Future humans?

[gooner]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.