(February 16, 2016 at 1:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

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

As we see with global warming or the threat of nuclear war, the catastrophe may well result from human activity. Waving away as not making sense ignores that point. It ignores the many natural catastrophes that technology cannot avert -- comet strike, supervolcano eruption, and so on.


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

As I've already said, this is not about my personal preference. I was responding to a particular claim you made which is not borne out by evolutionary theory nor by what we see in nature. Why you keep trying to impute this as my preference is none of my business and I won't be partaking in a discussion based on such a false imputation.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:11 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

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

Maybe study up on evolution if you're going to pontificate about it, if you know what I mean. Start with Carl Zimmer's Evolution, where all these concepts are explained.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: 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.

As we see with global warming or the threat of nuclear war, the catastrophe may well result from human activity. Waving away as not making sense ignores that point. It ignores the many natural catastrophes that technology cannot avert -- comet strike, supervolcano eruption, and so on.


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

As I've already said, this is not about my personal preference. I was responding to a particular claim you made which is not borne out by evolutionary theory nor by what we see in nature. Why you keep trying to impute this as my preference is none of my business and I won't be partaking in a discussion based on such a false imputation.
[/quote]

Ok, look, fuck my point and fuck what I said.


Humans are going to have indefinite life spans in the future, and that's a good thing.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:11 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Maybe put that in intelligible English, if you know what I mean.

Maybe study up on evolution if you're going to pontificate about it, if you know what I mean. Start with Carl Zimmer's Evolution, where all these concepts are explained.

If you're not able to explain it to someone who hasn't studied up on it you don't understand it very well yourself, so keep your amateur understanding of evolutionary biology to yourself.

(February 16, 2016 at 2:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Humans are going to have indefinite life spans in the future, and that's a good thing.

I don't think it will happen but I do believe it's a relatively strong possibility.

(February 16, 2016 at 2:10 am)Evie Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 2:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Humans are going to have indefinite life spans in the future, and that's a good thing.

I don't think it will happen but I do believe it's a relatively strong possibility.

Sure it will, Evie. Our lifespans are already extended every passing generation. It's just a matter of time until we stop/reverse the aging process and cure all the illnesses as well.

As for resources, science has never been stronger. We'll figure something out.

(February 16, 2016 at 2:03 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:50 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Maybe study up on evolution if you're going to pontificate about it, if you know what I mean. Start with Carl Zimmer's Evolution, where all these concepts are explained.

If you're not able to explain it to someone who hasn't studied up on it you don't understand it very well yourself, so keep your amateur understanding of evolutionary biology to yourself.

It's not that I'm unable to, it's that your education isn't my responsibility ... thankfully.

If you're going to make claims about evolution, you'd goddamned well better understand the basics. If you don't, you deserve to be pulled by the short hairs.

(February 16, 2016 at 2:40 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 2:03 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: If you're not able to explain it to someone who hasn't studied up on it you don't understand it very well yourself, so keep your amateur understanding of evolutionary biology to yourself.

It's not that I'm unable to, it's that your education isn't my responsibility ... thankfully.

If you're going to make claims about evolution, you'd goddamned well better understand the basics. If you don't, you deserve to be pulled by the short hairs.

That's bullshit and you know it.