Humans ARE subject to natural selection. A super-bug could come along and wipe out 99% of the population, and the 1% who had a natural immunity would have been naturally selected. Even though we're a dominant species that is capable of modifying the environment as necessary, we are still subject to the over-riding laws of nature.

I remember seeing some documentary on this with Stephen Hawking, he was basically saying how if their was a civilization so far ahead in technology that they are capable of travelling around the universe, then the chances are very high that they wouldnt come in peace. Simply because they would only be visiting planets to gather resources to help their own race survive longer (after all, why else would they be travelling the universe unless something had already happened to their own planet), survival of the fittest and all that. It's a fascinating subject.

There is also plenty of other reasons, but could you guys honestly think of anything else they would need from us if they're far superior in technology other than gathering resources from the planet itself.

"Natural immunity"?

what genetic condition is this natural immunity?

This post was edited by kayeto on Dec 25 2011 09:30pm

If humans go into space 1 million years from now, will we be going with that goal and only that goal in mind?

No, I'm not saying that. I said there is plenty of reasons as to why they could go into space. But surely if we did venture into space for along period of time we would have to eventually find resources from somewhere?

A far cry, to say the least, for the few unfortunate organisms that mutate for the worse before asexual reproduction

UNDERLINED: Debatable. Capable is a pretty loaded word and when you consider raunchy agriculture.....

Genetic Drift gives some people immunity to the way certain illnesses work. For example, there are some people that can contract HIV and it will never progress to AIDS. It's genetics that causes that immunity just from random mutations. It doesn't spread throughout the whole population because it's not genetically advantageous until the bacteria actually is introduced. It just happens to remain in the population because it does not provide a disadvantage, so whenever someone with that mutation has kids, that immunity is passed onto the children by pure chance. Genetic Drift is a very, very cool concept.

A more easily understood example, though, is found in bacteria. Some bacteria are more resistant to antibiotics than others, which is why when you get prescribed penicillin, you have to take the full 7-10 day dose even if you feel better after a couple days. The first few doses might kill 95% of the bacteria that's making you sick, but that other 5% is more resistant to that particular antibiotic, so after you stop taking the antibiotic, those 5% begin replicating and suddenly all of the bacteria are more resistant to the antibiotic. This is how things like MRSA have come to exist. It's bacterial evolution that would not have happened if antibiotics had never been invented.


We "modify the environment" just by living in houses that are heated or by removing swamp land and standing water to eliminate mosquito breeding grounds to prevent the spread of malaria and other illnesses. It's not really debatable. These are things we do. We are certainly capable of changing the environment. And you don't even need to go that far. You can go as simple as irrigation. We have the technology to bring water to places where it wouldn't be otherwise so crops would be unable to grow.

[QUOTE=impulse155,Dec 25 2011 05:38pm] If you look at what happened when whites met the blacks. Whites enslaved them. QUOTE]

you think indians were enslaved by the caucasians in neighbouring countries ?
where do you get this shit ?

Yes, but that entails a certain level of intelligence or training and it's very dependent on where that technology is available.

I'm saying it's debatable, because it has limits or breaking points even. Salinization of the soil for example.