4 ms·

> Think humanity will make it that long? Whatever is around in six billion years is going to be as different from us as we are from bacteria.

by dfranke 18y ago

jraines 18y ago
Right. But will that race be interplanetary and/or capable of deep space survival?
- dfranke 18y ago
  I could tell you with considerably greater confidence whether or not it will snow in Boston ten years from today.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  Based on the fact that we haven't seen any aliens, and assuming that we're not the first intelligent species in the universe for roughly the same reason I assume I'm not the first person to have some bright idea for a web app, I'm going to guess no, or at least that it's not cost effective. Otherwise we'd probably have seen von Neumann probes or something like that by now (or more likely, we wouldn't be here).
  - rw 18y ago
    I hear Revelation Space there :)
    - rsheridan6 18y ago
      I haven't read it. I was just thinking my favorite explanation for the Fermi Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_impossible_due_to_problems_of_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_...
maxwell 18y ago
We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. Evolution isn't linear, and considering humans are the only species (that humans are aware of) which can manipulate fire, build non-trivial structures with straight lines, communicate with symbols, work levers independently, carve stone, create metal tools, vary sonic pitch extra-physically, design automated processes, and travel beyond the stratosphere, there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe. (Please correct me if I overestimated our uniqueness on any of the above.) Just because web source code looked a lot different fifteen years ago doesn't mean it'll change considerably fifteen years from now. Mutation can be beneficial, but it can also carry the unfortunate cost of breaking compatibility.
- joeyo 18y ago
  > We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. No. [edit: Upon further reflection, I may have misunderstood you. If you simply mean that humans and bacteria have a lot of DNA in common, then I of course agree.] > there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe. So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem? Unlikely. Even if we assume that humanity is somehow optimal right now, will this be true in even 100,000 years? A global temperature change of a few degrees or a change in the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere could render us utterly non-optimal. By way of example, consider that 500 million years ago there was considerably more oxygen in the atmosphere than now. This meant that insects could grow much larger than they are today withought needing to invest resources in lungs to support their body mass (insects lack specialized circulatory organs, generally). But fast forward today and giant insects are a manifestly suboptimal solution. I'm personnally grateful.
  - maxwell 18y ago
    >> We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. I was referring to this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones&sc=WR_20071204 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-... > So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem? It's not that we're physically optimal, but that we're good enough to be able to manipulate heat to an extent that makes metallurgy possible, which allows us to non-trivially optimize our environment to ourselves.

> Think humanity will make it that long? Whatever is around in six billion years is going to be as different from us as we are from bacteria.

by dfranke 18y ago

> Think humanity will make it that long? Whatever is around in six billion years is going to be as different from us as we are from bacteria.

jraines 18y ago

Right. But will that race be interplanetary and/or capable of deep space survival?

dfranke 18y ago
I could tell you with considerably greater confidence whether or not it will snow in Boston ten years from today.
rsheridan6 18y ago
Based on the fact that we haven't seen any aliens, and assuming that we're not the first intelligent species in the universe for roughly the same reason I assume I'm not the first person to have some bright idea for a web app, I'm going to guess no, or at least that it's not cost effective. Otherwise we'd probably have seen von Neumann probes or something like that by now (or more likely, we wouldn't be here).
- rw 18y ago
  I hear Revelation Space there :)
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    I haven't read it. I was just thinking my favorite explanation for the Fermi Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_impossible_due_to_problems_of_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_...

maxwell 18y ago

We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. Evolution isn't linear, and considering humans are the only species (that humans are aware of) which can manipulate fire, build non-trivial structures with straight lines, communicate with symbols, work levers independently, carve stone, create metal tools, vary sonic pitch extra-physically, design automated processes, and travel beyond the stratosphere, there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe. (Please correct me if I overestimated our uniqueness on any of the above.) Just because web source code looked a lot different fifteen years ago doesn't mean it'll change considerably fifteen years from now. Mutation can be beneficial, but it can also carry the unfortunate cost of breaking compatibility.

joeyo 18y ago
> We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. No. [edit: Upon further reflection, I may have misunderstood you. If you simply mean that humans and bacteria have a lot of DNA in common, then I of course agree.] > there is the possibility that we're already nearly evolutionarily optimal for this universe. So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem? Unlikely. Even if we assume that humanity is somehow optimal right now, will this be true in even 100,000 years? A global temperature change of a few degrees or a change in the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere could render us utterly non-optimal. By way of example, consider that 500 million years ago there was considerably more oxygen in the atmosphere than now. This meant that insects could grow much larger than they are today withought needing to invest resources in lungs to support their body mass (insects lack specialized circulatory organs, generally). But fast forward today and giant insects are a manifestly suboptimal solution. I'm personnally grateful.
- maxwell 18y ago
  >> We're quantifiably more bacteria than mammal. I was referring to this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones&sc=WR_20071204 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-... > So you think humans are the general solution for the global^Wuniversal optimization problem? It's not that we're physically optimal, but that we're good enough to be able to manipulate heat to an extent that makes metallurgy possible, which allows us to non-trivially optimize our environment to ourselves.