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

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.

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...

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.

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! 

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

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.

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...

I'm really much more like this:

psychologically speaking, anyway.

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

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?

James,your country is a disgrace,all Yanks are polluting half-wits and I never use my car,it just sits outside the front door like a beautiful metal statue...

Do you ever got to bed JL? In fact do you go to work????????????
Are you like,the King Of Vegas or something?

oliverstoned wrote: Yes, moreover, americans take planes like they change of skirt. That's pollute a lot!! It makes a kerosene rain on all the places your fly on! So take the train please!

James Lee in a skirt.....

Reed Lover wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Yes, moreover, americans take planes like they change of skirt. That's pollute a lot!! It makes a kerosene rain on all the places your fly on! So take the train please! James Lee in a skirt.....

That would qualify as "eye pollution".

James Lee wrote: Reed Lover wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Yes, moreover, americans take planes like they change of skirt. That's pollute a lot!! It makes a kerosene rain on all the places your fly on! So take the train please! James Lee in a skirt..... That would qualify as "eye pollution".

Only if you went commando in a mini skirt...

I dont think America is the biggest problem as far as pollution goes.

The problem lies with China and India who are developing at great speed and becoming huge polluters. The speed at which they develop will depend on us setting up business in those countries and buying their products in our own countries. We cant stop them, and have no right to.

Who is going to turn round to India and China and say 'Sorry, I know we've all fuc**d the Earth up over the last 100 years in the name of money, but that courtesy is not extended to you, I'm afraid'

Doesn't work does it...

In the meantime I voted Judgement Day  Sounds like fun! It would be like being in an Arnie film!

One question for those of you with faith: I think I have abided by the ten commandments over the years - apart from all the 'bearing of false witness' to parents, teachers and police - Will my soul go to heaven or hell when the rockets start flying? I'm generally quite nice, I was christened a Catholic, but I've never been to mass or gone to confession.

When the oil is gone, so will be life as we know it. It is bullsh*t that we have dependency on countries infested with terrorist orgs. I don't see a reliable source of energy on our horizon. Not a single thing will be as great as gas. Hydrogen or energy from water is too expensive to make; solar power is not efficient enough; wind power (tss..yeah right); nuclear power will just corner us into a situation where we are surrouned by cans of waste that still have 10,000 year half-lives (and which terrorists will use to attack us) We are giving the earth cancer by continuing to burn oil and gas. I don't see us making it to the turn of the century. Our only option is to not use electricity anymore or to make the prisoners of all the world spin generators like slaves. I am not opposed to either at this point. We have no other hope. I think this is the Creator's plan for our end.

oliverstoned wrote: "I dont think America is the biggest problem as far as pollution goes. The problem lies with China and India who are developing at great speed and becoming huge polluters. The speed at which they develop will depend on us setting up business in those countries and buying their products in our own countries. We cant stop them, and have no right to." The pb is that usa are the richest and the richest don't do efforts to reduce pollution whereas the poorest can't afford to reduce it.

Cant argue with that oliver.

Crimson Prince wrote: I don't see a reliable source of energy on our horizon. Not a single thing will be as great as gas. Hydrogen or energy from water is too expensive to make; solar power is not efficient enough; wind power (tss..yeah right); nuclear power will just corner us into a situation where we are surrouned by cans of waste that still have 10,000 year half-lives (and which terrorists will use to attack us) We are giving the earth cancer by continuing to burn oil and gas. I don't see us making it to the turn of the century. Our only option is to not use electricity anymore or to make the prisoners of all the world spin generators like slaves. I am not opposed to either at this point. We have no other hope. I think this is the Creator's plan for our end.

You're just uninformed, or too trusting of mistaken popular opinion. All of the alternative energy solutions which you have dismissed are much more viable than you think, and in many cases are already replacing fossil fuels. Hydrogen fuel cells are being built right now with less relative cost than the first automobile...solar power is incredibly efficient, thanks to developments in collecting and storing the power...and several regions all across the planet are using wind power with reliable and impressive results.

You are correct that we're crazy to continue to use petroleum sources; the cost to the health and relative peace of the planet is much too high. Even ignoring this, the actual economic cost of changing over is not even very high, unless you're one of the political and economic oligarchs who depend on petroleum as the lynchpin of their stranglehold on the planet.

sigod wrote: Behold, the next level of Human development. Armoured skin, heavily armed and hot to trot!!

Kate Bush warned us, in her song 'Experiment IV' that the military may develop a sound that can kill, even if just by irritating or embarassing us to death, and here they are...

you make me feel alright with this picture!

Just three ideas from me:

1- This poll is nonsense, since the very first choice is not a matter of opinion but a fact!!!

2- James, I might be wrong, but my idea is that hydrogen can never be the future: it can be as a method for storing energy and using it on mobile things (cars, plains...) but you have to produce it before... where from? I hate what I'm about to say, but the only future to us is nuclear energy... Solar, wind, whatever, can help but will never produce as much as we'll need.

3- I like Judas Priest!!! I mean, their music, I'll never sleep with any of them!!!

http://www.nba.com/media/heat/hummer_shot_300.jpg">

there will be very few humans.

and they will be spiritual beings

rest of all will die like dogs, pigs and sheeps,

and i dont like h. g. wells

Once nuclear fusion (instead of fission) will be achievable on a wide scale , an athmosphere and ocean will be created , the gravity will rise from 0.7 to 0.9.  The rich will move to Mars because this planet will have become so polluted (thanks to W and his oil buddies) , that only the lesser (loosers) will get stuck on this eternal dump.

Can you believe some assholes are selling Mars real estates as of now?

can you say: nuclear holocaust?

Reed Lover wrote: Over the next 20 to 50 years, it will become harder to tell the difference between the human and the machine. All body parts will be replaceable. A computer will function like the human brain with the ability to recognize feelings and respond in a feeling way. They can then produce fake people.We will then be able to create a machine duplicate of ourselves so we will appear to be alive long after we are dead. Maybe a few decades later, a way will be found to transfer our spirit to the new body. Then we can choose to live for as long as we want. It might be expensive. Maybe it will cost you an arm and a leg. (Note: here's another change. We will have to change the language we use. By then, arms and legs will be a pound a dozen.) (Note: by then, pounds will probably be obsolete, and we won't have any idea what the word dozen means.)

on Magma's "Üdü Wüdü" the arrival of the Orcs (not to be confused with the Orcs of Tolkien) is announced. according to the sleeve notes the Orcs "are to machines what machines are to men"

Things must stay,
there must be no change,

Well if we continue to live like we do now we will not survive 50 more years, we beter start doing something now, and start to spend money on saving the earth insted of pointles wars!

To bad we hade to be so smart we suld have continued to live like we did 100 years ago

As Zager & Evans asked in the early 70's:

'In the year 2525 will mankind still be alive?'.

oliverstoned wrote: Don't take it as an offense. The pollution is global, my dear friend, like the polluting industries you send in the poor countries.

And the kind you grow in your own home.