In 250M years we have probably killed ourselves 249,9M years ago anyway.
But in the unlikely scenario that we have not, we probably can fix both tectonic plate movement and/or suns energy output with 250M years of technological progress.
I believe we are at a juncture in human history where technological progress is so fast that it will eclipse any natural evolution that would normally occur. On a 250-million-year scale, we're nearing breakthroughs in halting aging, manipulating DNA on demand, printing body parts, and potentially even achieving mind uploading. Natural selection will soon have run its course for our species. We will keep evolving but it won't be driven by random DNA replication errors: it will be driven by technology and culture. I agree however that "they" will be completely unrecognizable to the modern us.
If 65M years of random DNA mutations caused small rodents to evolve to homo sapiens, what do you think 65M years of human technology can do? Hint: technology progresses a lot faster than natural evolution. Think about how much of an impact evolution had on us in the last 1000 years vs how much technology did. We will probably become capable of editing DNA within a few generations. Death by aging will become a relic of the past. And I'm talking about what will happen within a few generations, not 250M years. In 250M years, DNA-based life will probably be mentioned in museums.
Tomorrow people will be better at remembering passwords and navigating virtual environments, by exactly the same process as any other organism adapting to it's environment.
My point was that the "same process as any other organism adapting to its environment" won't continue for very long for humans. Once you have people that don't die, DNA that can be edited at will, or even entirely non-biological bodies, you no longer have the ingredients required for natural selection.
Even non-biological bodies are subject to accidents, disasters, sheer neglect, or perhaps willful termination (for personal reasons, as punishment, kill for hire, ...). Everything dies at some point - no exceptions.
So essentially that would mess with the timescales. But you'd still have evolution somehow. Perhaps even fashion in what's considered desired physical format. Everybody bio/tech enhanced cyborg one year, everybody flying around as a drone the next year.
Indeed, by natural selection I meant evolution based on random DNA mutations. Of course, technological and cultural evolution (aka memetics) will persist.
The most likely scenario for some time is at most a few thousand people that don't die a natural death, that can afford to edit DNA, and perhaps even transfer their mind into a tin can ... along side some greater than a few billion others who continue to practice natural selection.
How that works out in the long term will be .. interesting *.
Difference is rodent ancestor had to adapt to its environment. We haven't had to adapt to shit in millennia, that's the whole point of tech - to remove the discomfort of selective pressure.
We don't evolve anymore. Natural selection doesn't happen anymore.
Only way for that to happen would be interplanetary travel (particles and radiation in space affecting DNA for one, space colonies slowly changing over many generations to suit other planet's conditions more likely).
In our resource-abundant modern world, you should expect genes that cause people to want kids to do very well. Fertility is low in most developed countries, but that masks particular sub-populations that are growing at a rapid rate. See this article for instance: https://medium.com/migration-issues/how-long-until-were-all-...
Similarly, expect future generations to be full of people who just can't stand wearing a condom during sex.
Anecdotally, it was my more risk taking and carefree friends that had kids first. I can see why - with just a little effort it's very easy not to have kids in the modern world, and the cost-benefit analysis for children is pretty bad.
What that means for the future of humanity, I don't know.
It's not necessarily that simple though. Maybe if you have an unplanned child early, you realize that thing about the cost-benefit analysis being bad, stop having kids, and reproduce at below replacement.
> We don't evolve anymore. Natural selection doesn't happen anymore.
Of course we do. Why would we not? Evolution is just a fact of life. For it to stop happening, we’d need all humans to have strictly the same number of children who live long enough to have children themselves. As soon as you have something affecting fertility rates, you have selection pressure.
> particles and radiation in space affecting DNA for one
What makes you think this does not happen on Earth? Radiation is everywhere. So is chemistry: there are more ways to alter DNA. On top of that, DNA has intrinsic mechanisms for mutation, in the form of transcription errors. Mutations happen all the time.
Well, evolution doesn't happen nearly as much based on disease resistance, now that we have antibiotics. It doesn't happen nearly as much based on ability to survive famine, now that we have modern agriculture. It doesn't happen nearly so much based on ability to survive childbirth, now that we have hospitals. And so on.
Sapiens has only been around for 300k years. Writing and, arguably, civilization is only 5.000 years old. If you subtract 5k from 300k, you still have about 300k left.
If you subtract 300k from 10 million years, you still have about 10 million years left.
The point here is that we are notoriously bad at gauging how big numbers are. We are also bad at intuitively gauging how fast/slow evolution moves.
We are very much still evolving and adapting to our surroundings. It's just that the big changes only become visible way beyond the horizon of a future we are able to conceive.
Women (on average) have preferences for taller guys (on average), where do you think the average height of people are headed? Artificial selection.
Most reproduction is monogamous in modern society. Artificial selection.
I don't mean to offend anyone with those examples by the way, apologies if I did. I also realize the irony that those examples might be opposing forces for the same phenotype I'm referencing.
In my understanding Dyson spheres harvests energy but won’t stop stars expansion. Though peer commenter xlance propose to use that energy to changes earth orbit, which address the goal.
But as far as I know building a Dyson sphere would also require a quantity of material resources that we don’t have on earth. Some options to get those:
A. energy to mass, but we don’t know if that’s even theoretically achievable. Also it probably would require a Dyson sphere itself to have enough energy.
B. convert other abundant elements (O, Si, Fe…) into required elements using known atomic reactions. But harvesting that much elements from earth could transform it in a state that does not worth the pain to try “saving” it.
There are serious physical issues about Dyson spheres. Things like constellations of satellites orbiting a star are much more practical solutions than a solid sphere.
Space is big and interstellar travel is slow, but 7.6bn years is a long time, during which we should have become adept at hopping between desirable stars as they come and go.
It should support pretty much any language! The commands will attempt to generate text in whatever language is already in the document (though, it's certainly not perfect yet and will sometimes return English no matter what).
Personal anecdote: I don't drink during the day, only after 9:30pm. It started out as weekends only, i.e. Friday and Saturday. Then I started doing it on Sunday. Then Thursday. Soon enough, I was drinking every day of the week, only after 9:30pm. I'd stay up until about 1am or 2am, sometimes 3am. This worked fine, until I started having to attend work meetings at 9am on the dot. I wormed my way out of some with excuses about personal commitments (my manager understands that not everyone can be available at 9am on the dot).
I need about 150ml vodka and 3 beers to get to the state I want. It wasn't always that way, of course, but it escalated gradually. I don't sleep well, but oh well. It's worth it, in a way. I can forget about my troubles, my bad pay, and my work pressure by drinking and watching movies or playing video games at the same time.
The next day? Sometimes I wake up with a headache. Not often, now that I know exactly how much water I need to drink before I sleep to avoid that. But the next day is always normal and I'm pretty well functioning, if lazy and procrastinating. I just need a 20 min nap after 12pm and I'm pretty much set to function.
Will I stop? I don't know. These things on my mind may seem utterly trivial to some. I wasn't abused, I haven't lost anyone in my family, I live fairly comfortably. But I need to get my mind off those thoughts. I can go days at a time, even weeks, without feeling the need to drink, so long as I just forget about its feeling. But why would I do that? When I have a 2L bottle of vodka and an 18 back of 5% beers? With them, I can enjoy the night more than I would otherwise. That's got to be worth something, at least to me.
But in the unlikely scenario that we have not, we probably can fix both tectonic plate movement and/or suns energy output with 250M years of technological progress.