Sex (and Sexuality) in the Future
POSTED BY: BlueBomber
UPDATED: Friday, November 30, 2007 15:36
VIEWED: 9271
PAGE 4 of 4
Wow. I got a Citizen Post.
First of all, the Meat story is hilarious, and I am in the process of disseminating it to many of my friends ((Not to the ones who wouldn't get it mind.)).
Secondly, I believe that on most points, we are agreed. Considering separation in time, it is likely that we are not the first or the last sapient species, but also [Grand Moff Voice] it is possible, however unlikely that[/Grand Moff Voice] they developed concurrently. The same goes for the variability of species evolving on different worlds. We don't really know what the affect of a slight change in environment on the development of a species ((We've not been around long enough)), so we don't know how unlikely another species similar enough to be considered the same would be ((Though we can and do agree that the likelihood is astronomical)). Also, we don't know the 'half life', if you will, for sapient species capable of contact with us, so 9.134 thousand years may not be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Your knowledge of different possible molecular basses for life at various temperatures easily surpasses mine ((What biology I've had has not included Xenobiology in any form.)), though the Fluorocarbons in Molten Sulfur's ideal temperature range certainly intrigues me. ((Aside: I like to dream up alien life forms in my spare time. One of my current roster of species uses hydrogen in water and oxygen instead of Adenosine Triphosphate, and fuses excess hydrogen into helium for warmth and energy with a sort of 'lukewarm fusion reactor', and it also has a Cermet Skeleton. The temperature range therein described could make for some hardy beings, as far as what temperature their environment can attain.))
As to homosexuality's increased rate of incidence with the growth of population - I think that the population growth is the cause of the increase in Homosexuality, so I do believe that your final statement is valid. Essentially -
Increase in Population Density --> Increase in rate of incidence for Homosexuality.
You are correct about the benefit of having a non-breeding pair acting as parents in lieu of only breeding pairs parenting. This is well documented in Black Swans.
Finally, I'd like to ask what you do Citizen? You seem to be well educated and well read on a number of topics, and I'd like to know what kind of person has all of this knowledge ((And then, by extension, how do I gain it myself and take over the world?))
Please don't answer if it would make you uncomfortable, but you are a singularly interesting person, and one of the posters on this board who I make special care to look out for, even if I don't always agree with you.
Thanks!
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's an interesting counterpoint to the ussual Sci-Fi "all Aliens will be a lot like us", as well as a few other things
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
First of all, the Meat story is hilarious, and I am in the process of disseminating it to many of my friends ((Not to the ones who wouldn't get it mind.)).
.Quote:No, but we can make some educated guesses. I've heard of the use of computer models that have given wildly different results with slight tweaks to the input variables, including predominantly Earth-like planets producing 'trees' constructed of meat. Mathematics Chaos theory also indicates that a small change to initial variables in a solar system wide system, can produce massive variation. I'm including the whole solar system because variations in solar output, perturbations in neighbouring orbital bodies, meteors, asteroids, even objects outside the solar system can effect life on one planetary body. I guess what I'm saying is that the Earth isn't a closed system.
The same goes for the variability of species evolving on different worlds. We don't really know what the affect of a slight change in environment on the development of a species ((We've not been around long enough)), so we don't know how unlikely another species similar enough to be considered the same would be ((Though we can and do agree that the likelihood is astronomical)).
Quote:No, but again we can make a guess based on our own development. 9000 years is the difference between the bronze age and a technological civilisation sometime in the year 6000. Looking at our own history, any contact between two civilisations of even a much lower variation in technological mastery without exception devolves down to one becoming the slave to the other. That's assuming we, or any other civilisation survives the trials of Nuclear/Biological/Nano technological war, and don't get smitten out of existence by some rogue asteroid before the comparative year 6000. Another problem is the window for technological contact, consider that in 10,000 years we've been capable of receiving and transmitting radio waves for the last century, and we've only really been looking for the last 50 or so years. Perhaps we aren't picking up the sound of other civilisations because they haven't developed radio technology yet, or based on more advanced knowledge of physics than ours, perhaps they use some other physical property for communication that we haven't even theorised about, let alone know how to use. The implication is that those super advanced races may not even consider radio communication worth looking for, or even possible/practical to see, the same way we don't scan other planets for the use of camp fires. If we're talking a technological window of, say 200 years on average while radio technology is the de facto standard for a civilisations communications, a 9000 year variation in development is a huge, possibly insurmountable gulf between the two. Further, a civilisation advanced beyond us by a few thousand years could have retreated entirely in to cyberspace, living their lives in virtual constructs, or even used technology to 'evolve' themselves into a form we are simply incapable of perceiving.
Also, we don't know the 'half life', if you will, for sapient species capable of contact with us, so 9.134 thousand years may not be that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Quote:Don't be so sure, I had to look up Adenosine Triphosphate, I've done some reading up on Xenobiology, or Astrobiology, but some of those examples are merely lifted from websites and textbooks I've read. I've read up on the various basis for life, but I had to check up on the temperature ranges
Your knowledge of different possible molecular basses for life at various temperatures easily surpasses mine ((What biology I've had has not included Xenobiology in any form.)), though the Fluorocarbons in Molten Sulfur's ideal temperature range certainly intrigues me.
. Though having said that it's sort of obvi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
some stunning posts on this thread. i've recently been reading some intersting speculative work on sex and technology by Dr Richard Clements - and i enjoyed these posts very much.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd have to dig through my library's back issues of Science to find the research on Black Swans.
You're right of course, Citizen, that given what evidence we have and the computer models based upon said evidence the prospects for finding a similarly evolved species as ourselves are slim.
Not to totally change the subject, but what do you think of the Anthropic Principle? I think that its looking entirely in the wrong direction, kind of like earth-centric views of the universe. That is to say, the Universe is not fine tuned to us, we are fine tuned to the Universe.
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The weak and strong versions of the Anthropic Principle? If the Universes physical laws were even a little different, Humans couldn't survive, so either the universe is designed for humans, or humans are designed for the universe.
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Not to totally change the subject, but what do you think of the Anthropic Principle? I think that its looking entirely in the wrong direction, kind of like earth-centric views of the universe. That is to say, the Universe is not fine tuned to us, we are fine tuned to the Universe.
Personally I think we evolved in these physical laws, if the laws were different, we'd have to be different to have evolved in them. If you fill a glass with water, the water fits the glass perfectly, someone coming along later *could* say the glass was created in a shape to perfectly fit the water...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not so familiar with the differences between the weak and strong versions, would you be so kind to educate me? I ran into it recently when talking to a group of students from a Christian college who were attempting to get me to agree that, correct or not, Intelligent Design is a valid Scientific Theory.
I personally agree, we are a product of the laws of physics, and not the other way around, but they wouldn't hear me when I told them this.
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wiki does a pretty good job:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
I'm not so familiar with the differences between the weak and strong versions, would you be so kind to educate me? I ran into it recently when talking to a group of students from a Christian college who were attempting to get me to agree that, correct or not, Intelligent Design is a valid Scientific Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
It sounds like the students were talking about the strong principle, that the universe MUST be the way it is to allow life to exist.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think in terms of human sexuality in the future, I think eventually it'll become a non-issue. That the line between hetero and homosexuality will get so blurry that it'll just be a blot. And that no one would raise an eyebrow if some macho guy sleeps around with both women and men. Maybe not for a few hundred years or so. But we will become an enlightened race in terms of our sexuality.
Obviously you have not caught Torchwood.
Captain Jack Harkness is not exclusive.
It may not be a hundred years, we may be closer than you think.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME