus

s15r330 wrote: »

Unless you are ultra rich, we're not gonna be experiencing those wonders.
If and when viable space travel to actual habitable planets becomes a reality, normal people will be left to scamble around in the gutter because thats all that will be left here in the coming centuries if population growth continues!

You're a bit of a pessimist today, aren't you?

s15r330

IrishZeus wrote: »

You're a bit of a pessimist today, aren't you?

Normally i'm the total opposite

Summer wind

I am a cybernetic organism, living tissue over metal endoskeleton. I am out there. I can't be bargained with, I can't be reasoned with. I don't feel pity or remorse or fear and I absolutely will not stop.....EVER until you are dead.

Yes I think re-engineering ourselves is totally the way to go.

Your Face

Later Homo.

ScumLord

I don't know if it will lead to a borg like human race that's half machine. Bionic implants are getting better and better, but I don't see too many people removing a perfectly good flesh arm to have one that a powerful grip. It's not like a bionic arm would allow you to lift heavy weights, it's still attached to a flesh and blood shoulder and body, so the limits are still there. To make a bionic human that could run twice as fast would probably mean replacing the two legs, hips and probably the spine as olympic runners are reaching the limits of what the human nervous system can achieve sending signals from the brain to the legs.

I've heard other stories that we might be able to link our brains up to the internet and be able to do advanced maths as an app plugged directly into our brain, and while that may be useful from time to time, how often do most people use anything more advanced than multiplying? And won't AI be doing all those kind of jobs anyway?

I think we'll be able to extend our lifespans but until we understand the brain better that extended life probably won't be all that great.

The Wolverine

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know if it will lead to a borg like human race that's half machine. Bionic implants are getting better and better, but I don't see too many people removing a perfectly good flesh arm to have one that a powerful grip. It's not like a bionic arm would allow you to lift heavy weights, it's still attached to a flesh and blood shoulder and body, so the limits are still there. To make a bionic human that could run twice as fast would probably mean replacing the two legs, hips and probably the spine as olympic runners are reaching the limits of what the human nervous system can achieve sending signals from the brain to the legs.

I've heard other stories that we might be able to link our brains up to the internet and be able to do advanced maths as an app plugged directly into our brain, and while that may be useful from time to time, how often do most people use anything more advanced than multiplying? And won't AI be doing all those kind of jobs anyway?

I think we'll be able to extend our lifespans but until we understand the brain better that extended life probably won't be all that great.

Bionic eyes and maybe ear implants and replacements for bad organs would.be the main thing i reckon

4068ac1elhodqr

Yes, H+ (trans-humanism) is a real thing,
I'd expect 'VR' to actually become more significant
than regular mobile & desktop web, within a few years.

jimgoose

All this has happened before, and will happen again. You know Mitochondrial Eve is a hybrid human-Cylon, right??

Ted111

Lots of nano machines permeating your tissue and blood stream - diagnosing and treating infections, cancer etc.
Super computer memory. Telescopic eyesight. Lasers in your finger tips. Rocket propulsion in your legs. Left hand replaced by a tin opener.

Maximus Alexander

Yeah as I get older and bits of my body stop working, if the technology is around to patch them up and make me live longer I'll be all aboard for that. Of course. I'd be up for immortality too, if it was going. I find the universe far too interesting and entertaining to remove myself from it if there's any alternative. At least if you're alive you have options, once you're dead; you're dead.

ScumLord

Which would people prefer though. The doctors remove your own eye and replace it with a bionic eye. Lets say the bionic eye comes with some tricks like being able to zoom in on stuff and see in the dark.

Or an injection that brings your own eyes (both of them) back to how it was when you were twenty with perfect 20/20 vision?

Would you go through an operation and possible complications to be able to see in the dark? The bionic eye would probably be much more expensive too. Or would you just get your own young eyes back?

I don't think people will be all that eager to go through operations to get bionic hardware attached to them.

HS3

s15r330 wrote: »

IrishZeus wrote: »

I'd quite happily take additional longevity - few hundred years or so to witness the wonders that are to come.

Immortality could be a bit much.

Wonders?! The world is going down the toilet and its our fault.
The world would be a much better place if we weren't here!
The only way i'd take an extra few hundred years would be if proper space travel and exploration was an option.

Why would you want space travel for humans to be an option if all we're doing is ruining the planet we've currently got.

I don't think humans 'ruined' anything deliberately. We used the resources available to us and used our intelligence to create resources that weren't available, to make our existence more comfortable and enjoyable for us. Every living creature does that. We've even learned that what we're doing is depleting the resources available to us and damaging the earth, so instead of ploughing on regardless we try to make changes where we can to protect the earth.

gramar

I read recently that average life expectancy is increasing with more people raching their 80's and 90's but that maximum life expectancy is about 125 years and that won't move.

jimgoose

gramar wrote: »

I read recently that average life expectancy is increasing with more people raching their 80's and 90's but that maximum life expectancy is about 125 years and that won't move.

The notion of the "maximum lifespan" is just the average of the top 10% oldest known to have lived. It expresses where we're at rather than what is technically/theoretically possible.

ScumLord

jimgoose wrote: »

The notion of the "maximum lifespan" is just the average of the top 10% oldest known to have lived. It expresses where we're at rather than what is technically/theoretically possible.

The big problem is how do you fix the aging brain? Maybe we could make the body live until it's 200 by replacing every organ but you can't replace the brain and if age related senility problems set in at 70 those extra years aren't going to mean much to anyone.

We'd probably need to start taking genetic samples of people in their twenties as a base template and somehow repair any genetic damage that happens throughout the person's life. Nano tech might be able to do that. But that's ultimately what we need to do to extend life spans.

jimgoose

ScumLord wrote: »

The big problem is how do you fix the aging brain? Maybe we could make the body live until it's 200 by replacing every organ but you can't replace the brain and if age related senility problems set in at 70 those extra years aren't going to mean much to anyone.

We'd probably need to start taking genetic samples of people in their twenties as a base template and somehow repair any genetic damage that happens throughout the person's life. Nano tech might be able to do that. But that's ultimately what we need to do to extend life spans.

Agreed, as far as I can make out the name of the game has to be armies of Borg nanite sort of things constantly repairing/replacing in order to keep ageing properly at bay.

gramar

jimgoose wrote: »

Agreed, as far as I can make out the name of the game has to be armies of Borg nanite sort of things constantly repairing/replacing in order to keep ageing properly at bay.

That's all well and good but...who is going to pay the pensions?

ScumLord

gramar wrote: »

That's all well and good but...who is going to pay the pensions?

Well the nanobots could potentially keep you in your prime, if they repair any damage and new cells aren't replicating damaged cells (which is what currently causes old age) you just wouldn't age.

So no need for retirement.

Ted111

jimgoose wrote: »

Agreed, as far as I can make out the name of the game has to be armies of Borg nanite sort of things constantly repairing/replacing in order to keep ageing properly at bay.

And maybe some genetic re-engineering. The dna in neurons and throughout the body is designing cells and systems that are meant to have very finite life expectancy. Evolution has had no interest in overly prolonging single units. We may have to step in and create new design/instructions.
Then it's a matter of feeding the raw building blocks that the cells and tissues need to continually replenish.

Ted111

gramar wrote: »

That's all well and good but...who is going to pay the pensions?

Money is just a medium of exchange. We need to colonise and adapt the biospheres of other planets and exploit their resources. No point in living for ever if you have nothing to do.

jimgoose

gramar wrote: »

That's all well and good but...who is going to pay the pensions?

Umm, by the 25th Century or so when average lifespan is around 178 I'd expect even Irish civil-servants to have grudgingly conceded that the retirement age should probably be a tad higher! :pac:

s15r330

HS3 wrote: »

Why would you want space travel for humans to be an option if all we're doing is ruining the planet we've currently got.

I don't think humans 'ruined' anything deliberately. We used the resources available to us and used our intelligence to create resources that weren't available, to make our existence more comfortable and enjoyable for us. Every living creature does that. We've even learned that what we're doing is depleting the resources available to us and damaging the earth, so instead of ploughing on regardless we try to make changes where we can to protect the earth.

No, we are ruining it i'm afraid. We use and move on, with no regard to the habitats of other living things, some of which were here before us and have as much rights to the planet as we have.
We've caused the extinction of multiple species and multiply without regard to how the planet will sustain us.
The changes you say we're making are comparable to someone standing on the edge of the ocean trying to push back the waves with their hands, meaningless!

doolox

Unless you stop procreating or slow it down then you need people to retire in order to open up opportunities for young people coming into the jobs market.

We are people of our times. I resent the increasing impositions on our society by various public bodies in comparison to former times when a person could just buy a driving licence without doing an onerous series of tests, could park where they liked, learned on the job, had access to jobs in the US and Commonwealth without any restrictions or visas etc....

As time progresses there are more rules and restrictions being imposed on people and no sign of a kick back to stop these increasing impositions.

You have new impositions on your freedom to take a job such as GARDA clearance, tax clearance, bureaucratic form filling, safety courses and other jobsworth schemes which evil people can get around fairly easily but are an extra imposition and time wasting exercise on ordinary decent people trying to get a job and earn a crust. Now it is far harder to buy a house and secure a permanent job or get a loan or take up opportunities that were formerly routine achievements for the average person.

I dread to think what the world will be like in 50 yrs time and i have no ambition or wish to be around at that time unless my loved ones are still here and I can earn money to make a meaningful life possible. My experience of old people is that they spend their time in bad health in institutions where their care is given in a perfunctory and mechanistic way and they are often very lonely.

ScumLord

Ted111 wrote: »

Money is just a medium of exchange. We need to colonise and adapt the biospheres of other planets and exploit their resources. No point in living for ever if you have nothing to do.

We don't need to colonise any planets. If we have a ship capable of getting us to another earth the ship is probably going to be a better environment than a planet. Plenty of resources floating around space that we can use instead.

s15r330 wrote: »

We've caused the extinction of multiple species and multiply without regard to how the planet will sustain us.

So have bacteria. That's how life works, nature doesn't care one wit for those extinct species, they failed.

Maximus Alexander

s15r330 wrote: »

No, we are ruining it i'm afraid. We use and move on, with no regard to the habitats of other living things, some of which were here before us and have as much rights to the planet as we have.
We've caused the extinction of multiple species and multiply without regard to how the planet will sustain us.
The changes you say we're making are comparable to someone standing on the edge of the ocean trying to push back the waves with their hands, meaningless!

Every living thing does this, or at least insofar as it's able. We're just better at it. We are a force of nature just as much as the tides, the winds and the rain. We didn't ask to be what we are, we had no hand in our own creation. We sprang forth from evolution in just the same way as everything from the algae in the oceans to the birds in the trees. So really, the Earth has only itself to blame.

Not to mention, the Earth doesn't care. It has suffered far worse catastrophes over the aeons than those wrought by humanity. It has always adapted, recovered, changed. If we manage to boil ourselves off the face of the Earth, life will go on without us and the planet will find a new equilibrium with some new creature at the top of the food chain.

That said, our intellects and our consciences give some cause for hope. We're (well most of us) aware of what we're doing and at least beginning to try and change it. I have (perhaps misguided) confidence that we'll get our shit together before we kill ourselves.

Regardless, the notion of being worried about the Earth is a nonsense. You're either worried about the future of humanity, or you needn't worry at all. The Earth will do just fine.

jimgoose

doolox wrote: »

Unless you stop procreating or slow it down then you need people to retire in order to open up opportunities for young people coming into the jobs market...

Young people won't need jobs because they will be immobilised in millions of incubators on huge Parts Farms, to supply parts that the nanoprobes can't handle for those of us permanently "parked" late middle-age with four pensions, a huuuuge bugger-off lump-sum, the mortgages paid, an S-Class for the golf-clubs and a dolly-bird in the MX-5. That'll be two Carlsberg and a gin'n'ton-ton there, chief!

s15r330

ScumLord wrote: »

We don't need to colonise any planets. If we have a ship capable of getting us to another earth the ship is probably going to be a better environment than a planet. Plenty of resources floating around space that we can use instead.

So have bacteria. That's how life works, nature doesn't care one wit for those extinct species, they failed.

The difference is bacteria do what they are designed to do.
They didn't fail due to natural causes, most are gone because of our interference.
When tigers are gone do you think it will be because they failed as a species or because some idiot thought their ground up bones were some sort of medicine?

s15r330

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Every living thing does this, or at least insofar as it's able. We're just better at it. We are a force of nature just as much as the tides, the winds and the rain. We didn't ask to be what we are, we had no hand in our own creation. We sprang forth from evolution in just the same way as everything from the algae in the oceans to the birds in the trees. So really, the Earth has only itself to blame.

Not to mention, the Earth doesn't care. It has suffered far worse catastrophes over the aeons than those wrought by humanity. It has always adapted, recovered, changed. If we manage to boil ourselves off the face of the Earth, life will go on without us and the planet will find a new equilibrium with some new creature at the top of the food chain.

That said, our intellects and our consciences give some cause for hope. We're (well most of us) aware of what we're doing and at least beginning to try and change it. I have (perhaps misguided) confidence that we'll get our shit together before we kill ourselves.

Regardless, the notion of being worried about the Earth is a nonsense. You're either worried about the future of humanity, or you needn't worry at all. The Earth will do just fine.

Your argument would hold up if we didn't know any better, but thats what sets us apart from all other living things, we know better but carry on anyway.

For instance you couldn't compare one animal killing another for survival to some idiot killing an animal to hang a trophy on his wall.

ScumLord

s15r330 wrote: »

The difference is bacteria do what they are designed to do.

Bacteria aren't designed to do anything other than live. The same as humans. It's not our fault we're so awesome at being alive. When bacteria first started to produce oxygen they caused a mass extinction of life around at the time, oxygen was toxic to just about all other life around at the time. Not only did they wipe out all those creatures they plunged the earth into its most devastating ice age ever, the entire planet was covered in miles of ice. Humans haven't come close to the destruction bacteria have carried out.

When tigers are gone do you think it will be because they failed as a species or because some idiot thought their ground up bones were some sort of medicine?

That's just life. Whether it's humans grinding up their bones for medicine or weather changing, or a virus wiping them out.

Maximus Alexander

s15r330 wrote: »

Your argument would hold up if we didn't know any better, but thats what sets us apart from all other living things, we know better but carry on anyway.

For instance you couldn't compare one animal killing another for survival to some idiot killing an animal to hang a trophy on his wall.

I disagree. Our knowing is part of our nature and is as natural as one animal killing another. We are not distinct or separate from the natural world, no matter how much our egos like to elevate ourselves.

Personally, I think the natural world is a wonderful and beautiful thing and I hope that we will learn to respect and protect it. It will be a great tragedy if we manage to destroy it, along with ourselves, in my view. But mine is a subjective view; there is nothing intrinsically or objectively wrong about what human activity has done to the planet do date. It was just as natural as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years gone, though hopefully we will prove to be less destructive in the end.

ScumLord

Plus, humans didn't know they were causing problems on a global level until quiet recently, in reality we weren't causing many problems until quite recently.

The first people that controlled fire couldn't have known that half a million years later we'd be producing more carbon dioxide than all the volcanoes combined.

Stone age humans probably contributed to a mass extinction in the Americas when they first moved there, they did it with stone tools and had no idea they were hunting animals to extinction.

It wasn't until the industrial age that we started having a real influence and it wasn't until the 1970s that it became public knowledge with the O zone scandal.

tritriagain

our biggest asset and advantage over other animals is our larger brain size . But I believe that we will be our downfall. We are one of the few species who adapt our environment to suit us whilst most animals adapt to suit their surrounding environment. We have a population problem that no government will tackle because more people= bigger market=more production=more jobs=more money. Actually when you look at it money ( and/or religion)really is the root of all evil.

mad muffin

I don't know if I want to be a hackmod.

RhubarbCrumble

Perfect health for as long as you live would be excellent but I wouldn't want to live forever either.
My friend's Dad is ninety and in great health, still driving etc, but he's probably a rarity at that age. Having your health at that age is everything. No point in living into your nineties but spending the last twenty years in a nursing home.