Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Ah, but the reverse is more important, nowadays. [...]

Oh, indeed.  Actually said that at one point, but it got too long.  You know my replies.

And loss of function is indeed very easy to happen.  Change of function perhaps next easiest.  Multiplication of function could be either 2nd or 3rd place, depending on the mechanism.  Addition of all other completely new functions (from "nothing", or while keeping an original function intact) is probably the most unlikely thing to happen.

Well, sort of, as change of function must not mean that a vital chemical pathway isn't completely lost (another reason why multiplication might be 2nd most important), and losses of function might be most common but could be most commonly life-inhibiting in their different (thus chucking it down the list), etc, etc, but that'll do as a summary of the immediate effects, even though it'll represent itself differently in such surviving offspring that inherit such effect-changes.

(Edited even that down.  Thus some parts of that attempt at an explanation are wrong, but will do as a fairly advanced level of Lies To Children, I'm hoping that those with even more expertise than me (i.e. have a still current involvement) would agree.)

((Sorry, far too many nested asides.))

[Andir]

Example: Diabetes.  With the HFCS and Sugars, and even glucose (baby foods [squash], etc.) and we ingest on a regular basis, it's no wonder our bodies fail to maintain the proper levels of glucose and blood sugars.

[Leafsnail]

So, by keeping the weak, sick, and degenerate artifically alive and reproducing, we are quickly degenerating our species, where we can no longer survive without technology. The other option, however, is even worse.

I'd say it's more like we're adapting to live with technology.

[Puzzlemaker]

Eventually we will genetically engineer ourselves to be perfect, so it's no biggie if the gene pool gets weakened.

Of course, our version of "Perfect" may be different then natures version of "Perfect", especially when it comes to survival of the fittest.  But we made nature our little bitch anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[Earthquake Damage]

Of course, our version of "Perfect" may be different then natures version of "Perfect", especially when it comes to survival of the fittest.  But we made nature our little bitch anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

We are all bound by natural law.  So no, I'm pretty sure everything we do is precisely as nature intended.

Who's the bitch now? 

[Realmfighter]

Every living thing but us.

[Andir]

Every living thing but us.

I'd argue the opposite... "Nature" may be tricked into accepting the changes we make (anti-rejection drugs, etc.) but those are simply bandages and constructs and in the end, we still break down.  Until mankind creates a method of restoring ourselves and living forever, we are still victims of "nature."

You may think that because you think/talk you are somehow exempt from the same things a tree has to bear, but you will both succumb to natural law.

[Realmfighter]

You are making the definition of "Nature" far too broad.

In fact, either go all they way too "We are made of particles, and everything else ins made of particles ergo we will always be like everything else" or just stick with the normal definition.

[MaximumZero]

I prefer to think that we're all made of the same stuff as the stars. For some reason, that's really comforting.

[Realmfighter]

When I'm feeling sad I always like to remember that even the worst or greatest man who will ever live will still be an insignificant footnote to a universe that itself will die, destroying any possible evidence that such a person or thing could have even existed.

For some reason, my Anti-Social Nihilistic Fantasies give me, a Anti-Social Nihilist pleasure! Who new!

[The Doctor]

I never understood that sentiment. Who cares about the rest of the universe? We have enough consciousnesses around on this planet to entertain and enlighten the rest, we don't need to worry about what a giant mass of quivering wavelengths thinks.

[Makbeth]

Eventually we will genetically engineer ourselves to be perfect, so it's no biggie if the gene pool gets weakened.

Of course, our version of "Perfect" may be different then natures version of "Perfect", especially when it comes to survival of the fittest.  But we made nature our little bitch anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

The only ones who say that are those who've never seen what nature is capable of.  We can't even eradicate mosquitoes, rats, cockroaches, or ants, let alone hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes.

No, my friend, nature is not our bitch.  We're the bitch that nature would have if it even cared that we were here.  As it is, we're just collateral damage when we get in its way.

[Criptfeind]

Nature=Bitch

Spoiler: Proof (click to show/hide)

WOULD NATURE LET US DO THIS IF IT WAS NOT OUR BITCH? NO!

[Andir]

You are making the definition of "Nature" far too broad.

In fact, either go all they way too "We are made of particles, and everything else ins made of particles ergo we will always be like everything else" or just stick with the normal definition.

What definition of Nature are you using then?
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+nature

I was referring to this Nature:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

Which is broad.  So I don't know how I can take a broad term and make it too broad... but whatever.

[Realmfighter]

You said that once we could live forever, we would no longer be victims to the natural world, physical world, or material world.