Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board
Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board  ›  Off Topic  ›  Offtopic Discussion  ›  Will humans ever evolve into asexual beings? « previous next »
Author Topic: Will humans ever evolve into asexual beings?  (Read 547 times)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« on: 09-08-2007 20:44 »
« Last Edit on: 09-08-2007 20:44 »
   
Quote
Originally posted by gaschief:

My friend Gary always reckoned that people in the future when (if) we become more evolved will be asexual, as we will be focussed on other things...what I dont know !

   
Quote
Originally posted by Frisco17:

That's funny because I've had people say just the opposite. This proves that one thing that will never change is people will never agree on anything. Unless they are taken over by brain slugs that is.

   
Quote
Originally posted by Xanfor:

Ain't gonna happen. Trust me.

One, because no species will ever evolve to this extent, by definition.

Two, because the human species has stopped evolving.

   
Quote
Originally posted by Sine Wave:

And here's where Transhumanism steps in.

   
Quote
Originally posted by gaschief:

I have often wondered myself if the next stage in human evolution may involve us reinventing ourselves..lets face it, in many subtler ways we have been doing that by re-engineering our living environments, educating ourselves, using medicine, etc, we have already allowed for versions of the human animal that would probably never have come about, if we were still foraging about in the woods.

   
Quote
Originally posted by bend_her:

DNA and genes are just a means to an end: Evolution. Now that we have a replicator that operates on smaller time-scales (ie, our minds), we won't really need to rely as much on our genes to evolve. One way of looking at it is that what makes us human is our minds, and that we are really just the thought patterns that inhabit our minds. Dawkins called them memes. This may explain why we are often so ashamed of the things our carrier bodies need to do to survive, like sex.

   
Quote
Originally posted by Decapodian:

Humans are still evolving. Anyone who thinks humans are as evolved as is possible needs a knock to the head to reassert their thinking processes.

   
Quote
Originally posted by Frisco17:

It isn't that they are evolved as possible as much as we have advanced to a point where natural selection has less of an influence on our life/death. People that would die out and thus be removed from the gene pool in the wild, can thrive in the modern world and vice versa.

   
Quote
Originally posted by Xanfor:

Humans are not still evolving. Humans are not as evolved as possible, however, they have stopped evolving. In the traditional sense, that is. Like Frisco said.

edit: It occurs to me now I should have clarified myself. By ‘asexual’, I mean ‘uninterested in sex’. The correct title for this thread should be ‘Will humans ever evolve into a state in which they are no longer motivated to have sex?’. Optional: Humans not needing to have sex. So... Work with me here.
homerjaysimpson

Space Pope
****
« Reply #1 on: 09-08-2007 20:48 »
I'm going to go fuck myself.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #2 on: 09-08-2007 20:50 »
Let's explore this, shall we?
Ballisticvole

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #3 on: 09-08-2007 21:00 »
Perhaps if we developed artificial wombs to grow babies in there would no longer be any need for sex.
Ninaka

commandant cleavage
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #4 on: 09-08-2007 21:22 »
 
Quote
there would no longer be any need for sex.
:cry: NOooooooooooooooo!!!
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #5 on: 09-08-2007 21:39 »
Ninaka has summed up the whole of humankind's opinions on the matter quite simply. Try again, Ballisticvole.  ;)
Teral

Helpy McHelphelp
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #6 on: 09-08-2007 21:47 »
« Last Edit on: 09-08-2007 21:47 »
Not sure I understand the question: asexuel = some sort of androgynous mismash?

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ballisticvole:
Perhaps if we developed artificial wombs to grow babies in there would no longer be any need for sex.

Just because the immediate need disappear (provided we do develop an artificial womb, and everybody decides to use it), doesn't mean the habit will. The sexdrive is hardwired into our bodies and hormones. Besides artificial wombs wont trigger any evolution in the human race, because it wont have a physical effect, and just knowing you don't need x organ or y trait doesn't count (afterall we still have appendices and bodyhair).

To paraphrase old Groucho Marx: "Sex for fun? I think it's here to stay."
bend_her

Professor
*
« Reply #7 on: 09-08-2007 21:53 »
I'd say a lot depends on whether you count a "human" as the body alone or including the "mind" or sense of self. My personal belief is that we are more than just our bodies, that our minds are the result of several parasitic ideas that live in our brains. They are capable of spreading from mind to mind, and can thus replicate without the need for DNA.

These collections of ideas are now capable of existing without the need for a brain (for example, on the internet), although they aren't capable of spreading just yet. Once they can do this, they may find they don't need to use us as carriers any more.

Things that seem to support my theory:
1. Babies are born without a sense of self. When their brains are mature enough, the parent's collection of ideas replicate themselves in the child.
2. Like I mentioned before, we seem to be ashamed of various body functions that our biological hosts need to survive and reproduce, as if there's some form of rift or divide.

OK, stop looking at me like that...
Slackit02

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #8 on: 09-08-2007 21:59 »
I'm not sure how you can say that the human race has stopped evolving.  We all still have the appendix, but we don't use it anymore, like experts say it once was to break down rocks or something like that.     I think its a fair bet that one day children will be born without one at all. 

Besides, I think its pretty obnoxious to assume that we are the highest level of evolution.  I would take flight over opposable thumbs any day.

As far as humans evolving to the point of asexual reproduction... its hard to say, but its not an impossibility.  There are people born in this world with both sets of sex organs.  Yes, in today's world we generally remove one of the organs, or you find that one is unusable.  But, it happens, and who knows what would happen if these people kept both, continued reproducing...

These types of conditions that people are born with, are usually blamed on genetic mutations or such.  Genetic mutations lead to new genes and new genes lead eventually to new species.
Ben

Space Pope
****
« Reply #9 on: 09-08-2007 22:17 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Ballisticvole:
Perhaps if we developed artificial wombs to grow babies in there would no longer be any need for sex.

That's a ridiculous sentiment. Did somebody pour alcohol into your blood-surrogate by mistake, or something..?
Ninaka

commandant cleavage
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #10 on: 09-08-2007 22:27 »
 
Quote
Genetic mutations lead to new genes and new genes lead eventually to new species.
I feel the need to say "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"

But then again that's just a generalisation to say that humans are fine the way they are. We all know how many morons are living out in the world today.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #11 on: 09-08-2007 22:28 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Slackit02:

I'm not sure how you can say that the human race has stopped evolving.  We all still have the appendix, but we don't use it anymore, like experts say it once was to break down rocks or something like that. I think its a fair bet that one day children will be born without one at all.

What would make it go away? The only way it would eventually leave would be if those who had it never passed on their genetics. In other words, if people were allowed to die from having it.

 
Quote
Besides, I think its pretty obnoxious to assume that we are the highest level of evolution.

Clarification: Just because humans have stopped evolving does not mean that we have reached the highest level. Assuming that would be arrogant.

 
Quote
These types of conditions that people are born with, are usually blamed on genetic mutations or such.  Genetic mutations lead to new genes and new genes lead eventually to new species.

Which, in fact, is why I say the human species has stopped evolving. All genetic mutations can survive with today's science, therefore, no more natural selection exists.

Unless, of course, it's one of those things which actively interferes with having a mate.

 
Quote
Originally posted by Teral:

Just because the immediate need disappear (provided we do develop an artificial womb, and everybody decides to use it), doesn't mean the habit will. The sexdrive is hardwired into our bodies and hormones. Besides artificial wombs wont trigger any evolution in the human race, because it wont have a physical effect, and just knowing you don't need x organ or y trait doesn't count (afterall we still have appendices and bodyhair).



 ;)
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #12 on: 09-08-2007 23:01 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Ben:
 That's a ridiculous sentiment. Did somebody pour alcohol into your blood-surrogate by mistake, or something..?


He's a delta.  We don't like deltas.

Anyways... physically speaking, I see us as a sexual species; if you want to believe in all that made up evolution crap that Darwin made up while drawing color crayons about monkeys having sex with sheep or whatnot, well then we developed as a sexual species.  If you don't believe in that fake stuff, we're a sexual species. 

If the purpose of the discussion is to discuss the possibility of humanity overcoming its natural urges, including propagation, I can certainly find it possible.  It's not completely reasonable though, we have natural and psychological urges we would first have to overcome.  This could occur with the Revolutionary Revolution - the revolution of the flesh.  This would most definitely be cornerstoned by an evolution in society to allow us all to be controlled as a collective.  I don't particularly find that ideal comforting, but it could certainly be possible in the far distant future... assuming the human race passes 2012, right?
Gopher

Fallback Guy
Space Pope
****
« Reply #13 on: 09-08-2007 23:06 »
Ok, a quick lesson on evolution. In general, it's not about big, dramatic changes. It's about gradual, incremental ones. The appendix has already begin to disappear, in a slow process that started in our ancestors before there were modern humans. Evolution doesn't need clear, definitive advantages, even the tiniest edge becomes significant over sufficiently large timespans.

Of course, we may well kill ourselves off or twiddle our own genes long before evolution has time to make much progress with us...
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #14 on: 09-08-2007 23:10 »
Soon there won't be men or women, just wankers...
Xmpel

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #15 on: 09-09-2007 05:05 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Frisco17:

It isn't that they are evolved as possible as much as we have advanced to a point where natural selection has less of an influence on our life/death. People that would die out and thus be removed from the gene pool in the wild, can thrive in the modern world and vice versa

If the human species would ever evolve into an asexual state I think the above mentioned quote could be exactly what triggered it. Since Darwinism and the theory of evolution no longer walk hand in hand this leaves plenty of room for evolutionary side steps.

Also now a days with our scientists and laboratories we can speed up evolution and in a few years even mold it to fit our schemes.

I however do not think that any natural evolution will take place that makes man asexual, this because I can not see how an asexual mutation will get to spread their seed, therefore making it hard for him to reproduce and making more potential asexual children. Asexual by nature that is, I guess they could always become asexual later in life by mental factors.
gaschief

Professor
*
« Reply #16 on: 09-09-2007 05:26 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 05:26 »
     
Quote
Originally posted by Gopher:
Ok, a quick lesson on evolution. In general, it's not about big, dramatic changes. It's about gradual, incremental ones. The appendix has already begin to disappear, in a slow process that started in our ancestors before there were modern humans. Evolution doesn't need clear, definitive advantages, even the tiniest edge becomes significant over sufficiently large timespans.

Of course, we may well kill ourselves off or twiddle our own genes long before evolution has time to make much progress with us...

This makes one of the most pertinent point in the whole debate. That Evolution is essentially a far far slower process, than social and cultural change within the mindset of humans.
Therefore I propose that Evolution hasn't stopped, it is simply lagging way behind the massive social changes that have affected most of the industrilaised parts of the world over the last few hundred years.
Essentially this is why despite our best efforts to act civilised, we still fight brutal wars, kill and maim each other at the slightest excuse and generally are driven to out do one another at every available opportunity. Iam still convinced that despite these basic and primitive genetically driven processes at work, we are somehow able to push through all this and achieve some genuinely altruistic feats.

the forefront of modern physics suggests that there are lots of other weird and wonderfull things going on at the quantum level ( subatomic therefore at a subtler level than gross biochemical processes work at). I wonder if therein perhaps lies the mechanism for the will (spirit / consciousness) to get the better of our basic biological natures, governed as they are by slow moving biochemical processes.

I believe that God / Spirit / Human will can co-exist alongside evolution, I just dont think we have figured out the mechanics of this yet.
Ballisticvole

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #17 on: 09-09-2007 06:51 »
Humans aren't going to naturally evolve since there is no longer any selection going on.
If the people born in the artificial wombs were born without gender then they wouldn't miss sex. The disadvantage is that we would become too dependent on our technology to reproduce.
Archie2K

Space Pope
****
« Reply #18 on: 09-09-2007 06:59 »
Evolution hasn't stopped. People who are more likely to pass their genes on will have their traits more often represented in the future. Everyone will be tall, blonde and pretty. No-one will be able to fix the computer. Shame that.

Asexuality is a rare condition, only coming to life due to internet help groups. People who consider themselves asexual may be literally the opposite of bisexuals, or they could be regular sexuals who have a very low sex drive. Some masturbate. Some don't. I don't see humanity evolving into anything remotely like that. Only scientists messing around with the human body will produce such a result. Bastards.
transgender nerd under canada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #19 on: 09-09-2007 07:23 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 07:23 by totalnerduk »
Edit: Apologies. I didn't mean this to be so long and involved. It ran away with me.

Evolution doesn't seem to be particularly active in any species today. The ones that have challenges thurst upon them by the meteoric rise of man are dying out. The ones who are adaptable without any major physiological changes to their makeup flourish (eg: whales, pandas, tigers are dying. Rats, pigeons and cockroaches thrive).

It would seem that evolution was once a process that occurred, changing some species in gradual increments to become more suited to live on this planet, but that in modern times it has ceased to operate effectively.

I believe that this probably has something to do with the DNA of most creatures having become more "stable" - less prone to mutation or spontaneous aberrancies. Over time, the potential for change within the biological makeup of any species has declined.

I think that this is an appropriate point to insert God. This is something that could be the mark of God's work in starting the process of evolution on Earth with a definite end point in mind. For example, suppose that from the mighty tyrannosaur God wanted us to eventually have the chicken. God designed the tyrannosaur to evolve and to change, but also designed it to evolve and change towards a specific end point, engineering the creature's DNA so that eventually it would reach its desired end point and no longer be susceptible to the evolutionary pressures of its environment.

Suppose that God created Man via a similar process, taking a lump of genetic material, allowing it to become a life-form, and directing that life-form to change and develop towards... well, us. Then once the human form was as human as possible, it would no longer need to develop towards a specific end point (having already arrived).

This would also explain the appendix (bear with me). The appendix appears useless, and therefore something that should have disappeared. However, it has no impact on our ability to be humans, therefore there is no need to get rid of it.

Think of the tailbones of the big whales. Buried in flesh, completely isolated, there are two hip-like structures. These take a fair amount of calcium to form, and are a contribution to the weight of the animal, yet have not disappeared despite the obvious advantage to the whale of not having to maintain these structures. Suppose that this is because the whale is as much of a whale as it will ever be, and there is no need to change it internally.

This probably does not make sense to most people, but I see it as the germ of a theoritical middle ground between God and the process of evolution. I fully expect rabid atheists to maul my suppositions to pieces, and that many of the moderate Christians of the board will be horrified that I have ignored the book of Genesis entirely in constructing my idea. Therefore I would like to expand just a little bit to mollify both groups:

Atheists/Christian haters: I am not saying that this proves God exists. I am attempting to provide a viewpoint that supports my belief in God and Christianity whilst taking into account accepted scientific theory. I am not denying that evolution is an accepted argument at all (I am also alliterating awesomely). Neither am I proposing to contradict anything that is known about the workings of the evolutionary process or life itself. I am aware that what I am saying would be enormously hard to prove, and there may be holes within it. However, it seems to

Christians: I am not denying the existance of God or that Man is somehow seperated from the "lower" orders of life. I am suggesting only that this came about through a carefully directed process implemented by God which could not be indicated to the primitive peoples of the Earth at the time that the book of Genesis was written. I believe that I have previously stated much of the bible is metaphor or an attempt to simplify complicated subject matter in order that it could be understood by tribes who had no comprehension of many of the things involved.

With all that out of the way, I can come back to my point: I believe that evolution within most species is at an effective end. Therefore there should be no sweeping changes or grand entrances/exits around the corner for any reasonably established life-form on Earth, such as humans/cats/dogs/rabbits/mongooses/squirrels... etc, etc. They are all as much of what they are as they were originally intended to be, and any changes would most likely be as a result of human-controlled breeding programmes (eg: dog breeders creating a purple puppy). Thus, I do not think it is likely that mankind will evolve to be more or less human than we are today.
alexvilagosh

Goose Patrol
Space Pope
****
« Reply #20 on: 09-09-2007 07:26 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Archie2K:
Evolution hasn't stopped. People who are more likely to pass their genes on will have their traits more often represented in the future. Everyone will be tall, blonde and pretty.
Man, so untrue. Fat, ugly, poor people have way more kids than attractive people do. Western society is getting dumber and uglier.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #21 on: 09-09-2007 10:01 »
Sex is one of the easiest, free and messy things you can do for fun without jumping out of a plane with a parachute, don't you girls go mutatin' on me or I'll punch you in the mangina!  :mad:
gaschief

Professor
*
« Reply #22 on: 09-09-2007 10:20 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 10:20 »
WARNINGThis Rambles on about various not entirely related themes!

I beleive it has been suggested elsewhere ( needs reference ) that Western Society is heading for a fall. I would suggest this is by and large down to the fact that (1) we dont as a whole breed on the scale we once did. (2) there has been a general decline in fertility ( need reference ).

On the main subject of the thread..the evolution of asexuality, I personally do not have any strong feelings ideas about this. Iam quite astounded in the chain of reason / debate that has 'evolved' ( couldn't help that ) from that humble suggestion!

Iam glad ( at TNUK ) that someone else believes in a middle ground between Evolution and GOD, i got frustrated that people are so dogmatic about the absolute exclusiveness of these two concepts! From the humble knowledge that i have of biology it amazes me that more Scientists dont look at it with awe and think, there has to be something intelligent / willfull etc in all this, it is just too spectacular to be a complete coincidence. Likewise the other way round for the religious fundamentalists who need to believe in the literal world of genesis for their evidence of the Grace/ majesty of God. When you look at what modern science is saying about the first tiny moments of the universes 'birth' how can you not see that they are talking about precisely the same thing, just dressed up in different nomenclature
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #23 on: 09-09-2007 10:22 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 10:22 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Archie2K:

Asexuality is a rare condition, only coming to life due to internet help groups.

Inhibited Sexual Desire needs help.

Asexuality does not.

Thus is quite probably the only difference between the two. Id est, ISD is asexuality only if you don't personally consider it a problem.

I don't believe even for a second that mankind as a whole will eventually become this way. In fact, I believe it's impossible. Other people I've met; they don't. That's why the thread, you see...

 
Quote
Originally posted by gaschief:

Iam glad ( at TNUK ) that someone else believes in a middle ground between Evolution and GOD, i got frustrated that people are so dogmatic about the absolute exclusiveness of these two concepts!

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

It's like those dwarves from the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan was right there, and yet all they saw was a donkey in rags. Paradise was all around them, and yet they imprisoned themselves inside a dirty old stable which only existed within their own minds.

They thought things over rationally, they calculated, relied on science, if you will... But then carried it too far. So far they missed reality.

@tnuk: Now that's quite an example of usin' your noggin.  ;)
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #24 on: 09-09-2007 10:51 »
I think that humanity will get to the point where we have reproduction that's not sex-related, as in genetic engineering and artificial wombs and the such. However, asexualithy will not happen unless thrusted on the population. People like sex. People have sex for reasons other than reproduction. Even if we get the point of reproduction without sex, hetero-, and homo- and bi-, sexuality will not just cease to exist. Hell, "old-fashioned" people will still exist that don't want to use articial reproduction.

Personally, the up of artificial reproduction is getting rid of diseases and deformities. A world without disease would be nice. However, a world without disease would mean a world where we'd have increased overpopulation. I'm not saying "let people die," but we need to expand off Earth soon or we'll be too crowded.

Yeah, I went from non-sexual reproduction to space expansion. I don't know how somebody could ever connect the two, but I did!
gaschief

Professor
*
« Reply #25 on: 09-09-2007 11:12 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 11:12 »
Personally iam quite familiar with such non-linear thought processes! I think that such tangential thinking is common to both the creative minded and the insane!

Ontopic: Iam not convinced that we will be able to genetically engineer all disease processes out of the human organism, there are too many external environmental factors to consider too. its a nice dream though!    :)
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #26 on: 09-09-2007 12:46 »
i_c weiner: I think overcrowding will be a problem with or without genetic engineering, and long long before we're ready to ship billions of people off the planet.

No, the only real solution is to magically convince all of the world's parents to only have 2 children apiece. With 3 permitted/encouraged when we need to shore up the numbers a little.
Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #27 on: 09-09-2007 12:48 »
Tnuk - I'd like to express a counterview to your theory. I would attribute this to mankind's own intervention with natural selection. We have protection for endangered species, and medical care for all but the most crippling of genetic disorders in our own species. We have guided ourselves toward stasis. Yes, there are animals that go against this (crocodiles and sharks have stayed virtually the same for millions of years), but I see them as the exception, not the rule. A chicken's not a chicken because that's its state of perfection, its a chicken because we bred it to be, which is nothing more than taking natural selection into our own hands.

Also, yes, most of the endangered species are endangered by us to begin with, but in a subjective view of the world we are a part of our ecosystems, and what can adapt to the changes in it will survive, or as I guess I should say now, survive more easily.

On the topic of asexuality, I think that human evolution will only come about if we take it into our own hands through genetics or robotic/cybernetic enhancements. This could lead to asexuality, as from a biological standpoint the primary purpose of a life form is to reproduce, with all else being secondary or serving towards that goal. If reproduction was removed from being a biological process, or if the need to reproduce was negated (through near-immortality or forming into a collective conscious), asexuality could develop as a streamlining of our species.

In the first case, as exemplified by the womb-tanks mentioned earlier, this would only be a shift from our primary function being sexual reproduction to asexual reproduction. This would mean that while our sexual desires may eventually go away, they will still be replaced by concerns considering reproduction, what I couldn't begin to fathom, but I'm pretty sure it'd be there to safeguard our propagation.

For the latter, the discontinuation of reproduction isn't a necessary component, but it would severely diminish its importance. If we no longer die of old age, or lets say, can live as long as we want (barring murders and accidents), the biological necessity to ensure our survival over many generations will be null; there is no passing of generations. As for the collective conscious, if humanities minds are merged, what is the creation of a new being, and it's new mind? I suppose sexuality can be involved if we remain tied to our bodies in order to reproduce, or even if we are just minds, there will still be a sexual element as long as multiple parts are necessary for reproduction.
bend_her

Professor
*
« Reply #28 on: 09-09-2007 13:28 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 13:28 »
   
Quote
Originally posted by TNUK
Evolution doesn't seem to be particularly active in any species today. The ones that have challenges thurst upon them by the meteoric rise of man are dying out. The ones who are adaptable without any major physiological changes to their makeup flourish (eg: whales, pandas, tigers are dying. Rats, pigeons and cockroaches thrive).
You just described natural selection, not evolution. Also, whales, pandas and tigers are dying because we killed large numbers of them, and it takes a long time for them to reproduce.

   
Quote
Originally posted by TNUK
I believe that this probably has something to do with the DNA of most creatures having become more "stable" - less prone to mutation or spontaneous aberrancies. Over time, the potential for change within the biological makeup of any species has declined.
I may not be able to disprove this, but I can say that the rate of evolutionary change is proportional to the number of times a mutation can have an effect on the next generation, ie, the number of replications. So, in order to see evolution in action, on a time-scale that you and I can make sense of, look at creatures that multiply very quickly - bacteria. Evidence for bacterial evolution is all around us. In the 100-odd year history of antibiotics [1], we've already seen hundreds of species becoming resistant to an increasing number of antibiotics.

The same goes with viruses. We've seen entirely new species develop in the last 30 years (AIDS, SARS, a number of African haemorrhagic fevers).

Having said that, DNA does, in fact, include a built-in "timeout", called Telomeres [2]. In cells other than germ cells (eg: blastocysts), the telomeres get shorter and shorter with each replication. However, they serve to terminate the life of an organism (according to current theory), and not to end the evolutionary process (telomere reformation in germ cells ensures that this won't happen).

   
Quote
Originally posted by gaschief
From the humble knowledge that i have of biology it amazes me that more Scientists dont look at it with awe and think, there has to be something intelligent / willfull etc in all this, it is just too spectacular to be a complete coincidence.
Who's to say we don't? Many researchers have their own personal beliefs that result from precisely this sense of awe. However, it's just that, a personal belief, and not something that they are going to write about in, say, a paper presenting their research results. Why? Because anything that's to survive the peer-review process must be falsifiable [3].

Besides, in my opinion, at least, there are far more amazing things to be awed at than a creator: how years of hard work can pay off when all the pieces of the puzzle fall together to explain something that's baffled generations [4], how a simple abstract construct can be the building block for understanding so much more [5], indeed, how even our concepts of beauty can have a rational explanation [6].


Sine Wave, if what makes us "us" is our minds, what's to say that in time, there isn't some alternative to a biological body that needs to reproduce sexually? Like, for example, if we're preserved as a head-in-a-jar or downloaded to a blank robot?


1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvarsan
2.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomeres
3.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
4.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
5.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula
6.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #29 on: 09-09-2007 13:46 »
 
Quote
Sine Wave, if what makes us "us" is our minds, what's to say that in time, there isn't some alternative to a biological body that needs to reproduce sexually? Like, for example, if we're preserved as a head-in-a-jar or downloaded to a blank robot?

That's a possibility of my concept for immortality. The only problem is there is no definable reason to stop procreation with the advent of immortality beyond overuse of resources. As this would be taking place in a technologically advanced future, space colonization is a viable option, and we can go on procreating without a necessary stop, and with procreation comes some sort of "sexual" selection, even if that process has nothing to do with sex as we know it. If we end up reproducing by budding, or not at all, then sexuality will most likely go away. I just don't see either of those happening (budding being an "inferior" form of reproduction on an evolutionary scale).
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #30 on: 09-09-2007 13:55 »
Bacteria which reproduce every (approx) half hour took decades to develop proper drug resistances. Creatures like elephants and whales have years and years between generations. There's no way they're going to adapt fast enough to handle what humanity's been doing to the world around them.

Evolution's supposed to take millions of years, not a few measly centuries.

Unless you throw in punctuated equilibrium, which is, to the best of my knowledge summed up as such: "Every once in a while, everything evolves at once. Which is why we find nothing but invertebrates for a billion years' worth of fossils, then BAM, tons of fish all of a sudden."

I also find it interesting that most of the really big animals have gone extinct or are going extinct. Many of the biggest animals today are holdovers from past ages, too. Sharks and crocs, for example. Is the world just too active and rapidly changing now to support the evolution of new apex creatures? Don't blame humanity for all of it either - We weren't really a world-changing force until a few thousand years ago.
bend_her

Professor
*
« Reply #31 on: 09-09-2007 14:04 »
 
Quote
The only problem is there is no definable reason to stop procreation with the advent of immortality beyond overuse of resources.
How about when you bring in the concept of "selfishness"? The genes/memes need us to survive now, that's why we're here. Once they have an alternative (a better one, perhaps, since the process is faster and more accurate), they won't need sexual reproduction any more.
km73

Space Pope
****
« Reply #32 on: 09-09-2007 14:05 »
Ooh, footnotes!
 
Quote
Originally posted by bend_her:
...indeed, how even our concepts of beauty can have a rational explanation.

I don't know enough about science to presume to get into an analysis of evolution, but about the Golden Ratio--some people claim that as evidence of the existence of a Creator, that the fact that some symmetry in nature exists shows that there must be some kind of divine plan.

There has always been a split between science and religion, of course, but from the Middle Ages onwards there have been many historical figures who sought ways to reconcile the two. However, the fact that there are still many people who don't even believe in evolution at all shows what a powerful grasp religion has.

If humans ever do evolve to have asexual reproduction, they indeed would probably still have sex for fun, i suppose.

Sine Wave

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #33 on: 09-09-2007 14:50 »
« Last Edit on: 09-09-2007 14:50 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by bend_her:
   
Quote
The only problem is there is no definable reason to stop procreation with the advent of immortality beyond overuse of resources.
How about when you bring in the concept of "selfishness"? The genes/memes need us to survive now, that's why we're here. Once they have an alternative (a better one, perhaps, since the process is faster and more accurate), they won't need sexual reproduction any more.

I think I was a little unclear in my semantics earlier. I completely agree with this possibility, sexuality would be gone. However, our genes are still us and, by some definitions memes are our minds, and we would still be tied to the reproductive process in some fashion different from sexuality. Unless you envision a way for reproduction of pure genetic material, in which case we really don't have a place at all, and this external reproduction will replace us entirely.
bend_her

Professor
*
« Reply #34 on: 09-09-2007 16:19 »
 
Quote
Originally posted by km73
I don't know enough about science to presume to get into an analysis of evolution, but about the Golden Ratio--some people claim that as evidence of the existence of a Creator, that the fact that some symmetry in nature exists shows that there must be some kind of divine plan.
I don't see a connection. The golden ratio appears so often in nature because it's the steady-state or emergent behaviour of the system that produced it. More information can be found in Mario Livio's book.

Many other examples of complex emergent behaviours abound in the math world, like fractals and cellular automata, some of which don't have any parallel in nature. Does this imply that their discoverers are gods? Or as Sir James Jeans put it, Is God a mathematician? (capitalization not mine). The way I see it is that an overall complex behaviour does not imply complexity of behaviour at finer scales.

 
Quote
Originally posted by km73
If humans ever do evolve to have asexual reproduction, they indeed would probably still have sex for fun, i suppose.
Except for the risks involved (STDs, emotional stress (?))

 
Quote
Originally posted by Sine Wave
Unless you envision a way for reproduction of pure genetic material, in which case we really don't have a place at all, and this external reproduction will replace us entirely.
Interesting... the concept of information reproducing itself without external help.
gaschief

Professor
*
« Reply #35 on: 09-09-2007 16:42 »
Personally Iam very attracted to the notion of God and mathematics being intrinsically related. Some Mathematicians claim to see devine beauty in certain equations. Personally I think the inherent perfection whithin mathematics is sufficient evidence that it could represent god. that of course is an article of Faith rather than fact.

e^(i Pi) = -1 or e^(i Pi) +1= 0, the first time I seen this equation I had one of those moments that everything made sense..I cannot explain this but undoubtedly this was in the same vain as spiritual experience.
Archie2K

Space Pope
****
« Reply #36 on: 09-09-2007 18:38 »
The golden ratio can go to hell. The Da Vinci Code ruined your mysteries and included a whole bunch of guff for good measure. Dan Brown, get the hell off my planet.
HipNoJoe
Bending Unit
***
« Reply #37 on: 09-09-2007 23:26 »
Quote
Originally posted by TheMadCapper:
Evolution's supposed to take millions of years, not a few measly centuries.

Unless you throw in punctuated equilibrium...

I also find it interesting that most of the really big animals have gone extinct or are going extinct...Don't blame humanity for all of it either - We weren't really a world-changing force until a few thousand years ago.
[/small]
In reverse order...

I recall studying Pleistocene mass extinction events in South America and how human hunting was considered a major contributing factor. Can't prove it either way, but it is plausible nonetheless.

Don't forget the many potential cataclysmic events that may influence man's future genetic makeup in the relative blink of an eye. Pandemics, ice ages and comet strikes come to mind. Technology takes the edge off of natural selection and could even blunt the effects of disasters like these, but given sufficient magnitude, any of these would have not only extreme immediate consequences for humanity, but long lasting repercussions to the genome.
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #38 on: 09-10-2007 00:41 »
HNJ - Unless something happens that strips our ability to access our history and technology, any crisis would be handled in short order. If we remember how to make metals, how to make machines with that metal, and how to make computers using those machines, we'll remain powerful. Worst case scenario - massive die-off, with the survivors at least retaining enough knowledge to put us back in the industrial age.

Regarding die-offs of all the big mammals - Yes. We might have hunted some to extinction. But honestly, if we couldn't kill off lions and tigers and bears with our flint-headed spears, I don't think we can be held responsible for the vanishing of saber-toothed tigers, cave bears, giant sloths (which stood 20 feet high), etc.
coldangel

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #39 on: 09-10-2007 01:10 »
« Last Edit on: 09-10-2007 01:10 by coldangel_1 »
Direct neural stimulation through technological means has the potential to make any sexual gratification seem trite (Read Crichton's The Terminal Man).
That possible future development of man-machine-interface coupled with the creation of so-called 'exo-wombs' would indeed make sex redundant, and ultimately gender itself might be phased out... if the necessity is eliminated and the gratification can be attained by less sticky means.

Of course, we probably wouldn't be talking about humans in the traditional sense by that stage.

These adaptations would be the result of humanity's 'cyberization', which I believe will be marked by an event of divergent evolution, whereby those who do not wish to become cyborgs, genetically modified, or in any other way Posthuman. Those latter-day Luddites will remain closer to their organic origin while the Technophiles will become something else entirely, and we will see two distinct versions of humanity... which would probably end up fighting wars against each other, as humanity is wont to do in any shape.

But yes, Posthumanism is the real subject here. Sex and gender are just secondary to that, when people would have the power to make themselves whatever they want to be.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 36 queries.