Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Baruch]

Well, yeah, I was being very general saying "human".  We might become "Belters" at first, then Solists.  But, you know, it is somewhat like when we spread Out Of Africa.  We still managed to interbreed back and forth.  I doubt we will ever lose complete touvh genetically.

Some sci-fi writers make us different as soon as we leave Earth.  I'm not too sure about that.  We are more likely to adapt other worlds to suit us as we are than evolve into new species.  Maybe.

Wish I could be there in the future to find out which way we change or don't.

Delibrate mutation by corporations and authoritarian governments.  You will have no choice, since your DNA will be copyrwrited by organizations.

[Unbeliever]

As the universe continues to evolve there may come to be more and more intelligent life forms. We may well be among the first to arise, but the universe has trillions of years to go, so life and intelligence might become as common as grains of sand on a beach. But that, too, is just guesswork.

[Baruch]

In some ways I think sci-fi has done us a disservice, in that people now think travelling through the void will be a piece of cake once the right genius comes along, and any place we go out there will have habitable planets. I think neither is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zefram_Cochrane

And the Vulcans and many others already beat us to it.

[Baruch]

As the universe continues to evolve there may come to be more and more intelligent life forms. We may well be among the first to arise, but the universe has trillions of years to go, so life and intelligence might become as common as grains of sand on a beach. But that, too, is just guesswork.

Omega Point ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

The cosmic version of the Technological Singularity ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[Baruch]

I'm a big fan of the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

Until we need a supply of Unobtanium ;-)

[Unbeliever]

There was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega point and then there was Frank Tipler's Omega point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler#The_Omega_Point_cosmology

Both of which are bogus, IMO.

[Cavebear]

As the universe continues to evolve there may come to be more and more intelligent life forms. We may well be among the first to arise, but the universe has trillions of years to go, so life and intelligence might become as common as grains of sand on a beach. But that, too, is just guesswork.

Might not intelligent species kill themselves off at about the same rate they arise?  That's not a joke.  Sagan made that point (not deliberately I suspect - but who knows) in 'Cosmos' when he searched the Encyclopedia Galactica.

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, that's still something that remains to be seen. It could go either way, but maybe there will be a sort of cosmic natural selection, so those that kill themselves off don't get to partake of future history, while those that don't might last until the final black hole has evaporated - then burrow into, or even create, another universe to propagate in.

[Unbeliever]

Also, there's The Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, that's still something that remains to be seen. It could go either way, but maybe there will be a sort of cosmic natural selection, so those that kill themselves off don't get to partake of future history, while those that don't might last until the final black hole has evaporated - then burrow into, or even create, another universe to propagate in.

One problem with the guesswork of accumulating survival intelligences is that those which survive, survive a LONG time, while the crazy ones die off fast.  Math isn't my thing, but I suspect a logarithm in there.  Of at least an exponent.  The "hockey stick thingie" to be technical about it.

[Baruch]

Also, there's The Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis.

Sounds like gods to me, of the Biblical kind.

At least from economics, the hockey stick thing is always on the verge of ending us.  We think linearly, but reality is exponential.

[SGOS]

Ah, here it is:

Science Fiction Wormholes Don’t Exist

Well, that's a pisser.

[trdsf]

Slow or halt evolution?  This is an interesting idea.  Maybe it could be done, but I'm skeptical.  However, humans have indeed halted the evolution of many species, including our once living closest relatives.  We may halt our own evolution in the same way, and I think that's the better bet.

Well, we're already kind of doing that.  We're the first species that can create adaptable artificial environments for ourselves rather than having to endure, or adapt to fit, whatever environment we find ourselves in.  And if we can make an environment that suits us rather than changing to suit the environment, that takes a significant amount of evolutionary pressure off.

I think it's likely that human evolution won't start meaningfully moving again until we have permanent off-world settlements, because at a minimum the human form will modify to take better advantage of the change in gravity.  That's the only thing we can't take with us, no matter how much terraforming we do and how many pressurized domes/underground settlements we build.  Even an O'Neill cylinder spun up to provide an artificial 1g at its inner surface will have a very different inertial environment from Earth.  And while the change will be slow because the environment is only slightly different, it's still a different environment, and changes add up over time.

Of course, colonies on the Moon and Mars can remain in (relatively) easy contact with the main population of humans on Earth, and so would probably at most become a subspecies still interfertile with the original stock.  But what if we really start reaching out, to "nearby" habzone worlds like Proxima Centauri b, Tau Ceti e or Luyten b?  Absent fast interstellar travel, shuttling back and forth between them and Earth will be effectively impossible.  That's a population isolated from its parent population, and that's a perfect evolutionary setup for speciation.

[Unbeliever]

Humans may now be subject more to artificial selection than to natural selection.

[Baruch]

Humans may now be subject more to artificial selection than to natural selection.

But some claim, there is no such thing as artificial.  So since everything is natural, there can only be "natural" selection.  Certainly classic philosophy grants that there is both natural (non-human) and artificial (human) selection.