| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| Future Predators of Humans | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 17 2009, 06:07 PM (9,981 Views) | |
| rufus | May 17 2009, 06:07 PM Post #1 |
Newborn
|
I rememebr that once in Peter Ward's book he mentions the differnt things that could possibly thin the human population. He mentioned, then dismissed at once the possibility of a new sort of predator. As he correctly observes, any such predator would be quickly elininated or contained if it started preying on our species. Humans would simply not allow ourselves or our children to become food. But that got me to thinking. Suppose some future genetic scientist, engineered some sort of future predator to prey upon humans, perhaps as a way of cleansing the population of :defectives" or undesirables". The species could be genetically programed to hunt only humans as a food source. And it might be programed to eliminate only those humans who carried certain traits such as genetic maladies. This would have to be done in such a way that the human population would not know what was happening, and could not take the action needed to eliminate the predators. This creature would be engineered from humans themselves.The creature could have engineered traits from other animal species, such as camaflauge abilites, and perhaps sonar from bats to stun their prey. BTW, I thought of this idea long before that "future predator" thing from Primeval, and I thought of posting this today, even before I read that other thread. I also thought of making this idea into a story, in which the heor has to find who is releasing and controlling these predators and how to stop them. I usually try not to bash genetic science in my stories, like some authors do, but in this case the plot would demand that I do have a rogue geneticist. |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| T.Neo | Jan 10 2010, 04:14 PM Post #286 |
Translunar injection: TLI
|
You'd still get the "splat problem". And, air resistance.
Thus that makes them sophonts, and thus they're trying to win a war against us, not simply predate us. If they were sophonts they could be a par with us biologically and still stand a chance, since they would also have GUNS. 
|
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
|
|
|
| ItHasTeeth | Jan 17 2010, 11:14 AM Post #287 |
Megaposter
|
Humans are VERY good at hunting down an eliminating other species if they're considered threats (often to the detriment of everything else in the area. We're the reason why the megafauna we know today are in such great decline (although I don't agree that we are the cause of the extinctions like the mammoths or the ground sloths... but that's a discussion for another time.) I don't see a super predator (megafauna) hunting humans (regardless of how it does it). The only threats I can see to humans are from... say... pathogens and insects. Insects readily adapt to our chemical counter measures, as do microbial life. Edited by ItHasTeeth, Jan 17 2010, 11:17 AM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Holben | Jan 17 2010, 11:40 AM Post #288 |
Rumbo a la Victoria
|
What abhout my indestuctible dragon? If we can't destroy it or study it, how will we eliminate it? |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
|
|
|
| sam999 | Jan 17 2010, 07:14 PM Post #289 |
Adult
|
Nukes anyone? |
I am not suffering from insanaty. I truely enjoy being mad.   Comeon, thy dragons need YOU! Visit them here please... | |
|
|
|
| ItHasTeeth | Jan 21 2010, 05:56 PM Post #290 |
|
Megaposter
|
I can't think of a thing in real life that is, or could be, truly indestructible. I think man's worst threats are from the environment, disease, and himself. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Holben | Jan 22 2010, 02:33 PM Post #291 |
|
Rumbo a la Victoria
|
Nukes can't penetrate 3 feet of multilayered carbohydrate, protein, mineral and metal shell. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jan 22 2010, 03:08 PM Post #292 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
Yes, but they're slower then microbial life to do so. They're also squishable, if you can catch them. And simple measures can often offer protection from them (i.e. mosquito nets). Humanity as a species is actually incredibly adaptive. I can see natural disasters, war etc wiping out a large percentage of the population and sending most or all of us back into a subsistance existance, but I don't see it killing us off. At least not easily. Diseases might adapt and mutate, but so do we, with vaccines etc. Supervolcanoes already occured to us, and we survived (if barely). We're far more numerous now. I'd imagine we could survive a bolide impact quite well. We're smart enough to evade the heatwave, and we could survive near the coast during the years-long cool period that would result. A P-T flood basalt would be a bit of a stretch, but I can see us surviving. Again, we're smart... we don't rely on dumb luck to avoid the effects. I think the only thing that might present a possible extinction scenario is a gamma ray burst. A gamma ray burst would kill off most land life anyway...
I can detonate a nuke on a 3m cubed billet of steel, and that billet will disappear. We've been over this already... nukes are seriously powerful... Edited by T.Neo, Jan 22 2010, 03:11 PM.
|
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
|
|
|
| Empyreon | Jan 22 2010, 03:11 PM Post #293 |
Are you plausible?
|
I think the only thing that can unconditionally bring about the extinction of humanity would be an astronomical event. Solar events, supernovae, etc. |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jan 22 2010, 03:16 PM Post #294 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
It would have to be a big one. Aside from the eventual stellar "giant phase" and death of Sol, we have a pretty stable star. I don't think it spits out flares and such that would pose much of a threat to us. If we established a self-sustaining colony on Mars, we would be immune from extinction caused by nuclear holocaust, bolide impacts and volcanic eruptions etc. We'd stand a good chance against a gamma ray burst as well, since any base would have to be buried underneath the ground for everyday radiation protection. Of course, a random black hole could waft through our solar system, throwing Jupiter into an eccentric orbit and melting our crust from tidal forces... |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
|
|
|
| Empyreon | Jan 22 2010, 03:38 PM Post #295 |
|
Are you plausible?
|
Good points. The odds that such a stellar event are, snicker, astronomical. And apparently a nearby gamma radiation burst wouldn't be that effective of a killer. It's theorized that one such event caused the Ordovician-Silurian extinction. So can anything remove us from the face of the universe? Are we the indestructible creature? |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jan 22 2010, 03:49 PM Post #296 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
No. No organism is extinction-proof, but an organism can be extinction-resistant. There are ways that we could go extinct, but as you increase plausibility of the means, you decrease the severity of the effect. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
|
|
|
| Empyreon | Jan 22 2010, 03:54 PM Post #297 |
|
Are you plausible?
|
Maybe the most likely way humankind will go extinct is if it evolves into something else. Our greatest killer is our evolutionary progeny, perhaps? |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
|
|
|
| Holben | Jan 22 2010, 04:47 PM Post #298 |
|
Rumbo a la Victoria
|
Nukes can't work against anything with electromagnetic shielding!(albeit a theoretical technology) I can't understand why you people find humanity so mighty. A single supervolcano could starve us. A little rock could destroy our food chain. We ourselves are poisoning the ecosystem. We're lame compared to anything capable of space-faring on a private scale. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
|
|
|
| Empyreon | Jan 22 2010, 05:04 PM Post #299 |
|
Are you plausible?
|
Since when did theoretical technology play into any of this? Are you building a plausible man-hunting creature or something to square off against Voltron? Humans adapt. A supervolcano would starve most of us, and the rest would survive on what was left after the supervolcano. By 'little rock' I assume you mean asteroid collisions, which have been survived by creatures less adaptable than humans. The ecosystem has been poisoned before, and again life less complex or adaptable than a human has survived. There is no evidence for anything else that has incorporated tools into the species' survival with the sophistication that humans have done, to say nothing of space travel. We may be lame in comparison with imaginary species, but we have been adaptable enough to thrive over the face of the whole earth. There are a scant handful of creatures that can claim the same, and no others living can even dream of leaving this world for another one. Homo sapiens is a noteworthy species. |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
|
|
|
| T.Neo | Jan 23 2010, 08:15 AM Post #300 |
|
Translunar injection: TLI
|
I don't like human master-race ideology, but we are extremely adaptable. We've survived a supervolcano before, when we were far more vulnerable to extinction. An eruption nowdays would kill off large numbers of the population, but we'd undoubtedly survive. We don't have a "food chain". We can eat whatever we please, as long as it fits our requirements and does not poison us. Animals far less adaptable then humans have survived bolide impacts. We're smart enough to predict (!) such an event and seek cover and resources beforehand. I'm still not sure how birds of all things, survived K/T. We could probably survive as a species very easily. This still doesn't make us "special". If other sophonts exist (which I believe there is a high possibility of), they would be as adaptable and extinction-resistant as we are. It's a trait of "sophont-ness". Anteaters have long tongues, pterosaurs had wing membranes, turtles have shells. We have big brains.
You mean, like, Star-trek forcefields? Not possible via any theory I can think of, althogh I am sure there are means of producing a "forcefield" of sorts. And even then you won't be immune, unless you wish to handwave everything away and state "it reziztz evrythin lulz". And evolving such a system as an organism would be tricky. For the same reason organisms do not evolve wheels or rotor blades. |
| A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Evolutionary Continuum · Next Topic » |
7:39 PM Jul 13