Poll: End of human civilization

[Developereo]

What do you guys figure?

I think bioscience will take off in the 21st century the way electronics/computers took off in late 20th century.

Starting with the best of intentions (as always) we will start tampering with our genes and, before we know it, we will have morphed ourselves into something completely alien.

By the turn of the next century, the average 'human' will have about as much in common with us as we do with chimpanzees. They will effectively be a separate species. Certainly in the more developed countries, everybody will be genetically altered (it will be standard practice, like immunizations) but everybody on the planet, even in poor countries, will be altered in at least some minimal way. There may be isolated pockets of stubborn, unaltered humans living off the grid but they will eventually die out, since there is no way they could possibly compete with the genetically-enhanced humans either physically or mentally.

The problem with genetics is that we know just enough to be dangerous. There is an awful lot we just don't know, including the so-called 'junk DNA' and the interactions between genes at various levels. I am convinced it will be far too late before we find out the side effects, and it is these side effects which will be the undoing of the master race, leaving the planet once again to the animals.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

By the turn of the next century, the average 'human' will have about as much in common with us as we do with chimpanzees. They will effectively be a separate species.

You think all this will happen in the next century? Its going to take 100,000s to Millions of years for this to happen.

I dont think the advancements in bioscience in the next 100 years can allow us to alter ourselves that much. I can be totally wrong.

 

[Developereo]

You think all this will happen in the next century? Its going to take 100,000s to Millions of years for this to happen.

In nature, yes, because nature works randomly. But with genetics we will control our own 'evolution' by explicitly controlling our genes.

It will start out innocently enough. Instead of immunizing children, why not 'fix' their genes so they have built-in immunity from birth. Or eliminate certain diseases.

From there it will go to more elective modifications, like stronger muscles, more endurace, better memory, etc. Except that these won't stay elective for very long. What parent would deny their child these advantages if other children are getting them? And, once sufficient people have these advantages, governments will be forced to step in and make them available to everyone because these advantages get passed down the generations. It's not like sending your kid to an expensive school.

I dont think the advancements in bioscience in the next 100 years can allow us to alter ourselves that much. I can be totally wrong.

That's why I made the comparison to electronics. Compare the processors or storage devices of today with those just fifty years ago. Look at Moore's law where computing power effectively doubles every two years.

I believe advances in biotech will follow a similar exponential pattern.

 

[below_freezing]

As a biochemistry graduate I have to speak out against such foolishness. Only outsiders and amateurs focusing on the "big news" (often exaggerated) think we're anywhere near large scale manipulation.

Fact: Modern life sciences are focused on the "analysis" of living systems, and not "design" of living systems. There is no real "design". Let me give examples.

When we make a genetic knockout mice, how do you suppose we do so? Are we doing microsurgery to remove that one certain gene from its DNA? No. To create a genetic knockout mouse, we still must rely on the tools given to us by nature with only minimal use of primitive, human made tools. And in the end, this is considered "modern biology". Compare that with the precision of which we manipulate non-living systems.

Here's the full procedure: Gene of interest isolated from mouse culture by first using known restriction endonucleases to slice apart the chromosome where the gene is located, hopefully obtaining fragments (you might not, you might have isolated the wrong chromosome, etc). because we know the sequence thanks to everyone else doing the DNA sequencing before us (this in itself, is extremely difficult) we can predict what a certain endonuclease can do and what fragments are formed, and be able to predict their mass (and by extension, their retention time in gel electrophoresis). We isolate the fragments containing our DNA of interest, dump the rest, and reform the bonds with the promoter and terminator intact but perhaps a middle region switched backwards to make the gene inoperable. We use electricity to shock some mouse blastocyst cells in culture, expose it to a solution of purified DNA, and let them grow for a while before inserting them into the interior of another developing mouse blastocyst. Because of mammal development being particular, the inner cell mass of the mouse blastocyst will develop into the actual organism and the outer layer will develop into the placenta (this is true in humans as well). The blastocyst is then allowed to develop normally in a regular female mouse, and when it is born, it will have some cells be mutant and some cells be wild type. HOPEFULLY (this is only hopefully because random processes in development occur) one of the mice we treated this way will have the mutant cells as GERM cells, or sperm/eggs. if we have TWO of these mice of different ***, we can mate them to produce homozygous KNOCKOUT mice.

Summary of the challenges: 1.) Need to isolate known gene of interest out of 25000 genes. 2.) Genes are not grouped together but instead have different coding and non-coding regions, you must guess the coding regions called exons and introns respectively; they display a phenomenon called alternative splicing where the regions considered introns and exons are changed, or their order is changed, resulting in a different protein. 3.) Isolate and transfect using physical tools 4.) Insert into blastocyst and hope it grows 5.) The mice born are not knockouts but are hybrids. To make a pure knockout you need TWO hybrid mice of the opposite gender and basic genetics tells us the probability of even these 2 mice producing a homozygous knockout is 1/4. 6.) This whole process takes 2 generations and countless preparation.

Do you see how unbelievably complex, and up to random chance, this procedure is? And note the instruments we use, they're like blunt hammers: restriction enzymes, electricity, breeding, electrophoresis, that's it. Being able to create a single homozygous knockout mouse can take months. And this is just a mouse, and this is just knocking out a gene, and it's just knocking out one gene, and in one part of the body, and it takes 2 generations.

How about making a synthetic gene? Not going to happen! Will it even be expressable? Even if it did, how are you going to get it into humans? Not happening! Even if you did, it'll take 2 generations to express!

 

[Developereo]

How about making a synthetic gene? Not going to happen! Will it even be expressable? Even if it did, how are you going to get it into humans? Not happening! Even if you did, it'll take 2 generations to express!

Good points, thanks.

I am not talking about completely synthetic genes, but transplanting existing genes from other species. I take your point that the procedure is cumbersome and subject to randomness, but these are technical challenges. The principle has been proven and we are extremely good at solving technical challenges.

Can you imagine what some computer scientist in the 1950s would say if you told him teenagers would be walking around with palm-sized devices more powerful than all the computers in his world combined?

I have absolutely no doubt that we will sove these technical problems, especially if and when nanotechnology comes of age, but even without.

And this is what we can do today with today's technology.

Scientists create monkeys with glowing gene

Gene Doping In Athletes Is The New Challenge Being Addressed By UF, French Scientists

 

[Zeluvaa]

Nearly all of the options listed in the poll can lead to the end of human race as we know it. Some are more likely, whereas others are less.

1) Nuclear War :- Currently one of the biggest threat to humanity. All it will take is one misunderstanding or confusion and it can trigger a nuclear war. And although, not every human would be exterminated due to the blast itself, but it will be the after effects that would be worse. Radiation, food shortage, possible climate change, etc.

2)Bio/Chemical War :- One of the less likely option IMHO. The Biological war can be sort of combined with the pandemic option as it is similar. However I do not think a Chemical war have a potential to eliminate billions of people.

3) Alien Invasion :- Ahh the most favourite topic of science fiction. Why do we have to assume that all aliens would be hell bent on our extermination? Sorry but again, I don't believe it is a very likely option.

4) Climate Change :- The biggest current threat to humanity. This is the only threat which we are actively facing even now. Unfortunately we are not doing enough regarding this. But i have my doubts if this will eliminate humans completely. Can it destroy civilization as we know it? Definitely. But can it destroy the humans? erm perhaps no

5) Asteroid Impact :- Another likely event. However as technology advances, we may have a chance to counter threats from asteroids.

6) Gamma ray burst : - A Very unpleasant threat. And what makes it even more dangerous is, that there is absolutely no way of knowing when it will strike. We will not even get advance warning when it strikes.

7) Pandemic :- We have successfully avoided extermination from these for thousands of years, and I believe we can do so for a very long time. But rather than nature producing these deadly viruses, it is more likely that humans would do so.

8) Genetic Tampering :- Being a biotechnologist and having studied biochemistry, I do not agree with this happening anywhere in the near future. But a question that arises if genetically superior humans do pop up is, will humans would have truly died out. We would have just evolved into superior beings. Genetically these beings may be a different race then us humans, but they will be our progeny and thus can also be called "humans"

For those interested in knowing some interesting ways of us dying, please watch this extremely interesting documentory

I will list some more possible way of an end to human civilization as we know it
1) Supervolcano eruption
2) Black Hole destruction
3) Evil sentient robots
4) Grey Goo

 

[Developereo]

Nearly all of the options listed in the poll can lead to the end of human race as we know it. Some are more likely, whereas others are less.

I agree that nuclear/bio/chem war may destroy human civilization but not the human race.

Pandemic won't even make a dent. Even the worst hysteria about Bird Flu estimated 150 million deaths, which is a pinprick to a 7+ billion population.

Asteroid and other space events are a possibility, although unlikely. Large asteroids hit Earth on average every 100 million years so, statistically speaking, we are safe for another 35 million years.

Aliens are good for science fiction only.

Climate change is over-hyped. It will damage human civilization and may kill millions of people but it will not make humans extinct.

Evil robots and grey goo are also good for science fiction. Unless we develop portable nuclear power packs for them, we will simply turn off their power supply. End of story.

Which only leaves genetics. Maybe I am overestimating our technological prowess but, looking at the last 50 years in computing, I don't think I am being too ambitious. We'll see.

 

[9870]

Asteroid and other space events are a possibility, although unlikely. Large asteroids hit Earth on average every 100 million years so, statistically speaking, we are safe for another 35 million years.

FYI, An Asteriod just passed in the position of Earth where it was just 6 Hours Ago in 1989. And Earth moves at 6km/s I think. And that asteriod was only detected afterwards.

So Do not under estimate this threat.

 

[below_freezing]

Life sciences is just not precise enough and large scale enough to change everything. It's not like computers where there's application in everything; it's more of a specialty like aerospace engineering, a highly specialized and narrow field.

Think about it:

in mice, to knock out 1 gene precisely, it takes 2 generations if everything else goes correct.

in humans, 2 generations is 50 years.

the propagation of new genes in a population can be described by the diffusion equation. solving it is hard and complex because it is a partial differential equation, and i can't do it, so i'll just state the results: new genes spread very very slowly at long distances. this is analogous to diffusion over macroscopic distances being an extremely slow form of transport due to a small value of diffusivity constant which is based in part on the root mean squared speed of each particle; this D can be thought of roughly as the "rate of interaction", for molecules this is on the order of 10^-6 seconds but for humans having children its on the order of YEARS.

so even if engineered humans were created and were able to reproduce, the relative ratio of them vs. regular people will never be high enough so that they can destroy the rest of humanity as long as it was impossible for those engineered humans to tell each other apart. and even if they can, they'll have to reproduce at a significant rate without detection from governments that will just stamp them out if they became a threat, for at least a century.

 

[Gold1010]

I think Volcanoes post the most threat to us , Asteroids can now be technollogicaly sent offcourse , Volcanoes such as Yellowstone , lake toba , lake taupo. can have a world/continental effect and also Laki in iceland.

 

[Developereo]

FYI, An Asteriod just passed in the position of Earth where it was just 6 Hours Ago in 1989.

How big was it? I am talking about planet killers. Those only come around every 100 million years on average. Of course, that's no guarantee that one won't show up next year but, statistically speaking, its not a serious threat.

I think Volcanoes post the most threat to us , Asteroids can now be technollogicaly sent offcourse , Volcanoes such as Yellowstone , lake toba , lake taupo. can have a world/continental effect and also Laki in iceland.

Individual volcanoes are not planet killers. They can make life hell for a while, but we will survive. Now if you are talking about a scenario like the ancient Indian Deccan volcanic eruptions, then those could kill off humans, but we don't know what triggered them last time.

the propagation of new genes in a population can be described by the diffusion equation.
[...]
so even if engineered humans were created and were able to reproduce, the relative ratio of them vs. regular people will never be high enough so that they can destroy the rest of humanity as long as it was impossible for those engineered humans to tell each other apart. and even if they can, they'll have to reproduce at a significant rate without detection from governments that will just stamp them out if they became a threat, for at least a century.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Imagine this scenario: we discover how to cure (propensity for) leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc, etc genetically. It is only natural that such cures will be implemented genetically on embryos just as routinely as we perform immunizations on children right now. We will develop the technology to perform these kinds of genetic manipulations safely and routinely on a large scale. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Now imagine the same technology used to perform elective 'surgery'. People will pay to give their kids bigger muscles, better memory, better endurance, etc. etc. Once the technology exists, it will be used and it will become commonplace eventually. So the model of genetic propagation for random mutations does not apply here: once a significant percentage of the population has the modified gene explicitly implanted, it will quickly permeate the entire population. We will even develop the technology to make it a dominant gene to make sure it doesn't dissipate down the generations.

I have absolutely no doubt about our ability to develop these technologies within this century. Its only a matter of time.

 

[Gold1010]

How big was it? I am talking about planet killers. Those only come around every 100 million years on average. Of course, that's no guarantee that one won't show up next year but, statistically speaking, its not a serious threat.



Individual volcanoes are not planet killers. They can make life hell for a while, but we will survive. Now if you are talking about a scenario like the ancient Indian Deccan volcanic eruptions, then those could kill off humans, but we don't know what triggered them last time.



Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Imagine this scenario: we discover how to cure (propensity for) leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc, etc genetically. It is only natural that such cures will be implemented genetically on embryos just as routinely as we perform immunizations on children right now. We will develop the technology to perform these kinds of genetic manipulations safely and routinely on a large scale. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Now imagine the same technology used to perform elective 'surgery'. People will pay to give their kids bigger muscles, better memory, better endurance, etc. etc. Once the technology exists, it will be used and it will become commonplace eventually. So the model of genetic propagation for random mutations does not apply here: once a significant percentage of the population has the modified gene explicitly implanted, it will quickly permeate the entire population. We will even develop the technology to make it a dominant gene to make sure it doesn't dissipate down the generations.

I have absolutely no doubt about our ability to develop these technologies within this century. Its only a matter of time.

lake toba almost wiped out the human population and wiped out human sub species. , yellowstone could possibly be worse.

 

[below_freezing]

Imagine this scenario: we discover how to cure (propensity for) leukemia, sickle cell anemia, etc, etc genetically. It is only natural that such cures will be implemented genetically on embryos just as routinely as we perform immunizations on children right now. We will develop the technology to perform these kinds of genetic manipulations safely and routinely on a large scale. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Now imagine the same technology used to perform elective 'surgery'. People will pay to give their kids bigger muscles, better memory, better endurance, etc. etc. Once the technology exists, it will be used and it will become commonplace eventually. So the model of genetic propagation for random mutations does not apply here: once a significant percentage of the population has the modified gene explicitly implanted, it will quickly permeate the entire population. We will even develop the technology to make it a dominant gene to make sure it doesn't dissipate down the generations.

I have absolutely no doubt about our ability to develop these technologies within this century. Its only a matter of time.

I can imagine, but not know the mechanisms for doing so. Chemically disabling a specific part of DNA and no other is very hard, as DNA bases are similar in chemical and physical properties, and the same sequence will appear over and over again in the DNA at unrelated sites. This means that no chemical agent right now can do better than the natural transcription factors of a cell. Add to the fact that eukaryotic genomes are highly compacted with a complex physical structure that may itself resist manipulation due to the gene of interest being buried in the interior of the chromatin tangle during interphase. Thus, precision physical removal of genes from a target cell is impossible. This means that any "engineering" of an individual will require at least 2 generations.

The best that people can do until humans can outdo billions of years of evolution, is pay for their grandchildren to be smarter/better (if those genes or sets of genes are isolated, which itself is a whole question).

In fact, even curing genetic diseases is far too hopeful. Even with hypothetical precision surgery treatment, it must be detected extremely early, before the embryo leaves the blastocyst stage, otherwise there will be too many defective cells to replace. however, the blastocyst is undetectable and buried in the uterine wall during this time. in fact, the woman may not even know she is pregnant. by the time pregnancy is detectable, it is already far too late.

 

[ambidex]

Non of them.

''Nature loves symmetry''.

 

[Jade]

I feel most probably by tampering with our own genetic code we are going to make our race extinct as we know today; however any of the listed possibility cannot be ruled out