Living forever

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot: How could you be "left behind" in human evolution? Aren't we evolving right now? There's no "stages" of evolution like in sci-fi, it's painfully gradual. So...You wouldn't notice much difference for the next say, 50,000 years.

If you're immortal, what's 50,000 years? You don't die. Your genes will remain as they are, whereas the collective gene pool will change. What if, instead of a human immortal, you were an immortal Neanderthal?

With that geneering stuff we could put people on different planets that would be harmful to standard humans, but if you stayed here you would be fine.

In other words, you would be left behind. But with geneering we could also increase lifespans, combat genetic diseases, and remove physical deformities. We could also become completely alien.

[UltraViolence83]

I wouldn't be a Neanderthal, I'd be a homo sapien sapien. Besides, there isn't any reason for Earth-bound humans to become completely alien i.e., different species. Increased lifespan and fighting genetic diseases is one thing, fundamentally altering the entire species is quite another.

Err...ok...maybe the thread should go back to the topic, now...

[Hotfoot]

I wouldn't be a Neanderthal, I'd be a homo sapien sapien.

You would be, yes, but what if the immortal in question wasn't homo sapien sapiens? You don't die, eventually the human race will be unable to produce viable offspring with you.

Besides, there isn't any reason for Earth-bound humans to become completely alien i.e., different species. Increased lifespan and fighting genetic diseases is one thing, fundamentally altering the entire species is quite another.

Once you can no longer produce viable offspring with the unaltered peoples, you have speciated. Change enough of our DNA, and you'll do just that. How much, nobody knows for sure, but it will most likely happen eventually.

[UltraViolence83]

Aside from doing it to survive in otherwise hostile environments (like underwater) it seems like a stupid idea to me.

GO HUMANS!

[UltraViolence83]

Heh. Too much diversity as it is on Earth. Don't need meta-humans with purple skin running around.

[Hotfoot]

Aside from doing it to survive in otherwise hostile environments (like underwater) it seems like a stupid idea to me.

GO HUMANS!

For all you know, geneering out genetic diseases might cause speciation. Or maybe it will happen when they increase lifespans. Or maybe when they eliminate cancer, remove physical deformities, or what not. You can't say.

[UltraViolence83]

True...those don't seem too drastic to cause speciation for me, though. Well hell, chimps got over 95% of our DNA, so maybe you're right.

[Superman]

Actually, chimps have 98.6%.

[UltraViolence83]

Ok, to go hideously off topic here, I believe that geneering should only be used for fighting diseases,using gene therapy for life-extension, and to make different homo -species to live in certain environments. I like the idea of aqua-men swimming down the streets of New Atlantis.

[Hotfoot]

Heh. Too much diversity as it is on Earth. Don't need meta-humans with purple skin running around.

What, you have something against GRELs now?

I believe that there are a few Mordred-Class GRELs who would be willing to argue that point with you...

Ok, to go hideously off topic here, I believe that geneering should only be used for fighting diseases,using gene therapy for life-extension, and to make different homo -species to live in certain environments. I like the idea of aqua-men swimming down the streets of New Atlantis.

What about boosting natural intelligence, or increasing physical fitness? Making us better suited for microgravity?

[UltraViolence83]

Boosting intelligence with genes is a myth. Genes don't control how you think. The brain is much too complex to be controlled by genes. Reminds me of those who try to say that whites are smarter than blacks. Associating genes with how you think is an old idea, a disproven idea. Is also kinda racist. Remember: shit like the "criminal" gene doesn't exist.

Genetics can only change you physically. Strength can be done. Look at the breeds of dog.

Ok, I think this thread is headed for Biotechwank City now...

Boy am I opinionated!

PS: There's an older thread in SLAM on this, titled "Realistic Genetics," if you want to check it out.

[Hotfoot]

Boosting intelligence with genes is a myth. Genes don't control how you think. The brain is much too complex to be controlled by genes. Reminds me of those who try to say that whites are smarter than blacks. Associating genes with how you think is an old idea, a disproven idea. Is also kinda racist. Remember: shit like the "criminal" gene doesn't exist.

Genetics has nothing to do with intelligence? Gee golly, whatever separates us from the animals then?

What part of evolution giving us bigger and better brains don't you understand?

Genetics can only change you physically. Strength can be done. Look at the breeds of dog.

News flash, your brain is a physical part of you just as much as muscles and bones are.

Ok, I think this thread is headed for Biotechwank City now...

Increasing our natural intelligence is Biotechwank City, but making a race of mer-humans who have gills or something isn't? Sure....

Boy am I opinionated!

PS: There's an older thread in SLAM on this, titled "Realistic Genetics," if you want to check it out.

I'll take a peek.

[UltraViolence83]

Superintelligence isn't a good idea. We already have too many problems as it is. More complex brain=more complex thoughts and emotions. Ain't worth it. Social stigma would also prevent most of the world adopting this, and I don't blame them.

Kindly point to where the "thinking" gene is. Your thoughts are the result of electricity flinging back and forth in your brain, not the solid state your brain is in when you are developing/born. Unless you're talking about the logic centers...

GE of that magnitude requires a complete understanding of the genome, and what can go wrong with it. Actually, many random things happen to genes; they mutate, branch into new ones during life, and are unpredictable when trying to monitor them at a high degree. We may never have that ability to do so. It's hard enough to make sheep clones that can actually survive, let alone make a new race of superbeings.

I never said my mer-men weren't biowank, just an observation of where this is going.

Increasing natural intelligence would only open up a Pandora's Box. For some reason people tend to associate "brains" with "happy." For as many good things that could come of it, as many bad will, as well. Really not worth it. I'm happy to be a baseline human, not a freak.

[Hotfoot]

Superintelligence isn't a good idea. We already have too many problems as it is. More complex brain=more complex thoughts and emotions. Ain't worth it. Social stigma would also prevent most of the world adopting this, and I don't blame them.

Er...what? How does any of this follow? How are you coming to this conclusion? By your logic, retardation shouldn't be wiped out, because having a complex functional brain is a bad thing.

Kindly point to where the "thinking" gene is. Your thoughts are the result of electricity flinging back and forth in your brain, not the solid state your brain is in when you are developing/born. Unless you're talking about the logic centers...

Kindly point out where the athlete gene is.

Muscles have to be built up through excercise and diet. Arnold Shwartzenegger wasn't born with Mr. Universe pecs, you know.

I know how the brain works, but if you honestly think that genetics has nothing to do with the ultimate capacity of the human brain, you're very ignorant. The basic structure of the brain is defined through genetics. The very functions of the brain are defined through genetics. The brain is built from genetic code when the baby is gestating in the mother's womb.

GE of that magnitude requires a complete understanding of the genome, and what can go wrong with it. Actually, many random things happen to genes; they mutate, branch into new ones during life, and are unpredictable when trying to monitor them at a high degree. We may never have that ability to do so. It's hard enough to make sheep clones that can actually survive, let alone make a new race of superbeings.

No shit. Figure that one out on your own? I know about the pitfalls of geneering. It's much easier to try and increase our mental abilities than to try and splice in gills.

I never said my mer-men weren't biowank, just an observation of where this is going.

Increasing natural intelligence would only open up a Pandora's Box. For some reason people tend to associate "brains" with "happy." For as many good things that could come of it, as many bad will, as well. Really not worth it. I'm happy to be a baseline human, not a freak.

I'm sure many Neaderthals would share that view, except that they're extinct. I take it you consider those kids who graduate from college by the age of twelve to be "freaks?"

[UltraViolence83]

I'm aware of fucking genes that map out the brain. I thought you meant actual though processes. Now of course, a mental retard has a higher IQ than a dog, but a dog still operates normally. Unless we can adjust the brain to operate more effectively, superintelligence may have adverse effects on a brain not suited to handle it.

They ARE freaks. Anything that deviates from a norm is considered freakish, or don't you understand that?

A main reason the Neanderthals went extinct was because they were adapted for living in the ice age. As the ice receeded, their numbers declined, the cro-magnons came and either killed off the remanents, or interbreeded with them.

[Hotfoot]

I'm aware of fucking genes that map out the brain. I thought you meant actual though processes.

Then why assume I meant something else?

Now of course, a mental retard has a higher IQ than a dog, but a dog still operates normally.

And a dog is not a human. What's your point?

Unless we can adjust the brain to operate more effectively, superintelligence may have adverse effects on a brain not suited to handle it.

Basing this on WHAT evidence, exactly?

They ARE freaks. Anything that deviates from a norm is considered freakish, or don't you understand that?

Oh for fuck's sake.

What's the norm then? If I have an IQ of 150 (not my IQ, I'm just saying), would that make me a freak?

A main reason the Neanderthals went extinct was because they were adapted for living in the ice age. As the ice receeded, their numbers declined, the cro-magnons came and either killed off the remanents, or interbreeded with them.

How does that support your position, exactly, aside from stating the obvious?

[UltraViolence83]

For normal humans to be wiped out by the "better" humans would require a large population of the latter. That simply won't happen unless we spend the next 50,000-or-so years slowly becoming it. However, the rate of our further evolution is debatable. I've read things that suggest it may be slowing down...

I'm not expert on the brain, but up too a certain point we wouldn't possibly be able to work on it, reroute neurons in it, etc., due to size problems. I want to know how effiencent the brain is in that department...If we have enough room, the neurons could be rewired in different ways to increase certain aspects of intelligence. If it already is too effeicent, which I believe it is (I'm not sure, ok?) then there wouldn't be too much of a difference, and probably wouldn't be worth the trouble, then.

[UltraViolence83]

Then why assume I meant something else?

I thought you meant the actual thought processes, like I said.

And a dog is not a human. What's your point?[/quote]I'm pointing out how something needs to have a suitable IQ for it's speicies to function normally. A normal human wouuld still function better than a retarded superintelligent.

Basing this on WHAT evidence, exactly?[/quote]Depends how the particular GE is done. If we mess it up, well then, the organism is messed up.

They ARE freaks. Anything that deviates from a norm is considered freakish, or don't you understand that?

Oh for fuck's sake.

What's the norm then? If I have an IQ of 150 (not my IQ, I'm just saying), would that make me a freak?[/quote]What the hell don't you understand about English? If you're a kid that young with an IQ of 150, you're not normal. And what's that that deviates from normalcy, boys and girls? That's right! FREAK! Adult with 150 IQ on the other hand, isn't really that outside of "normal" IQ.

A main reason the Neanderthals went extinct was because they were adapted for living in the ice age. As the ice receeded, their numbers declined, the cro-magnons came and either killed off the remanents, or interbreeded with them.

How does that support your position, exactly, aside from stating the obvious?[/quote]I assumed you thought the cro-magnons killed the Neanderthals on equal ground.

By the way, I'm not using freak as a deragotory term.

[Hotfoot]

For normal humans to be wiped out by the "better" humans would require a large population of the latter. That simply won't happen unless we spend the next 50,000-or-so years slowly becoming it. However, the rate of our further evolution is debatable. I've read things that suggest it may be slowing down...

And to an immortal, 50,000 years is still within his or her lifetime, considering that if you are immortal, you will never die. Geneering has the potential for causing rapid speciation, however, as in much less than 50,000 years.

I'm not expert on the brain, but up too a certain point we wouldn't possibly be able to work on it, reroute neurons in it, etc., due to size problems.

What makes you say this? This sounds suspiciously like someone saying that a human born 5,000 years ago wouldn't be able to adapt to our society, because it has little to no basis in logical, rational thought.

I want to know how effiencent the brain is in that department...If we have enough room, the neurons could be rewired in different ways to increase certain aspects of intelligence. If it already is too effeicent, which I believe it is (I'm not sure, ok?) then there wouldn't be too much of a difference, and probably wouldn't be worth the trouble, then.

The human brain is too efficient?

Look, humans evolved from animals. We're not certain just what evolved when, but we do know that we went from smaller, simpler brains to larger, more complex brains. Your assertation that we have reached some sort of limit is utter nonsense. There may very well be a limit, but to say that we've hit it without any evidence whatsoever is foolish to say the least. Imagine if we just made it so that everyone on the planet had the mental abilities of those kids that graduate from college by the age of twelve. That's a whole decade more of our lives that can be spent doing other, more productive things. Imagine how society could change for the better as a result.

[UltraViolence83]

Errg. I can't explain it well enough...Ok:

Human brain...Normal

Some scientists reroute neurons to make it faster.

Human brain...Faster

Ok, so now there's less room in between the newly-arranged neuron paths, right? Well, if you do it again and again you're just going to run out of room eventually. I was wondering how well the neurons in the brain function already...Like how close they are and how effiecently they're hooked up.

[UltraViolence83]

Hmm...you got a point, there. But I don't see such drastic changes in humans happening unless it's by natural evolutionary methods. Slow down...no hurry...

[Hotfoot]

Then why assume I meant something else?

I thought you meant the actual thought processes, like I said.

How the brain works is also determined by genetics, hence the thought processes. You cannot escape.

And a dog is not a human. What's your point?

I'm pointing out how something needs to have a suitable IQ for it's speicies to function normally. A normal human wouuld still function better than a retarded superintelligent.

What? Retarded superintelligent?

You do realize that what you said made no sense at all, right?

Basing this on WHAT evidence, exactly?

Depends how the particular GE is done. If we mess it up, well then, the organism is messed up.

Er...so you're assuming that even if we succeed, we mess up? WTF?

Oh for fuck's sake.

What's the norm then? If I have an IQ of 150 (not my IQ, I'm just saying), would that make me a freak?

What the hell don't you understand about English? If you're a kid that young with an IQ of 150, you're not normal. And what's that that deviates from normalcy, boys and girls? That's right! FREAK! Adult with 150 IQ on the other hand, isn't really that outside of "normal" IQ.

Main Entry: 1freak
Pronunciation: 'frEk
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1563
1 a : a sudden and odd or seemingly pointless idea or turn of the mind b : a seemingly capricious action or event
2 archaic : a whimsical quality or disposition
3 : one that is markedly unusual or abnormal: as a : a person or animal with a physical oddity who appears in a circus sideshow b slang (1) : a sexual deviate (2) : a person who uses an illicit drug c : HIPPIE d : an atypical postage stamp usually caused by a unique defect in paper (as a crease) or a unique event in the manufacturing process (as a speck of dirt on the plate) that does not produce a constant or systematic effect
4 : an ardent enthusiast <film freaks>

How does that support your position, exactly, aside from stating the obvious?

I assumed you thought the cro-magnons killed the Neanderthals on equal ground.

You're assuming a hell of a lot that I'm not saying. Have you tried actually reading my posts?

By the way, I'm not using freak as a deragotory term.

As far as connotations go, "freak" is quite negative and deragotory. Nice try though.

[Hotfoot]

Errg. I can't explain it well enough...Ok:

Human brain...Normal

Some scientists reroute neurons to make it faster.

...or simply increase the size of the brains we already have...
...or use the brains of known geniuses as a sort of "base" to work from...

Human brain...Faster

Ok, so now there's less room in between the newly-arranged neuron paths, right? Well, if you do it again and again you're just going to run out of room eventually. I was wondering how well the neurons in the brain function already...Like how close they are and how effiecently they're hooked up.

So, in other words, you're likening how the brain functions with Moore's Law? How exactly are you drawing a correlation between computer processors and human brains?

Hmm...you got a point, there. But I don't see such drastic changes in humans happening unless it's by natural evolutionary methods. Slow down...no hurry...

And a century ago, they never thought we'd really set foot on the moon.

[UltraViolence83]

Meh. Call me a xenophobe if you must, but I don't like the idea of creating a superior species. I'd rather envision a future where homo sapien sapiens rule, not some damned uber-creatures.

As for that retarded superintelligent remark, think of it this way: superintelligent baby finds drano, drinks it. Becomes a retard according to the IQ charts for it's species. It may have a higher IQ than a human still, but it wouldn't function very well compared to a human with an IQ of 100

[UltraViolence83]

And a century ago, they never thought we'd really set foot on the moon.

Just because we've done the seemingly impossible before doesn't mean we'll do something completely unrelated yet still seemingly impossible in the future.