[lutusp]

A quote: " ... international policymakers must pay serious attention to the reality of species-obliterating risks."

Are these people all completely ignorant of evolution and science? No matter what happens in the future, one or another species-obliterating risk is a certainty. Here's why:

1. Our species has existed for about 200,000 years.

2. On that basis, and given our present knowledge of biology and evolution by natural selection, it's reasonable to assume that, within another 200,000 years, we will have been replaced by another species who either successfully competed with us, or into whom we simply evolved over time.

3. Human beings are a note, perhaps a measure, in a natural symphony. We're not the symphony, and we're certainly not the reason the music exists.

4. Based on the above estimate, there will be 10,000 more human generations, after which our successors will no longer resemble modern humans, in the same way that our ancestors from 200,000 years ago did not resemble us.

5. We need to get over ourselves -- our lives are a gift, not a mandate.

6. I plan to enjoy my gift, and not take myself too seriously. How about you?

[spingsprong]

"1. Our species has existed for about 200,000 years.

2. On that basis, and given our present knowledge of biology and evolution by natural selection, it's reasonable to assume that, within another 200,000 years, we will have been replaced by another species who either successfully competed with us, or into whom we simply evolved over time. "

When our species had existed for around 5 years, does that mean it was reasonable to assume that within another 5 years, we will have been replaced by another species?

[lutusp]

> When our species had existed for around 5 years, does that mean it was reasonable to assume that within another 5 years, we will have been replaced by another species?

You're missing the point that our species didn't arrive that quickly. From the perspective of 199,995 years ago, assuming a certain amount of intelligence, our forebears would make a similar assessment -- that they had assumed their present form some hundreds of thousands of years ago. And we have copious fossil records to support the idea of a typical duration for individual species before they disappear.

In any case, it doesn't matter which numbers one chooses within wide limits -- the fact is that our species will disappear, no matter what we do, within, say, 500,000 years at the most -- meaning our descendants will not be recognizable to use, could not interbreed with us, and would not be obvious kindred spirits to us.

We're a transient species, and we're not in charge, nature is.

[kamaal]

That arguments sounds like a classic religious argument against evolution. 'If we came from the monkeys, why aren't currently monkey's turning into humans' like argument.

The answer is evolution is more like a fork/branch than modifications on the trunk. Mutations happen all the time, every cancer victim, is a victim of mutation. But when the gene begins to spread and take root rapidly, at some point we get that gene dominant among a species.

A lot will happen over the next 200,000 years. We will likely change in major ways.

But if you were to take this whole singularity thing seriously we may not even need all that. By 2045 you can live on eternally on the cloud.

[vixen99]

monkey's?

[sentientmachine]

Our planet needs to create at least one offspring with a good chance of sprouting a fresh batch of DNA based life on another planet before we send ourselves back into the stone age. If we don't, there are only so many shots left for us to become a space faring civilization again. If our species can't get off this planet. We may die as surly as an ant colony in the middle of the desert. DNA based life on this planet will halt, without anyone to carry on the carnival somewhere else in the universe.

This is serious business. If we don't fill the entire universe with efficient replicators to speed up the consumption of all energy to equilibrium. Then the reason the universe was created will have been for nothing. The stars must not be allowed to run down without our first harvesting them for our multitude of shenanigans.

[lutusp]

> Our planet needs to create at least one offspring with a good chance of sprouting a fresh batch of DNA based life on another planet before we send ourselves back into the stone age.

I hate to break this to you, but evolution isn't about humans or dolphins or spacefarers, it's about genes -- evolution is genes replicating, using organisms as vessels.

In answer to the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg, an evolutionary scientist answers, "a chicken is an egg's way to make another egg."

Also, at a more mundane level, by the time our descendants are scattered across all the local star systems, they will be so different from us that we won't recognize them or feel any special kinship.

But on reading your post to the end, I see you're probably kidding. Oh, well.

[sentientmachine]

I believe that all life on this planet came from elsewhere in the universe. And only the life forms that can quickly reproduce and spread to other planets get to live on. Our meta species has not yet reached the time where we explode and spread our genetic material all over like a dandelion in the wind. Intelligent life on this planet is still inside the proverbial egg, and we are maybe 300 years from hatching.

[lutusp]

> I believe that all life on this planet came from elsewhere in the universe.

One can argue that this is uncontroversial on the ground that life's precursors came from elsewhere. The only debate is what level of complexity is meant by "came from elsewhere".

> And only the life forms that can quickly reproduce and spread to other planets get to live on.

There's another, more likely explanation -- that life in some form naturally arises if the conditions are right, and there doesn't need to be a connection with another life-supporting environment. This isn't proven yet, it's just likely.

[kamaal]

>> Then the reason the universe was created will have been for nothing.

The whole universe was created for nothing. No one cast a magical spell for it to come to being. Nothing that is happening is happening for a reason.

Its just some laws of physics at play.

We came to be only through some minute chance.

[edavison1]

Eh. I dunno whether I am just optimistic, but let's try to remember that certainty isn't part of the scientific vocabulary; almost by definition science never seeks to provide a final answer on any subject and remains open to further inquiry/falsifiability.

So. I believe one of the reasons humankind is so awesome is that we have the capacity to be more than just a note in your natural symphony; we are constantly changing, creating and inventing— and I think it's entirely up to us whether we continue to flourish. Not to get all mystical, but perhaps in time the notion that we are 'the reason the music exists' will not seem super far-fetched. I guess I just think that human consciousness is so unique and cool that it is worth going to great lengths to preserve it, and to hell with what's considered 'natural'.

[lutusp]

> Eh. I dunno whether I am just optimistic, but let's try to remember that certainty isn't part of the scientific vocabulary; almost by definition science never seeks to provide a final answer on any subject and remains open to further inquiry/falsifiability.

Yes, that's true, but my point isn't a scientific one, it's a mathematical one. Given enough time, the human species will disappear. It's an equation, not a theory open to empirical test -- but it's certainly supported by evidence from other species.

> ... and I think it's entirely up to us whether we continue to flourish.

This denies a role for nature, from which we sprang. Given that, if we "thrive" and are not outcompeted by some other species, then instead the form of our thriving will be to evolve to the point where present-day people wouldn't be able to recognize the outcome as human.

I say this based on the copious evidence buried in layers of rock that records billions of years of evolution of countless species, of which we are one.

> I guess I just think that human consciousness is so unique and cool that it is worth going to great lengths to preserve it, and to hell with what's considered 'natural'.

More New Age fantasy. When we try to improve on nature, because of our intellectual limitations we instead become nature's obedient servants.

[edavison1]

Yeah I mean as long as there's historical continuity between our civilization and these hypothetical future human-like things, I'm totally on board. Not committed to humans as they are in 2014 sticking around forever. I think any disagreement between these views rests mainly on what we mean when we say extinction event. I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

[lutusp]

> I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

But it is a New Age fantasy. A million years from now, no matter what course natural selection takes, any surviving species will almost certainly be so unlike us that we would not recognize them as even remotely kindred spirits.

I chose a million years to avoid a discussion about how long it might take for natural selection to naturally eliminate us entirely. In that future time, there might be super-intelligent species who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect, or there might be simple-minded cockroaches. Or (who knows) there might be cockroaches who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect. :)

There's a natural tendency to think of us as a permanent or special fixture of the earthly landscape. But that has no basis in reality -- we're a transient form with no special significance. To me, our relative insignificance makes who we are, and what we can do, worthy of reflection and a certain amount of gratitude toward the random workings of nature for creating us in the first place.

[GuiA]

> Are these people all completely ignorant of evolution and science?

Mostly. Talk to your local mayor, deputy, senator, etc and you will see that these people live in worlds very different from ours.

[Houshalter]

This is the most ridiculous comment here. You are literally arguing against the premise of preventing the destruction of the world. Screw that, I don't want to die, I don't want humanity to die, and I know few people who do.

Nothing is going to replace humanity if we kill ourselves first. Gradual evolution isn't want these people are talking about anyways, and there is no reason evolution is inevitable. Soon we will have the technology to control DNA however we want.