Anything about the human body

Apr 2017
681
Lemuria
#11
Back to human anatomy. with the history of women dying in childbirth. It seems that there should have evolved a safer physiological manner of childbirth or a body type that is at less risk. 2013 18.5 deaths per 100,000 live births. I will make an assumption that the US is worse then most developed countries. but for the past thousands of years giving birth was a risk of life or death.
That 18.5 deaths per 100,000 is not a valid statistics as these people aren't giving birth naturally. If you are looking for evolutionary defects then a natural settings make more sense. Third world statistics are therefore reasonable in that case.
 

Port

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
2,076
portland maine
#12
Childbirth is often cited as the #1 human evolution flaw.
What would be the next major human evolution flaw?
Maybe the spine? Bipedal ism changed the curvature of the spine moving vertical keeping the head up. placing pressure on the lower spine
 
May 2016
811
Vatican occupied America
#13
Greek Polytheists?

So you affect an even sillier delusion by delegation row numerous magical sky daddies?


The notion that an android body would be " superior" to a human body is, itself, an artifact of magical thinking.

I mean, seriously, THINK about it... human beings have not built a machine that can run for mere years without wearing out and requiring constant expensive maintenance.

Thanks to quantum tunneling, Integrated circuits are only good for about 12- 18 years before they become so compromised that they can not reliably run code.
A 20 year old car is a collectors item.

And most of us have a drawer full of Floppy or Zip discs, as well as cables and power adapts that no longer plug into anything or are otherwise unreadable.


The human body can reliably run for 70 PLUS YEARS! with little to zero maintenance or repair- because it does that stuff for itself.

And the best self contained robots in the world can run for about 25 minutes before they need 4 hours to recharge the batteries that require a world wide network of rare earth mining and refining operations, and create toxic landfill. ( or they rely on a gas powered engine to generate the electricity they require )
- whereas the human body can be powered by the stuff that grows out of the dirt.


We will do far better trying to extend human organic life than getting human minds transferred into machinery that is obsolete within a decade, and incapable of running for much longer without replacement parts that will no longer be made.

Without our genes, our endocrine systems, our complexly nuanced feedback system and symbiosis with certain kinds of bacteria- it is arguable that any 'simulation' of our consciousness on a computer will simply NOT be human in any meaningful regard.

And I don't NEED the android body for its greater strength... or its computer processing power, because I HAVE machines to do the heavy works and computers to run calculations.




It is the height of hubris to even imagine that we can intentionally engineer something that will out perform the product of 1 billion years of selective evolutionary iteration.
Sure- maybe we can fix some of the flaws we THINK we see in our own non-intentional design... but given that we do not even fully comprehend how our own bodies work, I doubt we can even be sure that what we see as flaws are in fact flaws.
They might be the best possible solution that actually works.


Sorry- I design products for a living... and so I understand that the things human beings produce are vastly MORE flawed and less reliable than even the simplest bacteria.

Every year, products are recalled, and every year a significant percentage of the things you buy are a profound disappointment in terms of function or durability.

Give me a longer life... in more robust health... sure. A fancier cell phone, fine. But the last thing I need is a mechanical body that won't last any longer than my VCR, Fax Machine, or Car did.
A flawed claim Edsel cars are 56-58 years old and almost never breakdown. They were built to last and have lasted. It's not even a big engineering problem to build something that lasts. Corporation like building stuff that does not so that we have to buy from them again and again.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#14
A flawed claim Edsel cars are 56-58 years old and almost never breakdown. They were built to last and have lasted. It's not even a big engineering problem to build something that lasts. Corporation like building stuff that does not so that we have to buy from them again and again.
The issue with profit leads to significant waste in this case, and I have experience with tools that break down regularly.
Maximizing durability means less profitability, and many businesses dislike that.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#15
We still lack the mean to restore certain lost functions, such as many cases of blindness, deafness, lost limbs or spinal injury.
The big question: How far should human body repair go? Restoring people with lost body parts to full "normal" human functioning, or should we go further?
"Ending all diseases and disabilities" can sound too quixotic.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#16
Are we making progresses at all?
The suggestion is that we may be entering a so-called technological stagnation.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#17
Since birds and insects survive the K-T extinction, there are suggestions that humans should downsize their bodies.

Let's be modest first: If an average human woman is 140cm in height and weights about 45 kg, and average men are 155cm in height and weights about 65 kg....
Will this lower our uses of resources?
We can also downsize our tools and utensils.
 
Nov 2017
69
New Jersey, USA
#18
Since birds and insects survive the K-T extinction, there are suggestions that humans should downsize their bodies.

Let's be modest first: If an average human woman is 140cm in height and weights about 45 kg, and average men are 155cm in height and weights about 65 kg....
Will this lower our uses of resources?
We can also downsize our tools and utensils.
I'm just discovering this thread and I'd like to write a long post as I have quite a lot of books and knowledge on the topic of longevity, regenerative medicine, and so on, but that will have to wait for a few days as I am tied up doing other stuff right now. On this post specifically I'll just quote the beginning of the chapter 8 Aging in Birds from Osiewacz, Heinz D., ed. Aging of Organisms. Vol. 4. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.:

The class Aves is a diverse group consisting of approximately 9600 species of birds in 29 orders which, on the whole, are remarkable for their longevity. Body weights of birds vary from smallest to largest by a factor of about 40000-fold, and the range of variation in avian metabolic rates, life histories, life spans and aging patterns is equally striking. Birds can live three to four times longer than mammals of equal body mas. A 20 g laboratory mouse, for example, rarely lives over four years, but documented maximum life spans of small songbirds often exceed 10 years. The most paradoxical examples of avian longevity by far are the hummingbirds. They are the smallest of all birds, with the highest metabolic rates, yet individuals of some species have survived up to 14 years in the wild.

Since lifetime energy expenditures of birds and the corresponding potential for damage from reactive oxygen species can exceed 15 times those for similar-sized mammals, comparative gerontologists have suggested that long-lived birds must have very effective adaptations for preventing or repairing aging-related cellular and molecular damage. A new and growing body of research supports this premise, but the exact biochemical mechanisms responsible for birds' longevity and resistance to aging-related deterioration still are poorly understood.

Although birds have been featured in the literature more often as models for aging studies, both in the laboratory and the field, since the early 1990s, the quality of these studies is variable. The most intensive studies of aging still tend to be limited to domestic poultry species (most notably, chickens and quail), which are unusually short-lived for birds of their size. There is still far too little dialogue or collaboration between field ornithologists and biogerontologists, or between researchers investigating basic mechanisms of aging and avian ecology and evolution.

p. 202
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#19
I'm just discovering this thread and I'd like to write a long post as I have quite a lot of books and knowledge on the topic of longevity, regenerative medicine, and so on, but that will have to wait for a few days as I am tied up doing other stuff right now. On this post specifically I'll just quote the beginning of the chapter 8 Aging in Birds from Osiewacz, Heinz D., ed. Aging of Organisms. Vol. 4. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.:
Birds are fascinating, both because and in spite of being living dinosaurs.
We often envy the spatial memory of birds, such as chickadees and magpies, when we misplace our items.
Our daylight eyesight is substantially poorer than most birds already, and we envy the natural HD eyesight and the super eyesight of birds, such as raptors (not owls here!) and ostriches.
Can we see like birds in daylight?
Flight without mechanical aids is a persistent human dream; can it be realized?
It sounds as if we break through the secrets of birds, we can fulfill many of our dreams.
 
Mar 2017
869
Colorado
#20
Since birds and insects survive the K-T extinction, there are suggestions that humans should downsize their bodies.

Let's be modest first: If an average human woman is 140cm in height and weights about 45 kg, and average men are 155cm in height and weights about 65 kg....
Will this lower our uses of resources?
We can also downsize our tools and utensils.
Human evolution has already been at work here.
Average height in the Netherlands --> 1.838m
Average height in Indonesia --> 1.58m
Average height male Pygmy --> 1.4986m
--- There's no "ideal" size of a human. There's sizes that seem to work better for different environments.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tallest-and-shortest-countries-in-the-world/ -- pygmy data acquired separately

How, exactly, should humans downsize? Insert pygmy DNA into everyone with CRISPR? Or are you saying, "*IF* humans were smaller, would things be better?"

BTW: Dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction for at least 700,000 yrs, which is 3X longer than Homo sapiens has been around. You can't really use it as a starting point for the superiority of birds. The Radiolab Dinopocalypse nonsense is not based on science.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127141707.htm
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions