/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2473364]

>Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more—a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image—for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman – an apotheosis to reason, salvation – attained by good works.

Transhumanism thread. I'm into genetic engineering and hope to work on optimizing the genetic code to maximize intelligence, strength and hopefully of course biological immortality. I have high hopes that DNA will become programmable and a DIY biological revelation is upon us. Open-source genetics would promote creativity while vastly increasing our knowledge of possible genetic combination. I think the future of genetics and biology is in the hands of the individual, we just need better technology to predict the effects of various genes. It's slow right now, but honestly I don't think there's ever been a greater time to be alive.

[Anonymous No.2473378]

>biological immortality
Why should you?


To "die" is a very poor of choice of word to 'transformation of energy'

[Anonymous No.2473377]

>I have high hopes that DNA will become programmable and a DIY biological revelation is upon us

You are correct to realize regenerative medicine is taking off at the moment.

Just a few days ago they unveiled the skin gun they've been talking about at mcGowan for a while now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXO_ApjKPaI&feature=player_embedded#

[Anonymous No.2473380]

You're right. And wrong. You haven't finished thinking it through. Better look into Telomere extension, it'll give you more time to consider the issues.

Be careful what you say and to who, lest you end us as another dead microbiologist. Like my friend, RIP. Some people have secrets to keep hidden.

Oh and... http://everist.org/texts/Fermis_Urbex_Paradox.txt

[Anonymous No.2473383]

>>2473380
I do so love conspiracy theories. Tell us more.

[Anonymous No.2473386]

typo
'end us as' --> 'end up as'

[Anonymous No.2473391]

>DIY biological

I looked into it some time ago, and didn't find anything worhwhile that I can really do by myself, without access to million dollar equipment.
I personally would really like to contribute, but don't see how, without access to a modern lab.

[Anonymous No.2473402]

>>2473383
Just google 'dead microbiologists'

My friend was a genius, had completed a molecular microbiology (2nd) degree, anarchist, squatter, working on some mol-bio patents, urbexer, explosives license, political radical. Got invited to lunch by a nice man from ASIO (Oz equivalent of CIA) for a friendly chat about some matters. Six months later diagnosed with terminal cancer, another six months - dead at age 34.
Induced cancer is currently a favorite termination technique. So deniable.

[Anonymous No.2473406]

>>2473391
google 'gene hacking''
There's a quite a few people doing DIY genetics, with cheap improvised gear.

[Anonymous No.2473414]

Ah, Transhumanism: For those who hate themselves and their flabby bodies.

[Anonymous No.2473415]

>>2473402
>squatter
There's your problem.

Gene hacking sounds amazing, I'm trying to save up to buy some genetics equipment.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2473453]

First thing I do with transhumanism: Get the ability to slow down my time perception to whatever I want, and zoom, and exposure.

Then I will go out into the middle of the country, set up camp, and stay awake for 1 minute from my perception watching as the Milky Way turns overhead.

[Anonymous No.2473459]

>>2473453
>slow time down

easy, take some mescaline

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2473461]

>>2473459
Pretty sure Mescaline doesn't give me telescoping vision and high light exposure of the Milky Way.

[Anonymous No.2473471]

>>2473415
What problem? His squat was a long term, stable housing arrangement, just free.
For workspace, he used the uni lab.

[Anonymous No.2473498]

>>2473453
Next step, send a partial or whole copy 1e5 parsecs out of the galaxy, perpendicular to the disc.
Slow down, see the galactic tide and the collision between Milky Way and Andromeda.

[Anonymous No.2473505]

>>2473402
Wouldn't it make more sense to, y'know, use people instead of killing them? It seems counterproductive to give a genius microbiologist cancer instead of... well, damn near anything else.

[Anonymous No.2473507]

>>2473414
You don't have to hate your body. I'm in shape and I realize that without technology there's a limit to how strong or smart you can be. Technology has carried us out of our primitive selves, there's no reason to get attached to the body we have now. After all, we didn't choose it, why should we be proud of what we were born with. It's what we create that defines us.

[Anonymous No.2473562]

>2473505
Layers of the onion. Next google 'global cull'. The elites intend to reduce global population to under 500 million (from 7 billion) asap. Most likely using biological agents. (There's a huge amount of evidence for this, but I'm not going to do your work for you.)
It seems that particularly mol-bio people who specialize in identifying and countermeasures to bio-agents, and/or are 'loose cannons', are being targeted.

[Anonymous No.2473592]

>>2473562
>The elites intend to reduce global population to under 500 million

This would also be counterproductive. Amazingly so, in fact. I find it hard to believe that the supposed "elites" have such ridiculous plans.

[Anonymous No.2473593]

>>2473562
I used to look into conspiracy theorys until I realized they all sounded like NWO! 9/11! Reptilian Overloards! Global Culling! Moon Landing Faked!

reeks of bullshit. Also, would not a microbiologist be more susceptible to cancer or sickness considering what they work with? I think you're blowing a few deaths (out of many microbiologists) out of proportion an drawing a conclusion before you put it into perspective.

[Anonymous No.2473601]

>>2473592
Actually we're past the age where a large workforce is factor, only need enough of one to monitor the machines.

Aside most of the population is 3rd world non-productive anyways.

Not that I'm supporting the conspiracy theory though.

[Anonymous No.2473613]

>>2473592
I gave you a starting search term. Don't care if you try following the trail or not, and also am not going to bother arguing in these tiny boxes. Can't even fit a file of quotes, so here's just two:
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

[Anonymous No.2473616]

>>2473601
>Actually we're past the age where a large workforce is factor, only need enough of one to monitor the machines.

Nope. Machines can't do it all, at least not now or in the near future. Besides, even if they could handle almost all physical labor, you would still need intellectuals. It's not like the entire workforce does grunt work.

[Anonymous No.2473626]

>>2473613
Contrary to what you may think, you are not the first to bring this up, or look at the information available, or come to the conclusion that "the elites" are going to kill most of us as soon as possible. The methods to reduce the global population substantially have been available for many, many years. Plans to reduce the global population substantially have been in the works for many, many years. But the day never comes.

[Anonymous No.2473628]

so what? I would fucking love it if we could reduce the world population to a few hundred millions instead of the soon 10 billions we have today.

Frankly I believe that radical population reduction will be the only way for humanity to survive as a species.

[Anonymous No.2473641]

>>2473593
"until I realized they all sounded like NWO! 9/11! Reptilian Overloards! Global Culling! Moon Landing Faked!"
One of the standard disinformation techniques is called 'well poisoning'. It involves presenting absurd assertions, while pretending to be on the side of those who oppose you. The result is that undecided listeners conclude your opposition are all lunatics, and stop listening to anything they say. This is very effective.
The 'no moon landings', 'no pentagon plane', 'disintegrator/heat rays from space' and similar crap are all well poisoning exercises by the perception management teams. For 911 the purpose is obvious. Can you guess the purpose of the 'no moon landings' material?

[Anonymous No.2473646]

>>2473628
The world population is not even at 7 billion yet. Current projections see it reaching approximately nine billion or slightly over, stablizing, and then declining slowly, as second and third-world nations industrialize further and first-world nations become more advanced. Humanity's survival is not in jeopardy.

As an aside, I hope you realize that, if the world's population were reduced by 90-95%, your odds of survival are not good.

[Anonymous No.2473653]

>>2473628

This is ignoring the fact that the world's carrying capacity is still expanding due to genetic engineering, just like it did in the past with crop rotation, artificial selection and fertilizer.

I'm more worried about underpopulation as the rest of the world grows wealthy and adopts birth control.

[Anonymous No.2473660]

>>2473641
I thought you were going to say that. I agree that if there were a conspiracy that people would want to discredit it as much as possible. However it seems that many conspiracy theorists have similar mentalities and are much more inclined to believe in multiple conspiracy theories then just one (and they attempt to connect the most obscure dots in the most absurd ways).

If a conspiracy theory wants to stand out, it has to prove its legitimacy, only be targeting one specific issue, and also be reasonable and leave room for doubt instead of making absurd claims and stating them as fact. It should be approached from a calm, questioning point of view rather than a blind assertion (ie, requires compelling evidence or proof, not just hearsay and speculation).

I have been taking a look at the microbiologist thing though, and it is a bit disconcerning.

[Anonymous No.2473661]

>>2473626
What makes you think I'm not aware this is widely known? A silly assumption. I'm just presenting the idea to OP (or whoever it is), since they don't seem to have heard it.

>>2473628
Oddly enough I agree with you (and the elites) about the need for a drastic population reduction. However I oppose their ideas for how the world should be politically organized after the cull. They seem to imagine a kind of feudal Elites/peasants arrangement, with strictly controlled technology. Trying to sidestep the Fermi Paradox solution. They will fail.

[Anonymous No.2473670]

>>2473661
>Oddly enough I agree with you (and the elites) about the need for a drastic population reduction.

Why?

[Anonymous No.2473672]

Jesus Christ this thread is retarded.

And I love how transhumanists are almost never scientists, they just have grand ideas about how they're going to optimize the genome so we never die and make ourselves super intelligent with gene therapy or something.

[Anonymous No.2473674]

>>2473616
>Machines can't do it all, at least not now or in the near future.

You are woefully out of touch with reality. Go watch How it's Made or something and every time they say 'a worker' just look at how mundane what those people are doing.

About 50% of the jobs are automated in other factories shown in other episodes (painting products is a big example), I can come up with automation procedures for at least 30% of the remaining work done jobs on the spot, with the other 20% being a simple matter of waiting on the machines to be able to identify 3D objects. That technology will be applicable in 10-15 years at current technological progression speeds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lBHNbiooxQ

>It's not like the entire workforce does grunt work.

That's the only part of the workforce which benefits from having billions of people, the manual labor force.

[Anonymous No.2473677]

>>2473674
>, I can come up with automation procedures for at least 30% of the remaining work done jobs on the spot

Wow, you must be an amazing engineer. I bet every company is trying to hire you!

[Anonymous No.2473687]

>>2473674
>You are woefully out of touch with reality. Go watch How it's Made or something

Ha ha

Ha ha ha

Your startlingly large body of evidence has convinced me, sir

[Anonymous No.2473694]

[Anonymous No.2473701]

>>2473646
>The world population is not even at 7 billion yet.

6.8 or 6.9 I recall. Soon will be 7 bill.

>Current projections see it reaching approximately nine billion or slightly over, stablizing, and then declining slowly,

All the projections I've seen are utter crap, for failing to take into account even the most basic factors of systemic complexity breakdown, economic, political, energy and resource factors, emerging (and engineered) diseases, climate change, etc. They always seem to assume 'all things remaining the same' - and that's most definitely not going to happen. For eg, current projections of solar activity, especially solar wind decline, see a high likelihood of Earth experiencing another mini ice age, starting more or less now.

>as second and third-world nations industrialize further and first-world nations become more advanced. Humanity's survival is not in jeopardy.

That depends, on details of what exactly occurs if we do have a 'systemic breakdown'. Widescale nuclear war? maybe. Even a major fall back in technology would be biosphere-risking, due to long term failure of *all* nuclear installation containments.

Try reading 'The collapse of complex societies' -Tainter.

>As an aside, I hope you realize that, if the world's population were reduced by 90-95%, your odds of survival are not good.

Not relevant to the case, even if true. Am only interested in what _is_, not what I'd like.

[Anonymous No.2473710]

>>2473677
I'm not suggesting that I uniquely can engineering a machine to do the work. I have no doubt that other people have already thought of similar methods of automation for those applications.

For why they're not in place, I could only venture guesses. Perhaps it was a matter of costs at the time the suggestion was made, perhaps no one made the suggestion, perhaps the decision makers are ill-informed of technological innovations, perhaps an a reason based on emotion, or perhaps a knowledge that no workers means no customers.

[OP No.2473714]

Who what's going on in here? I go to class and find my transhumanism thread is filled with conspiracy theories! Let's talk about science.

>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202172300.htm
Scientists are attempting to increase intelligence using electricity to stimulate the brain.

[Anonymous No.2473718]

Where does all this stupidity come from?
More people= more smart people=more innovation= more progress=better for everyone

is this really that complicated?
Also some of the large highly specialized industries simply cannot function, and wouldn't be built in the first place if we had less people around.

[Anonymous No.2473722]

>>2473670

We are overpopulating the earth. Tell me One example of an animal that is as large as us that have almost 7 billion living.

[Anonymous No.2473726]

>>2473646
I am actually quite ok with dying if I believe that it gives humanity a fighting chance. As I see it now we are on a slippery slope to total and permanent extinction, and the main problem is the sheer mass of people who constantly drain resources, pollute and function as a power-basis for a corrupt leadership.

[Anonymous No.2473727]

>>2473722
cows,pigs maybe not as much but close

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2473729]

The carrying capacity of Earth is not as low as you think, it's merely a matter of food distribution, but of course nobody's going to send food and water for free all over the world. It could be solved when we have molecular assemblers ready to synthesize food.

[Anonymous No.2473730]

>>2473714
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8300162/Zap-to-the-brain-helps-solve-puzzles.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016655

Cool huh? Think I'll see if this can be done at home.
Alternatives such as 'blow to the head', and LSD both have some negatives.
I'm betting it will be banned eventually, especially if it catches on. Can't have people thinking out of the box! Especially if they are using a box to do it.

[Anonymous No.2473732]

>>2473722
>We are overpopulating the earth.

1. What does this actually mean?
2. What is your evidence?

[Anonymous No.2473738]

>>2473729
> when

[Anonymous No.2473737]

>>2473718
>Where does all this stupidity come from?
More people= more smart people=more innovation= more progress=better for everyone

You're forgetting that most of those additional people grow up utterly and irreparably brain-fucked, by the rigid socio-religious memes of their cultures. You *can't* innovate, if you have a fundamentally unscientific outlook.

Also, thermodynamics bitches.

[Anonymous No.2473736]

>>2473722
If weight is your concern, you should really get pissed off by the wanton reproduction of ants, who outweigh us by at least a factor of two.

[Anonymous No.2473741]

>>2473729
Not questioning that. The real issue is why?

What advanced society would allow (and why would they) a population where maybe 80% is just a drain on resources?

The assertion "more people= more smart people", just is not true. A large part of "smartness" is determined by heritage, and unfortunately most of the population does not carry the required genes to just spontaneously sprout "smartness".

[Anonymous No.2473744]

>>2473714

Agreed. I really wants someone to put me in a cryogenic chamber and wake me up when everything OP said became true.

Have you ever imagined that? Make small people. Give them weapons.Watch them fight a Gecko!
Or a wave os ants. Or even YOU!

*Drolling from excitment.

[Anonymous No.2473745]

I like how people cry Malthusian crisis every decade, yet it never happens. It's the equivalent of saying the Rapture's coming. just keep saying it every year, you'll be right one day!

And no, I wouldn't die for the human race. I'd rather go extinct then kill off the population because of a perceived problem. Not many things are worth destroying individual rights for, especially when there's no evidence.

[Anonymous No.2473743]

>>2473701
>All the projections I've seen are utter crap

Perhaps I should visualize this to help you. Watch it all.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_good_news_of_the_decade.html

[Anonymous No.2473749]

http://www.worldometers.info/

This site is pretty good and sources are all legitimate.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2473751]

>>2473741

>What advanced society would allow (and why would they) a population where maybe 80% is just a drain on resources?

No advanced society would. But if everyone, or at least every village-sized community has an assembler connected to the Internet, then they can feed themselves and keep all their food in a closed-cycle loop. No need to actually drain on resources when you can throw your own shit into a diamond chainsaw and have protein bricks coming out the other end.

[Anonymous No.2473776]

>>2473729
Sending food all over the world isn't the answer anyways, growing the bulk of the food near where it's needed is.

[Anonymous No.2473783]

>http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_biohacking_hobbyist/

You can buy electrophoresis machines, and pretty much anything else. Innovations are making genetics much cheaper. I think open-source bio could be as beneficial as open-source programming was in CS. Imagine having a 3rd party genome in your body, like Linux. One that's not based off the "randomness" of evolution, but based on defined goals set by ourselves, optimized by both professionals and amateurs. It's time to take our genes into our own hands.

[Anonymous No.2473797]

>>2473783
> "It's time to take our genes into our own hands."
Never have truer words been spoken.

[Anonymous No.2473799]

>>2473743
Oh god, puppies and flowers overload.

Here's one in return. Much drier I'm afraid. But actually in touch with reality.

[Anonymous No.2473809]

>>2473799
A link would help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[Anonymous No.2473810]

Bumping for real data and reason. Global population is projected to peak in the latter half of this century and go into decline, at around 9 or 10 billion.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

[Anonymous No.2473813]

>>2473810
O hai other Hans Rosling watcher.

[Anonymous No.2473814]

>>2473809
Oh god red flags everywhere.
He's going to go full-Malthus. I'll base my world-view on data, thanks.

[Anonymous No.2473830]

>>2473814
Yep. He's going full-retard with the exponential growth model. God damn, the stupid. Global population growth has been decelerating since the 60s.

You might as well tell me to listen to a single professor's simplistic tl;dr video on the "climate change fraud", instead of the IPCC report.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[Anonymous No.2473833]

>>2473783
I think you underestimate just how much we have yet to learn before anything of what you're suggesting is possible.

Assuming cells would be able to handle something beyond ploidy without going all whacko and becoming cancerous or dying

[Anonymous No.2473835]

>>2473745
>I like how people cry Malthusian crisis every decade..."

>>2473751
>But if everyone, or at least every village-sized community has an assembler connected to the Internet, then they can feed themselves and keep all their food in a closed-cycle loop. No need to actually drain on resources when you can throw your own shit into a diamond chainsaw and have protein bricks coming out the other end.

I like how people cry hypothetical techno-fix, as if that really makes the problem they are speaking of go away.
How naive. The US is passing laws to outlaw even the home-growing of simple vegetables, big agri-business is is working towards total patent-control of all food strains, and you think tptb are going to allow general molecular assemblers? Even if they can ever be invented and built? (Which I strongly doubt.)

Fat fucking chance.

[Anonymous No.2473841]

>>2473835
>tptb
the pirate-bay?

[Anonymous No.2473849]

>>2473841
LOL
Appropriately, even if any such technology-ban comes into place, it will be things like TPB that go around it.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2473850]

>>2473835

The industrial revolution was not stopped.

[Anonymous No.2473861]

I think it's great that information is much more free then before, because of things like Pirate Bay. Honestly, if I invented a cure for cancer and I was afraid of assassination like the conspiracy theorist up earlier in the thread, you could just upload everything and it would get mirrored like crazy, same as Wikileaks did. If enough people in the initial stages know about something, it's impossible to censor something now.

[Anonymous No.2473864]

>>2473810
>Global population is projected to peak in the latter half of this century and go into decline....

Really now? Making a guesstimate at half a centurys remove is just silly. And the real problem is of course not the population itself or how to sustain it. But rather the systemic effects on the planet of having that many consumers on the planet.

What it all boils down to is the qestion of wheter:
a)
It is preferable to have a future where a smaller population live in complete surplus and where science allows us to direct our future. or;
b)
We want a "soilent green"-esque future, where we have a huge population, but everyone lives on a ration and all ecology is constantly on the brink of collapse.

A high quality, low quantity future, or the opposite. That is the essential question.

[Anonymous No.2473873]

>>2473864
the problem is that the only solution posted here, or anywhere really, is mass killing of the population or forced sterilization, both of which cause a huge infringement on individual rights and pave the way for a totalitarian dictatorship. Just because you say you're doing something for science doesn't mean it's automatically justified.

[Anonymous No.2473875]

>>2473864
> Making a guesstimate at half a centurys remove is just silly
Hey, fuck you. This isn't a "guesstimate". How about actually looking at trends and data?
The analogy to the IPCC report is very appropriate, it seems.
>>2473830

[Anonymous No.2473888]

>>2473864
The point is that the best way to limit population is to bring the third-world up to speed. Industrialization decimates birthrates. In some first-world countries, the population is already in decline.

Luckily, the third world is already heading that way at a rapid pace.

Saying "oh noes the environment" is legitimate, but here's the thing: Resource consumption can either peak around the time human population does (through industrialization), or it can keep going up forever if the third world country is full of people looking for food and shoes who have large families almost out of necessity.

The Hans Rosling stuff linked ITT is very relevant. He's dedicated his life not to just making a difference in global welfare, but in making the global statistics accessible.

[Anonymous No.2473896]

>>2473751
>>2473729
>synthetic food by molecular nano-assemblers

Err.. is synthetic food even possible?

captcha: Lucretius knowie

[Anonymous No.2473923]

>>2473896
Probably. The trick is making it cheaper than just growing plants.

[Anonymous No.2473925]

>>2473875
I actually run into prof. Rosling on at least a weekly basis (he works in a building close by). And yes, even with all the supporting data, this is still a guesstimate. A guesstimate based on "hope nothing else happens to mess with this projection". Fifty years is a looong time to hope for "nothing" to happen.

[Anonymous No.2473944]

>>2473925
Yes, I can't deny the danger inherent in extrapolation. But what we *want* to have happen seems clear, as well as some ways to encourage it.

I just get annoyed by comments that are neither helpful nor supported by data, I guess.

[Anonymous No.2473953]

>get transhuman cyborg legs
>go for a run
>legs run out of power
>too heavy to crawl back home
>lol
>fuck transhumanism

[Anonymous No.2473954]

>>2473888
Basically this is an impossible, happy-wish future. Because even if it is true that birth rates in 3d-world countries would decline if we brought their standards up to ours. This is a physical impossibility because it would require several extra planets to get the resources to do so.

Secondly it would be ecologically impossible to bring them up to our standard. The added pressure of their industrialisation would turn the planet into little more than a toxic heap. just look at the environmental costs of just reaching this industrialisation in asia and the west.

To bring the rest of the world to this level just is not realistic.

[Anonymous No.2473980]

Am I safe from bein' cull'd if I live in deep blue country?

[Anonymous No.2473986]

>>2473896
Depends on how you define synthetic.

Bacteria and fungi can allready be used to convert inedible matter into nutrients.

Also, certain inanimate chemicals derived from non-biological chemical reactions are also human-consumable.

Currently it is still rstricted by economy to a select few areas, but...

[Anonymous No.2473990]

>>2473980
It map of how are various countries developedt, deeper blue means more developed.

[Anonymous No.2473995]

>>2473954
You don't have to put everyone on a US level to get birthrates down. Not even close. And really? I'm fine with US energy consumption going into decline, if it is truly necessary.

But I'm betting that you're saying that it's other resources, like fresh water, that are the concern. That said, there are few problems that can't be solved with a lot more energy. Hmmmm.

[Anonymous No.2474030]

>>2473873
Well, if that is what it takes, it is still preferable to possible total extinction.

However, I do not think that this is the only viable path. A regulation of population size does not have to be achieved though extermination camps (which I believe/or at least hope most people would find a bit extreme as well as distasteful). Pop-size could be regulated by constrains on procreation. It would be a bit slower. But is probably the only way to make something good out of the situation.

One could (this is just a suggestion I am cooking up at this very moment, I am sure it wont be perfect) establish various criterion of "desirable traits" such as; strength, longevity, health, different types of intelligence, various achievements in life, and so on. Trying to capture some of the complexity of the various qualities that go into making an individual suitable for having offspring.

Then one could have not just one but several genetic "pools" based on their criterion and aims.

Excluding only those people who lack any kind of useful feature in any kind of criterion. Or why not make a composite score of all criterions and sterilize the lowest 40% (barring if they show a disproportional strength in any of the other fields of criterion, say at two standard-deviations over the mean).

[Anonymous No.2474042]

>>2474030
I doubt going full-China on population control will be necessary. Population growth is continuing to decelerate as people rise out of grinding poverty, and some industrial countries are already in population decline.

[Anonymous No.2474140]

>>2474042
not fast enough, though.

if we want to survive, things need to speed up a bit.

I find it highly doubtful that humanity will survive another 50-75 years if things are just left the way they are.

[Anonymous No.2474150]

>>2474140
> find it highly doubtful that humanity will survive another 50-75 years if things are just left the way they are.
Oh what. Son, you can talk about the collapse of modern civilization all you want, but homo sapiens isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.2474166]

>>2474150
That is probably true, I apologize for over-dramatizing the issue. But then again.... starting human cultural evolution all over again... not a attractive prospect. Pretty much like an extinction event (whatever comes after may be so different that it is a new thin unto itself).

[Anonymous No.2474173]

>>2474166
Can we restart culture at the point in human history where my reward for being an esoteric mathematician-philosopher was a few hot waifu who made great sammiches?

k thx

[Anonymous No.2474209]

"population control" scenarios have always been touted as something we have to do to not fuck ourself over.
They have also always been wrong.

Some recent study showed that we have, and will have enough resources to both feed and house the ten billion people we are expected to be in a few decades.
Of course, the income gap is in the way of doing this is a nice manner, but killing or supressing the poor and numerous won't help the situation at all.

[Anonymous No.2474211]

Hurr durr Zeitgeist hurr durr conspirations hurr durr Imma cure cancer hurr.

/sci/ needs more DIY and less tinfoil hats.

[Anonymous No.2474267]

>>2474209
hmm, yes but I am certain that this is just a mistaken notion. There is nothing inherently wrong with eugenics as such, only with the way it previously has been implemented. In fact I am convinced that a carefully thought-out eugenics program is one of the defining hallmarks of a advanced civilization.

Also, even if it were made possible to harbour ten billion people on earth. Why would we want to? It's not like there is anything special or "good" about having more people just for the sake of having them.

[Anonymous No.2474318]

>>2474267
You're forgetting that with the rise of genetic engineering, soon eugenics and evolution in general may be irrelevant, and certainly less efficient. breeding is uncertain and takes a long time to achieve any measurable result. We should focus on correcting existing genes, not combining them haphazardly through breeding.

[Anonymous No.2474381]

>>2474318
Not at all forgetting this.
Genetic design will probably be an important factor, but seems unlikely (and meaningless) to use in isolation of eugenics (unless one really wants to create "master" and "slave" variations of humanity).

However, and a larger problem is: will we even have time to develop these solutions.

The thing is I always hear people say things like "science will solve that with XXXX- invention", be it assemblers, genetic design, ftl-travel, free-energy, or whatnot. And sure I agree. It will be great IF we get to develop these things.

Problem is the way things are going, we may not have the time to wait for simple solutions. It is quite possible that the overall pressure on global-ecology causes a systems break-down. Then there will be no more development. Then things will quickly become like in the pre-technological era, and then it will be to late for us all, and we will all be to busy with cave living and dying from simple infections. We need to act fast and get population under control now, as we may not have another fifty years to wait and see if pop-rates will even out.

Then, when population size is in reasonable check, can we focus on developing better ways.