Poll: End of human civilization

[Developereo]

precision physical removal of genes from a target cell is impossible.

The game changer could be nanotechnology or custom-designed proteins (far fetched, I know, but not impossible).

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.

Would it not suffice to 'fix' the genes in the ova beforehand and make sure they are dominant? I agree we may not have the technology today, but it it can be done in principle, we will find a way.

Non of them.

''Nature loves symmetry''.

I don't get you. Care to explain?

 

[below_freezing]

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

dont worry, we aren't going to be able to manipulate the genetic code for at least 2 centuries. the problems are far too great. current biochemical efforts are focused on 2 things:

1.) structural determination of gene products followed by thermodynamic simulations of optimal ligand binding, with the ultimate goal being able to design a drug without need for experimentation.

2.) scale-up process engineering and filtration technologies for complex biological products, especially industrial separation of proteins and vaccines.

 

[Pukhtoon]

Non of the above!!

Be ready for friday lol

And Bansuri lol

 

[below_freezing]

The game changer could be nanotechnology or custom-designed proteins (far fetched, I know, but not impossible).



Would it not suffice to 'fix' the genes in the ova beforehand and make sure they are dominant? I agree we may not have the technology today, but it it can be done in principle, we will find a way.



I don't get you. Care to explain?

Nanotechnology is focused on materials right now. A professor in my school is actually working in this field, doing research on synthetic non-protein antibody-like macromolecules. However, these are just that - molecules. they can't be controlled with electromagnetic waves the way say, a cell phone can. now, if a macromolecule can be engineered and "programmed" into changing configuration as electromagnetic waves pass through it, that'd be a major breakthrough, but that still won't be truly controllable.

Custom designed proteins face a whole new set of problems.

Fixing the genes in the ova beforehand is risky. First, it will only benefit those who have known and detected genetic diseases. The majority of genetic diseases are diagnosed after symptoms occur; screening could be made mandatory, but even so, the number of genetic diseases resulting from a known mutation in a known gene is small; many arise from mutations in arbitrary genes which may not be screened, mutations in known genes but at unknown or unfamiliar locations, or the mutation is passed off as normal variation. Lastly - you have to get the woman to surgery and do it for every ova. Not practical. Obviously, doing it for sperm is an even worse idea.

 

[Jade]

dont worry, we aren't going to be able to manipulate the genetic code for at least 2 centuries. the problems are far too great. current biochemical efforts are focused on 2 things:

1.) structural determination of gene products followed by thermodynamic simulations of optimal ligand binding, with the ultimate goal being able to design a drug without need for experimentation.

2.) scale-up process engineering and filtration technologies for complex biological products, especially industrial separation of proteins and vaccines.

Two centuries is very short time...at maximum another 5 generation

 

[Zeluvaa]

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.

I do not think any pandemic has the potential to wipe off humanity, but make a dent is surely could. A Virus with short incubation period and extremely high virulence or fatality rate coupled with high infectivity, could cause serious damage. Creating such a virus may only be possible in a lab setting and it isn't particularly difficult to do so. As technology will advance however, some crazy person can make one in the lab and release it.

I agree with you on Aliens, Climate Change and Gray Goo. Although I would differ on the robots. These robots will not only be sentient but also vastly more intelligent than humans. What makes you think they wont be able to overtake a powerplant or produce their own power?

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.

Asteroid can NOT be deflected as of now. There is no existing program to deflect an asteroid, although scientists are working on one. If an asteroid was to hit earth anytime soon, we wouldn't be able to do much.

A supervolcanic eruption in caldera's such as Yellowstone can eliminate a hugh portion of humans, but may not be able to do all of us in. There will be food shortages, Ice age and droughts in most part of the world. But there is no reason to believe that we will all die, when humanity survived Lake Toba eruption (which btw was larger than any Yellowstone eruptions of the past)

 

[Developereo]

I would differ on the robots. These robots will not only be sentient but also vastly more intelligent than humans. What makes you think they wont be able to overtake a powerplant or produce their own power?

Artificial intelligence is probably the most over-hyped nonsense coming out of computer science. I will bet all my money that we will have thriving colonies on Mars before we can build a robot that can do unaided what an average city-dwelling human does in a single day.

 

[Zeluvaa]

Artificial intelligence is probably the most over-hyped nonsense coming out of computer science. I will bet all my money that we will have thriving colonies on Mars before we can build a robot that can do unaided what an average city-dwelling human does in a single day.

DID you not say this earlier "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."

Compared to other field, it is the computer field that is seeing one of the fastest growth in terms of technology. Hand held devices today are thousands of time stronger then all of the supercomputer of the past(few decades ago) put together. This trend will only increase with computing power increasing and chip size decreasing even more.

Scientists have already predicted that computers will overtake humans in intelligence and capacity in a few years. All we have to do is further miniaturize the hardware and the robots will already outstrip any humans in thinking capability.

 

[SQ8]

Ill adhere to my beliefs..
If I live(god forbid) to the day I hear a shrill noise.. and see mountains flying around..
Ill know its the end of human civilization.
Till then..
I do believe in the deteriorating environment.. hotter climates..
imperfect cloning.. possibly for organ harvests.

AI on the other hand..
is something one cannot ignore.. but to expect AI to have the same Human emotions and judgement is folly.
The question is not of raw computing power.. the question is of programming, making learning systems that can take on complex decisions based on finite predicates isnt that easy... but it is possible to make something akin to that robot in Bi-centennial man.. the female one.. where a "personality" is programmed in.. but not one which can generate its own persona based on random yet influenced traits.

 

[Developereo]

DID you not say this earlier "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."

Compared to other field, it is the computer field that is seeing one of the fastest growth in terms of technology. Hand held devices today are thousands of time stronger then all of the supercomputer of the past(few decades ago) put together. This trend will only increase with computing power increasing and chip size decreasing even more.

Almost all the advancement in computing has come because of hardware technology and, I would say, in spite of software. Except for specific areas (games, etc.) most general purpose software has actually gone backwards; layers upon layers of needless abstraction end up negating the advantages of faster hardware to deliver marginally better user experience.

Scientists have already predicted that computers will overtake humans in intelligence and capacity in a few years. All we have to do is further miniaturize the hardware and the robots will already outstrip any humans in thinking capability.

These predictions have been around since the 80s. Considering that we barely know anything about how intelligence works in humans, I would take these predictions with a grain of salt.

The most advanced robots today can't even perform trivial vision processing reliably in a controlled laboratory environment, let alone in the real world.

That is why I am much more hopeful about technological progress in physics, biology and chemistry. These are hard sciences unlike psychology, which has never been an exact science. The human brain is phenomenally complex so it is far more difficult to emulate.

AI on the other hand..
is something one cannot ignore.. but to expect AI to have the same Human emotions and judgement is folly.
The question is not of raw computing power.. the question is of programming, making learning systems that can take on complex decisions based on finite predicates isnt that easy... but it is possible to make something akin to that robot in Bi-centennial man.. the female one.. where a "personality" is programmed in.. but not one which can generate its own persona based on random yet influenced traits.

Exactly.

The robots only do what they are programmed to do. The so-called 'learning' is just a circus act; only useful for the specific scenarios which are programmed.

 

[below_freezing]

robots is unlikely. the most likely is asteroid or nuclear (not biological, statistically some people will survive) war that not only kills a huge amount of people but also destroys the food supply.

Nuclear weapons and asteroids are obvious: they are every disaster in 1 neat package. Volcano eruptions sending dust into the atmosphere and causing ice age? Nukes/asteroids do that. Chemical pollutants into water stream to destroy life for decades? Nukes/asteroids do that. Blasting people? Massive fires? Yep. Asteroids are even worse in that they can actually cause huge tidal waves and manipulate large scale geography to make re-emerging life hard for centuries, while survivors of a nuclear war (in the hardened bunkers, submarines, tanks in mountains, subways, etc... probably only 1-2 million people in the world) will be able to survive on the surface for a few decades, and in the meantime scavenge rats in sewers.

Biological agents are not limited in the modern age (though they were in pre-industrial times) by the diffusion equation, as there are large scale transport phenomenon analogous to convection going on: air travel by a sick person. Chemicals, however, are limited by the diffusion equation due to a lack of similar large scale transport processes that can 1.) keep complex chemical agents intact 2.) spread them globally 3.) and have them re-appear on the surface to do damage. The 1 possibility for chemical war ending humanity is a MAD ozone layer destroying weapon.

 

[Durran3]

Pandemic is a very likely scenario. Would it end the human civilization? I doubt it but it could possibly kill millions of people. A mutated virus that could affect millions of people with no cure or no way to stop it what so ever is quite possible.

Even with a nuclear, biochemical war fare humans would still survive, some in remote parts of the world. Even during climate changes species tend to adapt and evolve accordingly so its not something that would Wipe of the entire human civilization. The current inter glacial age we are living in is actually 2 degrees colder than our previous inter glacial age which was 125000 years ago.

The Only way an entire human civilization would die and that would include not only humans but millions of other species as well could be a massive meteor strike like how it wiped out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

 

[below_freezing]

Pandemic is a very likely scenario. Would it end the human civilization? I doubt it but it could possibly kill millions of people. A mutated virus that could affect millions of people with no cure or no way to stop it what so ever is quite possible.

Even with a nuclear, biochemical war fare humans would still survive, some in remote parts of the world. Even during climate changes species tend to adapt and evolve accordingly so its not something that would Wipe of the entire human civilization. The current inter glacial age we are living in is actually 2 degrees colder than our previous inter glacial age which was 125000 years ago.

The Only way an entire human civilization would die and that would include not only humans but millions of other species as well could be a massive meteor strike like how it wiped out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

it'll be hard for the virus to kill much of humanity: once everyone in a region dies, the virus is gone, and if things get too bad: shoot the sick.

 

[Developereo]

We now have the technology to preserve a small population for decades underground, so any catastrophe that dissipates after a few years will not wipe us out. We will emerge aboveground eventually and reclaim the planet (except for the alien invasion scenario).

The only thing that will wipe us out totally is something we do to ourselves -- our very essence.

 

[Jade]

Pandemic is a very likely scenario. Would it end the human civilization? I doubt it but it could possibly kill millions of people. A mutated virus that could affect millions of people with no cure or no way to stop it what so ever is quite possible.

Even with a nuclear, biochemical war fare humans would still survive, some in remote parts of the world. Even during climate changes species tend to adapt and evolve accordingly so its not something that would Wipe of the entire human civilization. The current inter glacial age we are living in is actually 2 degrees colder than our previous inter glacial age which was 125000 years ago.

The Only way an entire human civilization would die and that would include not only humans but millions of other species as well could be a massive meteor strike like how it wiped out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Nice analysis...however what makes a meteor strike any different from a nuclear war