I am nature... ?

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

If man is a product of nature, then doesn't it follow that whatever man makes is also a product of nature?

When a beaver builds a dam we call it an act of nature. When a man builds a dam we call it interfering with nature. But both the beaver and the man are themselves creations of nature, and both are merely doing what they evolved to do.

Is it possible that we were chosen to have intelligence for a reason? Is it possible that we have a greater role to play in the future of our world than any of us can yet predict?

Science, like everything else we do, involves a learning process. There is always a period of time when mistakes are made because we are still learning. To not make any mistakes is to not learn anything. But once we have it figured out, incredible things start to happen.

Is it better to pause evolution for fear of making a mistake, or is it better to keep moving forward knowing it's going to hurt from time to time?

[mrdevious]

The problem with humanity is that we don't allow natural selection to occure. If the weak are on the verge of death, we have social programs to help them. If we use up all the food and resoures in our area, we move on to more rather than dying off and thinning our numbers. Not to mention, we're the only species that takes natural resources and turns them into toxic substances in significant sizes, releasing them into the Earth, water, and atmosphere at a rate faster than any other species. The point is, there's no balance mechanism; if we destroy our environment enough to thin our numbers and reduce the destruction, we stop that from happening by artificial means and thus exhaust resources faster than the planet can replenish them.

[friendowl]

th ebeaver builds his damn for his home and to catch food

man builds damn to charge for electricity

so you wouldnt mind if i called you a filthy animal

[higher4hockey]

what people fail to realize is that the earth has seen worse things than dams for electric and styrofoam. when the earth has had enough of humans crawling all over it, humans will be gone.



and cityboygonecountry my answer to your first question is: yes, most defenitely.

and your second question : its better to keep moving forward!

good thread ~ curious to see where it goes.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

If man is a product of nature, then......

thank-you, i'm glad someone besides me said it. i won't go into the "chosen" part of your statement, but it's nice to see someone including the human race in the "natural world". now i'm no big fan of asphalt or smog, but these are the "natural" products of our fledgling industrial society. while we should lament the extinction of those species unable to adapt to our influences, we should not stifle our own growth for the sake of an albino pygmy lemming or a spotted belching toad.

let's make our mountains of styrofoam ice chests and disposable diapers, let's dam up all the rivers and fill in the lakes used car chassis and semen stained mattresses, let's turn the oceans into open septic tanks and fill every square inch of earth with shopping malls and over-priced condominiums. in short, let's take what we can before someone else gets it first.

after all, what does it matter if we turn this planet into a toxic wasteland? there are plenty of other empty planets just waiting for our none to tender touch.

and in a few million years, long after we aren't even a distant memory, the planet will heal itself. the air will clear, the seas will calm and earth will be ready for the tread of our successors. once you start thinking in terms of geological time you can overlook even our most grievous sins.

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

Lightning starts a forest fire. Thousands of acres are burned to the ground. Many animals are killed or displaced. In the short term this seems like a bad thing. But in the long term we see the good it actually accomplished. The ground is now replenished and the forest regrows healthier for it.

Maybe human beings are a natural disaster that looks bad at first, but later on we will see the good they have done, whether they meant it to turn out that way or not.

[liberiamom]

Lightning starts a forest fire. Thousands of acres are burned to the ground. Many animals are killed or displaced. In the short term this seems like a bad thing. But in the long term we see the good it actually accomplished. The ground is now replenished and the forest regrows healthier for it.

Maybe human beings are a natural disaster that looks bad at first, but later on we will see the good they have done, whether they meant it to turn out that way or not.

Very interesting ideas! The tapestry on the back might look like a bunch of different colored knots, but turn it over and there is a fabulous design:)

My belief is that all things can be turned into growth eventually, even if growth means "destruction" and sometimes that destruction includes mistakes and the learning which results- I just hope we don't have to take it to the limit with actual physical destruction. If we just die out- how has mankind grown? But if we recognize our errors and seek to make them right, then wouldn't the evolution of our species be furthered? Isn't that what nature should do? If most of humanity is annihilated because of our mistakes, and we relocate elsewhere just in time (I thik we are running out of time!) maybe is that how we will continue? That is what the flood myths from all civilizations depict-
Thanks for starting this provocative discussion!

[Inferius]

I've always thought that if nature provided us with such startling consciousness and intelligence, we were meant to be part of nature.

But somewhere along the line, we forgot who our parents were.

I beleive that as intelligent beings, we should be able to Shepherd nature.
That remaining within nature's balance is our true destiny.
Not killing our parents.

Who knows though??
Maybe we were nature's retarded crack baby.

[Skink]

Human animals have a thought process wildlife just have survival instincts...

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

What if the purpose of our (human) evolution to this point was so that we could use our abilities to take evolution to the next step?

Birds evolved wings so they could fly. Humans evolved brains so they could create. When we use our brains and change our world, we are doing the very thing we evolved to do. I hate to use the word "destiny" because I don't believe anything is predetermined. But maybe being intelligent enough to manipulate the world is a necessary step in order for evolution to continue beyond this point. Maybe we are the tools of future evolution. Maybe the future is depending on us to use our brains and create. Who knows what amazing things the world has yet to produce. Things that need us to produce them.

[halo]

Excellent comments so far. Good thread!:jointsmile: I understand exactly what you are saying and it does make sense. Even in the bible it says the earth is ours to do what we will with it. Man has dominion over the animals the fish the birds and so on. As far as the question of dams goes i would say the difference is only the size which in turn effects a lot more things. A beaver dame does change the flow of a stream. There are almost no negative effects to this that i know of. When humans build large dams like the hoover dam we are permanently altering the course of massive rivers for our benefit. This is not necessarily a bad thing but then we end up destroying ecosystems and food chains. Ultimately this could bite us in the butt. For example lets say that a certain animal or plant becomes extinct. Because of this whatever animals eat this animal or plant are affected. And if it is the only food they eat then they become extinct and so on. I know that sounded confusing and i apologize.

Anyways lets say we continue polluting our world and making it worse. In 100 years or so what if we have made extinct many living organisms? What if we damage the earth so much that we can no longer live here? And if we don't have interplanetary travel or other space stations or whatever for people to go to then many of us will die. Although of course thats a hypothetical and probably wouldn't happen anyway.

The point is that by harming our enviroment we could ultimately destroying ourselves and that is not good.


p.s. this is one of the better threads in the lounge in a long time.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....The point is that by harming our enviroment we could ultimately destroying ourselves and that is not good.....

quite possibly our self-extinction is just another twist on the inevitable demise of all evolutionary dead-ends. the species has proven itself incapable of peacefully coexisting with other creatures, even with itself. our great intellects have given us the capacity to destroy ourselves (along with a significant portion of the rest of the world) in numerous ways and yet we are incapable of finding solutions for our most basic problems. famine and disease run rampant all over the world and yet we expend more energy to make sure grandpa can get it up than we do eradicating the poverty we are surrounded by every day.

our fatal flaw is our tendency toward cruelty and there may be no fix for it.

[graph]

Lightning starts a forest fire. Thousands of acres are burned to the ground. Many animals are killed or displaced. In the short term this seems like a bad thing. But in the long term we see the good it actually accomplished. The ground is now replenished and the forest regrows healthier for it.

Maybe human beings are a natural disaster that looks bad at first, but later on we will see the good they have done, whether they meant it to turn out that way or not.

You've been away from the country for too long...


Lightning bolts don't cause fires every day, but every day more deforestation occurs. Yes, similar destruction is evident in nature, but we use resources at a much faster rate. This isn't philosophical "the world we be alright in the end so I don't have to deal with it" situation, the fact is that we use more resources than the earth can replenish, and that's something we need to focus on changing.

[ValkyrieAg]

Actually, less acres are burned now than ever.
Yes, wildfires can be caused by lightning. We actually put out the 'wildfires'. Back in the day when there was noone to put the fires out, they burned massive areas compared to now. Lots of people didn't know that I bet.

[liberiamom]

quite possibly our self-extinction is just another twist on the inevitable demise of all evolutionary dead-ends. the species has proven itself incapable of peacefully coexisting with other creatures, even with itself. our great intellects have given us the capacity to destroy ourselves (along with a significant portion of the rest of the world) in numerous ways and yet we are incapable of finding solutions for our most basic problems. famine and disease run rampant all over the world and yet we expend more energy to make sure grandpa can get it up than we do eradicating the poverty we are surrounded by every day.

our fatal flaw is our tendency toward cruelty and there may be no fix for it.

Nicely put! You might be right, but I hope not:) What you say is true, but there is another side (there always is) - we also have great intellects who actually are working to find those solutions, they just don't happen to be in the White House! I believe there are still visionaries out there. From history we see that there will always be people who won't give up, and many others who will wake up when it gets bad enough. And some who don't.
We aren't necessarily evolutionary dead-ends. We may be able to make a quantum leap in consciousness so that we are able to survive, albeit in reduced numbers.
We have the capacity now to communicate with more people than ever before- we just need pioneers of this new frontier to gather together the brightest minds and deepest spirits to create a global mindset that has more power than any of its parts. I truly believe that with this method of communication, we can either save or doom ourselves. I vote for save-

[graph]

Actually, less acres are burned now than ever.
Yes, wildfires can be caused by lightning. We actually put out the 'wildfires'. Back in the day when there was noone to put the fires out, they burned massive areas compared to now. Lots of people didn't know that I bet.

Less acres are burned now than ever? What about, you know, deforestation? Did you know that we remove much more trees than are burned every year as a cause of lightning? Remember, if someone throws a lit cigarette out their window and end up burning a forest, that was still a human's fault.

[LIP]

This thread blew my mind man... now i feel like a real hippie... flower power... and you know what flower im on about ;)

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

Anyways lets say we continue polluting our world and making it worse. In 100 years or so what if we have made extinct many living organisms? What if we damage the earth so much that we can no longer live here? And if we don't have interplanetary travel or other space stations or whatever for people to go to then many of us will die. Although of course thats a hypothetical and probably wouldn't happen anyway.

Neither you, or I, or anyone else knows what the next evolutionary phase is supposed to be. For all we know the next Age may be unlike anything we are currently familiar with. It may not even include us. Maybe it just needs us to set the stage and fade away.

Or maybe it does include us, that is, it may include what we become.

Evolution is change. You can't expect the world to always remain the way it is now. When you see your world changing it may seem like a bad thing to you only because you do not know what it is changing into. What we see is just a stroke of the brush, not the finished painting.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

.... we also have great intellects who actually are working to find those solutions....

....We aren't necessarily evolutionary dead-ends. We may be able to make a quantum leap in consciousness....

....We have the capacity now to communicate with more people than ever before....

....I vote for save-

well Lmom, at least humanity has your vote. however, your optimism is, i fear, sorely misplaced.

those great intellects you put such faith in are more concerned with control than solutions. billions are spent to support those efforts and those billions are coming from the very people who profit most from the suffering. any answers they may find only serve to strengthen the few. each new discovery is patented, cataloged and passed on to the masses for a price.

yes, a quantum leap. that's what it would take, but where have civilization's leaps and bounds taken us to date? rome, with its violent conquest of the known world and its eventual spiral into oblivion? jerusalem, supposed birthplace of the religion of peace and its eventual degradation into just another means to control the masses? perhaps we should look to los alamos, home to one of the greatest "leaps" of the modern age and we all know what was born there. our leaps all seem to be in the same direction, straight toward the edge of the cliff.

ah, communication. the free exchange of ideas should allow us to solve a few of our many problems, but have you noticed what kind of information we are spreading. everything is for sale, hatred is rampant, misinformation passes for truth, and behind it all we are watched. the cutting edge of society is more concerned with porn than any ivory tower ideals, predator and prey play merrily in an electronic landscape filled with mankind's petty conceits.

i know, i know, i'm just a cynical little man hiding under the ice, but i am also a realist. i opted out decades ago and i've been watching too, studying the players as well as the game. when a true visionary pops up he is quickly crushed, nothing upsets the status quo. power is accrued by the powerful and then used to destroy those too weak or slow to get out of the way. violence and cruelty are our past, present and future.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

wow, i'm really depressed now. time to fire up another one.

[Mosiah]

If man is a product of nature, then doesn't it follow that whatever man makes is also a product of nature?

When a beaver builds a dam we call it an act of nature. When a man builds a dam we call it interfering with nature. But both the beaver and the man are themselves creations of nature, and both are merely doing what they evolved to do.

Is it possible that we were chosen to have intelligence for a reason? Is it possible that we have a greater role to play in the future of our world than any of us can yet predict?

Science, like everything else we do, involves a learning process. There is always a period of time when mistakes are made because we are still learning. To not make any mistakes is to not learn anything. But once we have it figured out, incredible things start to happen.

Is it better to pause evolution for fear of making a mistake, or is it better to keep moving forward knowing it's going to hurt from time to time?

I have said this forever. Just like a spider's web is natural, so is anything man furnishes his life with.

[liberiamom]

well Lmom, at least humanity has your vote. however, your optimism is, i fear, sorely misplaced.

those great intellects you put such faith in are more concerned with control than solutions. billions are spent to support those efforts and those billions are coming from the very people who profit most from the suffering. any answers they may find only serve to strengthen the few. each new discovery is patented, cataloged and passed on to the masses for a price.

yes, a quantum leap. that's what it would take, but where have civilization's leaps and bounds taken us to date? rome, with its violent conquest of the known world and its eventual spiral into oblivion? jerusalem, supposed birthplace of the religion of peace and its eventual degradation into just another means to control the masses? perhaps we should look to los alamos, home to one of the greatest "leaps" of the modern age and we all know what was born there. our leaps all seem to be in the same direction, straight toward the edge of the cliff.

ah, communication. the free exchange of ideas should allow us to solve a few of our many problems, but have you noticed what kind of information we are spreading. everything is for sale, hatred is rampant, misinformation passes for truth, and behind it all we are watched. the cutting edge of society is more concerned with porn than any ivory tower ideals, predator and prey play merrily in an electronic landscape filled with mankind's petty conceits.

i know, i know, i'm just a cynical little man hiding under the ice, but i am also a realist. i opted out decades ago and i've been watching too, studying the players as well as the game. when a true visionary pops up he is quickly crushed, nothing upsets the status quo. power is accrued by the powerful and then used to destroy those too weak or slow to get out of the way. violence and cruelty are our past, present and future.

It's funny how the cynical always claim to be realists. To me you sound defeated and sad. Nihilism in isolation can also be considered cowardice, or "nausea," or bitterness, or simply a symptom of depression. Where you are feels safe for you. Fortunately, there will still be some of us willing to raise the children and encourage them to have dreams. I hope something happens in your life to make you have them again too.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

It's funny how .....

what can i say except "it was a bad night"

but i'm feelin' better about the world today

[liberiamom]

what can i say except "it was a bad night"

but i'm feelin' better about the world today

I understand- I've had many of those- So did Gerard Manley Hopkins. As long as it isn't every day. Enjoy today honey!

[lil josh]

so true :)

[Skink]

quite possibly our self-extinction is just another twist on the inevitable demise of all evolutionary dead-ends. the species has proven itself incapable of peacefully coexisting with other creatures, even with itself. our great intellects have given us the capacity to destroy ourselves (along with a significant portion of the rest of the world) in numerous ways and yet we are incapable of finding solutions for our most basic problems. famine and disease run rampant all over the world and yet we expend more energy to make sure grandpa can get it up than we do eradicating the poverty we are surrounded by every day.

our fatal flaw is our tendency toward cruelty and there may be no fix for it.

interesting read...

I tend to think greed is our fatal flaw and cruelty is a byproduct...

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

People always point out our wars and stuff. How come no one ever points out the stuff about how we save lives with our medicines and our technologies? The population is over 6 billion and still growing. More people are being born than are being killed.

Some people do good, some people do bad, and some people don't do much at all.

[bavet]

Hehehe I always find it humorous if not sad when people try to think about life void of God. Smoke another one buddy and then one for me.:glugglug:

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

Hehehe I always find it humorous if not sad when people try to think about life void of God.

That's fine. I feel the same way when people cannot think about life void of God.

[Skink]

prettymuch every medicine we make causes another problem,,,we need to stop destroying people with medicine...

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

GENETIC ENGINEERING - Adaptability

At the moment adaptation of the human form is purely speculative and all a bit Sci-Fi. Which is great because it means that our imaginations can run wild. All those things we wished we could do but our bodies don't let us become possible. What if we could develop wings? survive underwater? Or completely adapt for survival in currently hostile environments; places of extreme temperature, where gravitational pull is higher or lower, the air unbreathable - i.e. other planets. Maybe we would want to adapt ourselves to have very long limbs or to be very short because it suited our chosen profession. Or what about getting the eyes of a hawk or the skin of a rhino, all of these adaptations have their potential uses.

THE SCIENCE

Of course, at present we do not have the technology or the knowledge to make these kinds of radical changes to ourselves, but it could happen with genetic engineering, gene and stem cell therapy. We could pre-create the desired human using genetically engineered cells to produce the necessary tissue or organs. DNA could be cloned and the genes manipulated and used to create the future human. Stem cells manipulated and implanted, possibly with the help of some nanorobots and a little AI thrown into the mix. What about trait genes, tissue or organs from animals, developed for human use. We could grow new, different organs altered to suit a particular purpose.

All of these theories are speculative with very little research or experimentation to back up any of these ideas. But they are far from new ideas. In 1957 James Blish wrote a collection of science fiction stories that were published in 'Seedling Stars'. These stories introduced a new word 'Pantropy', meaning 'to change all', which encompassed the idea of changing the human form to survive on other planet. Of course at the time little was know about just how extreme the environments could be!

A FEW EXAMPLE SCENARIOS:

Fertility on demand.

With an ever growing population more control over our reproductive process may well be desirable. At present women have a regular fertile period each month for a set period of years. But what if we could find a way to turn on and turn off that fertile period. We could alter ourselves to basically not have a fertile period until we wanted. Firstly we would alter the reproductive system to not work until we were ready and willing. Then we put in place the on/off switches using some AI and nanorobots. There ya go, a fertility system completely under our control, no need for artificial birth control.

Pantropy.

Underwater humans.

There are quite a few problems to solve before humans can become pseudo fish. First and foremost how will we breath? Even fish need oxygen, they use gills instead of lungs to extract the oxygen from the water. Maybe we would want to be able to exist both in and out of water. We could perhaps learn something from the various animals that have the ability to use both a gill and a lung system that means they can breath both air borne and water borne oxygen - bimodal breathing. Secondly, how do we deal with the pressure imbalance that causes the bends. Thirdly, what about our skin? We all know the consequences of staying in the water too long, our skin has only a limited tolerance to saturation. Fourthly, a few minor things like flipper feet and hands, eye protection and visual capacity, communication, temperature tolerance to name but a few. Basically a large proportion of the human machine would need to be redesigned.

Here are a few suggestions for some of the necessary alterations. We know that we can't breath underwater, our lungs do not have the capacity to extract enough oxygen from water but we can breath whilst submerged in other liquids such as perfluorocarbon (PFC) which are denser and more oxygen rich than water. What this means is that the lungs can contain fluid and remain functioning. Using PFC or another similar fluid might mean we can dive deeper for longer, but it will require additional equipment. So it's not really an answer to the creation of the human pseudo fish.

Babies seem to have a natural affinity with water; they love to swim, even as early as 3 months old they are extremely comfortable in and under water. Contrary to popular belief we do not breath liquid whilst we're in the womb. During gestation the foetus survives in fluid, but it's not using its lungs at this point, the oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange system is supplied by the mother via the umbilical cord. Once the foetus exits a remarkable process takes place that changes the circulatory system and activates the lungs. So, back to the swimming babies, how does a baby know not to try breath underwater? It uses an instinct known as the mammalian dive reflex, which closes off the epiglottis thus preventing water from entering the lungs, similar to the process that stops us from breathing in our coffee, but one that we learn to override after a year or so in favour of holding our breath.

So what has this got to do with the adaptation of the human for life underwater? Well perhaps the basic functions for underwater breathing are already there. We could stop the change, at birth, from external oxygen access to lung functioning. We replace our present breathing system with a system that uses an external lung to extract the oxygen from the water. The system is housed inside a protective layer of toughened skin with a tubing system to draw in new water, extract the oxygen and then expel the used water; basically we genetically engineer an aqualung and live continuously underwater. Alternatively let's leave the system as is but add on an extra external system as above for use underwater and we have a system for bimodal breathing. Another system for continuous underwater life might be to genetically change the lungs so that they have a bigger surface area enabling us to extract enough oxygen from water, and then adjust the lining of the lung to use water borne oxygen.

Whichever system we choose to develop we need to create a system to protect us from the pressures of the deep. Perhaps that could be in the form of a strengthened skin, that also addresses the problem of skin wrinkling, instead of sebum making our skin waterproof we would have a more efficiently waterproofed skin. After these major issues have been solved the minor stuff like changing the foot and hand structure should be easy. We simply need to target the relevant limb genes and engineer them to be more duck like. And we could create an extra layer for the eyes to protect them; or re-engineer them to function more usefully underwater.

The same process would apply to adaptation to whatever new environment we found ourselves in; identify the changes needed, sort out which genes to change and engineer the changes.
But what if we started out on our long space journey, uncertain of the conditions at our final destination? How would we survive the possibly centuries long journey?

SCENARIO:

Space travel

We set out on our journey in search of a new home planet; we're not entirely sure what the environment will be like once we get there, but we have some ideas about what we're looking for, we'd like it to be as close as possible to earths atmosphere. Our volunteer crew choose their role:

To be initial crew members those that start the journey, running the ship for the first 200 years. We have of course perfected longevity by this time. These crew have specialist skills and have been genetically modified for those task.

To be placed in a state of suspended animation awaiting the time when they will be needed as replacement crew.

As above but available for genetic modification once the new planet has been found and the modification needs identified.

A bank of frozen embryos will be waiting for the time when the planet has been found. They will be appropriately modified to meet the needs of the new planet.

Additionally some will be modified for rapid development from child to adult.

All very easy really, when's the next ship out?

http://www.human-evolution.org/geneticadaptability.php

[Purple Banana]

There's too much group thinking, and too many people with authority over one another... Think about how surreal it is to have someone above you who can tell you what to do, and if you don't follow those rules, THEY punish YOU.

Each person needs to take responsibility for their own actions, and make informed decisions in the will of the people. Easier said than done, and that is the general consensus of most people, yet somehow the assholes with power keep ending up in power... We just don't know how to change that, and when we do, it might be too late.

People need to realize that others don't have the same opinions as they do, and we all need to compromise. But again, as of now, a lot of humans are too stubborn to realize this, and it's Screwing us all over.

[NextLineIsMine]

great questions! How will humans evolve if the weak can all pass their genes on too?

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

great questions! How will humans evolve if the weak can all pass their genes on too?

Define weak.

Back in the days of the hunter/gatherer it was most important to be physically strong. Now, in the days of high technology, it is most important to be intelligent. The most useful of humans in this Age are the humans who invent new technologies and build complex machines. They are the ones who are going to take us to the next step, not the muscle-bound buffoons of the WWE.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

those who cannot or will not take care of themselves and/or contribute meaningfully to the tribe.

[CityBoyGoneCountry]

A million years from now maybe life will have evolved into forms that make use of those things that we today consider to be pollution. It's pollution to us because we are not evolved enough to make use of it.

What does life do? It adapts to its environment. Those that cannot adapt, die. 90% of all life forms that ever existed on Earth are now extinct. What's left is the life that successfully adapted and became what we see today.

Some more will die, some more will adapt, and a million years from now the world will be completely unrecognizable to anyone alive today. Will it be a better world, or worse? I don't know and neither do you!