Human , How will We evovle after a millenia?

[kambiz]

@SinerAthin
Actually what you are saying is essentially the same as I did but you're emphasising more on genetic aspect. I think both genetic engineering and producing actual organs would be used mutually. in the future We will be able to make our own organs even better. For example our skin can be designed to be more resistant to hostile enviroment or enhanced eyes with night vision and thermal detector , brain with kind of bio-chips attached who can help us calculate things much faster ! these body and physical enhancements plus altering our genetics would lead to a much more advanced humans that have higher flexibility as well as nearly immortal.

However ,Unlike many of you I stongly belive these things will happen within less than a millenia (perhaps in 5 centuries). my question is what will happen beyond that? (ofcourse This is all gonna happen by considering that our technological advancements would not be slowed-hampered in any ways)

[Himster]

Transhumanism may take two routes at the same time, the first being the obvious technological transhumanism, prosthetics and so forth, perhaps even to the point of complete biological obsolescence, the other is genetic engineering. The former being the prerogative of those who can afford it, the ruling elite, the latter being the design of said ruling elite. A new caste system, utilitarian meritocracy. The benefits of this system aren't so important on Earth, but rather the colonization of other planets: humans might perhaps, one day, be engineered to breath different poisonous atmospheres, have bone structures designed for work in zero gravity, designed for mining and close quarter work, designed and evolve for new and different planets, with a pantheon of immortal machine Gods ruling over each planet, shaping and reshaping planets and occupants based on whims, constantly evolving philosophies and/or sets of aesthetic principles: Immortal beings of pure mind, absorbing all of the knowledge of the Universe forever, beings who can hear x-rays, see gamma rays, taste dark matter and feel the solar winds of super novas flowing over their gold plated bodies. But what of the mere organics, couldn't they be engineered to accomplish similar feats? I don't see why not, perhaps the pinnacle of existence will be found in biological beings.

[Elfdude]

At the current rate of advancement of biology we're beginning to understand health in the terms of mathematics. I.E. I know exactly what I need to do to fix you because I know exactly what's wrong with you and why. This advancement is currently only limited by our ability to act on this knowledge and to gather this knowledge. That is to say, current technology could do wonders if we could reliably assess your body and figure out what is wrong. (AI will probably help with this in the future, it already helps identify diseases in images and to point out red flags)

Biological Regeneration technology hits its pinacle with stem cell technology, theoretically there is nothing that can't be fixed with it excluding the brain. Advancement past this point will rely upon nano technology which will consist of additive layers of improvements over the foundational human. We're already growing organs for people with them. In 50 years I would imagine any structure in the body beyond the brain will be repairable.

Physical Injury repair is already near it's pinacle with most any physical injury able to be repaired by manipulation or surgery. The exclusion of course being the brain. In the next 50 years I would imagine holographic atomic resolution imaging devices will allow surgeons to manipulate robots (perhaps nanites) with precision control allowing much larger scope surgeries with much less need for recovery.

Brain technology is in its infancy but it's likely to progress fast with all of our computational power thrown at it. Early solutions will rely upon utilizing the body's own repair and protection mechanisms to protect the brain. Long term solutions would likely see a redesign of sorts. The ethics here is probably going to take the longest to figure out. In 50 years I imagine most people will be taken brain supplements and cocktails designed to enhance and protect our fragile brain structures which represent our identity. I'm not sure if I ever see a mechanical or digital existence to be likely for people although those who die may be given a second life in this way.

Genetics are to the point where experimental gene therapy is already underway. In a variety of ways genes have been added or removed from animals and even humans. While the early trials are still problematic, when we can plop a sequence of DNA anywhere we want (the same designer ability that we have with circuits which require atomic assembly) we will be able to fix any genetic illness and even experiment with new genetic abilities. In 50 years we will be able to selectively inactivate and activate genes within the genome as well as implant or remove single letter sequences from specific cells.

Personally, I would say that most of us alive today are at the point in which aging will occur slower than the expansion of life expectancy due to medical technology making this generation or one very near it practically immortal. I do not believe a significant amount of evolution will occur at this point, rather I would assume that the biggest contributors to our own genetic variability would be our own designs.

Fun to think about but I think you all underestimate the speed of advancement. In my lifetime I've seen them go from barely able to sequence 10 genes to sequencing thousands. From taking 10 years to complete a human genome to less than a month. From talking about genetic therapy to actually using it on humans. At this rate we will see some pretty massive advancements.

The only force I think that is capable of strangling this advacement is capitalism.

[neep]

The only force I think that is capable of strangling this advacement is capitalism.

Agree with everything you've said except this.

I think capitalism would be the main driver.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would pay to upgrade their..well, everything. Or have their kids upgraded if it wasn't possible themselves.
Whether it's a mechanical/digital, chemical, or biological enhancements upwardly mobile folks would pay for the upgrades.
And companies would certainly be willing to offer them as many choices as possible.

(Not exactly sure how the 10 year limited warranty would work out on that kidney replacement, but that's a different thread..)

[Elfdude]

People will pay.

So I have a great car, it will put all other cars out of business and become the next dominant model. I could of course just release this car but this car was billions in research and development and I already own 20% of the automobile market share. If I were to make all other cars obsolete, sure I'd be in for a big payout but then my return would diminish. That is bad business sense. Instead I'll release portions of my R&D slowly over the next few decades utilizing the technology to slowly shift the market share over. I'll sell my Car V1 for 30,000$ and release V2 two years later for another $30,000 and a V3 another year later for another $30,000. Sure not everyone will replace their car every year but several will and this is the way I will maximize the return on my product because I am a capitalist and the heart of capitalism is the ability to extract wealth and externalize cost from products.

You might be familiar with the Iphone 6? It has the same technology in it that was standard for a samsung galaxy s3 several years ago. The technology to make a phone that eclipses all others already exists. The problem is that it would be poor business sense to release it.

The medical field is perhaps even worse about this because they have 30 year patents. Why would I cure a disease when the treatment for the chronic condition is far more lucrative? Why would I help people to deal with the real issues causing their depression instead of just burrying it under the rug with a daily pill that makes me billions?

That's the issue with capitalism, it only cares about the bottom line. Progress is a different beast all together. The sad thing is that American capitalism only works today because of the progress our forefathers made and didn't capitalize on, society capitalized on those. This trend is only growing worse in recent years.

[Phier]

I spent the night playing a game in VR, was awesome, you know because of capitalism. On a computer that is umpteen times faster than the one I had only 10 years ago, because you know, capitalism, while drinking icetea for pennies a glass because well capitalism.

While you can claim the conspiracy side of capitalism all you want, its not going to be alturistic nutty professors at a University making breakthroughs in practical longevity and genetic manipulations but "big pharmacy" because you know, capitalism. Having worked in University labs and in commercial labs I'm surprised anything ever gets out of a University lab.

If it weren't for capitalism none of us would even be having this conversation on line. I think the ironic thing about your example is that the S3 is available and had apple fans just switched then the 6 would have been released earlier You have a better argument against monopolies here, than capitalism.

[Elfdude]

I spent the night playing a game in VR, was awesome, you know because of capitalism.

VR is a great example of beneficial technology held back because of marketing. It's lack of any real success until recently is due to capitalism despite the fact we had it 20 years ago. I'm glad though that VR took advantage of government R&D funds, utilizes government infrastructure and is further subsidized by the public due to externalization practices because of capitalism.

On a computer that is umpteen times faster than the one I had only 10 years ago,

Again a good example of a technology held back by capitalism. Intel had multi core technology over a decade before it hit shelves and had zero intention of manufacturing despite the manufacturing technology being the same. IBM has had technology that make modern PC's look ridiculous for longer. Good thing we have that free socialist utopia called the internet to make use of that awesome processing power. Capitalist practices with graphical processing held back medical imaging by decades resulting in countless deaths and utterly ineffective use of extraordinarily expensive machines.

because you know, capitalism, while drinking icetea for pennies a glass because well capitalism.

Another great example, tea which could be far cheaper is artificially inflated in value because of capitalism. Good thing you have your socialist water to fill it up with.

While you can claim the conspiracy side of capitalism all you want, its not going to be alturistic nutty professors at a University making breakthroughs in practical longevity and genetic manipulations but "big pharmacy" because you know, capitalism.

You are really denying that having the bottom line be profit does not necessarily mean that sometimes progress takes a back seat to a quick buck? What are you arguing Phier? It sounds like you're perpetuating propaganda that otherwise contradicts your usual logical thought processes.

Having worked in University labs and in commercial labs I'm surprised anything ever gets out of a University lab.

Hey, you know that big company... I think it goes by the name of creative sound. Yeah, they stopped innovating in 1990's when they annouced all of sound technology had been discovered. Too bad they went bankrupt... oh wait, they're still selling us the same technology. Awesome.

If it weren't for capitalism none of us would even be having this conversation on line.

Yeah because the government subsidation and the hippie subculture which was involved in its creation has nothing to do with its existence. The only thing capitalism has done is taken it and ransomed it back to the consumer. There's a good reason why the US average internet speed is 11th.

I think the ironic thing about your example is that the S3 is available and had apple fans just switched then the 6 would have been released earlier You have a better argument against monopolies here, than capitalism.

Capitalism's nature is to create monopolies. That is literally their goal. That is literally one of the central reasons why pure capitalism would not function and why socialist regulations exist even here. By talking about an argument against monopolies you are literally supporting my argument. For example, thanks to capitalism the average individual has one choice of broadband internet. Socialism failed to stop that thanks in large part to capitalist propaganda. Just a note, literally means taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

The funny thing is that even samsung is guilty of the same thing. Samsung definitely beat Iphone 6 but only enough to maintain it's nice portion of the market share. Neither company rocks the boat because both companies have the ability to dramatically accelerate the war if they want to. That would introduce risk however which would be a rather poor choice businesswise. It helps that most of these companies are essentially controlled by the same people through holdings and investments.