What does the future have in store for the human race?
Evolution, as the past 4 billion years have repeatedly illustrated, holds an endless supply of tricks up its long and ancient sleeve. Anything is possible, given enough millennia. Inevitably the forces of natural selection will require us to branch out into differentiated versions of our current selves, like so many Galápagos finches... assuming, that is, that we have enough time to leave our evolution to our genes.
We won't, though. Instead, we will come to an end, and rather soon. We may be the last apes standing, but we won't be standing for long.
A startling thought, this, but all of the gears and levers of evolution indicate that when we became the symbolic creature, an animal capable of ardently transforming fired synapses into decisions, choices, art, and invention, we simultaneously caught ourselves in our own crosshairs. Because with these deft and purposeful powers, we also devised a new kind of evolution, the cultural variety, driven by creativity and invention. So began a long string of social, cultural, and technological leaps unencumbered by old biological apparatuses such as proteins and molecules.
At first glance you might think that this would be a boon to our kind. How better to better our lot than with fire and wheels, steam engines, automobiles, fast food, satellites, computers, cell phones, and robots, not to mention mathematics, money, art, and literature, each conspicuously designed to reduce work and improve the quality of our lives. But it turns out not to be that simple. Improvements sometimes have unintended consequences. With the execution of every bright new idea it seems we find ourselves instantly in need of still newer solutions that only seem to make the world more complicated. We are ginning up so much change, fashioning thingamabobs, weaponry, pollutants, and complexity in general, so swiftly, that as creatures genetically bred to a planet quite recently bereft of technical and cultural convolutions, we are having an exceedingly difficult time keeping up, even though we are the agents of the very change that is throttling us. The consequence of our incessant innovating is that it has led us inevitably, paradoxically, irrevocably, to invent a world for which we are altogether ill fit. In ourselves we may finally have met our match: an evolutionary force to which even we cannot adapt.
We are undoing ourselves because the old baggage of our evolution impels us to. We already know that every animal wants power over its environment and does its level best to gain it. Our DNA demands survival. It is just that the neoteny (youthfulness) that has made us the Swiss Army knife of creatures, and the last ape standing, has only amplified, not replaced, the primal drives of the animals we once were. Fear, rage, and appetites that cry for instant gratification are still very much with us. That combination of our powers of invention and our ancient needs will, I suspect, soon carry us off from the grand emporium of living things.
The best evidence that we are growing ragged at the hands of the Brave New World we have busily been rolling off the assembly line is that growing numbers of us freely admit to being thoroughly stressed. A recent study reported that the United States is "a nation at a critical crossroads when it comes to stress and health."* Americans are caught in a vicious cycle: managing stress in unhealthy ways while assembling insurmountable barriers that prevent them from revising their behavior to undo the damage they are inflecting on themselves. As a result, 68 percent of the population is overweight. Almost 34 percent are obese. (This is rarely a problem in hunter-gatherer cultures.) Three in ten Americans say they are depressed, with depression most prevalent between the ages of forty-five and sixty-five. Forty-two percent report being irritable or angry, and 39 percent nervous or anxious. Gen Xers and so-called Millenniums admit to being more stressed about personal relationships than even their baby-boomer parents. It's so bad that the results of our anxieties have found their way into dental offices, where dentists now spend far more of their time treating patients for jaw pain, receding gums, and worn teeth than they did thirty years ago. Why? Because we are tense and anxious, grinding our teeth down to nubs as we sleep.
Stress, as the experience of lab rats everywhere has repeatedly testified, is a sign that a living thing is growing increasingly unfit for the world in which it lives, and as Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace astutely observed more than 150 years ago, when a living thing and its environment are no longer a good match, something has to give, and it is always the living thing.
How are we handling our stress? Not too well. Rather than relaxing or getting more exercise when pressures mount, studies show that we instead skip meals, spend more time online or in front of the TV, then overeat and lie awake at night perfectly prepared to enter the next day bleary-eyed, short-tempered, and exhausted. What triggers this behavior? Those old primal drives and appetites we struggle so mightily to ignore.
Which returns us to the question, what next?
Our demise doesn't have to be a Terminator-style annihilation that leaves the world emptied of all humans, postapocalyptic cities stark and decaying with the smashed remains of our cultural accomplishments. It may be more of a butterfly-like metamorphosis, a transformation in which we step over the Rubicon of our old selves and emerge as a new creature built on our own backs without ever realizing, at least early on, that we are no longer the species we thought we were. Did the first Neanderthal know that he, or she, was no longer Homo heidelbergensis? Those passages are made gradually.
Perhaps we will simply morph into Cyber sapiens,* a new human, infinitely more intelligent than you or I are, perhaps more socially adept, or at least able to juggle large tribes of friends, acquaintances, and business associates with the skill of a circus performer. A creature more capable of keeping up with the change it generates. To handle the challenges of time shortages and long distances, Cyber sapiens may even be able to bilocate or split off multiple, digital versions of themselves, each of whom can blithely live separate lives and then periodically rejoin their various digital selves so that they become a supersize version of a single person. Imagine being able, unlike Robert Frost's traveler in his poem "The Road Not Taken," to choose both paths, each with a separate version of yourself. It makes you wonder if something essential in us might disappear should such possibilities come to pass. But then, perhaps, that is what will make the new species new.
A whole group of Homo sapiens are already contemplating what the next version of us might be like. They call themselves transhumanists, anticipating a time when future anthropologists will have looked back on us as a species that had a nice run, but didn't make it all the way to the future present.
Transhumanists foresee a time when beings will emerge who will literally be part biology and part machine. In this I suspect they are right, the logical next step in a long trend. We are already part and parcel of our technologies after all. When was the last time you checked your cell phone or simply walked to work, hunter-gatherer style? We have long been coevolving with our tools. It's just that now the lines between humans and machines, reality and virtuality, biology and technology, seem to have become especially blurry and will soon twitch and blink away.
Transhumanists predict that by melding molecule-size nanomachines with old-fashioned, carbon-made DNA the next humans might not only speed up their minds and multiply their "selves," but boost their speed, strength, and creativity, conceiving and inventing hyper-intelligently while they range the world, the solar system, and, in time, the galaxy. In the not-distant future we may trade in the blood that biological evolution has so cunningly crafted over hundreds of millions of years for artificial hemoglobin. We may exchange our current brand of neurons for nanomanufactured digital varieties, find ways to remake our bodies so that we are forever fresh and beautiful, and do away with disease so that death itself finally takes a holiday. The terms male and female may even become passé. To put it simply, a lack of biological constraint may become the defining trait of the next human.
There could be a downside to these sorts of alterations, I suppose, should we find ourselves with what amounts to superhuman powers, but still burdened by our primal luggage. Our newfound capabilities might become more than we can handle. Will we evolve into some version of comic-book heroes and villains, clashing mythically and with terrible consequences? Powers like these give the term cutting edge a new and lethal meaning. And what of those who don't have access to all of the fresh, amplifying technologies? Should we guard against a world of super-haves and super-have-nots? It is these sides of the equation I wonder about most.
Given evolution's trajectory, short of another asteroid collision or global cataclysm, we will almost certainly become augmented versions of our current selves. That has been the trend for seven million years. Apes increasingly endowed with more intelligence, and more tools, becoming simultaneously wiser and more lethal. The question now is, can we survive... ourselves? Can we even manage to become the next human? It's a close question.
I'm counting on the child in us to bail us out, the part that loves to meander and play, go down blind alleys, fancy the impossible, and wonder why. It is the impractical, flexible part we can't afford to lose in the transition because it makes us free in ways that no other animal can be--fallible and supple and inventive. It's the part that has gotten us this far. Maybe it will work for the next human, too.
*A term coined in my previous book Thumbs, Toes, and Tears: And Other Traits That Make Us Human.
This article was excerpted with permission from Last Ape Standing: The Seven-Million-Year Story of How and Why We Survived. Author Chip Walter is the founder of the website AllThingsHuman.net. His website is www.chipwalter.com, and his articles have appeared in Slate, The Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and The Economist among many others.
Unlike evolution outcome of primates, modern humans in the future will tweak their DNA for a desire goals and enhance themselves in other ways via electronic as well and where this ultimately leads in success or disaster is a complete unknown.
For the humans that allow nature to take its course, I feel a positive outcome of change will prevail for humanity.
And just when humanity makes itself into something wonderful, poof, the sun makes a spontaneous solar flare and we are all gone with this all being mute.
See life in all its beautiful colors, and
from different perspectives too!
I would think that there will be divergent strains of humanity. Once we become a truly spacefaring species separated by vast distances, i would expect there to be many "cults" of humanity. Purists always exist, so i wouldn't be worried about the end of the human race as we know it. Transhumanists are another fine example of how humanity could proceed, and likely many will go that way. I think the article leaves out biomodification, as a biological organism, enhancements through biotech will likely be more common , and could likely become inheritable traits.
I would speculate that humans will find ways to breathe in inhospitable environments, (including water) grow shorter, taller, larger, denser, pretty much the a-z of environmental modifications. Our curiosity and creativity are boundless, and my guess is our evolution will continue much in the way that it started, adapting to any environment we can get to, using whatever we have at our disposal.
We are already a new species: Homo Domesticus
Food source: Doritos
Daily activities: Social networking, fapping
Unique survival traits: Minimum wadge, balancing debt.
For the future, it does not really matter what humans reinvent themselves into being. Once the Annunaki return, they will make you into whatever they want, so to serve the GODS, as it is written by the Sumerians.
Humans are just servants of the GODS and the ones that gladly accept this will have a place in heaven.
The Human Race Will come to an End what's next? The Super Cyborg Human race? "A cyborg, short for "cybernetic organism", is a being with both organic and cybernetic parts." In other word folks the parts to make the six million dollar man is becoming cheaper every day.
Look at the thumbnail of Robot cyborg person above, that is where the human race is headed
Great article, but I cant help but to keep comparing it to the one I read last night:
Dont ask about how I came across it... but in other words he says that we are living our lives in an unatural way, and that that is why we are always stressed or depressed. Its great to learn about a new philosophy in many different areas all at once.
The singularity is near and I am cool with that! ;)
Like the movie the "time machine" genetic engineering would spilt our race.
Personally i think we cant survive ourselves. But mechanical biological advances are more realistic then DNA modifications. I.E. Ironman before Hulk
This is a complex subject, mostly because we don't really have any experience with a species in our situation. Previous species that became dominant and then failed didn't have our advantages: intelligence and technology. We've been shaping our evolution for the last several hundred years through the use of medicine ("survival of the fittest" doesn't breed traits as much anymore), we're able to protect ourselves against harsh conditions, and we can even act to prevent things that could be detrimental to our species.
I would argue that the human race has passed a threshold in the last 60 years or so that makes us fairly extinction-proof. There would have to be some kind of unprecedented event to get rid of all of us at this point: maybe something happening to the sun that suddenly affected it's output, a very close gamma-ray burst nails the Earth from a previously unknown source...whatever it is it would have to be very extreme and very sudden, because if humans have time to react, they will find ways to adapt.
Three planets out from a dying sun
Wanders a dust-covered sphere.
Barren and airless, all life is gone
And nothing watched man disappear!
If a breed of genetically engineered humans was created and the end result was positive, there would be no going back.....
Wow, no one here apparently read the bible...all the truthful answers are all in there...Hint; read the new testament it explains everything you need to know on how to get into eternity, in a perfect spiritual body...God is in control, he made the universe and us...so why even waste time contemplating what is actually going to happen?!
The Bible is one source of answers, Science is another. Faith and Science, they both explain the same things, just differently. We "waste" time on these types of things, because it's interesting, it's fascinating, it's stimulating. It's our nature to ask questions, Humans are a curious species. The thirst for knowledge, there's always one more lesson to be learned, one more fact to be learned, one more thing to do. I've read the Bible, but I also love Science.
Are you aware George that the Vatican has their own observatory to look deep into space? They also have priests who have degrees in Physics, and Astronomy. They use Science, Astronomy, and other fields to know God better. Science & Religion go hand in hand.
What you cannot explain with Science, you can explain with faith, and vice versa.
Wow, almost everything in this article is wrong.
Saying that evolution has a trajectory is a serious anachronism and harkens back a version of evolutionary theory dismissed in the sciences for over 70 years.
The idea that evolution has a "trajectory" i.e. a definite direction or path, is fallacious and dangerous idea. That is what the word evolution originally meant which is why Darwin did not use the term in "Origin of the Species." In natural selection, there is no direction, no progress, no destiny and no "trajectory". Instead, species are shaped constantly by the immediate short term forces of their environment.
The idea of predetermined evolution superseded natural selection for over 80 years prior to 1947 and the development of synthetic natural selection theory It's a very dangerous idea used to rationalize many of the evils of the 20th century e.g. scientific racism, eugenics, fascism and communism.
Predestined evolution served the same purpose in secular rationalizations as divine prophesy did in religions. It created a world of higher and lower lifeforms, higher and lower humans, and provided a rationalization for extreme action here and now to bring about the "inevitable" evolutionary end state.
Worse, that is basically the perspective pushed by the article i.e that it is inevitable that we will change into "higher" species.
The second wrong idea is that people reporting being stressed indicates that we are maladapted to the modern world. People in the modern world are not more stressed than our ancestors, we just whine about it more.
You want a stressful life? How about living with the knowledge that every time one of your kids gives a little cough it is a harbinger of a fatal infectious disease that will not only slowly kill the child right in front of eyes while you standby helplessly but which will also sweep through the rest of the family as well? How about spending your entire life doing repetative, boring, physically tasking, dirty and dangerous work every day from the age of 7 to 60 until your body just disintegrates?
We've never had it so good, its just that a lot of people make a lot of money telling us its wrong we should every have to worry or struggle about anything. If we could force people spend a year living like our ancestors even a century ago, people would never be unhappy with their modern lives again.
I have no doubt we will augment and change ourselves to the degree that we could be considered new species but we are not fated to do so, nor are we fated to take any particular form. The most likely future will be "radiant divergence" in which we birth a vast array of daughter species of all kinds all adapted to different environments.
The downside to augmentation and evolution via technology is just because we're not using random mutation of our DNA to drive change, we will still be subject to the forces of natural selection and that means we will still be driven by natural selection's utterly selfish, amoral behavioral core. No matter how great, immortal and powerful we make ourselves, we will still have individually struggle everyday not to turn into monsters.
We won't birth angels but Greek gods and all the drama that implies.
And you can read the Sumerian history to learn humans were created in several test versions, until the beings that came from above got us 'just right', to serve them.
Myths are hand me down stories from previous cultures. The Sumerian history has no prior beginnings. They got their math, calendar, language, weapons and more from the 'beings that come from above. The Sumerian history correctly describes our solar system too.
Sumerians history says we were made from the GODS in order to serve them. Then the myths were created and eventually inserted into Christianity.
From science we have evolution. Then we have a spontaneous leap in primates to make modern day man; tweaking of DNA from beings from above; science again.
The GODS do war with each other and some are good and some are not so good. Yes pray to the 'beings from above\GODS'. Just make sure you pray to the right one. Take care. ;)
We are already seeing an increase in mutations, probably due to the environmental changes our technological skills have overlaid on a once-natural background. Cancer is up, allergies are up and other once rare conditions have been seen more often.
Autism's less severe relative, Aspergers, may be how humans of future millennia (assuming we do not kill ourselves off) will think. A society built on that pattern must necessarily be different from the one we know.
There may, however, be historical (or at least literary) evidence of a similarly disruptive cognitive shift. Julian Jaynes' book _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ suggested that we were once drastically different in how we could see the world and ourselves:
--- Jaynes believes in the mentality of the early Mycenean that volition, planning and initiative were literally organized with no consciousness whatsoever. Rather such volition was "told" to the individual--"sometimes with the visual aura of a familiar friend or authority figure or 'god,' or sometimes as a voice alone." [Ibid, p. 75]
Now Jaynes thinks the great agricultural civilizations that spread over much of the Near East by 5000 b.c.e. reflected the bicameral mind. These civilizations were rigid theocracies! They were reminiscent of the Queen Bee and the bee-hive. These bicameral societies reflected "hierarchies of officials, soldiers, or works, inventory of goods, statements of goods owed to the ruler, and particular to gods."
Jaynes contests that such theocracies were the only means for a bicameral civilization to survive. Circumventing chaos, these rigid hierarchies allowed for "lesser men hallucinating the voices of authorities over them, and those authorities hallucinating yet higher ones, and so" to kings and gods. ---
I'm reminded of the observers from the television show Fringe. They sacrificed the emotional parts of their brains for an increased intelligence. I wonder what humans will be willing to sacrifice in the future in the name of "progress".
Firstly, the remark "The idea that evolution has a "trajectory" i.e. a definite direction or path, is fallacious and dangerous idea. That is what the word evolution originally meant which is why Darwin did not use the term in "Origin of the Species." In natural selection, there is no direction, no progress, no destiny and no "trajectory". Instead, species are shaped constantly by the immediate short term forces of their environment." made by shannonlove2 is demonstrably false.
All indications are that the observed universe has an underlying structure such that stochastic inputs ratchet evolutionary processes forward. Not only bio-evolution but also the other aspects of nature's machinery, from the formation of the chemical elements in stars and supernovae right through to the evolution of technology within the collective imagination of our species.
All of which exhibit strong directionality. A pervasive and persistent pattern which can usefully be extrapolated to predict the imminent emergence of a new, non-biological predominant cognitive entity on this planet from what is now the Internet.
Increasingly there is further recognition of the fact that stochastic inputs can (and do) drive the directionality of "life" processes in this way. An overall directionality clearly observable in the biological and other evolutionary processes which, from our traditional human perspective, we interpret as "purpose"
Jose Ignacio Pascual et al of Freie Universität Berlin have also helped fan the flame of this understanding by recently demonstrating that the stochastic motion of vibrating hydrogen molecules can be used to move a mechanical cantilever.
The interpretation of processes of this kind as a ratcheting mechanism happens to be my own preferred analogy. It does however require an underlying structure in the fabric of our universe evidence with which stochastic component interacts. And it is this which provides a rational basis for the contentious issue of fine tuning of the universe for "life"
The evidence for "fine tuning" is actually very strong. However, it in no way supports "Intelligent Design" or any other fictions arising from the superstitious myths of religions.
The physical parameters are but the tip of the iceberg. There is actually a much greater body of evidence to support fine tuning to be found in fields of science far better established than cosmology.
After all, perhaps the earliest proponent of fine-tuning was the biochemist Lawrence Henderson. In “The Fitness of the Environment”, published in 1913, he observed that “”the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric”
Geology, biology and particularly chemistry provide many examples of “just right” prevailing conditions that enable and, indeed, make virtually inevitable, the strong directionality we observe in evolutionary processes.
The most recent part of this evolutionary continuum is that most familiar to us and of which we have the best knowledge: The autonomous evolution of technology within the medium of the collective imagination of our species.
But the commonly held assumption that IF fine tuning is a valid phenomenon THEN it favors theism is flawed.
Because it predicated by the very common and entirely intuitive belief that it suggests a “designer”.
But it can be very plausibly argued that, except in a very trivial sense, the concept of a “designer” is but an anthropocentric conceit for which there is no empirical basis.
An objective examination of the history of science and technology bears this out.
To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?
We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin, the Internet without Vinton Cerf.
The list can, of course, be extended indefinitely.
This broad evolutionary model , extending well beyond the field of biology, is outlined very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” which is a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.
My work in preparation "The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry Uphill" will provide a more formal and detailed treatment of this issue.
Humans aren't likely to evolve in any dramatic way at all. Alligators, crocodiles, sharks haven't evolved much in millions of years. They are nearly perfectly evolved to work in their environment. Because of humanity's evolved intelligence, and the ability for us to adapt or change our environment, evolution isn't going to happen for millions of years. We may all end up a mediocre shade of gray but there are far worse things.
Unfortunately we're staring down the barrel of extinction or at least severe disruption of our industrialised civilisation from overpopulation and depletion of resources, starting with our addiction to cheap energy. They are happening now and will really start to bite long before we evolve or adapt to any alternative forms of Homo. Well, we will will adapt, we don't have any choice and Homo sapiens is the great adaptor, it's just that after an amazingly cushy century or so, we're going to do it hard to find alternatives to hamburgers, antibiotics, smart phones, SUVs and toilet paper.
I fear that the movie "The Road" (or a more slow-motion train-wreck equivalent) may be much closer to reality than anything envisaged in this article or comments.
Kiwiiano... I'm right 98% of the time, so who cares about the other 3%?
Just as the neanderthal didn't suddenly think "I'm new and different species", neither will we. Evolution is a gradual process, as is invention and "progress". Did some Neanderthal think to himself "this spear I invented changes everything and we are now going down the road to our destruction"? Man adapts to his environment and life. I'm not talking about Man as individuals. I'm talking about Man, the species. At this time, many people are stressed because of the pace of life. Yet, some people revel in this pace of life. Even in the stone age, there were those who were stressed and couldn't adapt (and died) and those who adapted and lived to reproduce, giving birth to offspring with traits (either physical, mental or both) that let them survive in the ever-changing world that Man creates for himself. No. Mankind will be around for a long time, as long as we do not mess up and cause a mass extinction on a planetary scale.
"Last and First Men, a "future history" of 18 successive species of humanity by Olaf Stapledon, is a science fiction novel written in 1930. It is a description of the history of humanity from the present onward across two billion years and eighteen distinct human species, of which our own is the first and most primitive. Good reading from a great mind.
According to the trends the last human being will be an olive-skinned female five foot-tall basketball player in a gym in Detroit "doing hoops" in wait of the end of the world as her last lover has died. And, she ate the last him for dinner.
She has three fingers as our evolution from four equal-length digits has gone full course. It took one million years to get to where we are. Our little fingers are 70% the length of our middle fingers so it should take another 1.5 million years for our little fingers to vanish and that will coincide with a change in the sun that we cannot abide.
Google "Two Minute Conservative" for science, politics and more. Give us two minutes a day and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.
Unsubscribed. I am finding less and less Science here, and more and more, unsubstantiated theory and politically correct garbage. Bye, bye.
"Our demise doesn’t have to be a Terminator-style annihilation that leaves the world emptied of all humans"
But it very well could, and it will be no surprise: the signs are here in many forms. The author covers this subject well. Ironically enough, high technology and the fast pace of life looms in our demise as we struggle to find "our greater purpose." As "The Krell" found out in the movie "Forbidden Planet" (c. 1956). A different take on the subject under discussion, but nevertheless one that may lead mankind down a similar road.
I think that in the future, humans, having used up most of Earth's resources through centuries of explosive population growth, will begin colonizing the rest of the Milky Way.In turn, this expansion will also lead to competition and fighting over available resources as it did on Earth, but everything will change with the discovery of a natural wormhole leading to an unexplored galaxy. Dozens of colonies will be founded, and a structure will be built to stabilize the wormhole that bridged the intergalactic colonies with the rest of human civilization. However, the natural wormhole will unexpectedly collapse, destroying the gate. Cut off from the rest of humanity and supplies from Earth, the colonies will be left starved and disconnected from one another; some dying out entirely. Over the eons the descendants of the colonists will manage to survive and rebuild their own societies, but the memories and knowledge of humanity's origins as well as their own from Earth and the Milky Way will become lost.
Our evolution is obviously toward taller, and stronger - but I question smarter. We keep dumbing down our educational system, making nicer labels for "exceptionalities" that allow students to get better grades without learning to how to spell or pronounce their own names (Boehner? Please...) There's a growing paranoia about our increasingly closer neighbors, our both literally, and globally. Google and read "Population density and Social Pathology" science research done in '62 by J. Calhoun.
If we're not careful, and we let unwise leaders persuade the masses with Nihilist strategies (as did happen in early 20th century Nazi Germany) we could pollute our selves to a sudden extinction.
Al Gore pointed out the classic experiment in "Inconvenient Truth"; drop the frog in boiling water - it jumps out. Drop the frog in cool water and heat it - and the frog will let itself get cooked. We need to listen carefully to the consequences of our population explosion and overuse of fossil fuels, or we're "cooked".
Just remember the Gods that made us, like us best serving them.
The next step I see in human evolution is not one of improvement but of a deevelution more of a reliance on technology to do anything and everything for us. The more that we can make technology do for us the less we will need to know how to do ourselves. A dumbing down of society or more of a demestication of the human race. I can see people not needing to have certain skills that we use today and you can see it today compaired to primitive cultures. People of today have lost the knowledge that ancient people had to know to survive. Humans adapt to their environment to survive, the only difference between then and now is mans priorities. Before it was food pocurment now it is jobs, bills, and other modern concerns. Is not an issue and we have drestically changed since then. You can see the physical change that has occurred from then to know and that wasn't too long ago. Ancient people were built much stronger then we are today we have become weaker because we don't need to work the same way as they did before and our bodies are changing to fit out life's. if everything was to become automated by an electronic entity then we wouldn't really need to do anything to get anything don't we would not have to think to accomplish what we want. You could sit in one spot all day and not move and have everything come to you cyber work place virtual reality automated food delivery to your living quarters when the little bell jingles you know that it is time to eat like a house cat that is called to be fead it doesn't know what time it is it doesn't need to know anything but to come when called. The human race will never need to get to this point because as a species we will be harming ourselves. If you have ever watched the movie idiocracy will preatty much see what I am talking about. The way that people live today is very enefficient a lot of what we use gets wasted ancient people were very resourceful and were very tied to the land nothing usable was wasted had they could hind a use for nearly everything in the world around them. People think that we live in a very materialistic world today we are not at least not in the terms of needed things. In my opinion ancient people were very materialistic because they had to be everything around them was valuiable and usefull and they understood and was very appreshitive of it all. Everything I mean everything had a use to them is ade of their lives. If you don't know all the uses of the world around you then I can't really explain what I am talking about. You see the world compleatly different instead of just seeing a stick, rock, grass, or tree, you see all the possibilities that they can make. The tools, the medical uses, and sources of food. You look into the grass and see more that grass and weeds you see a large food source in it all the different editable plants. When you gain the knowledge to see the world this way the experience is really a 4th dimensional experience. People's thoughts need to change instead of thinking that technology and humans having computers intagrated into there bodies is moving forward is is really going in reverse and what people think is reverse is actually forward. We adapted to this world we were designed to operate sucessfully in it why would we need to creat a vertuial word to live in we cannot work in that kind of a world because we were not designed for it and we cannot survive in it without losing a major part of our adaptibility the knowledge of our surounding. Let people dumb themselves down it will leave more resources for me to use and prosper with. More fish to catch, more animals to hunt, and more fertile land to grow crops. That breed of people will die out and people who hold on the knowledge of old will always survive. I am not saying to push away advances in technology or not to just live in the Stone Age. There must be a balance and to not forget the basic skills needed to survive. The basic knowledge that has took the whole time man has existed on earth, it is very highly developed and has worked the whole time. Not a good ideal to forget it. If there is a rapid change of the environment like the power getting knocked out would destroy every bodies life's today and people could not survive think about a culture that revolves entierly on power to get through the day.