No, but if this article is to be believed, the Borg will.

the_5th_ape wrote:NO. Never. Not ever, even 100 quadrillion years from now

The most bullshit thing about this article is that its author is putting humanity entirely down to our genome. I agree that if we manage the sort of control over genetics that we're gunning for, interstellar pioneers are unlikely to be the same species as us, but I don't see why they won't be human.

I find the premise doubtful. Immorality is not condition necessary and I would except that even today it would be possible to find good number of people willing to take one way trip in space. Build ship large enough to hold and sustain number of such people and there we go, breeding in space, boldly going to where no one has gone before.

At some point we would not need to send living human beings through interstellar space. We could probably send the instructions to create new life (humans or anything else) through interstellar space. It becomes far easier when you aren't having to keep people alive. Just create them once they are there.

At some point we would not need to procreate by having sex .. you know. Where is explorer spirit? Where is challenge? Where is adventure? Where is fun?

He says .. because we cant go fast enough, not sure where he gets it from perhaps from what's his name? DavidMcC, we will create, well yes, Borgs who find time irrelevant because they are immortal.

A journey at .01c, taking 1,000–1,500 years to cross the gulf between stars will be meaningless in the lives of those beings — beings that are effectively immortal who see time as a non-obstacle.

What a nonsense, even for sci-fi. Then again:

At some point, after sufficient changes, we won’t be human any longer.

If we will not be humans any longer, I could somehow imagine that exploring, challenge, adventure and fun become irrelevant.

I'm more concerned with preservation of intelligent life. Especially if we don't find any others out there. We currently have all our eggs in one tiny basket.

Fair enough. Can we send instruction to create life and also ourselves at the same time then? Alright, thanks :)

Cryogenics. There'll always be plenty of people willing to leave everything (and time) behind and boldly go where no man or borg has gone before.

Oh, so I just flicked through the article and it seems that it's semantic argument. So clever.

Bernoulli wrote:Oh, so I just flicked through the article and it seems that it's semantic argument. So clever.

It isn't even a very good semantic argument.

I don't know... Did you know that cars aren't trees?

But there are wooden cars, so at least some cars are or were trees.

http://jalopnik.com/5870797/the-ten-coolest-wooden-cars-of-all-time/

Bernoulli wrote:I don't know... Did you know that cars aren't trees?

Checkmate, atheist.

This guy is saying something I said in a post here or RDF, I can't find it now, something about what will humans be like in a million years. I figure not much more than a century we will not be much as we are today.

As for interstellar travel, we pretty much have the tech now to do it. It necessitates the use of the Orion drive concept, using h-bombs instead of its a-bombs. you can almost forget about the size of the thing, I say use an asteroid, and argued this in thread about a year ago. Here is the PBS Space Time guy saying the same thing, along with other interesting takes on such travel, 5 REAL Possibilities for Interstellar Travel

"Could you fart your way to the moon?"

Very foolish to say something will never ever ever be developed. Who knows what technological developments might pop up in the future? Einstein said you can't travel at the speed of light...nothing stopping you going at 99.9% of C. Come to that, if you could somehow cheat and there actually is something like the fictional "hyperspace" you could get around the cosmic speed limit.

Subspace :) In Star Trek they are going warp 9 and they say .. our long range sensors detected .. wtf?

tuco wrote:Subspace In Star Trek they are going warp 9 and they say .. our long range sensors detected .. wtf?

Superluminal speeds would be flying blind. But flying blind doesn't advance the plot in as satisfactory a manner. It has less of a space adventure feel and more of a perilous submarine feel. I, personally, would be quite satisfied with the latter, but I also understand why the former would better mesh with Roddenberry's optimism.