New Human Species Found « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

New Human Species Found

(13 posts) (6 voices)

Started 11 years ago by Greenozi
Latest reply from Jeffbloggs

Tags:

No tags yet.

Greenozi
Member

I really shouldn't be writing on this forum.
I really think I know your answer before I spell it out.

The question is:

Should we allow humans to evolve into separate species over time?

Introduction.

As evolution is going on nobody cry over flying pterodactyl now preserved in chalk layer.
We do admire abundance of species living in Amazon basin.
As human race progress, societies complicate, goals differentiate we are facing incoming dilemma.
Should we all force in the name or democracy minorities into obedience by all available means?
Or rather leave them alone to their own devices and allow to evaluate in preffered direction?

Example.

Suppose you do not agree with existing tax system. You feel is unfair. You will found a bunch of similar thinking. Gather some money, pay the tag price and bought an island, registered new country New Land. Now you crated new government, or use direct democracy like Greeks did due to popularity of smartphones now you can decide about everything that is possible.
Pro:
1.You pay more taxes, or less, maybe not at all but you all need to manage and sustain your New Lander population.
2.You don't need to drag whole population into un-popular projects ie recent 100% Solar Energy Country because this minority that do not agree could jump to near by island that called Coal Only Island.
3.You dissolve army and police force because you give up already your privacy over 100% scrutiny to whole population and simply crime do not pay off.
4.You gather the best brains wanting to live on your paradise island
5. Instead off dragging whole division along small united nation could progress much quicker on evolutionary ladder.
Con.
1.Your big neighbors don't like you so much, probably will nuke out your country sooner or later.
2.There is a chance your designed country failed. Unfortunately there is nobody to blame but you.

Summarizing.
Later or sooner human race will probably diversify (due to natural geographical distances between planets) into separate species anyway assuming that will be given enough time.
So far we remember Nazi race engineering that doesn't brings positive connotation.

All this prolonged reflexion is derived from fundamental question:

How to reconcile successfully opposing powerful domains living within one big country but looking towards completely different goals?

- should we go on the Moon and Mars or on rather on another war again?
- should we improve ourself or better ruin competing nation?
- Heavy manufacturing is not healthy, lets do buy products for overseas (they have nothing to loose)
- Our political system is the best known, why to improve on something that is not broken (yet)?
- Build a dam or cheaper to rebuild a home? (Since insurance is so cheap and thousands other subscriber fools pay to rebuild your home there is no brainier question)

Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:04:10 am from IP #
Lumbuck Thornton
Member

The evolutionary pressures will start to push people in smarter directions hopefully. I am interested in working out if there was a way of slipping below the radar or out of the rat race without anyone noticing to have a good think about what was actually happening in the world and better ways to do things. I have written a few chapters on this and the first is at the forum below if you are interested. I suspect it might be better to work within society because that is where most of us are but certainly writing stories and creating some new places on film with a little scientific credibility and a little less fiction would be fun also....

http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/does-renew-magazine-need-an-ongoing-environmentally-friendly-romance-chapter

The challenge is also about "up use" which is finding an even better or smarter use of capacity in a product. Even better than "reuse". The example I use in this play designed to challenge people is a secret community of people that were smuggling poo and wee around in solid brightly colored plastic water bottles......

http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/a-short-play-about-climate-change-an-inconvenient-convenience

I reckon the way most of us will evolve will not be obvious to everyone else but enable some big integrated leaps to be made. Good interesting points though.

Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:47:25 pm from IP #
Greenozi
Member

Good point, Lumbruck.

Years 2012 arrived

and

as in Mayan calender predicted an Alien spaceship arrived to sterilize our planet.

Who do you send to convince them otherwise?

To give us some time?

WHO IS YOUR AMBASSADOR???

WHO IS YOUR ONLY HOPE?

DO YOU TRUST YOUR PM TO CONVINCE ALIENS ?

sorry
I will not be around to help

Posted Monday 10 Jan 2011 @ 1:17:37 pm from IP #
Andy Chee
Member

Greenozi said: "Should we allow humans to evolve into separate species over time?"

Humans haven't evolved much over the last 5000 years. I suspect much will be the same (biologically) in the year 8000.

But perhaps you're talking about the evolution of societies?

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 4:47:57 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

Andy,"Humans haven't evolved much over the last 5000 years"

you get catched into same old mouse trap.

Obviously not !

First.
It was always chance for mixing genes (regardless of beauty cannon at times since alcohol was invented at about same time)
Second.
As everything around including MMCC accelerates in recent 100 years.
Third.
genetic engineering, that not specialty that Neanderthals have been specifically fluent at
Forth.
Space travel. Thanks to budget cuts NASA program may add next one hundred years before next attempt to reach closest celestial body (Moon) will be made

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:53:23 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

Are you sure, you are not reading too much science fiction?

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 6:56:26 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

Sun2Steam "you are ...reading too much science fiction"

Not at all.
My frustration is quite down to earth. Caused by disappointment in resolving Queensland Flooding.
Religion was actually on another thread but I must confess I do believe....
...in power of experiment.
If we could design following experiment:
we choose two similarly flooded regions
1.- then on the first
a) rebuild damaged houses to previous status or even on 10m high poles each ( with $1000 coupon discount for each family to install electric elevator)
b) install alarm system for early warning when next season comes
c) increase insurance levy to level that allow rebuilding everything from scratch every few years
d) introduce live stock restriction to only that one that can swim for extended period ( ducks , goose, crocks, elephants (could breathe thru snorkel)
and crops at least 1m higher that max predicted water level (ie bamboo meet criteria)
e)build skyscrapers in every village (as last resort to survive flooding bigger than one in two hundred years

2.For second region
a) rebuild homes as usual
b) build dams, canals, watermills and windmill
c)take some land that suit now for goat pasture and convert into lake
d)brought some settlers from other states that know how fish looks and allow them to farm on this lakes
e)ask farmers to eat all their goats and convert land into high output crops fields
f)bought few steam cruising ships for flocking tourists to enjoy
g) build skyscraper in every village for this flocking turist enjoying broad view on green and blue scenery with casinos on ground level for local farmers that have too much money now to be rationally spent.

After 10 years I will send pollsters to every house in both regions to measure level of happiness and make scientifically valid comparison.

Is that my above statement could be qualified as:
a) Religion (unfounded believe) ?
b) Science fiction abuse ?

I will not get Nobel Price for such obvious idea, but still think that Marsian will be easier to convince

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:01:48 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Greenozi
I am positively impressed with your interpretations and unorthodox style. Keep it up, new perceptions are always welcome in my mind! Your diversification principles are spot on in my opinion. We're much to much over-centralized by greed and power. Give the power back to the people! We need sustainable communities that are interdependent. Your perception is lofty enough to see the problems at least.

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:53:40 am from IP #
thatmosis
Member

Greenozi
Its all too simplistic.
First rebuilding the homes on 10m poles sounds all well and good but remember we have an aging population that wont take kindly to stairs
Who pays for the alarm systems, the owner or the tax payer, if its the owner then the differing systems would give different alarms at different times and if the Government legislated that a certain alarm a was the only one to use then the price would increase 20 fold as a result.
A lot of people cant afford the insurance on their homes as it is. Make it compulsory and again the prices would inflate as there is a captive audience and flood cover would still not be available to those in flood prone areas.
Cant come to grip s with the live stock example. Sheep and cattle and pigs are a staple pert of the Australian diet for the majority not elephant and crocs. Once again you fall into the error of making people conform to an idea that would result in either imported meats or hugely inflated prices for meat that people do not eat. As for crops like bamboo we are not a Pandas and do not eat bamboo so what would be the use except to tie up good farming land on a whim.
Sky scrapers in every village, interesting. As a last resort and we dont have one for another 50 or 100 years and the building crashed down around our feet because it is structurally weakened and killing not a few but hundreds. No very well though out that one.
What has to be done after the floods is very simple, flood mitigation on a huge level undertaken not only by Federal but State and local Government. People should be encouraged to move away from the flood prone areas by way of land swapping. If they live on a flood plain the Government buys their land and sells them land at the same price in safer areas. If they refuse to move then thats when the Federal Government should make it compulsory. Water views are all well and good but not when they are in your living room.
Farmers are given the opportunity to move to equally fertile ground to start again or they are able to take their chance with their crops where they are.
A Government insurance scheme should be implemented for all those that cant afford to buy the existing insurance that is on offer. A simple tax increase on these people or a slight decrease in centrelink payments for home owners would be the way to go and it should be asset tested to ensure that people able to afford the commercial insurance continue to do so. I have always held the belief that is you can afford to own a home you can afford insurance, but thats me.
Flood mitigation should be a National Federal initiative. A Minister would have to be given a portfolio to deal with this but no increase in public servants would be needed as there are enough already that could be seconded to this area. Scientists and engineers and builders would also have to be included as would hydrologists and meteorologists to get the full picture and work out what is best. Locals from each area of concern would also need to be included as they have first hand knowledge and insights that would prove invaluable to such a portfolio. Its okay to have all the known facts on paper but people who live in an area usually have that special something that influence decisions. Work for the dole people could be employed in their own areas to do the work thereby utilizing a great number of people who would otherwise have to move to get jobs.
As for giving the power back to the people thats all well and good and sounds lofty but unfortunately it would nt work with the assistance of the all levels of Government. Sustainable communities are a great idea but actually finding enough people to form these communities and make them not only sustainably viable but also monetarily viable is another thing. No RE community in Australia can claim to be 100% sustainable in any and every way and the RE movement has been going on for decades. Nice idea but not likely to happen in my or your lifetime.
Recovery is a long way off at present but now is the time to get people together to formulate the plans for the future.

Posted Tuesday 11 Jan 2011 @ 11:45:32 pm from IP #
Greenozi
Member

excellent Thatmosis

"People should be encouraged to move away from the flood prone areas by way of land swapping"

you are free to create your third version of flooded village and I will send my pollsters in 10 years to investigate to you too

I have no patent on wisdom (the only way) and Jeff hit the nail in the head !

"diversification principles are spot on in my opinion"

but your new village looks like empty, ghost village for me (just desert the place)

"If they live on a flood plain the Government buys their land"

and what goverment will do with this just purchased parcel ?
just curious

Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:21:02 am from IP #
Greenozi
Member

No offense, Thatmosis

My question was truly practical.

Because maybe government on this newly purchased parcel could do:

1.My dreamed lake ?

2.Sell to highest bidder ( because is gold or coal below) ?

3.Create next national park for amphibians (water creatures that could live on desert) ?

4. Give to me for free ?

As for some time I am looking to test my new generation big airships and I can not lunch them from my 2 acres in the middle of city?
I hope that Australia is big enough to find the place to do so safely (test airships) but I could be wrong again.
But on another hand I can not afford to buy Allice Spring desert at the rate $200.000 an acre because I will have no money left to fill my balloons with nothing else but vacuum.
Yes, for those interested I plan to fill them with hydrogen not helium that why I need safe empty space (the old nuclear blast test site is the best)

Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 2:44:31 am from IP #
thatmosis
Member

The land could be used for public parks or wildlife areas or recreation areas. As long as it is not sold to developers to build more flood prone houses. Its a win win for the Government. They get some usueless land whilst selling some good land that will not quite ensure this wont happen again but will make it harder to happen again therefore eleviating the need for billions of dollars to be spent on rebuilding the infrastructure time and time again. Good value if you ask me.

Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 6:19:50 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

I completely agree that the reconstruction should be diversified and de-centralised in non-affected areas. It's hard for affected people, but I would assume many will move now of their own accord anyway.

Posted Wednesday 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:11:56 am from IP #

RSS feed for this topic