Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Future of Mankind
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Future of Mankind
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Poll Question: Where do you see mankind going?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
6 [12.50%]
1 [2.08%]
1 [2.08%]
7 [14.58%]
9 [18.75%]
13 [27.08%]
3 [6.25%]
5 [10.42%]
3 [6.25%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Future of Mankind
    Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:34

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/

got me thinking.

Anyone else?

 

Darn, can't edit the poll. Choice #3 was supposed to include genetics and biotechnology as well as cybernetics.



Edited by James Lee
Back to Top
goose View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:41
Kobaia
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 17:56

You cant devolve back to primitivism.The words "devolve" and "primitivism" are not copmpatible.

You can say "go back to a more primitive way of life"

 "Primitivism" suggests that the state of being primitive or having a primitive existance is more noble or more desirable than the sophisiticated,technological way we live in modern society.Geek

Tongue



Edited by Reed Lover



Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:01

Here's how we will look in 100 years

if you check out the Rogues Gallery thread you will see that James has already begun the transformation...Wink



Back to Top
Pale Fire View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 25 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 126 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:45
I love the Ralph Wiggum quote
[IMG]http://eonbluepatient.com/images/fire.png">
Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 18:48
Bilden “http://radiobeat.cz/_upload/images/foto/big/robot.jpg” kan inte visas, då den innehåller fel.
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 19:32
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

You cant devolve back to primitivism.The words "devolve" and "primitivism" are not copmpatible.

You can say "go back to a more primitive way of life"

 "Primitivism" suggests that the state of being primitive or having a primitive existance is more noble or more desirable than the sophisiticated,technological way we live in modern society.Geek

Tongue

I see your point, the terms 'primitive' and 'primitivism' require a comparison...but in this case the comparison is to our current state- so I maintain that my word choice was appropriate, if somewhat clumsy.

Plus, 'devolve' isn't the same as 'de-evolve'...it's a completely different word. So there! 
Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 19:43

You can't de-evolve I think. Though the chances are bigger that we evolve into something we already were in an earlier state of our evolution than to change in something completely different, than still it would be evolving and not de-evolving.

Technically mankind has achieved something that hasn't been done in natural life ever. We are able to manipulate our envirement to any extend we desire. For us it's no longer survival of the fittest, we make the world fit our needs. This is IMO a dangerous path, for our weaknesses aren't weeded out by natural selection, but are incorporated into our species, and the world around us is forced to adapt to that.

Two possible consequences (there are many more BTW). Human kind will become physically weak. Life forms around us will become stronger, and the weaker life forms will perish.

bla bla bla
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
Pale Fire View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 25 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 126 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 20:02
[IMG]http://eonbluepatient.com/images/fire.png">
Back to Top
mwb498 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: April 23 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 26 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2005 at 20:43
Originally posted by tuxon tuxon wrote:

You can't de-evolve I think. Though the chances are bigger that we evolve into something we already were in an earlier state of our evolution than to change in something completely different, than still it would be evolving and not de-evolving.

I think that this is an ethical question and the answer is relative to your perspective on the purpose/existance of purpose of humans.  If there is a specific purpose, then human actions can be divided into the polarities of evolving and devolving.  I don't think that this is original thought on my part, but i can't think of where i've heard this idea before.
the moment of defecation is worth a thousand flatulations
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 02:18
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Here's how we will look in 100 years

if you check out the Rogues Gallery thread you will see that James has already begun the transformation...Wink

I'm really much more like this:

psychologically speaking, anyway.

Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 03:03
What a difference !!!!!!!! 
Back to Top
Valarius View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 08 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1480 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:04
Judgment Day!
Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:11
Yep !!!!!!!!!  
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:51

In retrospect, "regressing" would definitely have been a much better word.

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 04:59
Earth will become a very bad place to live, when we will pollute it completly (thanks the americans with your big cars and who don't want to reduce the pollution).
Without talking about plane's pollution, which is greatly increasing.


Like Said Morrisson:
"what they have done to the earth, what they have done to our fair sister?"





Back to Top
PROGMAN View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 03 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 2664 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:17
Hmm no change I hope!
CYMRU AM BYTH
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:28

In our defense, not one of those photos were from the US.

I have no clue why the US didn't jump aboard the Kyoto protocol...obviously full compliance is somewhat optional, eh monsieurs?

Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:33
Don't take it as an offense.
The pollution is global, my dear friend, like the polluting industries you send in the poor countries.

Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2005 at 05:42
no offense taken- I happen to agree with you. I don't think there's a single country in the world which is completely blameless about the problem, and quite a few which are doing much better about finding a solution than we are.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.258 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.