My theories on Nature, Man and Evolution

[Ray Jones]

I've never denied that, but it was the capacity for symbolic thought and communication and the options in problem solving that allowed us to become prolific to a degree unattainable to any other primate now or in history.

Other species got those capacities too, including the human species that went extinct. So the ability for symbolic thought and communication itself appears to be not sufficient.

 

No, but they will have to be addressed if we are to gain in our use and proficiency of it.

Of course.

 

People don't look to invent something that they don't percieve either a demand for or a need for. You're suppositioning that people waste their time just for the heck of it when they invent things.

Inventions are made for several reasons, but mainly to see what's possible. Of course, the main *intention* to invent things is a *purpose*. However, that doesn't change the fact that already invented things (if they ever make it into the field of common usability) become cheaper because their production costs decrease while produced quantities increase, and not just because everybody demands it. That usually makes things more expensive. I mean everybody wants a Ferrari, but you don't see them being anywhere near cheap. Actually Ferrari does not produce more cars although everybody demands it.

 

Some specific examples then? Ok. The washing machine and dryer, the dish washer, the automobile, the fax machine, the internet, the kitchen stove, the electric iron, the telephone were all devices that were originally largely billed as machines that would give their owners a lot more free time, and that making each of these things saved hours in tasks that normally took a large portion of the day. I'd hardly say that the pace of life been slowed down by all the extra time we've saved by the invention of these devices.

But these devices weren't invented to slow down the pace of life. The opposite is the fact. The tasks these devices take over take hours and days to do without them, and they do infact speed up the pace of life, simply because washing clothes doesn't take up the whole day anymore. Work and task can be done faster and more time efficient.

 

New expectations of what to do with the freed up time always get thrown in so that in the long run a technology may work for increasing the freedoms of people, but as it comes into common usage, in many ways it restricts people's freedom.

I don't get it. So you are saying the dish washer, washing machine, electric oven, computers, electric lights, heating and whatnot I use at home are restricting my freedoms? My freedom to do what? Go and take a 2 hour walk to the woods to get wood and walk 3 hours back so I can make fire, warm up water, cook and heat like for two days? Having to wait 2 hours until the oven is finally ready to use? Having smoke from the fire all over my place? Taking a 1 hour walk to the river so I can wash my clothes in 2,3,4 hours? Having to walk 1 hour for every bucket of water I need? Working 17 hours a day at the company just because it takes that long to calculate excel sheets manually? Seriously, that list goes on and on, and while I have no problem to work for my life, I don't need these "freedoms".

 

And I can't say I see any of the technologies I use restricting my life anyhow more then it would be without them.

 

Actually that is my hope but most scientists I'd heard speak on the subject seemed to think that cloning whole people was an unavoidable step in developing the technology to cloning individual parts. That could have changed in the last few years, but it seemed to be the consensus as of the late 90s.[/Quote]That's the whole point in cloning: you carbon copy DNA and not its "outcome". Whether or not there are possibilities to let just an arm grow is another question. Sure is, cloning means not *poof* there is a new leg, it doesn't work that way. It would take twenty years to clone an arm for someone aged twenty who would be forty by then. So unless you create a handful of clones for every unborn baby that road is a dead end anyway and works for fear stirring horror scenarios only. It seems (A) pretty risky to get DNA probes from early stage fetuses, and (B) that you multiply Earth's population at least by 2 where do you want to put all those people???

 

Should, in the right and wrong sense of things can be very different than what actually develops when people don't plan for the worst case scenario and take steps to prevent it from coming to fruition. Governments exist to preserve the rights of their citizens to exist, and have what they need to survive. A lot of attrocities have been done in human history because various groups of people weren't recognized as being people in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't mean it will be like that for all time being. And it doesn't mean just because there's a law dealing with it or something, it ain't gonna happen.

 

Actually there are laws stating that human clones have to be destroyed / killedin various countries and can't be brought to term, so it's not so irrelevant as your comparitive example seems to indicate you think it is. There are no laws anywhere recognizing their right to to exist if they actually should be brought to term as thinking human beings.

As far as I remember, these laws deal with cloned human stem cells, not a fully featured fetus. And actually the fact that human cells have been cloned and were able to live for some days doesn't mean these could be brought to term eventually.

 

If the politicians of various countries had time to deal with one issue regarding cloning humans, then they should take the time to include a clause stating that if they are brought into existence than they are people in the eyes of the law.

First of all they should make clear if there is something that could be people in the eyes of the law. Then they must make sure that what could become people one day, will actually be what is commonly known as healthy and able to survive. Then, and only then we can go on and decide if we throw them into the discussion about abortion laws.

 

It's a very basic thing that should be done before someone somewhere does develop the technology and a small population of them already exists.

No one is developing populations anywhere.

 

Well it's something that would need to be addressed for your vision of humanity's future to come to fruition.

I think I need help with what I said my vision of humanity's future was.

 

True, but those decisions just affect the one who decides for the procedures. None of those products have repercussions that could affect all of a person's descendants in addition to just themselves. And since the only way to really know about some of the efficacy of these things is trial and error, and they will come into widespread use before we know all the plusses and minuses in some cases it does present some unique problems

And you precisely know that when you use Viagra or get breast implants this won't affect any of your descendants? How? How do you know your son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son won't get erection problems or schizophrenia because the whole family had to work out 3 hours a day? Just because *you* deem it to be like this? You know very well that doesn't make it so.

 

Actually I was arguing based on something with both a tangible pro and a con with at least some evidence of at least a slight genetic connection. Greater mental health in the individual vs greater mental capacity in the individual. You reply with a non sequiter.

(A) You cannot genetically cure depression for a person that actually has depressions. (B) You cannot mentally enhance a person using genetics. So unless you seriously want to argue that any profit driven company or any government has serious long term intentions to change the DNA of *every* zygote that might be brought to term eventually and that over a cycle of multiple generations just to possibly stop depressions, an illness which has many, many reasons beside a possible genetic defect, my argumentation is as non sequitur as yours when it comes to the topic at hand.

 

Other human species coexisted that's true, but where are they now? Did we simply out evolve them? Even the apes go to war and commit genocide on their own, and perform have been seen to eat both their own species as well as those of various monkeys in which they may be in close contacts.

War is not "out-evolving". It's basically just one way to fight over territory and happens between individuals of the same species. When two species (try to) share the same territory they either "manage" to maintain a balance or not. Populace, habits and environment are big factors here. When one species fits "better" into the environment, that advantage along can be reason enough to "win" over the other species. Violent contacts between those species are usually not the ultimate reason for a whole species to go extinct.

 

So yes, we "out-evolved" the other human species.

 

What makes humans different in this regard is scale.

What scale?

 

Also that a lot of people hold back knowing that we're all humans, that our genes will eventually mix back into the same gene pool and that there will come a day where who was descended from what side in a conflict will be lost in the mists of history.

And I thought more and more people just decided they want to make love, not war.

 

If you have actual speciation that changes things because "sides" of a conflict can't really be lost in the mists of history.

Usually different species can't and don't interbreed. I am not sure whether or not the different human species did so. Means, there is not really something like a "same gene pool" to mix back together. And I am not sure what speciations you address regarding the "different human kinds of today" being at war.

[Jvstice]

Other species got those capacities too, including the human species that went extinct. So the ability for symbolic thought and communication itself appears to be not sufficient.

 

Actually Sue Savage Rumbaugh at the the Yerkes Primate center just outside of atlanta has done extensive work with both living chimps and bonobos. According to her they have come across one bonobo that is a prodigy (Kanzi) and may understand language in terms of symbolic terms and may be able to form discrete thoughts rather than think holistically and globally, but from looking at hundreds of the genus Pan, she seems to think that's very rare. And there are a number of Primatologists that dispute her conclusions about Kanzi.

 

The references I gave you of Dean Falk and Steven Mithen though make a pretty good case based on fossil evidence that while previous Homo species

had the capacity for communication, it was not like speach as we understand it today in that 1) ideas were usually not discrete subject predicates, so one sound would convey an entire thought in and of itself 2) the protolanguage/protolanguages were more akin to music in what portions of the brain they were processed in than they are like speach and 3) it likely consisted of a lot of onomonotopeas and immitation of sounds from nature. Hence, to refer to a baby crying and telling it's mother that she needed to do something about it, they'd simply perfectly immitate the cry for example, or warning of tigers further up the trail, they'd make tiger noises and motions and maybe indicate a direction.

 

Otherwise, why would non human Homo genus species have spears that didn't change their basic design in many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years? They show great prowess in working together in hunting, in crafting things with great skill, but no capacity for innovation, and very little cultural relics. So they must have had something that resembled language that could preserve traditions like methods of making weapons, clothing, hunting and gathering food, raising of young. On the other hand, they didn't varie the typs of spears based on the types of prey they hunted. It wasn't until Homo sapiens came on the scene that hunters used different spear sizes and types for different prey. Also they had little in the way of body decoration, though there's some evidence that they used obsidian black face paint as camoflage when they went in war parties or hunting. Again, it's not until humans came on the scene that there was a profusion of color in face paints, beads, carved and painted objects that existed only for decoration, clothing (both to keep out the cold, and with decorative touches) complex funerary practices, and the like.

 

Inventions are made for several reasons, but mainly to see what's possible. Of course, the main *intention* to invent things is a *purpose*. However, that doesn't change the fact that already invented things (if they ever make it into the field of common usability) become cheaper because their production costs decrease while produced quantities increase, and not just because everybody demands it. That usually makes things more expensive. I mean everybody wants a Ferrari, but you don't see them being anywhere near cheap. Actually Ferrari does not produce more cars although everybody demands it.

 

Well of course there are always luxury versions of any invention. And in terms of real world value of currency, automobiles in general have gotten drastically cheaper during our lifetimes, though more expensive in terms of actual dollars spent and more versatile in terms of added features for the amount of money.

 

But these devices weren't invented to slow down the pace of life. The opposite is the fact. The tasks these devices take over take hours and days to do without them, and they do infact speed up the pace of life, simply because washing clothes doesn't take up the whole day anymore. Work and task can be done faster and more time efficient.

 

I've heard many claims that the automobile and the washing machine were both sold originally under the claim that it would give people more leisure to do what they wanted to with their time, and not spend time on chores. This leisure time never materialized as the list of chores simply grew as people grew more efficient at them.

 

I don't get it. So you are saying the dish washer, washing machine, electric oven, computers, electric lights, heating and whatnot I use at home are restricting my freedoms? My freedom to do what? Go and take a 2 hour walk to the woods to get wood and walk 3 hours back so I can make fire, warm up water, cook and heat like for two days? Having to wait 2 hours until the oven is finally ready to use? Having smoke from the fire all over my place? Taking a 1 hour walk to the river so I can wash my clothes in 2,3,4 hours? Having to walk 1 hour for every bucket of water I need? Working 17 hours a day at the company just because it takes that long to calculate excel sheets manually? Seriously, that list goes on and on, and while I have no problem to work for my life, I don't need these "freedoms".

 

People work just as hard as they ever did, but now the incidents of mental instability are increasing due to the faster pace of life. For the last 200 years alone in the US, there have been both religious and secular groups calling for a getting rid of a lot of the technology and returning to a simpler life and focusing on the relationships with others and the world around us than just the things we can own. And these groups and those sympathetic to them who don't actually join pop up more and more frequently the faster that society seems to advance.

 

And I can't say I see any of the technologies I use restricting my life anyhow more then it would be without them.

 

Not any one device, but the sum totality of all of them builds to a pattern I refered in answer to your last quote. A lot of people see it as a choice with toil, a lot of stress, and relative meaninglessness, and the choice of slowing down experiencing life, but doing without some of the conveniences. Not saying I fully agree. After all I am posting on here, aren't I?

 

That's the whole point in cloning: you carbon copy DNA and not its "outcome". Whether or not there are possibilities to let just an arm grow is another question. Sure is, cloning means not *poof* there is a new leg, it doesn't work that way. It would take twenty years to clone an arm for someone aged twenty who would be forty by then. So unless you create a handful of clones for every unborn baby that road is a dead end anyway and works for fear stirring horror scenarios only. It seems (A) pretty risky to get DNA probes from early stage fetuses, and (B) that you multiply Earth's population at least by 2 where do you want to put all those people???

 

I don't, but if you're going to develop the science and technology to do something, you have to make preparations for it's use when it's inevitably used. That's just basic commmon sense and enlightened self interest. Failure to plan is planning to fail.

 

That doesn't mean it will be like that for all time being. And it doesn't mean just because there's a law dealing with it or something, it ain't gonna happen.

 

Exactly. It will eventually happen. We've put everything in our power legislatively as a world to prevent it from happening, BUT taken no steps whatsoever for dealing with what happens when it inevitably happens anyway, and the stop gap measures to slow technological growth in this area eventually fail.

 

As far as I remember, these laws deal with cloned human stem cells, not a fully featured fetus. And actually the fact that human cells have been cloned and were able to live for some days doesn't mean these could be brought to term eventually.

 

Not entirely true. These laws were intended to deal with cloned stem cells, but the wording of some of them were written vague enough that even if a clone were brought fully to term, then a literal word for word reading of the law would still say you have to take the already born clone out and blow their brains out. There were several nightly news programs that commented on that in passing at the time a lot of the legislation was being passed on a state by state basis, and even what other countries did.

 

First of all they should make clear if there is something that could be people in the eyes of the law. Then they must make sure that what could become people one day, will actually be what is commonly known as healthy and able to survive. Then, and only then we can go on and decide if we throw them into the discussion about abortion laws.

 

Nothing I mentioned had anything to do with abortion at least in my mind, though I suppose it could and probably will complicate that whole issue as well. What I was refering to had to do with the vagueness of the laws regarding cloned cells so that the laws as written in many cases aren't just limited to stem cells once the technology of cloning human cells ever develops beyond the point of individual cells.

 

No one is developing populations anywhere.

 

True to the extent that we know of for sure. You're probably right, but there was a group in the very early part of the decade in north Korea, and another in Italy claiming that they'd each brought a clone to term and were waiting to unveil them when they were grown to adulthood. Most of the biological sciences community were convinced that both claims were hoaxes. But refusing to acknowledge the issue until it's dropped into our laps isn't responsible either.

 

I think I need help with what I said my vision of humanity's future was.

 

Out of all life on earth, only humans survive, and that we multiply in numbers and the standard of living for humans increases infinitely as time passes. Even though we'll have killed off all animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi that you'd use in food, drink, or medicines, but in spite of that, we're still just a part of nature. Even though you suggest that it's possible for man to live utterly alone in the universe, fully autotrophic other than the machines we create, and the alterations we do to our own genes to make ourselves fully non - dependent on any other life form. Does that sum up the thrust of this thread?

 

And you precisely know that when you use Viagra or get breast implants this won't affect any of your descendants? How? How do you know your son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son's daughter's son won't get erection problems or schizophrenia because the whole family had to work out 3 hours a day? Just because *you* deem it to be like this? You know very well that doesn't make it so.

 

Possible, but those things aren't designed to do exactly that IF THEY ARE FULLFILLING THEIR FUNCTION. It's one thing to do something accidentially to your children and children's children due to a product you decide to try. It's something entirely different to buy a product to guarantee that your children will be different than any generation previous.

 

(A) You cannot genetically cure depression for a person that actually has depressions. (B) You cannot mentally enhance a person using genetics. So unless you seriously want to argue that any profit driven company or any government has serious long term intentions to change the DNA of *every* zygote that might be brought to term eventually and that over a cycle of multiple generations just to possibly stop depressions, an illness which has many, many reasons beside a possible genetic defect, my argumentation is as non sequitur as yours when it comes to the topic at hand.

 

A. True, but you could prevent their children from having the genetic "wherewithall" to be susceptible to the same strengths and weaknesses as their parents, and tinkering with those balances before you've got a good idea of what you're doing is just stupid.

 

B. At currently levels of technology you couldn't alter the intelligence of any fully formed people, but you can change the dna of a fetus and develop what they grow into. Doctors have already actually inserted a gene into a few to cure them of the "bubble boy disease" that the little kid got in the news for so much during the 80s. Likewise they can do similar feats for spinal biffidas, though we're nowhere near being able to do the same for anencephaly.

 

And what I was talking about was not an improvement of mental function to have someone be more intelligent, but the replacement of a less fit gene in terms of intelligence for a more fit one in an attempt to preclude depression.

 

C. No actually. I'm talking about looking ahead for where the technology might go, and taking sensible precautions, and not running pell mell blindly forward with human experimentation with people who then may or may not interbreed with the rest of humanity thus inserting more abberant genes into humanity. If you want to insert things into your DNA, you should have the right even to insert non human genes up to a point, but if you do it should be with the understanding that you and your offspring will be quarantined from the rest of humanity so that the rest of us don't have to live with the consequences your screw ups turning up in our descendants too.

 

War is not "out-evolving". It's basically just one way to fight over territory and happens between individuals of the same species. When two species (try to) share the same territory they either "manage" to maintain a balance or not. Populace, habits and environment are big factors here. When one species fits "better" into the environment, that advantage along can be reason enough to "win" over the other species. Violent contacts between those species are usually not the ultimate reason for a whole species to go extinct.

 

True, in every war ever witnessed or participated in by Homo sapien humans on both sides that we're aware of.

 

We really don't know that our ancestors didn't simply kill off their competition. We only know that there isn't the evidence that this took place by violent means on any wide scale, and that the other Homo species were more than our match physically.

 

So something like our cold war over a longer period of time tied to systematic poisoning or other undercutting is just as probable as not though.

 

So yes, we "out-evolved" the other human species.

If a species is the direct cause of the end of another one ending, and it's not the direct result of the competition, but a series of deliberate acts, I don't know you can say that's what happened. Nobody was there to witness, so nobody can say for sure.

 

What scale?

Scale of the effectiveness of the tools and weapons we make. Scale of the amount of genocide for a given amount of effort we can do. Scale of how efficient at feeding our own we have become to get a population of over 6 billion.

 

And I thought more and more people just decided they want to make love, not war.

Actually history shows that they usually go hand in hand. When the next generation forgets what war is like, everybody thinks it would be a good idea to have one. Then once the massive death tolls take place, there's always a population boom.

 

Usually different species can't and don't interbreed. I am not sure whether or not the different human species did so. Means, there is not really something like a "same gene pool" to mix back together. And I am not sure what speciations you address regarding the "different human kinds of today" being at war.

Exactly my point. Humans have basic reasons of biology to eventually settle their differences. If humans start speciating, you really can't appeal to any kind of "brotherhood of humanity" any more.

[Ray Jones]

According to her they have come across one bonobo that is a prodigy (Kanzi) and may understand language in terms of symbolic terms and may be able to form discrete thoughts rather than think holistically and globally, but from looking at hundreds of the genus Pan, she seems to think that's very rare. And there are a number of Primatologists that dispute her conclusions about Kanzi.

Nowaday's primates are not pre-humans, nor do they live under the same conditions.

 

Otherwise, why would non human Homo genus species have spears that didn't change their basic design in many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years? They show great prowess in working together in hunting, in crafting things with great skill, but no capacity for innovation, and very little cultural relics. So they must have had something that resembled language that could preserve traditions like methods of making weapons, clothing, hunting and gathering food, raising of young. On the other hand, they didn't varie the typs of spears based on the types of prey they hunted. It wasn't until Homo sapiens came on the scene that hunters used different spear sizes and types for different prey. Also they had little in the way of body decoration, though there's some evidence that they used obsidian black face paint as camoflage when they went in war parties or hunting. Again, it's not until humans came on the scene that there was a profusion of color in face paints, beads, carved and painted objects that existed only for decoration, clothing (both to keep out the cold, and with decorative touches) complex funerary practices, and the like.

Obviously Homo sapiens developed his abilities faster and more efficient than other species did. Also, some human species were "older models" evolution-wise, thus possibly not "good enough".

 

This leisure time never materialized as the list of chores simply grew as people grew more efficient at them.

You know how time consuming it would be instead without washing machines and cars while doing the same stuff?

 

People work just as hard as they ever did, but now the incidents of mental instability are increasing due to the faster pace of life. For the last 200 years alone in the US, there have been both religious and secular groups calling for a getting rid of a lot of the technology and returning to a simpler life and focusing on the relationships with others and the world around us than just the things we can own. And these groups and those sympathetic to them who don't actually join pop up more and more frequently the faster that society seems to advance.

You know, that is not a problem of cars and washing machines. It's a problem of moms and dads being idiots.

 

Not any one device, but the sum totality of all of them builds to a pattern I refered in answer to your last quote. A lot of people see it as a choice with toil, a lot of stress, and relative meaninglessness, and the choice of slowing down experiencing life, but doing without some of the conveniences. Not saying I fully agree. After all I am posting on here, aren't I?

See, I don't need my washing machine all day, and there's an off switch to all the things I have.

 

I don't, but if you're going to develop the science and technology to do something, you have to make preparations for it's use when it's inevitably used. That's just basic commmon sense and enlightened self interest. Failure to plan is planning to fail.

Think first, move second. Yap.

 

Nothing I mentioned had anything to do with abortion at least in my mind, though I suppose it could and probably will complicate that whole issue as well. What I was refering to had to do with the vagueness of the laws regarding cloned cells so that the laws as written in many cases aren't just limited to stem cells once the technology of cloning human cells ever develops beyond the point of individual cells.

Cloned human cells are human. I think there is no need to treat them different from "normal" human cells. I also think, cloned human embryos are human, and there is no need to treat them different from "normal" human embryos.

 

True to the extent that we know of for sure. You're probably right, but there was a group in the very early part of the decade in north Korea, and another in Italy claiming that they'd each brought a clone to term and were waiting to unveil them when they were grown to adulthood. Most of the biological sciences community were convinced that both claims were hoaxes. But refusing to acknowledge the issue until it's dropped into our laps isn't responsible either.

Having no proof from either side, both scenarios are equally possible. So I think I go with the third option instead.

 

Does that sum up the thrust of this thread?

Hey it's not my vision of human future. I've never said such thing. Without microorganisms, no higher species would be able to live. That won't change for a long while, even with genetics. We an tweak life, but not change it.

 

Possible, but those things aren't designed to do exactly that IF THEY ARE FULLFILLING THEIR FUNCTION. It's one thing to do something accidentially to your children and children's children due to a product you decide to try. It's something entirely different to buy a product to guarantee that your children will be different than any generation previous.

Intention or not, it makes no difference.

 

And what I was talking about was not an improvement of mental function to have someone be more intelligent, but the replacement of a less fit gene in terms of intelligence for a more fit one in an attempt to preclude depression.

Either way, it makes no sense without the right environment.

 

C. No actually. I'm talking about looking ahead for where the technology might go, and taking sensible precautions, and not running pell mell blindly forward with human experimentation with people who then may or may not interbreed with the rest of humanity thus inserting more abberant genes into humanity. If you want to insert things into your DNA, you should have the right even to insert non human genes up to a point, but if you do it should be with the understanding that you and your offspring will be quarantined from the rest of humanity so that the rest of us don't have to live with the consequences your screw ups turning up in our descendants too.

Like I say, think first, move second.

 

We really don't know that our ancestors didn't simply kill off their competition. We only know that there isn't the evidence that this took place by violent means on any wide scale, and that the other Homo species were more than our match physically.

Why should it be different to what we witness? Of course there were violent acts between human species. But the reason why the others went extinct is not that we killed them all. Many species came and went away, and so did they.

 

If a species is the direct cause of the end of another one ending, and it's not the direct result of the competition, but a series of deliberate acts, I don't know you can say that's what happened. Nobody was there to witness, so nobody can say for sure.

But you cannot say for sure either. They certainly also fought about territory, and also they certainly all fought to win. I don't expect either side to not try their best and promising tactics and strategies.

 

Scale of the effectiveness of the tools and weapons we make.

On would expect that, considering all that time due to technology like washing machines and cars, right? ;~~

 

Scale of the amount of genocide for a given amount of effort we can do.

It is not uncommon for folks within colonies of ants to completely take over other folks. That can be like 20 million individuals going out of the window.

 

Scale of how efficient at feeding our own we have become to get a population of over 6 billion.

10000 billion ants on this planet. Here for about 100 million years now. That's 50 times longer than us. The biggest colony so far is located at Hokkaido with 45000 folks living on 2,7sqrkm. That means like 306 million ants. Talk about efficiency.

 

Exactly my point. Humans have basic reasons of biology to eventually settle their differences. If humans start speciating, you really can't appeal to any kind of "brotherhood of humanity" any more.

Living in peace with other species does work too.

[Jvstice]

Nowaday's primates are not pre-humans, nor do they live under the same conditions.

That is very true, the great apes and the pre humans brains developed along very different lines. Panzi did some remarkable things in communicating in spite of his brain not being specialized for language. It was estimated that he spoke in sign language on a similar level as a 3 - 4 year old human child. Pretty amazing when you consider that neither a bonobo's brain nor their vocal anatomy are adapted for verbal communication or even language as we understand it.

 

Obviously Homo sapiens developed his abilities faster and more efficient than other species did. Also, some human species were "older models" evolution-wise, thus possibly not "good enough".

I'd definitely agree with the more efficiently than other species of hominids. The archeological evidence points to their having larger and larger brains, larger and larger societies, and tools that increased in complexity and efficiency. Likewise they grew more adept at hunting and more proficient at knowing where to gather other foods as their brains got larger until you get to the last link in the chain. Then their brain still increases, but the size of their social groups shrink. Physically they would be more robust than us, not even needing clothing in much of northern Europe which was the far northern frontier of their range. As a matter of fact the endocasts of our most recent ancestors (Homo erectus or neandertalis? i forget tbh) skulls indicate that their brains were more massive than ours both in terms of absolute mass, and relative to their body, yet they're using specific variations of tools that were invented by species of "humans" at a couple of levels "down the evolutonary ladder" from them.

 

They definitely had some means of cultural transmission that allowed for a preservation of knowledge for generations. So metaphorically they didn't have to reinvent the wheel with every generation. Culturally though, their culture to a great degree lasted longer than their species itself, as well as that of their closest fossil relatives as well. They introduced some new tools, but largely just adopted the types of tools and weapons introduced to them by previous slightly smaller brained peoples within their genus.

 

You know how time consuming it would be instead without washing machines and cars while doing the same stuff?

My point wasn't that life was easier in terms of the toil by doing chores without technology, but that the pace of life is speeding up with each new invention. I've heard it said (but I'm really too lazy to go looking right now) that there have been studies done showing a steady increase in the number of depressed people, as well as other mental illnesses at least since the 1980s. Some would probably argue that it's due to a destigmatizing of mental illness. A lot of others would argue the pace of life. Personally I'd argue some of both are true.

 

You know, that is not a problem of cars and washing machines. It's a problem of moms and dads being idiots.

To a point true. But even more so, I'd argue a flaw in the way that many are mentally wired and in society to continually turn out people that feel they have little place in society and just want to opt out.

 

See, I don't need my washing machine all day, and there's an off switch to all the things I have.

It's good that you make that distinction. Many don't.

 

Think first, move second. Yap.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Cloned human cells are human. I think there is no need to treat them different from "normal" human cells. I also think, cloned human embryos are human, and there is no need to treat them different from "normal" human embryos.

Thank you for the clarification here too. IIRC, that wasn't what was passed into law in much of both the US and world in the wake of the stem cell controversy. Some of the same people that were saying aborting humans is wrong, were insisting that ALL clones had to be destroyed if they survived beyond point x or y, and passed that into various state laws within their borders. Nothing stated about whether they that no longer applied just because they were born or not, just a death penalty for all clones just for being cloned humans.

 

To me that reeks of a set up for a whole new group of people that are seen as subhuman in the eyes of various local governments. The 3/5 compromise didn't work so well from the revolutionary war to the civil war, and I'm not inclined to be passive about a new group of people labeled expendible in the eyes of the law.

 

 

Having no proof from either side, both scenarios are equally possible. So I think I go with the third option instead.

I prefer a hope for the best, plan for the worst approach, but ok.

 

Hey it's not my vision of human future. I've never said such thing. Without microorganisms, no higher species would be able to live. That won't change for a long while, even with genetics. We an tweak life, but not change it.

Oops. Sorry. I thought you were in agreement with many of Sabretooth's statements at the start of this thread.

 

 

Intention or not, it makes no difference.

A small difference, but an important one. If a product is designed to have a long term effect opposed to a shorter one greater care should be taken. If a product is designed to affect more than just the customer/patient/individual it's being used on, greater care and monitoring should be done than one that just has a short term effect or one that only affects the individual it's intended for.

 

Either way, it makes no sense without the right environment.

In and of itself it isn't a bad thing, but both governmentally and in terms of fads we tend to be a largely 1 size fits all society.

 

Why should it be different to what we witness? Of course there were violent acts between human species. But the reason why the others went extinct is not that we killed them all. Many species came and went away, and so did they.

How can you say for sure that it's not because we killed them? They didn't gather in as large social groups as we, and it is thought by many that this was the cause. There's also the distinct possibilty that our intelligence is far more specialized for social interaction, language, and toolmaking even though our brains were actually smaller than our closest relatives.

 

 

But you cannot say for sure either. They certainly also fought about territory, and also they certainly all fought to win. I don't expect either side to not try their best and promising tactics and strategies.

Definitely I'll concede this point.

 

On would expect that, considering all that time due to technology like washing machines and cars, right? ;~~

Yup.

 

It is not uncommon for folks within colonies of ants to completely take over other folks. That can be like 20 million individuals going out of the window.

 

10000 billion ants on this planet. Here for about 100 million years now. That's 50 times longer than us. The biggest colony so far is located at Hokkaido with 45000 folks living on 2,7sqrkm. That means like 306 million ants. Talk about efficiency.

Definitely that's an impressive achievement and we have a long way to go before getting that far. And yes, the insects have done better than us numerically and can be brutally efficient both in how they organize their society and in how they go to war too.

 

 

Living in peace with other species does work too.

Definitely a good goal, and one worth pursuing, but considering our history unlikely to actually happen

[Ray Jones]

As a matter of fact the endocasts of our most recent ancestors (Homo erectus or neandertalis? i forget tbh)

Homo erectus supposedly existed already 2 million years ago, and possibly even originated in Africa. The oldest known records of Homo neanderthalensis are dated 130.000 years old.

 

I've heard it said (but I'm really too lazy to go looking right now) that there have been studies done showing a steady increase in the number of depressed people, as well as other mental illnesses at least since the 1980s. Some would probably argue that it's due to a destigmatizing of mental illness. A lot of others would argue the pace of life. Personally I'd argue some of both are true.

World population doubled from 1950 to 2000. I would argue that this at least could explain that the number of each, depressed people and mental illnesses may increase by the factor 2 too.

 

I thought you were in agreement with many of Sabretooth's statements at the start of this thread.

Humans existing without Klingon slave girls??? O noez!

 

 

A small difference, but an important one. If a product is designed to have a long term effect opposed to a shorter one greater care should be taken.

No difference for the outcome. Long term effect is long term effect, it doesn't matter if "designed" or not. And all things also have one.

 

In and of itself it isn't a bad thing, but both governmentally and in terms of fads we tend to be a largely 1 size fits all society.

Maybe because we are just like that - individuals, but all the same.

 

How can you say for sure that it's not because we killed them? They didn't gather in as large social groups as we, and it is thought by many that this was the cause. There's also the distinct possibilty that our intelligence is far more specialized for social interaction, language, and toolmaking even though our brains were actually smaller than our closest relatives.

Latest indications show that both had a similar level of cultural and lingual development. Not due to brain size, but after looking closer at the evidence at hand. For some time humans records of any kinds were mistakenly generally attributed to Homo sapiens.

 

But despite all similarities in their intellectual development Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis had differences in their habits and needs. Homo sapiens was a nomad, had a less massive body which needed less energy, lived longer and created more offspring. Attributes which seem to give more of an advance against a less reproductive species with massive bodies needing more food, and generally not "made for walking". Even more with the upcoming climatic/environmental change of an ice age. Sure is both species lived next to each other, and many reasons led to the extinction of one.

 

Also, something similar happened before with the pre-human species Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus, where the latter went (among other Australopithecus) extinct mostly because their body/diet was too specialised while the Australopithecus africanus (among others) took the "omnivore road", being the ultimate advance regarding upcoming climate/environmental change. Needless to mention that Australopithecus robustus specialised due to an earlier change of the climate causing withdraw of forest thus giving him an ultimate advance for those days, considering a hard to digest died, consisting mainly of hard roots, nuts and dry woods.

 

Definitely a good goal, and one worth pursuing, but considering our history unlikely to actually happen

The point of unlikely things is that they happen mostly when you least expect it. X)