/sci/ - Science & Math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

We humans are the most intelligent beings on Earth. Our brains allowed us to gain dominion over the entire planet. So we will use our brains to design our own evolutionary paths.

We do not "evolve" random traits that we need. Mutations are completely random and survival is the only thing that determines their selection ultimately, (other forces such as sexual selection exist in the short run). 95% of people using "evolve" as a descriptor or worse, verb have no fucking clue what evolution is or the forces that shape it and are just pop-sci brainlets that belong on reddit. This includes you: *hits bong* 'yeah bro' *exhales* 'like we're gonna evolve to "not needing finger nails" in like 100 frickin years'. Consider a fatal pentobarbital overdose.

>>10875518
>Personally, I think humans will evolve past needing things like fingernails
If you think this can happen in 100 years you're absolutely retarded or underage

>>10875518
100 years is like 3 generations which is nothing in terms of evolution
as a general rule, understand that mutations are exceedingly rare (first the dna in the sperm/egg has to mutate, if it survives that then the sperm has to actually reach the egg, then it has to survive until birth, after that through infancy AND then finally breeding age).
it's much more useful to think about it considering that the traits that will make up humans 5000 years in the future exist now.
it's simply of matter of re-arrangement and proportion within the populace.

>>10875798
>sperm/egg has to mutate
u do know that was all solved long ago with the invention of sex ?

>>10875518
That is probably because you do not do much with your hands. Some of us appreciate the use of our finger nails. Boobs seem to be getting bigger and I try not to notice but female children seem to mature faster and the opposite for the males.

>>10875518
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!XDXDXD uUw XDXD

>>10875793
>Implying

>>10875518
you do not understand the first thing about evolution

we have already surpassed almost all natural selections
we in general procreate based on social status more so than physical traits

people like you ruin this board, go smoke some weed dumbass and maybe open a textbook when you sober up

Right now the two biggest factors on reproductive success are the desire to have children, and the ability to use birth control correctly. So in the 3-4 generations expect an expansion in the number of people in the first group, like Mormons, those Quiverful people, and the Amish, and a rise in the number of idiots who can't remember to take a pill everyday (or a shot every 3 months), barring of course people on the smarter end of the spectrum making those decisions for the idiots, or the idiots reaching a proportion of the population high enough the welfare & social services system that keeps those idiot's children alive stops functioning. So basically the future ends up being an intelligent religious (since non-religious intelligent people have largely stopped having children) elite ruling over and idiocracy. Sounds like a good prequel for 40k.

The Amish are a really interesting group to consider, with how they have been able to maintain high population growth rates. If they can keep up the same population growth, there will be 12.8 million of them in 100 years; and half a billion within 200 years. Of course, that is a gigantic IF - there are all sorts of things, from internal changes in their number of children preferences, to external groups attacking & disturbing their lifestyle, and so on, that could massively pull those numbers down.

>>10876176
Something else to consider - birth rates are falling all over the world, with the mainstream population choosing to not have kids at above replacement levels. That leaves room for other groups to expand their populations greatly. Here in the US we have some fringe religious groups (like the Amish, the Quiverful movement, Hutterites) that could easily see a massive increase in population over the next century. Do other countries have their own similar movements, of people who reject the parts of modern society that drive down births? I suppose the Taliban in Afghanistan might count, with that countries birth rates remaining much higher than it neighbors. But what about China, India, Russia, Japan, Europe, ect? Anyone want to take a shot at that?

>>10875518
>100 years
We won't. That's not enough time.

>>10876188
Well in Israel the uber-relgious jews are having a ton more kids than the more secular jews. I believe that has caused a bit of friction over there, since the uber-religous types just want to mooch off of welfare while reading the torah all day, while the secular ones pay the bills. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.

>>10876103
The burden of proof is on you.

>>10876437
>>10876188
>>10876176
I guess 40k is gonna happen. Every country has a religious group that breeds faster than the others

>>10875518
Not many changes besides a gradual weakening of the general population through an increase in prevalence of traits that would normally be mitigated or removed from selective pressures and minor increases that will likely focus more on fertility and having as many children as possible as there is no longer any true issues to provide enough foods and other materials for their existence

>>10875518
A hundred years is only a few human generations. Nothing will change over that time naturally. Any alterations will be artificial in origin; either cybernetics or genetically engineered/vatgrown.
So expect, MAYBE
Prosthetics that are on-par with normal body parts
Simple genetic changes that merely increase the prevalence of existing superior alleles/genes become the norm for new children

A bone will evolve into a bong and hair to weed. getting hi 247 368

>>10875594
Nature is a whore

>>10877498
second half of this post is an outrageous claim to make
>increase fertility
how?

>>10877582
No restrictions or selective pressures on offspring and with a state that is able to help with the funds and other such things so that the children do not starve to death would make rapid production of more offspring the most viable option for spreading your genes and be the new primary pressure

>>10877585
>no selection pressure
that’s not what’s happening, life history transition towards delayed fecundity and early onset senescence in fully domesticated populations is widely observable throughout east asia and the west. The extreme prevalence of trade-off derived chronic diseases and epidemic incidence of dev disorders like autism are both a result of selection pressure, increased assortative mating for certain behavioral traits (iq, agreeableness, educational attainment) is a form of selection pressure.
>linear increase in reproductive rates
This is the opposite of what has been observed.
>the state can provide for all children
Not indefinitely, and not outside of a limited number of massive economically developed nuclear backed states like China and America. Children still starve in places like India and Pakistan. A primary selection pressure is a really weird way of framing what you’re saying, the general fitness of a modern population is perpetually trending downwards, in america longevity is decreasing with fecundity (and iq) all very bad for long term future of the population.

>>10877594
The lack of selective pressure is a fairly recent development in the past it was somewhat lax as compared to wild organisms however in the modern age in developed countries it's practically gone as the only thing that is needed in the current age is the reproduction in earlier ages there wasn't just the act of giving birth that was a requirement but also the fitness of the individual and the ability to care for their offspring this is somewhat replaced by the state to a great degree as in first world countries it's extremely rare for children to actually die from a lack of food or other common ailments that existed in the past
>This is the opposite of what has been observed.
There is a decline in the quantity of children in the first world countries as a rule of thumb high intelligent couples don't have as many children as they use contraceptives and acknowledge and plan ahead with the cost of children this makes them realize the large costs of raising a well established child as compared to the lower intelligence people who don't have this realization and planning thus on the general large scale we see a drop in the birthrates this reflects the high intelligence of the society this is seen in however over the generations we will see a trend where the lower intelligent population's birthrates increase and the traits that go with it increase leading to an increase in fertility and quantity of children through the state essentially funding a dysgenic trend

>>10877284
You overestimate. These “religious groups” also have a hemorrhaging rate of retainment. They may have a lot of kids but they often end up not giving a shit about whatever hooky beliefs they have.

>>10877637
birthrates are barely above replacement among low income western subpopulations, they normalize rapidly even in places like India and Mexico which is also careening towards subreplacement rate fertility. I have no reason to believe your word that low intelligence populations will continue to increase fecundity considering increasing cost of food and healthcare, tuition and the declining longevity of sedentary working class groups. You have to explain why there would be a sudden reversal without making recourse to the assumption that the differential in fecundity is based in static breeding patterns, low int people also decrease their family size when exposed to the industrial environment its not simply that intelligent women (and their pet husbands) don’t feel the same cost-benefit that traditionally applied is worth their time. Hispanic americans will outbreed euro americans because they still have not completed the transition that does not imply that they won’t. Bangladesh, Pakistan and India all of which are grossly overpopulated low iq nations have already moved towards the new normal of barely making replacement rate breeding. Everything is moving towards stasis and slow scaling downwards, only Africa and the middle east continue to display the out of control growth that characterized the early 20th in America and that is precisely because they have spent significantly less time exposed to those ecological constraints on breeding and are much dumber populations with far less foresight than asiatics or euros.
>the lack of selection pressure
there isn’t a lack of selection pressure, only some forms of selection have relaxed, reduced body symmetry, immunological robustness and neurocognitive robustness have weakened. That’s because one can afford a child who has a strong predisposition towards gi diseases or schizophrenia without compromising their genetic future. You can see this with the explosion in metabolic and neurological disorders.

>>10877644
The reason a sudden reversal is extremely probable is based on the idea that having more children in the current modern situation is the most optimal method on spreading your genes and in the given modern environment where in comparison to prior era's having more children is the easiest it's ever been and with the current welfare systems that is prevalent in many developed countries this only incentives further leading to the selective pressure where disregarding one's mental ability or health and strength the best option now is just to simply have children with barely any regard that would have been given to these traits and each successive generation would mostly be comprised of simply put people who have more children and with the common democratic system there is simply no reason to reinforce selective pressures by cutting ones ability to provide for their children as this would be extremely detrimental to whoever proposes this in a modern country
>there isn’t a lack of selection pressure
They truly have practically vanished the weak and sickly that would have simply died off are now able to live relatively long lives and pass off their sickly genes to the next generation where before somewhat of a incentive for intelligence such as mercantile trade or farming or any other trade that would potentially a better life and allow more of their children to survive simply does not exist in this era

We'll all be tall mutts, blue eyes and blonde hair will go extinct.
>inb4 hurrdurr back to /pol/

>>10875518
Idiocracy scenario

>>10877691
Man I love having blue eyes

>>10875518
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/transhumanist-techs/

>>10875518
>Personally, I think humans will evolve past needing things like fingernails
Will fingernail removal become the new circumcision?

What is the origin of the word "evolution"?

also it seems to analagous to "any change over time", which i'm not sure is a unique enough phenomenon to validate with its own word.

There isn't a single thing in this world that benefits from change over time. Mutation is a more accurate word to describe what occurs. The counterculture "de-evolution" ironically describes what occurs more accurately as well, if there is an assumption that evolution is beneficial.

>>10877691
I don’t give a shit about phenotypes because I’m not a retarded chimpanzee so that’s fine with me.

>>10877736
>What is the origin of the word "evolution"?

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

>also it seems to analagous to "any change over time"

Biological evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies in populations of related organisms over successive generations due to selection pressures and mutation.

>which i'm not sure is a unique enough phenomenon to validate with its own word

No one cares. People use it anyway.

>There isn't a single thing in this world that benefits from change over time.

Aside from science and engineering and all living organisms....

>Mutation is a more accurate word to describe what occurs.

No it isn’t, because mutation is only one facet of biological evolution, and only one facet of linguistic evolution.

>if there is an assumption that evolution is beneficial.

It is, very obviously. Do you think a species that lost the ability to evolve and instead never changed would survive or end up a dead end relatively swiftly?
Psst. It’s the second one.

>>10877847
humans have evolved tremendously in the past 2000 years alone. Even over the past 200 years there is an extremely noticeable difference in human behavior from before and after the discovery of electricity. Human's actually have an advanced rate of evolution compared to most living things on this planet. However, this rate of change has not been beneficial.

even as just an analogy, science and engineering has not improved over the past 200 years. Science used to be based on objectivity, while modern science is anything but. Engineering used to be based on practicality and efficiency, while modern engineering is anything but. Both are the indirect result of human "evolution" giving humanity weaker constitutions with a greater inability to hold convictions, resulting in general stupidity.

I don't think an 'educated' person from 2000 years ago is worse-off than an 'educated' person from the current year, solely just because the people of the past didn't have cars and planes and computers. That seems to be an extremely disingenuous and facetious stretch to assume people were worse off back then than they are now simply because they didn't electricity -- which is a modern human failure of understanding, and more evidence to the contrary that 'evolution' is actually a degrading process -- at least in relation to humanity.

>>10875576
>We humans are the most intelligent beings on Earth.
Grain is so intelligent it altered the course of human evolution to the point that we developed advanced enough technology to eliminate all plant competition and progagate their species instead, while also supplying fertilizer and water and even packing away seeds in a cold storage vault to safeguard against some global disaster.

>>10877930
Wrong.

>>10876103
>Implying weed is bad for you