The year 3000 is destined to go in billions of directions not all very pleasant but I dont know, there may even be things outside of human reckoning that could happen... strange...

IF we human keep harming the planet like this, I think when it's 3000, most of the people will disappear.

In the year 3000 I expect it to be a time where humans have implemented technology which allows us to function in a way that doesn't drain the planet so badly, possibly a new energy or a new way to use energy. All may laugh but I do see the technology for travel into space, too many great minds are already working on it and many more will come in the future especially after a couple of hundred years of technology development.

I think though before we get to the year 3000 the earth would have gone through a difficult period of readjustment of war, famine close to a global scale and a period of putting the climate back together (which will not happen until it reaches a critical level) , due to resource depletion. Out of this I see a stronger race under a global government. I think that humans will have the opportunity to replace organs that fail with either created organic replacements or bionic ones. While it may prolong our lives for a bit I don't see the average human living too long past 100 y/o as even replacing bits n pieces it wont be possible to replace everything and humans do come with a used by date.

I do believe that we are not the only sentient being in the Universe however, I don't think we will have a relationship with them maybe just a knowledge that their out there.

I also think that we will have a much better understanding of our universe and how it was put together and with this knowledge there is no end to the possibilities.

The truth will probably be so incredible that even our most ridiculous predictions will fall a long way short. I mean after all could you imagine someone predicting something as common place and simple to understand as sending information around the world using radio waves? Or someone predicting that all our food will be bought in one place or that an average family home will have more than 5 rooms even 200 years ago? Let alone tv the internet, and all the amazing things that have been discovered and invented.

What I wouldn't give for a time machine right now lol.

Tessa.

QUOTE(Switch @ Aug 10 2005, 07:50 AM)
Although I'm not sure we'll last that long... not because of technology but for other reasons that aren't allowed to be discussed here. ^^;
[/quote]
I hear ya, but I don't dread it at all.


Not True, Atheism is a religion.

This statement is true to the Darwinist theory; they point this out a lot so that they don't sound so foolish.

“unarguable” this is a lie, to use this word is a deliberate deception to the post readers.

“share” another deceptive word used to infer an automatic link, organisms can not share genes, they need their own, their parents can copy their genes to their children but they don’t actually share them. Peregrine should have said we have common genes.

Peregrine & many other Darwinist, Neo-Darwinist and Evolutionist ignore the fossil record in decisions these days because it has just not panned out for them. We have found millions of fossils and in that a handful has come close to supporting the theory.

I hear ya, but I don't dread it at all.
_______________________________________________________________________

Me neither, I don't think Earth will miss us humans being here. I don't think Earth would do worse without us.

(Reply continued)

It may be “easy” if you start with preconceived Evolution ideas, but it’s not if you are doing straightforward scientific investigation


Today “We know what genes we have in common” we do not know about or can't calculate mutation rates of things we have not discovered from the past.


Wrong, doubt also comes from Archeologist, Astronomers, Astrophysicists, Biologist, Botanist, Chemist, Mathematicians and other scientist.
While yes indeed Creationist are represented in the fields of science there are also non-creationist as well like Albert Einstein, a Theist.

Shame on you Peregrine, you knew from our discussions that what you wrote was not true.
Example: "Dec. 10, 2004 - Antony Flew, the British scholar who for years has been the world's most noteworthy philosophical proponent of atheism, has conceded that scientific evidence points to the existence of God."
Later in the interview he critiques Richard Dawkins his old fellow atheist.
He is not a Creationist he is a Theist, yet you say “The only "doubt" comes from creationists who reject the entire concept of science and empiricism” shame on you.


This is an excellent statement, seems very logical, if only it were true it would be perfect.



Guess you haven’t read my email to you yet were I point out that this is very convenient and also circular reasoning, i.e. “the Evolutionist have no evidence just like they expected so that proves they are right”.


The Theory you believe in is loosing more ground & credibility each day, more and more scientist are having the courage to stand up & refute this fairytale.

Descent from Darwinism Link http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/press...0Scientists.php

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.


If you want to talk about it go to Peregrine's link (eddited) http://thenexusforums.com/index.php?showtopic=37134

What bizarre definition of 'revive' are you using?

Indeed, I was confused about that as well.

Revive; like in bring back to life.
Peregrine likes to talk about Evolution and since his thread is not popular anymore he brings it up on other threads.
I will try to make this the last time I talk about it on this thread.
If anyone wants to contact me about it please feel free to do so, I’ll be more than happy to discuss it with you.
-H

I supposed that you would have noticed that the 'Evolution' thread was created 2 days after the post you quoted. Apparently, this was not the case.

I linked to Peregrine's thread which is dated Jun 12 2007.

If my Agenda theory is wrong, perhaps Human kind will take the path of "assisted evolution". In the short term that could lead to great strides is medicine, athletics and warfare. In the long term, however, such a path could mean great suffering, inhumanity and disparity as one group evolves beyond another. If modern Archeology and Anthropology are correct then such changes are not new. But things could be very different this time. The rate at witch such evolutionary change overtakes us if assisted by science could be unprecedented.

Much depends on the decisions we make along the way. Consider just one aspect of assisted evolution; Human Machine Interface.


Feasibility of co-training a computer and child to interface prebirth. I am not saying this should be done but it could be done. If it is done, those who do it may have an edge on those who do not. Is this a possible path of evolution for Humankind? Might it be inevitable given our growing dependence on the Microprocessor?


1. The computer must have the ability to learn language

1. The system should use AI
2. The OS should not interfere with the learned language in any way
3. No preconceptions should exist in the programing.

2. The child must have the ability to sense either light, sound or magnetic "field" signals.

1. Genetic manipulation

* Many species have sensory organs that detect magnetic changes
* It should not be hard to develop an interface from modified stem cells taken in vitro

2. Use of existing senses

* The human body can detect sound and perhaps light in vitro.
* Magnetic stimuli may be affective. Sensitivity inherently present in the human fetus may exist but never develops without use.

3. Device implantation

* In my opinion a cheep and inherently flawed solution
* Introducing a foreign body is introducing complications best avoided.

3. The computer must be able to detect brain activity. Or the child must be able to emit light, sound or magnetic fields.

1. Genetic manipulation

* Many species have organs that produce electromagnetic changes
* It should not be hard to develop an interface from modified stem cells taken in vitro

2. Detection of existing emissions

* Magnetic emissions may be affective and inherently present in the human fetus but never develops without use.

3. Device implantation

* In my opinion a cheep and inherently flawed solution
* introducing a foreign body is introducing complications best avoided.

4. The language should be allowed to grow without major restriction.

1. In order to be most correct and affective the language must be allowed to grow in both child and computer unhindered by preconceived notions.

* All languages are best learned in youth
* Any preconceptions will hinder innovation between the co learners

2. Further refinement of the process must be contingent on results gained in an unadulterated control example.

* After the first co-paired beings are born and the human learns to interface with peers, more will be known about the learning process and changes, if warranted, may be made

This out line is my humble attempt to organize my ideas concerning an efficient direct link between the machine and the human brain. Several paths could be taken to achieve the interface. I choose to look towards a more "natural" alternative. Even if it is harder to achieve I believe the long term benefits of the less complicated path are worth the effort.

Hmm...

(A very interesting point. However, the leaning of language is a portal, a bit too abstract for computers. Even the most high-powered super-computers choke on human language.)

This is a long, expensive, and dangerous path. An easier and less lucrative medium for our evolutionary advancement: Biotechnology, more specifically, Gene-manipulation. Long strides have been made in this relatively new field of science. Now having said that, what 'advancements' do humans need? The best option for Gene-manipulation, I would say, is advanced sensory, elimination of disease (inborn, and external), and mental enhancement if possible.

What do you think?

Senses may be possible to enhance, and inborn disease immunity is definitely possible (with more technology, of course), but external disease immunity is impossible.
Disease 'immunity' doesn't actually exist. All diseases affect us. It's not like the bacteria instantly die upon contact with one's body; the immune system fights it off. The reason people who've had chicken pox once in their life never get it again is because of antibodies. When the white blood cells encounter the chicken pox virus for the first time, they have no idea what it is, or what it's purpose is. When they find out the virus hurts the body, they combat it. After analyzing the virus, the B-cells then create anti-bodies to help identify and destroy the virus. After that, any time the chicken pox virus reappears in the body, it's just a simple matter of spreading those antibodies before anything happens.
Now then, unless you plan to modify the genes so that B-cells have antibodies for all known, unknown, and future adaptations of diseases at birth, then disease 'immunity' will never happen.

A good point I didn't think about that, but another good direction:
Genetically altering the things around us to our favor.

Say there is an epidemic loose, we could make a 'counter-epidemic', a virus
maybe, that specifically targets the bacteria that causes the illness, then
reproduces and dies.

a stretch, but we could perhaps, make a gene that can be "programmed" to kill
certain bacteria in this manner. just a theory don't read to much into it.

gnimblegnome The language would be co-created and thus much more palatability for the lowly machine. In any case the "computer" is evolving as we speak towards a point where even speech and listening will be an interface. But speech is slow and inefficiently compared to the direct interface Via a new co-evolved language that is free from the limitations of preconceptions.


ninja_lord666Point taken but why not consider these:
RE: disease elimination/reduction
B lymphocytes are the cells of the immune system that make antibodies to invading pathogens like viruses. They form memory cells that remember the same pathogen for faster antibody production in future infections.
Proposed Enhancements:

1. Externalized receptors that intercept pathogens and create memory cells before the infection.
   • Organs or specialized skin cells that act like B lymphocytes and store up information on environmental pathogens externally
2. A Universal immune communication system to share pathogenic data between individuals and even populations
   • An organ or system of organs that can communicate information between individuals
   • An interface to silicone (computer) components to facilitate global immune distributions
3. Acceptance of the beneficial flora that have already evolved synergistically with humans and are being destroyed rather than embraced.
   • beneficial Bacteria have lived on our skin and evolved just like the Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus acidophilus in our intestine.
   • Living external and internal beneficial flora adapt to pathogenic populations, unlike antibiontics that only serve strengthen pathogens
   • Bacteriophages could be enhanced and encouraged to live in and on us to further protect us from harm.

LOL

Yeah, I don't think many people would be too keen on releasing killer viruses into their bodies. Also, viruses mutate as well. When all the harmful bacteria are gone, then they'll evolve to begin attacking our cells. Then we're f***ed.
I understand the altering other animals bit, but just not killing ourselves. In fact, farmers do it already; they have selective breeding of plants and animals to get the most productive ones. Artificially changing the plants and animals, though, can increase it.

Such a virus already exists, and has been used for ~80 years. Further, it's far more precise than antibiotics.

As for the idea that it could mutate and attack human cells, one could just as soon expect cattle to adopt an exclusively carnivorous diet.

Stampede, Abramul, Ninja_Lord and most of all Peregrine I’m sorry for my mix up.
I thought this thread was newer than it is, I’ve edited my post, please except my apologies.

Don't give it another thought. Simple mix up.

I like the integration of electronics with our own race, the only problem, is that then not only would we have to worry about biotic threats but also computer-like threats. Not just viruses and malware, but simple hardware/firmware/OS problems(and bad code)

Except that by then, we'd have created true adaptive AI, so the software will be able to defend itself from viruses like our immune system. The software will adapt to virus threats and get rind of them itself. Obviously the hardware and software will be throughly tested for bugs and the like; that's just common sense.

I'm sure they'll do as thorough a job checking for bugs as the military does with their robotic anti-aircraft cannons. I'm not going to comment on the idea of a computerized "immune system," since that falls under your previous musing -- every single instance of malware doing real damage to a computer has been facilitated solely by errors in programming or operating some piece of software on that system.

What? Do you expect you, your child, and your grandchild to all live for over 330 years, each?

Bear in mind that a generation is typically 20-30 years. 50 would be pushing it.

Can't go faster than light speed WITH present technology. I don't think it's that far-fetched to think we will have hyper-engines, warp drive, jump drives, or some other FTL tech within a few hundred years. I imagine that by 3000, we will definitely be a space-faring culture.
The earth itself, now that I couldn't say. It may even be turned into a giant "National Park" preserve.

I'm pretty sure we going to nuke this world.....

Realistically, probably none of the above. Either a nuclear wasteland, or more probably some other paradigm-like occurrence that leaves the world completely different than the world we now know.

Hi!

Why I can thing about year 3000?
Today is Go's Gift! So Enjoy Life!!!!!!!!!!