What does a posthuman Society Look Like?

[Deleted]

Why do you think they will be monsters?

And artificial is irrelevant.

It's not the first time the OP has suggested created anthropomorphic creatures, I find the notion ethically wrong and no respected naturalist would support it. In regards about animals becoming more humanlike then that's highly unlikely, from an evolution point of view we're probably considered a failure

[Techno-Druid]

Eradicate all deers? I don't get it why we should let the wolves do it so inefficient if deers are such a pest.

Herbivores are necessary for the environment and the deer aren't pests in the sense they are invasive, they are simply overpopulated and if they were completely eradicated, that wouldn't only be extinction, but the starvation and possible extinction of the wolves as well and the decrease in predators and prey that benefit from the wolves and their presence.

[Deleted]

from an evolution point of view we're probably considered a failure

Not even close we are the most successfull primate.

Herbivores are necessary for the environment and the deer aren't pests in the sense they are invasive, they are simply overpopulated and if they were completely eradicated, that wouldn't only be extinction, but the starvation and possible extinction of the wolves as well and the decrease in predators and prey that benefit from the wolves and their presence.

But deers prevent the song birds from returning and the beavers we should eradicate them all.

Forests are intrinsical better as habitat according to the video.

[Deleted]

Monster is pretty relative. I mean 70% of our domesticated animals are straight monstrosities (animals bred to exhibit genetic disorders), when you think about it the only reason we are comfortable with much of the selective breeding we do is because 1.) We're used to it and 2.) because we genetically modified them by breeding them as opposed to making them in a laboratory. This isn't to show negativity to our domesticated flora and fauna, it's simply to put something into a more non-human perspective.

Im talking extremes like genetic splicing without purpose such as what you often discuss. Who says im comfortable with selective breeding?

[Deleted]

An ecosystem cannot be gay. Gay in itself is a manmade term to categorize a sexuality (which sexuality, whether heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual or homosexual is arguably a construct within itself). There's an ecological balance and then there's ecological imbalance, it goes deeper than a old chain or web, it's an entire region of a continent or an entire island or an entire isolated area.

good to know

[Deleted]

Not even close we are the most successfull primate.

We're ridiculously young on an evolution level and is already overpopulated to beyond substantial levels. We also offter fuck all to the ecosystem

[Techno-Druid]

It's not the first time the OP has suggested created anthropomorphic creatures, I find the notion ethically wrong and no respected naturalist would support it. In regards about animals becoming more humanlike then that's highly unlikely, from an evolution point of view we're probably considered a failure

There are no living failures of evolution, because all the failures are extinct or no longer present in a form that would make them fail. It's completely plausible for some non-humans to be modified to exhibit some characteristics that would help them in the long run. You talk as if I think in turning all animals in humanoid slaves, but really I am only advocating a more advanced form of what we've been doing for thousands of years, twisting other species to our whim. The only difference is it wouldn't be to turn them into a product, but to ensure they can adapt to a growing humancentric world.

[Deleted]

We're ridiculously young on an evolution level and is already overpopulated to beyond substantial levels. We also offter fuck all to the ecosystem

iphones are offering fuck all?

[Deleted]

We're ridiculously young on an evolution level and is already overpopulated to beyond substantial levels. We also offter fuck all to the ecosystem

Cows, chickens, dogs, cats , pigeons and so forth......

We are pretty young but damn successful and the only species which left earth....
a feat a shark or dinosaur didn't accomplish.

[Deleted]

There are no living failures of evolution, because all the failures are extinct or no longer present in a form that would make them fail. It's completely plausible for some non-humans to be modified to exhibit some characteristics that would help them in the long run. You talk as if I think in turning all animals in humanoid slaves, but really I am only advocating a more advanced form of what we've been doing for thousands of years, twisting other species to our whim. The only difference is it wouldn't be to turn them into a product, but to ensure they can adapt to a growing humancentric world.

You genuinely believe we're not already heading to extinction?

- - - Updated - - -

Cows, chickens, dogs, cats , pigeons and so forth......

We are pretty young but damn successful and the only species which left earth....
a feat a shark or dinosaur didn't accomplish.

That's because Sharks have no need to evolve much more, they also explore areas mankind has yet managed

[Deleted]

You genuinely believe we're not already heading to extinction?

We are better established then ever.

Humanity was close to extinction once we are nowhere near it but speared all over the planet.

That's because Sharks have no need to evolve much more, they also explore areas mankind has yet managed

o.O where?

Yes if humans manage to get an permanent extraterrestrial colony it will be the most successfull species in the history of this planet.

[Deleted]

We are better established then ever.

Humanity was close to extinction once we are nowhere near it but speared all over the planet.

You're assuming human colonization on alien worlds is relatively near? The way we're breeding all natural resources will be depleted, not to mention inevitable wars, climate change, and possible catastrophes

[Techno-Druid]

You genuinely believe we're not already heading to extinction?

- - - Updated - - -



That's because Sharks have no need to evolve much more, they also explore areas mankind has yet managed

Extinction, not necessarily, but our species will have a downfall if it does not change its ways. The Earth itself only has room for around 11 billion humans and surely we cannot let the population reach that anytime in the near to distant future. My idea to preserve species, create large Nature-States, based off the migration patterns of species. We encourage birth control, make it more assessable, educate people across the globe about the dangers of mass reproduction and show the world what HUMAN OVERPOPULATION is really doing to add extra shock value. That won't be close to enough, but that is an idea of mine.

[Deleted]

Evolution is not immutable. Once we can control evolution (as we do, that is what domestication is) we have gone outside its natural "routine".

Humanely creating different forms of life is not really the problem. Experimenting on living things, and causing harm/pain, etc is the problem.

Sticking to tradition because it is tradition and deemed "natural" is irrational.

How are you going to creat new life without experimenting?

- - - Updated - - -

Extinction, not necessarily, but our species will have a downfall if it does not change its ways. The Earth itself only has room for around 11 billion humans and surely we cannot let the population reach that anytime in the near to distant future. My idea to preserve species, create large Nature-States, based off the migration patterns of species. We encourage birth control, make it more assessable, educate people across the globe about the dangers of mass reproduction and show the world what HUMAN OVERPOPULATION is really doing to add extra shock value. That won't be close to enough, but that is an idea of mine.

Which will never happen

[Deleted]

It's a bit closeminded to throw around fixed numbers of overpopulation when new tehcnologys moved those border time and time again in the past.

[Deleted]

All of those have fail safe mechanism. Unless all of us, or a large majority of us are wiped out all at once (like an asteroid strike, or gamma ray burst) humans will not go extinct. We survive because we are smart. That trumps all other evolutionary derived traits.

We can prevent an Asteroid strike, and a Gamma ray burst from hitting us, it would just take more technology and cooperation than we currently have. (especially the gamma ray burst). And you could argue that we could divert an asteroid if we knew about it a few years ahead of time.

You really do overestimate humans

[Deleted]

Arguabley such events are unlikely to happen in the next 1 or 10k years....
if technology moves as fast as in the last century well...

[Deleted]

Computer models. AI going through DNA models. And this is already happening:

Toronto startup aims to shake up genome sequencing market
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle25612065/



Problem with the current speed of advancement, is that people miss a lot of the new and up and coming technology. Unless you either work in the field, or know the right people and track the right sites/data/

I aren't discussing AI, nor care

[Deleted]

I aren't discussing AI, nor care

But your children should and theirs.

[Deleted]

Arguabley such events are unlikely to happen in the next 1 or 10k years....
if technology moves as fast as in the last century well...

You really think we won't hit issues between now and 10,000 years? Be it war, climate change, resources?