How are humans going to become extinct?

Yeah I mean as long as there's historical continuity between our civilization and these hypothetical future human-like things, I'm totally on board. Not committed to humans as they are in 2014 sticking around forever. I think any disagreement between these views rests mainly on what we mean when we say extinction event. I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

> I would insist, however, that the notion of human consciousness being a phenomenon worth preserving as long as possible isn't some 'New Age fantasy', come on now.

But it is a New Age fantasy. A million years from now, no matter what course natural selection takes, any surviving species will almost certainly be so unlike us that we would not recognize them as even remotely kindred spirits.

I chose a million years to avoid a discussion about how long it might take for natural selection to naturally eliminate us entirely. In that future time, there might be super-intelligent species who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect, or there might be simple-minded cockroaches. Or (who knows) there might be cockroaches who would be repelled by what we regard as high intellect. :)

There's a natural tendency to think of us as a permanent or special fixture of the earthly landscape. But that has no basis in reality -- we're a transient form with no special significance. To me, our relative insignificance makes who we are, and what we can do, worthy of reflection and a certain amount of gratitude toward the random workings of nature for creating us in the first place.

> Moreover, many of your rebuttals are simply incorrect on matters of fact.

You're wrong, but post your evidence -- let the evidence decide. The authors you cite make a number of obviously false claims about evolution, claims falsified by citation in the standard references.

"They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals."

They're speaking metaphorically.

"The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive."

Like where? Where do they specifically say that?

"While trying to engage in scientific debate, avoid this common logical error:"

I wasn't arguing from authority. I did not say "they are authorities, believe what they say". I said that, since they are respected professors, you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you really believe that there is no chance that you are wrong and that you are misunderstanding them, and if the fact that they are both respected professors has zero relevance on whether you should at least try to see whether you might have misjudged them?

"But that's wrong -- we cannot possibly know what nature has in store for us in the future"

I'm just pointing out that you are now yourself talking as if "nature" had goals and purposes, exactly the behaviour you found troubling in their writings.

As for the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with the facts, only with your opinions. Yes, we are discussing here things like changing people's genes, and yes, that means it is eugenics. No, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

More importantly to Bostrom's point, it doesn't matter what we think - people will start doing things like this in the (near?) future, we'd better be prepared for it.

>> "They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals."

> They're speaking metaphorically.

Metaphorically, evolution has no goals.

>> "The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive."

> Like where? Where do they specifically say that?

Read the thread, including another poster's representation of their views: "When Bostrom and others talk about humanity, they usually mean humanity and its extremely advanced descendants." This clearly represents a distillation of their philosophy.

And from the source:

Link: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/12/steps-up-the-ladder.ht...

Title: "Steps Up The Ladder"

Quote: "How far have we come, and how far might we go? Imagine this progress as climbing a ladder on the side of a tall building, where at each new floor we get ten times more capable."

Hey, it's the topic under discussion, introduced by another poster. It's New Age nonsense with no connection to reality or evolution.

> As for the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with the facts, only with your opinions.

I didn't post any opinions -- this is a discussion of evolution, one you started. Evolution doesn't rely on opinions, it relies on evidence.

> ... the fact that they are both respected professors has zero relevance ...

Do you never discuss science with anyone, anywhere, ever? You just repeated another poster's earlier logical error. In science, authority counts for nothing -- evidence is the only issue. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

> Yes, we are discussing here things like changing people's genes, and yes, that means it is eugenics. No, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Then you haven't studied history or learned any of its most important lessons. A social discussion of genetic engineering of the human genotype based on microbiology, inevitably becomes a social discussion of genetic engineering based on killing all the "inferior" individuals.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Quote: "Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained a controversial concept.[10] As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. At this point in time, eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Many countries enacted[11] various eugenics policies and programmes, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, and genocide. Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labelled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance."

Any questions?