Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Living forever?

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 10:33 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 12:18 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 11:40 AM
Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM
Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM
What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Living forever?

 (Read 16173 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Living forever?
     Reply #30 - September 24, 2014, 12:09 PM
    Ah, ok didn't know we were throwing that end of things into the equation. I still think the specs chosen would be determined indirectly by selection pressures, but obviously the extent of that impact might be reduced.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #31 - September 24, 2014, 12:23 PM
    It would be difficult for the collective totalities we call consciousness to remain analytical as such if we don't have indeterminacy. If selection was reduced to a virtually determinate point 0, that'd be very problematic.

    I mean, a lot of this stuff presupposes an anthropomorphised universe which is impossible where Set A consists of half-open intervals in reverse, ergo a forward reengineering in reverse. If we can't speak of causality as a mathematical certainty, how can we ever talk about completed axioms? Godel still remains the de facto reference, even though some hardcore Wittgensteinians would like to postulate that he is a platonist and little else.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #32 - September 24, 2014, 12:24 PM
    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 12:09 PM
    Ah, ok didn't know we were throwing that end of things into the equation. I still think the specs chosen would be determined indirectly by selection pressures, but obviously the extent of that impact might be reduced.

    I don't think there are any real selection pressures on humans, at least in the developed world.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #33 - September 24, 2014, 01:37 PM
    Its certainly not to the same extent as a "state of nature". But wherever people are dying before reproducing there are by definition selection pressures.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #34 - September 24, 2014, 01:47 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 12:24 PM
    I don't think there are any real selection pressures on humans, at least in the developed world.


    Is everybody you know having kids? And are they all having the same number of kids?  If not then natural selection is still occurring in some way.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #35 - September 24, 2014, 02:31 PM
    Living for 60-100 years is shit enough as it is, why would anyone wish to continue that ?
  • Living forever?
     Reply #36 - September 24, 2014, 03:34 PM
    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 01:37 PM
    Its certainly not to the same extent as a "state of nature". But wherever people are dying before reproducing there are by definition selection pressures.

    I'm not sure what kinds of death would have any bearing on human evolution. Short of being sterile, there is very little to stop a human reproducing. In the developed world, illnesses and diseases can be outlived enough to reproduce. Environmental factors are practically eliminated, at least insofar as it affects the ability to reproduce. Humans are in a unique position in the fact that we already manage the things that would require radical adaptation to overcome naturally.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #37 - September 24, 2014, 04:03 PM
    Of the people I know, the ones having kids are those that chose an education that leads to more stable careers, i.e. engineering, etc. and now have steady jobs and are settled down. The ones not having kids are those that chose an artsy type education, i.e. art, film studies, etc. they are the more drifter types that are not settled, and though they do take their careers seriously, they are not as successful economically.

    Does this have an effect on evolution? The more "free-minded" type people are not reproducing?

    Of course it is possible that those types will have kids at a later age, time will tell......
  • Living forever?
     Reply #38 - September 24, 2014, 04:17 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 03:34 PM
    I'm not sure what kinds of death would have any bearing on human evolution. Short of being sterile, there is very little to stop a human reproducing. In the developed world, illnesses and diseases can be outlived enough to reproduce. Environmental factors are practically eliminated, at least insofar as it affects the ability to reproduce. Humans are in a unique position in the fact that we already manage the things that would require radical adaptation to overcome naturally.


    All death before reproduction has a bearing on human evolution. Also you're not taking into account the effects of sexual selection on human evolution. These factors are still relevant to human evolution. Its arguable that humans are more in control of the overall process as a "society", however as long as unplanned death and sexual selection remain, the process of evolution will still take place.

    Making humans capable of living forever would remove the former aspect, but not the latter. Creating "designer offspring" would still keep the latter intact, although it would shift the critical point to before birth, assuming the designed alleles are able to sexually out-compete more "natural" ones.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #39 - September 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
    Quote from: Tonyt on September 24, 2014, 04:03 PM
    Does this have an effect on evolution?

    Well, no, because interests are not heritable.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #40 - September 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 04:17 PM
    All death before reproduction has a bearing on human evolution.

    Yes, I'm asking what you mean by that.

    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 04:17 PM
    Also you're not taking into account the effects of sexual selection on human evolution. These factors are still relevant to human evolution.

    But we're talking about humans here, not peacocks. The good, the bad and the ugly are all surviving long enough to breed.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #41 - September 24, 2014, 05:07 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
    Well, no, because interests are not heritable.

    Read a study that argued that. Apparently you're predisposed to liking certain booze more than others based on heritability.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Living forever?
     Reply #42 - September 24, 2014, 05:10 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
    Yes, I'm asking what you mean by that.


    That is selection pressure. The alleles are removed from the gene pool. The death can be due to an obvious genetic defect, like a lethal case of Down's syndrome, could be due to some aspect of the genotype that selects against survival, like predisposition to depression, or even just be random. All of these are going to alter the frequency of alleles in a population, and hence fall into natural selection, the primary mechanism of evolution.

    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
    But we're talking about humans here, not peacocks. The good, the bad and the ugly are all surviving long enough to breed.


    With the exception of the cases I've mentioned I'll grant that they're all surviving, but are they all breeding? At the same frequency? Clearly not. Some traits clearly enhance fitness, both sexual and otherwise. For example, it seems quite clear that our taller ancestors had greater reproductive success than shorter ones. Evidence? Look at the average heights of skeletons of humans as recent as the middle ages. There's been a significant change in the phenotype in even such a small period. If this isn't relevant to human evolution, I'm not sure what is.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #43 - September 24, 2014, 05:11 PM
     popcorn
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Living forever?
     Reply #44 - September 24, 2014, 05:15 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
    Well, no, because interests are not heritable.


    Genetics and epigenetics wouldn't give such a straightforward answer. Actually, the tl;dr answer ends up being maybe, to an extent, to a degree which we haven't fully tested/understand yet.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that you exercising now will activate genes to make your kids healthier, but why risk it anyway.  Cheesy
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #45 - September 24, 2014, 05:27 PM
    It's rare for a person to not ever get paired up with a partner, no matter how unfit or unpretty they are. There's no pressure to be fit, healthy, pretty. Humans, even though social mammals, are quite unlike any other, in that they have the stability of population and freedom of breeding that total global domination permits. There's no alpha male claiming all females in a territory, killing or subduing all rivals, maintaining his position through strength and breeding. Each individual is in the game.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #46 - September 24, 2014, 05:33 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
    Well, no, because interests are not heritable.


    What makes you say that? We are not talking about just "interests" anyway, but the entire personality, the extent to which people are risk takers, their concentration span, their desire to stay in one place versus move around, the extent to which they conform to societal pressures, etc. etc. All of these things have an affect on what sort of career and lifestyle we choose and a large part of this must be heritable. How do you think social insects like ants evolved such specific societal behavior if not through natural selection?
  • Living forever?
     Reply #47 - September 24, 2014, 05:41 PM
    Yes, on a species level we're doing fine (asteroids or nuclear war could change that though).

    On a genetic level however, there is unceasing flux. Maybe everyone in England is homogenous, married, and produces the same number of offspring who are equally capable of controlling their own destinies.  Tongue On a global level though there are things like war, poverty, sexual selection, diverse parenting ideas, etc. All of these variations drive evolution, no matter how subtle we may consider them. Even if we don't see it, evolution is constantly working, and none of the conditions for it to work have disappeared. They're just much less apparent for those of us in conditions with high levels of control.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #48 - September 24, 2014, 05:42 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 05:27 PM
    It's rare for a person to not ever get paired up with a partner, no matter how unfit or unpretty they are. There's no pressure to be fit, healthy, pretty. Humans, even though social mammals, are quite unlike any other, in that they have the stability of population and freedom of breeding that total global domination permits. There's no alpha male claiming all females in a territory, killing or subduing all rivals, maintaining his position through strength and breeding. Each individual is in the game.


    Yes, but a large number of people will prioritize other goals in life over having kids, i.e. their independence or their career, and they will keep putting off having kids until it is too late for them to do so biologically, or too late for them to have more than one child. And these kind of personality traits, whatever they might be (i.e. very independent thinking, etc.), are perhaps less likely to be passed onto the next generation.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #49 - September 24, 2014, 05:52 PM
    Quote from: Tonyt on September 24, 2014, 05:42 PM
    Yes, but a large number of people will prioritize other goals in life over having kids, i.e. their independence or their career, and they will keep putting off having kids until it is too late for them to do so biologically, or too late for them to have more than one child. And these kind of personality traits, whatever they might be (i.e. very independent thinking, etc.), are perhaps less likely to be passed onto the next generation.


    And that is just one of many examples of phenotypes that are impacted by natural selection. You'd literally have to create the "England" that I described on a global level, before selection pressures become irrelevant in driving human evolution.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #50 - September 24, 2014, 06:07 PM
    Quote from: Tonyt on September 24, 2014, 05:33 PM
    What makes you say that? We are not talking about just "interests" anyway, but the entire personality, the extent to which people are risk takers, their concentration span, their desire to stay in one place versus move around, the extent to which they conform to societal pressures, etc. etc. All of these things have an affect on what sort of career and lifestyle we choose and a large part of this must be heritable. How do you think social insects like ants evolved such specific societal behavior if not through natural selection?

    I'm willing to consider the evidence if you have it to hand.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #51 - September 24, 2014, 06:15 PM
    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 05:41 PM
    Yes, on a species level we're doing fine (asteroids or nuclear war could change that though).

    On a genetic level however, there is unceasing flux.

    Sure, there are all kinds of superficial and not so superficial differences between individuals. But evolution is a species level phenomenon. If the entirety of the species is breeding - not just the fit - then we're not gonna see the kinds of dramatic change that forged the species in the first place. We're not likely to need to mass-migrate, adapt to entirely new climates, face off against other species for territory, etc.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #52 - September 24, 2014, 06:16 PM
    Quote from: Tonyt on September 24, 2014, 05:42 PM
    Yes, but a large number of people will prioritize other goals in life over having kids, i.e. their independence or their career, and they will keep putting off having kids until it is too late for them to do so biologically, or too late for them to have more than one child. And these kind of personality traits, whatever they might be (i.e. very independent thinking, etc.), are perhaps less likely to be passed onto the next generation.

    I'm not convinced that life priorities and career plans are biologically heritable traits.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #53 - September 24, 2014, 06:21 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 06:15 PM
    Sure, there are all kinds of superficial and not so superficial differences between individuals. But evolution is a species level phenomenon. If the entirety of the species is breeding - not just the fit - then we're not gonna see the kinds of dramatic change that forged the species in the first place. We're not likely to need to mass-migrate, adapt to entirely new climates, face off against other species for territory, etc.


    Okay, but what you're mentioning is only a subset of evolutionary change. As long as the conditions I mentioned remain in place then evolutionary change is going to take place as some alleles change in frequency compared to others. Granted, its a slower process, not going to argue that, but we've not put a stopper on selection pressures, the driver of evolution, not by a long-shot.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #54 - September 24, 2014, 06:57 PM
    I just don't see how selection pressure has any significant bearing on humans anymore. It would imply that there are a significant amount of humans or types of human unfit to breed or that do not have opportunity to breed, which isn't really the case.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #55 - September 24, 2014, 07:00 PM
    It doesn't have to be "significant", but if we're going by 5%, then yes a significant number of humans either cannot, or are "unable" due to any number of reasons, to breed.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Living forever?
     Reply #56 - September 24, 2014, 07:14 PM
    It would have to be significant, though. Evolution is not just a matter of offspring differing from their parents. It is a matter of a population being subjected to some sort of pressure that either favors a certain trait or stamps out another. As it stands right now, there are not really any factors that inhibit human beings from living long enough to be able to reproduce that would affect change in the population. Even if certain offspring inherit certain traits, they don’t exist in an isolated gene pool and those traits don’t give them a reproductive advantage over the rest of the population. I think we’ll continue to see the appearance of mutations, but I don’t think there are any pressures right now that would favor mutations or stamp them out.  At least, I can’t think of any.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #57 - September 24, 2014, 07:22 PM
    Quote from: asbie on September 24, 2014, 07:00 PM
    It doesn't have to be "significant", but if we're going by 5%, then yes a significant number of humans either cannot, or are "unable" due to any number of reasons, to breed.

    But what, apart from being sterile, stops humans breeding? And I don't mean exercising intellectual choice. Which 'trait x' is being selected against in the human species? Which 'trait x' means a human wont be able to successfully breed?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Living forever?
     Reply #58 - September 24, 2014, 07:27 PM
    Well we came long way in biological cloning.,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLy-tYq8qV0


     living forever is NOT my cup of tea  but I would love to see some real experiments where completely dead body of any species including human that starts walking and communicating with their respective biological species ..

    Such result

    1). WILL KILL GOD BULL SHIT OF ALL RELIGIONS

    2).   WILL GIVE A CHANCE TO THOSE HEALTHY PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE DIED DUE TO ACCIDENTS OR OTHER REASONS FOR NO FAULT OF THEIRS.
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Living forever?
     Reply #59 - September 24, 2014, 07:50 PM
     
    Quote from: Ishina on September 24, 2014, 07:22 PM
    But what, apart from being sterile, stops humans breeding? And I don't mean exercising intellectual choice. Which 'trait x' is being selected against in the human species? Which 'trait x' means a human wont be able to successfully breed?


    I did not read this whole thing, so I'm not sure where this was going and I'm kind of hesitating to reply, but just for this one question on its own, there's some alleles for some genes that are automatic lethals in certain combinations. A recessive lethal allele may code for certain phenotypes in a dominant way (can be something innocuous, famously yellow color in mice) or just be sitting there looking dumb in a heterozygote, but if you get double copies of the allele, that organism will often not live beyond birth. This winds up screwing up the ratios that you would expect to receive from normal generations. There's also conditional lethals and other weird junk that goes on with environment v your genotype that sometimes makes it hard for populations with certain traits to survive, or to survive for very long. Some people with certain disorders probably couldn't live in certain parts of the world. You're not going to find a bunch of sickle-cell sufferers hanging out for very long in mountain communities.

    Maybe on a bit of a tangent, there is actually a lot of discussion nowadays about the possible repercussions of advancing medicine and increased life-expectancy for inheritable disorders with a very poor prognosis/quality of life. It used to be that people with certain critical diseases rarely got the opportunity to live long and reproduce, but nowadays, the outlook has changed for some of them, and there's some concern that these genetic diseases are increasing in frequency as a result.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »