Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:

> I agree with you Tim but your projecting way into the future when we
> have embraced design and the main possibilities for life not consisting
> (in large part) of descendants of the human race in the future. I
> suppose you consider whether Homo Sapiens will destroy themselves is a
> rather moot question but I believe it is this period of our evolution
> when there is the greatest risk of doing so.

I agree.  Organisms are at their most vulerable when they are young -
and our species is still fairly near start of its development - and
we could - in principle - still be wiped out by a big enough asteroid.

> My original question was Darwinian evolution=Armageddon (permanent 
> extinction no descendants to be less biblical) if there is no genetic 
> intervention. You haven't exactly answered that.

Since I don't see much chance of it happening, it seems rather 
hypothetical.

However, I suppose it is at least possible that humans could resist 
designing themselves up to the point where machines formed 99% of the 
planetary "biomass" - and outflanked humans in every way.  At that point, 
the human element would be pretty redundant and dispensible - and might
be in danger of disappearing.

....but seriously, I don't think moral codes or prohibition will
be in the least effective at preventing engineered humans from
arising.  A war on genetic engineered humans would be about as
effective as the war on drugs has been.

In this respect, stuff like Star Trek seems ridiculously unrealistic - 
massive machine advance - but apparently practically no progress with 
engineering humans - and indeed a deliberate failure to get to grips
with the subject.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/28/04 1:30:38 PM