Not to sound unoptimistic, really.

I only wonder how long a species can remain top consumer, because for sure we have not always been at the top. Different things, evidently predominated in poulation size, at different spots on the timeline.. THe reptiles, insects, those trillobyte thingers. Then mammals. So many kinds of creatures have disappeared, and another pulls ahead to fill the gap. Only in recent Ice Age (pleistocene era) there existed an incredible variety of large predatory mammals. WHat happened to them?

Did we do that?

Is it possible that modern humans will burn themselves out, or dwindle down to very few (look at modern mountain Gorillas, there are currently an estimated 2000 remaining), for whatever reason, disappearing food source, induced climactic changes, pestilence or disease, or erasing themselves from war incompetition for resources, leaving a gap for another type of species to thrive?

If past events serve as a predicting indicator of future events, then isn't it only inevitable, that our stint as reigning species is a limited gig?

I'd say it's pretty much inevitable, although out ability to move to a different planet changes the equation some . .

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'd say it's pretty much inevitable, although out ability to move to a different planet changes the equation some . . Whew...that thought makes me think of locusts for some reason.

Unless we do something about the rapeing of this planets natural resources and our overwhelming population growth we will have to move out into the universe or become extinct.

Beam me outa here scotty!

Yes it is inevitable.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Yes it is inevitable.
Nice elaboration you have there...:@@:

And I swear, if you say "because the Bible says" I am going to throw you off a cliff...this is the Science forum, not the Religion forum...

Okay, so if it happens (when) lets speculate as to what type of species will be top consumer, the most successful animals.

And would they make us their pets? lol

wasn't it Perry Ferrel who said that....."we'll make great pets"??:D

By the time Humans are extinct, most if not all other animals will be long gone as well. There will be no more food chain or pecking order at that time.

By the time Humans are extinct, most if not all other animals will be long gone as well. There will be no more food chain or pecking order at that time.

Seriously? What makes you think that? Over and over top predators have become extinct only for another species to appear in the spotlight and find their niche.

You don't think that life will go on without humans?

We are but a speck on the timeline of living organisms.

The earth turned before human existance, and I can assure you that when we are gone, life will continue, unless of course the planet is obliterated by a massive asteroid.

Originally posted by creetwins
Seriously? What makes you think that? Over and over top predators have become extinct only for another species to appear in the spotlight and find their niche.

You don't think that life will go on without humans?

We are but a speck on the timeline of living organisms.

The earth turned before human existance, and I can assure you that when we are gone, life will continue, unless of course the planet is obliterated by a massive asteroid.

As I think on it, I actually think we will go out at the same time.

There will be several animals extinct of course by then but when the earth ends...there will be no more Earth for another species to take over.

mmhmmm................

It's possible by depletion of natural resources, but more likely by violence and war over control of these resources in the future.

It isn't going to happen in the next 30 years so I guess I don't have to worry about it. But I think it is inevitable unless we change the way we use our natural resources and the way we interact with each other on a global level.

I think War is the end.

The bible say the world will end with fire, which I think is either a synonym for war, or nuclear war.

I saw a study many years ago on which species could withstand radiation the best. If you assume that humans disappear in a nuclear war the likely survivors will be the most resistant species. I remember the three because it gave me such a strange and vivid picture of earth's future. The three most resistant species were strawberries, cockroaches, and Ghonnorhea. I have never listened to the Beatles song, "Strawberry Fields Forever" in quite the same way since.

Interesting thread, Creetwins, but a major parameter has not been taken inton account in your question :
humans aren't animals (any more).

Don't forget that in nature, evolution is a very slow process, that takes thousand of generations. To evolve into a new specy, some humans should be isolated during that amount of time.


The global success of humans and their constant interaction across the whole planet makes very unlikely that a small, isolated community, could mutate and evolve into a new "supra human" specy that would compete with the rest of the world.

And I guess we would be able to deal with any animal "superpredator" before it becomes a real threat.


The only real threat is in fact a virus that could kill all humans before a cure could be found, but there are alwys a few percenty of the population who would be naturally immune and survive.

Or an alien civilization that would destroy us.

PSH!

What about cataclysmic natural disasters? World Wide non-stop nuclear war?

There are many things that could take us out. We are human, not super-human. Unless Cher (who will undoubedly live through all of this) chemically alters her body to reproduce asexually, we will are doomed.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Unless Cher (who will undoubedly live through all of this) chemically alters her body to reproduce asexually, we will are doomed.

Most of it isn't natural, so she probably can reproduce asexually . . .

Good Point.

Interesting thread, Creetwins, but a major parameter has not been taken inton account in your question :



humans aren't animals (any more).

I however disagree with this thought.

From the moment my identical twin girls were born, I could tell them apart by scent alone. I tested it blindfolded several times. Their father couldn't noone else could.

This seems like a very animal quality, something that is an old ability.

That seems very weird and creepy to me, but oh well moving on.

Wait no I cant even move on, how weird.

Originally posted by creetwins
I however disagree with this thought.

From the moment my identical twin girls were born, I could tell them apart by scent alone. I tested it blindfolded several times. Their father couldn't noone else could.

This seems like a very animal quality, something that is an old ability.

Understand me well : I do not pretend human are not animals on the individual level. Of course we are not fundamentally different from other animals in a biological way.

But as a specy we are unique and that affects the way we could evolve. Darwinism does not really apply to human beings any more , or if it does, it does on a much broader scale.
To survive an environmental change, animal species have to evolve in a biological way - in fact that means that the unadapted disappear and that the fittest survive and grow.

But mankind has the ability to adapt its technololy and behaviour to a widest range of environmental changes than any other specy. That's why biological evolution is obsolete for humans : while genetic evolution takes thousand of generations, social and technological adaptation only takes a few decades. why grow hair to resist a new ice age when you can just use animal's wool or fire ?

The only biological evolution I can see may be self induced through genetic manipulation or Eugenism ; or it can come from better lifestandard.

In 40 years in rich countries, the average size has grown by a few centimeters and life expectancy has gained many years. That has nothing to do with genetic evolution : it's only better health system and better food. Now more food and less physical activity may lead to obesity as a new social evolution, but still it's not a genetic evolution.

Oh, I see Astra.

I hear what you are saying, about human adaptation, but isn't evolution, really better food, and health etc? In the long run, won't a less demading, more inactive lifestyle eventually begin to change the physical appearance of the species?

Just wondering. Great civilzations have been wiped out before, and if there are drastic geological changes in the environment, requiring different skills to survive in, are humans hardy enough to grasp them, and alter their course?

My point is that human won't turn into a new specy. They have enough ability to adapt themselves through technology and skills to let biological evolution affect them.

Let's take an example : a brutal disaster similar to the one that led dinosaurs to extinction.
Nuclear war or giant meteor hitting the earth.

Climate is affected, particles in the atmosphere create a semi darkess for decades. Many animal species can't resist this disaster and disappear. Some species (let's say rats, bugs, foxes, bats) survive because they can cope with this new world.
It would anyway take hundred thousand of years to see some members of these species, isolated in closed areas (islands or valleys) evolve into new species that would eventually, through comparative better adapation, become the earth new dominant species.

Meanwhile, what happens to mankind ? Many die in the original disaster but the other, even if it's just afew millions, get organised. They cope with their new environment with their skills and their brains and what's left of our technology.

It may result in a drastic loss in life expectancy and overall physical fitness, and in a new dark age, but genetically, they still are not different from us. And there is no reason for them to subitly grow longer hair or claws since they still have the basic ability of using tools that will give the immediate benefit of what evolution could only grant them thousand years later.

This extreme example shows why mankind won't biologically evolve any more. The only evolution for us is through technology and social organisation (and it's way faster and more radical : we can fly, swim under water or even go in space, which no other specy will ever reach through evolution !)

Quite an interesting theory you have there Astra.

Originally posted by astrapol2
This extreme example shows why mankind won't biologically evolve any more. The only evolution for us is through technology and social organisation (and it's way faster and more radical : we can fly, swim under water or even go in space, which no other specy will ever reach through evolution !)

Nice post Astra, and I agree that technology has affected our evolution, and incidentally, the evolution of a great many other species as well, but I don't think it has halted our evolution so much as changed it according to the technology.

Techonology could also play a huge roll in the end of the world also.

(warcrafts, bombs, etc etc)

Right Jerejerbinks !

In fact it's not my theory. It has been explained much better than I can do here by Edgar Morin, a french sociologist, in "the lost paradigm". It is also based on Stephen J Gould's books about the process of evolution. He explains that evolution is not a "move towards better species" but rather a constant random changes that sometimes result in better adaptation to a given environment and therefore to success. As humans are no longer dependant of a precise environment but manage to adapt very quickly to any, i don't see how they could evolve.

I wonder how our increasing ability to manipulate our own genes via biotechnology will affect our evolution. Can concious self manipulation of our genes be called evolution? I know we are not there yet, but it seems likely that in the next few decades we will be.

It could, but to really affect the whole mankind, it would need to be done on such a massive scale that it does not seem very realistic. die to the cost of thechnology, it is unlikely to affect more than a few thousand, maybe million people in the next century. And I doubt it would produce new features - nobody wants an freak baby.

First, as to cost, the cost of technology always decreases over time. I remember when a computer, not as capable as the one I am writing on now, cost several million dollars and was only programmable by punch cards.
I wasn't really thinking so much of new characteristics so much as the frequency of already existing genes. Height for instance might increase, as people select for it. As we discover the functions of more and more genes, more and more such characteristics could be subject to manipulation. For example, creativity and intelligence probably have a genetic basis. Will humans select for greater intelligence? What effects might that have?

There is usually a (side effect) to changes. For instance Man pays for the privilege to walk up-right with back pains, disc, and spine ailments.
Already, as Cree touched on, there are side effects to the inactivity of our youth. Weight gain and muscle development.
So many sitting in-front of t.v. or computers instead of gaining the early developmental physical activities will probably encourage earlier needs for health care. This is an indirect (side effect) of our tech. and mental advances.