Human Race Is Dying (Genetic Deterioration)

[Economy 53,220]

There's a theory out there that grey aliens are actually humans from millions of years into the future who are coming back because they've ****ed themselves over genetically and can't reproduce anymore. So, they're coming back to a time period in which humans are still have relatively stable DNA and are using it to fix themselves.

Grey aliens like the asgard in SG1???? They super advanced and a noble race but they are dying from genetic deterioration and cant reproduce anymore, they clone themselves and transfer their minds to younger bodies and each clone generation deteriorates further

 

they are 3 feet tall and superbweak. They end up blowing up their planet and comited suicide once it became evident they were never gonna solve their genetic peoblems :( 

[Economy 53,220]

If you compare humanity 1,000 years ago to current then you will realise that we're doing the opposite to dying but infact evolving. It won't be long before we venture into space and leave Earth behind.

What the hell does that have to do with it?  

 

Were talking about a new trend since the industrial revolution 150 to 200 years ago not the past 1000 years and before

 

Before evolution was natural. Now were exposing ourselves to chemicals and radiation causing damage. Medical technology oeeping the weaker ones alive also is hindering the natural selection we once had but no longer have!!!!

[Computer 10,980]

The first cause, environmental factors should be dealt with if possible.

The second cause, advancing medicine, we can't do anything about that.  We will always choose to use the treatmentd available to us.  Natural selection will never stop working, medicine is another form of competitive advantage keeping us alive.  It will lead to weaker humans but that isn't a problem as long as the medicine is there.  And if it's not, well then, natural selection will resume and kill the weak people...  it's still good to live at the forefront of medical advances, we always will do so.

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

I think AI robots will be the final human evolutionary change.  No need for flesh, just mechanical joints and 30 weight oil for the future...

[Luc 4,776]

Why do you keep saying "to get" kids, like people go shopping for them? Lol

Do you mean before they have kids? How are you going to stop the mentally ill of those with learning disabilities, etc. from having kids? They are still going to have s-x. The only way to stop them is to sterilize the physical, mental and learning disabilities. 

Because it's usually a choice. Don't get me wrong, I think everybody should be able to get kids and that the weak should be cared for. But you can't really stop them from getting kids. It's also not needed. You can, however, support people who have better genes to get kids more, balancing it out.

[Whispering 18,865]

Because it's usually a choice. Don't get me wrong, I think everybody should be able to get kids and that the weak should be cared for. But you can't really stop them from getting kids. It's also not needed. You can, however, support people who have better genes to get kids more, balancing it out.

To have kids, not get them. You don't go get kids. 

You can't stop them from having kids. You can support people, who have better genes, to have more kids. "Get" doesn't work in English in these sentences. 

[Economy 53,220]

mutation doesn't just offer bad traits, but also good new traits that make us more resistant to new dangers (like chemicals, and stuff)

​

First of all with radiation and chemicals with mutagen properties mutations are happening quicker than they should.

 

Secondly genes are complex... like a ramdom change to a code in software, a ramdom change to genes will be bad far more often then it will be good

 

but in the past bad mutations were mostly obliterated as weaker people would die off quicker and often not make it to an age to reproduce and only the good mutations would remain

 

Thats no longer the case.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,967]

There's too much exaggeration in the title.

It is true that DNA mutation occurs more often because of radiation/chemicals/etc.

This does not mean however that human race will be extinct, actually there is a paradoxon in your first post - just like you wrote, medicine ensures that human race is spreading,

[Economy 53,220]

There's too much exaggeration in the title.

It is true that DNA mutation occurs more often because of radiation/chemicals/etc.

This does not mean however that human race will be extinct, actually there is a paradoxon in your first post - just like you wrote, medicine ensures that human race is spreading,

​and your point?

 

its allowing more people to survive, thats exactly the point. Bad genes are no longer as easily wiped out by nature

 

And this process has really only begun in the past 200 years or so when medicine first started to advance more quickly

 

200 years is only a few generations. Its not enough to see a huge impact yet. In time tho we could be a much more fragile race... and then many people will really be dependant on medicine and technology to survive

 

and no one said were gonna be extinct. "dying" and "death" are 2 seperate things. You could have a condition thas slowly killing you and you find a way to stop it

 

I talked about the fact that were deteriorating slowly. It does not mean were actually gonna go extinct. No one knows for sure at what rate harmful mutations is happening even geneticists thats why they are doing so many studies on it

 

regardless many people who have good genes and are lucky to avoid bad mutations, there will be some lineages to remain strong or at least healthy enough to survive for at least hundreds of years. Im sure in 500 years wed have treatments to repair or at least slow damage to DNA

 

So no one said were actually gonna die. Im talking about the process and direction were headed not the ultimate result

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

​and your point?

 

its allowing more people to survive, thats exactly the point. Bad genes are no longer as easily wiped out by nature

 

And this process has really only begun in the past 200 years or so when medicine first started to advance more quickly

 

200 years is only a few generations. Its not enough to see a huge impact yet. In time tho we could be a much more fragile race... and then many people will really be dependant on medicine and technology to survive

 

and no one said were gonna be extinct. "dying" and "death" are 2 seperate things. You could have a condition thas slowly killing you and you find a way to stop it

 

I talked about the fact that were deteriorating slowly. It does not mean were actually gonna go extinct. No one knows for sure at what rate harmful mutations is happening even geneticists thats why they are doing so many studies on it

 

regardless many people who have good genes and are lucky to avoid bad mutations, there will be some lineages to remain strong or at least healthy enough to survive for at least hundreds of years. Im sure in 500 years wed have treatments to repair or at least slow damage to DNA

 

So no one said were actually gonna die. Im talking about the process and direction were headed not the ultimate result

​Actually, Monarchy's and ruling upper class jealously horded their fortune and their 'genes' ... Some past leaders felt they were 'Dieties'  ...

Inbred offspring have definitely diluted the gene pool of humanity since the population was much smaller.  

I read an article that a large percentage of the Asian population as some of Ghengis Khan dna in them. 

This suggestion that its only started in the last 200 years isn't completely accurate.  

Pollution and improved medicine, chemicals and longer lived average is...but Humans have always adapted to adversity and ... the strongest or smartest continue on.

[Economy 53,220]

​Actually, Monarchy's and ruling upper class jealously horded their fortune and their 'genes' ... Some past leaders felt they were 'Dieties'  ...

Inbred offspring have definitely diluted the gene pool of humanity since the population was much smaller.  

I read an article that a large percentage of the Asian population as some of Ghengis Khan dna in them. 

This suggestion that its only started in the last 200 years isn't completely accurate.  

Pollution and improved medicine, chemicals and longer lived average is...but Humans have always adapted to adversity and ... the strongest or smartest continue on.

Infant mortality is almost 0 now and death before age of reproduction is now rare

 

ut argument "strongest always survive" is no longer true

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

Infant mortality is almost 0 now and death before age of reproduction is now rare

 

ut argument "strongest always survive" is no longer true

Those stats apply to the total "volume" of the population.   Plus, today's environment promotes the "the smartest" win .. strongest is for WWE ..

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I guess I've always kind of known this actually  It seems kind of obvious when you think of evolution  Kind of a harrowing thought, but the prospect that we can kind of defy nature by removing some forms of natural selection ourselves is also kind of amazing and has to do with our acquired, pressing sense of morality  

The thought that "all people deserve a life" and deserve to get a chance to experience the beauty of what life is is really quite thoroughly ingrained into us as a species. Nature Fallacies run rampant; just because its natural doesn't mean its "good", and just because its unnatural doesn't make it "bad" 

Although mutations are happening more often, we can now see that they aren't innately "bad" things, and we can either stop them, test for them, treat them, or make people who have them live lives worth living, and I think thats fine. As long as we aren't getting to the point where it becomes a SIGNIFICANT Issue, i don't; see the problem in this.

I do think we can definitely do things about the toxification of the environment and the food we consume though  Not to mention these effects that also harm other ecosystems and habitats of animals  

[Economy 53,220]

Those stats apply to the total "volume" of the population.   Plus, today's environment promotes the "the smartest" win .. strongest is for WWE ..

​what do u mean by total volume? my poin was that you can be weak now and not have the best genes and survive thanks to medical technology, and your more liekly to make it to adulthood and pass your bad genes on than u were in the past. How is that so hard to understand?

 

 And thats another thing that has been talked about. if ur naturally intelligent, its easier to be successful in life and have a good career

 

Career and success goes hand in hand with lower birth rates. People have fewest children in developed Countries, in developing Countries people have more. In 3rd world Countries like in Africa even more

 

And within the same Nation the same phenominom is witnessed within classes of people

 

people who are successful and more likely to be intelligent are breeding fewer children. People who arent successful have more children

 

While its not a perfect correlation cause natural talents are not the only factor at play... over-all, your gonna have people of more mediocre mental abilities breeding more kids

 

hence, another thing in modern culture promoting deterioration and not improving evolution

[Economy 53,220]

I guess I've always kind of known this actually  It seems kind of obvious when you think of evolution  Kind of a harrowing thought, but the prospect that we can kind of defy nature by removing some forms of natural selection ourselves is also kind of amazing and has to do with our acquired, pressing sense of morality  

The thought that "all people deserve a life" and deserve to get a chance to experience the beauty of what life is is really quite thoroughly ingrained into us as a species. Nature Fallacies run rampant; just because its natural doesn't mean its "good", and just because its unnatural doesn't make it "bad" 

Although mutations are happening more often, we can now see that they aren't innately "bad" things, and we can either stop them, test for them, treat them, or make people who have them live lives worth living, and I think thats fine. As long as we aren't getting to the point where it becomes a SIGNIFICANT Issue, i don't; see the problem in this.

I do think we can definitely do things about the toxification of the environment and the food we consume though  Not to mention these effects that also harm other ecosystems and habitats of animals  

​at this time theres no such technology that can "stop" mutations. perhaps in teh future that may be possible. At this time tho we can only detect some mutations but not actually correct them

 

And mutations if you think about it are more likely to be bad than good. Genes are very complex a ramdom change is likely to be harmful because in something that complex and interconmnected, most combinations probably wont work. its like changing a code in computer software ramdomly. Most lieklly that change will be bad not good

 

Now in the past, bad mutations were often weeded ot by natural selection. And the few that were good would be kept. Now its easier for bad mutations that make you weaker or sick to not kill you thanks to technology. You survive and pass on those bad mutations instead of dying

 

In a way its good. i dont think people should have to die for the bad luck of bad genes. On the otherhand clearly theres a downside

 

the good news is technology is advancing quickly. i would assume at some point within my life time the first steps in genetic treatments or corrections will start to be made available. If not within my lifetime surely before any genetic degredation becomes a HUGE problem. After all the degredation is a slow gradual process. 200 years from now there will still be many people who are strong and healthy. Its just that proportionally speaking, a higher percentage will probably be sick and weak

 

Genetics is very complex, we stilld ont know what most genes do. There billions of sequences. the amount of information is huge. And these amino acids are very small. Seeing them is one thing, manipulating them to fix them is a completely different story. Its like space. We been exploring galaxies with telescopes for many decades. Actually leaving our solar system is a completely different story

 

Im confident if these theories are correct about our genes deteriorating, we will find solutions with plenty of time. But it WILL take time. Genetics is so complez that even in 100 years as advanced as we might be it may still prove to be a chalange

 

in the TV sci-fi series "SG-1" this Alien race called the "Asgard" were super advanced. They travelled between galaxies and were in space for at least 30,000 years. And even they couldnt fix their genetic degredation and died off.