sweet, if only i had the time! oh well.

As you can see from my posts, i do not even have the ability to commit much time here in the galciv forum  

Is 'ascension' possible?

Theoretically, I suppose it could be. But we are dealing with very big ideas here--across multiple fields of science--as well as the notion that humans will someday understand the universe and all of its intricate inner-workings. Einstein is famous for advancing the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed. As such, it would seem theoretically possible to transform a body into energy; but then the questions become murkier: What happens to consciousness? What is consciousness? What about the so-called 'soul'?

Is 'ascension' likely?

In my view, no. I'm much too cynical to believe that humans will be on this planet for the next few hundred years, much less the thousands of years required to develop the understanding and technology needed to transform our very existence. In the next few hundred years, humans will see all kinds of adversity: environmental catastrophe, planetary extinction events, engineered viruses (both biological and nano-tech), upheavals and continued bloodshed fueled by politics, religion, and good ol' greed.

As a race, humans are still infants. We have so many problems at the moment, it seems unlikely that we will ever become anything beyond the simple-minded primates we are, intent on killing each other for absurd reasons. That is the biggest challenge, almost impossible (IMO). And when you start arming the children with nano-tech, bio-weaponry, etc. it's only a matter of time before some fanatical group brings death to the rest of us.

Assuming the earth/universe itself doesn't just shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

perfectly well understood! i'm lucky for these few months. since it's just summer school right now, i don't have too much work (i only have to manage 3 teaching assistants instead of 30+).

Well the boss just went to the bank today so i had some time to make a nice post in the thread called

'A matter of time , or why god is nonsense by Pmutzu'

Check it out!

that was an interesting post. i've been trying to avoid the overly religious threads. at first i thought i could have a discussion that didn't entail contstant rehashing of stale arguments and open, thoughtful dialogue in which people were interested in understanding one another, but i haven't even found that at universalist churches. optimistic pipedream i guess.

as for your post, i hope you don't mind me responding in here. even though i don't know anything specific about any empircal or theoretical evidence to suggest that the universe is a time bubble, it did remind me of an article i read in a special edition of scientific american. it was talking about the various possibile ways that parallel realities might exist. in one of them, our universe was imagined as a bubble of sorts. the various constants involved in our physics, such as the speed of light or the cosmological constant, were established by quantum fluctations during the first picoseconds of the big band. other fluctuations caused creating parallel universes where the the strength of gravity or the strong nuclear force is different. something like that, anyway.

unfortunately from what i can remember, it'd be impossible to travel to other bubbles, since the space between them is expanding at faster than light speed (note: matter isn't moving; space is stretching, and the rate space can stretch isn't limited to light speed).

A move away from our finely tuned bodies?? Why is it that athletes are constantly breaking world records? Certainly world records should have been set back in like the 1800s and then never ever broken again, correct, if our bodies have been getting less and less finely tuned because of our "damned" medical technology????? Ok, you are right that people who get diabetes are enabled to survive and have offspring. And, normal insulin producing folks???? Oh yeah, they must be not having sex (yeah right). Everyone is sexing it up (includding folks with diabetes), everyone is having children. Again, our medical technology enables us to have an absoultely HUGE GENE POOL ensuring survival should our medical technology fails us.

The human race won't eventually all be born without insulin producing cells. This would only happen if we used medical technology to ensure insulin defective folks survived, and then the world basically made it a point to kill every "insulin normal" kid. Then, in that case, in a really really screwed up world where normal non-diabetes kids were killed and diabetes kids were allowed to survive would we evolve insulin defective cells. (I guess the President hates all those insulin "normies"????) For every insulin defective kid born, there are probably 50 normal insulin producing kids born. I did not know a single kid in my high school who had child type diabetes. You must see the fallacy in your argument? If it is true that at least 50 normal kids are born to every insulin - defective kid born (assumming the same having sex rate), then I guess that means that the normal kids are evolving 50 times faster?

I think medical technology enables us to be better off as a species because it helps us to just explode in population and maintain a HUGE GENE POOL. Think about it. Why is it that the human population went from 0 to 1.5 billion in like a million years (or 5,900 years if you are Christian) and then it went from 1.5 billion to now 6 billion in only a hundred years? Any scientist would tell you it is because of advances in medical technology. Shit we are so powerful as a species now that we even have the power to just utterly destroy our planet (you think your supposedly normal evolved "superior" cavemen had the power to destroy the planet like we do now???) We are an incredibly powerful species, that if we are not careful, we will overpower ourselves.

All I am going to say is what????????????????????? How can we not have a HUGE GENE POOL?? Genetic bottleneck?? How is it that possible? Our medical technology enables nearly every gene set to survive and reproduce. I mean, a lot of us survive to have babies. I just don't see how our gene pool is limited??

a "gene pool" isn't defined by the number of people breeding, but by the mean variation of allels.

"Human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 years ago.[1]

"However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome are only a small part of the entire genome, and are untypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, thus can be traced back in time via either matrilinear or patrilinear ancestry.[2] Research on many (but not necessarily most) genes find different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving of the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e. a single breeding pair).[3][4]

"But this is not inconsistent with the Toba catastrophe theory which suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred ca. 70,000 years ago, positing that the human population was reduced to a c.15,000 individuals[4] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change, and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[5] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[4] On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6]" (my emphasis)

source: WWW Link

i have another question what is the speed of gravity

thats fine, your post is interesting thanks! anyway i consider it a personal challenge to ponder the connection between time /distance and speed, note how i said 'ponder' instead of 'figure out'. lol

Nature does not give us anything we dont need to survive. And takes away anything we do have but no longer require for survival because of medical science. That is just the way evolution works and yes it sucks and no i did not make the rules.

Hi!

I disagree here. Just look at diversity of our environment, and tell me that EVERYTHING you can see is needed for survival.

Mutations give live beings quite a lot of stuff they don't NEED to survive in their current environment. However evolution weeds out those that are LESS CAPABLE to survive, as only those beings that do, have the opportunity to pass their genes to the next generation.

BR, Iztok

Hi!

Drugs and stimulants?

Looking at all those recent affairs in various sports, most certainly true.

BR, Iztok

Oh, so every single world record set is set by someone taking drugs?

Also, why our humans taller and more healthy overall than back in the 1700s? Jeeze, it must be because of our damned medical technology! Better food and what not.

So do you seriously believe we are better off being like cavemen for all eternity refusing no medical technology and evoloving naturally???? What if an asteroid heads our way 500 years from now?? It may very well be possible to prevent an asteroid from colliding with the Earth thus allowing our species to survive and reproduce with our technology 500 years from now. All the super - supposed superior genetic cave men in the world couldn't stop an asteroid collision with the Earth.



Hmmmmmm. Nature gave us uranium. Last time I checked, we don't need uranium to survive. Uranium is hazardous to us anyway. But I wonder how many genetically superior Spartan warriors I could kill with an atom bomb? Spartans!! prepare for glory!! Prepare to be vaporized!! Prepare to go from the solid state to the plasma state in 0.0001 second!!

Lets look at Stephen Hawking. Certainly he would have died if medical technology couldn't save him / help him? He would have died if we are all cavemen? But that guy is smarter than any of us. Who knows what things we will take away from him.... I think it is good that we all are allowed to survive. Pain is good for the soul anyway. I think a kid forced to deal with diabetes his whole life could be a much tougher individual who can contribute more than a genetcially superior jock who takes everything for granted and never truly had to be resourceful.

Anyway, certainly you can agree with my post that we won't all eventually be insulin deficient? The insulin normal kids are growing up to have kids also. Its just that the insulin deficient kids are allowed to survive also and contribute to society.

Something to consider about medical technology is that it doesn't just provide treatments for ailments/deficiencies, it sometimes COMPLETELY cures/removes the deficiency. What I mean is, taking the insulin thing, it is possible that medical science will discover a way to completely cure the diabetic of his condition and make him into a "normal" individual. The idea that our advances in medical science will lead to some sort of de-evolution due to a polluted gene pool, doesn't take this into account.

Just my two cents you understand.

Well, anyway that proves it right there that medical technology is awesome!! I mean with medical technology we can actually perform physical feats better than ever. Better than our cavemen cosuins allowed to evolve natually! Thanks for providing the argument that medical technology is very good and not bad, not something that will make us all insulin deficient, not something that will have us all magically revert to single celled bacterium, etc.

... well, at least we're not arguing about becomming amoeba anymore...

1) the idea of "devolution" is absurd, if you understand evolutionary theory. it makes a great plot device in science fiction, though.

2) nature isn't a person. nature is a category, an idea. sometimes it's put in opposition to artifice, sometimes civilization, sometimes man, and sometimes intelligence. but if you grant that human beings are animals who evolved 'naturally,' then everything we do is our natural behavior. this includes medical technology.

3) evolution by natural selection among sexually reproducing species tends overwhelming to result in life forms that are more fit for survival than previous life forms. it does not tend to result in creatures that are genetically perfect or pure in any way or sense. in fact, "purity" would be a bad thing for evolution (no variation).

4) medical science isn't perfect. it brings us many good things. some of those good things will have bad effects in the longer term. the emergence of super-bacteria is a fine example.

might i provide a piece of folk wisdom? i'm really into body art- tattoos, piercings, etc. several years ago i had 5 visible facial piercings (now i just have stretched ear lobes), and at the time i was taking an introduction to Hinduism class. we watched a film on samnyasi, Hindu renunciants, which featured several people in the middle of acts of self-mortification. one man put a spear through his... well, i'll leave that to the imagination. after class, a student asked the professor, "wouldn't that get infected?" he said, "well, why don't you ask Nik?" (me).

among body art enthusiasts there's a common myth. i call it a myth because, while it's based on scientific knowledge, it's not empirically verified at all. but the myth is that pre-industrialized peoples have stronger immune systems because they aren't constantly curing things with drugs; westerners are taught to be hypocondriacs, which leads them to have weaker immune systems, which makes then need to be hypocondriacs. or so the myth goes.

as for me, i've been on antibiotics once in my life, and i rarely get sick. i never wore shoes as a kid, and i've probably stepped on every type of pacific tidepool sea life there is. i think they gave me a tetnis shot once. green tea. it works wonders.well, rarely sick except from drinking. one of my coworkers, on the other hand, is practically married to lysol disinfectant. she gets sick a lot.



i don't really think about what it is or what it means, but i'm prone to pondering about damn near everything. always have. the more i learn, the harder it gets to fall asleep at night.

What you have to understand is that any living thing which has non essential parts uses recources to support those parts, therefore any living thing of the same species that devotes slightly less recources to those same parts, has an advantage and this will over time lead to the eventual dissapearance of the non essential part. Ergo, living things end up with exactly what they need for survival.



What makes a champion athlete? If all other factors can be matched by your opponents, at the end of the day, only one thing counts - genetics. Genetics is the only thing your sporting opponents cannot match, therefore it is genetics that makes champions.

The reason athletes are constantly breaking world records is not suprising and quite in line with what you would expect with the dramatic increases worldwide in the number of people becoming involved in sport.

dystopic, your post is good, i have some reply when i get time

Totally wrong. Understanding evolution should mean a better understanding of the desasterous long term effects of medical science. But we don't have to worry, that is a problem for some other distand future generation to worry about. Also medical science is hard at work developing 'super bugs' (as you mentioned) for future generations to enjoy as well.



Nature is a rock solid mathematical force applied to all life and governed by the laws of physics in its utelisation of the recources it has available to it.
Nature is also very strongly governed by history; ie all the pieces that have been in play for long periods of time. Technology introduces many new unhistorical radical elements into nature, i mean it is almost like what happens to a body when exposed to high dodes of radiation.

In all of history, on a planitary scale, there is no greater force of distruction than technology,,, except perhaps the occasional asteroid strike!!! so i guess if technology can save Earth from another asteroid then perhaps that will make up for all we have destroyed??



Well it make sense that the harder you work your immune system, then the stronger it will be. People with weak immune systems probably would have died as children in the old days, so of course the general population would be stronger in that regard just by default.
Anyway, i think the key to a persons immune system is their childhood years. Similar to the importance of brain development in childhood as well. That is why babies instinctively put everything they can in their mouth,,, it is not so good for the individual baby, but a fantastic thing for the human population as a whole.



hehehe, i don't have that problem. My mind puts ideas and concepts 'on hold' for future reference to be dusted off and checked for relevance when a new idea comes along. It is good, im my mind, everything is connected.

Super bugs are nature's response to our awesome medical technology. Our medical technology has enabled us to go from 1.5 billion humans in 1900 to over 6 billion humans now. As a matter of fact, approx. 5% of all the humans that have ever, ever lived (since we began as a species 1 million years ago or 6,000 years ago (whether you are Christian or not)) are alive right now. Shit, before, 'regular pussy bugs' used to kill us. Now, nature is desperate to continue killing us with 'super bugs'. Of course with nanomachine technology (in the works now), bacterium will be directly destroyed by micro robots. At any rate, this whole discussion may become pointless as technology will enable us to write the genetic code in new offspring to be the exact antagonist to the current super bug.

At any rate, IF OUR TECHNOLOGY FAILS US, because there are over 6 billion humans on this world, it is very unlikely a single bug, no matter how super, would destroy all of us. By law of probability, SOME OF US out of 6 BILLION HUMANS will have the EXACT GENETIC COMBINATION to withstand whatever super bug is out there.

A million years from now, if we are "genetically superior" cavemen Amish refusing medical technology, because only say a million of us are around (because of refusal to use medical technology to keep us alive), a super bug could destroy nearly all of us with a narrower and comapritvely smaller gene pool filled with less possible genetic combinations.

Why wouldn't gentically super strong athletes emerge nowadays? See, you are living in a fantasy world where apparently all the healthy and strong kids are abstaining from sex and all the sickos are the only ones getting down and dirty. EVERYONE IS HAVING SEX. Diabetes people are getting dirty with each other and producing more diabetes kids. Heathly, your supposed "genetically awesome" people are also doing it producing more super healthy jocks. Think of it like this: there is two sets of evolution going on. Medical technology simply allows the "genetically lesser" to also evolve. I don't see the problem. Sure, the "genetically lesser" are allowed to go on and spread their pain and misery onto their offspring, but isn't this better than just having them die and contribute nothing to society?

At any rate, do not underestimate the effects that having to live through pain and misery can have. I think individuals forced to deal with their genetic shortcommings are more determined and harder workers because they have been forced to be that way every day of their lives.

ditto (to your replies, that is).

I would partly agree with this, but i think the best medicine will come from the manipulation of our own immune systems - that could be through genetics as well as other things.



fingers crossed!



Your arguments on evolution are correct in the short term but incorrect for the long term.