# Future humans?



## Sean K (26 September 2009)

Are we going to evolve further, or is this it?

Do we get thinner with bigger heads and brains like ET?

Or, become Jabba-the-Hut type sloths with Carrie Fisher like slaves on a chain?

Will we be flying about in personal motion machines, or being beamed about by a Scotty on the bridge?

What might we see in our life time?

Computer chips in the head replacing mobile phones and computers?

Anyone been considering what the human might look like down the track?

Anyone have a very long term vision of where we are going?


----------



## Mr J (26 September 2009)

Genetic modification, biological implants etc. I think natural evolution will be completely insignficant compared to artificial evolution. I expect significant medical advances to be made over the next 50 years, so most of us will probably be around to experience it. I think that if I live for another 30 years, there's a good chance I'll live for another 100+.


----------



## Sean K (26 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> there's a good chance I'll live for another 100+.



Yes, good chance this will occur. Anyone born about now will live MUCH longer. People might be working till 80 or so..


----------



## Solly (26 September 2009)

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

Read this sometime ago on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm


----------



## Mr J (26 September 2009)

If cells can be fully regenerated, then age becomes irrelevant. It's definitely an interesting point in human history, and some of us may (likely?) end up becoming the first with extreme lifespans. I imagine the only real barrier is whether the world remains reasonably stable.

As for work, what will there be for us to do? Many of the services can be automated, and probably will be during our life time. So far, our advances have lead to new occupations, but I can imagine almost every role being filled by computers and robots.


----------



## overit (26 September 2009)

No longer is it only the strong that survive thus aiding evolution. The emergence of socialist mentalities and heavy reliance on technology seem to be propagating the soft underbelly of our society and creating an inferior artificial type of evolution which should conditions change we will be in for a rude shock. Physically we seem to be losing the plot and mentally we no longer need to think. The movie idiocracy is not far off the mark.


----------



## Mr J (26 September 2009)

> Physically we seem to be losing the plot and mentally we no longer need to think.




I'm sure technology will change how we stay in shape, and mentally I doubt we're any different the previous generations in recent human history. People like to suggest humanity is becoming more stupid, more immoral etc, but it is not true.


----------



## Riddick (26 September 2009)

overit said:


> No longer is it only the strong that survive thus aiding evolution. The emergence of socialist mentalities and heavy reliance on technology seem to be propagating the soft underbelly of our society and creating an inferior artificial type of evolution which should conditions change we will be in for a rude shock. Physically we seem to be losing the plot and mentally we no longer need to think. The movie idiocracy is not far off the mark.




Totally right there and many influential people over the last century have come to this conclusion. Churchil and roosevelt we both fans of eugenics - essentially concerned about the apparent social pattern where the "less intelligent - as measured by IQ" and less financially able were given to having the largest amount of children. essentially that "only stupid people were breeding" 
the pattern esentially follows that the gene pool becomes diluted and degenerated as a result of this. 

another interesting point to note are the writings of thomas malthus of 120 years ago, where he asserts that the health and financial issues that severely affect the lower classes are essentially natural phenomena whose primary function is to limit out of control population growth. ie that the poor and less physically capable die off as a natural tonic to overcrowding and associated social ills.

anecdotal evidence would even indicate this pattern of unchecked breeding is currently happening in australia. the bogan oops baby bonus can be cited, where the vast bulk of new births are from the less educated and lower socioeconomic classes.

just my thoughts


----------



## Tysonboss1 (26 September 2009)

kennas said:


> Are we going to evolve further, or is this it?




I think the human race is going to go backwards.

When it comes to humans it is no longer survival of the fittest, We let people born with all sorts of genetic problems live and breed, where in the past these "weaker" gene holders would have died and not bred.

Babies born with all sorts of genetic faults like holes in their hearts, Guts on the outside of skin, digestive system not linked to anus, one leg shorter than the other, etc etc.

These people get treated and live normal lives now, which is great. How ever the natural process of survival of the fittest no longer lets these weaker genes die out.

There are a lot of people out there breeding who if they were dogs the breeders association would not allow to breed.

in 100 generations, the human race will be full of genetic problems


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 September 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, good chance this will occur. Anyone born about now will live MUCH longer. People might be working till 80 or so..




People can work till they are "80 or so" now, if you look after yourself, there is nothing stopping you. My grandfather was still working at 88,  he is 91 now and thought it was time to retire 



Solly said:


> The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.




Decline due to technology? Ha, good one. Like that isn't already here, Australia and America are all fat arses who sit around watching TV and going on facebook as it is, we have already declined because of technology. If we were active and looked after ourselves, we could do the above, and work till 80.

Humans themselves will never change, never have up till now, never will. Only technology will, things that things less hard.


----------



## Calliope (26 September 2009)

Two extremes;


----------



## RamonR (26 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> Genetic modification, biological implants etc. I think natural evolution will be completely insignficant compared to artificial evolution. I expect significant medical advances to be made over the next 50 years, so most of us will probably be around to experience it. I think that if I live for another 30 years, there's a good chance I'll live for another 100+.




I agree, although it will probably be important to be under 65 or so when these treatments start to come on line.

Also they are going to be very expensive.
So important to get shares in the companies that offer these treatments.


----------



## trainspotter (26 September 2009)

Totally could be Jabba the Hut if I had Carrie Fisher as my personal slave on a chain.


----------



## overit (26 September 2009)

There seems to be an inverse relationship between technology advancing and the human species advancing! Our heavy reliance on technology worries me!


----------



## springhill (26 September 2009)

kennas said:


> Or, become Jabba-the-Hut type sloths




What do you mean *become*? Walk down any street in the western world, or KFC store, they will be there ordering a bucket of grease with a diet coke


----------



## Riddick (26 September 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Humans themselves will never change, never have up till now, never will. Only technology will, things that things less hard.





Are you serious? Have you not heard of E V O L U T I O N?

Homo spaiens as a distinc species has only been in existence for about the last 100 000 years. we didn't magically appear. we evolved from other bipedal hominids through natural selection. this process of change is still happening to the present day, most recently exemplified by the separation in to distinctly racial groups after the last ice age. racial traits, although themselves not indications of speciation - the process of creating new species from parent populations - are direct evidence of natural selection. The point that racial traits are one of the last additions to homosapiens gene pool highights this process of change.

Whilst all races still fit under the homo spaiens banner, the diversification within the species is a direct indicator of the early stages of speciation.

So - people are always changing and wil continue to do so. the very act of breeding changes the gene pool and the species.

However without the prerequisite conditions for speciation homo sapiens will not splinter into populations of genetically divergent bipedal hominids.


----------



## trainspotter (26 September 2009)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-getting-taller

Hmmmmmmmmmm ... interesting reading there!


----------



## joslad (26 September 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I think the human race is going to go backwards.
> 
> When it comes to humans it is no longer survival of the fittest, We let people born with all sorts of genetic problems live and breed, where in the past these "weaker" gene holders would have died and not bred.
> 
> ...






Totally agree and was about to say something along the same lines.  Thankfully Tyson got in first and said it much better ...


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 September 2009)

Riddick said:


> Are you serious? Have you not heard of E V O L U T I O N?
> 
> Homo spaiens as a distinc species has only been in existence for about the last 100 000 years. we didn't magically appear. we evolved from other bipedal hominids through natural selection. this process of change is still happening to the present day, most recently exemplified by the separation in to distinctly racial groups after the last ice age. racial traits, although themselves not indications of speciation - the process of creating new species from parent populations - are direct evidence of natural selection. The point that racial traits are one of the last additions to homosapiens gene pool highights this process of change.
> 
> ...




Right. Good luck with that.  might want to repeat that in english, I'm just a normal human, and you people think we're the crazy ones


----------



## Nyden (26 September 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Right. Good luck with that.  might want to repeat that in english, I'm just a normal human, and you people think we're the crazy ones




I understood it quite well. It really is fact what he stated, not opinion.

The onus is on you to try to learn what's being explained Sam, as there's already enough dumbing down in the media. We don't need it here as well


----------



## theasxgorilla (26 September 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Totally could be Jabba the Hut if I had Carrie Fisher as my personal slave on a chain.




And I have became completely devoid of intellectual thought after seeing your picture.  Do you think our legs will start fusing together into a fat slimy tail as an evolutionary response to generations of uber-obesity sitting on our butts, commanding our slave girls?


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 September 2009)

overit said:


> There seems to be an inverse relationship between technology advancing and the human species advancing! Our heavy reliance on technology worries me!




From a bit earlier than 1990 hey.


----------



## johnnyg (26 September 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I think the human race is going to go backwards.
> 
> When it comes to humans it is no longer survival of the fittest, We let people born with all sorts of genetic problems live and breed, where in the past these "weaker" gene holders would have died and not bred.
> 
> ...




Great post, however I'm not sure that I agree with you that the Human Race is going backwards. The reason why it's no longer survival of the fittest is because it doesn't have to to be. The only thing that would knock us back into 'Survival of the Fittest' would be a catastrophic event. Until then the Smarter ones will continue providing life,support and a breeding ground to those 'lesser' ones. (Don't mean to sound rude)


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 September 2009)

johnnyg said:


> Great post, however I'm not sure that I agree with you that the Human Race is going backwards. The reason why it's no longer survival of the fittest is because it doesn't have to to be. The only thing that would knock us back into 'Survival of the Fittest' would be a catastrophic event. Until then the Smarter ones will continue providing life,support and a breeding ground to those 'lesser' ones. (Don't mean to sound rude)



Trouble is, the smarter ones are becoming less common as a percentage of the population due to the high breeding rates of the dumber ones. Average ability is presumably declining as a result.

Something I've been thinking about a lot recently is that we've become a society where real knowledge or real ability in any field is virtually ridiculed whilst decisions are made by those of far lesser merit. 

That's a massive change from the circumstances that lead to technological and societal advancement in the past and will quite likely end up seeing us slide backward. We're in a world where those who can't, or at least won't, dictate the terms to those who can and do. Commonsense says that's not going to work for too long...


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 September 2009)

Nyden said:


> I understood it quite well. It really is fact what he stated, not opinion.
> 
> The onus is on you to try to learn what's being explained Sam, as there's already enough dumbing down in the media. We don't need it here as well




It really is fact. Hahaha. OK. 

Oh, sorry for being a dumbass and questioning you elite people. my bad. You must have evolved just that little bit further than me. 

All the best mate


----------



## Happy (26 September 2009)

Our latest generations will probably live shorter lives.

‘Recreational’ drug abuse will be another time bomb.

Not to mention that we run out of antibiotics and more and more people are not responding to the last resort antibiotic Vancomycine.
(Which in other words means WE WILL BE ON OUR OWN, there will be no possible external medicinal help)

Some kind of pandemic will get large number of our race sooner or later.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 September 2009)

Happy said:


> Our latest generations will probably live shorter lives.
> 
> ‘Recreational’ drug abuse will be another time bomb.
> 
> ...



Sadly agreed. Antibiotics have been abused to the point of making them increasingly usless - probably the greatest tragedy to unfold in our lifetimes when the long term consequences are considered.


----------



## drsmith (26 September 2009)

There are two possibilities.

We will either develop the technologies to harness new energy sources and colonise other worlds or we will suffer a mass extinction which will bring our population back to the sustainable resources of our environment (like every other species that has reached plague proportions).


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 September 2009)

johnnyg said:


> The only thing that would knock us back into 'Survival of the Fittest' would be a catastrophic event.





Or a removal of the financial social security system. Then you would see a real ugly situation until things got sorted out.


----------



## Sean K (26 September 2009)

drsmith said:


> There are two possibilities.
> 
> We will either develop the technologies to harness new energy sources and colonise other worlds or we will suffer a mass extinction which will bring our population back to the sustainable resources of our environment (like every other species that has reached plague proportions).



The technologies could allow us to increase the population here greatly too with megacities of hundreds of millions. Once we solve the food, water and polution issues. But maybe not before we are wiped out, or wipe ourselves out by war.

Personally, I'm hoping for the Jabba-the-Hut scenario.


----------



## kgee (26 September 2009)

I can't remember where I read this idea...
but the supposition goes like 

"imagine we are the most intelligent beings in the universe"

then we are the greatest voice ever heard...we are the beginning of somthing
...humbling prideful and embarrassing at the same time

we certainly seem to lack in sophistication...but I keep going back to the 80/20 rule...and surely media caters to the 80

had a few wines...but at heart still cautionally optimistic....I still look at obama and forget the rhetoric but the most powerful man in the world and he's black and wants to come across as reasonable....nice

maybe we will all be coffee colored people


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2009)

kgee said:


> maybe we will all be coffee colored people




You will only need skin pigment adjustment if nature alters from this current phase of life creating circumstances. I.e. we move closer to the sun. If the alteration is gradual (tens of thousands of years) then the evolutionary process will change us. If the alteration is more rapid (hundreds of years) then all pinkies will need to remain indoors and use appropriate sunblock, hat and be fully clothed when venturing outside.


----------



## kgee (27 September 2009)

yeah i like long term views...
so basically peolpe who can't afford suncreen are black and the rich are white...sounds about right


----------



## Sean K (27 September 2009)

Just found this website dedicated to the future human and it looks interesting.

No Jabba-the Hut theory unfortunately.

http://www.humansfuture.org/


----------



## kgee (27 September 2009)

see the 80/20 rules apply I knew I could leave this to someone else
I'm off for some vino


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 September 2009)

Walt Disney's head was cryogenically frozen for future attachment to a select cadaver! Strange but TRUE!


----------



## kgee (27 September 2009)

Select cadaver does that mean no foreskin


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 September 2009)

kgee said:


> Select cadaver does that mean no foreskin




No, it means Headfridge's trustee gets a choice!


----------



## kgee (27 September 2009)

So theyr'e looking for a jewish Arnold Swarstzeneger


----------



## Mr J (27 September 2009)

johnnyg said:


> Great post, however I'm not sure that I agree with you that the Human Race is going backwards. The reason why it's no longer survival of the fittest is because it doesn't have to to be. The only thing that would knock us back into 'Survival of the Fittest' would be a catastrophic event. Until then the Smarter ones will continue providing life,support and a breeding ground to those 'lesser' ones. (Don't mean to sound rude)




Our view on breeding may change if we live longer. There will likely also be genetic engineering and bio enhancements, and more efficient ways of keeping us healthy. I doubt our health will be an issue in the future.


----------



## gooner (27 September 2009)

overit said:


> No longer is it only the strong that survive thus aiding evolution. The emergence of socialist mentalities and heavy reliance on technology seem to be propagating the soft underbelly of our society and creating an inferior artificial type of evolution which should conditions change we will be in for a rude shock. Physically we seem to be losing the plot and mentally we no longer need to think.




First point about strong surviving is spot on. However, the rant about socialist mentalities would appear to be nonsense - how are socialist mentalities passed on via evolution?



Riddick said:


> Totally right there and many influential people over the last century have come to this conclusion. Churchil and roosevelt we both fans of eugenics - essentially concerned about the apparent social pattern where the "less intelligent - as measured by IQ" and less financially able were given to having the largest amount of children. essentially that "only stupid people were breeding"
> the pattern esentially follows that the gene pool becomes diluted and degenerated as a result of this.
> 
> anecdotal evidence would even indicate this pattern of unchecked breeding is currently happening in australia. the bogan oops baby bonus can be cited, where the vast bulk of new births are from the less educated and lower socioeconomic classes.
> just my thoughts




Any evidence to back up that the baby bonus has led to more bogan births? Personally, can't remember seeing the research on that, but happy to be corrected.



drsmith said:


> There are two possibilities.
> 
> We will either develop the technologies to harness new energy sources and colonise other worlds or we will suffer a mass extinction which will bring our population back to the sustainable resources of our environment (like every other species that has reached plague proportions).




Can't see us colonising other world - too far away and too inhospitable. However, agree with the rest of the post. Nature has its own way of dealing with plague species


----------



## springhill (27 September 2009)

Happy said:


> more and more people are not responding to the last resort antibiotic Vancomycine.




If Dr House stopped prescibing it every second episode we wouldn't have this problem.


----------



## overit (27 September 2009)

gooner said:


> First point about strong surviving is spot on. However, the rant about socialist mentalities would appear to be nonsense - how are socialist mentalities passed on via evolution?




The socialist mentality is not so much a physical trait that is passed on. But what it is doing is supporting the weak and letting them continue to input into the gene pool when evolution should have wiped them out. So instead of cleaning the gene pool we let it fester. (Tysonboss1 put it more eloquently.)

On a side note... I do remember reading some material awhile back that said psychological traits can get passed along in the gene pool. ie... excessive risk takers were largely wiped out in favour of the more cautious. So maybe we do pay too much attention to the physical side of evolution and not the mental side of evolution considering our main point of strength over other animals is our brains. So I suppose the question is are psychological traits a physical or a learned process.


----------



## Riddick (27 September 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> It really is fact. Hahaha. OK.
> 
> Oh, sorry for being a dumbass and questioning you elite people. my bad. You must have evolved just that little bit further than me.
> 
> All the best mate




seems like the kind of answer someone would give when they:

a: can't be bothered to think of somehting to say but still want to post something. as a result they take the self demeaning "you are better than me sorry for breathing" appraoch in an effort to stir sympathy and illicit support.

b: don't know about a subject, in this case natural selection, can't be bothered to learn it but want to be the back-of-bus-kid who has the last say.

c: Think that they have enough mastery of sarcasm to employ it.

d: would rather watch shows about improving their back yard than actually improving their back yard.

e: think that folk that have a bit o' learnin' are foreign devils not to be trusted.

Now i'm NOT saying this is you, all i'm saying is that your comment was a damn good impersonation of what I would expect one of these people to say...





If you are going to take a big bite, make sure you can chew, otherwise you might just choke.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (27 September 2009)

Riddick said:


> seems like the kind of answer someone would give when they:
> 
> a: can't be bothered to think of somehting to say but still want to post something. as a result they take the self demeaning "you are better than me sorry for breathing" appraoch in an effort to stir sympathy and illicit support.
> 
> ...




seems like the kind of answer someone would give when they:

a: cant take any criticism on what they are preaching about, whether it may be right or wrong.

b: doesn't have an open mind or willing to learn anything OTHER than what they believe to be fact.

c: End up making personal attacks/insults.

d: I'll believe what I want to believe, question what I want to question, and do whatever the hell I want to do with my backyard :

e: that post wasn't even FOR you.

Now i'm NOT saying this is you, all i'm saying is that your comment was a damn good impersonation of what I would expect one of these people to say...

Regards bud, I'm out. As you were.


----------



## Riddick (27 September 2009)

gooner said:


> Any evidence to back up that the baby bonus has led to more bogan births? Personally, can't remember seeing the research on that, but happy to be corrected.





From publically available records on the ABS website:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3301.0

this is the link to the first page but you can navigate though from there.

summary:

* increase in birth rate in 20 - 24 yo females - the first increase in this age group since 1990.

* 33% of new births ot no married mothers - increased by roughly 1/3 in 20 years.

from the melbourne institute: http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/news/news/media_releases/2009/final-WP-Baby Bonus.pdf

* baby bonus had a more pronounced effect for second or subsequent births

from the centre for independent studies: http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/autumn_07/autumn07_guest.htm

"_With respect to ‘waste’, concerns have been raised about how the Baby Bonus is being spent, especially by very young parents, with anecdotal evidence about splurges on plasma TVs and similar items. In response, from January 2007 mothers under 18 years will receive the Baby Bonus in fortnightly instalments over a six month period, presumably in order to discourage the spending on lumpy luxury items_."

and anecdotal evidence: http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/...onus-leads-to-more-child-poverty/1421477.aspx

"single mothers have always been part of the church's underprivileged but the numbers had significantly increased since the introduction of the baby bonus in 2002.


"For me, this has been one of the disappointments with the baby bonus and that sort of support," Rev Bradbery said.


"I've watched sections of the population who have had children because of the money and then those children have to live in circumstances where they have to turn up at meals programs.


"I don't think this payment was thought through ... it might have been better to have increased family allowance over time."


He said although people may condemn him for his comments, he believed welfare organisations were experiencing the same phenomena."



ok ok so maybe i jumped the gun by applying the label of BOGAN to everyone who took advantage of the baby bonus....


----------



## whereu (27 September 2009)

I haven't read every entry in this thread,so if this is a repeat, my apologies to whoever came up with this idea already.

The question I have asked myself is: what is the biggest threat that humans face? I have put this questions to friends. The following include some of the answers:

Environmental degeneration.
Fundamentalists who intend taking over
Water shortage
Food shortage.

The one that got my vote is
There are too many of us.

No, I'm not volunteering to contribute to the solution of this problem by getting rid of myself, nor am I advocating any policy that aims to decrease the current world population. 

I know everybody is free to post whatever they like, but my aim is to find out what you think is the biggest threat that humans face.

The reasons for my choice (there are too many of us) are:
We are running into problems to produce enough food, clean water and other essentials for life to support an indefinite increase in world population. I appreciate that nature will, in the end, sort the problem out. My fear is that if we leave the solution entirely to nature, it will turn out to be very painful. The result could be mass starvation and brutal wars fighting over dwindling resources,


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2009)

whereu said:


> I know everybody is free to post whatever they like, but my aim is to find out what you think is the biggest threat that humans face.




Disease mate. Microorganisms that kill the host cell. Some examples from a website are ...

1- Malaria 
2- Tuberculosis 
3- Hepatitis B 
4- HIV/AIDS 
5- Food poisoning 
6- Strep throat 
7- Influenza 
8- Lyme disease 
9- Giardiasis


----------



## gooner (27 September 2009)

Riddick said:


> From publically available records on the ABS website:
> http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3301.0
> 
> this is the link to the first page but you can navigate though from there.
> ...




I read the ABS stuff - fairly selective quoting it appears. Birth rates have increased across the board, but most attributable to older mothers, so does not sound like the "bogan" element.

I'm getting baby bonus at the moment, paid fortnightly. With my other kids it was paid as a lump sum.  Lump sum was better because I got a new plasma for the first kid, a playstation 3 and a surround system with the second kid, but for the third kid, the fortnightly payment is not enough to buy anything decent, so most of it has gone on the pokies - the wife, not me. At least with the lump sum, I had something to show for it. I can tell the oldest the TV is down to her, the middle one that the Playstation and surround sound system is down to him, but the youngest one will feel left out when she's older. Mind you got three more months of the fortnightly payments, so the wife might get lucky and win big on the pokies - we'd love to get new mag wheels and a new stereo and massive speakers for the car. Then we can tell Taleeshaa that the car stuff is down to her


----------



## LM (27 September 2009)

This:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14195&highlight=verichip
Exclusive patent granted:
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE58K4BZ20090921
Free man on the land movement which could gain traction:
http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au/


----------



## whereu (27 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Disease mate. Microorganisms that kill the host cell. Some examples from a website are ...
> 
> 1- Malaria
> 2- Tuberculosis
> ...




Thanks, Wysiwyg, for your thoughts. 

Your point is an excellent one – plagues have been devastating in the past. 

Densely populated communities and modern rapid transport could aid the spread of disease.


----------



## Chris45 (27 September 2009)

There was a good BBC mini-series on ABC1 a few weeks ago called "The Last Enemy". I wonder how many saw it? It gave a pretty good insight into what life will be like when we're all required to be microchipped for national security reasons etc.

Go against the government and you'll be locked out of your electronically controlled house, bank accounts etc, and will be forced to live in old derelict buildings along with the mentally ill vagrants and homeless poor.

How does it go again? ... "_... no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark ..._" If it happens, you won't be able to say you weren't warned!


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2009)

Chris45 said:


> There was a good BBC mini-series on ABC1 a few weeks ago called "The Last Enemy". I wonder how many saw it? *It gave a pretty good insight into what life will be like when we're all required to be **microchipped for national security reasons etc.*
> 
> Go against the government and you'll be locked out of your electronically controlled house, bank accounts etc, and will be forced to live in old derelict buildings along with the mentally ill vagrants and homeless poor.
> 
> How does it go again? ... "_... no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark ..._" If it happens, you won't be able to say you weren't warned!




Mate that is utter bull crap. No one is going to have a surgical RFID implanted for national security. I can`t understand why people sensationalise things. Gee, and the last sentence sums it up. Nutter.


----------



## Riddick (27 September 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> seems like the kind of answer someone would give when they:
> 
> a: cant take any criticism on what they are preaching about, whether it may be right or wrong.
> 
> ...




going for the cheap votes again. nice. to clarify:

* i'm happy to take criticism. unfortunately you didn't give any so there was nothing for me to work on.

* belief has nothing to do with how I feel about things. I'm happy to cahnge my tune on any subject if you can give me a plausable reason why.

* the post was for me - you commented on an earlier post, someone else commented on it. you commented on their post. therefore the post WAS for me.

* if you think anything I said was a personal insult aimed at you then that is your business entirely and none of my doing. something I pointed out must have struck a chord with you. I don't go for cheap insults so you take it as an insult at your own perogative. 

* and I'm certainly not your bud.


----------



## Riddick (27 September 2009)

gooner said:


> I read the ABS stuff - fairly selective quoting it appears. Birth rates have increased across the board, but most attributable to older mothers, so does not sound like the "bogan" element.
> 
> I'm getting baby bonus at the moment, paid fortnightly. With my other kids it was paid as a lump sum.  Lump sum was better because I got a new plasma for the first kid, a playstation 3 and a surround system with the second kid, but for the third kid, the fortnightly payment is not enough to buy anything decent, so most of it has gone on the pokies - the wife, not me. At least with the lump sum, I had something to show for it. I can tell the oldest the TV is down to her, the middle one that the Playstation and surround sound system is down to him, but the youngest one will feel left out when she's older. Mind you got three more months of the fortnightly payments, so the wife might get lucky and win big on the pokies - we'd love to get new mag wheels and a new stereo and massive speakers for the car. Then we can tell Taleeshaa that the car stuff is down to her




thats an awesome post, and possibly guilty on the quoting thing, though i did mention that not everyone was a bogan at the end of my post.


----------



## drsmith (27 September 2009)

As I see it our ability to exapnd our population is related to the amount of energy we can produce so theoretically if the energy supply is unlimited then our population potential is also potentially unlimited. 

We could develop new energy sources to expand our population on earth but there is ultimately only a fixed amount of raw material in our solar system so at some point we would need to look beyond. This though would be on a scale of 100's or possibly even 1000's of years.

A shorther term problem to overcome will be to develop new energy sources (fusion ?) so that with the non-renewables that remain we are not competing for diminishing resources. The latter would obviously would end in war with the end result being an Easter Island style outcome on a global scale.

Longer term we would face the same problem once we exhaust all the resources of the solar system so ultimately we must look beyond. With regard to colonising other worlds I wonder though whether we will find anything remotely like Earth. More likely we will need to adapt to a foreign environment and live off it's resources as early settlers of new continents did.

As for the Jabba scenario one does not want to give the lovely princess a chance to wrap that chain around their neck.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 September 2009)

drsmith said:


> With regard to colonising other worlds I wonder though whether we will find anything remotely like Earth. More likely we will need to adapt to a foreign environment and live off it's resources as early settlers of new continents did.




Observation shows us the humanly visible universe has a sporadic arrangement of stellar bodies. Similar, but nothing exactly the same. To have the perfect combination of planet mass distanced proportionately from a light and heat source is highly unlikely if not an impossibility. If we look at how this planet has evolved to be life supporting it appears that an incredible amount of perfect scenarios have unfolded. A little bit too perfect I suspect.


----------



## Julia (27 September 2009)

gooner said:


> I read the ABS stuff - fairly selective quoting it appears. Birth rates have increased across the board, but most attributable to older mothers, so does not sound like the "bogan" element.
> 
> I'm getting baby bonus at the moment, paid fortnightly. With my other kids it was paid as a lump sum.  Lump sum was better because I got a new plasma for the first kid, a playstation 3 and a surround system with the second kid, but for the third kid, the fortnightly payment is not enough to buy anything decent, so most of it has gone on the pokies - the wife, not me. At least with the lump sum, I had something to show for it. I can tell the oldest the TV is down to her, the middle one that the Playstation and surround sound system is down to him, but the youngest one will feel left out when she's older. Mind you got three more months of the fortnightly payments, so the wife might get lucky and win big on the pokies - we'd love to get new mag wheels and a new stereo and massive speakers for the car. Then we can tell Taleeshaa that the car stuff is down to her



Gooner, please tell me this post is tongue in cheek?



drsmith said:


> As I see it our ability to exapnd our population is related to the amount of energy we can produce so theoretically if the energy supply is unlimited then our population potential is also potentially unlimited.



What about our limited water supply?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (27 September 2009)

johnnyg said:


> Great post, however I'm not sure that I agree with you that the Human Race is going backwards. The reason why it's no longer survival of the fittest is because it doesn't have to to be. The only thing that would knock us back into 'Survival of the Fittest' would be a catastrophic event. Until then the Smarter ones will continue providing life,support and a breeding ground to those 'lesser' ones. (Don't mean to sound rude)




The one thing that has allowed humans to continue to evolve into better more complex beings is that any body with major genetic faults died before breeding. 

For example a child born with a hole in their heart, Obviously this child would not thrive in a world where they depend on physical exertion to hunt and fight to survive, so these weak gene sets would not become very common.

However in todays world such problems can be treated and often the child will survive and breed, there fore passing the weak genes on to the offspring and weakening our gene pool.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 September 2009)

Julia said:


> What about our limited water supply?




Given enough energy resources we can create more water, energy is going to be the first resource to peak for a few reasons,

1, we need energy to exploit every other resource

2, energy is not recyclable like metals

3,our biggest energy sources coal, oil and gas are going to be limited by carbon emission laws.


----------



## Chris45 (28 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Mate that is utter bull crap. No one is going to have a surgical RFID implanted for national security. I can`t understand why people sensationalise things. Gee, and the last sentence sums it up. Nutter.



You obviously didn't see it. Ignorance is bliss. Fool.


----------



## kgee (28 September 2009)

viva la libertienes

my bad ...this question has been posed 100 times....just read a couple of sci fi books David Brin always sat with me for his optimisim..but he did live in silicone valley


----------



## gooner (28 September 2009)

Julia said:


> Gooner, please tell me this post is tongue in cheek?




The bit about now getting fortnightly payments instead of a lump sum payment is true. But it is quite likely that the uses to which the money was put were slightly exaggerated (well, perhaps very given I do not own a plasma TV, surround sound system or Sony Playstation). Any my wife would not be impressed were she to find out I had been telling people she plays the pokies.  And I suspect my youngest daughter would be surprised to find out that her name is really Taleeshaa.

Was a very wind afternoon in Sydney yesterday - obviously had too much time on my hands


----------



## drsmith (28 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Observation shows us the humanly visible universe has a sporadic arrangement of stellar bodies. Similar, but nothing exactly the same. To have the perfect combination of planet mass distanced proportionately from a light and heat source is highly unlikely if not an impossibility. If we look at how this planet has evolved to be life supporting it appears that an incredible amount of perfect scenarios have unfolded. A little bit too perfect I suspect.



Yes, similar in a cosmic sense could well mean a body that consists of  various unremarkable ores (SPOC's description of Regular-1 from Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan) with some carbon dioxide and water frozen as ices at something near the right distance from a stable star.

Mars might be as good as it gets.


----------



## Julia (28 September 2009)

gooner said:


> The bit about now getting fortnightly payments instead of a lump sum payment is true. But it is quite likely that the uses to which the money was put were slightly exaggerated (well, perhaps very given I do not own a plasma TV, surround sound system or Sony Playstation). Any my wife would not be impressed were she to find out I had been telling people she plays the pokies.  And I suspect my youngest daughter would be surprised to find out that her name is really Taleeshaa.
> 
> Was a very wind afternoon in Sydney yesterday - obviously had too much time on my hands



Gooner, I am much relieved that my original assessment of your priorities has not been shattered.


----------



## spooly74 (28 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> To have the perfect combination of planet mass distanced proportionately from a light and heat source is highly unlikely if not an impossibility. If we look at how this planet has evolved to be life supporting it appears that an incredible amount of perfect scenarios have unfolded. A little bit too perfect I suspect.




This combination of light/heat from a stellar mass with regards to Earth is far from perfect.
The 'goldilocks' zone the Earth orbits with respect to the Sun, is not perfect. Earth could move 15% closer or further away and the planet would still be habitable, perhaps challenging, but habitable none the less. 

Water is abundant in the universe. I don't see anything unique or perfect about Earth or our Solar system.


----------



## Mr J (28 September 2009)

And we also don't need a habitable climate to settle another world, just the construction and supply of structures that are suitable for hostile environment - something we already have on and around Earth. Supplies can be shipped in, recyled, or extracted.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> And we also don't need a habitable climate to settle another world, just the construction and supply of structures that are suitable for hostile environment - something we already have on and around Earth. Supplies can be shipped in, recyled, or extracted.



My Jove, one would miss a walk in the park or swim at a beach.
Don`t tell me , they could be artificially created. I can see the headlines now. Man conquers Universe.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 September 2009)

spooly74 said:


> This combination of light/heat from a stellar mass with regards to Earth is far from perfect.
> The 'goldilocks' zone the Earth orbits with respect to the Sun, is not perfect. Earth could move 15% closer or further away and the planet would still be habitable, perhaps challenging, but habitable none the less.
> 
> Water is abundant in the universe. I don't see anything unique or perfect about Earth or our Solar system.




Hey hey. I believe perfect conditions would not be so if they became "challenging". Contradictory but I understand your point. Simply moving the moon closer or further away would make life "challenging". All adaptable as evolution has proven but comparatively (to now) quite different.


----------



## Mr J (28 September 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> My Jove, one would miss a walk in the park or swim at a beach.




It really would be a shame to lose this world.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> It really would be a shame to lose this world.




yeah, Maybe we should treat it better


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 September 2009)

drsmith said:


> Yes, similar in a cosmic sense could well mean a body that consists of  various unremarkable ores (SPOC's description of Regular-1 from Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan) with some carbon dioxide and water frozen as ices at something near the right distance from a stable star.
> 
> Mars might be as good as it gets.




These discussions are good for letting us escape the petty foibles of general everyday human life.
The fears predominantly imagined, the anger over someone doing us wrong, all becomes strangely insignificant when we realise our individual experience on this planet is located in a soft, grey coloured organ somewhere between our ears.


----------



## drsmith (29 September 2009)

Julia said:


> What about our limited water supply?



This too is a question of energy.


----------

