The Evolution of Earth... Technology... ?

Every once in a while I like to go outside and gaze at the stars if for no other reason than to remind myself how small I really am. Tonight was one of those nights. Every time I do this I truly can not help but to imagine some other intelligent being, on a distant alien world, staring up at the sky and wondering if there is anyone else watching. It's strange, really. As I wonder about the universe and whether life really exists out there, the curiousity practically consumes me. It's as if I MUST know what's really out there. During these moments, I feel drawn to the stars in a way that I'm not sure how to describe in words. Of course, this always gets me to thinking... I feel like I must know, yet the one thing I already know is that it may not be possible to know! Naturally the next question is why the heck are we here anyway?

Let's remove God from the picture. A basic premise of evolution is that life evolves simply because it needs to. It's about surviving. If this is the case, I am forced to wonder -- why do we exist at all? I dont ask this question in the spiritual sense, but in the sense that we MUST be fulfilling some purpose, unknown to us, in the universe. If life did not exist, how would it impact the universe? Is it possible that the universe is only real *if* and when it is being observed by life? Much like the proverb which asks if a tree in the forest really makes a sound, or is it only our brain that perceives it? If you run with this idea, life and the universe are inseperable. One can not exist without the other, period. Instead of space-time, its more like space-life-time continuum (if you really think about this, it doesn't seem so crazy).

Of course, even with that being said, that does not answer the question "why." The question then isnt only why does life exist, but why does the universe exist at all? is "because it can" enough of an answer?

I then begin to wonder... Is life on earth part of a grand ecosystem on the scale of the universe? Perhaps the same way pollen may drift miles before it fertilizes a distant flower, perhaps life ultimately finds its way to the dark corners of the universe one planet at a time... A process of interplanetary seeding that requires billions of years. Whether or not this is true, to me this sounds like a very logical possibilty. This would definately give life on earth a reason to evolve, at least.

Now if there is any merit to this, my next question is this... Is there a natural way for life to spread through the universe (transpermia), or is technology a required part of evolution? Is it possible that the universe requires intelligent life to propagate itself throughout the universe in a relatively safe manner, whenever it is ready, through the use of technology? Or, is there some natural, non-destructive, way to transplant life to another planet? Or maybe there is already a *biological* system that can take us beyond earth? If we were to discover intelligent life on another planet, is there any biological (perhaps lost or forgotten) way to communicate with them, or is the idea of transpermia limited to "seeds" only and not necessarily communication? Either way, if we are part of some grand ecosystem, isn't it safe to argue that life on other planets would ultimately be compatable with our own? AND *if* this were true doesnt life on earth PROVE life exists elsewhere? Perhaps the answer to some of these questions would answer why life evolves on earth, but what about why life exists in the universe at all?

Finally... the question is where does evolution stop? Did nature take into account that over time the population of life on any planet would eventually (and inevitably) overwhelm the planets ability to sustain the life forms? That is, eventually our planet will be BUSTING AT THE SEAMS with life. Will our planet get bigger to accomodate us, or is seeking out new planets part of the process? Also, do we evolve until we become infinitely intelligent over time and if so then to what end? Simply to continue our dominance of life on earth? That's sounds like a waste of intelligence life to me. What purpose does INTELLIGENT LIFE serve if NOT to create technology OR life? I am certain that LIFE could exist even if we were far less intelligent, but TECHNOLOGY definately would not. If techology is a natural part of evolution it would also strongly suggest that any planet that can sustain life will ultimately begin to produce technology. It's just a matter of time...

So, the way I see things... Either technology IS a natural part of evolution, OR there is some natural, non-technological, way for life to traverse the universe. Perhaps there is a real-life but lost (or forgotten) gateway to the stars (stargate anyone?) Then again, maybe the only way is to send seeds of life across the galaxy.

It's not necearrily that life exists that is so perplexing, but that life on earth seems so isolated from the rest of the universe. If technology is not part of evolution, why would the universe allow beings to exist whom are intelligent enough to create it? or why not make our "real" purpose just a wee-bit more obvious? Or, why bother allowing us to have an IQ above that of a fruit fly? I guess the real question is and always will be... why exist at all? :shrug:

Just something to think about...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Leaving aside the primary thrust of your thoughts for just a moment, I'd like to address this one part.

Don't forget that nature has a built-in mechanism for dealing with overpopulation. For animals (including humans), increased population density quickly leads to contagious diseases and exceeds the limit of the food supply. The resulting death from sickness and starvation provides the regulating effect.

With plants, it's also infections due to pathogens including fungi and overgrazing. They are also limited by climate - not every plant can survive everywhere.

So regulation is always lurking in the background at all times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but when life becomes very intelligent then we get the ability to override those regulation systems, and if we had the choice we would do that instead of letting people die, since it would be immoral in a modern society.

We can get older now, unsuccessfull births are kept at a minimum, diseases are less dangerous now because of medicines and healthcare, eventually this will become a issue, I think it would require two earths to sustain life at the rate we consume the sources available.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand exactly what you're saying but I believe you fail to see the seriousness of severe overcrowding.

For one thing, despite our technology, our food production has physical limitations - we simply cannot feed an infinite population. As you have just pointed out, we are living longer and fewer are dying at birth.

For another, just consider the current upsurge in serious staph infections and antibiotic-resistant TB. And that's just today. You can be assured that there are hundreds more very deadly things we don't even know about that will surface if we get packed together too tightly.

Also, don't forget that resources will become more and more limited while demand increases and increases. And that, my friend, is the perfect formula for yet another great population reducer - war!

 

The only thing deadly enough to keep our population in check

 

Nope, the others are very valid also.

 

Well, evidently the are some built in population controls. But we're talking on an infinite scale here. As life continues to thrive, we will eventually grow to a number that can not be sustained by the planet, unless the planet changes to accomodate us. Does that mean mass extinction of life? Who knows... But remember, time, which appears to be infinite, will utlimately allow unlimited reproduction of life...

I dunno... Anyone have any thoughts as to whether technology is a natural part of evolution?

 

Earth's population will probably double in the next fifty years. The limiting factor will be as we run out of resources, like oil (which will become increasingly harder to find and bring to the surface) and drinking water, which will begin to run short as melt water vanishes as ice vanishes.

Technology could be said to be artificial evolution in that it helps us to cope with and survive in environments and under conditions where we would not normally be able to do so. Will it evolve fast enough to save us? I doubt it since it is a consumer of the planet's dwindling resources. It could end up being self-defeating.

Ultimately, life is a viral infestation of a planet. If we live or die does not matter to anything other than us.

 

Yes, I think you misunderstood me, I agree with you, however, the issue of diseases might be less than the issue of the actual overcrowding, the more people the more people will be born, it's a circle that can eventually only end with overcrowding if our technology is at our favour when dealing with the diseases.

This is of course assuming that technology is at our favour.

One problem will probably be the people at the third world countries, how can we be able to deliver the technology to them?

Perhaps we are just destroying the world...perhaps they realise that too, in some sense.

 

You are getting there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I don't believe you yet fully appreciate the seriousness involved in overcrowding and disease. Once population density reaches a critical level, even the smallest outbreak - which could be handled today reasonably well - would kill millions in a month's time. Medical response would be quickly overwhelmed.

What is termed "vectors" in the spread of disease - non-human things like fleas, mosquitoes, etc. - have already been largely replaced today by rapid international travel. In just a few hours, an infection can be brought into a major population center undetected until it begins to spread. It's completely and totally impossible to test every passenger arriving at every airport the world over. There are already too many things to check for and the process itself is very, very time-consuming.

When people were more isolated - as they were just a short while back (two decades, perhaps) - it wasn't a problem. Ebola could be confined to a village or two or three in Africa. Soon that will be no longer true.

We already have a few "superbugs" that are either very difficult or even impossible to treat or cure. And there will certainly be more as microbes mutate, evolve and adapt. Any microbiologist will tell you that has no end. And, sadly, huge populations living in close contact only serves to hasten the process.

So that will be a major factor that comes into play in the not-to-distant future. And there really isn't a great deal that can be done about it before it happens. That sort of thing is obviously reactionary by nature. One cannot protect against what isn't even known to exist yet - and most likely does not exist yet - but one day will. Our present arsenal of antibiotics are becoming increasingly ineffectual in many cases and the development of new ones is a very long and painstaking process.

 

I got an idea, but it's very stupid, anyway it's too entertaining to skip:

Perhaps there were creatures on earth a long, long time ago that became so successfull that they overcrowded the earth, then they constantly evolved because of the diseases (there were allways someone amongst them that were immune in some way) and after the diseases became ever more efficient they evolved into ants and insects!

Herueka!...hrrm perhaps...

 

Cyperium. A problem is that if a race advances too far, it might not have enough variety left in it's genetic code to survive the attack of a serious disease.

All life on Earth would have originally come from the most basic forms but something like you suggest would probably take a billion years or more and the right circumstances.

 

Ok. But why wouldn't it have enough variety?

 

The information you were given is incorrect. There's no limitation in the genetic code of any species because the DNA is constantly undergoing changes from several sources. One is chemicals in the environment, another is ordinary background radiation (which is everywhere), and yet a third is cosmic rays (also everywhere). Just how do you suppose mutations occur anyway?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A good example of constant mutation resulting from DNA changes is pathogenic bacteria that become immune to antibiotics.

Most mutations of anything are minor and of no consequence while others are damaging and the mutated offspring do not survive to pass along the change. And the reason that it is so common with bacteria is that they number in the billions of billions of individuals.

I do need to make one thing a little clearer: while there really IS an actual limitation in the physical sense, the number of combinations in DNA is so huge that it's practically limitless AND it can also revert to a combination that hasn't been present in millions of years that was ineffective then but perhaps not now.

 

On overpopulation: leaving out the possiblity of space colonisation, population control through education is the way to go. Control of this natural instinct - to reproduce - is within our grasp like all the others.

Failing that, there may have to be an element of legislative force. Dangerous waters those, though, as China has found with the emergence of the One-Two-Four problem (one child providing sole financial support to two parents and four grandparents, with consequent economic hardship for all).

 

Cyperium. We have effectively bypassed evolution by inventing our own environments. If we continue to breed without any evolving, then we could be like the ants who are said to have been in that form for 200,000,000 years. We evolve often because our DNA combines with what was originally called our "junk DNA" but this takes time to produce beneficial and helpful mutations. If we do not need to evolve for a long period, this ability might atrophy from lack of use so that when we need it, it is not there.

The changes Read-Only talks of are not beneficial mutations but often result in cell damage, even cancer so are not passed on. They are not to do with evolution.

 

redarmy11. Unfortunately we have those dangerous men in frocks in the vati-can who talk of breeding and breeding without giving a damn about the consequences.

China is at least trying to slow down it's population unlike India who will soon overtake it. Here again we have the men in frocks telling Indians that condoms are evil, that they don't work and that anyone who uses them will burn in hell forever. The evil hag, Mother Teresa of Calcutta passed on these vati-can lies.

However global warming will get rid of ice so India will lose a lot of it's water which comes from melted ice and snow and China is busy murdering young girl babies so will have too many men so their actions may slow down their population if nothing else does.

 

Sits back, pours a brandy and lights a big fat cigar.....

 

At least that is what our egos like to tell us.

But how can we explain the loss of hair covering on the human body as a positive evolutionary adaptation? Does the currently accepted theory concerning body lice really add up when we consider that we now need the skins of millions of other animals to protect us from the elements and keep us warm as well as vast quantities of natural resources such as coal, oil, and gas and all the infrastructure in between? We even need plants to give us something to use as fiber for clothes.

We are not even considering here the strength and dexterity that nature has removed from our bodies nor the claws and fangs our more distant ancestors possessed. The ideal, humanoid-sized inhabitant of earth would probably look something like a bear crossed with an eagle and have super human vision and sense of smell along with razor sharp claws and fangs.

Technology does not exist as a testament to mans supremacy but rather because we need it. Try and imagine the pathetic spectacle of men attempting to pursue, kill, and cook a buffalo without the basic technology of spears and knives. Put a naked man in front of a pride of lions or a group of grizzlies and suddenly our intellectual affectations are a tragic but understandable pretense of our own creation against natures massive, overwhelming power.

Mother nature sympathizes with our predicament - she really does - but unfortunately her hands are tied by a power even greater than her own.