Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Oh nos... Humans fixing god's mistakes... Where will it end?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    A Battered Mars Bar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭A Battered Mars Bar


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    We;re all going to live to be 200 years old. There's plenty of resources and the next generation will be overjoyed at funding our pensions.

    Be grand.

    Retire at 180?


  • #53
    server down
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Of course. Do you think there is a genetic element to being a junkie or being a millionaire?

    MrP

    No I don’t. However privileges of birth don’t have to be genetic.

    Back to the point about fitness. There’s no survival of the fittest, or survival of the economically successful influencing human evolution these days.


  • #54
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    server down wrote: »
    No I don’t. However privileges of birth don’t have to be genetic.
    No they don't, which is why your junkie/millionaire example seemed a little out of place.
    server down wrote: »
    Back to the point about fitness. There’s no survival of the fittest, or survival of the economically successful influencing human evolution these days.
    I kind of agree with this, but don't think it is completely true. There certainly is still survival of the fittest. Any living organism that has not advanced to the point where it can fix or mitigate disadvantages cause by genetic mutation during reproduction, or simply does not have access to those fixes or mitigation, will, to a greater or lessor extent, still be subject to some "fittest" selection.

    MrP


  • #55
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    ....... it was indeed down to just luck as to why homo sapiens evolved and neanderthals became extinct, and they discovered it really could have gone either way! Neanderthals may have survived today and homo sapiens have been the extinct species!

    You may find that this is actually the case in some Irish urban areas.


  • #56
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    beefburrito wrote: »
    Survival of the fittest doe's still apply in today's world.
    Metaphorically speaking you're on the right track but in the mainstream it's the people who can afford the best treatment who are more liable for survival.

    Individually yes. But "survival of the fittest" is not a term invented for individuals. It describes the long term fecundity of their genes and future generations. And quite often the poorer classes are more prone to reproducing more (also the premise of that awful, but hopefully not prophetic, film "idiocracy").

    Interestingly though I have read studies suggesting that people who reproduced LESS in the 1900s have more surviving decedents today than people who were pumping out the children. So number of off spring is merely a FACTOR in over all genetic fecundity, rather than an indicator.

    But biologically we knew that already. Some species pump out 100s or 1000s of off spring at short intervals (was just studying the male sea horse recently who can give birth to 1000s in the morning and be pregnant again by supper time) and only a few individuals survive and reproduce.


  • #57
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote: »
    Odd thread title since God doesn't exist( in your book).

    Not odd at all, it is called artistic license and people do it all the time. Like the old "God does not play dice with the universe" thing.

    There are however mild forms of autism and schizophrenia were the patient is unable, or at least finds it very hard to, recognize metaphor.
    Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote: »
    So if evolution allowed them and its the evolution of the fittest, why are we wanting to get rid of what evolution wanted?

    Sarcasm is over rated!

    Depends how well sarcasm is done. It can be quite powerful when used as a rhetorical tool well.

    But no, evolution does not "want" anything, nor is there any argument for us to pander to it now whether it did "want" it or not. Evolution is entirely free of narrative. We are not, and where the two do not meet we can prevail.


  • #58
    pxdf9i5cmoavkz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭pxdf9i5cmoavkz


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    We;re all going to live to be 200 years old. There's plenty of resources and the next generation will be overjoyed at funding our pensions.

    Be grand.

    Ah don't fret yourself over that. Your brain is in the firing line for one or many of the dementia's :)


  • #59
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Gordon Tasteless Cilantro wrote:
    Odd thread title since God doesn't exist( in your book).

    Not odd at all, it is called artistic license and people do it all the time. Like the old "God does not play dice with the universe" thing.

    There are however mild forms of autism and schizophrenia were the patient is unable, or at least finds it very hard to, recognize metaphor.

    What an utterly pathetic post.


  • #60
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    People who lack intelligence need this before they are allowed to breed.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    c_man wrote: »
    What an utterly pathetic post.

    Self referential much? Or have you a point to make any time soon?


  • #62
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    I listened to a TED speech a few years ago. The belief is we aren’t far off from living as old as Methuselah.


  • #63
    s15r330
    Closed Accounts Posts: 944 ✭✭✭s15r330


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I listened to a TED speech a few years ago. The belief is we aren’t far off from living as old as Methuselah.

    Think I saw that, talk given by a Jesus looking lad?


  • #64
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    s15r330 wrote: »
    Think I saw that, talk given by a Jesus looking lad?

    Well I heard it on the radio, so God knows whether he looked likes his son.


  • #65
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This could be a massively important step in the treatment of all kinds of diseases. Of course, it could all go a bit 28 Days Later...

    Thoughts?

    MrP

    1) How do epigenetics and gene interaction networks factor into gene editing tech?
    2) Editing an already developed phenotype sounds problematic. As I understand it, alleles express themselves in a context i.e. organismal development. Surely the tech will have to be very targeted.


  • #66
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Very tricky situation. Everyone living forever and continuing to reproduce will not work..and that will be obvious very quickly..
    But theres also no argument to force people to let themselves die if theres technology to allow you to live on


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Very tricky situation. Everyone living forever and continuing to reproduce will not work..and that will be obvious very quickly..
    But theres also no argument to force people to let themselves die if theres technology to allow you to live on

    if-you-jump-the-gun-and-it-jumps-you-back-8499437.png


  • #68
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Self referential much? Or have you a point to make any time soon?

    Sure. That slipping in accusations that a poster suffers from autism or schizophrenia is pretty low.


  • #69
    valoren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,515 ✭✭✭valoren


    The best thing about extending life expectancy will be for interstellar travel.
    Where generations will have lived and died without stepping on land.


  • #70
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    c_man wrote: »
    Sure. That slipping in accusations that a poster suffers from autism or schizophrenia is pretty low.

    Where did he do that? And if he did maybe the suffering poster would thank him, identifying a debilitating condition, he never considered before.

    I accuse you... ...of having a cold.


  • #71
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    valoren wrote: »
    The best thing about extending life expectancy will be for interstellar travel.
    Where generations will have been born and died without stepping on land.

    Wtff? How are people getting from gene editing to radical life extension? Calm down!


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    c_man wrote: »
    Sure. That slipping in accusations that a poster suffers from autism or schizophrenia is pretty low.

    I am not sure the word accusation applies. Rather a valid point for genuine consideration. So it seems the source of the problem in my post actually lies with YOUR reading of it. Which is somewhat what I expected from your first non-reply to it.

    Bees do get in bonnets.


Advertisement