Guest diogolivio Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Dear All, I doing research for a collegue essay which needs urgently some different points of view. Anything related to this matter, please reply! How do you picture man in 1000 / 10000 years from now, on the biological point of view?? for example, do you thing that man will have fewer fingers, will the head be bigger, will we have a possibility of using more that on avegare 10 / 15% of our brain? Will we be have different / new body fuctions ? Will evolution allow us to improve the fuctions that we have and/or "cut unnecessary parts of our body" :shrug: which will not be needed in the future. I know in trying to cover a lot of issues but any help from your side with diferrent perspecitvs will be very helpful. Thank you in advance. Diogo Oliveira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 1000 years that is long. (assuming we are still here) Wel then you sure should consider all kinds of implants connected to the brain. keyboard will be history that's for sure. thinkboard3001 that wil be a hot item. 1000 years is so long that everything you come up with is good enough. Also keep this quote of Einstein in mind: "I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 In evolutionary terms 1000 years is not very much at all. It is however time enough for small changes due to natural selection alone. We are unlikely to see speciation in humans even by 12,003 (considering how long homo sapiens sapiens has been around), but you never know. Adaptive changes are likely to involve a massively reduced jaw size, almost hairless body, thinner longer limbs, and larger eyes. We will probably have a simpler digestive system that is no longer capable of breaking down complex organic structures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 It may not be much in the past but I'm pretty sure 1000 in the futute will be much. why?? because we are more and more taking 'natural' selection in our own hands. We are just starting to change genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Mmmmmmmm. Protomonkeys. We can manipulate genomes to recreate long extinct animals with increased intelligence to help us with everyday tasks. Like a protomonkey, size of your thumb, to hold your pencil (and dance and sing ) . Apparently the more mainstream view is not genetic manipulation, but augmentation. Bionic implants, bionic processes to relay information to you directly. A borg like collective information repository. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_FLeX Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 In the next 1000 years I don't think we will have changed that much biologically, but I do think in the future we will see alot more of human/computer interfaces such as, synthetic limbs and microcomputers connected to the brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Interesting question! at a guess I imagine, the loss of the little toe nail, possibly a reduced or absent Apendix, faster fingers (nimble), a greater intolerance to UV light. a larger area of the brain (not phsicaly) that retains numbers. a greater gap between the athletic and the cerebral (nerd types). an almost universal language by then also. voluntary cybernetic prosthesis like we`de have a "nose job" today. a greater sensitivity to temerature differences. thats just off the top of my head, with more thought I`m sure there would be more profound changes. hope this helps? oh yeah, and a radicly reduced "natural" immune system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Physically we're not likely to change much, since there are few changes that impact survival. Obesity may be reduced if current views on desirability of obese people holds (back in the day, it didn't). Our immune systems will certainly be alot stronger. Some small changes may also occur due to genetic drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 YT2095 said in post #7 :Interesting question! at a guess I imagine, the loss of the little toe nail, possibly a reduced or absent Apendix, faster fingers (nimble), a greater intolerance to UV light. a larger area of the brain (not phsicaly) that retains numbers. a greater gap between the athletic and the cerebral (nerd types). an almost universal language by then also. voluntary cybernetic prosthesis like we`de have a "nose job" today. a greater sensitivity to temerature differences. thats just off the top of my head, with more thought I`m sure there would be more profound changes. hope this helps? oh yeah, and a radicly reduced "natural" immune system! Why would we be less tolerant of UV, lose the little toenail or the appendix, or have a reduced immune system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 I expect we`de be spending more time indoors and less likely to encounter REAL as opposed to artificial light. the little toenail is very diminished on most folk anyway and the appendix is no longer anywhere near as usefull as when we ate berries with seeds and nuts and stuff that required it`s use, ( times outa 10 where an abdominal OP is performed it`s removed as a matter of cousre anyway (I beleive astronaught requirments state that it has to be removed by default) the reduced immune NATURAL immune sys is what what I stated. we`ll have become far too dependant on medicines, and not naturaly exposed to things "Biologicaly radical" as we might today in a jungle somewhere, or with one to one casual contact without screening, most medicines you wouldn`t even be aware of, it would be GM in your food, they already make plants with vaccines in them! what in 10,000 years time? I think it will par for the course and something you`de read about in a history book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Maybe this could help: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747565368/qid=1062513702/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3_3/026-8977083-4785210#product-details (I haven't read it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 YT2095 said in post #10 :I expect we`de be spending more time indoors and less likely to encounter REAL as opposed to artificial light. the little toenail is very diminished on most folk anyway and the appendix is no longer anywhere near as usefull as when we ate berries with seeds and nuts and stuff that required it`s use, ( times outa 10 where an abdominal OP is performed it`s removed as a matter of cousre anyway (I beleive astronaught requirments state that it has to be removed by default) the reduced immune NATURAL immune sys is what what I stated. we`ll have become far too dependant on medicines, and not naturaly exposed to things "Biologicaly radical" as we might today in a jungle somewhere, or with one to one casual contact without screening, most medicines you wouldn`t even be aware of, it would be GM in your food, they already make plants with vaccines in them! what in 10,000 years time? I think it will par for the course and something you`de read about in a history book. Unless having no little toenail or no appendix confers an advantage in dealing with selective pressure there is no reason for it to be selected against - species don't just drop organs or appendices they no longer use, hence the prehensile tail (coccyx) and appendix in humans. The appendix is getting smaller and has been for some time - it has no digestive function - but it will take a while to disappear completely. Also remember that having your appendix removed does not "update" your genome accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 I`m not a beleiver soley in the "Advantage" part, I think redundancy plays a part also (I could be wrong, but I understood Darwinian law to apply both ways)? a bit like muscle atrophy(sp?) don`t use it... lose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 The appendix servers a role in the immune system, so it's not likely to disappear any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 well in that case I`ll stand corrected, I was unaware of this Appendix function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diogolivio Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 thank you for all your ideas.... but by reading them, I came up with a different question/doubt? Since the first humans walk this planet, why did we develop more intellegence since then and when it cames to the fisical we didnt change that most at all? the other day i saw the bbc special that talk about the humans origins, and actually we are not that different, but the brains delevop far more. please correct if I wrong but if this is true why is that? thanks/regards. ps: Kedas, thks for the tip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Higher intelligence up to a point is an evolutionary advantage, smarter people are less likely to get killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Subterfuge Posted September 3, 2003 Share Posted September 3, 2003 Are we much different from the people 1000 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 3, 2003 Share Posted September 3, 2003 Not in an evolutionary sense, no. Slightly less hair and a slightly smaller lower jaw, with a small increase in average height. Most changes between then and now are related to longevity, due to the advances in medical science, hygiene education and even cooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 If we remain successful, I'd expect many of the selective changes will be based on sexual selection and fertility. Also, with long distance travel it's possible that people from quite distinct lineages will be able to have children, this will mean a lesser relatedness between individuals in local regions but relateness between population will increase. This could have some interesting effects, perhaps lethal recessive alleles will become more frequent as they aren't isolated in certain population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 diogolivio said in post #1 :Dear All, I doing research for a collegue essay which needs urgently some different points of view. Anything related to this matter, please reply! How do you picture man in 1000 / 10000 years from now, on the biological point of view?? for example, do you thing that man will have fewer fingers, will the head be bigger, will we have a possibility of using more that on avegare 10 / 15% of our brain? Will we be have different / new body fuctions ? Will evolution allow us to improve the fuctions that we have and/or "cut unnecessary parts of our body" :shrug: which will not be needed in the future. I know in trying to cover a lot of issues but any help from your side with diferrent perspecitvs will be very helpful. Thank you in advance. Diogo Oliveira 1) we won't change much. there are almost no evolutionary pressures on humans now. If anything we will devolve because of poor genetic selection. 2)the "humans only use 15% of their brains" is an urban myth spread by people who only use 15% of their brains. the rest of use use 100% of our brains. this can be demonstrated by the fact that trauma surgeons when dealing with bullets to the brain never say "fortunately you were only shot in the 85% of your brain that you don't use" 3)this does not account for human tinkering, which will be the big genetic driving force in a few years time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 fafalone said in post #17 :Higher intelligence up to a point is an evolutionary advantage, smarter people are less likely to get killed. in what age? what does intelligence have to do with getting hit by a drunk driver or any other kind of accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 probably (I`m guessing here) caveman days and middle ages. the smart ones would know where to hit a dinosaur for a kill, or become a rich man and afford soldiers and the like. Merlin did alright for himself as an Alchemist as did the Witch doctors or "wisemen". as for accidents or disease,,, I guess that`s what he meant by "up to a point"? I guess it even applies today in some ways, the "smart" get ritch, the rich have more kids coz they can and don`t have to worry about finaces etc... or Lawyers (spit) they do pretty good for themselves too different types of "Smart" I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 matter said in post #22 : in what age? what does intelligence have to do with getting hit by a drunk driver or any other kind of accident? The fact that some people die through causes they did not bring about does not negate the fact that higher intelligence makes the passing on of genetic material more likely, and the range of dispersal greater. YT - the men hitting dinosaurs for a kill was tongue-in-cheek, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 6, 2003 Share Posted September 6, 2003 LOL, go figure I was dead serious about Merlin too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now