Your link to the rest of our species

[Elbonio]

How much of a connection to the human race as a whole do you personally feel?

More importantly how much do you care about our future, as a species? For example do you care if in 200 years time the human race no longer exists?

I can honestly say that once I'm dead I don't think it really matters if everyone else survives. Blunt and selfish perhaps but I think most people will probably feel like that, deep down.

I'm guessing most people feel that they want their friends and family to go on living after their death, as do I, but what about in 150-200 years time when you wont have children, immediate family or anyone you knew in your lifetime alive?

Personally if I found out that the human race stopped existing in 2150 I would find it hard to really get distressed about that.


I guess what I'm asking is, are we driven by a need for humanity as a whole to survive or just those that mean something to us?

[TE-Hellfire]

What's strange is that we humans tend to assess our own future on timescales that are only really relevant to our own lifespans. You give a 200 year time span in your assessment, but really that's just a mere blip in the grander scale of things. When you consider the profound changes that humanity is already experiencing with the growth of technology, and our burgeoning power to not only kill each other easier, but to improve ourselves easier, leading to weird ideas like genetic engineering, Seed AI, nanotechnology, transhumanism, human technological singularities, the possibility of alien technology singularities, time travel, Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point :psypop: :killself::multi::nuke24::wotwot:OHDEARGODWHATTHEHELLISGONNAHAPPEN

[WhiteKnight]

The problem is, if humanity as a whole, were to end in 2150, and this was public knowledge, you would get all the people who DO care going nutso.

I personally couldnt give 2-hoots about the human race as a whole existing for the next 57 millenia. I`m not going to be around to enjoy warp drive, teleporters, or holo-decks so why should i care.

[Aardvark]

I intend to be alive in 200 years :arms:

[Lucifa]

I'm very interested to know what life might be like in 200 years time*, so yeah I guess I do care even though I'm not going to be around but I would hope that my grand grand grand etc children are**.





*probably not an awful lot different to now, but we might have super 3d laser turbo charged virtual reality games!


** "So Annie, this was your great great great great grandfather - he was alive when the internet mark I was born!"
** "And what did he do Daddy?"
** "Well sweetie, he had a lot of porn..."

[Aardvark]

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/38

[WhiteKnight]

** "Well sweetie, he had a lot of porn..."

LMAO

[Zenith]

If you say that 200 years from now won't be very different, stop and think a moment.
200 years ago was 1808. The Napoleonic Wars were in full swing. The latest in technology was the electric light created by Davy and the steam locomotive by Trevithick.
200 years before that in 1608, the first "proper" telescope was invented.
200 years before that in the 1400's, the first golf ball was created.

In about 80 years, television has moved from being invented to the current HDTV sets that we use. How far ahead will that move in 200 years???

200 years from now, basic living will still be the same. People will still live, eat, sleep and have sex. It's just the quality of life things around them that will be different.

[Aardvark]

200 years from now, basic living will still be the same. People will still live, eat, sleep and have sex. It's just the quality of life things around them that will be different.

This may be untrue. We're approaching the stage where we will be vigorously tinkering with our own physiology, so we may not NEED such inefficient mechanisms as sleep.

[TE-Hellfire]

200 years from now, basic living will still be the same. People will still live, eat, sleep and have sex. It's just the quality of life things around them that will be different.

Even though you're clearly on the pro-tech side of the argument, I think in 200 years, it would not be implausible to conceive that some biological functions that we consider to be inconveniences (toilet time and sleepy time) could potentially be modified so that they are no longer a major factor in life.

Aardvark just posted Ray Kurzweil's talk on "accelerating technology", which in itself is fairly controversial, but consider the following graph which relates to biotechnological investment growth:

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n2/images/nbt0208-150-I5.gif

We are demonstratably moving away from biology and towards technology.

[ez64]

I would like to see space travel the norm in 1,000 years, but its much much more likley of a future like mad max or near extinction before that can happen.

What we can bet on though is that there will still be cs 1.6 tourney's for thousands of years to come.


But the most important thing in the next 200 years could be global first contact, now wouldnt that be awesome.

[Aardvark]

I would like to see space travel the norm in 1,000 years, but its much much more likley of a future like mad max or near extinction before that can happen.

You good sir are an awesome statistician. My hat is off.

[KingDaveRa]

In the 60s, everybody thought by now we'd all be flying around in personal space ships, and eating food pills.

http://www.paleofuture.com/

Lots of good stuff there :)

I care about the future. My (currently hypothetical) kids will be living in that world, and I wouldn't feel happy knowing that I'd had a part in it if it turned out as crappy as it looks like it will.

"I'm alright Jack, and sod the rest" doesn't fit into my ideology.

[Aardvark]

In the 60s, everybody thought by now we'd all be flying around in personal space ships, and eating food pills.

The spaceships part is down to space being the big thing in the 60s. I have a feeling that, had we a particular NEED to send people zipping around the solar system, we could well all have been flying personal spaceships of some description by now.

Unfortunately there's not much to do out there right now, so it would be like everyone having a car with which to drive around the Sahara. It's going to have to wait until technologies exist to harvest resources and project civilisation around the solar system.

As for food pills: well, lots of people pop vitamin pills every day...

[Rippsy]

Elbonio, nice question

Interestingly a large insight into this question I feel is answered in Sci-Fi books where technology has allowed the species to live past our natural ages either through effectively reincarnation into a pre-cloned young host or through joining a hive mind type computer where individual conciousness is retained slightly but also amalgamated higher conciousness.

With peoples life spans in these scoieties covering hundreds of years and ultimately go on until they get bored, there view of humanity and decision making takes on a whole new level of responsibility past the quick buck mentality and "it only matters until I die" view. It would be interesting to see how that sort've tech would transform peoples views on this.

I do care about what goes on after I die, I'd quite like to see us mature into something of a respectable sentient species. Pipe dreams I suspect..

[Cyphus]

I'd be miffed if we didn't survive beyond 2150, mostly because of the loss of all the things that we've achieved as a race. Once humans disappear, it doesn't take long before most of what we've done gets wiped out - all the years of history, culture, art, science - gone.

It's the sense of massive waste that'd piss me off the most.

One interesting thought when discussing the fate of the human race, is that in a couple of million years (or even less), its quite likely that the human race, as we know it, will simply not exist. It will have evolved into something....different.

[Lucifa]

200 years from now, basic living will still be the same. People will still live, eat, sleep and have sex. It's just the quality of life things around them that will be different.

I think that's what I meant.

Our cars may look different and run on hamster fur, and our pc's will have quantum CPU's and we'll use brain waves to control it, but we'll still have mortgages and drink coffee in the morning and feed the cat.

[Portia]

WhNM2K8cmU8

[WhiteKnight]

I think that's what I meant.

Our cars may look different and run on hamster fur, and our pc's will have quantum CPU's and we'll use brain waves to control it, but we'll still have mortgages and drink coffee in the morning and feed the cat.

if star trek is to be believed we wont need mortgages, and we`ll all be drinking earl grey :D

[Mouse_On_Mars]

What about the cat?

[Closing-Gap]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

The film 'Idiocracy' has an accurate depiction of what will happen.

[10acious]

Sometimes I feel have no link to the human species... (http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59939)

[KingDaveRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

The film 'Idiocracy' has an accurate depiction of what will happen.

That movie is scarily plausible.

[ez64]

As long as it doesnt turn out like Gattaca, and the human race is in warp 9 ships with hot greek/cyborg girls and valure outfits im happy.

[Elbonio]

Elbonio, nice question
I do care about what goes on after I die, I'd quite like to see us mature into something of a respectable sentient species. Pipe dreams I suspect..

So do you have a fundamental desire that our species MUST survive?

I'm thinking of animals and insects where their whole existence seems to be the survival of the colony and wondering how much we're like that.

I'm trying to distinguish whether people care about THIS and the next generation but none after that or whether we care about the whole human race over history and the future.

Let me give an example.

Imagine that someone saves the world from an impending disaster that will kill every human. It was in secret, nobody knew about their coming doom and its aversion. Fame and fortune are not motivators for the hero but instead he/she does it to save lives.

In their mind are they saving the lives of their friends and family or are they saving the human race from extinction?

I think if that person was me I'd be foremost thinking about my friends and family, not the survival of the species.

Does anyone feel a strong connection to $random people for no reason other than you're both human?

[Portia]

This question requires though.....and beer....

[Killy]

I'm thinking of animals and insects where their whole existence seems to be the survival of the colony and wondering how much we're like that.

Except we as a species are parasites, one of the only ones who instead of creating an equilibrium with everything around us, destroy everything for our own benefit (irony is that we're probably doing more harm then good on this one) and that sentience for you.
We're given the choice of free will and we use it to our own end instead of for the greater (colony) good.

[ez64]

I think though in smaller normal numbers we wouldn't look so much like a parasidical race.

[Gunsmith]

we're still animals but we've become lost in this endless madness we call modern society. we still eat, breathe, shag and ****. we just do it at work paying of debts. avoiding death and trying to make it big where as ultimatly we just reproduce and die.

i feel the need to go be an animal all over my neighbors lawn.

[Zenith]

Let me give an example.

Imagine that someone saves the world from an impending disaster that will kill every human. It was in secret, nobody knew about their coming doom and its aversion. Fame and fortune are not motivators for the hero but instead he/she does it to save lives.

In their mind are they saving the lives of their friends and family or are they saving the human race from extinction?

I think if that person was me I'd be foremost thinking about my friends and family, not the survival of the species.
The film "The Core" asks this exact question and gives a really good answer.
You're attempting the impossible, you're trying to save the world and it's overwhelming. I came here to save my wife and my two children, and six billion lives... it's too much. I just hope I'm smart and brave enough to save three.

[[TRS]MONSTER]

A possible outcome?

http://www.amazon.com/Diaspora-Greg-Egan/dp/0061057983

A rather good book which I hope could be in some way the direction the human race will follow. Unfortunately I don't think any of us will be around to see it.
As a whole I do feel some connection to the rest of humanity - I guess we all do. This is probably a great deal more than someone a couple of thousand years ago would have done due to our greater understanding of the universe and our place in it.

[Crea]

So do you have a fundamental desire that our species MUST survive?

I'm thinking of animals and insects where their whole existence seems to be the survival of the colony and wondering how much we're like that.

I'm trying to distinguish whether people care about THIS and the next generation but none after that or whether we care about the whole human race over history and the future.

Let me give an example.

Imagine that someone saves the world from an impending disaster that will kill every human. It was in secret, nobody knew about their coming doom and its aversion. Fame and fortune are not motivators for the hero but instead he/she does it to save lives.

In their mind are they saving the lives of their friends and family or are they saving the human race from extinction?

I think if that person was me I'd be foremost thinking about my friends and family, not the survival of the species.

Does anyone feel a strong connection to $random people for no reason other than you're both human?

In answer to your last question. Yes. In all honestly (without being in that situation myself) I would give up my own life for the rest of the world. Even the people I don't know. Because I might be thinking of my family and friends, but everyone has someone who cares about them. I wouldn't take away the people that they care about if I had a way of stopping it.

I care that the human race survives far beyond the time that I'll be alive. And I can't really give a reason why, just because I'm human and I want my race to continue and develop and live.

I hope some of that makes sense. Jugs of Pimms should not be drunk through a straw... /blush

[Steadders]

WGoi1MSGu64

I like the idea of space travel as the norm, but i feel that the "race" as it were is not to achieve it in human kinds time line, but to realise a practical use for it before we use up all the resources we need to make it happen. I'm concerned that'll well run out of resources on Earth before we have the capability to colanise another inhabitable planet.

While i'm vaguely on the subject, i find it interesting how the "hot topic" has switched from global warming to high fuel costs. My personal theory is that fuel supplies will run too short, and prices will get too high for us to actually destroy the planet with fossil fuels.

[Strych]

I'm very interested to know what life might be like in 200 years time*, so yeah I guess I do care even though I'm not going to be around but I would hope that my grand grand grand etc children are**.

I have actually been to the year 3000. Not much has changed, except that they live underwater. Oh, and that great great great granddaughter of yours? She's pretty fine.

[Zenith]

I was giving this subject some more thought (damn you Elbonio!) when I realised that there is another example of someone giving up their life for the whole of humanity.
Cillian Murphy's character in "Sunshine".

He sets the 4 minute timer to separate the bomb from the ship. He could fail at three points in the closing minutes of the film.
1) He's making his way to the hatch (in his spacesuit) when he falls over. He bangs his head against the helmet in sheer desperation and a realisation that if he doesn't get up, the whole of humanity is doomed.
2) He makes it to the hatch and is watching the bomb section drifting away as he relives his nightmare of falling into the Sun. He jumps the gap managing to grab the handhold with seconds to spare before the rockets fire.
3) He sets the bomb to go off seconds before the Sun melts through the wall of the bomb.All the way through he isn't thinking of saving the world. He's thinking one thought.
Detonate the bomb.

[Killy]

I think though in smaller normal numbers we wouldn't look so much like a parasidical race.

Err I believe that's the point. If we weren't technically parasitic in nature (and top of the food chain :D) our numbers would be in regulation with the surrounding "wildlife" and create and equilibrium with every other living thing, but as it were we just keep breeding, consuming every resource to further our "goals". :)

[Killy]

I have actually been to the year 3000. Not much has changed, except that they live underwater. Oh, and that great great great granddaughter of yours? She's pretty fine.

:gonk:

[ez64]

Err I believe that's the point. If we weren't technically parasitic in nature (and top of the food chain :D) our numbers would be in regulation with the surrounding "wildlife" and create and equilibrium with every other living thing, but as it were we just keep breeding, consuming every resource to further our "goals". :)

The rabbit would do exactly the same or the goat if there were no natural predators.

[Zenith]

Not true.
If there were no natural predators for rabbits, they would breed and breed until food became scarce. Predation wouldn't be the main limit to population growth, lack of food would be the main limiter.

[KingDaveRa]

I have actually been to the year 3000. Not much has changed, except that they live underwater. Oh, and that great great great granddaughter of yours? She's pretty fine.

ALOL

[ez64]

Not true.
If there were no natural predators for rabbits, they would breed and breed until food became scarce. Predation wouldn't be the main limit to population growth, lack of food would be the main limiter.

I cannot see grass becoming scarce until everything is destroyed nature takes over and a restart occurs.

[Elbonio]

In answer to your last question. Yes. In all honestly (without being in that situation myself) I would give up my own life for the rest of the world. Even the people I don't know. Because I might be thinking of my family and friends, but everyone has someone who cares about them. I wouldn't take away the people that they care about if I had a way of stopping it.

I care that the human race survives far beyond the time that I'll be alive. And I can't really give a reason why, just because I'm human and I want my race to continue and develop and live.

I hope some of that makes sense. Jugs of Pimms should not be drunk through a straw... /blush


Doing it isn't the question, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would give their own life but are they doing to save the world or to save the people they love? Bearing in mind nobody is going to know what you've done, it's purley about your motivation for doing it - saving loved ones or continuining the species.

If you choose to sacrifice yourself then everyone is saved anyway so it's a win-win, I'm just trying to get at what people really think their motivation would be.

Personally whilst of course I would give my life to save 6 billion people I think my reasons for doing so would be the 150 people out of those that I care about, not the other 5.999~ billion.

Here's an interesting experiment though (which probably only works if you're into animals) but pick you favourite animal (mine is dolphins) and imagine that something wiped every dolphin on the planet out.

Frankly I am finding it easier to imagine myself being upset at that than I am the human race ending. It sounds ridiculous but it's true.

One reason for this is because with dolphins it's plausible that it could happen and I have to live through it happening whereas humanity dying would mean I would be dead and is so inconceivable that I simply don't feel anything. I can't comprehend it so I just don't feel the shock.

I'm not saying I'd pick dolphins over humans and i'm not saying I wouldn't be upset about the entire human race dying out but it is an interesting thought.


Out of interest if you had to choose between your loved ones dying now versus the race being wiped out in 500 years, which would you pick?

[Rich]

I wouldn't care because I think I've lived through an awesome generation.

I've grown up as computers have, from the first computers to the latest state of the art ****e. We've also up until recently been able to enjoy the epic wonders of the internal combustion engine in the form of driving around like pricks.

Give it 5 years and we'll have no cars, life will be boring as ****.

Part of me dosnt want kids/grand kids because the country is turning to mush. Whats the point if they have to grow up in a chav-infested crap hole and worry about getting stabbed. Thats if global warming dosnt get them first.

To be honest I dont see a very bright future ahead. Things are gonna be a lot different in 50 years time let alone 200.

Either that or we'll see some new world order after the oil crisis which will no doubt lead to further massive wars as the current "super powers" crumble.

Bad times people.

[Aardvark]

Out of interest if you had to choose between your loved ones dying now versus the race being wiped out in 500 years, which would you pick?

Save loved ones as we then have 500 years to come up with another way to save humanity :p

[Rich]

Here's one for you:

Who would you rather keep alive? 5 of your closest family members, or 30 Afgans?

[Rippsy]

Depends which were more educated and likely to help the human race the most.

Frankly i know at least 1 of my sister wouldn't win over that foundation principle alone :P

[Rich]

Interesting though as political correctness suggests that all lifes should be equal and all humans are worth the same etc.

In reality this is ridiculous and I'd happy sacrifice 30 afgans to keep my family alive and well.

If it was 30 children from a local school in the UK it would be harder.

[bvark]

I think we ought to explore the limits of the afghan:family ratio here.

I'd personally feel only mildly bad about a couple of thousand of them perishing vs just one member of my family, assuming no-one was going to find out I'd made the decision.

As for general connection to humanity, I suspect the answer to this changes dramatically when you preface the answer with "As a parent...."

[Aardvark]

Here's one for you:

Who would you rather keep alive? 5 of your closest family members, or 30 Afgans?

This is a tough one, I quite like dogs...

[Rippsy]

I think we ought to explore the limits of the afghan:family ratio here.

I'd personally feel only mildly bad about a couple of thousand of them perishing vs just one member of my family, assuming no-one was going to find out I'd made the decision.

As for general connection to humanity, I suspect the answer to this changes dramatically when you preface the answer with "As a parent...."

Ahh... but how evil we are and how much we'd do if we had no judgement to be placed by our peers... such an intriguing issue!

[Elkeeed]

Whats the point in even being here if the species doesn't survive? I see our fundamental aim to do better than those before us. I have a tremendous drive to figure things out and come up with new ideas, without that I would be bored to death in a couple of weeks.

[ez64]

Then you figure out that nothing we can do in our life time is worthwhile apart from procreation that the countless trillions have done before us and its that procreation thats damming our future generations.

[Elkeeed]

procreation won't stop the sun blowing up

[Rippsy]

no but it'll stop us from being soley on this planet when it does.

[Crea]

Doing it isn't the question, I'm pretty sure a lot of people would give their own life but are they doing to save the world or to save the people they love? Bearing in mind nobody is going to know what you've done, it's purley about your motivation for doing it - saving loved ones or continuining the species.

I don't think you can untangle the two. Your loved ones are part of the species that you are trying to save.

[Towneh]

What is our purpose in life?

[Rippsy]

42

[Elbonio]

I don't think you can untangle the two. Your loved ones are part of the species that you are trying to save.

You're reading too much into it :p

I'm trying to get at what you put first - individuals or the good of everyone.


What's your answer to the second question - if you had to choose between all of your friends/family dying now and the species dying out in 500 years, which would you pick?

Friends die now, species saved in 500 years
or
Friends live now, species wiped out 500 years from now.

There are no considerations of "buying time" to find solutions or any other clever answers like Aardvark - it's simply which do you feel more inclined to do?

[Rich]

I'd keep my friends alive now, I dont care what happens in 500 years

[Aardvark]

There are no considerations of "buying time" to find solutions or any other clever answers like Aardvark - it's simply which do you feel more inclined to do?

500 years is a long time, especially given foreknowledge of doomsday I think humanity could come up with something :p

[Elbonio]

500 years is a long time, especially given foreknowledge of doomsday I think humanity could come up with something :p

Yes I realise that but it's not the point of the exercise to try and find ways to save both. I want to know which you would prefer to save, assuming that these are the only two options.

[ez64]

Id sell my friends for a mars bar so im inclined to go with saving random people.

[Aardvark]

Yes I realise that but it's not the point of the exercise to try and find ways to save both. I want to know which you would prefer to save, assuming that these are the only two options.

Argh but the POINT is that part of the rationalisation of the decision would be based on the fact that there is TIME to come up with another solution. You can't void my decision making process like that :arms:

[Rich]

Depends what kills us off? say the sun explodes and destorys every planet in the solar system at once?

[Aardvark]

Depends what kills us off? say the sun explodes and destorys every planet in the solar system at once?

500 years to move to a different solar system?

Not outside the realms of possibility, I'd say.

[Rich]

Bearing in mind it would take 500 years at the speed of light to leave our solar system, I'd say it is

[Elkeeed]

Well...

a) Voyager 1 which was launched in 1977 and travelled significantly slower than the speed of light has already left our solar system
b) it is not beyond the realms of possibility for us to travel at speeds approaching or past the speed of light - that theoretical limitation may only be due to our current understanding of physics

[Aardvark]

Bearing in mind it would take 500 years at the speed of light to leave our solar system, I'd say it is

Look how stupid you are.

[ez64]

and what does speed matter with 100 year advanced nuclear reactors and artificial body's that dont age a day?

Come on sing it with me, were all going on a inter-galactic holiday.....

[Elbonio]

Argh but the POINT is that part of the rationalisation of the decision would be based on the fact that there is TIME to come up with another solution. You can't void my decision making process like that :arms:

500 years to move to a different solar system?

Not outside the realms of possibility, I'd say.

Look how stupid you are.


Sigh.


Great job at derailing yet another thread. You are truly a superstar poster and one of this forum's most valued members.