Will future homos think everyone morons?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Ok forgive the title I did that on purpose.

Do you think that whatever species humans have evolved into in a few million years time will think we are all sub-human idiots?

I mean that's what most people seem to think of neanderthals and the like today.

Of course, we invented bacon and lingerie.

[Tacitursa]

To be honest i dont think mankind will be around that long.

[DisgruntledGoat]

To be honest i dont think mankind will be around that long.

Don't you think that 4 million years ago someone could have made the same statement? That there is no way humanoid species could make it? The odds then were far worse then they are now. Even 200,000 years ago when our species first showed up, who would have thought we would be here now. To make such a brash statement, even given our propensity to kill each other, I think is tad superfluous. Our species has made it through a lot. I can see it making it through a lot more. A million years from now... I don't see it as that far fetched. Heck the dinosaurs as a species commanded the earth for hundreds of millions of years, yet they lack the ability to control their environment and manage their future. My money is on homo sapiens making it a lot longer than you willing to give us.

[duda]

To be honest i dont think mankind will be around that long.

actually it will.

problem is, it's slowly returning to homo habilis.

[Sphere]

One has to keep in mind that evolution is not steady improvement over time like some sort of human technology. Evolution occurs in response to natural pressures which can point a species in many different directions. In modern society being dumb doesn't really prevent you from having children (actually there is alot of evidence the the opposite is true), so there is no reason to think humans will become any smarter in the future, at least from a genetic standpoint.

In the same way, there are many genetic disorders that in the past were pushed to the fringes of the species because it would have meant an early death and failure to reproduce, that now can be treated. This may mean we see these genetic problems creep more and more into the population as our ability to treat them increases.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I hate to say it, but that post is a lot like many posts that plague this particular forum

People trying to display their great knowledge by posting things that are only very slightly relevant to the topic at hand.

Of course, what I should have done was point out some tiny error in your post to proove that I'm so much better, but people who do that are the evidence for your theory that being "smart" makes you less likely to have children.

Evolution is in fact a steady improvement over time. Why is it that fish that adopt dark environments lose their sight within 100 generations? Because it's better. There is no need for eyes, not having them costs less nutrients to maintain, and they are a very vulnerable point for infection.

And I completely disagree that being dumb makes more likely to have children. It's evident that our definitions of stupitidy aren't the same. Intelligence isn't some person with laughable social skills and poor personal hygeine who can explain relativity in a purposefully obscure manner. That's actually stupidity, and stupid people have a hard time reproducing.

Racing drivers and fighter pilots, for example, are intelligent in ways I could never be. Only a minority of them attend university. They're extremely likely to have children.

[vlach]

I'm afraid Sphere is correct about evolution being a response to natural pressures. There are species of ferns for example that have stopped evolving for millions of years because they have reached a point where they do not require any improvement to survive. Same with humans when we have reached a point that we are either smart enough or tough enough to not be killed by any phenomenon on our planet we will stop evolving. It will take some serious mass mutation to implement unnecessary features

As to the idiocracy prediction that's impossible since the human race is expansive enough to ensure variety from the hygiene neglecting anti-socialite to the fornicating motor head. Apropos I regret to inform you that the revenge of the nerds type character is quite rare since I actually study theoretical physics and from the people I work with to the historical greats of the field none fit that description, in fact most of them are married with children.

So that you may not accuse me of being off topic, although your question was answered indirectly by sphere, my answer is maybe. The pre-history human is considered sub-human purely from his portrayal in popular culture i.e screen-play writers etc. who are prone to fictionalise. In fact their society was as complex as needed given the size of their population and survival, needs much like today, sure they didn't have a written language but that would be like denouncing medieval man sub-human because he couldn't use a telephone without instruction. We have been born the same way for millions of years and only through teaching previous knowledge could we advance and improve so do not think there is much difference between you and them. To strengthen my point take the Basques who are direct descendants of the cave dwellers that inhabited the same territory as the Basque country today and they're in no way sub human. So in the future we may be characterised as primitive but that would be only in technology and not mental capacity.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I'm afraid Sphere is correct about evolution being a response to natural pressures. There are species of ferns for example that have stopped evolving for millions of years because they have reached a point where they do not require any improvement to survive. Same with humans when we have reached a point that we are either smart enough or tough enough to not be killed by any phenomenon on our planet we will stop evolving. It will take some serious mass mutation to implement unnecessary features

You're repeating what I agreed with already

As to the idiocracy prediction that's impossible since the human race is expansive enough to ensure variety from the hygiene neglecting anti-socialite to the fornicating motor head. Apropos I regret to inform you that the revenge of the nerds type character is quite rare since I actually study theoretical physics and from the people I work with to the historical greats of the field none fit that description, in fact most of them are married with children.

I'm not talking about scientists I'm talking about the people I described in my post earler.

[the_mango55]

And I completely disagree that being dumb makes more likely to have children. It's evident that our definitions of stupitidy aren't the same. Intelligence isn't some person with laughable social skills and poor personal hygeine who can explain relativity in a purposefully obscure manner. That's actually stupidity, and stupid people have a hard time reproducing.

Racing drivers and fighter pilots, for example, are intelligent in ways I could never be. Only a minority of them attend university. They're extremely likely to have children.

He's not saying that smart people dont have a chance to have sex, he's saying dumb people have more children. This is generally accurate.

And every fighter pilot goes to college.

[Manco]

You can't stop evolving, all that happens is that evolution is far more visible after bottleneck events

[mp0295]

Sphere is right about the response to environment. Suppose a virus came out that killed nearly everyone with two kidneys before age ten, people who happened to be born with one kidney would before more common. I harly call that an improvement. That was just off the top of my head, it's more just to prove a point than a specific possible example.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Sphere is right about the response to environment. Suppose a virus came out that killed nearly everyone with two kidneys before age ten, people who happened to be born with one kidney would before more common. I harly call that an improvement. That was just off the top of my head, it's more just to prove a point than a specific possible example.

that is in an improvement, although I guess we're all arguing semantics. You don't die by a virus.

You can't stop evolving, all that happens is that evolution is far more visible after bottleneck events

actually you can if there's no reason for individuals with certain traits or a lack of them to die out

[Blau&Gruen]

The question if it comes to thinking is not only what but how?

We have difficulties to understand what our contemporaries think. How can we then know what future beings may think?

[Manco]

actually you can if there's no reason for individuals with certain traits or a lack of them to die out

Random mutations will still happen, they will simply not give the ones with the trait any advantages over the rest.

[Blau&Gruen]

And who says, Neanderthals were stupid?

And what is an advantage? It may depend on the cirumstances, the opportunities nature offers and the species that try to fill specific ecological niches.

Biological terms are different from social or economic terms in their relation to time and subject. So, we may not mix these together as they change then to mere metaphors. Metaphors in science can create confusion, a classical example would be social Darwinism, another Stalin's six legged pig.

[cpdwane]

And who says, Neanderthals were stupid?

They certainly weren't; scientific evidence shows that they had larger skull cavities then modern humans do. It's just a populer misconception that they were stupid.

[chamaeleo]

OP: think of it this way.

We measure humanity's success in terms of removing selective pressures. Today...predators, parasites, disease, famine, etc all take far less of a toll on our populations. Result: greater life expectancies...but selection is much less based upon genetic traits which were advantageous under bleak conditions. You're now free to marry the hot diabetic/epileptic chick and produce your twitchy lineage, whereas in past millennia she'd have likely died before the age of consent.

Net effect: disadvantageous genetic traits are being perpetuated like never before in human history. Because life is easy, we instead choose partners based on their: physical appearance, affluence, and a host of skills/common interests only peripherally related to their actual likelyhood of survival.

Barring some sort of a bottleneck, our gene pool only gets murkier with time. On topic, though, I consider Man to be near-ideally suited to his contemporaneous conditions, throughout all time. The stupid Neanderthal would survive better than you under his living conditions, likewise, Spaceman Spiff would mock you as fail to program his janitor-bots to mop the floor...but only you could know how to order Animal-Style burgers at In-N-Out!

[Arch-hereticK]

In the future we'll have our consciousness' in robots.

We will look back at the silly things we used to do and say: does not compute, does not compute, danger danger...........then our heads will explode. True story.

[Tacitursa]

Don't you think that 4 million years ago someone could have made the same statement? That there is no way humanoid species could make it? The odds then were far worse then they are now

I guess but those people werent faced with overpopulation , oil shortages and nuclear war. What i said is based on the fact that mankind hasnt had 100 years of peace for over 2000 years. There's at least one major conflict or war every 100 years.

Nature isnt that much of a challenge if your species is evolved to deal with it. Yes life is difficult but i think Humans are more of a danger to themselves than nature ever was. No doublt they killed and slaughted each other in order to control hunting grounds or food sources.

I just think it's inevitable that one day USA , China , Russia and North korea are going to fight world war 3. It could be 200 years it could be 2000 years but its going to happen one day and it's going to be really bad.

I also think a nuclear war between Israel/Islam Pakistan/indian is just a matter of when and not if aswell.

At some point in the future a powerfull country is going to run out of resources and start looking at its neighbours. USA are already drooling over iran and saudi arabia no doublt thats going to cause huge problems in the next 50+ years or so.



Self explanatory really. Flags = military bases

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

One thing is certain... Since high intellect means infertility, at any rate, our society will be devoid of its best types in a few centuries.