Where will humanity be in 10,000 years?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Diode-Man, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Only about as negative as towards males. I think it'd be a hypocritical debate to allow for pointing out the flaws of male human nature, but not allow for ditto on female human nature (or though past cultures are and have been way too patriarchal, and we do need to balance it out). It takes two to tango, and I must argue, that there's a rotten symbiosis happening between the genders in the human species. Men wouldn't be demonic males, if women weren't promiscuous females in the name of procreation. Let's not forget that males are still fifty percent of the problem, but women are the other fifty. Even if so many of them regret those horrible males they lay with, when they're in their most fertile age. I'm tired of having those girls crying on my shoulder fifteen years later, 'cause when the hormones is boiling away and that egg is screaming for semen in the name of procreation, nobody can stop them. And they regret it all afterwards, after they've been knocked up by this scum. Then it's too late, then he has already won! And this male they spend the rest of their life smearing to anyone listening. And this happens constantly in the few current cultures, where women are actually allowed to chose their own mate. Which is hardly a global standard, is it? In some cultures they kill the girls, if they dare to chose themselves, so-called "honor" killings (which are the same cultures with way too many first cousin marriages, then you get inbreeding in the clan instead). But you can fathom the origin of this panic response, when you see the scum, the girls do want to mate with, at the age when they're the most fertile!

    Reproduction is one of the strongest survival instincts in any species, that's why those boys has to pick up that damn Kalashnikov and why the girls has to shag them. This is why the old religions are so anti-sex and anti-woman, 'cause their effort was to keep peace in society, so the harvest comes in. Which can't work allowing freedom of sex choice, 'cause then brother will murder brother to get mating rights, and make up the excuses as they go along. The ISIL boys actually tell themselves they're good Muslims. "It's not rape, 'cause you're not a Muslim." And tomorrow it'll be "It's not rape, 'cause you're not the right kind of Muslim." And the day after tomorrow it'll be "It's not rape, 'cause you're not from the same village as me. Me a good Muslim! Me a good Muslim! I have to further my genes! Any bullshit excuse will do!" This is your world today, human. How the hell do you think it'll be tomorrow‽‽‽

    Incidentally, the Star Trek universe is a valiant utopian scenario to aim for. But so is the altruism of Jesus of Nazareth, and that has never governed anything Christians do either, even though people tell themselves that it does. "Me a good Christian! Me a good Christian! Burn her! She didn't want to shag me!"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    I'm sorry I can't argue for the hopeful version, but I don't see the available data supporting it.

    Whatever. I'll let people get back to the chat about the binary stuff. That'll be just as constructive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Men and women have exactly the same brains. Hopefully another scientist than Freud said it in neuroscience to back up this... ah yes =].
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Considering that there are differences between men's and women's cognitive powers, it's hard to believe that these aren't correlated with slight differences in brain anatomy.

    Vision, for example. Women can see subtle differences in colors that escape us; just watch a woman dragging her helpless husband behind her in a fabric store, or in the paint aisle in Home Depot. They have a whole lexicon of names for colors that look identical to us. I personally am convinced that what they call "navy blue" is just another word for "black."

    Men, on the other hand, have a greater ability to see motion. This difference surely goes back to the Stone Age, when men went on hunting trips while the women stayed home with the children and went out looking for fruits and berries to eat--which had to be ripe and non-poisonous.

    I don't see any reason why there might not be other subtle differences between male and female cognition.
     
  8. IIIIIIIIII Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    And they must have transmitted those genes to their descendants as it is obvious that it was and evolutionary advantage for the specific female/male species... I go tell my wife (told you we like evolutionary stories). =]
     
  9. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,530
    Not exactly. It was tanked, by poorly controlled demonics.

    What humans are unusually good at is controlling, managing, balancing, demonics via cooperation. Not perfect - the cooperation module or whatever itself can be hijacked, there is no free lunch, original sin, the right balance is not easy, etc - but much better than most. And that seems to be our characteristic advantage, the base of the high ride we're on.
     
  11. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    No, I can't see that we balance our demonics. Individuals, yes, but as a species, no. Those few individuals that do don't have a lasting influence on keeping the male masses from killing each other. In the human race, the peace makers are murdered, while the war mongers thrive to further their genes. And nothing else matters in life, and our subconscious knows that perfectly well.

    Human warfare is frowned upon, when it is suffered by "non combattants", ie. women, children and elders. Whether it's Sherman burning Atlanta or Truman dropping the bombs. Now huge sums are used to develop "smart" weapons, so the "right" people'll get hit, 'cause a "good" war is supposed to be young men killing young men. Hitting the "wrong" people looks bad in the press, donnit? And the males that survive the killing madness do get the mating rights, don't they? That's the soldier story every time, innit? "We liberated Paris, we did. The French were so thankful. She was very nice." Or sometimes it's, "We entered Berlin for the Motherland, we did. We had every right to reap the spoils." The first casualty of war is always innocence, innit? 'Cause that's the very purpose of war in the first place. No boy would ever don a uniform and join the fight otherwise. Why head out to destroy the world, risking your own death in the process, if that wasn't the promise every time?

    When we are at our best at coorperation, we use it for war. Exactly as when male chimps band up and sneak up on a rival pack to attack and kill only the males of that pack. Which is sometimes suffered by zookeepers and the like (1, 2). There are only two species on the entire planet consistently observed conducting coordinated warfare against its own species; human and chimps. In both cases, it's predominantly young males killing young males. Primatologists even observe, that this intra-species violence doesn't dominate chimp behavior generally speaking; it's only young males, that as soon as they mature and are ready to mate consistently and predictably go berserk, shortly before female chimps come in heat. Conversely, the older males doesn't turn to this type of violence at all. Tell me that hasn't got obvious analogies throughout the entire human race. At least with chimps, we can see clearly, that this ferocious male violence is related to the species' mating behavior. Why in the hell would young male violence in humans not serve exactly the same purpose? After all, we are each other's closest genetic cousins. And it's easy to figure out, what the mechanical purpose is for attacking and killing other males of your own species, whether for humans or chimps; to minimize the competition for when the fertile females come in heat. I'd argue there's no difference between humans and chimps at all in that respect. Tell me that ethological trait hasn't got the exact same origin before a split of the Homo and Pan lineages. I can't see any arguments or data supporting otherwise, whether it's from the history books or contemporary news outlets.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yitzhak Rabin is for me the quintessental example: An old male, that sought the very peace the whole world has been yearning for for decades in this childish territorial conflict in the Kanaan. And subsequently, he was murdered by a fellow Jew ... a young male. This young male Homo sapiens damn well didn't want peace, 'cause his reptilian brain persuaded him, that war would give him a better chance of getting some. That's the epitomy of humanity; The children, the women and the old men desire nothing but peace, but it's the young men that set the agenda.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2015
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,083
    No one dares to speculate that this is part of the human evolution and natural selection process. Insects don't seem to be bothered much by all those things. But then they are genetically much simpler and more adaptable.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,165
    Dare I state the obvious?
    Of course I do.

    If we are descendent from our ancestors of millions of years, then, those ancestors did not go extinct. We/they evolved.

    When the earth that bred and bore us goes dead in billions of years, I doubt that we would recognize our descendents.
    Those descendents may or may not have invented "starships" and colonized hundreds or thousands of other "earth like" planets.
    ..................................
    Meanwhile, in 10k years, we(in much fewer numbers) will be hunkered down in the refugia used by our forebears 12-100k years ago, while the glaciers cover much of the earth's temperate zones.
    And
    The archaeologists might be studying the continental shelves to understand early migration and exploration routes.
    (pity that I will not be there to read what they come up with)(sigh)
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,165
    side note
    I saw Yitzhak speak at northwestern university circa '79-'80(I had library privileges there). I had a great center seat eye level with Rabin. Very intelligent, very articulate,
    very interesting fellow. When speaking he held his elbows in place while gesturing with his forearms and hands. (reminded me of a person in bishop's robes)

    The event attracted the nazis and the jdl who shared some words and gestures.

    And a broad spectrum of security forces whose competence remains in doubt. (short story---I hadda pee, found an open door in the back of the building and wandered down a hallway looking for a urinal, whereupon, I came upon an open room full of US, Israeli, and Illinois security people who claimed to be amazed that I had found a way into their "secure" building-----They wanted me out---we negotiated, and one accompanied me to a urinal first, then out the door.)

    (came up with either one of my best, or worst jokes there)
    Nice memories:
    It was good to be young once.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,530
    The male masses - millions strong - in my corner of the planet don't kill each other, and they get laid a lot more than the male masses in the corners where they do.

    It's notable what humans can achieve by mutual cooperation, especially in the matter of refusing to recognize arbitrary authority as a divinely ordained (or naturally ordained) situation.
    The warmongers are murdered too; meanwhile the Amish not only get reliably laid as young men, but raise large numbers of children in consequence - while the children of the imprudently violent are often few and suffering.

    Because humans have as much bonobo in them as chimp - and the intelligence to make the necessary arrangements of cooperation.

    And looking down the line: The next glaciation is going to be altered, considerably, by the current modifications of the climate. The extra heat stored in the oceans, alone, will change both the timing and nature of its onset. So we may yet do better than an ice-blighted huddling in refugia - if only because our preferred habitat, warm oceanic coastline with a river handy, may become more rather than less prevalent.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2016
  16. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    The downside for an Abrahamic sect like the Amish is that their prevalence for arranged first cousin marriages leads to inbreeding and thus genetic disorders.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/genetic-disorders-hit-amish-hard/ (2005 piece)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Many such groups around the world (e.g. the Dharmic religions as well) have a host of old cultural rules to control sexuality in society for the sake of keeping the peace, but conversely they often ruin their gene pool, 'cause they end up not wishing to blend blood with outsiders to minimize strife. We're in deep shit as a species: Primal human mating behavior has males kill and corrupt for mating rights, while a cultural gaming theory approach aimed to reduce violence and corruption ruins the genetic makeup.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,530
    There are quite a few cultural "gaming theory" approaches that reduce violence but don't exacerbate inbreeding - in fact just the opposite. They appear perfectly natural and in accord with our genetic proclivities.

    And notice the prevalence of inbreeding via cousin marriage in the most violence prone of humans - such as the examples you chose, above. As as rule of thumb, the greater the risk or expense of stranger contact, the higher the proportion of inbreeding.
     
  18. CEngelbrecht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Could somebody notify the Amish? Even the European royal families seems to have gotten the point by now.
     
  19. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    This is quite and old topic, and I have to say my opinion about the very bad time for humans is still coming and may not be that far off in the future. One we got climate change which we aren't responding to soon enough. Second, there's a good chance we are do for a major solar mass ejection which very well could knock out a big chunk of our world infrastructure such as most of our satellites and electrical grids all of which will take many years to restore. Without electricity gasoline production for the general public will come to an end. Food delivery will be a very big problem in the cities. It will become every man for himself and gangs will rule their areas. I could go on and on, but the point is we are not prepared to deal with that event. Nukes could also cause that same problem without actually hitting any major cities.
     
  20. Crimson Tide Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    life will march on for millions of years albeit with some changes like cyborgs who will kill us if they are sold to Police and the military. Not from going berserk but from gaining a superiority complex and wiping us out through starving us can you say there is a curfew in effect go back to your homes.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,562
    I think I saw that movie.
     
  22. Crimson Tide Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
  23. Crimson Tide Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    you're right it was a movie but still very real. If we get to the point where there are cyborgs or robots with intelligence we need to keep them away from superior positions or like in the movie iRobot the cyborgs will take over as they are far superior to our flesh and bones that age and rot.
     

Share This Page