Some human predecessors lastd for 10^6 years, Neanderthals for 500, 000 yrs. Us?

[primummobile]

I've thought about that, but I think the reverse may be true, similar to the plots of every Super-human-mutant tv-show/movie. Normals/Mundanes will ban and/or persecute the mutants/x-men/homo-superior/homo-GMOnsis. There will be so many people who are against it for ethical or religions reasons and so few people who will be able to afford it, that I doubt they'd ever be able to get away with such procedures publicly. Privately, they may, but I doubt that any increases will be able to create a sub-species much smarter or capable without being an obvious GMO-mutant, so I doubt they will ever get ahead in government, religion or society and over-turn human nature. Even if one strain did, they'd almost certainly try to fight off rival strains that happen to have different capabilities or a different lineage. While fiction would have us believe that vastly different looking mutants will hate us but get along with each other will work as a metaphor, we need to realize that it is only a metaphor --they will be as capable of intra-species racism as anyone.

That is a good point.

[primummobile]

In a few hundred years, possibly less, those gills should be available as a medical procedure, possibly with associated somatic gene therapy to prepare your tissues for a life aquatic. Someone who has altered themselves to live in the sea might not be averse to altering their children's genome so that they would not need the surgery.

In deep space there are many possible 'tweaks' that could allow a human to live permanently in zero gravity; prehensile feet, a more agile body, a more flexible neck; alterations to the balance mechanisms, even increased radiation resistance; a thousand years from now almost all humans living in freefall will probably have some, or most of these tweaks. They might even think it cruel for an unaltered human to be born into such an environment.

I need to look up some stuff about this, but I remember reading a book about engineering humans to make them more adaptable to life in space. I need to find the book before I really comment.

[Ara Pacis]

In a few hundred years, possibly less, those gills should be available as a medical procedure, possibly with associated somatic gene therapy to prepare your tissues for a life aquatic. Someone who has altered themselves to live in the sea might not be averse to altering their children's genome so that they would not need the surgery.

That may be more socially acceptable, but I suspect it would be less effective from a systemic point of view.

In deep space there are many possible 'tweaks' that could allow a human to live permanently in zero gravity; prehensile feet, a more agile body, a more flexible neck; alterations to the balance mechanisms, even increased radiation resistance; a thousand years from now almost all humans living in freefall will probably have some, or most of these tweaks. They might even think it cruel for an unaltered human to be born into such an environment.

If they solve the zero-g physiological problems, or if they never want rotational artificial gravity or never want to go to a planet with a deep gravity field or never plant to be on a rotating hab used by those people who want to be able to go to a planet. I don't expect there would be a lot of people in space nor that many people who'd want to give up the possibility of visiting and/or living on planets, without expensive and painful surgical procedures, especially when medical, apparel and cybernetic solutions may be cheaper and more robust and adaptable.

Even these days there is a debate over parental-choice with regards to parental decisions on certain morphological adaptation procedures performed on baby boys and little girls.

[SkepticJ]

How can one possibly guess what people centuries from now will really do?

It's conceivable that in a couple centuries the only people who look and think like people will be the Amish, Buddhist monks, and others with similar motivations.

The rest of us could look no more like Homo sapiens than do the Sentinels from The Matrix.

Living on a planet might be the future equivalent of living in a mud hut. Yes, it's something you can do, but if you have better means it's not likely that you would, and order your life around the possibility that you might want to live in one someday.

[eburacum45]

It would be nice to nbe able to change one's body shape at will; that would avoid most of the qualms about gene-line modification. You could be adapted to microgravity one day, Superterrestrial gravity the next. Would mutability of this type be more difficult to achieve than reliable gene-line modification?

I think it probably would, but in the long term humans may well have access to both possibilities. Assuming we don't all become robots, of course. A robot might shuck off its body and put on a new one like we put on an overcoat.

[primummobile]

It would be nice to nbe able to change one's body shape at will; that would avoid most of the qualms about gene-line modification. You could be adapted to microgravity one day, Superterrestrial gravity the next. Would mutability of this type be more difficult to achieve than reliable gene-line modification?

I think it probably would, but in the long term humans may well have access to both possibilities. Assuming we don't all become robots, of course. A robot might shuck off its body and put on a new one like we put on an overcoat.

I think that for those types of situations, such as adapting a body for microgravity, it would need to be done well after birth. I don't think it would be very ethical to modify the genes of your children for future space missions. I think the only exceptions would be for people already living in microgravity or if the survival of the children depended upon leaving the Earth.

[eburacum45]

I don't think it would be very ethical to modify the genes of your children for future space missions. I think the only exceptions would be for people already living in microgravity or if the survival of the children depended upon leaving the Earth.

At some point in the far future most of our descendants won't even know where to point in the sky to find the Earth.

[transreality]

There is a part of the skull, I think it is the sphenoid, that in development determines the ratio between brain size and jaw size. Mutations that affect the shape of this bone have lead to a lineage of increasing brain size in hominids and reducing jaw size. As pointed out in the OP, the frequency of this mode of mutation leading to new species is approximatly halving each iteration. The expectation should be that at some time a mutant will arise that has a larger brain and is more intelligent that us humans. This mutant if fortunate will give rise to offspring, the mutation will prove advantageous, the population will increase, and eventually the mutant and its offspring will replace us. If this mutant is unlucky, no matter another will soon arise. Since the point of intelligence is get others to do things for you, we will not be able to resist, and probably won't even notice (or mind) our impending extinction as a species.

[Noclevername]

Since the point of intelligence is get others to do things for you, we will not be able to resist, and probably won't even notice (or mind) our impending extinction as a species.

The point of intelligence, aside from the fact that it has no "point" and is merely an advantageous adaptation, is figuring out better ways to do things. If doing it yourself provides better results, then that is the intelligent thing to do.

[NEOWatcher]

I wasn't talking about tweaks and I don't think Eburacum was either. He's mentioned adapting people for such things as living on Mars. That's not a gradual adaptation, it's live or die, so it would need to be a dramatic change.

I'm not sure what context Eburacum was coming from. All I saw was "ideal" but not ideal for what purpose. I was thinking ideal in relation to the flaws that we have.
But; for further adaptations (and what Eburacum said in his latest post) it does seem like more. Yes; those changes would be more drastic.
In that case, I would think that changes like that would happen after colonization off Earth. The original inhabitants would be human, but thier offspring would be bred for the conditions. Slowly or quickly depending on the technology. Humans would be the same, but off-worlders would end up a different species.

[primummobile]

At some point in the far future most of our descendants won't even know where to point in the sky to find the Earth.

Yes. In a way I think that is sad.

[NEOWatcher]

Yes. In a way I think that is sad.

Sad in what way?

It's sad that people don't know thier geography now. There's already people who can't point to the country of thier ancestors even if they know what country that is.

[primummobile]

Sad in what way?

It's sad that people don't know thier geography now. There's already people who can't point to the country of thier ancestors even if they know what country that is.

I agree. I think that's sad too. But I was reading a story not too long ago. Maybe it was The Last Question. People in the far future were wondering what galaxy man had come from. Not only did they not know where it was, but they didn't even know the name. That part of the story always makes me depressed.

I'm an American, and my ancestry is Irish and German. I can find all three on the map. But even if I couldn't, I would still know the names of the places of my origin.

[Ara Pacis]

How can one possibly guess what people centuries from now will really do?

by studying history, anthropology, sociology, psychology communications and politics, then look at the future with the limitations of physics, engineering, chemistry and biology in mind.

It's conceivable that in a couple centuries the only people who look and think like people will be the Amish, Buddhist monks, and others with similar motivations.

The rest of us could look no more like Homo sapiens than do the Sentinels from The Matrix.

Living on a planet might be the future equivalent of living in a mud hut. Yes, it's something you can do, but if you have better means it's not likely that you would, and order your life around the possibility that you might want to live in one someday.

Conceivable perhaps, but probably not likely due to a dizzying array of reasons that mitigate against it.

[Ara Pacis]

I'm not sure what context Eburacum was coming from. All I saw was "ideal" but not ideal for what purpose. I was thinking ideal in relation to the flaws that we have.
But; for further adaptations (and what Eburacum said in his latest post) it does seem like more. Yes; those changes would be more drastic.
In that case, I would think that changes like that would happen after colonization off Earth. The original inhabitants would be human, but thier offspring would be bred for the conditions. Slowly or quickly depending on the technology. Humans would be the same, but off-worlders would end up a different species.

One of my points is that I don't think the conditions won't really require a radical change. Appropriate engineering solutions will make the issue moot and will be available sooner and at lower physical, emotional, social and financial cost than genetic engineering humans to suit. I wouldn't rule out GMO-humans entirely, but I suspect they would be all but indistinguishable from regular humans, and will focus more on repairing genetically-induced flaws than on creating new morphologies. Cosmetic changes might happen and it might be allowed in certain jurisdictions or it might be an underground culture among the wealthy, but anything that appears obvious may not be accepted or even tolerated. Perhaps space will be the jurisdiction for those wishing to play with GMOH, but it may not be compatible with the goals of the wealthy who can afford it to create morphologically different designs that can't take up the mantle of their wealth and power on Earth. Furthermore, I don't really see humanity in space expanding at a rate faster than politics, economy and society can maintain control of it. Otherwise you may realize those fantastic stories of megalomaniacs setting up their own petty kingdoms on a rock far away and grow his own genetic army and sling asteroids at cities on Earth.

[NEOWatcher]

I agree. I think that's sad too. But I was reading a story not too long ago. Maybe it was The Last Question. People in the far future were wondering what galaxy man had come from. Not only did they not know where it was, but they didn't even know the name. That part of the story always makes me depressed.

That reminds me of the ST-Voy episode "Distant Origin".
They left Earth so long ago that they wouldn't even entertain the idea that they came from somewhere else.

[SkepticJ]

by studying history, anthropology, sociology, psychology communications and politics, then look at the future with the limitations of physics, engineering, chemistry and biology in mind.

I can't help but suspect that if you went back to the early-to-mid 18th Century and asked experts what they think the 21st Century will be like, you'd get guffaw-inducing answers filled with anacronistic technology, clearly defined roles for the sexes, slavery . . .

Conceivable perhaps, but probably not likely due to a dizzying array of reasons that mitigate against it.

Like what?

As a whole, the world is getting more and more liberal, tolerant of differences. Take a look at the last 60 years in particular, and what's happening now. If the technology to do it exists, it will be. Has technology ever been successfully banned?

Genetic engineering that you seem to think would be controversial would be accepted with open arms in some subcultures.

Ask an average geek if they wouldn't die to be able to scurry around on walls like Nightcrawler, with the caveat that you have to look like him too. Or whatever superhuman feat you want to use, so long as it's physically possible. You think xenophobic hicks are going to stop them?

[primummobile]

That reminds me of the ST-Voy episode "Distant Origin".
They left Earth so long ago that they wouldn't even entertain the idea that they came from somewhere else.

Is that the one with the Hadrosaur on the holodeck?

[NEOWatcher]

Is that the one with the Hadrosaur on the holodeck?

Yes.

[primummobile]

Yes.

I'm sorry. I didn't even notice that was a link. I'm at work and I'm distracted.

[Ara Pacis]

I can't help but suspect that if you went back to the early-to-mid 18th Century and asked experts what they think the 21st Century will be like, you'd get guffaw-inducing answers filled with anacronistic technology, clearly defined roles for the sexes, slavery . . .

Interesting. What experts and what do you think the Experts would have said? Do you think the Experts then knew what they were talking about? What experts and what do you think the experts now would say? Do you think that experts now know what they are talking about?

Like what?

Have you studied; "history, anthropology, sociology, psychology communications and politics..." and "physics, engineering, chemistry and biology"? It could become a very involved thread. A lot of it is obvious from a cursory glance, but if you don't take the prima facie case that people resist change, then it can get really involved with minutia.

As a whole, the world is getting more and more liberal, tolerant of differences. Take a look at the last 60 years in particular, and what's happening now. If the technology to do it exists, it will be. Has technology ever been successfully banned?

Is it now? Forum rules make me think I had better not answer this with examples and analysis of why it's not necessarily so.

Genetic engineering that you seem to think would be controversial would be accepted with open arms in some subcultures.

I see that you agree with me. I said it would be accepted in some subcultures. What I also said is that subcultures probably won't be able to get away with it.

Ask an average geek if they wouldn't die to be able to scurry around on walls like Nightcrawler, with the caveat that you have to look like him too. Or whatever superhuman feat you want to use, so long as it's physically possible. You think xenophobic hicks are going to stop them?

First of all, "hicks" is insulting. Second of all, there is a long history of xenophobic societies doing exactly that.

[SkepticJ]

Interesting. What experts and what do you think the Experts would have said? Do you think the Experts then knew what they were talking about? What experts and what do you think the experts now would say? Do you think that experts now know what they are talking about?

Why the difference in capitalization?

Obviously they didn't. How could they? They had imperfect knowledge, as do modern experts.

Futurists make laughable pronouncements about times just decades into their future. Are we all wearing Tyvek clothes, eating food pills, commuting to work via jetpack and using slide rules when our vacuum tube computers are on the fritz?

Imagine the culture shock of a late Victorian transported to the 1960s: just an average lifetime later.

Have you studied; "history, anthropology, sociology, psychology communications and politics..." and "physics, engineering, chemistry and biology"? It could become a very involved thread. A lot of it is obvious from a cursory glance, but if you don't take the prima facie case that people resist change, then it can get really involved with minutia.

Funny that the 20th Century saw more social and technological change compressed into it than happened in thousands of years previously. Inflexible humans.

Is it now? Forum rules make me think I had better not answer this with examples and analysis of why it's not necessarily so.

I said as a whole.

As a whole, people with supernatural worldviews have managed to accept biological evolution as a fact. Just because some diehard yahoos gain a little traction here and there is insignificant on the scale of the world.

The United States isn't the center of the world, which may come as a shock to many.

What I also said is that subcultures probably won't be able to get away with it.

Like they don't get away with the body modification they already do?

Look up The Enigma, or Stalking Cat, or others.

Neither have been run out of town by torchlight.

First of all, "hicks" is insulting. Second of all, there is a long history of xenophobic societies doing exactly that.

Good, it was meant to be, like "idiot" is an insult for people who don't think.

Living in a mobile home and driving an El Camino doesn't make someone a hick; being an ignorant, bigoted mouth breather does. Or at least that's this Southerner's opinion.

Which logically means that it will happen again, everywhere?

[transreality]

The point of intelligence, aside from the fact that it has no "point" and is merely an advantageous adaptation, is figuring out better ways to do things. If doing it yourself provides better results, then that is the intelligent thing to do.

It so rarely is the better thing to do, so we end up with complex and adaptable social organisation. If we had bigger claws and teeth we could do for ourselves, but we don't. In fact, we are singularly lacking in such equipment. Intelligence has just as much point as the teeth of T-rex, it is our defining adaptation, and when something comes along that does it better than us it will replace us.

[Ara Pacis]

Obviously they didn't. How could they? They had imperfect knowledge, as do modern experts.

That sounds like a false equivalency. Or are you claiming the equivalency is real? Can you qualify or quantify that statement?

Futurists make laughable pronouncements about times just decades into their future. Are we all wearing Tyvek clothes, eating food pills, commuting to work via jetpack and using slide rules when our vacuum tube computers are on the fritz?

Imagine the culture shock of a late Victorian transported to the 1960s: just an average lifetime later.

More false equivalencies and strawmen. Are you asserting that there is no difference between those changes and the use of genetic modification to make humans radically different in morphology?

Funny that the 20th Century saw more social and technological change compressed into it than happened in thousands of years previously. Inflexible humans.

Even funnier is how there's hardly any morphological changes in all that time or else your claim might have merit.

I said as a whole.

As a whole, people with supernatural worldviews have managed to accept biological evolution as a fact. Just because some diehard yahoos gain a little traction here and there is insignificant on the scale of the world.

The United States isn't the center of the world, which may come as a shock to many.

And my interpretation of the rules of the forum is that talking about international politics is still politics because the forum is open to people from other countries because we know that "The United States isn't the center of the world". Again, I won't comment on your example, because counter examples from any country run counter to the rules, or so I surmise. But to explain my previous statement a little more but without example, I'll point out that liberalization in various aspects of society/governance isn't necessarily a permanent state. Things change. Moreover, some political actions create opposite and equal reactions. Justice done to one group is necessarily injustice done to another group.

Like they don't get away with the body modification they already do?

Look up The Enigma, or Stalking Cat, or others.

Neither have been run out of town by torchlight.

Explain your references if you want, I'm not going to look them up blind. Point is they won't likely ever be given the reigns of power. There's two reasons for this. First, society tends to resist change. Second, subcultures tend to like to stay that way, that is to say non-mainstream. It's part of the whole point. Those that have espoused support for GMO and cloning, such as Raelians, haven't made a whole lot of headway.

Good, it was meant to be, like "idiot" is an insult for people who don't think.

Living in a mobile home and driving an El Camino doesn't make someone a hick; being an ignorant, bigoted mouth breather does. Or at least that's this Southerner's opinion.

I don't think doubling-down on the insult makes it any more acceptable for use on this thread or this website.

Which logically means that it will happen again, everywhere?

Everywhere there's a xenophobic society? Probably a good chance.

[SkepticJ]

That sounds like a false equivalency. Or are you claiming the equivalency is real? Can you qualify or quantify that statement?

It's not a false equivalency; we obviously know a lot more than we did then, but there's much we still do not know.

Metamaterials do what was thought to be physically impossible just twenty years ago. What else are we wrong about?

More false equivalencies and strawmen. Are you asserting that there is no difference between those changes and the use of genetic modification to make humans radically different in morphology?

They're neither. All I'm saying is people are adaptable, and a lot more accepting of change than you seem to think.

Consider that in the American South, Black people went from not even being human to having the right to vote in a little over a century.

You seem to be assuming that radical changes in morphology would happen in a single generation, or two--that there would be no time for people to get used to the idea.

Justice done to one group is necessarily injustice done to another group.

*guffaw*

Explain your references if you want, I'm not going to look them up blind. Point is they won't likely ever be given the reigns of power. There's two reasons for this. First, society tends to resist change.

Look them up, you'll be safe. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and all that.

Ever? Like women don't hold positions of power, which was "contrary to nature/religion" in the 19th Century?

The United States doesn't have a Black president? An ethnic group that, as previously stated, wasn't even considered as human in the 1850s.

Those that have espoused support for GMO and cloning, such as Raelians, haven't made a whole lot of headway.

That couldn't possibly be because they're a UFO cult?

I seriously think you need to go around and ask average people if they would be okay with genetic changes to make their kids smarter, better at sports . . .

[Ara Pacis]

It's not a false equivalency; we obviously know a lot more than we did then, but there's much we still do not know.

If you're agreeing that they're not equivalent then your previous statement of equivalency is false.

Metamaterials do what was thought to be physically impossible just twenty years ago. What else are we wrong about?

Strawman, we're talking about biology, not materials science.

They're neither. All I'm saying is people are adaptable, and a lot more accepting of change than you seem to think.

Consider that in the American South, Black people went from not even being human to having the right to vote in a little over a century.

To respond to this would be politics. Suffice it to say that it's not that clear cut.

You seem to be assuming that radical changes in morphology would happen in a single generation, or two--that there would be no time for people to get used to the idea.

Correct, a single generation in germ-line (or the same individual in somatic mutations) is the basis of the discussion. It's been stated explicitly. If you're referring to gradual change, then you're having a different conversation from the rest of us.

*guffaw*

Not sure what you're guffawing about. That's basic Political Science.

Look them up, you'll be safe. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and all that.

If you can't even describe it...

Ever? Like women don't hold positions of power, which was "contrary to nature/religion" in the 19th Century?

And your point is? I'm not sure that supports your assertion. Perhaps you can explain it better.

The United States doesn't have a Black president? An ethnic group that, as previously stated, wasn't even considered as human in the 1850s.

Again, I'm not sure this supports your assertion. The sample size is too small to extrapolate a trend. But even ceding that trend, what makes you think that it's not just a regression toward the mean. Or are you saying blacks are equivalent to genetically modified mutant human monsters?

That couldn't possibly be because they're a UFO cult?

A space-loving subculture? Sounds equivalent to me. Why are they not?

I seriously think you need to go around and ask average people if they would be okay with genetic changes to make their kids smarter, better at sports . . .

Again, this is not the topic. It's been stated repeatedly that we're talking about obvious and dramatic morphological changes.

[SkepticJ]

Well, I'm done in this thread; I can see I'm wasting my time here.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, I'm done in this thread; I can see I'm wasting my time here.

That happens when you make unsupported statements and fallacious arguments.