Moderator: Dave Young
Valkenar wrote:I agree about the bio-engineering, and I'm pretty enthusiastic about it. I also think that men will ultimately become obsolete and that there's a small to moderate chance they will gradually decrease in number until there aren't any more. This prospect is neither worrisome nor exciting, I think it's a fairly neutral proposition. And before anyone accuses me of misandry, I would be pretty neutral on the prospect of women becaming obsolete over time as well.
Valkenar wrote:What are some dangerous ideas of mine?
I think that we'll get to the point where it is unnecessary for anyone to perform physical work of any kind, and we'd have the ability to work no more than 1-2 hours per week. However we won't actually use this to allow everyone to focus on intellectual or artistic pursuits, we'll just develop a thousand new ways to waste time pushing paper around so that everybody can live a pointless worker-drone lifestyle. But that's not really a dangerous idea, more of a typical Brave New World prediction.
Valkenar wrote:My most unpopular idea is that it's better to buy no Christmas presents at all than to contribute to the consumerist orgy of shallow and wasteful materialism. While the religious aspect holds no appeal to me, I think there's something to be said for having your biggest holiday be something other than a celebration of the joy of assorted plastic objects.
Valkenar wrote:Also I think Weird Al is a talented musician despite the fact that he's marginalized himself as a comedy gimmick act.
Stryke wrote:The thing I wonder about is the collapse of a modern society
I think a real large scale disaster could push many first world nations over the edge .
Not because of the destruction , but because of the thin veil of civilization in some society's , and the reaction of the average folk .
I`d like to think folks would pull together but i don't believe it`s realistic in some cultures .
Rioting looting , and lawlessness on a scale never seen before .
Mad Max syndrome perhaps
It disgusted and continues to disgust me to see just how quick people can revert to a primal state.
cxt wrote:Mother nature has been combining and re-combining the genes for so long its hard to imagine that we could do much better in short run.
cxt wrote:Its not that we are not yet close to making a "designer" human--its that we know so little about the various interaction of the genes that even if we could pinpoint specific things (which we can't right now) we know next to nothing about the INTERACTION of such gene causes.
cxt wrote:Finding the gene to say a "genius" is only the tip of the iceberg---we have to understand what cliking that gene on is going to do.
cxt wrote:Another problem is that unless the "super" humans can control the reproduction of the "norms" they wil lose to sheer weight of numbers.
cxt wrote:Gene work is so expensive and so difficult that the "Supers" would be in such a tiny minority that there would be little way for them to breed enough of them for them to overcome the "normals."
cxt wrote:Or as we know, all to often the "A" students end up working for the "C" students.
cxt wrote:What if a persons "emotional" IQ is actually more important than raw brains or physical ability?
cxt wrote:Another thing to consider is that "smarter" is often as much a product of enviroment than it is a measure of raw brainpower.
Take brilliant guy and drop him in the middle of desert and suddenly he is not nearly as "smart" as the smallest child that actully lives there.
cxt wrote:As the world becomes more and more tech advanced--then more we DEPEND on the technology in order to function--and if something happens to that technology--then the smartest computer person in the world could well be SOL.
IJ wrote:I don't buy it.
IJ wrote:Besides, whole different species can breed, albeit imperfectly
IJ wrote:Here's mine: we're going to run out of energy and see a worldwide recession and poverty like never before in the modern era. We might just screw up biodiversity and the environment before this forces the inevitable decline in our exponentially expanding population, which would be a shame.
And we seem to be doing everything possible to keep every less genetically fit person alive that we can (that's my line of work--struggling against nature to keep the sick alive) and a la Bell Curve (big can of worms, don't endorse their conclusion at all) the most socially successful are often the least biologically successful, and vice versa. Where might that eventually lead?
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 0 guests