But who is going to make that decision?
I'm picturing a random group of scientists sitting in a room, and one guy blurts out, "Uh...guys...I don't think we're homo sapiens anymore."
It's weird to consider.
The end of Mankind on Earth
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
I'm picturing a random group of scientists sitting in a room, and one guy blurts out, "Uh...guys...I don't think we're homo sapiens anymore."
It's weird to consider.
I am reminded of Arthur C Clarke's short 1948 novel Against The Fall Of Night and Gergory Benford's sequel, which I think was called Beyond The Fall Of Night. In the former, mankind exists in an idyllic society millions of years in the future. Mankind has pretty much complete control of matter and essentially nothing ever changes, not even over many thousands of years. In the latter, it's revealed that this is because all the adventurous types went off exploring, so Earth-born humans are descended from countless generations of ever more stay-at-home types. After a point, this would imply at least two very distinct species descended from modern-day humans.
No, you're missing it. Define a homo sapien. Say, "THIS IS WHAT A HOMO SAPIEN IS". If we change through time, once we fail to meet the standards that we have named "homo sapien" we pick a new name for ourselves.
Basically, if we contine to evolve, we can do one of two things.
1. When sufficent differences exist between modern and future man, create a new name. Say, Homo Avian, should we develp unaided flight.
2. Change the definition of homo sapien to fit what we've become.
It's just a label, anway. We will be whatever we are at the time, no matter what we choose to call it.
No, I understand that, but it's still strange. It's not like evolution is going to suddenly happen overnight to everyone. We're not just one day going to stop being homo sapiens. It will be so gradual that we might not even notice it happening until well after it's happened.
It's easy to discover fossils of our ancestors and point out how they were different, but it's much harder to notice and label differences as they are happening.
increasing population and industrialisation --> increasing demand for fuel and industrial resources --> shortage of fuel and higher costs for resources --> reduced ability to operate fuel consuming technology --> reduced manufacturing --> shortage of resources --> reduced transportation and ability to farm --> shortage of food --> reducing population and/or famine and/or plagues and/or conflicts --> de-urbanisation + self sufficiency --> unsustainable deforestation and hunting --> crippled ecosystems --> climate change and failing harvests --> starvation and climate related death of the majority --> loss of knowledge, possible ice age, possible genetic adaptation, possible extinction from being hunted by other surviving creatures.
If we were ever to really disapper i think it would be because of some kind of plague and don't necessarily mean a "natural" plague.
Humans are a quite sturdy and can live under appaling conditions so even if we would nuke our world somewhere people would survive and if need be live off moss and lichen and whatever non-irradiated food they can procure until the world is quasi-inhabitable again.
However with the exponential rise of technology we are sure to come up with a way to take out human life without destroying the planet itself and chances are that sooner or later some idiot will release that weapon (by choice or intentional) and take us all out.
I'm a bit pessimistic about humanitys future but then i like surprises and would love to hear humanity grow up and for once stop their dumb squabbles.
Humans are a quite sturdy and can live under appaling conditions so even if we would nuke our world somewhere people would survive and if need be live off moss and lichen and whatever non-irradiated food they can procure until the world is quasi-inhabitable again.
However with the exponential rise of technology we are sure to come up with a way to take out human life without destroying the planet itself and chances are that sooner or later some idiot will release that weapon (by choice or intentional) and take us all out.
I'm a bit pessimistic about humanitys future but then i like surprises and would love to hear humanity grow up and for once stop their dumb squabbles.
Evolving into something else isn't the same as demise, so that doesn't count; it's very likely that Humankind will be quite different in the next couple of hundred years through the implementation of biotech enhancements but we'll still be alive. Nor is emigration offworld the same as demise. Even if everybody leaves and we turn Earth into a shrine or museum, we'd still be alive.
The only thing that could wipe out Humanity completely would be a cataclysm, and it would have to be huge, like an asteroid the size of North America or a close-by Gamma Ray Burst.
Otherwise, there will be survivors who will eventually proliferate and rebuild a civilization.
The only thing that could wipe out Humanity completely would be a cataclysm, and it would have to be huge, like an asteroid the size of North America or a close-by Gamma Ray Burst.
Otherwise, there will be survivors who will eventually proliferate and rebuild a civilization.
Sooner or later, Homo Sapiens will evolve into something else. I cannot think of a situation where a biological species will remain "frozen" in evolution: any change to the environment will yield an evolutionary pressure on our species, making us something different as a results. However, that will take a very long time, in the span of millions of years.
On the other hand, given our exponential advancements in science and technology, I think we could leave Earth in less than a millennium. So I voted for that, with the caveat that evolution will still happening, just slower.
On the other hand, given our exponential advancements in science and technology, I think we could leave Earth in less than a millennium. So I voted for that, with the caveat that evolution will still happening, just slower.
I tend to think that evolution happens when a population is in decline. An increasing population expands a gene pool, while a decreasing population forces natural selection. And this should apply not only to genetics, but all kinds of memes: behavioural, social, cultural, etc.
The classic simulation of foxes and rabbits shows us how the dynamics of a predator-prey systems can find long term stability with strongly oscillating populations, so it isn't always a case of expand beyond sustainability and then become extinct. I see it as a case of stability with periods of prosperity, in between periods of privation.
As for the idea of evolving, I don't feel it's fair to say "we'll still be here", any more than a brush remains the same brush if you replace it's head one year and it's handle the next year.
Evolution doesn't imply cultural improvement, or intellectual gains. It could just as easily mean loss all of that and returning to the wild. Evolution isn't for us to choose, it is something nature forces upon us.
The classic simulation of foxes and rabbits shows us how the dynamics of a predator-prey systems can find long term stability with strongly oscillating populations, so it isn't always a case of expand beyond sustainability and then become extinct. I see it as a case of stability with periods of prosperity, in between periods of privation.
As for the idea of evolving, I don't feel it's fair to say "we'll still be here", any more than a brush remains the same brush if you replace it's head one year and it's handle the next year.
Evolution doesn't imply cultural improvement, or intellectual gains. It could just as easily mean loss all of that and returning to the wild. Evolution isn't for us to choose, it is something nature forces upon us.
My vote is for Homo Sapiens Superior.
That's too fatalistic. There are 6.something billion of us, we don't seem to have done a very good job of destroying ourselves so far. We managed to get through the Cold War without killing ourselves. Where's the real precedent for this idea, other than the macabre, "poetic" idea that mankind is somehow entirely preoccupied with war.
Cats? No, wait; they've got life figured out already.
dolphins of course.
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Homos-Inferior, a de-evolved society of tv zombies who can barely write a text message
Where is the Mankind becomes Obsolete option
ie Man de-evolves and gets replaced by Cybernetic monkeys
Where is the Mankind becomes Obsolete option
ie Man de-evolves and gets replaced by Cybernetic monkeys
True, but unless there's an overwhelming catastrophe that sends Man back to the Stone Age, I think natural evolution is over for us; any evolutionary changes that happen in the future will be induced.
I tend to concur. Apparently we haven't really evolved as a species in the last 30,000 years or so, precisely because we've been extremely successful. The position can be summarized as "We change the world; it does not change us".True, but unless there's an overwhelming catastrophe that sends Man back to the Stone Age, I think natural evolution is over for us; any evolutionary changes that happen in the future will be induced.
Cats? No, wait; they've got life figured out already.
I dunno, I was thinking goldfish.
