Will Science Save us From Themselves?

How humankind is poised to replace natural selection with intelligent design

Since the appearance of life, about a billion years ago, never has a single species changed the global ecology all by itself… Now humankind is poised to replace natural selection with intelligent design, and to extend life from the organic realm into the inorganic.”[1]

Google task force “Calico” (headed by Art Levinson from Genentech) is currently developing a model for people to live productive lives for 500 years (Imagine your family photo with 20-30 generations) Currently Americans generate just over 4 pounds of trash per day. With a 500 year life span that equals just about 785,000 pounds of trash per person.

At current population rates, the first generation of the world that hits a 500 year life span would produce 14Quadrillion pounds of trash, not including industrial waste.

Having been subject to the ravages of environmental and other threats, some of their own making, humans have attained the knowledge, the will, the organization, and the mechanisms to subjugate every other species on the planet to their will. To what end? What’s the point of adding years to life if we have to live in a cesspool to achieve it?

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

58 thoughts on “Will Science Save us From Themselves?”

  1. Three (make it four) things: 1.) The environment is doomed. It’s hopeless for humans. 2.) ‘One man’s trash is another man’s treasure’ may be the only option. 3.) The microbial world may have something to say about the “…subjugate every other species on the planet…” part. Them little muckers do evolution on steroids. Indeed, 4.) the ‘day of reckoning is at hand,’ but not as so many believers think.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks Bill. For every one that gets out of the system, downsizes, minimalizes their life and consumption, hundreds more join the American dream, funding their own demise and destruction if everything beautiful.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. I remember a slogan from the eighties, “earth first—we can log the other planets later”. Are we going to bolster the atmosphere on mars so we can grow things to kill off there too?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. Question, John … do you truly in-your-deepest ruminations think we’re going to “get off this rock”? And if so … what is your projected timeline? And also, which rock are we going to?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. If I may jump in just a second, all the technology is in place to colonize, produce water from frozen carbon dioxide (creating an atmosphere to sustain us would take about 20 years). There is enough water in the polar ice to cover mars in 30′ of water. Really the last hurdle is getting there in a timely, reliable manner. I know you’re not a big video fan, but here’s a 17 minute TED

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. I will watch the video shortly. But another question … based on the TV series, MARS, there seems to be much more to consider than the things you mentioned. Example … difference in gravity and atmosphere. Is everyone going to put on spacesuits each time they go outside? The latest episode introduced foreign microbes that were killing the inhabitants. There are major differences in the temperature range. It also pointed out that humans are humans and control of the the small by the large is still a major consideration. IOW, even if we can make the planet habitable, the human element simply can’t be ignored.

          Also … who’s to say we won’t destroy any future planets we might inhabit like we’re doing to earth?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. Well, I’m not holding my breath for any of it. And yes, eventually we’d wreck mars as well. It’s quite a bit smaller than earth, and if we ever grow trees the future generations will just log it off. Really our best bet is like John said, stop abusing what we have here. This is a pretty great place, this speck of dust on the edge of nowhere. Hope she’s more resilient than we think.

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. Yep! I lean more to the thinking that this is where we’re supposed to be. Now if we could just get “certain people” out of the WH (along with a few leaders in other countries as well) and put in someone more attuned to preserving our “home,” we just might make it for several more generations.

              I admit, it’s fascinating to consider actually “moving” to another planet … but that’s what imaginations are for. Right? And of course, there will always be people like Elon Musk that thrive on bring the future into the present.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. And the pulpits could actually end the denial on any given Sunday. But, until they realize it’s not their right, nor is anyone coming to save them, nothing will change. That and resources for profit.

              Liked by 2 people

        3. We could possibly improve the atmosphere of Mars, but the biggest problem is the lack of a magnetic field. Without that to protect the planet from solar radiation any atmosphere we might generate there wouldn’t last very long. Plus without that shielding it would be impossible to live on the surface anyway. Without Earth’s magnetic field to protect us life on even this planet would be very, very different, perhaps not even possible at all.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. All good questions. Honestly, no, *this* chapter of humanity won’t do it. We’re screwed. There simply isn’t the political will, and as you rightly say, nowhere to go anyway. Biosphere 2 showed just how hard it is to live (survive) in a closed system, so space stations/generation ships aren’t really an option, either. Somewhere on the other side of the shitstorm coming there might be a chance, but it’s really going to come down to tech that hasn’t been invented yet. The distances are just too godawfully vast.

        If I have a hope, it’s that we’re missing something really obvious.

        Saw the other day that there is serious talk about putting up space shields to limit sunlight hitting earth. Amazing, isn’t it. We’ll take on a star, but not an economic addiction to oil/standard agriculture.

        Liked by 5 people

        Reply

      1. “Jesus was 100 percent man and yet 100 percent God. This is hard to grasp, but undeniably true.”

        Now that’s a whole lotta crazy. Loki forbid I should ever confuse him with a robot..

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. Can’t help you there. But the goto response to that would probably be Psalm 14:1

            The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
            They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            2. The irony is that YHWH admits to being an atheist (“I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God” Isaiah 45:5).

              What’s that phrase? I am rubber you are glue . . .

              Liked by 2 people

            3. That must have been written before gorilla glue. That sticks to everything including you.
              Also, in revelation he claims to hold the keys of death and hell. If there was a god his actions are covered by him and his minions. Call everything about him good, while being the epitome of evil.

              Like

  5. I am not saying I don’t have some cynicism about the prospect of this longer life span, but it’s not completely clear that this brings us faster towards doom. One thing that I think is true is that the length of life is likely to slow down birthrates. Birthrates have already slowed as lifespans have increased. Obviously there is a lot of things that go into that increased lifespan such as education, access to birth control, etc. But I think that if I knew I was going to live until 500 I wouldn’t be trying to have kids until at least around 70 or 80. I don’t know. I also think I would take more seriously the ethical responsibility of over population given that longer lifespan. Humans, in general, do make decisions along these lines when it comes to reproduction.

    Also there maybe some advantages to scientific problem solving in general to have those longer lives. Wisdom passed across generations is one of the hallmarks of success of our species. Then there is the fact that ideas die with someone who might be doing important work. Longer lives would allow scientists to be more successful at carrying their wisdom an experience longer in solving particular problems, and that continuity is valuable.

    I think there are some intangible factors that could balance things out again. I at least don’t think that there is good reason to believe that if we started having 500 year lives that this would lead to a similar birthrate has we do now. I would certainly agree with you that before we start trying to live vastly longer lives, adopting better values in how we treat our planet should be a first priority. We’re in trouble either way, short or long life, until we do that.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Would create an interesting dynamic if one could have children over a 2-300 year span. I’d have to think on that a while. Imagine the change one would see—Remember when Washington was president? Ah the good old days

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. As great as it sounds on paper for human life spans to be extended, I worry about the real world consequences. It may extend far beyond pollution.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. This would most likely be the ultimate example of unintended consequences. You would outlive your house, skyscrapers, tortoises, trees, and styrofoam.

      Like

      Reply

  7. As I see it, the biggest result of longer life-spans would be more suicides. As exciting as a longer life sounds, unless it comes with a slowed aging process, it is going to just add to the time of seniority. This will put an amazing strain on the economy. Young people will be supporting an amazing number of generations. Fantasizing is all well and good, but what will be the reality? We might not know until we try, and then it could be much too late!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. As dumb arse as human beings are we are also damn clever!

    But it pisses me off like you cannot imagine that I am likely to expire within thirty or forty years.

    However, on saying that, as a species we haven’t even begun to come into our own.
    See what happens when we develop the gene technology to become all but immortal.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Never happen! “God” won’t allow it. You should know that … tsk, tsk.

      P.S. Wonder how ColorStorm would react to that? Oh the waters of the deep and the birds that fly …

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  9. ‘ It’s good news week
    Someone’s dropped a bomb
    Somewhere
    Contaminating atmosphere
    And blackening the sky

    It’s good news week
    Someone’s found a way to give
    The rotting dead a will to live
    Go on and never die ‘

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. To make trash you have to have the necessary natural resources, so obviously such levels of trash production could not be achieved, nor would there be space for people to live on, nor the arable land to grow food off, and of course there wouldn’t be enough air or enough potable water to sustain the numbers… so this is really a theoretical discussion. Yes, maybe they could create a few long-lived mutants and keep them on some protected island for observation.
    I find this interesting: in Genesis chap. 5 we read about a long list of patriarchs who lived somewhere between 800 and 1000 years, then we read this:
    Ge 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
    Man, it would appear, was once long lived, then some force, event, whatever, caused a shift, diminishing our lifespan drastically. Now is definitely not a good time to be advocating longer lifespans, having already reached an unsustainable level of exploitation to sustain existing numbers which are still rising exponentially.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  14. You stated — ” What’s the point of adding years to life if we have to live in a cesspool to achieve it?”

    My response — I don’t see this as being a challenge for a genetically advanced human society. We almost have the tech now to clean up the environment as fast as we could imaginably damage it.

    I think that a future phase of human existence will (like pass phases) encounter a new equally challenging or dangerous obstacle.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. True, but I don’t see it for a while. We’ll have to wait til the last minute, because for now, profit seems to be the most important thing on earth.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. We’re not even a type one civilization yet. When we can harness all the power the earth has to offer, we’re probably looking at 1-200 years. AI could definitely move that number though. Maybe

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. You stated — “AI could definitely move that number though. Maybe”

            My response — That’s where I would say the short term is more likely (because we won’t be making it happen)

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    1. I’d offer you some pain meds, but even that is on the way out. More and more are leaning towards counseling and placebo hypnosis for pain. You got this Dave! Those aches are in your head—and back, feet, elbows, etc!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Reminds me of an Archie Bunker episode in which Arch is complaining heavily of lower back pain. Meathead says, ‘It’s all in your head, Arch’ to which Arch replies, pointing at his head: ‘I got nothin’ up here,’ and pointing at his ass, ‘it’s all down there!’

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      2. When I was running more, 2 or 3 years ago, I went into my doctor with foot pain, knee pain and she said “You are getting of that age”… ugh, mentally I’m still in my 20’s!

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to jim- Cancel reply