| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
422
   |
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Who has read or watched Idiotcracy? Thoughts on that and how it relates with this thread?
My general opinion is that anyone who cites Idiocracy and anything more than an entertaining fantasy needs to stop pontificating on the woes of humanity. If society were to ever begin to crumble to the point that people can no longer maintain those things which make it possible for us to maintain our current population levels (and I assure you, the world of idiocracy wasn't supporting 10 billion people) then natural selection will take over and the smarter individuals will be selected, as they are the ones most capable of surviving. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
423
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:39:00 -
[62] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:We do not die because we have to, we die because we evolved to do so. If you work in the medical field you will understand what happens to a large portion of the human population as they age. Even if our cells were not hard coded to stop dividing, each and every human being would amass a wealth of their own personal body changing events. Take for example a simple toe corn. It is a simple enough of an example, life creates it and makes it grow, much like the force only much more disgusting. It gets to a certain size in a human lifetime if left unchecked, but think what would happen if that person lived many times longer?
It has also been suggested that we die because death prevents incest. Basically, any animals that didn't die and be removed from the gene pool would ultimately hold back evolution as they continued putting the same genetic material back into the population. That population would stagnate due to an inability to sustain genetic drift and ultimately die off when changes arose that it was unable to adapt to. Natural selection would favor mortality. |
Eternum Praetorian
Club Bear
119
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:59:00 -
[63] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:We do not die because we have to, we die because we evolved to do so. If you work in the medical field you will understand what happens to a large portion of the human population as they age. Even if our cells were not hard coded to stop dividing, each and every human being would amass a wealth of their own personal body changing events. Take for example a simple toe corn. It is a simple enough of an example, life creates it and makes it grow, much like the force only much more disgusting. It gets to a certain size in a human lifetime if left unchecked, but think what would happen if that person lived many times longer? It has also been suggested that we die because death prevents incest. Basically, any animals that didn't die and be removed from the gene pool would ultimately hold back evolution as they continued putting the same genetic material back into the population. That population would stagnate due to an inability to sustain genetic drift and ultimately die off when changes arose that it was unable to adapt to. Natural selection would favor mortality.
That's a good one.
Noted for future reference.
Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI.
Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:50:00 -
[64] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Who has read or watched Idiotcracy? Thoughts on that and how it relates with this thread? My general opinion is that anyone who cites Idiocracy and anything more than an entertaining fantasy ...
What do you think it is based on? Demographic studies show that higher intelligence people have less children or none at all, studying the children of those parents and others they have determined that intelligence is genetically inherited in 67% of children i.e. the children have roughly the same IQ as their parents {verbal and physical studies to put aside language} when they are about the same and it varies dramatically (hence only the 67%) when the parents are quite dissimilar.
I suggest you go and scrutinise some of those science fiction authors, quite a number of them are well educated in their sciences and chose this method to disseminate their message to the unwashed masses.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
It has also been suggested that we die because death prevents incest. Basically, any animals that didn't die and be removed from the gene pool would ultimately hold back evolution as they continued putting the same genetic material back into the population. That population would stagnate due to an inability to sustain genetic drift and ultimately die off when changes arose that it was unable to adapt to. Natural selection would favor mortality.
The theory and point of this thread is that every seven years we could be different people and thus be putting different genetic material into the gene pool at a higher rate.
Ideas and stuff
EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
431
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 19:14:00 -
[65] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Who has read or watched Idiotcracy? Thoughts on that and how it relates with this thread? My general opinion is that anyone who cites Idiocracy and anything more than an entertaining fantasy ... What do you think it is based on? Demographic studies show that higher intelligence people have less children or none at all, studying the children of those parents and others they have determined that intelligence is genetically inherited in 67% of children i.e. the children have roughly the same IQ as their parents {verbal and physical studies to put aside language} when they are about the same and it varies dramatically (hence only the 67%) when the parents are quite dissimilar. I suggest you go and scrutinise some of those science fiction authors, quite a number of them are well educated in their sciences and chose this method to disseminate their message to the unwashed masses.
I suggest you read all of what you cut out of my post.
Look at the world of idiocracy: they have technology significantly more advanced than ours that has been operating for probably a hundred years without competent maintenance. This would indicate that the dumbing down of the world took at least decades more. It's quite possible that the world reached over 10 billion occupants by that time.
Once the population was unable to produce or operate the equipment that drove the industries that made it possible for that many people to live on Earth, the population would rather rapidly contract. The people most likely to survive this would be the smart ones, the ones able to anticipate future shortages, plan for multiple possible outcomes, and generally outsmart those competing for dwindling resources. Natural selection would return with a vengeance, wiping out the dumbest and leading to a resurgence of intelligence. The only way Idiocracy works is that it represents the rock-bottom of civilization, that brief moment in the history of humanity where morons reigned...and starved to death. Five hundred years after that, people would marvel at how it ever got to be so bad. It would be remembered in the same way we remember the black death.
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
It has also been suggested that we die because death prevents incest. Basically, any animals that didn't die and be removed from the gene pool would ultimately hold back evolution as they continued putting the same genetic material back into the population. That population would stagnate due to an inability to sustain genetic drift and ultimately die off when changes arose that it was unable to adapt to. Natural selection would favor mortality.
The theory and point of this thread is that every seven years we could be different people and thus be putting different genetic material into the gene pool at a higher rate.
That level of genetic change in a complex organism would almost certainly be fatal so frequently that it would wipe out our species. We need our DNA to be stable because if it's not, we'd find all sorts of new and unpleasant ways to die. |
Eternum Praetorian
Club Bear
119
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 22:22:00 -
[66] - Quote
& now, if she follows the same pattern.. she will also block Floppie. 
Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI.
Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
271
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 01:07:00 -
[67] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:...
That level of genetic change in a complex organism would almost certainly be fatal so frequently that it would wipe out our species. We need our DNA to be stable because if it's not, we'd find all sorts of new and unpleasant ways to die.
Heart transplants are fatal, gradual processes give bodies time to adjust and our children aren't fatal.
Ideas and stuff
EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Eternum Praetorian
Club Bear
119
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 01:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:...
That level of genetic change in a complex organism would almost certainly be fatal so frequently that it would wipe out our species. We need our DNA to be stable because if it's not, we'd find all sorts of new and unpleasant ways to die. Heart transplants are fatal, gradual processes give bodies time to adjust and our children aren't fatal.
Now that I am blocked I can come out and say random stuff like this and only everyone else will see!
"Typical woman this one..."
"What a Dizzy dame, this one just isn't making sense" 
"Women... whatever side of the brain they are using is always second best to being on the right side of my bed!" 
"Women shouldn't do science, they should get in the kitchen and make me some Pie!" 
Ah... the block button. I <3 it.
Reallocate funds for Icelandic air fare to developing an integrated player input function in the UI.
Then talk directly to the customers with polls to collect demographics and game preferences
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
437
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 15:22:00 -
[69] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Heart transplants are fatal, gradual processes give bodies time to adjust and our children aren't fatal.
Then you don't understand how even a small change in genetics can affect the human body.
The wrong gene gets modified, or even just has its state of activity change, and suddenly one of your organs doesn't do what it's supposed to any more. Or it does it too well. Your immune system goes berserk and eats your brain. Or maybe your kidneys fail. Your stomach stops producing its protective lining and is destroyed by its own acid. There are so many ways things can go wrong in our bodies that there's no way we could have evolved a method for recoding our DNA on the fly. You can't just reshuffle DNA. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
272
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 22:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Okay think in terms of a genetic Chimera,
Quote:Chimeras typically have immunologic tolerance to both cell lines.
We already replace cells all the time.
We look to relatives first for a kidney match for a transplant.
The combination, would be the same as that of a child you would have.
The cells perform the same functions, lungs don't do digestion in one person and respiration in another.
Yes, we would probably need another organ or gland to help regulate the immune system and or make help facilitate the process. It wouldn't be a case of us just going and injecting other peoples' stem cells into ourselves or something like that.
Ideas and stuff
EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
440
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 23:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
Chimeras are those whos bodies were able to survive developing as chimeras.
Transplants work because we have identified the factors for rejection and are able to match up those factors well enough to prevent total rejection of transplanted organs and tissues. Still, most recipients have to take anti-rejection medications for the rest of their lives.
But I'm not talking about chimeras or transplants. I'm talking about genetic changes happening inside each individual cell of a functioning body. It's like trying to retool a running factory...it won't work. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
272
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 23:04:00 -
[72] - Quote
The old cells are there doing the job and new start replacing them and taking over the task, I believe it could work and be no more harmful than when we are replenishing as per usual.
... and there is the key word, "belief". You and I have a difference of opinion and I don't agree with you. More posts saying the same thing with a different order of words will not change my mind on that.
Ideas and stuff
EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |