[Graeme]

Huge advances in genetics, robotics, information systems and nanotechnology mean we're in for radical evolution:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

[Ludi]

Nah, these things won't have an effect on a wide enough population to be a factor in evolution.

Maybe very small populations will be affected but only if they don't mix with the wider population.

So, maybe some rich people will be affected. Sort of like Golden Retrievers.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'H')uge advances in genetics, robotics, information systems and nanotechnology mean we're in for radical evolution:

[seahorse2]

Ludi,

A change doesn't have to effect everyone in order to survive, exactly the opposite is what happens. For example, antibiotic resistant bacteria are those few bacteria that for whatever reason survived the antibiotic, though many millions/billions didn't. Same would be true of human evolution, a few will survive, while the great many will not. By definition, only those few that can make the change will survive. PO will not affect the ability of the rich to continue with their lives as usual and have access to the best that technology can and will continue to offer. Maybe this means only the rich, but there are always survivors.

[threadbear]

In the middle ages, the gentry were taller and started to develop physically in a different way from the peasant class. The differences in lifestyle were so profound, it was having a genetic effect. The populations, though linked geographically, were in the process of becoming 2 separate races.

Rapid modifications in evolution incorporating tech, or by other means, will not be broadly based, but confined to the upper class.

When the middle class is eliminated, upward mobility is harder to achieve and the risks for a creation of two different races parallelling each other, based on class, is actually quite real.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ') The populations, though linked geographically, were in the process of becoming 2 separate races.

[threadbear]

Of course, Penultimate. The differences will be largely superficial, as are racial differences. Different breeds of cat or dog, roughly constitute different races, rather than species. Breeding across class boundaries will be possible, but perhaps frowned upon as it is (or was) in India when the caste system was so deeply ingrained into all formal and informal social structures.

[MicroHydro]

We now know how to create artificial chromosomes. If desired, a new human species with a different chromosome number could be created. This would allow baseline humans to be used as sex toys without any fear of crossbreeding.

IMO, this is unlikely to happen due to infrastructure collapse. Unemployed geneticists could be planting potatoes to survive as in the former USSR. It would take a heroic effort by the elite to preserve biotechnology. The western elite is too stupid to do this. Possibly it could happen in China.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MicroHydro', ' ') This would allow baseline humans to be used as sex toys without any fear of crossbreeding.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MicroHydro', ' ') This would allow baseline humans to be used as sex toys without any fear of crossbreeding.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'L')udi,

A change doesn't have to effect everyone in order to survive, exactly the opposite is what happens. For example, antibiotic resistant bacteria are those few bacteria that for whatever reason survived the antibiotic, though many millions/billions didn't. Same would be true of human evolution, a few will survive, while the great many will not. By definition, only those few that can make the change will survive. PO will not affect the ability of the rich to continue with their lives as usual and have access to the best that technology can and will continue to offer. Maybe this means only the rich, but there are always survivors.

[seahorse]

You ask how a small percentage of a people who have a modification more capable of surviving than the general population? Seems self explanatory. Take aids, there are a small number of people in Africa seemingly unaffected by the aids virus. These people will survive, while the majority of people do not. Same way with sickle cell, a genetic trait that allows someone to survive in a climate filled with malaria.

If technology can bring a genetic modification, for example, that you don't die of cancer, or don't age, how about that, that person will survive, while cancer and old age take the rest.

How does this play into the rich surviving? If this radical change is to be brought out by new technology, then I assume that tech would require money. A lot of people can't afford health insurance, so I'm assuming they will not be able to afford, either legally or illegally, the tech advances that would be the next evolutionary leap.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'H')uge advances in genetics, robotics, information systems and nanotechnology mean we're in for radical evolution:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'Y')ou ask how a small percentage of a people who have a modification more capable of surviving than the general population? Seems self explanatory. Take aids, there are a small number of people in Africa seemingly unaffected by the aids virus.

[seahorse]

Kochevnik,

I'm glad you "cleared" that up for me. Now, use your intelligence and tell us the date of peak oil, that seems to be a big issue on this board, but maybe we just need someone that thinks for intelligently and clearly to give us the date.

[CrudeAwakening]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', '
')You people just don't think very clearly or intelligently. If the energy problems could be solved (a huge if), I would say anyone under the age of thirty alive today in a western country could expect of lifespan of 110 years + pretty easily, and most newborn children would be designed with IQ's above 150. Think of the changes that just those two things would bring about.

[pea-jay]

It's funny, this fear of the rich, how they will somehow manage to survive and thrive while the rest of us wallow in misery, to be relegated to the cesspool of history.

Aside from certain royal families, how many rich have always been rich?
Then once your family line is rich and presumably set, how many times have we heard about "falls from grace?"

Then come the more fundemental criticisms. How and why are many wealthy people "rich." Is it fundemental resource owning and domineering? No, its stupid paper wealth. How "rich" is that Manhatten socialite that has never lifted a finger in his or her life, nor ventured into the countryside, other than the hamptons? Or that Hollywood mogel. Or that dot.com investor. Ooops scratch that last one. Sure there are some genuinely wealthy, resource controlling types. But even they depend on paper wealth to assert their power.

Much longer term: Look at history. Almost every civilization had its haves and have-nots. Every major civilization in history has fallen and in most, if not all cases, the advantages of the formerly "rich" were rendered useless. Maybe they were better position to survive the initial crash. But once that was over, so was any advantage they may have had.

Just as civilizations come and go, so do the wealthy. Since we live relatively long lives and the space between generations can range from 20-30 years (yes I know it can be shorter or longer), it would take a large number of generations before traits can be developed, concentrated and propegated. Well, alot can happen in that time (more than a millenium). Unless there is geographical isolation, the chance of economic isolation is pretty remote.

As for this recent monkeying around with the genetic code, that could speed up the process. But unless the geneticists are breeding in special survival skills that help the "rich" survive the loss of their paper wealth, I don't see how this is a big worry.

Especially as it looks like the looming energy crisis will cut short any bioengineers dreams.

[Falconoffury]

In some parts of Japan and the Indonesia area the age of 110 is common. I read that it's because they eat a lot of seaweed. I read that seaweed is many times more nutritious than any land plant. I plan to start eating seaweed myself.

[Liamj]

When i read 'Radical human evolution' i never thought of robots GMO etc.

I thought of sustainability, population responsibility, living lightly, and the common good. Whats more, selection pressures will be pushing human evolution much faster in 'my' direction than any remnant hive of lab monkeys could do.

E.g. Any town that doesn't develop personal responsibility for population will suffer resource dilution, conflict and collapse.
Any slob who doesn't learn how to turn off a tap will drain the water tank and be bludgeoned to death by their nearest and dearest come summer.
Any family that over-exploits the common forest will have their axes confiscated and their house dismembered to supply legitimate users.

These are the directions we need to be, and WILL be, evolving in. Everybody/anybody else who doesn't get the reality of finite resources and need to live in balance, will be unwelcome, hungry, and then dead. Viola - evolution.
I find it very consoling, the certainty that neohippies, the amish, and remnant First Peoples will outlast Halliburton, capitalism, and even possibly the idea of 'waste'. Or nobody will.
So long as nuke war and depleted uranium don't get them.

[pea-jay]

That's the ultimate evolutionary development:

The human that does NOT need grow and consume for the sake of growth or consumption. One that is cognicent of limitations.