/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13954495

491KiB, 1920x1080, 1638404849496.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Is the future of our species to procreate with Humanoid Robots?

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 16:44:32 2021 No.13954495 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13954516 >>13954594

Think about it, our science is right now working towards it and there will come a point where Robots will be able to get pregnant or impregnate humans. Which from the relationship of Humans and Robots will birth the next evolution of Human race until original humans are extinct due to transhuman procreation after 3 or 4 generations of constant transhuman mixing (the son/or daughter of a human will breed with a robot, so will their next offspring and the next one, the same way Neanderthals, Homo erectus, abilis, and Australopithecus got outbred out of existence.

So is it our inevitable future? Disappear through massive breeding with our own creations, built in a so perfect way that men and women won't bother procreate with each other?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 16:48:42 No.13954501 Report

Quoted By:

pure energy > machine > flesh

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 16:52:55 No.13954516 Report

Quoted By:

>>13954495
lol. Your future is to eat ze bogs, live in ze pod and consume ze VR entertainment while your getting culled. Your owners will continue feeding you these sci-fi delusions, alternating between doomsday and technological rapture prophecies until you die from a perfectly normal sudden heart attack at the age of 40. Then they themselves will rot away like the degenerate elites of every other crumbling civilization.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO masterrace dimorphism.png, 35KiB, 337x522

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:11:33 No.13954594 Report

Quoted By: >>13954614

>>13954495
The actual future of our species is the giant woman small man race unironically. It is the most dominant, efficient, and fasting growing phenotype that can actually be engineered into people, it doesn't rely on any form of science fiction technology, doesn't rely on any stupid theories about "muh unified global elite", and actually is superior in modern forms of economic behavior and military power.
If we are not being I fucking love science retards or muh globalist illuminati boomer dumbfucks, this breed of humans actually is materially superior and more fit on evolutionary timescales. It does not require modifications that are so complex that it is impossible for us to engineer into germlines.
We can even postulate certain science fiction technologies, like brain implants that increase cognitive abilities and even potentially allow humans to communicate telepathically, which would only further their efficiency, numerical advantage, and superiority. This however would not happen for several decades anyway.

Obviously if there is any sort of runaway super intelligence, that is without a doubt the final form of expansion that can be engineered, but there is no actual evidence that serves as indication that such an idea is anything but fantasy. "muh artificial intelligence GPT singularity" isn't real. Genetic engineering and biology are real.

The breed spreads so fast (in theory) that if any group of even just a few million people were to engineer themselves into the breed, their lineage would expand to become over a billion in like 5-6 generations. It is a ludicrous level of fitness and efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:16:11 No.13954614 Report

Quoted By: >>13954618

>>13954594
You keep making the same unfounded claim and never provide any evidence to support it. Why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:17:08 No.13954618 Report

Quoted By: >>13954653

>>13954614
What do you mean no evidence? Everything I talk about is based on the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:25:43 No.13954653 Report

Quoted By: >>13954691

>>13954618
>Giant women small men are dominant
Support this claim
>breed spreads so fast
Support this claim
>a few million can become a billion in six generations
Support this claim.
>ludicrous levels of fitness
Support this claim.
>and efficieny
Support this claim.
There is not a bit of substance in the entire post and you are getting into humorous levels of retardation trying to appeal to "principles of evolutionary biology" without enumeration of criteria or suffice of such. This is just another baseless claim.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:36:17 No.13954691 Report

Quoted By: >>13954700 >>13955026

>>13954653
Have you never read what I've written before? I've spoken about all of this at length for like a year dude, all of your questions have been answered before. Its very annoying to have to re explain everything all the time.
Giant women can birth litters of babies without it negatively affecting the cognition of the babies. Small women can't do this. We now have food abundance, so women don't need to worry about not getting enough food to feed giant bodies. They can maximize their fecundity by being giant thick amazons. We will program the giant women to superovulate and release 4 eggs each cycle, so they always give birth to litters of babies. This can't be done for small women, they do not have enough room in their smaller belly to do it without hurting the babies, but tall women with spacious abdomens can. This is basically fecundity selection being applied to women.
Larger males aren't better at producing sperm (size is not an inherent advantage to male fecundity). Larger males are better in situations where direct strength allows them to dominate more resources more efficiently, but that's no longer the case. Smaller males are superior at modern forms of combat and labor. Being a small man with a gun is better than being big man with a gun (in a fight with guns, the small one has the upper hand), and as we continue to automate warfare and build more machines, having a larger population of super smart small males who need less food and energy is better than having a smaller population of super smart large ones who need more energy.
Evolution happens at the population level. Assuming even just 10 million of them with a birth rate of 1 birth per woman, the breed expands to over 2 billion in 8 generations. And they can do so for a fewer resources and land requirements to support the same quality of life (because the males are so much smaller).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 17:37:59 No.13954700 Report

Quoted By: >>13954795

>>13954691
I should really say 1 pregnancy per woman, because each pregnancy the woman has 4 babies and have 4 births, but you get the idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 18:04:26 No.13954795 Report

Quoted By: >>13954814

>>13954700
You said you would use a name so I could filter you, you fucking faggot
You spread your cancer to every good damn thread it's all so tiresome

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 18:08:58 No.13954814 Report

Quoted By:

>>13954795
I did and I'm sorry.
But, there's also a few other anons who seem to be posting this. I haven't really been around for about two and a half weeks, I pop onto the board for a few minutes but I've been busy for a little while. I came back and browsed for a bit the other day, and it seems like there's other anons who are now also posting about this idea. So I guess it's spreading a little bit? I can't control what other people post, honestly I haven't really been here for about 2 weeks. if you've seen posts about the giant woman small man race in this time it was other people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 19:10:28 No.13955026 Report

Quoted By: >>13955066

>>13954691
You mean you don't have a folder for prepared responses for these simple claims? My guess that might be that you have never made a convincing argument before.
>Giant women can birth litters without impairing cognition
Proof this claim.
>Small women can't do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wDcmqtN0ak
Ever heard of octomom?
>food abundance
I'll set this one aside because you are opening a can of worms
>Superovulation
We can do this with regular size women
>male sperm
Irrelevant
>larger males only gain is strength
Fallacious.
>Smaller males better at combat and labor
Another can of worms
>tactical advantage in gun fight
Target size is basically irrelevant to the prime modes of either warfare or mutual combat. I am assuming you have some historical record where the advantage of the smaller folk was because they were small and not because of other advantages. Vietnam is an example of a smaller people that has historically "won" the wars against multiple larger people nations, but I doubt you will ever find the attribution to their stature. Without going into particular kinds of wars, or events, the only difference between small and large in a gun fight is target size. This is almost wholly irrelevant, but feel free to source literature showing how we would have lost to the nazis but they were too damn big.
>many males with less food is better
Prove this claim
>super smart large ones need more energy
I am going to leave the super smart off of this, because there is no proof of them being super smart, nor the factors that generate it. Every population group is going bend to population distributions, even your midgets will have the relatively very smart among them, even for cucked bugmen ewoks.
>birthrate bullshit
This doesn't even matter, human birthing is capable of going way beyond what we have now. It is irrelevant.
>fewer resources and land requirements
Do you subscribe to the labor theory of value?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 19:27:44 No.13955066 Report

Quoted By:

>>13955026
Not a single one of these responses are actual responses.
The lower cognition of children of multiple births is already known.
Taller women having easier pregnancies is already known.
We can not apply super ovulation to women who are too small, as they do not have enough space or energy reserves to gestate larger amounts without it affecting the cognition of the babies. In order for a normal sized woman to match the output, she'd have to get pregnant 4 times. That's why it's important. The society can never fall below replacement, and will always be at a population increase, because the women always have multiple children.
Yes, a larger males only gain is strength. That is not fallacious. There is no other trait that larger males gain over smaller ones other than maybe top sprinting speed in a hundred meter dash, by about 2 or 3 mph. Neither of these traits are relevant to optimize for. We're not just talking about target size, we're talking about expansion of output and labor. There is nothing that larger males get you that smaller males can't do, and for fewer resources and land. This is not the case for females, who do get an increased birth rate.
Biologically speaking, it is in fact the most fit (as in the trait will create the most copies of it's genes each generation compared to other traits) and they use far fewer resources to support a population of equal size (so economically, they are more efficient and will outcompete other societies). None of this is fallacious, it is fundamental physics actually.

And the only reason you are trying to counter this, is because you're a bigot against the idea of women being big and men being small. Which also isn't going to stop this once we begin to modify germlines to express this phenotype and dimorphism. Bigotry will not stop evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Dec 2021 19:33:37 No.13955079 Report

Quoted By:

You have to also remember I'm talking about men being 3'5"-4' feet tall about ~50 pounds, lean, athletic, agile, fast, etc. Women being 6'5" and thick, with strong thick legs, wide birth canal and big hips and butts with long abdomens and strong bodies, weighing 180+ pounds. This should give you an idea of what I'm talking about. It's not just short dudes and tall women, it's very small males and very big women.
This level of dimorphism could never have evolved without direct genetic engineering, and it wouldn't have been more fit until modern levels of technology. But now it is superior.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches