Will humans become Gods?

[Vriggs]

I was thinking.. (a dangerous thing indeed)..

I was considering what will happen to us when our sun burns out in 5 or 6 billion years.

At that point in time what will the human race be? Consider the advances we've made in the last 100 years. The last 1000. Then consider a billion years ahead. We can bend and manipulate nearly anything we encounter. We've mapped every element matter is made of, even those that don't exist! Technologically, ecologically, artistically, - what is the limit? Is there a limit? Will time and space be under our mastery as well? Will we have perfected our morality? Will we become immortal? Will we find our God? If we do will we be able to understand our creation? Will the sun burning out even be a concern to us? I am sure I trivialize the questions that must be asked with this thought.

Will we create our own worlds? Will we do it as our God has?

[Bryan Ekers]

I dunno, but I'm not sure "our God" has done much of anything, as per your last sentence.

[Zenster]

Only if you're a Mormon.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

What humans eventually become is dead.

[Soup_du_jour]

The planets will be colonized before the sun burns out, methinks.

[Reply]

I think we'll probably end up killing ourselves in some stupid war long before anything like that happens :)

Maybe, though, a few billion years later, some newly evolved form of life will uncover our species' remains and worship us as gods -- until they study us just a little more and learn just what idiots we actually were.

[TVAA]

We already are, silly.

[eburacum45]

Originally posted by Vriggs
I was thinking.. (a dangerous thing indeed)..
I was considering what will happen to us when our sun burns out in 5 or 6 billion years.
We should worry about a time a little closer than that, perhaps 1.5 billion years from now, when the temperature of the Earth reaches 50 Celsius.
However if we survive that period, and the subsequent red giant phase, we will have ten billion years of heat off the white dwarf which our sun will become.
At that point in time what will the human race be? Consider the advances we've made in the last 100 years. The last 1000. Then consider a billion years ahead. We can bend and manipulate nearly anything we encounter. We've mapped every element matter is made of, even those that don't exist! Technologically, ecologically, artistically, - what is the limit? Is there a limit? Will time and space be under our mastery as well? Will we have perfected our morality? Will we become immortal?
up to this point I have to say yes, it is possible that we may do any of these things;
the acheivements of the human race and our descendants are only limited by the laws of thermodynamics (in my opinion)...

Will we find our God? If we do will we be able to understand our creation?
ah- I am afraid that there is no guarantee that any entity in our universe will ever understand our creation, or our creator(s).

Will the sun burning out even be a concern to us? I am sure I trivialize the questions that must be asked with this thought.
Will we create our own worlds? Have you seen the Matrix? Then check out Nick Bostrom's ideas in that respect- we will not be able to create real worlds, but we may create worlds that seem to be real, and better than the real world in every tangible respect.

Will we do it as our God has? Amost certainly not- depending on what our God has actually done in the first place, which we may never know.
_________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[juan2003]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clark
Our current technology would make us godlike to the ancients. Advances in science and technology will give future generations powers that we would consider to be godlike today.

Morality will be become more complex as our technological capabillities increase. The only way we can improve our morality is to give it serious thought.

Human life spans will increase, but when we get to the point of being able to extend our lives indefinitely there may be greater moral implications.

Ultimately we will find the concept of God to be not only unnecessary but also detrimental to society. We'll be much better off when we focus our energies on non-imaginary things.

By the time the sun burns out, we'll have colonized other star systems. Earth and the solar system will just be part of ancient history.

[peacefulprotester]

Originally posted by juan2003
Our current technology would make us godlike to the ancients. Advances in science and technology will give future generations powers that we would consider to be godlike today.

Morality will be become more complex as our technological capabillities increase. The only way we can improve our morality is to give it serious thought.

Human life spans will increase, but when we get to the point of being able to extend our lives indefinitely there may be greater moral implications.

Ultimately we will find the concept of God to be not only unnecessary but also detrimental to society. We'll be much better off when we focus our energies on non-imaginary things.

By the time the sun burns out, we'll have colonized other star systems. Earth and the solar system will just be part of ancient history.



wow, whenever I think about this stuff, I get lonely....:(

[Sam Stone]

Didn't Tipler make this case in "The Physics of Immortality"? Wasn't his "Omega Point" a supercomputer that would reconstruct reality or something?

Sorry, if you haven't read the book this won't mean anything to you. In fact, it may not mean anything if you have. (-:

[Rashak Mani]

What the OP really wants to know is if there is a practical limit to development... mechanical wise... its just a question of competition and resources. As for what the future holds for human bodies and minds I am not so positive. We are pretty limited in that aspect.... billions of years of development might have us teleporting around different stars... not sure it will make us stop killing each other thou.

[coffeecat]

From A Canticle for Liebowitz (I'm doing this from memory, so it's probably not an exact quote): Neither infinite power nor infinite knowledge can make man into God, for first there must be infinite love.

[Svt4Him]

No.

[elucidator]

Whenever we engage our rationality on matters of the spirit, we engage in theology. This is a bad move, but we can't help it. We're smart, not wise. Is there any human excercise more obviously futile than theology?

Hunting butterflies with a hammer.

[DreadCthulhu]

Originally posted by Vriggs

Will we create our own worlds? Will we do it as our God has?

Not if I can help it. Can't let you puny little buggers get any real power.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by juan2003

Ultimately we will find the concept of God to be not only unnecessary but also detrimental to society. We'll be much better off when we focus our energies on non-imaginary things.

:dubious: Detramental? How so?

[MrVisible]

The question is so broad as to be essentially meaningless. First off, it all depends on how you define the term "god." If it means the ability to create universes, then I'm iffy on whether it's possible that humans will get to that point.

However, I am constantly awed by our potential as a race. If the next hundred years keep up the same pace of innovation as the past hundred, our technology will be near-unrecognizable. If the next millennium keeps pace with this one just past, I literally cannot imagine what's possible.

A billion years? The mind boggles.

There are technologies which we've just begun to understand which, if mastered, will redefine our entire relationship with our physical environment, and others which will redefine what it means to be human. And don't get me started on where I see communications going...

Humans are amazing creatures. I have faith that we will continue to be so, right up until the universe itself ceases to exist. And possibly beyond.

For more in this passionately optimistic technologically utopian vein, check out Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Red Mars, and its sequels.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Humankind can create whatever it can dream.
After all, we created God.

Whether we WILL create whatever can be dreamed is another question--one of practicality. I don't think humankind will ever completely exterminate itself. More likely, we will deal ourselves a drawn-out series of devastating blows-- each one knocking back human progress hundreds or thousands of years (similar to the "Dark Ages" but sometimes longer and much more severe) thereby preventing all of our dreams from ever being realized.

It is rather like a house of cards-- each time we start building from scratch... sometimes we build a tall one, sometimes a short one, but inevitably it all comes crashing down; usually by our own unsteady hand.

Other, exterior, things too can destroy our card house; metaphorically speaking a mere breath of wind-- realistically speaking, a meteor strike, (relatively) sudden climate change, or our sun burning out. These forces from without are much more likely, in my opinion, to cause human extinction than we are ourselves.

Ultimately, we are no more than dust and no less than God. We exist now, yet someday we will not.

Who will miss us?

[The Great Unwashed]

Originally posted by Joel
:dubious: Detramental? How so?

Just suppose for one second that there isn't a god..

Do you see from this perspective that the energies devoted to a non-existent god, and the societies divided by conflicting notions of differing non-existence gods, are each detrimental effects?

Funnily enough juan2003 even qualified their assertion, that belief in god(s) maybe seen as detrimental, with someting akin to the first of these points.

Perhaps you didn't read that far.

[Vriggs]

Even in our primitive state now we alredy have idea's on how to counter a meteor on a collision path to Earth. Will life truely stop if the temperatute drops to -100 degree C? I think we can devise ways around environmental changes - this is feasible even in our present time probably.

A lot of people have brought up us killing ourselves - a good point.

I'm wondering if someone knowledgable would comment - I suspect in the course of the next billion years the societies of the world will become more homogenized. The boom in technology advances in communication have already seen this to a degree. I know the popular opinion is to have a bitter mistrust of humanity, but I think it's reasonable to think we will have this problem licked. From where we've come (i.e. the dark ages, spanish inquisition, colonization etc) we're already giant steps forward. The world, aside from a few notable exceptions, is relatively in peace. I don't want to start 50 posts now about how this may or may not be true - that isn't the intent of the post. Point noted though a war or several wars could destroy us all.

Love me not; your point of view is.. negative. I think all of those items were concerns over the last millenia,yet even as barbaric as we have been over that time - we've still made pretty good progress!

Elucidator; I am not following. Could you elaborate? I think it's a worthwile endeavour to consider if we will become Gods. Perhaps that is what we were made for? Perhaps God left us because we are now able to take care of ourselves and define our own morality (not unlike a parent finally lets his child have their freedome to make their own choice)? Perhaps our ancient ancestors realizing we had discovered EVERYTHING could not handle that fact - the thirst for knowledge had become everything to them - so they recreated this solar system, our planet, and us as microorganisms and then committed suicide - leaving us hteir descendants the pleasure to rediscover everything? Who knows but it's fun to think about!

[Epimetheus]

Humans? No.

I think at the level of technology all our social rules and inhibitions would be entirely different. Once we reach that level of understanding and accomplishment we will have transcended our current forms, and no doubt be unrecognizable as human.

Therefore humans will not become gods. Will human descendents become gods? Perhaps, but they won't be recognizable as humans.

[chorpler]

I hope so. Perhaps my having been raised Mormon biases me toward this, but I hope that the human race, or at least human descendants, eventually achieve the Extropian goal. If only because I don't want to die, but I also don't want to live forever with things the way they are now. ;)

[chorpler]

I hope so. Perhaps my having been raised Mormon biases me toward this, but I hope that the human race, or at least human descendants, eventually achieve the Extropian goal. If only because I don't want to die, but I also don't want to live forever with things the way they are now. ;)

[chorpler]

My first dual-post. My first attempt at posting it gave an error, so I tried again, and apparently it went through twice. I feel so ... so ALIVE! Wheeeeee!

[chorpler]

Darn, I was hoping Murphy's Law would kick in and ironically double-post that last message too. Ah well, I guess we can't have everything.

[Gadfly]

Originally posted by Svt4him
No.

Why?

Gods? Feh, depends on your definition of God. IMO, that would point to humans being able to construct delusional societies upon invisible pink unicorns. I think that's a standard we can live up to.

Being serious - it's hard to think about what we could invent in the future. We musn't overestimate, (This is 2001, and we're not living in gigantic, floating domes yet? Grr!) but there's a long way we can go, to be sure.

[chorpler]

A year or so ago I read that, by today's standards, the 21st century will experience the equivalent of 20,000 years worth of technological and scientific advancement, because the rate increases exponentially. I assume that this figure assumes that we can keep from destroying ourselves, and that we can keep ourselves fed and keep up a high enough standard of living so that we have enough leisure time to pursue research and development and the like.

Anybody remember where this extremely interesting idea came from, and whether or not it's valid? If it's even close to accurate, it's exciting to think what the late 21st century will bring.

[Rashak Mani]

I kind of agree with your optimism chorpler... but then I figure we are still ape-like in our social relations and ambitions. We are nothing but animals with technology.

Until we develop more humane and less violent socieities instead of high tech toys we wont be really advanced.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by Joel
:dubious: Detramental? How so?
Originally posted by The Great Unwashed
Just suppose for one second that there isn't a god..

Do you see from this perspective that the energies devoted to a non-existent god, and the societies divided by conflicting notions of differing non-existence gods, are each detrimental effects?

Funnily enough juan2003 even qualified their assertion, that belief in god(s) maybe seen as detrimental, with someting akin to the first of these points.

Perhaps you didn't read that far.
I read his whole thread and didn't see him mention that.
Yes, that is a good point that if there isn't a God, then there can be conflicts that are detrimental, caused by religious fanatics, but to imply that belief in god(s) is detrimental is oversimplification and only looking at negative aspects, like fanaticism, and ignoring the good that also comes from religion and its believers.

[scotandrsn]

Before we worry about what humans might have become 5 or 6 billion years from now, we have to prove that we will be around for it to matter.

The oldest organism, in terms of remaining more or less unchanged throughout its existence, is blue-green algae, which, IIRC, has been around for most of the 4 billion years the earth has existed. Nothing of any higher complexity has lasted anywhere near that long.

What we may accomplish before we burn ourselves out is impossible to imagine. But consider this: If we actually managed to colonize other stars, and then lost the means to support the technology that kept us in touch with each other, each world's humans would eventually evolve into separate species.

[Gadfly]

Originally posted by Joel
I read his whole thread and didn't see him mention that.
Yes, that is a good point that if there isn't a God, then there can be conflicts that are detrimental, caused by religious fanatics, but to imply that belief in god(s) is detrimental is oversimplification and only looking at negative aspects, like fanaticism, and ignoring the good that also comes from religion and its believers.

Well, we have to wonder. If God doesn't exist, then the good effects of religion are simply an extended placebo effect. If this turned out to be the case, and religion proven to have a net positive effect, would you want to keep on using a placebo effect to get good results?

[chorpler]

Well, Rashak Mani, my hope is that science/technology will help us develop more humane and less violent societies. Once we figure out why we behave the way we do, I hope we can modify that behavior. And not just obvious mental illnesses and criminal aggression, but even normal human behaviors and ailments that is suboptimal, like aging, or chronic pain, or useless depression and anger and jealousy and fear. Of course, there are plenty of circumstances where negative emotions and other suboptimal are necessary and even good things to have. So obviously there are complex issues to be worked out.

Or maybe we'll get lucky and God will come down and help us out! That would be handy.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by Gadfly
Well, we have to wonder. If God doesn't exist, then the good effects of religion are simply an extended placebo effect. If this turned out to be the case, and religion proven to have a net positive effect, would you want to keep on using a placebo effect to get good results?
well of course if it was proven that there is no diety/dieties of any kind I would become an athiest and see religious pursuit as a wast of time, although I would still adhear to basic Judeo/Christian values.
But sticking to this thread, I'd have to say that the longer that we are around, the more we will become masters of the world around us, and will deffinatly be seen by Gods by todays standards. I mean, right now, we can pretty much predict the weather, but we can't controll it. I bet in a few thousand or more years, we will. Right now you either have to be an austronaught or a millionair to go into space (Damn I wish I was a millionair and could pay for just a day aboard the international space station) but I think the in the future, trips to space will be common, kind of like that line in Futurama - Fry: "That clover helped by rat fink brother steal my dream of going into space! Now I'll never get there ..."
Leela: "You went there this morning for donuts."

[Black Train Song]

Sam Stone, I didn't read that book but I read 'The end of science' by John Horgan. (1996)

In his book there's a five page interview with Tipler who states that the Omega point is what would happen "if intelligent machines converted the entire universe into a gigantic, information processing device." Which would get more and more powerful as the universe collapsed but would regenerate a new reality or something. - "it would recreate or ressurect anyone who has ever lived for an eternity of bliss."

Horgans answer, in short, is that creation itself is the Omega point, or Universe desperately fleeing from itself "because its lust for final knowledge has brought it to the brink of eternal nothingness, and that if it dies, everything dies; being itself will vanish."

Pretty far out stuff.

[juan2003]

Originally posted by Joel
well of course if it was proven that there is no diety/dieties of any kind I would become an athiest and see religious pursuit as a wast of time, although I would still adhear to basic Judeo/Christian values.
Life is full of difficult questions that require lots of thought. Religion stifles thought by feeding us easy answers and claiming infallibility. Advances in technology will raise new moral issues and religion will almost certainly give us a wrong answer (http://religion.aynrand.org/virtueofplayinggod.html):
The mentalities that denounce "playing God" have consistently opposed technological progress, especially in medicine. They objected to anesthesia, smallpox inoculations, contraception, heart transplants, in vitro fertilization—on the grounds that these innovations were "unnatural" and contrary to God's will.

[Nobody]

juan2003 you're focusing on radicals and fundamentalists. I'm sorry that you have such a poor view of religion and fail to see that there are plenty of clear thinking, rational people who also happen to hold a religious belief and have no problem with things like inoculations and heart transplants, and think that it's ridiculous to argue against them in the name of God.

[Black Train Song]

Advances in technology will raise new moral issues and religion will almost certainly give us a wrong answer:

Yes but, can we really sustain a planet full of people who won't die? There is such a thing as meddling with nature too much (not to defend religion).

[chorpler]

Rooves, I think any society of immortals would really have to place severe restrictions on what, if any, reproduction was allowed.

Or they would have to develop other technologies to a level approaching godhood anyway -- they would have to be able to build huge living structures like Dyson spheres or ringworlds, or at the very least terraform a lot of planets, and be able to get there quickly -- no lousy relativistic spaceflight. And even then, as Isaac Asimov pointed out in numerous essays, at the current rate of reproduction it wouldn't take long (a matter of a few thousand years, IIRC) for us to fill up the known universe with people. But then again, with the recent information about how big the universe really is, who knows how long it would really take, particularly if we could find a way around the speed of light limit.

In one of my short stories, humanity, after filling up the known universe, is forced to find alternate (i.e. parallel) universes to colonize. Robert J. Sawyer's new book, Hybrids, has a very similar subplot. (And I strongly recommend everybody read it, as well as the first two books in the series -- Hominids and Hybrids -- just on the general principle that Robert J. Sawyer is really, really great.)

[kniz]

Originally posted by nobodyimportant
I think we'll probably end up killing ourselves in some stupid war long before anything like that happens :)
The Discover Channel had a program where these scientists prodicted what the world would be like in 200 million years. It was a world of rain forests populated by strange birds and insects. As I watched it I wondered "what is the point of this program?" If it comes true nobody will be around to say "Boy they sure were on the money", plus the birds and insects were designed on a "Boy, wouldn't this be weird" sort of premise. Personally, I just hope things don't get too outta wack for the next 25 years. :cool:

[alterego]

Humans won't become Gods, they will become Human~!

We spend so much time now doing things that will be done completely by technology in just the next 50 to 100 years.

When we don't have to worry about things like agriculture or manual labor and the like because we have nice robots doing it all for us I for one am not going to mindlessly continue my job here trying to earn a living. Sounds like a good time to take the family, the family robot, and head out to the forest and just enjoy being alive!

The Celestine Prophecy(book) gives a nice description of this, albeit far fetched.

I do hope that before we conquer stars we can at least conquer Earth and turn her back into what she was when we found her. Namely clean. With lots of trees and stuff :D

[Gadfly]

I'm sorry that you have such a poor view of religion and fail to see that there are plenty of clear thinking, rational people who also happen to hold a religious belief and have no problem with things like inoculations and heart transplants, and think that it's ridiculous to argue against them in the name of God.

Well, theists in any faith have to suspend "rational" thought to some extent, because by definition they are believing in things which cannot be proven by logical argument.

[Enderw24]

Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan
What humans eventually become is dead.
Wow...Nietzsche was right!

[shijinn]

Originally posted by Joel
... well of course if it was proven that there is no diety/dieties of any kind I would become an athiest and see religious pursuit as a wast of time, although I would still adhear to basic Judeo/Christian values. ... religion is faith in something that isn't there, how can it be proven?

[shijinn]

*pause*

wish i can edit ''isn't there" to "can't be proven".

[juan2003]

Originally posted by Rooves
Yes but, can we really sustain a planet full of people who won't die? There is such a thing as meddling with nature too much (not to defend religion).
My point is not that religion is always wrong, but rather that it gives overly simplistic answers. We need to think and weigh the positives and negatives to determine what is appropriate in a particular situation.

Let's use immortality as an example. Who has the right to life extension? How long does a person have the right to live? Can a person choose to die early (suicide)? At what point do you deny a dying person a life extension? Should you prevent a person from dying a natural death? Is anyone obligated to have a life extension? What criterion determines whether one's life is worth extending? Is a life extension considered to be disease treatment, preventative therapy, or an elective procedure? Should health insurance pay for it? Can life insurance be denied if you don't get it?

[Vriggs]

Originally posted by Gadfly
Well, theists in any faith have to suspend "rational" thought to some extent, because by definition they are believing in things which cannot be proven by logical argument.

Hate to be the one to point this out Gadfly, but to not believe in God also requires belief in something that cannot be proven - the non-existance of God.

[juan2003]

Originally posted by Joel
juan2003 you're focusing on radicals and fundamentalists. I'm sorry that you have such a poor view of religion and fail to see that there are plenty of clear thinking, rational people who also happen to hold a religious belief and have no problem with things like inoculations and heart transplants, and think that it's ridiculous to argue against them in the name of God.
You missed the point of the quote. Religion is anti-progress. Today mainstream religious people are against modern scientific breakthroughs like cloning and stem cell research. One day, those technologies will lead to huge advances in the medical field, but that day will be many years later thanks to religion.

[chorpler]

Originally posted by Vriggs
Hate to be the one to point this out Gadfly, but to not believe in God also requires belief in something that cannot be proven - the non-existance of God.

I don't know ... does not believing in God necessarily mean you believe in not-God? I thought that's why a lot of people people call themselves agnostics instead of atheists -- because they don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God.