Thread: How much time is left for humans?

Considering evolution rates and extinction rates from the fossil record, how long do most species exist before they evolve into something else or face extinction?
Where would humans fit if compared to other species for persistence in the fossil record?

There's something in my mind whispering 3 million years as the average lifespan for species. But it's so faint I'm not sure where I'd follow it up.

It would seem that humanities ability to travel to all places habitable across this Earth has side stepped evolutionary change.
There being a time when a change might be noted as to a adjustment to conditions and being better able to endure climate.
Are we cleaver enough to have side stepped the next extinction event.. So when is it. Which direction should we look ? NO.
I foresee a ability to adapt is what may save us and the rat.
We have the knowledge and ability to build cities on the sea floor and maybe we should..

The genus homo has had several species in the past evolving (sequentially) into homo sapiens. It is quite likely that in the distant future homo sapiens will have evolved into something else.

Originally Posted by adelady

There's something in my mind whispering 3 million years as the average lifespan for species. But it's so faint I'm not sure where I'd follow it up.

This pretty much corroborates what you stated:

The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years.

Evolution: Library: The Current Mass Extinction

Originally Posted by mathman

The genus homo has had several species in the past evolving (sequentially) into homo sapiens. It is quite likely that in the distant future homo sapiens will have evolved into something else.

Or in the near future, genetically engineered ourselves for improved health and to better cope with different environments.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by mathman

The genus homo has had several species in the past evolving (sequentially) into homo sapiens. It is quite likely that in the distant future homo sapiens will have evolved into something else.

Or in the near future, genetically engineered ourselves for improved health and to better cope with different environments.

If we are the ones facilitating the change is it still considered evolution?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

If we are the ones facilitating the change is it still considered evolution?

Hmm. By most definitions it wouldn't be natural selection and therefore probably not.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

If we are the ones facilitating the change is it still considered evolution?

Hmm. By most definitions it wouldn't be natural selection and therefore probably not.

even artificial changes are subject to natural selection, and what we consider to be our best efforts may be found wanting under selection pressure
remember, it's not because we instigate the change that we're always in full control of its consequences

How long do we humans have on this planet?

That is EASY!

We humans have 270 million years atleast. Kinda the lifetime of the dino's.
This precise number was based on absolutely years of dedicated number punshing bullshit that lead to a harsh dedicated result of certain nothing.

I am sure humans will be around for the next 270 million years on this planet, based on my pure optimism and that I have never disappointed myself during my life. So I know I am right!

Or,... you know something I do not?

I'll happen when the first post-humans come pouring out of an underground base during some distant future war, and use their cybernetically enhanced IQs of 350 to master the conflict and take things over. Or maybe it will come after generations of parents choose the most empowering DNA for their kids, and that slowly leads into something post-human over countless generations. Either way, the Rubicon has been crossed with homo-sapiens, and the human ability to genetically engineer is going to be one of the largest forces effecting evolution. Indeed, for non-human species it already is: Just think about about the amount of plant biomass that is now GMO, due to agriculture. These GMO species have been selected, and are proliferating. (And yes, that's evolution. A symbiosis between humans and corn plants which is mutually beneficial is no different than any other symbiosis in nature)

Is that still your kid?
if you have genetically modified your child's DNA that there is no genetic link back to you does that still mean it's your kid?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Is that still your kid?
if you have genetically modified your child's DNA that there is no genetic link back to you does that still mean it's your kid?

Well, that isn't how it would happen, it would be very incremental. For instance, I have some genetic flaws I would not wish my kid to have. People in my family suffer from herniate disks due to really long backs, and also my skin is very light and prone to skin cancer. I would want a child of mine to be biologically my own in every other way, but without these flaws. Those slightly modified genes would then be hers, and maybe she would make modifications to fix the imperfections she experienced, and so on, generation over generation. For each generation the child of the last would have 98%* the genes of the parent, but over many many generations this could completely diverge from the genes I have today. That's how a post-human could eventually emerge from long term, mild genetic engineering changes.

* I mean 98% of the genes that define the spectrum of human diversity... I've heard chimps share 98.5% of our genetic material...

So it's a race between Robots and GMO humans. Which one will achieve super-human first?

Right now, I think GMO human looks like the stronger contender, but the century is young.

Originally Posted by TridentBlue

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Is that still your kid?
if you have genetically modified your child's DNA that there is no genetic link back to you does that still mean it's your kid?

Well, that isn't how it would happen, it would be very incremental. For instance, I have some genetic flaws I would not wish my kid to have. People in my family suffer from herniate disks due to really long backs, and also my skin is very light and prone to skin cancer. I would want a child of mine to be biologically my own in every other way, but without these flaws. Those slightly modified genes would then be hers, and maybe she would make modifications to fix the imperfections she experienced, and so on, generation over generation. For each generation the child of the last would have 98%* the genes of the parent, but over many many generations this could completely diverge from the genes I have today. That's how a post-human could eventually emerge from long term, mild genetic engineering changes.

* I mean 98% of the genes that define the spectrum of human diversity... I've heard chimps share 98.5% of our genetic material...

I understand. thanks for the answer. very cool. So we're all on a quest to be perfect biological specimens of our ancestors.

Originally Posted by kojax

So it's a race between Robots and GMO humans. Which one will achieve super-human first?

Right now, I think GMO human looks like the stronger contender, but the century is young.

More than likely it will be an integration of the two. I believe the term for that is cyborg. But I prefer to think of them as enhanced humans.

However I don't believe species extinction can be estimated based on past extinctions. For one thing until humans came along all animals lived in a natural equilibrium in the environment. Humans do not live in a natural environment, and we are pushing the limits of our natural resources, to the point that any disruption is going to become a major disaster for humans. There are so many ways our house of cards can come tumbling down. But then as long as there is one pair of humans that can reproduce we won't be extinct.

Originally Posted by TridentBlue

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Is that still your kid?
if you have genetically modified your child's DNA that there is no genetic link back to you does that still mean it's your kid?

Well, that isn't how it would happen, it would be very incremental. For instance, I have some genetic flaws I would not wish my kid to have. People in my family suffer from herniate disks due to really long backs, and also my skin is very light and prone to skin cancer. I would want a child of mine to be biologically my own in every other way, but without these flaws. Those slightly modified genes would then be hers, and maybe she would make modifications to fix the imperfections she experienced, and so on, generation over generation. For each generation the child of the last would have 98%* the genes of the parent, but over many many generations this could completely diverge from the genes I have today. That's how a post-human could eventually emerge from long term, mild genetic engineering changes.

* I mean 98% of the genes that define the spectrum of human diversity... I've heard chimps share 98.5% of our genetic material...

Even without any artificial modification, your kids will only share 50% of any one parent's genes; and grandchildren, half of that; great grandchildren, half of that...

So in five generations your descendants will be like distant cousins you couldn't care less about. So much for that

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Even if we do the majority are left behind.

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Even the closest ones are a damn long way from us. We need lots of time and money to prepare to go and I think we will be very short on both counts.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Even if we do the majority are left behind.

That would be true, however I'm okay with it. I like the idea of humans spreading out to colonize the galaxy even if I'm one of the billions left behind.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

I like the idea of humans spreading out to colonize the galaxy even if I'm one of the billions left behind.

Bad Robots are not left behind. Every new planet needs one.

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

In 200,000 years you don't think our technology will have advanced to the point where we could manipulate weather? I mean jeese the Russians were doing it in the 80's...

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

In 200,000 years you don't think our technology will have advanced to the point where we could manipulate weather? I mean jeese the Russians were doing it in the 80's...

In order for humans to keep advancing we need a good solid infrastructure supporting that advancement. In the US, our infrastructure is really lagging behind. It's getting old and crumbling and we still have an out of control national debt that won't leave much money for upkeep. We are fast becoming a third world country, and we still want to keep being the worlds policeman without getting paid for it. Personally I don't believe humans will continue advancing even a few thousand more years without a major setback that we may not ever be able to recover from. Sure we might hang on for a long time after our prime, but after having lived the good life I wouldn't want to ever go back to a primitive way of life.

I'm Christian and believe in the rapture ( Somebody get this religious idiot of a science website)! However, if I had to come up with a prediction for the future of humanity, I would say that any genetic engineering or cybernetic augmentation would be brought to a screeching halt by paranoid hillbillies. Once you get into the modification of humans in serious application, all hell breaks loose politically. It would be a bigger throw down than gay rights, desegregation, and the holocaust combined. When you think about it, the imperfection of humanity adds a little flavor to life, and without disease or poverty we would just have more time to focus on war.

I doubt if geneticists would have much luck in creating a well adapted human. I think the environment is just too unpredictable to be thinking human planning can get ahead of the changes.

If we want these sorts of capacities, we're already well on the way with 3D copying of biological materials.

3DPrinting: Bioprinting organs/human tissue cells

And genetic amendments to get rid of diseases like cystic fibrosis will also make things better for all sorts of problems once we get them fully on the move. I'd say about 2 decades for reliable treatments for the most common/ most serious/ most straightforward genetic disorders, by which time we'll know which ones are least likely to be successfully handled with this approach.

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

I'm Christian and believe in the rapture ( Somebody get this religious idiot of a science website)! However, if I had to come up with a prediction for the future of humanity, I would say that any genetic engineering or cybernetic augmentation would be brought to a screeching halt by paranoid hillbillies. Once you get into the modification of humans in serious application, all hell breaks loose politically. It would be a bigger throw down than gay rights, desegregation, and the holocaust combined. When you think about it, the imperfection of humanity adds a little flavor to life, and without disease or poverty we would just have more time to focus on war.

In other words, the human-augmentation equivalent of a "Luddite" movement?

Yeah. But, the Luddites didn't win.

Luddite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Even if we do the majority are left behind.

That would be true, however I'm okay with it. I like the idea of humans spreading out to colonize the galaxy even if I'm one of the billions left behind.

Just hope there isn't already someone living out there.

I find myself imagining that there's already this extensive group of galactic empires out there, with a "United Empires" organization keeping diplomatic peace between them. And the reason we don't know about it yet is because the Earth has been granted "protected" status in some kind of "primitive species protection act".

I imagine that our protection would immediately expire if we started going around and invading other cultures' habitable worlds.

Originally Posted by kojax

Just hope there isn't already someone living out there.

I find myself imagining that there's already this extensive group of galactic empires out there, with a "United Empires" organization keeping diplomatic peace between them. And the reason we don't know about it yet is because the Earth has been granted "protected" status in some kind of "primitive species protection act".

I imagine that our protection would immediately expire if we started going around and invading other cultures' habitable worlds.

That is a thought to have. But if that is the case, can you really believe they would surprise us with it? I would think as soon as we are that capable they would let us know what the neighborhood rules were.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

Even the closest ones are a damn long way from us. We need lots of time and money to prepare to go and I think we will be very short on both counts.

It depends on how fast we advance technologically. Who says we couldn't have invented viable space travel in that time?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by carlinsomes

There is not set limit. It all depends on how environments change.


That said, it's said that we're due an ice age in 200,000 years, which would make Europe, North America, and must of central/East Asia uninhabitable.

So by then, we'd have to hope we've advanced enough to find an Earth-like or Super Earth close by to travel to.

In 200,000 years you don't think our technology will have advanced to the point where we could manipulate weather? I mean jeese the Russians were doing it in the 80's...

Maybe, who knows?

Well, we're the first species on Earth that is intelligent enough to recognize and contemplate extinction and also the first to develop a technological society. So, we will probably have the power to effect changes: changes in ourselves, changes to the planet. It's entirely within possibility that we could endure forever, here in our Solar System and later in others.

Maybe the only two things that can cause us to go extinct is (1) self destruction and (2) an extinction level natural disaster before we are able to move off this planet.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Well, we're the first species on Earth that is intelligent enough to recognize and contemplate extinction and also the first to develop a technological society. So, we will probably have the power to effect changes: changes in ourselves, changes to the planet. It's entirely within possibility that we could endure forever, here in our Solar System and later in others.

Maybe the only two things that can cause us to go extinct is (1) self destruction and (2) an extinction level natural disaster before we are able to move off this planet.

Or we engineer a new Homo species that's no longer reproductively compatible with Homo sapiens and by choice drives the old species extinct--I think its inevitable.

It doesn't have to be a war, also. Consider how the public looks upon mentally handicapped people right now. It's looked badly upon if anyone should mistreat them. However, at the same time, it's also looked badly upon for them to pair up and start having kids.

If a group of superhumans were to appear, from whose perspective the rest of us are all as poorly adapted as a mentally handicapped person, they would probably also take action to prevent us from breeding. While, at the same time, they would probably treat us humanely for the duration of our natural life.

If they are really and truly superior to us, then it would never really come to a war, because they would never really be any question over who might win that war.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Well, we're the first species on Earth that is intelligent enough to recognize and contemplate extinction and also the first to develop a technological society. So, we will probably have the power to effect changes: changes in ourselves, changes to the planet. It's entirely within possibility that we could endure forever, here in our Solar System and later in others.

Maybe the only two things that can cause us to go extinct is (1) self destruction and (2) an extinction level natural disaster before we are able to move off this planet.

Or we engineer a new Homo species that's no longer reproductively compatible with Homo sapiens and by choice drives the old species extinct--I think its inevitable.

I would have to ask the question. Is that a bad thing? I'm perfectly happy being the ancestor of a superior life form.

For everyone to accept the idea of modifying our DNA, they would have to realize how primitive they are. And I am not sure a lot of people realize that.

Breeding more 'stock' homo sapiens for ever knowing they are for the most part immoral, stupid and primitive creatures doesn't make that much sense to me from a philosophical point of view.

Also we also have to come to grasp with the fact that free will is an illusion. If people say they want to be free to remain normal homo sapiens, they have to realize that in any case they are not free of anything, they are just machines created by the universe.

We should not only modify our brains to be more intelligent, we also have to find a way to make it more moral. For instance I read there is a part of the brain that is responsible for moral behavior ( located in the right hemisphere in the temporal lobe if I remember correctly). Maybe there would be a way to develop it more with genetic modifications.

A world with a population with a average IQ of 150 and more moral would be drastically different. Such a advanced form of humanity would be much more worth saving than homo sapiens. And I think such an advanced species would probably find ways to become almost immortal.

Originally Posted by Nic321

A world with a population with a average IQ of 150 and more moral would be drastically different.

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Such a advanced form of humanity would be much more worth saving than homo sapiens. And I think such an advanced species would probably find ways to become almost immortal.

Are less intelligent people less worthy of saving?

Those are interesting questions...

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Moral is an emergent property of the brain and some people are capable of better morals than others. Humans generally speaking have poor morals. Human "machines" ( let's not fool ourselves that's what we are) should show much more compassion towards others.

Are less intelligent people less worthy of saving?

Intelligence is also an emergent property of the brain. Education plays a big role in its development ( Flynn effect, etc... ). Certain things however seem to stop the progression of our species by making it more stupid, do I have to name what it is? We have to fight these particular things, in a peaceful way of course. And I really admire the courage of those who do what they can in that regard, because god knows it's hard.

Everything would become much easier if the population became more intelligent. Improving our genes or merging with machines could be a formidable opportunity, I hope you will agree. Everyone's life will also be more fruitful if we are more intelligent. Our ability to solve our problems would be greatly increased. We can't let intelligence limitations prevent our species from evolving, because that's what it does.


The universe became aware through our brains. It creates our lives ( free will being an illusion ). I certainly hope the universe will make humanity evolve into a very advanced and very moral species, and will not let us get stuck in stupidity and very poor morals. In a way that would give some meaning to the universe. We should even feel priviledged if the universe creates that through us ( free will being once again an illusion)

And also very important if possible we should also develop a completely different psychology based on the fact that free will is an illusion.

I am almost certain that other advanced species in the universe if they exist have already done just that.

One thing I must be clear about is the fact that a species do not evolve spontaneously. We are evolving now at a very slight rate.

Originally Posted by EvolvedAtheist

One thing I must be clear about is the fact that a species do not evolve spontaneously. We are evolving now at a very slight rate.

Yes, and not in the ways most people imagine we should be. We are evolving smaller brains for one thing.
Selection for smaller brains in Holocene human evolution – john hawks weblog
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5604

and weaker muscles at the same time
PLOS Biology: Exceptional Evolutionary Divergence of Human Muscle and Brain Metabolomes Parallels Human Cognitive and Physical Uniqueness

Originally Posted by Nic321

Everything would become much easier if the population became more intelligent. Improving our genes or merging with machines could be a formidable opportunity, I hope you will agree. Everyone's life will also be more fruitful if we are more intelligent. Our ability to solve our problems would be greatly increased. We can't let intelligence limitations prevent our species from evolving, because that's what it does.

Being more intelligent wouldn't really change anyone's morels, as you develop those while growing up. I suppose you could get laws passed to prosecute bad parents, but again that would be after the fact and might only help after several generations. Not very practical and wouldn't get much support. Better would be not allowing anyone to live in poverty or in need of medical attention.

It's much easier to be morel if you not hungry or in need of a fix of some kind. If you were to raise the intelligence of the general population, you would still have the conditions that make for higher levels of crime and you would also have more intelligent criminals. I don't see where you've gained any advantage in morality.

Originally Posted by Nic321

Those are interesting questions...

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Moral is an emergent property of the brain and some people are capable of better morals than others.

How do you determine when somebody has better morals? Is it by how closely they agree with you, or what?

Humans generally speaking have poor morals. Human "machines" ( let's not fool ourselves that's what we are) should show much more compassion towards others.

That would depend on who does the programming wouldn't it? Which others should a person be most compassionate towards? All persons equally, people more than other animals, family members more than strangers, intelligent people more than unintelligent, or what is the ideal mix?

Are less intelligent people less worthy of saving?

Intelligence is also an emergent property of the brain. Education plays a big role in its development ( Flynn effect, etc... ). Certain things however seem to stop the progression of our species by making it more stupid, do I have to name what it is?

Yes, because I have no idea what you mean. How does one measure the progression of a species?

We have to fight these particular things, in a peaceful way of course. And I really admire the courage of those who do what they can in that regard, because god knows it's hard.

Everything would become much easier if the population became more intelligent. Improving our genes or merging with machines could be a formidable opportunity, I hope you will agree.

I won't.

Everyone's life will also be more fruitful if we are more intelligent. Our ability to solve our problems would be greatly increased. We can't let intelligence limitations prevent our species from evolving, because that's what it does.


The universe became aware through our brains. It creates our lives ( free will being an illusion ). I certainly hope the universe will make humanity evolve into a very advanced and very moral species, and will not let us get stuck in stupidity and very poor morals. In a way that would give some meaning to the universe. We should even feel priviledged if the universe creates that through us ( free will being once again an illusion)

Where do you get these new age ideas? Is this Gaia philosophy? It seems almost religious.

And also very important if possible we should also develop a completely different psychology based on the fact that free will is an illusion.

I am almost certain that other advanced species in the universe if they exist have already done just that.

Okay. Free will is an illusion. Where do you go from there? How does this give meaning to the universe?

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Nic321

Everything would become much easier if the population became more intelligent. Improving our genes or merging with machines could be a formidable opportunity, I hope you will agree. Everyone's life will also be more fruitful if we are more intelligent. Our ability to solve our problems would be greatly increased. We can't let intelligence limitations prevent our species from evolving, because that's what it does.

Being more intelligent wouldn't really change anyone's morels, as you develop those while growing up. I suppose you could get laws passed to prosecute bad parents, but again that would be after the fact and might only help after several generations. Not very practical and wouldn't get much support. Better would be not allowing anyone to live in poverty or in need of medical attention.

It's much easier to be morel if you not hungry or in need of a fix of some kind. If you were to raise the intelligence of the general population, you would still have the conditions that make for higher levels of crime and you would also have more intelligent criminals. I don't see where you've gained any advantage in morality.

Who said we shouldn't fight poverty, of course we should. However there is certainly a correlation between higher intelligence and higher morals, altough there are other factors of course.

I insisted on the fact that improving the morals of our species is very important, as important as improving our intelligence. Both have to be improved.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Nic321

Those are interesting questions...

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Moral is an emergent property of the brain and some people are capable of better morals than others.

How do you determine when somebody has better morals? Is it by how closely they agree with you, or what?

Humans generally speaking have poor morals. Human "machines" ( let's not fool ourselves that's what we are) should show much more compassion towards others.

That would depend on who does the programming wouldn't it? Which others should a person be most compassionate towards? All persons equally, people more than other animals, family members more than strangers, intelligent people more than unintelligent, or what is the ideal mix?

Are less intelligent people less worthy of saving?

Intelligence is also an emergent property of the brain. Education plays a big role in its development ( Flynn effect, etc... ). Certain things however seem to stop the progression of our species by making it more stupid, do I have to name what it is?

Yes, because I have no idea what you mean. How does one measure the progression of a species?

Isn't it obvious what I mean? I mean improving the intelligence and morals of our species.

And what is considered progress for an intelligent species may not follow the same criteria as for other animals. We have to move away from being just animals.

We have to fight these particular things, in a peaceful way of course. And I really admire the courage of those who do what they can in that regard, because god knows it's hard.

Everything would become much easier if the population became more intelligent. Improving our genes or merging with machines could be a formidable opportunity, I hope you will agree.

I won't.

You say you won't. If presented with the opportinity I am not sure you wouldn't change your mind. Or it would probably be an ego thing.

Everyone's life will also be more fruitful if we are more intelligent. Our ability to solve our problems would be greatly increased. We can't let intelligence limitations prevent our species from evolving, because that's what it does.


The universe became aware through our brains. It creates our lives ( free will being an illusion ). I certainly hope the universe will make humanity evolve into a very advanced and very moral species, and will not let us get stuck in stupidity and very poor morals. In a way that would give some meaning to the universe. We should even feel priviledged if the universe creates that through us ( free will being once again an illusion)

Where do you get these new age ideas? Is this Gaia philosophy? It seems almost religious.

Gaia? I don't see what Gaia has anything to do with it.

Spiritual, not religious. Religions have hijacked the word spirituality for way too long.

And also very important if possible we should also develop a completely different psychology based on the fact that free will is an illusion.

I am almost certain that other advanced species in the universe if they exist have already done just that.

Okay. Free will is an illusion. Where do you go from there? How does this give meaning to the universe?

Where do we go from here? So far we have completely failed to go anywhere from here. Not suprising given the fact that most philosophers believe in free will. Even quite a lot of scientists believe in free will.

Our psychology is based is part in the illusion of free will. The ego is based on free will. In part love and hate too. At least human love and hate. Kind of nonsensical when you think about it.

It seems to me that you think humans are close to being perfect and could harldy be improved, that's kind of laughable. We are primitive animals, very often cruel and stupid. Very superstitious and egotistical too.

Time to evolve.

Originally Posted by Nic321

Who said we shouldn't fight poverty, of course we should. However there is certainly a correlation between higher intelligence and higher morals, although there are other factors of course.

I insisted on the fact that improving the morals of our species is very important, as important as improving our intelligence. Both have to be improved.

What you are calling higher morals is less criminal activity and the best way to decrease criminal activity is to improve the living conditions for all humans. The best educated people don't all want that to happen, as they like being rich and in control. So just how do you propose that humans rise above our animal heritage. Just wishing it to happen won't get the job done. Human are just like any other species in that we operate within our nature, and we are a highly opportunistic species.

Originally Posted by Nic321

Those are interesting questions...

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Moral is an emergent property of the brain and some people are capable of better morals than others. Humans generally speaking have poor morals.

Only if you define poor morals as trivial crap such as people who eat meat on Friday, mutually enjoy oral sex with their spouse, or roll at joint a couple times a month.

The vast majority of peoples have excellent morals, only a really tiny % murder, rape, steal on a large scale, aka do things that hurt others or work against the smooth functioning of society as a whole.

And while it is true that low intelligence and crime are related, it's a quite broad brush to assume that raising intelligence would reduce those already small numbers of amoral people. As others have pointed out, effects of better intelligence would probably help mostly by secondary effects such as improved socioeconomic conditions which also reduce crimes.

--
EvolvedAtheist, several studies actually suggest humans are going through rapid and quickening evolution at present with haplogroups diverging at a rapid rate.

I have a habit of using long term trends to try to understand what might happen.

For example : there is a long term trend to increasing technology, and this trend is accelerating. We can predict that the world 100 years from now will have a massively increased technological capability.

Another long term trend ( shown by Prof. Steven Pinker in his book "The Better Angels of our Nature") is the trend to reduced violence. Someone mentioned morals. If being less violent is being more moral, then modern humans are far more moral than our ancestors. War deaths today run to about 70,000 per year globally, which is a third of what we saw mid 20th Century. Murder rates are dropping, as is every other kind of violence. This trend goes back thousands of years, and so I confidently predict that it will continue, and the world of the future will be less violent than the world of today.

Life span has been increasing for the last 100 years, at the rate of just under 1 extra year for every 4 years that pass. So I predict people in the future will live longer. Human health is improving. Human rights are developing.

There is a very long term trend towards improving human welfare as we move into 'less natural' environments. For example : Throughout the world, people are healthier and live longer on average if they live in cities than in the country. The trend is to air conditioned apartments. A less 'natural' environment. Where would this trend lead, given limitless imagination? I could envisage people living in space, in giant rotating habitats, using nuclear reactors (of ultra modern design) for energy, and gleaning water and minerals from asteroids, comets, Saturn's rings, and other planetary debris (the total quantity available is a massive multiple of Earth's entire size). That totally unnatural habitat would be totally controlled, and could be arranged so there was no disease causing bug, or allergens, or anything else to harm the population.

Of course, once we have large populations in self sustaining space habitats, there is nothing to stop them strapping on giant ion drive engines, and cruising off to another star system. If they could accelerate to a tenth of light speed (0.1c), which is theoretically possible with an advanced ion drive system, they could reach another star system in less than a century.

Perhaps in a few thousand years, humanity will be spread troughout this corner of our galaxy. In a couple of million years, our descendants might occupy the entire galaxy, though they would have evolved into many different species by then.

How much time is left for humans?

That depends upon many factors. An asteroid could wipe humans out at any time. Diseases, like those we can't stop, could also wipe everyone out. Environmental disasters like destroying our atmosphere could also cause the demise of human life as well as others.

skeptic

There's nothing wrong with taking the optimistic point of view and who knows it might actually work out that way. But there are just so many ways that can go wrong with that future. The climate changing is going to become a distraction that may take almost all of our attention and resources for who knows how long. Then there's the problem of decreasing oil reserves, another big distraction that will take attention and resources. Those two things alone will really dry up money for expanding off this planet.

It will always come down to priorities and those priorities for doing business off planet needs to be established sooner rather than later.

First, to cosmictraveller

The last asteroid big enough to wipe out civilisation was 65 million years ago. I am not going to worry about another one like that in the near future. Disease pandemics are getting less, not more. Humanity is learning to control them. Any such pandemic in the future is unlikely to be as destructive as, for example, the 1918 Spanish Flu.

To Bad robot
Global warming is, indeed, a problem. I am more optimistic than you, though, for two reasons.
1. Humanity has the ability to mitigate this problem, once we get right into it - a process that will take decades - but we have the time, since global warming is a slow process.
2. Humanity also has the ingenuity to provide suitable technologies to adapt. For example : hurricane proof and air conditioned dwellings.

Peak oil is actually less of a concern today than it was 5 years ago. The reason is new drilling techniques such as angled drilling, and fracking. Those techniques have opened up vast new reserves of natural gas.

At least NASA's still making progress.

NASA Science News for June 2, 2014 To test a new technology for landing heavy payloads on Mars, NASA is about to drop a flying-saucer shaped vehicle from a helium balloon 120,000 ft above Earth's surface.
FULL STORY: NASA's 'Flying Saucer' Readies for First Test Flight - NASA Science

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Nic321

Those are interesting questions...

Can you define what you mean by "more moral"?

Moral is an emergent property of the brain and some people are capable of better morals than others. Humans generally speaking have poor morals.

Only if you define poor morals as trivial crap such as people who eat meat on Friday, mutually enjoy oral sex with their spouse, or roll at joint a couple times a month.

The vast majority of peoples have excellent morals, only a really tiny % murder, rape, steal on a large scale, aka do things that hurt others or work against the smooth functioning of society as a whole.

And while it is true that low intelligence and crime are related, it's a quite broad brush to assume that raising intelligence would reduce those already small numbers of amoral people. As others have pointed out, effects of better intelligence would probably help mostly by secondary effects such as improved socioeconomic conditions which also reduce crimes.

--
EvolvedAtheist, several studies actually suggest humans are going through rapid and quickening evolution at present with haplogroups diverging at a rapid rate.

That was a weird reply.

And no, most humans don't have particularily good morals. And criminality is just one effect of bad morals.

To Nic

There was a survey result published in New Scientist some years back, which showed that only 10% of humanity can be described as total arseholes. That is : people who are prepared to do anything to benefit themselves, even when it hurts others. Most of the other 90% have some degree of concern for their fellow humans. This, of course, is not morals. But it certainly indicates that most people are (up to a point) reasonably moral.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To Nic

There was a survey result published in New Scientist some years back, which showed that only 10% of humanity can be described as total arseholes. That is : people who are prepared to do anything to benefit themselves, even when it hurts others. Most of the other 90% have some degree of concern for their fellow humans. This, of course, is not morals. But it certainly indicates that most people are (up to a point) reasonably moral.

Remember when you were growing up and someone would find something another kid lost. If the kid wanted to keep it he would say "finders keepers" and really keep it and thinking it was okay. However if the kid didn't want it he would return it and be the good guy.

What does that say about that kids morals? For the most part that kid will grow up to be a good citizen. But he will also be an opportunist when he can get away with it. He will not live as a criminal and will never murder anyone, but if you can't watch and keep track of your stuff, emotionally he won't be responsible if your missing any of it.

It's just better if you never trust anyone completely at least don't put temptation in their path.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To Nic

There was a survey result published in New Scientist some years back, which showed that only 10% of humanity can be described as total arseholes. That is : people who are prepared to do anything to benefit themselves, even when it hurts others. Most of the other 90% have some degree of concern for their fellow humans. This, of course, is not morals. But it certainly indicates that most people are (up to a point) reasonably moral.

And are those 10% who are "arseholes" better off on the whole than the 90%?

Robbity

I doubt it. I suspect that they are the source of the prison population. However, I admit I am guessing.

To bad robot
Your point has a degree of validity, but I do not think going through life refusing to trust people is necessarily going to be very edifying. Perhaps selective trust?

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Considering evolution rates and extinction rates from the fossil record, how long do most species exist before they evolve into something else or face extinction?
Where would humans fit if compared to other species for persistence in the fossil record?

While humans are hell bent on becoming rich our extinction rushes toward us. Maybe cultures so primitive will be immune to this for they can persist on a diet of leaves and build shelters from grasses and cow dung. Not much can go wrong there.

Can the super modern man break through the barrier and become the super Homo sapiens species? That is also a possibility with the new species escaping the decline of Homo sapiens sapiens.

[I take it as a given that the new species has to evolve out of the old one.]

Robbity

A new species can arise without the old one dying. In fact, in nature, this happens frequently. With humans, I suspect we will have to disperse first. We are on the verge of the space age. When humans actually start leaving Earth in large numbers, many will go to other star systems. Since faster than light travel is almost certainly impossible, travel times will be decades or centuries. That means the final populations in other star systems will be genetically isolated. That is a major prerequisite for speciation.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To Nic

There was a survey result published in New Scientist some years back, which showed that only 10% of humanity can be described as total arseholes. That is : people who are prepared to do anything to benefit themselves, even when it hurts others. Most of the other 90% have some degree of concern for their fellow humans. This, of course, is not morals. But it certainly indicates that most people are (up to a point) reasonably moral.

Skeptic,

My own experience in life has suggested to me that people are not that moral.

A lot of immoral behavior does not appear in statistics. For instance a lot of people are racist and will certainly not talk about it in public.

A lot of people are quite often mean in various ways.

People who pollute and don't give a s.... can be considered immoral. People who over-populate the planet, people who have children despite the fact that they are destined to live in extreme poverty ( they could have one child and concentrate on his/her education but most of the time they have many who are guaranteed to live in poverty, is that moral? ).

So many other examples... Women who try to manipulate men for money ( has happened to so many guys including me ). People who are obsessed with accumulating money.


I know someone for instance who has 2 porsches, one 911 turbo, one Cayenne turbo. Always trying to impress everyone with her retarded cars while people a dying from hunger. Very racist incidentally. Is she retarded or what?

How about families? brothers and sisters, who don't talk to each other anymore because of inheritence, money, and all that crap.

How about hypocrits who say that rich people should give more and who would not want to give what they have if they had money. Is hypocrisy moral?

I've had my share of completely crappy behavior from so many people, no one will ever convince me that humans are that moral.

Even my mother who, apart from being a good mother is very racist. She eats fish every day even though I keep telling her that oceans are over fished. She obviously doesn't care at all.

People who could buy small cars or hyrids but prefer to buy bigger cars ( luxury cars when they happen to have enough money ).


No, humans are not that moral. Some studies have shown that there is a part of the brain that is responsible for moral behavior. People who have that part of the brain less developped have crappy morals.

I once read there is even a study that was done by an american researcher who showed that when that part of the brain is stimulated with a magnetic field, people seem to behave more morally.

Should we increase the intelligence of our species? I think that would be synergistic with improving our morals. But in any case, improving our morals should be the bare minimum.

And I don't believe that in our modern societies people will ever reach high morals, as they encourage individualistic behaviors. And people in general behave more morally because they are forced to do so because of all the laws we had to invent. I read for instance that, according to a poll, 40% of men would rape women if they were in a situation where they were sure to not be caught.

The wars of the 20th century have been absolutely terrible. We have been able to avoid a world war in the last half century mainly due to nuclear deterrence, not because we are so much more moral.

And how about religion? Apart from the fact that their doctrines are immoral, as well as the fact that they brainwash children, which is also immoral, according to studies, religious people have not shown to be better persons that non-believers. They're more hypocrits that anything else.

I could take so many examples it would take pages. Thinking that humans are particularily moral is delusional. Even though I have to say it is not that easy to accept that our species has serious flaws.

This being said, I know that not everyone is at the same level when it comes to morals. Some are terrible, the majority is not very good, some are decent and few are good.

Finally, I would say that the pursue of happiness cannot be an end in itself, because the brain is wired in such a way that it can be quite happy with immoral things. If humans were more moral by default, they would pursue MORAL happiness naturally.

And we should not limit what we do to our own little human life. We should see beyond that. What is the point of the universe ( and everything that exists) if it is not to create the maximum of morals and intelligence? Wouldn't it be a shame if everything that exists ( universe, multiverse or whatever ) existed for basically nothing significant?

My personal opinion on that at least.

Nic321

Remind me never to wind you up. I suspect you've had recent relationship problems. You really don't know what you are missing if you haven't had a narcissistic sociopath for a girlfriend yet, but there is still time to really sour your opinion of humans.

There are a lot of good people in the world and the best you can hope to do is to seek them out and pick your relationships from a better crowd of people.

In the mean time I hope ranting in a science forum has made you feel better.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Nic321

Remind me never to wind you up. I suspect you've had recent relationship problems. You really don't know what you are missing if you haven't had a narcissistic sociopath for a girlfriend yet, but there is still time to really sour your opinion of humans.

There are a lot of good people in the world and the best you can hope to do is to seek them out and pick your relationships from a better crowd of people.

In the mean time I hope ranting in a science forum has made you feel better.

Bad Robot,

I was basically replying to skeptic because I was a tired of people repeating the same fallacy that most humans are moral except a few.

Of course I could go on and on, most people are not moral with certain things, even if they don't kill or rape anyone.

That girlfriend was a disaster, she was manic-depressive and didn't want to take her medication, but anyways...

Originally Posted by Nic321

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Nic321

Remind me never to wind you up. I suspect you've had recent relationship problems. You really don't know what you are missing if you haven't had a narcissistic sociopath for a girlfriend yet, but there is still time to really sour your opinion of humans.

There are a lot of good people in the world and the best you can hope to do is to seek them out and pick your relationships from a better crowd of people.

In the mean time I hope ranting in a science forum has made you feel better.

Bad Robot,

I was basically replying to skeptic because I was a tired of people repeating the same fallacy that most humans are moral except a few.

Of course I could go on and on, most people are not moral with certain things, even if they don't kill or rape anyone.

That girlfriend was a disaster, she was manic-depressive and didn't want to take her medication, but anyways...

I know I sometimes catch myself being to serious about life. But I try not to let it impact my posting and I always look for a way to have a little fun when I can. We all have our personal reasons for being here posting on a science forum. You sound like you might have some interesting life experiences to share. So I hope you stick around long enough, for the rest us to get to know you a little better. If you can be candidly honest and are able to laugh at yourself you will do very well on this forum.

Originally Posted by Nic321

Originally Posted by skeptic

To Nic

There was a survey result published in New Scientist some years back, which showed that only 10% of humanity can be described as total arseholes. That is : people who are prepared to do anything to benefit themselves, even when it hurts others. Most of the other 90% have some degree of concern for their fellow humans. This, of course, is not morals. But it certainly indicates that most people are (up to a point) reasonably moral.

Skeptic,

My own experience in life has suggested to me that people are not that moral.

A lot of immoral behavior does not appear in statistics.

For the most part, if it can't be measured in statistics, it probably isn't important to the survival of the species (the topic of the thread).

For those things are important and being measured, the human condition is dramatically better than at any time in the past.

I have been in this kind of discussion before. It is very easy for it to degenerate into a dispute about semantics. I am not a cynic, and I have a general good regard for most people. I regard them as moral, up to a point. Only 10% are total 100% arseholes, and only about 10% are saintly. But the non arsehole and non saintly 80% represent people I can get along with and rather like.

I suspect that Nic is regarding that 80% badly, because they are not saintly. Sure. I agree. But we should not expect people to be perfect.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Nic321

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Nic321

Remind me never to wind you up. I suspect you've had recent relationship problems. You really don't know what you are missing if you haven't had a narcissistic sociopath for a girlfriend yet, but there is still time to really sour your opinion of humans.

There are a lot of good people in the world and the best you can hope to do is to seek them out and pick your relationships from a better crowd of people.

In the mean time I hope ranting in a science forum has made you feel better.

Bad Robot,

I was basically replying to skeptic because I was a tired of people repeating the same fallacy that most humans are moral except a few.

Of course I could go on and on, most people are not moral with certain things, even if they don't kill or rape anyone.

That girlfriend was a disaster, she was manic-depressive and didn't want to take her medication, but anyways...

I know I sometimes catch myself being to serious about life. But I try not to let it impact my posting and I always look for a way to have a little fun when I can. We all have our personal reasons for being here posting on a science forum. You sound like you might have some interesting life experiences to share. So I hope you stick around long enough, for the rest us to get to know you a little better. If you can be candidly honest and are able to laugh at yourself you will do very well on this forum.

Thanks Bad Robot,

To tell you the truth I am sort of obsessed with all this free-will issue ( or lack thereof ). I understand that people don't come on a forum to hear negative things ( even if sometimes they're true ), so I'll try from now on not to show my pessimism when I feel pessimistic about certain things.

Originally Posted by Nic321

Thanks Bad Robot,

To tell you the truth I am sort of obsessed with all this free-will issue ( or lack thereof ). I understand that people don't come on a forum to hear negative things ( even if sometimes they're true ), so I'll try from now on not to show my pessimism when I feel pessimistic about certain things.

Being pessimistic is not your problem. You are very opinionated (most of us are) and that's alright. But you are posting your opinionated ideas without any supporting documentation. If you are new to posting on science forums, learn how to get good at searching the Internet. I very seldom ever can't find what I'm looking for. I like Bing over Google. Find an article you can relate to, the fact is you normally have to read several points of view before you find the one you want to use as your example, and that's going to make your responses more knowledgeable.

Think of this forum as a place where you learn how to communicate with others. Take my word for this, if you can learn the best ways to express your ideas on the forum, you will also be better in your personal life off the forum. If you have a pet idea you want to work on. Do your homework, when you've been reading and posting for awhile, you will find the same topics and ideas keep recycling every so often with new members. Sometimes it gets down right boring, so the more interesting you can make your posts the better. Next there are topics that are more social than science. Take some time to get to know some of the regular posters, that will make it easier for them to cut you a little more slack when you need it.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Nic321

Thanks Bad Robot,

To tell you the truth I am sort of obsessed with all this free-will issue ( or lack thereof ). I understand that people don't come on a forum to hear negative things ( even if sometimes they're true ), so I'll try from now on not to show my pessimism when I feel pessimistic about certain things.

Being pessimistic is not your problem. You are very opinionated (most of us are) and that's alright. But you are posting your opinionated ideas without any supporting documentation. If you are new to posting on science forums, learn how to get good at searching the Internet. I very seldom ever can't find what I'm looking for. I like Bing over Google. Find an article you can relate to, the fact is you normally have to read several points of view before you find the one you want to use as your example, and that's going to make your responses more knowledgeable.

Think of this forum as a place where you learn how to communicate with others. Take my word for this, if you can learn the best ways to express your ideas on the forum, you will also be better in your personal life off the forum. If you have a pet idea you want to work on. Do your homework, when you've been reading and posting for awhile, you will find the same topics and ideas keep recycling every so often with new members. Sometimes it gets down right boring, so the more interesting you can make your posts the better. Next there are topics that are more social than science. Take some time to get to know some of the regular posters, that will make it easier for them to cut you a little more slack when you need it.

What are you referring to exactly? Do I need a lot of research to prove that a lot of people can have immoral behavior? And I also pointed out to scientific informations that a part of the brain is responsible for morals. For instance:

Scientists discover moral compass in the brain which can be controlled by magnets | Mail Online
Wiring the Brain: Where do morals come from?

Originally Posted by Nic321

What are you referring to exactly? Do I need a lot of research to prove that a lot of people can have immoral behavior? And I also pointed out to scientific information that a part of the brain is responsible for morals. For instance:

Scientists discover moral compass in the brain which can be controlled by magnets | Mail Online
Wiring the Brain: Where do morals come from?

I liked the 2nd article better than the first. However they are a start. But neither article had anything to support your assertions that increasing intelligence will also generally result in higher morals.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

I liked the 2nd article better than the first. However they are a start. But neither article had anything to support your assertions that increasing intelligence will also generally result in higher morals.

At this point you unmeasurable, don't-show-up-in-statistics, so called morals are so ill defined it makes any such support on either side completely impossible, pointless to even discuss.

Under the banner of the sciences. How much time does humanity have.. and forever could be the answer you seek..
We are beginning to understand the frail nature of nature and that dramatic climate change could be our undoing
if we do not modify the way we treat our Planet. Weather events that we are not used to, and never seen as such before are good indicators of something amiss.. and that in the frontiers of medicine we are living longer.. and that learning to be tolerant of difference brings us nearer to a very long future.. Be optimistic and find the faith in the human spirit.. To prevail. Education is our hope and salvation..
That I saw a " We do not have free will ".. Is absolutely wrong. We do and can make the decisions that will shape our future. Where does the 'we have not' come from ? explain please..?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

I liked the 2nd article better than the first. However they are a start. But neither article had anything to support your assertions that increasing intelligence will also generally result in higher morals.

At this point you unmeasurable, don't-show-up-in-statistics, so called morals are so ill defined it makes any such support on either side completely impossible, pointless to even discuss.

That's a good point and why I like to keep talk of morels on par with criminal activities. I define criminal activities as anything that deliberately harms others for whatever reason. The problem comes when criminal activity is very hard to prove and generally not prosecuted, such as how children are raised. Unfortunately any harm done to children often translates into harm for future generations as hard to deal with cycles of abuse. Abused children virtually never grow up to be good solid citizens. They might be able to live under the police radar and one could say they are morally lacking and probably not be far off the mark.

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

That's a good point and why I like to keep talk of morels on par with criminal activities. I define criminal activities as anything that deliberately harms others for whatever reason. The problem comes when criminal activity is very hard to prove and generally not prosecuted, such as how children are raised. Unfortunately any harm done to children often translates into harm for future generations as hard to deal with cycles of abuse. Abused children virtually never grow up to be good solid citizens. They might be able to live under the police radar and one could say they are morally lacking and probably not be far off the mark.

While I agree with your sentiments I think you are grossly overestimating the numbers and effects. Most abused children in developed nations still turn out to be productive "good" citizens, regardless of a large fraction that continue to have lingering psychological problems. Studies show roughly a third at high risk of abusing their own children--appallingly high...but a long ways from all. And actual criminal cases, non-criminal cases (often state social social worker level), as well as estimates of under reports of this sort of morality problem show up in all sorts of statistics.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

That's a good point and why I like to keep talk of morels on par with criminal activities. I define criminal activities as anything that deliberately harms others for whatever reason. The problem comes when criminal activity is very hard to prove and generally not prosecuted, such as how children are raised. Unfortunately any harm done to children often translates into harm for future generations as hard to deal with cycles of abuse. Abused children virtually never grow up to be good solid citizens. They might be able to live under the police radar and one could say they are morally lacking and probably not be far off the mark.

While I agree with your sentiments I think you are grossly overestimating the numbers and effects. Most abused children in developed nations still turn out to be productive "good" citizens, regardless of a large fraction that continue to have lingering psychological problems. Studies show roughly a third at high risk of abusing their own children--appallingly high...but a long ways from all. And actual criminal cases, non-criminal cases (often state social social worker level), as well as estimates of under reports of this sort of morality problem show up in all sorts of statistics.

I wasn't specifying any particular number, but it doesn't take a great deal of abuse to make a lifetime impression. Part of the problem is society just hasn't made educating people about child care and best practices in raising children a priority. They leave that function completely in the hands of parents, regardless of their qualifications or ability to provide financially. A very bad idea IMO. Next, is there is no formal education in how to be in a successful relationship. The divorce rate in the US is close to 50% and that statistic can't be good news for any children involved regardless of how well meaning the parents are.

I know what you are thinking, that despite all that, many of those children will grow up to be good citizens at least they will appear to be good citizens. But most will still be ignorant about relationships and child rearing which will just perpetuate lost productivity and another generation of ignorance in vital skills needed to improve the society as a whole.

How much trouble would it be to start requiring courses starting in grade school to provide skills in relationships and child rearing?

That one thing alone could make a big difference to the quality of life in the US and the rest of the world for that matter. But it would have to start somewhere and I can't think of a better place to start than the US.

I wasn't specifying any particular number

But you did, and than went on to infer that "nearly all" would end up being criminals. That is patently untrue. The vast majority do not become criminals, or anything close, though many will suffer from other effects ranging from a marriage where perhaps a father never hugs his children for fair or stirring his wife's abused memories, or perhaps profound insecurity, trouble finding a trusting relationship (making them sad...not bad) and in many other ways.
--
Schools spend huge amounts of time on teaching about relationships, though of course it's mostly pointed at sorting out interpersonal problems before they lead to school violence. They generally don't teach about child rearing, which I found as a pretty interesting point, because our mothers and grand mothers often did get that in high school but was wiped away in the 60's/70s feminist movements (the irony of course is than they were kicked out for being pregnant...while today they stay in school).