Intelligent Apes or "human beings"

It has always amazed me and always will human kinds abilty to completely and utterly fool itself into believing things that are completely false. Such as that evolution never happened is one obvious one. But this got me thinking that if we can "imagine" ourselves so easily as being God's children in the way people in the past used to think than in a sense our imaginations become a logical extension of ourselves. our ability to imagine something fantasitical like "what if we could fly?" in a way we actually ARE doing that by thinking it... minus the actual wings and proper physics behind it . So if we can imagine ourselves to be "human beings" in the more romantic sense than where does one draw the line? Am I the human being that we imagine a Shakespearian character to be in the more pure sense? or are we merely ape like huminoids with a working brain that can reason. Can we simultaneously be both primates sharing 98% of the DNA as chimps as well as egotistical beings that want to forget that relation? One only has to major in English to see what I'm talking about. Novels by Jane Austin, the Bronte sisters, Dickens etc. depict humans in a more romantic light before evolution reduced our theatrical human sentiments to cold science accounting for why and how we think. It's romantic to imagine that we are humans with no ties to any "lesser" animal, I don't mean that in a demeaning way, just that many of us have thought that on occasion. I think it's astounding how we have the capacity to literally FORGET our ties with our chimpanzee kin and it must have been fascinating living in a time of pre-enlightened disillusionment when humans were a thing unto themselves a divine creation from a perfect creator. Furthermore evolution is an imperfect designer that would drive people who like to achieve perfection nuts! Just ask yourself this...have you ever been lost in an amazing logical thought and have become annoyed that your 'only human?' of course this ties in with AI and what that can do to enhance our brains etc. Does the human condition and its lowely associations bother you? What are your thoughts?

Edited by dfowler, 23 December 2003 - 05:29 AM.

This is a typically dualist western perspective. Why is it not just as acceptable to claim the apes are the children of God too? And while we are at it so are many, if not all life forms? The distinction you are cultivating is only one of many possibilities that are recognized by many different cultures.

However the assumption of the "Godliness" of life is what is being qualified. Does there need to be a God? If there is no God would we feel obligated to create such a being and if the Universe has a God is it a better Universe than if it doesn't?

No...no I don't mean that what I mean is the romantic ideal of what the human form can be in the more classical sense. Other forms of life have never been depicted in this sense because only humans have their unique reasoning abilities. no there doesn't have to be a God but the truth that apes and humans are so closely related kind of makes me feel less than human to be honest I feel like a retarded version of what a human could be. not be personally in general it's like here I am reasoning quite well and just under me or next to me to not be demeaning is a chimp who can barely use a stick! That kind of hurts our ego's ya know Laz? I'm not a religous zealot either can't handle those guys I'm just not 100% comfortable with the idea, it's not that chimps can reason well if that were the case than I'd say well ok at least they're relatively smart etc.

I hear what you're saying dfowler...

After being indoctrinated that we are 'not animal' and that we are so removed from our biological histories that we are 'raised above'.. only to find that we still have one foot (and perhaps more) on the Chimps ladder.. its a little humbling.. It's interesting how a couple of tweaks of the genetic code and whoops.. there we are..

I find it actually VERY amusing... [lol]

What we don't know could fill a universe...in fact, it does...

I guess it's a loaded question and i'm being a little childish but actually I think that as Lazarus said it really doesn't matter and I'm only being anthropomorphic.

It only hurts the ego if we attach our definition of self to such concepts, once we see beyond it becomes as meaningless an issue as thinking we are descendants of Santa Claus. The romantic notion of self is not decimated by the realization that Darwin is correct, in fact from my perspective the opposite is true.

How wonderful that from such muck and mire such sublime possibility exists. What a wonderful and transcendent accomplishment the metamorphosis of our evolution represents for organic adaptations. We are not diminished by our roots anymore than we are the simplistic inheritors of the existential guilt of our forefathers. What matters is what we do with our lives and the recognition of the truth of our legacy is critical to giving purpose to that task and a pragmatic hope for future accomplishment.


Our humble beginnings are not a source of dismay as much as joy for recognition of the fact that we are not bound by the past.

What matters definitely is how we deal with our lives and what we do with it. Evolution is an extraordinary thing that should be a chance for us to revel in the many possiblities of a science grounded reality...the "romantic ideal" or whatever and reality don't have to be mutually exclusive I guess.

It is a curiosity of the translation from Hebrew to English that a critical distinction is lost in the account given of the creation of 'haAdam" (clay man).

In each earlier creation that breathes, the Hebrew word used to describe breath is Ruachh simply air going in and out.

In contrast to any other breathing creatures, the haAdam is singular in that what was breathed into his nostrils was the very rarely used word Neshamah. This word clearly implies and breathing animal with "enlightenment"...Knowledge, emotion, conscience, memory, wisdom, time sense. I've always found that distinguishment interesting.

I think that distinction is quite interesting we do have those qualities and the Jewish religion is one of the most fascinating and intelligent religions around. I'm always amazed at the wisdom behind it.

I also want to say that when intelligent AI is brought to frution I would imagine that "what we don't know" will turn into all that we will know

The key word is evolution.

Up to this point, the driving force was the sun, or should i say "GOD" that shaped evolution.

From now on homo sapiens sapiens will take controll of his own evolution.

Biotechnology - Gene Engineering will give us the tools to take evolution into our own hands.

provolution

Human Selection is not just about one species defining and designing its own alternatives, it is the reality that once a single species of the ecologically balanced "competition" of Natural Selection achieves domination over the primary rules of the competition through manipulation of the underlying principle it is skewing the competition by loading the dice.

Hence humans aren't just responsible for themselves anymore we are assuming responsibility for all life on Earth, whether we like this idea or not, it is the default position of any single species' determinist application of choice over supply & demand on global resources. Hence Natural Selection has resulted in our 'selection' and winning the competition has its rewards but its responsibilities too.

The end of environmentally determined evolution is the transition to a specific species determination and this is why I call it Human Selection. We must see to conscious management of the entire biosphere and discard the laise-fare attitude of the past because it was a product of the "Old Rules" of competition under the system of Natural Selection.

Ignoring, denying, and neglecting human impact does not justify or prevent the reality of it and the responsibilities of control are prerequisite to the positive and successful outcome of the applications of such power even though they are no guarantee of positive results.

How we treat our species and other species is of course vital to the outcome of the whole planet. If and when we use Biotech to transform ourselves to more intelligent beings than I think it goes without saying that we should continue to challenge many of the "old rule" problems that have been ignored for so long. I think we have to rethink some of our processes for doing things and I think Lazarus is saying that humans have through mindless competition ignored some basic problems because we were so caught up in that rat race for resources. It would be nice to change some of our focus

humans have through mindless competition ignored some basic problems because we were so caught up in that rat race for resources.

Well said David that is a part of what I am saying we must face as an entirely new set of challenges that we are "inventing" to replace being simply a member of the set of challenges (the competition paradigms of Natural Selection) that we confronted throughout evolution to reach this point.

If we claim to be truly responsible intelligent life and not merely consequentially dominant but responsibly dominant over our planetary resources then it is incumbent on us to transition to "mindful competition" and to do this we are altering the rules away from simplistic Social Darwinism to a standard of structured intentional evolution. This idea ameliorates chance as a measure of "fairness" but increases our responsibility beyond what most economic theorists today would suggest is acceptable. This is why the discussion of Human Selection cannot proceed without a parallel discussion of Environmental Economics that attempts to analyze and assign value beyond simplistic human oriented supply and demand marketing.

We are truly assuming stewardship of the planet and a recognition that it is collective by default not individualistic. This is about how our individual desires and actions contribute to the "commons" collectively but also how "we" must appreciate and maximize individual values and "freedom of invention/expression." Because we are doing so as a consequence of the level of technological prowess made possible by the advances we achieve individually and "profit by" collectively then collectively distribute, apply, and modify individually to meet local or regional variations on environmental efficiency.

OK I am jumping ahead now, sorry.

Interesting I need to learn more about Envioronmental Economics so this goes beyond human supply and demand marketing but how.

I should have called it Evolutionary Economics (as I already did) but I made a Freudian slip, because of course what I am referring to is seeing global resources as first off a "closed system" even if we someday come to more fully access "Universal Resources" (which we haven't yet) and second because it requires the admission of criteria regarding "quality of life" concerns that on some level of subjective and on some levels profoundly ecological. Value in purely human terms is anything but objective.

So to start with try and define an "Objective Value" or an agreed upon definition of what an "Objective Value" would be?

The "Objective Value" to be persued is to fill all availabel space with life. Which is what has been going on on the surface of planet earth for several billion years. From bacteria to homo sapiens. Up to know driven by the energy of the sun.

What is new, and it only just happend, is that the power of the human mind has overtaken the sun in the sence that it can determan what direction evolution will take now.

The best way to fill orbital space is to use gene engineering and extraterrestrial migration which wil lead to homo immortalis.

The quest to fill other planets with life is quite a subjective potential endeavor indeed...why should this be a needed goal in the first place? You could say because of a basic fundemental need to further advance our species and that too is an idea that could be very useful depending on how one looks at it. What if we went ahead and acheived all of these great advances the singularity, superior intelligence, going wherever the hell we please super longevity, super strength is this really what we want? I mean there is alot of negative utility to anything that is also potentially positive. Becoming Gods is not necassarily very humbling is it? And when we do become God like how can we define this as an advancement necassarily? We're the hippies in the sixties less advanced because of different ideologies? No...so I sometimes ask myself why am I wanting to go down a certain road just for the fun of it or because I see the greatness in the thing itself?

ImmortalitySystems: what makes you think genetic engineering is the best approach to fill up outer space? Why not nano-augmentation, or something else entirely? Nanotechnology would offer the same capabilities that genetic engineering would, only more. Have you researched nanotechnology in the past? If so, why is it inferior to genetic engineering?

dfowler: ...so I sometimes ask myself why am I wanting to go down a certain road just for the fun of it or because I see the greatness in the thing itself?

I think in a certain sense it might be necessary to go down these particular roads. I think curiosity and security usually prevail in causing us to behave the way that we do. We can observe that among people there are different levels at which people are curious. Some are more curious than others. And in terms of security, there are many modes to manage life's terrors.

Transhumanists seem to be more curious than most. And the transhumanist mode of security is to fully understand what is real and nonreal. These all seem to me a matter a choice. What you choose is up to you as an individual and the particular ethical system with which you generally come to adopt. Generally speaking, and only from what I can tell, if you choose to want to understand what is actual over what is comfortable, you'll be more inclined to be a Transhumanist. There are consequences for whatever choices you make. These consequences can be known or unknown. Whichever ones you are most comfortable with including being comfortable with the unknown, I would say go down the road that causes them.

the greatness happiness my freind the utimate aim should be to create out of every atom in the universe something that will be happy - that should be our aim

Hello everyone.
I am new to this forum and probably far behind all of you in my reading and knowledge of Transhumanist issues.
I grew up with Mike West, although I'm younger than he is, and I have been bitten by the same bug that infected his curiosity with
the desire to conquer aging and eventually death.

I see two key issues rising above the multitude of things to think about with regards to advancing humanity.

1) Peak Oil and fossil fuel depletion. Our entire world population and all of our technology is built upon this weak foundation.


The major problem isn't fuel for heating and vehicles, or even energy production (electricity). The problem is that ALL of our
Agriculture is based on fossil fuels used for FERTILIZER. Allow me to briefly explain.

Normally most soil that is usable for growing the world's food supply produces around 16 bushels of grain per acre.

Use of artificial fertilizers has raised this to 130 bushels of grain per acre.

The growth in food production has caused a corresponding growth in human population. (6 Billion)

These FERTILIZERS are mainly Ammonia based (like Ammonia Nitrates). This is made directly from NATURAL GAS.

Natural gas travels adequately through pipelines, but must be liquifide and compressed for storage in tanks for transoceanic shipping.
This has an inordinate COST......***** key point here********.....this INORDINATE COST is not in money, But in ENERGY EXPENDED.

In other words you reach "diminishing returns". You use 2 barrels of oil in energy expenditure to produce and ship 1 barrel in usable product.

Quite soon Oil and Natural Gas will reach the peak event and then steadily decline forever. No new oil field discoveries can or will change this.
No new extraction techniques will alleviate or ameliorate this problem.

Also we cannot simply CONSERVE our way out of this problem. The mathematical projections and human dynamics are such that this will
become a major problem as soon as 2012. (Possibly sooner)

The projected human population for the year 2012 is 7 Billion people. By 2020 there will be 8 Billion people.

When fossil fuel production peaks , but human population continues to rapidly grow, the amount of consumed resources will rise
higher than the rate of any alternative fuels or technology will be capable of offsetting.

You can't fertilize a crop with solar energy. As land made farmable by fossil fuels and irrigation returns to it's formerly nonproductive state
food production will drop. And as we run out of Natural Gas to derive fertilizers from the remaining farmable land will see Bushel/acre yields
drop back from 130 Bushels per acre to 12-16 Bushels per acre.

So in 17 years time human population will grow by 33% to 8 Billion, while food production will DROP by approximately 88%.

To my knowledge there is nothing that will prevent this scenario from happening, we are ALREADY past the "tipping point".

The earth seems to be able to "sustainably" support approximately 2 Billion humans. The clock is ticking what are the solutions ?

Will these solutions be AVAILABLE soon enough to avert this ? Currently Hydrogen Fuels that have been proposed are actually made
FROM fossil fuels and are a NET ENERGY SINK. Meaning you use More energy by employing them than they produce.

Diminishing returns again. And currently producing Hydrogen from water USES more energy than it Produces.

This could end up sidetracking or even stopping in it's tracks much of our current science and technologies.

Problem #2...(.remember there were two problems that I am working on)...#2 is the apparent inability of the MAJORITY of the human
population to "Think LATERALLY"........... I currently see the ability in approximately 7% of the population.

Everyone else is parasitic on this 7 percent's ability. Everyone else is merely derivative and in a low grade way at that.

THIS is where I see Natural selection and evolution in practice. Those who CAN'T think Laterally seem as different as the Chimps.

Problem #2 impacts on problem #1 , in that there are not enough suitably gifted and productive creative thinkers to properly address
these problems within the given time frame and produce an exceptable outcome. Plus not many are working to solve any of this.


Depopulation......to the 2 Billion level by 2020 is a "workable"(?), albeit genocidal solution. It is not clear if this is even logistically
feasible........setting aside it's sheer horror.

Genetically engineering crops does NOT solve the problem, Alternative Energy does NOT solve the problem,
radical conservation does NOT solve the problem. COMBINING all three of these simoultaneously does NOT solve the problem.


For the data necessary to crunch the numbers on this go to : http://www.dieoff.org

It's a huge database, relatively accurate EVENTHOUGH it is somewhat dated (old data).

Tell me what you think, and see if you can see any solutions that will work within the given timeframe.

If this is inappropriate to this thread feel free to move it to a more suitable place.


Thanks for your help .


etc966


.

This was a very well articulated post and I am glad that you have begun to address the larger more intricate aspects of of the current peak fuel crisis. For what it is worth we have a thread on this very subject begun by the same contributor as this one and I would ask you to please contribute to our forum section on "Threats to Life".

This is the thread
Approaching the Olduvai Cliff?

These are also relevant threads:
Ban fishing in third of all seas, scientists say

World Facing 4th Consecutive Grain Harvest Shortfall

Overpopulation?

Debunking the 'overpopulation' argument

And you should also look in here at the Politics & Religion forum

Genetically engineering crops does NOT solve the problem, Alternative Energy does NOT solve the problem,
radical conservation does NOT solve the problem. COMBINING all three of these simultaneously does NOT solve the problem.

For what it is worth you are probably correct that none of these alone, or even in combination with vastly improved efficiencies and Zero Population Growth will likely completely solve the problem but they do improve conditions and buy a little time (like most of the 21st Century).

Also one (of many) problem with the "genocidal" solution is that it may not have a floor upon which to land, once it starts the possibility of a total die off for humans is also a distinctly possible outcome and even if the general chaos and pandemonium provided pockets of respite the likelihood of a catastrophic return to a dark age period is a real probability. This is a weak solution favored by those that do not think "laterally" as you have put it.

The discussion you are raising actually belongs in one of the other threads I mentioned but leave it here and reference it by cop/pasting the link to the thread you favor to follow through on. The link to you specific post is the one above it marked "link".

Also in a profound example of serendipity and synchronicity chubtoad posted this topic while I was writing this response to your post etc966 Gas Hydrates I would suggest you read that one too.

Lazarus,

The reason that I posted to this thread is that it was "active" at the time I wanted to post and you were currently online.

I really hate slow motion forums with weeks or months in between posts. I realize that this can't always be helped, but
it keeps me sane to get timely feedback. I want to thank you for replying so quickly.

I read the first thread link (The Olduvai Cliff Thread) to get up to speed and see the level of discussion on this topic.

I , of course, have thrashed all of this out in other forums over the past few years and I'm very familiar with all the data.

So as not to continue posting the wrong topic in this thread, I will just make these quick points:

1) I have talked to Duncan to see if his conclusions have changed (with more recent updates), they have not .
The new data supports the prior conclusions, with a slightly accelerated slide event due to current war (the great eater of fuel).

2) You said:
For what it is worth you are probably correct that none of these alone, or even in combination with vastly improved efficiencies
and Zero Population Growth will likely completely solve the problem but they do improve conditions and buy a little time
(like most of the 21st Century).

This viewpoint has several assumptions underpinning it, that may fall by the wayside do to human nature and
current governmental trends.

These assumptions are :

A) That these factors CAN and ARE implemented together.

B) That these factors are implemented in TIME, as there is a big "lag" factor involved,
(Like turning a giant oceanliner, no immediate results even after taking a course correction).

C) That Zero population growth over the ENTIRE planet is even achievable, and within the deadline.
Current efforts suggest that it is NOT.

D) That we have not already passed the point of no return, (with regard to the lag factor), and that steps taken now
and in the near future will slow down or stop the event.......giving us more time.

All four of these underpinning assumptions must be met favorably in order for us to get that " time extension" to which you refer.

What do you suppose, given that the NeoCons hold sway over our current governmental regime and maybe up to 2008,
is the probability that all FOUR necessary conditions will be successfully met simoultaneously AND in time ?

That being the case, what are the odds that what you said will be true ?

If the odds are poor, what will be the consequences of failure ?

How will that "failure" manifest itself with regards to Transhumanist goals ?


OK, I will copy and link BOTH of these posts to the Olduvai thread....even though it was last active 13 NOV 03.

Thanks again for humoring the "newbie".




etc966



.

I feel that the next step in evolution will be the extention of "life" in to "orbital space", that is homo sapiens will build (grow) Space Settlemens at the Lagrangian liberation points (Gerhard O'Neill's "Island One").

Moving to an other planet in this solar systems would not offer any real advantages. But using solar energy, which is available 24 hours a day, and material from the Moon, combined with having a choice of gravity, would give us an environment that would make living there more comfortable and efficient then on the surface space of Earth.

An other big plus is that there is much more orbital space then the always limeted space of a planetary surface.

Having the potentialy infinit "Lebensraum" of orbital space would make Immortality the natural evolutionary consequence.

Migration, that is filling all available spaces, is the direction of evolution on the biological level. As we can identify it as this point, from bacteria to homo immortalis.

Thank you "dfowler" for asking the question "Becoming Gods is not necassarily very humbling is it?" When i sometimes aske myself the question why i want to go down a certain road, i come up with the answer, 'it is amusing'.

Exactly there doesn't have to be a specific underlying reason for humans to go down a scientific road other than the fact that the pursuit in itself should be justifiably compelling and ultimately rewarding.