100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Brainiacs | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Mon 12/07/09 09:01 PM
|
 This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism  Innovation is the future. Not evolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 12/07/09 09:05 PM
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Mon 12/07/09 10:01 PM
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any kind of genetic muscle defect still has some awfully strong selective pressure against it. There are still lots of diseases out there than can kill us. Furthermore we've been shaping our environment into something different from what we spent the last 50,000 years adapting to. There are all kinds of pressures you've probably never considered though. In a lot of the world people still can't get enough food to survive. Do you think they're not under environmental pressures? In the "better" places the majority of marriages end in divorce. What kinds of pressures do you think that places on the children? I can tell you straight up that there's a strong connection between broken homes and out of whack stress hormones. And even without other competitor species we still compete heavily with each other. Social groups go to war with each other and fighting to the death has a lot of very extreme pressures. Within the group there's also competition as females have demanded mates that can give their children a better chance of living and males have demanded better mates if they're going to invest so much energy into that. We are the most successful species on this planet. We create tools and can shape our enviroment in ways other life cannot even concieve. Biological evolution is an obsolete process for us. We have an even greater potential for self improvement. But yes, we're not that far off from moving to a phase when old style evolution has basically no impact. We are getting better and better at shaping our living enviroments. Every year more and more conveniences are created. I believe that we have already moved beyond the phase where biological evolution has any impact. It takes too long.Too "clumsy" Humans operate on a different timescale. We have a greater potential to shape "ourselves". To shape future "intelligence". Non biological "evolution". The Singularity. You could say it has stopped mattering but that's a big difference from saying it has just stopped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon However this sounds extremely shifty to me. Eugenics was built on the idea that stupid peasants had more children than smart and/or rich people so people ought to be getting dumber and if you look into racism we've frequently thought that races with large families would overtake white people yet it hasn't come anywhere close to happening. Questions I have to ask are how many generations of women they were looking at. It could just be a local anomaly while you need this sort of fertility difference to persist for at least a few generations to swing things in it's direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any kind of genetic muscle defect still has some awfully strong selective pressure against it. There are still lots of diseases out there than can kill us. Furthermore we've been shaping our environment into something different from what we spent the last 50,000 years adapting to. There are all kinds of pressures you've probably never considered though. In a lot of the world people still can't get enough food to survive. Do you think they're not under environmental pressures? In the "better" places the majority of marriages end in divorce. What kinds of pressures do you think that places on the children? I can tell you straight up that there's a strong connection between broken homes and out of whack stress hormones. And even without other competitor species we still compete heavily with each other. Social groups go to war with each other and fighting to the death has a lot of very extreme pressures. Within the group there's also competition as females have demanded mates that can give their children a better chance of living and males have demanded better mates if they're going to invest so much energy into that. We are the most successful species on this planet. We create tools and can shape our enviroment in ways other life cannot even concieve. Biological evolution is an obsolete process for us. We have an even greater potential for self improvement. But yes, we're not that far off from moving to a phase when old style evolution has basically no impact. We are getting better and better at shaping our living enviroments. Every year more and more conveniences are created. I believe that we have already moved beyond the phase where biological evolution has any impact. It takes too long.Too "clumsy" Humans operate on a different timescale. We have a greater potential to shape "ourselves". To shape future "intelligence". Non biological "evolution". The Singularity. You could say it has stopped mattering but that's a big difference from saying it has just stopped. We havent changed biologically in millions of years. Definately not in the few thousand years of recorded history That is what I am saying. However,we have evolved socially. But for the sake of the discussion I will concede you make a good point when you say that it does not matter anyways. Our capacity for innovation far outstrips anything evolution can do for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Mon 12/07/09 10:22 PM
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon However this sounds extremely shifty to me. Eugenics was built on the idea that stupid peasants had more children than smart and/or rich people so people ought to be getting dumber and if you look into racism we've frequently thought that races with large families would overtake white people yet it hasn't come anywhere close to happening. Questions I have to ask are how many generations of women they were looking at. It could just be a local anomaly while you need this sort of fertility difference to persist for at least a few generations to swing things in it's direction. The article that Dragoness posted seems to me to be something more akin to a eugenics discussion than an evolutionary discussion.  I do not even think that we will be biological (as we know it) in 50 generations. Not even 10. Probably not even 5 generations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades. In what ways do you think we have evolved in the last few decades?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think scientists of past were like,,, C students operating at A student level,, and today,,we have alot of A students operating at C student level
Relatively, for all the advance in technology that we have seen, we havent gotten quite as advanced in our own god given intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively, for all the advance in technology that we have seen, we havent gotten quite as advanced in our own god given intelligence. I think there is something or someone holding us back. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Tue 12/08/09 02:24 PM
|
|
Relatively, for all the advance in technology that we have seen, we havent gotten quite as advanced in our own god given intelligence. I think there is something or someone holding us back. I think I know what's holding us back. I think it's the abundant rock music, the good sex (whether alone or in multitudes) and cheap, good coffee. There is no reason to become any smarter as long as these three things are freely or cheaply available to people. Why would people need to apply themselves? Whatever for? The going is good, so let's not rock the boat. Thou can't fix something that ain't broke. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively, for all the advance in technology that we have seen, we havent gotten quite as advanced in our own god given intelligence. I think there is something or someone holding us back. I think I know what's holding us back. I think it's the abundant rock music, the good sex (whether alone or in multitudes) and cheap, good coffee. There is no reason to become any smarter as long as these three things are freely or cheaply available to people. Why would people need to apply themselves? Whatever for? The going is good, so let's not rock the boat. Thou can't fix something that ain't broke. I am sure about the coffee and sex, but don't you think rock music has been blamed for enough already? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relatively, for all the advance in technology that we have seen, we havent gotten quite as advanced in our own god given intelligence. I think there is something or someone holding us back. I think I know what's holding us back. I think it's the abundant rock music, the good sex (whether alone or in multitudes) and cheap, good coffee. There is no reason to become any smarter as long as these three things are freely or cheaply available to people. Why would people need to apply themselves? Whatever for? The going is good, so let's not rock the boat. Thou can't fix something that ain't broke. I am sure about the coffee and sex, but don't you think rock music has been blamed for enough already? You inadvertently brought out the true meaning of Shanrean's statement. THERE IS NO BLAME. When the going is good, we ought to stop looking for escape goats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades. In what ways do you think we have evolved in the last few decades? We're also slowly whittling away the dependency on certain Y chromosome genes necessary for sperm production. Presumably we'll eventually transition to an X chromosome dosage trigger for gender and then we'll just drop the Y chromosome altogether for more reliable cell reproduction. I'm not really prepared to talk about aggression and stress genes though so this is really just tip of the iceberg stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Tue 12/08/09 07:49 PM
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades. In what ways do you think we have evolved in the last few decades? We're also slowly whittling away the dependency on certain Y chromosome genes necessary for sperm production. Presumably we'll eventually transition to an X chromosome dosage trigger for gender and then we'll just drop the Y chromosome altogether for more reliable cell reproduction. I'm not really prepared to talk about aggression and stress genes though so this is really just tip of the iceberg stuff. That isnt evolution. Those are all improvements in health because we have better and easier lifestyles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon I disagree. But you have the right to your belief on that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This explains transhumanism pretty well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Innovation is the future. Not evolution It will be both. For example: Why women of the future will be shorter, fatter and healthier By David Derbyshire Last updated at 9:00 AM on 21st October 2009 * Comments (37) * Add to My Stories A curvy woman runs on the beach Women of the future will be shorter and heavier but healthier scientists say (Posed by model) Women are getting shorter and fatter, according to research into the future of the human race. They are also likely to evolve healthier hearts and lower cholesterol, and will start the menopause later than they do now, researchers say. The predictions come from a study which claims to have the strongest evidence yet that humans are continuing to evolve. Some biologists have argued that medical advances and social welfare in the wealthiest parts of the world have caused evolution to ground to a halt. Without the fierce struggle for survival, they say, natural selection is no longer driving our species' development. But evolutionary biologist Dr Stephen Stearns of Yale University says he has found evidence that inheritable traits such as weight and height still influence how many children a woman has and how healthy they will be. Having more children increases the chance that beneficial characteristics which aid survival will be passed to future generations. Dr Stearns looked at the Framingham Heart Study - which has tracked the medical histories of 14,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts since 1948. His team looked at the medical records of 2,238 middle-aged and elderly women who had gone through menopause and tested whether weight, height, blood pressure, cholesterol and other traits were linked to the number of children she had, New Scientist reports. Even after accounting for factors like education, income and health, they found that inherited traits were closely linked to family size. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children than lighter, taller ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol also had bigger families - as did those who became mothers at a younger age or began the menopause later. These traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn tended to have more children. If the trend continues for ten generations, the researchers calculate that the typical woman in 2409 will be 2cm shorter and 1kg heavier than today's average. She will have her first child five months earlier - and go through the menopause ten months later. Dr Stearns said: 'It's interesting that the underlying biological framework is still detectable beneath the culture.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1221822/Why-women-future-shorter-fatter-healthier.html This is highly speculativeIt MAY be true in MILLIONS of years. Doubtful. "We" will no longer even be biological in the near future,Dragoness There will not be "men" and "women" (as we know it)in the near future. The Singularity is much much nearer than this. This planet cannot sustain another several millions of years of human biological evolution. We have something greater. We have innovation. And we will innovate OURSELVES Very soon I disagree. But you have the right to your belief on that one. Biological evolution is for inferior life forms. We have something better than that.Our unique capacity for innovation.Humans like us will not exist for much longer. Death as we know it will soon be eliminated."We" will be able to record and upload our minds into new bodies.We will be able to design and modify our physical bodies in ways we can hardly concieve of now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've changed biologically within the last few decades. In what ways do you think we have evolved in the last few decades? We're also slowly whittling away the dependency on certain Y chromosome genes necessary for sperm production. Presumably we'll eventually transition to an X chromosome dosage trigger for gender and then we'll just drop the Y chromosome altogether for more reliable cell reproduction. I'm not really prepared to talk about aggression and stress genes though so this is really just tip of the iceberg stuff. That isnt evolution. Those are all improvements in health because we have better and easier lifestyles. You see them happening in the parts of the world where people are malnourished. Or do you not believe that Somalia is a real place? |
|
|
|
|
