Answers to Everything
If everyone prefers beauty, why are there still ugly people?
Isn't it against the rule of evolution?
If everyone prefers beauty, why are there still ugly people?
Everyone prefers wealth, but there are still poor people.
Evolution trends towards those that are more likely to reproduce and survive, not towards whatever we like.
Good looks may be appreciated, but are they preferred more than good personality, a clever mind, and a sense of humour or large income?
And are any of these more likely to aid reproduction or survival?
Many people prefer honesty, or what they are familiar with.
In this age of social welfare,
where those that can’t look after themselves, don’t have to…
and those that would have died, are kept alive.
The more intelligent often have one or no children,
while the lesser intelligent, have many offspring…
So, Intelligence wise, mankind is ‘devolving’.
What percentage of children are planned, and what percentage are accidents?
What percentage of the population only has sex with the best looking people,
and what percentage has sex with the next person to say ‘yes’?
Even if attractiveness had been increased since mankind's beginning…
no matter how beautiful the population in the future ever becomes…
No matter how ‘perfect’ they become…
Even if they become identical to each other, intodays eyes...
There will always be those that look better and those that will be seen as ‘ugly’, in their eyes.
What makes the difference between beautiful and ugly may become subtler,
but will be just as noticeable to those from that time.
Besides, for something to, disappear from a population, (according to evolution)
it would have to increase the chances of non survival.
Something doesn’t disappear necessarily because something else is preferred,
but because it causes death or stops reproduction.
A preference may cause a trend, but not a removal of something from the gene pool.
Beauty also is a result of a balance of a combination of traits or features,
however genes that affect those traits of features, don’t necessarily work together,
or at the same time.
And ugly is a matter of opinion. (in my opinion)
The answer is yes.
Assuming they don’t destroy themselves before getting to this step, and/or an astronomical natural disaster puts an end to the biological growth that we like to call Human… then yes, humans will eventually become machines.
The first steps have already started.
The mechanical parts of the body are being replaced as we speak.
Artificial limbs, (mind controlled, with sensory feedback), some organs,
Artificial Optical, Tactile, Olfactory, Aural, and Oral, systems.
Direct brain implants (input and output), are going to become available soon.
Communication and social structures are already more mechanical than biological.
But none of that makes us a machine… a Cyborg maybe.
Before Humans can become Machines, another step needs to be made.
And it will happen sooner than most of us expect…
But there is another branch of development that will help with that next step.
There is a lot of work being done in the Artificial Intelligence area.
Finding how a brain works, then recreating it artificially.
Before long, an artificial brain will not only pass the Turing test,
a test of fooling a human in conversation into believing that it is one of them…
but it will soon surpass the human brain on every level.
And that A.I. machine can be attached into a mechanical body (humanoid style /or not).
But again this is not a Human becoming a Machine… this is a Robot.
The only way that humans will be able to compete with the mind of the A.I. machines
and avoid the risk of a life of absolute boredom, and/or domination… or extinction…
is to become one.
That step is still a little way off… but is being worked on right now…
The step of downloading one’s mind into a computer.
Finding how an individual thinks, and reproducing it.
Finding what an individual knows, and storing that.
Finding how to reproduce how/why/what an individual feels.
Finding a way to reproduce how an individuals mind works in every way…
and recreating it…
So that an individual can live on, forever. In the digital world….
or whatever replaces that.
Then a human (if you can still call him/her that) can travel anywhere… or everywhere… at the same time.
At the moment, a human might think about one of these future creations, and struggle to call them Human…
but if you asked one of them… They will know for sure. That they ARE… Human.
There are very few limits to what a human can do…
if we survive the next few years.
A species survives longer if the individuals survive to puberty.
An individual is more likely to survive to puberty if its parents protect and teach it.
A parent is more likely to protect its child if it loves it.
An individual is more likely to become apparent, if it finds a mate.
An individual is more likely to want to find a mate if it has a desire to mate.
The desire is due to pleasure and lust
Individuals that mate are more likely to stay together if they are in love.
so, survival of the species is the purpose of love
the Human Race on Earth started as ‘Babies'
(and needed consistent help from their parents)
They then grew/evolved to become children
(and needed regular help from their parents)
We are now in our puberty, where we have become capable of destroying ourselves
the other adults are waiting for us to show our maturity and grow up.
If humans have not evolved to able to observe and draw conclusions of this universe, would this universe even have existed?
You have obviously asked this question for a reason…
I wonder where your thoughts have been wandering?
I guess this comes down to a matter of what you believe in, or how you interpret reality.
Yes obviously, as it is generally understood, that humans existence in the timeline of the universe, is less than a blip. A mere speck on a fraction of that blip-like thing.
But if we look at this from the viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics, and Schrödinger's cat, for example…
Then something that cannot be seen, is both real and not real,
until it is seen.
In other words, its reality is not decided,
until We look at it.
This is remarkably similar to how memory efficient games and simulations are created.
The further away something is, the less effort is used to create it.
And if something isn’t seen, it isn’t created at all,
until it is required to be seen.
Like the back of a rock, or the inside of a house.
It doesn’t exist until it is looked at.
If this part of Quantum Mechanics is correct, it could be extrapolated to situations very close to us in the real world.
For example, as we travel along the road in a car, we pass many properties, houses and family lives, all with their own little ‘centre of the universes’.
However, because we never see inside the houses…
how do we know they exist?
Perhaps they don’t,
until we pull into a strangers house,
and knock on their door.
Yes, silly, I know.
But in the same way, it could be suggested that the universe also only exists as far as we can see,
and that is not very far.
This could suggest the possibility that we all live in a simulation,
and that we are the centre of our own universes.
Or that there is only one simulation,
and at the centre is one person…
The rest of us are simply created as you require it.
Do I believe this?
But if Quantum Mechanics is real,
then we have to consider that some of this is possible…
Or NOT possible…
depending on whether we think about it or not.
As a side note, I have also used Quantum Mechanics and entanglement to suggest that Time Travel could also be possible…