 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Life Extension Forum » The next human evolution... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Taka... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rich 'may evolve into separate species'
The super-rich may evolve into a separate species entirely in the
future due to enhancements in biotechnology and robotic engineering,
American futurologist Paul Saffo has said.
Mr Saffo, from San Francisco, says in the future people will be able
to grow their own replacement organs, take specially tailored drugs,
and use genetic research tools to alert them from any possible
hereditary health dangers.
He adds that tomorrow's world will be a fusion of biology and
technology, where robots do the chores, cars drive themselves and
artificial limbs are better than real ones.
Mr Saffo's comments reflect claims by American scientist Ray Kurzweil
who only a few months ago said immortality was only 20 years away due
to the speed of advancements in nanotechnology.
But Mr Saffo says these improvements would only be affordable to the
super-rich. And because of this, he says, advancements may lead to a
divide between the classes and eventually could lead to the super-rich
evolving into a different species entirely, leaving his not-so-rich
counterpart behind.
"In the 1980s it was the personal computer - came out of the garage,
changed the world. In the 1990s it was the web. The next big device to
wander into our lives is robots,” he told the Sunday Times.
"We may find we are absolutely dependent upon these electronic insects
and that we don't even know we are dependent upon them until something
breaks.
"I sometimes wonder if the very rich can live, on average, 20 years
longer than the poor. That's 20 more years of earning and saving.
Think about wealth and power and the advantages that you pass on to
your children."
SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/6432628/Rich-may-evolve-into-separate-species.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kofi... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<aaa7dabb-5cef-48af-9e1f-dda03d770496 at (no spam) f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Taka <taka0038 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Rich 'may evolve into separate species'
The super-rich may evolve into a separate species entirely in the
future due to enhancements in biotechnology and robotic engineering,
American futurologist Paul Saffo has said.
[/quote]
We're at the start of speciation, but wealth has only a little to do
with it. It's happening for the usual reasons: heptathletes are
marrying swimmers and then their kids are competitive, they go to
college and get married to other children of competitors. Lawyers are
meeting and marrying in law school. Mathematicians marry civil
engineers. Historians marry English teachers. Musicians hook up with
other musicians.
What's going to be the result of all this after ten thousand years?
Some of these talents/interests are genetically based and will lead
eventually to speciation if these trends continue long enough. This is
in fact different than the old tyranny of geography that use to act as a
check on population mixing across long distances. Pretty much since the
invention of sailing, people have been getting around. You've got
African Y chromosomes in the British population that go back eight
hundred years. But distance prevented this from happening a lot. And
most people used to have the same education standards and there wasn't
the degree of specialization in job skills.
But distance is different now. You can make international long distance
calls for pennies and couples can and do meet using the internet across
vast distances at a rate never seen before. They can do it because it's
cheap and reliable. Casting a net for a mate over that kind of distance
*that* often does change things.
You can already see this in demographics and redistricting.
Unsophisticated observers often claim that Congress is so partisan
because each party employs computers to expertly gerrymander their
districts. There used to be some truth to this thirty years ago. Today
the simple fact is it's hard to draw a balanced district simply because
people are choosing to live only next to people of the same party.
People with similar political beliefs are concentrating overwhelmingly
in certain compact geographic areas, making it increasingly difficult to
draw compact and "balanced" districts.
In the 19th century we used to have these "island communities"
(neighborhoods of Irish Catholics, Welsh Protestants, African-Americans,
etc.) because the populace was less mobile, less educated,
communications technologies were more primitive and ethnicity was much
more decisive. But each of these ethnically homogenous areas was like a
miniature diorama of their home country. In the German Hill Country
north of Austin, for instance, you had a range of different people with
political gifts; also writers, farmers, financiers - so on and so forth.
There was a widespread distribution of talent and plenty of "mixing."
Nowadays people don't marry as often because of shared ethnic bonds so
much as because of mutual interests and a shared outlook on life.
Geographic adaptation is less important (who cares about sickle cell
trait if malaria is vanquish) than economic niche. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| trigonometry1972 at (no spam) gmail.com |... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Geographic adaptation is less important (who cares about sickle cell
trait if malaria is vanquish) than economic niche.
[/quote]
Well the next century may bring even greater
"geographic' separation by way of colonies on
Mars and Ceres. Assuming such developments
are even possible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Taka... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don't forget that once humans start to speciate or divide into groups
usually a war results. Look throughout the history. Who is going to
be the next Robin Hood? Taka |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:21 am
|
|