Originally Posted by toretorden (Post 607256)

Throughout our life history, we've overcome problems. Despite what some pessimists seem to think, I expect we'll continue to do so wether the problems are made by us in the first place or not.

As an example - although it's late, there is a popular trend this day to lessen impact on the environment, something noone thought about 50 years ago. I would say this is progress. I dread to think that in 1000 years time, maybe direct human genetic engineering is part of most other species we share the planet with, but I don't think it's an entirely unlikely scenario and I'm pretty sure we'll still be around at that time.

Originally Posted by ixtlan22 (Post 607518)

Well as far as the environment is concerned there are too many people (and still rising) to be sustained by our planet, especially the way we consume in America. Also... genetic engineering is quite far along enough that 1000 years is a far larger estimate than necessary. Its a wild world. And we're using it up fast.

Originally Posted by toretorden (Post 607791)

^I wrote "most species we share the planet with". I doubt you understand what I mean by that .. but I meant it literally.

If you genetically engineered every insect, every tardigrade, every bacteria, every nematode and so on species out there that we know of today, there would still be a crapload of stuff out there on the earth's surface, in the earth's crust or in the oceans that we don't know about yet. Since there's probably not much point in genetically engineering all of those, my prediction would probably come true when most of those are extinct aside from the ones we've genetically engineered. I think that could potentially take a lot of time, so I don't believe 1k years has to be an underestimation.

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent (Post 607793)

I think progress only exists as something circular, but that in making it linear and cumulative we've doomed ourselves. History, bad idea.

Originally Posted by ixtlan22 (Post 609597)

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what point you're tying to make about genetically altering species... you even say yourself "Since there's probably not much point..." So why would we do it? What are you getting at? (Please I mean for this to be constructive and not malicious in any way, I'm just curious).

Originally Posted by toretorden (Post 607791)

Since there's probably not much point in genetically engineering all of those, my prediction would probably come true when most of those are extinct aside from the ones we've genetically engineered. I think that could potentially take a lot of time, so I don't believe 1k years has to be an underestimation.

Originally Posted by toretorden (Post 609634)

My point is summed up nicely in my last post.



To recap, I estimated that in 1000 years time, we may have altered the genomes of most species we share the planet with. You thought it would probably take less than that because we've come so far in genetics. Then I disagreed because there's so many species we don't know and maybe never will - and so for the scenario to be true, likely there must have been mass extinctions of everything we haven't genetically designed.

In other words -> genetically designing stuff takes time and doing it to most species we share the planet with probably won't make sense, so we need an epic scale mass extinction of everything we haven't meddled with before the prediction is likely to be true and that might not happen in 1000 years time.