Will Man ever become extinct??

[MaxCathedral]

Yes, yes..its time to think about our own species. Are we destined for the big check out soon?

Will an asteroid do us in, like one did for the dinos.

(Whispers:) They say the big one is coming in 2014.

Or will some super Virus, like Captain Trips in King's The Stand, do us all in or a super Alien Invasion for our precious metals or maybe just water be our demise?

Will one day we be nothing more than a gigantic archelogical dig for some aliens?

[JaKiri]

We're more likely to kill ourselves, ala Stark.

[Sayonara³]

The best thing about Stark was the music (although not in the book, obviously).

And the camel too.

Ps - I agree with MrL. All indications point to a non-glamorous, non-dramatic end to humanity. "Not with a bang, but with a whimper" and so on.

Bottom line though is that unless we can colonise the galaxy, we will always be at risk of complete extinction.

[YT2095]

Suppose there were a crew aboard the ISS at the time an asteroid wiped us out like the one due in 2014, would it effect their orbit in anyway? or would here (Earth) just be a not so place to come back down to?
the one in 2014 will miss us (not by much) but it will :)

[Sayonara³]

They'd be screwed either way. Nobody to supply them, and no hospitable planet to land on even assuming they could get back down here safely with no shuttle and no ground crews.

[YT2095]

probably be better to die in the 1`st blast I guess :(
I`m a survivalist sure, but I`m a realist also and faced with the options, I wanna be right under it with my base ball glove and a beer!

[IMI]

I've read that nuclear war has been supplanted as the greatest threat to the planet. The current greatest threat is population itself. We are fastly outgrowing what the planet can sustain. Societal classes will change from 3 to 2 tiers. The middle class will disappear leaving us with only a large lower class, and a small upper class.
Disease will flourish in the slums of the poverty stricken lower class. Hunger will be the meal of the day. Lawlessness will pervade. The elitist upper class will attempt to control the minions, in order to segregate themselves from them, but will ultimately be crushed. Some would say that this is a paranoid expectation. Others would say it is already happening, today, all over the world.

[Erador]

i belive that, as said earlier, mans greatest threat is himself.

greed will tear up this planet.
there will never be a perfect society, or utopia.
there will be some that are close, but there will never be the perfect place.
me, i dont think that we will die from an astroid or whatever.
its this policy of dominance which will wipe our population out.
there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established. a war behind the scenes.
but there will be resistance, there always is. wiether good or bad.

if only people recognized themselves, and stopped biegn so pompous.
im tired of people killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people.


how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?

[Sayonara³]

We cannot say that there will never be a utopia or perfect society without acknowledging that we are discounting the possibility that mankind's drives and behaviour will ever change.

Since we know that man's ability to adapt (and indeed react) to the environment around him is one of the major evolutionary advantages we have, and the reason we pretty much dominate the planet, that is not a reasonable assumption to make.


"there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established."

You mean like Bush's administration? Yes, have to say I agree with you on that one.


"how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?"

It creates a real-terms cost and a genetic cost for the country under attack, and reduces their capacity to defend their ideology. This has massive knock-on effects in the way that the country manages its resources and makes its decisions.

[YT2095]

War sux!!!

[Sayonara³]

People don't have to join the armed forces.

People don't have to live in strategically important cities.

People don't even have to live in the country they were born in.


If humans were more inclined to take the responsibility for their actions and choices seriously, and recognise that every country is part of the same population, we would not be the puppets of a few men in suits.

It is perfectly possible to manage the planet and its resources properly without people killing each other off - the reason that this does not happen is not because of the fact that different people rarely agree, but more in the way that we react to that fact.

[YT2095]

Amen!

[matter]

Well, if they're not forced to join wouldn't that mean they want to join? Isn't that part of human nature? Wanting to kill?

[Sayonara³]

For many people the attraction of the armed forces is a balance between education and finances, nothing more. I'm sure there are people who join the army in order to kill other people, but fortunately these kinds of people are the ones who are most likely to die first in a conflict and find it difficult to successfully mate.

Every single person I have known who has joined any of the armed forces - and there have been quite a few - has done it because they wanted to, but the major factors involved were that (i) they would be accepted into that occupation with less qualifications than required by other jobs offering the same salary, and (ii) overheads will be reduced due to provided clothing and accomodations, even for immediate family - therefore the salary can be more efficiently utilised.

The fact that these attractive factors influence their decision does not mean that they have no choice to begin with. If people took a longer view of their lives, and accepted the fact that even one person's single decision in a single moment affects outcomes for everyone around them, then they would not join the armed forces.

Because if there is no armed forces, there is no war.

However, because of the way we are taught to think by our "cultures", this is as far as most people bother to take it:

"They pay well, and I can get out after three years, and I'm not likely to actually fight anyone, and it's not like I am the one declaring war on people even if I do have to fight anyone..."

Most people you see are programmed to believe that their actions and moral obligations are just a drop in ocean, so they don't need to take responsibility for the evils and horrors around them because it's society's problem.

The 'longer view' dictates that this may well be so, but just as ultimately an ocean is made only of drops, so is society ultimately made only of individuals making choices.

[KHinfcube22]

Ok....heres hows its going to happen...We're going to create a black hole...Its going to fall through the ground till it orbits the center and eats up all the dirt and magma and we die.......Thank you David Brin.................

[Sayonara³]

Why would it fall through the ground? Wouldn't the ground fall through it?
:-p

[IMI]

If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.

[Sayonara³]

IMI said in post #17 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21547#post21547):
If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.
There would still be war?

Really? How would this happen (bearing in mind that I already know what your answer will be and have formulated a response :-p).

[blike]

It only takes two to tango :)

[Sayonara³]

Does that mean anything?

[YT2095]

I guess it depends on what you define as a "Soldier"
if there were no .Gov military, then no maybe there wouldn`t be WORLD wars.
but look at street gangs? or terrorists?
maybe even just neighbor against neighbor in a battle over who uses the hose pipe during a ban, or whose dog craps where and what side of the fence :)
so long as there are 2 men alive on this planet, there is always that potential for "War" sad but true :(

[Sayonara³]

Doesn't that depend on how you define "war"?

[IMI]

Only if you define war as other than how it has already been defined.

[Sayonara³]

As opposed to defining "soldier" other than how it has already been defined?

That's inferred in the question :rolleyes:

[blike]

I meant that two people fighting could be called a war.

"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

Sounds kinda like the Hatfields and McCoys.

Doesn't take soldiers or an army, though it would probably help the cause :p

[Skye]

Damned semantics...

Sayonara originally used the term "armed forces", and people joining them. This doesn't imply simply soldiers or armies. It can be inclusive of militaries, armies, navies, paramilitaries, terrorist militant factions, etc. Without any of these kinds of organised, armed groups it's essentially impossible, by definition, to have a war. By inferance, if nobody joined these groups it would also be impossible to have a war.

[Sayonara³]

Thank you Skye :)

If anyone thinks that's "wishful thinking", they may try considering what that phrase actually means.

[blike]

nm

[IMI]

Semantics? It's not semantics when you are using an erroneous definition of a word. The word "war" does not, in it's base form, imply participation by organized military/combatant units.

Say, for instance, you there are two groups of people, say two tribes of nomadic herders, each of whom is affiliated with their respective groups for reasons other than to serve as a cohesive military unit. Both groups happen upon the same plot of land, one that is optimum to sustain the herd, and themselves, but will only support one group or the other. This is the only area of sustenance for quite some distance. As a result the tribes engage in combat to decide who shall inhabit the land. One tribe eventually drives off the other ending open combat. The other tribe retreats but is still determined to take the land. They resort to skirmkish tactics which prolongs the unrest. These tribes, it can certainly be said, are in a state of war with each other despite the fact that they are not specifically military units in any way, shape, or form.

These groups may be transformed into military type units, but they weren't so to begin wtih, which brings me to my next point.

Militaries evolve in respone to conflict, and not the other way around. To say that to rid the world of militaries is to rid the world of war is erroneous. Strong militaries, more often than not these days, prevent wars. The Cold War is a perfect example of this. The fact that China had a surmountable military, in concert with their relationship with the Soviet Union (who also had a mighty military), convinced the US not to attack China for their forays during the US-North Korean War.

[Sayonara³]

IMI said in post #29 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21689#post21689):
Semantics? It's not semantics when you are using an erroneous definition of a word. The word "war" does not, in it's base form, imply participation by organized military/combatant units.
The only time I queried the functional definition of "war" was in response to YT's post. Semantics has nothing to do with my original post re: human nature needing to change.

Say, for instance, you there are two groups of people, say two tribes of nomadic herders... etc
A fair enough point, but they are just as likely to solve it with a couple of strategic marriages, thereby strengthening the genetic integrity of future generations in their own tribes.
If you disagree, then you're lending strength to my "human nature needs to change" argument.


Militaries evolve in respone to conflict...
Another good point, but the extinction of this trend was actually what I was discussing, not some magical pixie land where it doesn't exist.

I know I asked you how war would occur with no militaries, but the question is meant to be answered under the assumption that we removed the military due to the changes in our nature I was discussing.


Blike: I know what you meant; the spirally badness of the thread is making me lose track of who's replying to what :-(

[IMI]

I couldn't agree with you more that human nature must change to avert disaster (getting back to the original subject of the post). If "survival of group" could overtake the current "survival of self" mentality the world would be a far better place. Do I think it will happen? Yes, but unfortunately not until after some cataclysmic event.

[Skye]

On topic: Forever is a really long time.

[Sayonara³]

Cataclysmic - I like that word. That's going to be word of the day on my blog :cool:

[desaia]

We will die sometime it is already apparent that we are inferior in survivability to microbes and bacteria

[JaKiri]

If you think microbes are immortal, you're wrong.

[matter]

war is ingrained in our primtive brain. fact is people like to kill people, especially in war. when bullets start flying, you're going to be happy to kill the person thats trying to kill you. anyone can be converted into a killer, even if they join the military for the economical benefits. I think someone who likes war is not any more likely to die in combat before anyone else. if anything, they'll survive longer on instinct.

[Sayonara³]

By definition, joining the army cannot give you instincts.

"fact is people like to kill people, especially in war. when bullets start flying, you're going to be happy to kill the person thats trying to kill you" ... hence the need for people to accept responsibility for themselves and effect a long-overdue change in our species.

[MrFoxington]

*taps into his super duper psychic powers* The end of human kind will occur within a 38 hour period.. where the entire world population drops dead suddenly.. the unniverse is vast and we know nothing of it.. something nasty will find us very unprepared.. it wont be a meteor, nuclear war, water, blah blah blah.. we will just all die and never know why.

[DarkApostle]

MaxCathedral said in post #1 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=21136#post21136):
Yes, yes..its time to think about our own species. Are we destined for the big check out soon?

Will an asteroid do us in, like one did for the dinos.

(Whispers:) They say the big one is coming in 2014.

Or will some super Virus, like Captain Trips in King's The Stand, do us all in or a super Alien Invasion for our precious metals or maybe just water be our demise?

Will one day we be nothing more than a gigantic archelogical dig for some aliens?

First and formost we must understand the age in which we live in, the age of suicide. With scientific technology on the brink of enhancement unlike anything we've ever seen(genetic cloning and such) it is very unprobable that the human race will ever completley die out. Millions have died already and look at the numbers of the planet. Many also argue we are over populated but don't worry, more will die. Humans are self-destructive animals by nature anyhow. I say drop the fear.

[alt_f13]

When I move to Mars, I envite all of you to come with me.

[phoenix]

on the original topic:

the best prevention of extinction has often been diversification. Don't see any chance of that for us since we now interbreed globally without many remaining impediments, so based on correlative evidence, one should foresee doom.

However, human beings are quite unlike any other species, and we have the chimps as backup.

Just my two cents...

Phoenix

[fafalone]

Hopefully we'll move to other planets and other solar systems and colonize before the even that takes Earth out, which WILL eventually happen, either by natural (or man-made) disaster, or, failing that, the sun going nova.

[-Demosthenes-]

Of cource, all species are bound for destruction. To think otherwise would be ludicrous.

[admiral_ju00]

damnit, i've missed out on so many good topics.

by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species.

[MishMish]

Ju00:

"by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species."

"The" theory?

[Sayonara³]

Whose theory is that?

I know it's a prevailing belief among the countless armchair evolutionary biologists who seem to roam the web, but I've not heard of any papers on this. Any linkage?

[Marz Man]

Ok. I love the theory of evolution. I just had to post.


It is very possible man will become extinct. As said, natural disaster, man made... or I think once we evolve mentally beyond our limitations. Say your planet has fought its way to the top as a civilization, from the beginning. occupying multiple galaxies. Would you stop at nothing to limit others from over taking you? I would say so. Also, as said we do not live in a utopia nor would any other life form existing in with us in this age, even if it is billions of light years away. We are being watched, anybody smarter than an ape can tell that.

The chance of us not forcefully, or naturally becoming extinct depends on many variables. Some of which we control. We have to play our cards right when the time comes. With all the Science Fiction in Hollywood, we have seen many instances of destruction. One day, we will be prepared, but will it be to late?

And... in reply to somebody who said we have reached our evolutionary limit. That is false. The only limit on evolution is time. Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet, by no circumstances is this our final time on it. Take a look at the past 100 years. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to fly. 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we have now. 100 years ago, we didn't have the vast communication we have now. These are all forms of evolution.

Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.

[admiral_ju00]

Ok. I love the theory of evolution. I just had to post.

And... in reply to somebody who said we have reached our evolutionary limit. That is false. The only limit on evolution is time. Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet, by no circumstances is this our final time on it. Take a look at the past 100 years. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to fly. 100 years ago, we didn't have the knowledge we have now. 100 years ago, we didn't have the vast communication we have now. These are all forms of evolution.

Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.

Here's one perspective on the biological evolution.
"...specific(as in the case of Gregory R. Smith) evolution will likely continue as long as there is biological life on the planet."
"However, for General biological evolution to continue would require that a biological life form more advanced than ourselves(homo sapiens) would come into existence"
"Furthermore, it would require that this life form be the result of biological Continuity, Innovation and Extinction....."

This was cited from a work by John A. Busch, Ph.D and Gladys Masih Busch, Ph.D

By the way, if you were referring to me, I never said anything along the lines of "Humans have occupied a very short time on this planet, by no circumstances is this our final time on it. " I said that we as a species will have reached our evolutionary limit. And by the way, time is not a limit on evolution, it is the force that is driving it.

While there may be individual variation within a species (as in the case of Gregory R. Smith's case),however, we as a species most likely will not evolve any further. Kind of like what the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium proposed.


Or are you saying that in 2014 we (humans) will go through more or less of an Adaptive Radiation and most of us will be of the same level as Gregory R. Smith? Thereby those who will share his genes will be more fit and those that don't(most of the species) will perish?
You are right there there are many great minds out there, they are not however the majority and their genetic makeup will not become the dominant makup for the entire species. Just a few, Isolated cases, is what we have now, and what we will continue to have.


Unless indeed, something drastic does happen, such as if something were to happen to all of the world's plants, algae and other O2 producing elements and we as a species had to rely on some other form for respiration, etc.

I also need to appologize for my haste last time, to those who pointed out that it is not a theory, but a prevalent notion among many scientists. that indeed is the case and I didn't think twice about using the term "the theory" as a few of you suggested. ;)

[Sayonara³]

I said that we as a species will have reached our evolutionary limit. And by the way, time is not a limit on evolution, it is the force that is driving it.
No it isn't.

so yeah while there may be individual variation within a species (as in the case of Gregory R. Smith's case),however, we as a species most likely will not evolve any further.
I don't see how the excerpt from John Busch's paper leads you to that conclusion, because the evolutionary ascension of one species does not necessarily require the "end of evolution" for any other.

[admiral_ju00]

No it isn't.


I don't see how the excerpt from John Busch's paper leads you to that conclusion, because the evolutionary ascension of one species does not necessarily require the "end of evolution" for any other.

Indeed it does not, and again you're taking what I said in a totally different direction.

But tell me this though, at a level of Macro-Evolution, what specific evolutionary changes have we as a species undergone or will likely to attain in the future?

You're may say things like: melanin, sickle-cell, height, etc, but those can be logically explained in terms on Inbreeding, Area(amount of UV present or lack thereof), nutrition, etc. They are also tend to be found concentrated in certain areas as opposed to be evenly(globaly) spread among the species, granted some variation may occur.

The only things that I see as an exception are the Hymalayans and their tolerance for high-altitude regions and the Australian aboriginals who defy our "race" roots and classification . But again, even this, does not reflect a major evolutionary change of the Homo Sapiens world-wide. For all we know and see, these adaptations, were the result of their environment, where to be otherwise probably meant to be "unfit". Which inturn could have risen in a form of a mutation?

But please, tell me where do you see the evolution take the Homo-Sapiens (at a Macro-elolution) in say a few hundred or thousand years, assuming that things (natural\ecological environment) will remain the same as we now know.

[Sayonara³]

What?

[ugochukwu]

I like everyones opinion on this topic. By the way Sayonara³, i like that Avatar of yours, how did you get it?

Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future, with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own.

This may sound ludicrous, but humans may also live over 200 years.

[Sayonara³]

I like everyones opinion on this topic. By the way Sayonara³, i like that Avatar of yours, how did you get it?
I think it was from Google image search...

[-Demosthenes-]

Aliens? Extraterristrals? Who has even prooved that they ever existed?
It is very possible man will become extinct. As said, natural disaster, man made... or I think once we evolve mentally beyond our limitations. Say your planet has fought its way to the top as a civilization, from the beginning. occupying multiple galaxies. Would you stop at nothing to limit others from over taking you? I would say so. Also, as said we do not live in a utopia nor would any other life form existing in with us in this age, even if it is billions of light years away. We are being watched, anybody smarter than an ape can tell that.
You see, that's not the type of guy that I would want to meet in a dark ally. We're being watched? okay...
Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.
One person will have such a little affect on the gene pool, it won't even make a difference. Maybe technology will be better, but that is completely different from evolving as a species.
Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future, with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own.
What does evolution have to do with freakin aliens!? I don't get it...

[Marz Man]

This may sound ludicrous, but humans may also live over 200 years.

I beleive! Scientists have already increased the lifespan of lab mice approx 30-50% by way of Caloric restriction. Far off from human testing, of course.


Demosthenes, I tend to rant alot. Especially at 5am. Also, yes I strongly beleive in aliens. If life could evolve on this little planet then it is possible elsewhere. Once we land on Mars, or maybe even before. It will be prooven. The smallest microbe that once sustained life, was at one time an alien or extraterrestrial.

[DeoxyriboNucleicAcid]

“Lets begin our study of bacteria by considering the balance of nature. If there is food, some organism will eat it. If there is a place to live, some organism will live there. Every species has a great ability to produce offspring and its population expands until it runs out of food or it is limited by competition, its own waste products, or some other factor. Changes in climate or introduction of a new species from elsewhere can greatly affect the balance of nature. These simple sentences summarize the interactions of living things on earth.”

-Harold Eddleman, Ph. D.

That Quote basiccally sums it all up :)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is how it shall end. Humans will NOT prosper for ever, it is physically impossible, even if we do not die on earth, our universe shall collapse in the big crnch,according to Stephen Hawking (if i spelled that right). So yes, we will be extinct.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm not saying there aren't aliens, I'm just saying that they don't have ANYTHING to do with human evolution, that's all.

And humans will go instict eventually because all thing will eventually happen given infinite time. Yes eventually there will be a plante completely dominated my telepathic lizards, and it time extends backward forever then it alread has happened, an infinite amount of times.
you get it?

[admiral_ju00]

What?

Judging from your responce, it would appear that I can't speak english nor write it, although I always thought that I did. :rolleyes:

So let me try again.
But please, tell me where do you see the evolution take the Homo-Sapiens (at a Macro-elolution) in say a few hundred or thousand years, assuming that things (natural\ecological environment) will remain the same as we now know.

Cliff-Notes Summary:
My Theory:
Homo Sapiens are at the pinnacle of General Biological Evolution and can evolve no more as we have no reason to do so. Not in a few hundred, or even a few thousand years if there is no (drastic) change in our world as we now know.

(General) Biologica Evolution: Evolution that have a significant effect on most or all of the members of any given species, in this case the Humans.
(Specific) Biological Evolution: Evolution that takes place in different places, affecting small or insignificant amounts of a given species, etc, in this case Humams. This usually accounts for specific, individual variation amongst the members of the species, such may be the case with the Hymalayans, Australian aboriginals, Gregory R. Smith, etc.

Specific Evolution will continue indefinitely or infinitely, as long as there are variations in our environment, climate, regions, etc. Also the regions where H-W equilibrium can work, there may be evolution amongst the humans(keeping in mind, the criteria for H-W equilibrium and what has to happen in order for it to work).

Hope this helped. What are your thoughts?
What evolutionary change do you see the Homo Sapiens undergo in a few thousand years or perhaps a few hundred thousands of years at a level of Macro-Evolution(meaning most if not all Humans), assuming that our world remains as it is now?

Also, for as much as I love science, I need to reiterate this, hopefully to help some out:
Science is a Tool. It was never meant or can predict or provide us with answers or concrete "Facts". Remember, in Science, there is no such thing as a "Fact". It(science) is there to provide us with an empirically-derived solid datum, which we must then combine with the other tools in our personal toolbox and make (hopefully more informed/better) decisions, then we might otherwise.

[admiral_ju00]

I'm not saying there aren't aliens, I'm just saying that they don't have ANYTHING to do with human evolution, that's all.

And humans will go instict eventually because all thing will eventually happen given infinite time.

I'm very optimistic about finding life outside of our world(Hey, it's a huge galaxy out there, and statistically, it is possible. We're just not technologically advanced enough yet to travel long distances or at the speed of light) and my theory on the matter is that it will be of a parallel evolution. Granted, their evolution may be either more advanced or retarted and there will most likely be physiological differences depending on the planet(taking things into consideration such as Atmosphere, Gravitational forces, etc,) that they'll be found on. But still, their evolution will most likely be parallel to ours.

Yes, at some point in time, humans will undergo an extinction, why? well, quite frankly, isn't the evolution is all about
-Inovation
-Continuity
-Extinction
?



Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future, with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own

That would be what's called a Sociocultural Evolution and has no to very little bearings on the Biological Evolution, which is what I assumed this thead was all about. :D

[Sayonara³]

Judging from your responce, it would appear that I can't speak english nor write it, although I always thought that I did.
It's not the writing itself, it's the content.

In the first bit of the original post (the one I replied "what?" to) you seem to be using evidence of natural selection in humans to demonstrate there's no evolution in humans. I'm not sure yet but I get the feeling you might be assuming that evolution is a single means of functional improvement in a species, which it isn't.

Then in the last bit you seem to be asking me what kind of evolutionary path humans would take in the future if there were absolutely no changes to the "profile" of abiotic or interspecific pressure on humans, which would not halt any of the reasons why evolution occurs.

Evolution as a concept can be simply described as the sum of changes in species. These changes are mainly due to adaptation, which comes about mainly due to selective pressures.

Selective pressure has several root causes:
- Interspecific competition (between species);
- Intraspecific competition (within species);
- Migration;
- Changing habitats;
- Changing climate;
- Abiotic factors (everything from natural disasters to cosmic rays);
- Divergence toward speciation;
- Behavourial ecology;
- External ecology;
...and so on.

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is not a model of directional force in evolution, nor can it be used to properly quantify net change in a species. It describes one tiny piece of a vast mechanism. It also fails to apply fully to gene migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, assortative mating, or to mortality/fecundity selection with respect to Natural Selection.

In the instances you provided of what you termed "specific evolution", these are examples of adaptation to a local habitat. This Gregory R. Smith character is only an example of 'evolution in action' in the same way that you are I are products of evolutionary change - an individual can't evolve. He's certainly better adapted in some respects but this is (1) hardly an example of adaptive radiation, and (2) not really an example of imminent speciation.

Your question regarding the near-future of human evolution sets the stage in a useless fashion. We know perfectly well that the ecology of the planet is undergoing and beginning vast changes; some of which we are causing, others which happen anyway. We're also due for some high-influence abiotic factors during the period you've specified (for instance, we're overdue for a large meteor strike).

I would offer some thoughts but you have omitted assumptions I'd need in order to do so. The rate of population change will be a massively important factor, as will the rate of advancement in technology.

It also occurs that even if there is no major change to human physiology, ecology, behavourial biology, intellect or what have you within the next 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, this does not mean that evolution is not occuring. It simply means that the rate of evolutionary change during that period has been negligible.

You might take the example of sharks, which at first glance have changed little in millions of years. However the conditions when sharks first emerged are very different to what they are now, so we are clearly not going to claim that no evolution has occurred.
In some random small slice of their evolutionary history (say, 10 centuries for consistency), you'd be hard-pressed to find significant change even if you had specimens right in front of you in a big habitat simulator. Yet there would still be clear points where speciation occured, where effect A led to adaptation B, where significant pressure meant selection towards particular changes etc.

Evolution doesn't stop as such. It's a non-directional force with no goal; there is no plan or blueprint for any species. Likewise it's completely arbitrary to claim that one set of adaptations is superior to any other, as that can change in the blink of an eye.

[Sayonara³]

That would be what's called a Sociocultural Evolution and has no to very little bearings on the Biological Evolution, which is what I assumed this thead was all about. :D
From man's point of view, it would still very much be a factor in his evolutionary success.

It doesn't matter if individuals in a species are defending themselves with immune responses or a Super Whacking Stick 3000 with gold trim and optional blood rinser - it's still going to result in natural selection if there's ever a threat to those individuals without that defence.

[albertlee]

Well, I did not read alot of previous messages........

Any way, of course, we, mans will extinct one day.....due to philosophy.......We are just part of balance of the universe, in fact, every thing needs to balance.....

It is just a matter of time...The decision is all upon the God (in general, the universe).......Even what we think, our consciousness is all arranged by the development of the universe......

Again, mans apear for the balance, and we extinct from outgrowing.....it is just our destination....nothing can deny the principle of balance of development of universe......

My personal opinion :-)


Albert

[admiral_ju00]

It's not the writing itself, it's the content.

Evolution as a concept can be simply described as the sum of changes in species. These changes are mainly due to adaptation, which comes about mainly due to selective pressures.

Selective pressure has several root causes:
- Interspecific competition (between species);
- Intraspecific competition (within species);
- Migration;
- Changing habitats;
- Changing climate;
- Abiotic factors (everything from natural disasters to cosmic rays);
- Divergence toward speciation;
- Behavourial ecology;
- External ecology;
...and so on.


Yub

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is not a model of directional force in evolution, nor can it be used to properly quantify net change in a species. It describes one tiny piece of a vast mechanism. It also fails to apply fully to gene migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, assortative mating, or to mortality/fecundity selection with respect to Natural Selection.

Agreed. I didn't say H-W is the answer, just an example of how based on it and that of a very small and secluded population, there may be a noticeable effect. H-W is simply a tool, and yes it has it's flaws, etc, but under 'ideal' situations it can work. And an ubran city will never confine to H-W, i know that too:D

In the instances you provided of what you termed "specific evolution", these are examples of adaptation to a local habitat. This Gregory R. Smith character is only an example of 'evolution in action' in the same way that you are I are products of evolutionary change - an individual can't evolve. He's certainly better adapted in some respects but this is (1) hardly an example of adaptive radiation, and (2) not really an example of imminent speciation.
Agreed.

Your question regarding the near-future of human evolution sets the stage in a useless fashion. We know perfectly well that the ecology of the planet is undergoing and beginning vast changes; some of which we are causing, others which happen anyway. We're also due for some high-influence abiotic factors during the period you've specified (for instance, we're overdue for a large meteor strike).
My assumption was and still is, should everything remain as is(which is near impossible due to our constant abuse of the ecology, etc) there won't be an evolution which would affect most or the entire species of humans.


I would offer some thoughts but you have omitted assumptions I'd need in order to do so. The rate of population change will be a massively important factor, as will the rate of advancement in technology.

It also occurs that even if there is no major change to human physiology, ecology, behavourial biology, intellect or what have you within the next 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, this does not mean that evolution is not occuring. It simply means that the rate of evolutionary change during that period has been negligible.

Very true. But as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", right?
So if there is no need for us as a species to evolve, then we can continue at the current rate either indefinently or 'till something happens.


You might take the example of sharks, which at first glance have changed little in millions of years. However the conditions when sharks first emerged are very different to what they are now, so we are clearly not going to claim that no evolution has occurred.

Which again could have been facilitated as a need due to their change of nutrition.

In some random small slice of their evolutionary history (say, 10 centuries for consistency), you'd be hard-pressed to find significant change even if you had specimens right in front of you in a big habitat simulator. Yet there would still be clear points where speciation occured, where effect A led to adaptation B, where significant pressure meant selection towards particular changes etc.

Evolution doesn't stop as such. It's a non-directional force with no goal; there is no plan or blueprint for any species. Likewise it's completely arbitrary to claim that one set of adaptations is superior to any other, as that can change in the blink of an eye.

Agreed again. :D

[admiral_ju00]

From man's point of view, it would still very much be a factor in his evolutionary success.

It doesn't matter if individuals in a species are defending themselves with immune responses or a Super Whacking Stick 3000 with gold trim and optional blood rinser - it's still going to result in natural selection if there's ever a threat to those individuals without that defence.

but it's still something else, other then a (true) biological evolution.

[Sayonara³]

but it's still something else, other then a (true) biological evolution.
That's immaterial. Evolution is change to a species over time; its existence is not contingent on the cause of the changes.

[Sayonara³]

Agreed. I didn't say H-W is the answer, just an example of how based on it and that of a very small and secluded population, there may be a noticeable effect. H-W is simply a tool, and yes it has it's flaws, etc, but under 'ideal' situations it can work. And an ubran city will never confine to H-W, i know that too:D
I'd leave HW dynamics to discussions on evolutionary genetics tbh. It's not that useful in predicting anything that involves ecology.

My assumption was and still is, should everything remain as is(which is near impossible due to our constant abuse of the ecology, etc) there won't be an evolution which would affect most or the entire species of humans.
Firstly you're still talking about evolution as a mechanism, which it's not.

Let's take a freeze frame of the world as it is now, and assume it goes on the same for the next million years. That's time enough for thousands of plagues to force selection on humans, time enough for dozens of catastophic events like comet-strike, time enough for our intensive agriculture and animal husbandry to drive some of our staple foods extinct, time enough for Western civilisation to speciate along the rich/poor or intelligent/stupid axes, time enough for global population to speciate along the resource-hoggers/nomadic hunter-scavenger axis... I could go on.

You can't rule out any form of selective pressure in the future even if you're setting the stage yourself; it's just not predictable.

Very true. But as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", right?
So if there is no need for us as a species to evolve, then we can continue at the current rate either indefinently or 'till something happens.
That's not how it works.

Intraspecific competition forces ongoing selective pressure for individuals to become more efficient at (i) passing on genetic material and (ii) fixing biomass, in that order.
Even in a population with stable growth and consumption rates, intraspecific ecology means that natural selection will still continue. It doesn't stop and start when 'something happens', it's always happening. Also bear in mind that selection is not the only cause of evolutionary change.

Which again could have been facilitated as a need due to their change of nutrition.
Not really; sharks have been munching whatever passes in front of them for eons.

[admiral_ju00]

I'd leave HW dynamics to discussions on evolutionary genetics tbh. It's not that useful in predicting anything that involves ecology.


Firstly you're still talking about evolution as a mechanism, which it's not.
Indeed.


Let's take a freeze frame of the world as it is now, and assume it goes on the same for the next million years. That's time enough for thousands of plagues to force selection on humans, time enough for dozens of catastophic events like comet-strike, time enough for our intensive agriculture and animal husbandry to drive some of our staple foods extinct, time enough for Western civilisation to speciate along the rich/poor or intelligent/stupid axes, time enough for global population to speciate along the resource-hoggers/nomadic hunter-scavenger axis... I could go on.

You can't rule out any form of selective pressure in the future even if you're setting the stage yourself; it's just not predictable.

Isn't this, precisely what I was talking about? Something will facilitate our need to evolve beyound what we are today, aka: any of your above examples would suffice. Other then that, Individual variation will continue, while the overall species will remain the same. If there is no such agent which will push our need to evolve further then we may simply continue at the current rates.

[Sayonara³]

So what you're saying is "if evolution happens, it'll happen. If it doesn't, then it won't."

?

[admiral_ju00]

So what you're saying is "if evolution happens, it'll happen. If it doesn't, then it won't."

?

edit:
partially, well not exactly.
i'm saying that in order for all of the members of an entire species(in this case the homo sapiens) to evolve to the next level, something must change in the environment, where the current (genetic)traits,habits,behavior,etc will make it detrimental to the suits of the new environment.


or taking the above said, out of scientific lingo/practices/theories,etc and puttin' it in a more archaic and perhaps even unorthodox way, i'm simply saying that there must be a justifiable reason for our evolution to the next level as an entire species.

[Sayonara³]

For a species like us, that kind of evolution is merely time-dependent (mainly because of all the factors that make us such a strange species, but also because of the fact that we can migrate more readily than most species.)

I don't see though how you can objectify what the 'next level' is.

[admiral_ju00]

For a species like us, that kind of evolution is merely time-dependent (mainly because of all the factors that make us such a strange species, but also because of the fact that we can migrate more readily than most species.)



migration, does not, can not produce significant contributions to the gene pool, unless ofcourse people will engage in very selective mating thereby ensuring that they are contributing their genes and carrying these selected phenological or morphological traits to the next generation to generation to generation, etc. more or less, becomming members of one, huge family where the frequency of desired traits have more or less an equal chance of being expressed or is very favorable to be expressed amongst all of the members.

[Sayonara³]

Migration is key to both adaptive and population radiation. That makes it key to survival for all species.

I'm not saying it's more important than any other factors in particular; I just separated it out in the parenthesis above because I don't think that (as a function) it can really be grouped with the factors that make our species so unusual.

I think you're completely disregarding the role of divergance, which is odd because you put the words 'adaptive radiation' in bold in an earlier post so you must realise the significance.

[admiral_ju00]

I think you're completely disregarding the role of divergance, which is odd because you put the words 'adaptive radiation' in bold in an earlier post so you must realise the significance.

edit:
forgive me all, it's late and i'm tired, hence the many-a-typos :mad:

lol, i was waitin' on you to make such point. :D
and no, i do not leave it out of consideration, never did.

[Sayonara³]

I'll assume you kept it in mind for humans as regards your "things staying the same" scenario, but did you take into account that other species will always be diverging too, which changes the pressures for everything in their ecology?

[admiral_ju00]

yes.

[Sayonara³]

Then your logic eludes me, since the scenario you are describing is not entirely consistent with the effects of evolutionary theory.

Which takes us back to posts #44, #45, #46. The long way round :-(

The root of this problem I think is the attempt to split evolutionary causes and group them under the banner of two different effects, those being the "General and Specific Evolution" categories you briefly outlined earlier.

Where did that come from?

[admiral_ju00]

Then your logic eludes me, since the scenario you are describing is not entirely consistent with the effects of evolutionary theory.

Which takes us back to posts #44, #45, #46. The long way round :-(

The root of this problem I think is the attempt to split evolutionary causes and group them under the banner of two different effects, those being the "General and Specific Evolution" categories you briefly outlined earlier.

Where did that come from?

by General bio. evolution, i mean an evolution that would affect members of the entire species where as Specific bio. evolution will account for individual variation among the members of the species.

specific evolution has, is and will continue to exist and develop since instead of affecting all of the members of a given species somewhat equally, it affects a few at a time but not enough to cause a dent in the gene pool.

[Sayonara³]

I meant "Where are you getting this from?"

[admiral_ju00]

well, among one of the sources for this notion are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the priveledge to study, work or read from.

i think that this is a plausible notion and agree with.

anyway, i got to go for the day, and will probably be back here in a few days. cya

by the way, hope our debate does not disinterest you, as i do like to persue it further and get more understanding behind your reasoning as you seem to have in mine. and it is a pleasure debatin' with you. ;)

[Sayonara³]

I'm trying to nail down a reason as to why you are using ephemeral terms of reference - your vague reply is not helping.

The reason scientific discussion works at all is that everyone uses the same terms of reference as describers, from the current working models.
That's why 'foreign' institutions like the media so frequently make a complete cock-up of descriptions for research or processes; because they don't understand that you can't just chuck about the latest buzz-word (like you can in advertising, as an example) and expect to get your message across with any accuracy.


Anyway...

I have a good idea about why you are separating out the "large" and "small" evolutionary effects, but I'd suggest it is a mistake to try to do this as they are largely interdependable.

A problem we have here is that everything to do with evolution is easiest considered in hindsight and doesn't lend itself well to formulating accurate preditions about actual events (well, not without tightly controlled variables anyway. When you're talking about an entire planet it has long passed the point of impossibility.)

See, we might very well disregard the adaptations of a population of 2000 humans living high up on the side of a mountain, in favour of considering the "larger" evolutionary forces at work on humanity as an entire species.
But it wouldn't take much to make that 2000-strong population become the entire species, which (a) makes a mockery of the artificial ranking system, and (b) would most likely be caused by factors that are not possible to predict.

I'll take advantage of your absence to go back over the thread and review your reasoning, because I forgot how all this started ;)

Later!

[admiral_ju00]

I'm trying to nail down a reason as to why you are using ephemeral terms of reference - your vague reply is not helping.


I just had to stop in here for a last quickie. rofl.

Anyway, the answer to your puzzle is in your own question. You asked "where" as opposed to "where, who, and possibly when". Anyway, more on that when i get back.

[Sayonara³]

Seeing as there's a standard form for providing scientific reference, one might have reasonably assumed that "who" and "when" were implied.

[admiral_ju00]

like i said in the post prior to the one above, my take on evolution is a result of all of the below sources.

among one of the sources for my current standing on the matter are the propositions by various scientists with whom i had the privilege to study, work or read from.(this hasn't changed) ;)
many of whom are anthropologists/paleontologists, few that are biologists, and a few social scientists, well, one to be exact. He's a Social Psychologist who embraced the Symbolic Interactionism theory.

Then there is the reading stuff(books, magazines, periodicals)
I've read quite a bunch of books on the matter, but these are the ones that are the most memorable to me at this time.
Books:
Evolution: A case of stating the Obvious by Hugh or Hough(can't remember which)
Evolution: A theory in Crisis by Denton
The Web Of Life by Capra
Seven Daughters of Eve by Sykes
Origin of Species by Darwin <-- this makes me wonder how any individual can so fully embrace the things that are proposed by Darwin. The book itself has numerous contradictions, errors, screwups and even an appereant loss of interest by Darwin himself :confused: I realize that any theory will have it's flaws, lack of definitions, practicality, evidence, applicability,etc, but some of the things proposed there and are accepted are downright retarted.

Magazines:
AQ(Anthropological Quarterly) and whatever other Anthropology related magazines/journals I can get a chance to read.

Love the 1st book as it provides a more or less cliff-notes version of evolution, that and the fact that mr. Hough almost rips Darwin a new back-door orifice. :D
Plus I agree with just about everything he proposes there with only 1 exception. I'd put a bit more value on 'environment' myself. While I wholeheartedly agree that the key to evolution is in our genome and it constantly experiments with things, thereby we may have certain abilities of which we currently do not know about but which will be expressed by everyone member of the homo sapien if something 'drastic' was to happen to our world where our current abilities will either not be enough or simply detrimental.

edit:
i highly recommend that you read books # 1 and 3.

[Skye]

Anthopologists and pop sci books eh? Well that explains alot.

[admiral_ju00]

Anthopologists and pop sci books eh? Well that explains alot.

Meaning?
What is wrong with my chosen field of study and the materiel I read for it?

[Skye]

I mean they are bad sources of information in general, and especially to rely on. There are alot more informative stuff, like textbooks on population biology theory and molecular genetics. There's two good reasons why these are better, they are more basic sciences, so let you evaluate the conclusions that others come to, and also that they'll let you explain the mechanism for what you think is going to happen.

[admiral_ju00]

I mean they are bad sources of information in general, and especially to rely on. There are alot more informative stuff, like textbooks on population biology theory and molecular genetics. There's two good reasons why these are better, they are more basic sciences, so let you evaluate the conclusions that others come to, and also that they'll let you explain the mechanism for what you think is going to happen.

you realize that the author of the 1st book is an established Biologist?

or let me rephrase that. (by the way, you may be right about Pop. Biology theory and Molecular genetics. they have lots of great, info, practical, theoretical, whathave you, but you know, sometimes it is good to pick up a cliff-notes version of a book that is technical, complex and can be very hard to read. while this won't let you know how things really work in their extreme details, a generalization is not a bad thing, provided that it stays consistent, w/o a spin and as accurate as possible - empirically speaking.), but tell me this:


Granted I did not spend too much time looking up their credentials, etc, but tell me this, do these below scientists / authors, etc make a different spin on the stuff they print? So as to one can safely assume that their research is biased, flawed, etc, thereby it is not worth checking out the stuff that they write or work on?

Michael Denton - Biochemistry
Fritjof Capra - Physicist and systems theorist
Bryan Sykes - Professor of Human Genetics
Derek Hough - Biologist

If so, then are there scientists/authors that the gen. pop. can read from and not worry about the stuff that they read is a bunch of a bs with a spin?

[Skye]

The author of the last one was too ;)

Anyone can write garbage, and many scientists have. To some extent you can get around this by peer review, and that's a good enough reason to read textbooks. In the end though it's best to figure out why people say what they say so you can evaluate it yourself. And then it'll make it alot easier to explain your point of view to others.

[admiral_ju00]

In the end though it's best to figure out why people say what they say so you can evaluate it yourself.

that is precisely what i do. i do not automatically conform to the 1st thing that i hear or read.for to do that is the way of the sukkas:D

[Radical Edward]

that would be the Denton who says there are no transitional fossils between, for example, terrestrial mammals and whales or bats, or between reptiles and birds, right?

be a bit careful about books by creationists, they tend to quote mine alot, and are oftend a bit shady in their science.

here is a critique

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

[admiral_ju00]

yes, i realize that denton's book is pretty poor and had some issues with it myself, but still as a generalization it is entertaining.

and again, i do not conform to the 1st things i read or hear.

i also care nothing for what the creationists say or any other theological matter. but at times of extreme boredom, i find their philosophy quite comical and as stated above, a bit entertaining. other than that, it does not deserve any serious considerations.

[Radical Edward]

good good :) sadly I am all too familiar with the likes of Denton, Dembski, Sarfati and so on in debates with others. It gets rather tiresome hearing their falsehoods trotted out again and again.

[dryan]

I bet some other civilization will destroy the earth to form a super-highway across the universe. :)

[-Demosthenes-]

That sounds about right :D

[5614]

yeah there will probably be some big war, but more certain is that our sun will die. part of the death process of a sun involves it explanding, our planet is close enought to our sun so that, when, in a few million years [cant remember the exact date -- but its along long way away!] the sun dies, we will die with it, if mankind has managed to escape to another planet, still inside the solar system, they will find darkness and eternal coldness, our solar system would freeze, so humans have no chance of survival unless they fly to another solar system, and at the moment, it would take soooo long to get there, you'd be dead of old age before you got anywhere near your destination!

[Chem-Maniac]

Every closed system, also a planet, is able to bear just a certain amount of energy, in this case it might be "people". Is the amount to high, the system acknowledges changes, it has to adapt itsself to new conditions.
The question is: Are man able to adapt themselfes to the adaption of the planet?If not, they will be no more!

[LucidDreamer]

I bet some other civilization will destroy the earth to form a super-highway across the universe. :)

That's ok as long as they don't recite any poetry. :)

Maybe there really are multiple universes and perhaps the multi-verse is infinite. If that’s true we could just escape to another universe when the energy of ours runs out. Maybe there are already beings that have existed for trillions of years and they are just waiting for us to find them.

[Sayonara³]

Every closed system, also a planet, is able to bear just a certain amount of energy, in this case it might be "people". Is the amount to high, the system acknowledges changes, it has to adapt itsself to new conditions.
The question is: Are man able to adapt themselfes to the adaption of the planet?If not, they will be no more!
Planets aren't closed systems.

[Chem-Maniac]

As a matter of fact planets are closed systems. You've got to differ between closed and isolated systems. Since the mass our planet gains from outer space is irrelevant, solar energy, warmth, is the only thing we exchange with space.Ergo: Closed system!

[Sayonara³]

Actually we both gain and lose both mass and energy to space, so I don't see how you can call it a closed system.

In any case, a species such as ours will at some point find it as able to spread beyond its home planet, so the logic of your post was still flawed.

[Iron Sun 254]

Even if it were a closed system to assume that the increase in the number of human beings automatically means that the the system would destroy all human life is absurd. Most likely some feedback would begin to occur and the population would stabilize. Even if some global disaster occurred and 99% of the population were killed there would still be over 60 million people left all who would likely be the ones most able to survive the new paradigm. No, civilization may end but it'll be a long time before man becomes extinct

[5614]

well, the whole question is answered by "it depends!"

if we stay on this earth, then we will surely die, when the sun 'dies' the first step of that process involves it expanding so much, it will 'swallow' up the earth.

if we move to another planet, we will then be without a sun, so we will need to move to another planet, a suitable distance from the sun, with an atmosphere and all, its unlikely that many of those places exist.

even if we can find another planet, how can we transport a whole planet's civization there?

and then one day the universe may end, we can't stop that!

so really, to me, the answer to the question is, it depends ;)

[Sayonara³]

Based on what we know, the eventual heat death of the universe is inevitable, so (as has already been said) it's a silly question.

All good things... etc.

[5614]

what time scale is the heat death on?

it must be millions of billions of years?

it would take ages, and if the universe keeps on expanding, then doesnt that interfere with the universe heating up?

[paganinio]

If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.

agree

[deltanova]

well to me the HIV and AIDS epidemic is most likely

[Sayonara³]

it would take ages, and if the universe keeps on expanding, then doesnt that interfere with the universe heating up?
Heat death is cooling, not heating.

[Thales]

The answer is yes, we will undoubtably die off.

Even if we live till the end of the universe, I don't see us living through it (the end that is).

[atinymonkey]

well to me the HIV and AIDS epidemic is most likely


I think if it got to the stage where the human population was massively infected by HIV, people might use precautions. Screening sexual partners would negate the risk of the disease spreading.

[ydoaPs]

The answer is yes, we will undoubtably die off.

Even if we live till the end of the universe, I don't see us living through it (the end that is).

what makes you think the universe has an end?

[Sayonara³]

what makes you think the universe has an end?
Because it has a finite amount of matter and energy, the heat death of which is inevitable.

[ydoaPs]

how do you know it has a finite amount of matter and energy?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The law of conservation of energy, which means that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That's sort of linked to matter by e=mc2 so thus there is a finite amount of matter and energy.

Or, as another answer, he could say, "I'm actually educated."

[ydoaPs]

is it not possible that the properties of the universe are such that we cannot truly know them?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, relativity has been proven in numerous ways, so I really doubt that it would be wrong. Since the law of conservation of energy has not been proved wrong (I just read an explanation of why it was wrong, but the explanation was flawed hopelessly) and it has also been proved right, I see no reason to believe that either are wrong.
In other words, I think that they are right.
Dear lord, this might be turning into another one of these stupid arguments. ARGH!

[ydoaPs]

OMG, did u not read the post?

[Sayonara³]

is it not possible that the properties of the universe are such that we cannot truly know them?
Yes.

But the heat death is still inevitable.

[ydoaPs]

what is heat death?

[Sayonara³]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

It doesn't explicitly require the end of the universe per se, but it will be the end of all life and any hope of useful interactions.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Dear lord, this might be turning into another one of these stupid arguments. ARGH! In other words, can't you do your own research?

Just to be nice, http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm

edit: That's funny, Sayo and I had a link to the same site. Different articles though.

[Thales]

Start with a finite amount of matter/energy. Actuate all possible combinations(thermodynamics). Final result?

There is an end, to this cycle of the universe anyway.