11 replies to this topic

[The Immortalist]

Most of the human race wants to be stronger, faster, taller, larger than what they already are. Some people possibly go through any means necessary such as injecting themselves or their children with growthhormone etc. Average human height is on an increase (too lazy to search for statistics for each country). Future technolgies will be able to push the physical human limits even further with gene manipulation, new drugs and such. When will it end? Will it ever end? Will we keep wanting to push the human potential to the limits? What are we going to end up as in the millennium to come? Will we all be 20ft tall superior humans who can easily bench over 5000 lbs?

[chris w]

Average human height is on an increase (too lazy to search for statistics for each country)

It has been, for sure, but there are hints that some places are already starting to hit the wall here (US, Australia). The tallest males in a Westearn country are currently the Dutch, standing at just above 6ft on average and I doubt they'll grow much more than this in the future.

Will we all be 20ft tall superior humans who can easily bench over 5000 lbs?

Meh, I fail to really see a long-term charm in that. I would probably give myself an additional 5 centimeters or so (I'm 179 currently) if the tech was there, but I think I would quickly get bored with being a Transhumanist-rock crushing-Mamoth-motherfucker roaming the plains with other similar Ubermenschen.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Human structure and biology has changed very little over the past million years. The only significant changes will happen to those who embrace transhumanism, specifically those technologically-enhanced humans. Evolution by natural selection will then become much less relevant compared to today.

[The Immortalist]

Personally I think that humans should strive to become the strongest animals on the planet. As it stands now there are many different animals that could kill us in a 1 on one fight. Going even father than that is redundant in my opinion except for athletic competition between other people. We are the smartest creatures on the planet so we should also strive to be the most physically powerful. Not only that but we would no longer have to be afraid of bears and other such fearsome predators.

Edited by The Immortalist, 09 October 2011 - 10:45 PM.

[niner]

Human structure and biology has changed very little over the past million years. The only significant changes will happen to those who embrace transhumanism, specifically those technologically-enhanced humans. Evolution by natural selection will then become much less relevant compared to today.

Are you sure about that? There's been a lot of water under the bridge over the past million years. We migrated out of Africa and populated the globe, and there was that little dalliance with the Neanderthals that left a lasting mark in our DNA. Then there was the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculturalist, with attendant loss of a half foot of stature, regained only recently. I guess you're talking about larger scale changes than I am. We've had the same body plan for over a million years, and many aspects of our biology haven't changed all that much in half a billion years, much less a million. If you're thinking about changes like radically improved intelligence or strength, then our choice would either be transhumanism or some really intense selective breeding over a period of millennia.

Personally I think that humans should strive to become the strongest animals on the planet. As it stands now there are many different animals that could kill us in a 1 on one fight. Going even father than that is redundant in my opinion except for athletic competition between other people. We are the smartest creatures on the planet so we should also strive to be the most physically powerful. Not only that but we would no longer have to be afraid of bears and other such fearsome predators.

This is why we have guns and the good sense not jump over the fence at the zoo. Think of the disadvantages of greater size- we'd need more food, more space, we'd consume more energy with our even-more gigantic cars, planes, and houses. If we were giants, we would still be vulnerable to microbes, and they kill a hell of a lot more people than bears. I'd rather have a super immune system than be huge.

[The Immortalist]

Human structure and biology has changed very little over the past million years. The only significant changes will happen to those who embrace transhumanism, specifically those technologically-enhanced humans. Evolution by natural selection will then become much less relevant compared to today.

Are you sure about that? There's been a lot of water under the bridge over the past million years. We migrated out of Africa and populated the globe, and there was that little dalliance with the Neanderthals that left a lasting mark in our DNA. Then there was the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculturalist, with attendant loss of a half foot of stature, regained only recently. I guess you're talking about larger scale changes than I am. We've had the same body plan for over a million years, and many aspects of our biology haven't changed all that much in half a billion years, much less a million. If you're thinking about changes like radically improved intelligence or strength, then our choice would either be transhumanism or some really intense selective breeding over a period of millennia.

Personally I think that humans should strive to become the strongest animals on the planet. As it stands now there are many different animals that could kill us in a 1 on one fight. Going even father than that is redundant in my opinion except for athletic competition between other people. We are the smartest creatures on the planet so we should also strive to be the most physically powerful. Not only that but we would no longer have to be afraid of bears and other such fearsome predators.

This is why we have guns and the good sense not jump over the fence at the zoo. Think of the disadvantages of greater size- we'd need more food, more space, we'd consume more energy with our even-more gigantic cars, planes, and houses. If we were giants, we would still be vulnerable to microbes, and they kill a hell of a lot more people than bears. I'd rather have a super immune system than be huge.

Who say's we have to be huge to increase our strength? Maybe scientists could find a way to dramatically increase strength without gaining much size?

[niner]

Who say's we have to be huge to increase our strength? Maybe scientists could find a way to dramatically increase strength without gaining much size?

You did?

Will we all be 20ft tall superior humans who can easily bench over 5000 lbs?

But ok, say we could be super strong without being giant. That would take some phenomenal re-engineering of the human body. I'd be ok with being a little stronger but a lot healthier, as in not aging, for starters. Are you talking about some time in the unknown future when aging and disease have been taken care of?

[hivemind]

Personally I think that humans should strive to become the strongest animals on the planet. As it stands now there are many different animals that could kill us in a 1 on one fight. Going even father than that is redundant in my opinion except for athletic competition between other people. We are the smartest creatures on the planet so we should also strive to be the most physically powerful. Not only that but we would no longer have to be afraid of bears and other such fearsome predators.

This would be completely useless.

However, we could be made to be very tough, so that bears could not kill us, and we would not die, even if we got hit by a truck.

Edited by Trip, 11 October 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[niner]

This would be completely useless.

Well, not completely useless. Today I had to change a flat tire on my mother in law's car. If I was super strong, I wouldn't have had to use the jack, and when I discovered that the wheel had rusted onto the hub, instead of having to drive home to get a can of solvent spray and a three pound sledge hammer, I would have just pulled it off with my bare hands. Also, Halloween pranks would be more interesting, because you could put cars in trees. The practical applications of super strength are endless.

[The Immortalist]

Does anyone have a conjecture on how we could increase strength of the human body by say 20X without increasing the size of the what the average human body is now? Could we do this by non mechanical means(robotic attachments, implants, etc)?

[Elus]

I think I posted this but it got lost. There may be a limit to physical growth. Surface area increases by the second power (X^2) and volume increases by the third power (X^3). There may come a point where diffusion and feeding will be inadequate to sustain a body of such a large size.

I'd try to make myself as small as possible and as capable/godlike as possible. The bigger you are, the harder you fall :P.

[corb]

Where dose human(physical) evolution end?

The way we understand evolution right now it won't "end", evolution makes us more fit to thrive in an environment, many times evolution downplays traits you'd consider more consummate if they are not useful.
For example a wild cat is much smaller and weaker than a lion, but in an european forest where most animals are small the smaller size and better agility are better suited for survival.

Could we do this by non mechanical means(robotic attachments, implants, etc)?

Don't see why not, there are loads of other animals besides us with better muscles we could copy for a start.

The efficiency of human muscle has been measured (in the context of rowing and cycling) at 18% to 26%. The efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work output to the total metabolic cost, as can be calculated from oxygen consumption. This low efficiency is the result of about 40% efficiency of generating ATP from food energy, losses in converting energy from ATP into mechanical work inside the muscle, and mechanical losses inside the body. The latter two losses are dependent on the type of exercise and the type of muscle fibers being used (fast-twitch or slow-twitch). For an overal efficiency of 20 percent, one watt of mechanical power is equivalent to 4.3 kcal per hour. For example, a manufacturer of rowing equipment shows burned calories as four times the actual mechanical work, plus 300 kcal per hour,[16] which amounts to about 20 percent efficiency at 250 watts of mechanical output. The mechanical energy output of a cyclic contraction can depend upon many factors, including activation timing, muscle strain trajectory, and rates of force rise & decay. These can be synthesized experimentally using work loop analysis.

Felines for instance have about 20% more efficient muscles than us.

Edited by corb, 29 October 2011 - 02:21 PM.