(February 15, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I predict that the future will culminate in the heat death of the universe.

Boru

We're talking about the future of human society in particular, not of the universe in general.

The most fundamental element of a successful society is to have effective means of curbing selfish behavior. I know you don't understand that, and I'm not going to explain it to you, because you really need to think it over.

(February 15, 2016 at 8:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.

This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.

Yep. And, that which doesn't move forward stagnates and dies.

By the time we had the ability to eliminate death through natural causes, we would be directing our own evolution. I suspect we would need to be able to do that first.

(February 15, 2016 at 8:43 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 8:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.

This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.

How would that be a bad thing? You would rather die to let evolution take its natural course?

The survival of a species is dependent on having as much genetic variability as possible; that gives more avenues for mutations in the event of the arising of different selection pressures. It has nothing at all to do with my preferences. This is a fact of evolution by natural selection, which doesn't care one whit what any of us prefer.

You had written that indefinite lifespans would be the best way to ensure survival of our species. I was answering that point. Indefinite lifespans would require dramatically reduced reproduction, which would dramatically reduce genetic variability, which would dramatically reduce the capability of the genome to generate mutations, which in the event of catastrophe would dramatically reduce our odds of survival.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:46 am)AFTT47 Wrote: By the time we had the ability to eliminate death through natural causes, we would be directing our own evolution. I suspect we would need to be able to do that first.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Phenotypical expressions are often sourced in multiple loci on the genome which all interact in order to produce a particular phenotype ... and furthermore, one locus often has multiple functions. That means that many genetic manipulations would likely have to account for an entire web of interactions.

And that's not counting the effects of hox genes and the like.

(February 16, 2016 at 12:46 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 8:43 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: How would that be a bad thing? You would rather die to let evolution take its natural course?

The survival of a species is dependent on having as much genetic variability as possible; that gives more avenues for mutations in the event of the arising of different selection pressures. It has nothing at all to do with my preferences. This is a fact of evolution by natural selection, which doesn't care one whit what any of us prefer.

You had written that indefinite lifespans would be the best way to ensure survival of our species. I was answering that point. Indefinite lifespans would require dramatically reduced reproduction, which would dramatically reduce genetic variability, which would dramatically reduce the capability of the genome to generate mutations, which in the event of catastrophe would dramatically reduce our odds of survival.

We're not just a mere species like any other. We've developed tools to ensure our survival, we don't rely as much on natural processes to evolve or survive, if at all( in real time, I mean). I don't see how such a catastrophe couldn't be avoided with the use of technology but with genetic variation. You're not making any sense.

But all that is beside the point. Are you saying that you would have humanity ignore a cure to death itself? Why?

(February 16, 2016 at 1:03 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 12:46 am)AFTT47 Wrote: By the time we had the ability to eliminate death through natural causes, we would be directing our own evolution. I suspect we would need to be able to do that first.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. Phenotypical expressions are often sourced in multiple loci on the genome which all interact in order to produce a particular phenotype ... and furthermore, one locus often has multiple functions. That means that many genetic manipulations would likely have to account for an entire web of interactions.

And that's not counting the effects of hox genes and the like.

Maybe put that in intelligible English, if you know what I mean.

I think we'll see a technological singularity before we're able to "crack the code" on aging. Then it'll be up to the machines whether humans are worth the resources or not.

I agree with you, actually.