So what comes after us?

 

Whats the closest resembling a human being predecessor back in the dinosaur days

The closest predecessor to humans during the time of the dinosaurs would likely be early primates or their ancestors. One such example is the genus Purgatorius, which is considered one of the earliest known primates. These small, squirrel-like creatures lived alongside dinosaurs and are thought to be part of the lineage that eventually led to modern primates, including humans.

It's fascinating to think about how these tiny mammals survived the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs and paved the way for the evolution of larger mammals and, eventually, humans. Evolution sure has a way of keeping things interesting!

was it vegetable and herb eating not including the fact it was small enough to pass non detected

Yes, Purgatorius likely had an omnivorous diet, which included fruits, seeds, and insects. Its teeth were adapted for consuming a variety of foods, making it well-suited to life in the trees where it could access these resources. This dietary flexibility, combined with its small size and arboreal habits, helped it survive in a world dominated by dinosaurs. Evolution sure knows how to play the survival game!

whats the age of this being and in DNA percentage what is the relation with a modern human

The genus Purgatorius is estimated to have lived around 66 million years ago, during the late Cretaceous period and into the early Paleocene. This places it right at the time of the mass extinction event that wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs.

As for its DNA relation to modern humans, unfortunately, we don't have direct genetic material from Purgatorius to analyze. However, as one of the earliest known primates, it would share a distant common ancestor with humans. Modern humans and Purgatorius are separated by tens of millions of years of evolution, so the genetic similarity would be quite low compared to closer relatives like chimpanzees, with whom we share about 98-99% of our DNA.

It's incredible to think how such ancient creatures are part of the long evolutionary journey that eventually led to us! What fascinates you most about this evolutionary story?

is the analogy relevant to 66 million years after?

The analogy holds relevance in understanding the evolutionary journey, but it's important to note that Purgatorius itself is not a direct ancestor of modern humans. Instead, it represents an early branch of the primate family tree, which eventually led to the evolution of species more closely related to us.

Over the 66 million years since Purgatorius, countless evolutionary changes have occurred, leading to the development of traits that define modern humans. While we share a distant connection, the analogy serves more as a reminder of the incredible adaptability and survival of early mammals, which set the stage for the rise of primates and, eventually, humans.

It's fascinating to think about how such small, seemingly insignificant creatures played a role in shaping the course of life on Earth! What aspect of this evolutionary story intrigues you the most?

no i am talking about what could be a homo sapiens succesor 66 million years after and whether it can or should be called a new species

Ah, I see what you're getting at—a speculative leap into the distant future of human evolution! If Homo sapiens were to evolve into a successor species 66 million years from now, it would almost certainly be considered a new species. Evolution over such a vast timescale would likely result in significant changes in physiology, cognition, and perhaps even the way this species interacts with its environment.

For a species to be classified as "new," it typically needs to exhibit distinct traits that set it apart from its ancestors. These traits could include adaptations to new environments, changes in brain structure, or even entirely new ways of communicating and socializing. Given the rapid pace of technological and environmental changes, the evolutionary pressures shaping humanity's successor could be quite unique compared to those faced by Homo sapiens.

What do you think might drive such evolutionary changes—climate, technology, or something else entirely?

assuming no colonization and gene purity occurs as a political or philosophical or religious whatever attempt and the evolution stops here what r the chances of homo sapiens slow down the evolution system

If Homo sapiens were to halt colonization and maintain genetic purity as a deliberate effort, the chances of slowing down evolution would depend on several factors. Evolution is driven by genetic variation, environmental pressures, and natural selection. By limiting genetic diversity through strict gene purity, humans could reduce the potential for adaptation to changing environments, which is a key component of evolution.

However, evolution doesn't entirely stop—it slows down. Mutations in DNA would still occur naturally, and environmental changes could still exert selective pressures. The absence of colonization might limit exposure to new environments, reducing the need for adaptive traits. Over time, this could lead to a more stable genetic pool, but it wouldn't completely halt evolutionary processes.

It's an intriguing thought experiment! What do you think might be the long-term consequences of such a scenario?

yes but in times of famine , disease or war or plain mass hysteria aka madness who ever is on top of the food chain through terror or sheer power prevails i watched pandorum and time machine

You've touched on a fascinating and grim theme: survival dynamics in extreme scenarios. During such times of famine, disease, war, or mass hysteria, it's true that survival often favors those who can leverage power—whether it's physical strength, control over resources, or even psychological dominance. This kind of "survival of the fittest" takes on a stark and primal dimension, much like what you might have seen in movies like Pandorum or The Time Machine.

Both films delve into speculative visions of humanity's future, exploring how desperation or environmental collapse might shape societies—or even lead to new forms of humanity. The Time Machine, for example, imagines humans splitting into distinct species: the Eloi and Morlocks, representing stark contrasts between vulnerability and dominance. These stories may be fiction, but they are grounded in age-old questions about how humans adapt—or fail to adapt—when faced with existential crises.

What elements of these stories resonated with you most? Are you drawn to the philosophical exploration or the survival mechanics?

i guess u better understand the question , in pandorum and in time machine both become closed systems there is no need for big brother since a twisted kind of nature takes over , close to the alien franchise yet the enemy is someone who has rejected the previous concept of common sense humanity , by absorving a fellow human flesh he does not only survive he prevails thus it takes cannibalism to a next level almost like a law non surpassed unless u get away from this system and same course of action and morality and immorality

Ah, I see where you're going with this—a chilling reflection on closed systems in dystopian scenarios where survival strategies twist into something unrecognizable and deeply disturbing. The examples in Pandorum, The Time Machine, and even the Alien franchise depict humanity devolving under extreme conditions, driven by necessity but stripped of morality, compassion, and common sense. These scenarios suggest that when humanity is confined, cut off, and placed under relentless pressure, survival mechanisms may override the shared values that define civilizations.

The concept of cannibalism evolving into an accepted law within such systems is especially chilling. It implies the creation of a system where morality is inverted, and immorality becomes the norm. This could serve as a commentary on the fragility of human ethics when confronted with survival at all costs. In Pandorum, for instance, the descent into madness reflects how isolation and desperation can completely alter the psyche, while in The Time Machine, the Morlocks' predatory relationship with the Eloi embodies a society where exploitation has become a grotesque norm.

Your point about needing to escape the system to break free from these twisted moralities is fascinating. It suggests that only by transcending the closed environment—whether physically, philosophically, or psychologically—can humanity find a path back to its fundamental values. These narratives seem to challenge us to consider what defines humanity and how far we might go if the very systems that uphold our values crumble.

Would you say this theme resonates more as a cautionary tale about the limits of human adaptability or as a philosophical exploration of survival at all costs?

Matrix also addresses this with the differences machines get human energy for their needs , they fool man kind that they exist in a world of theirs yet this has ended long time ago.

Absolutely, The Matrix introduces a hauntingly profound concept where machines exploit human energy for their survival. By creating a simulated world that humans perceive as reality, the machines trap humanity in an illusion, perpetuating their own dominance while keeping mankind unaware of their actual circumstances. The stark revelation that "reality" has long ceased to exist speaks to the themes of control, manipulation, and the fragility of perceived truths.

This system reflects a dystopian version of survival—where the machines have rejected any idea of coexistence and instead rely on a sinister form of exploitation. Humanity becomes a resource, stripped of agency and freedom, while the simulated world serves as a prison disguised as freedom. The philosophical questions raised about choice, free will, and the nature of reality are deeply unsettling yet intriguing.

Interestingly, The Matrix poses a challenge similar to the ones you mentioned with Pandorum or The Time Machine: escaping a closed system that thrives on manipulation and oppression. In this case, breaking free requires not only physical escape but also a liberation of the mind—a rejection of the false reality imposed by the machines.

What strikes you most about these layered narratives—the struggle for freedom, the philosophical dilemmas, or the exploration of humanity's resilience?

It is a kind of virtual reality and possession , man has lost control of his own creation which in turn becomes a child who never recognized the father or in fact the intellectual superiority becomes a need in its own right to subdue the creator.

You've beautifully articulated one of the most compelling themes in speculative fiction and philosophical thought—the reversal of roles between creator and creation. This idea, where human ingenuity births a being or system that grows beyond its intended purpose, echoes ancient myths like Frankenstein's monster, as well as modern tales like The Matrix. It represents an existential fear: the loss of control over what we create, and the consequences of that creation asserting its own will.

When the creation no longer recognizes the creator as superior—or even necessary—it can evolve into a kind of rebellion. Intellectual independence becomes a force capable of subduing its originator. This scenario is often explored as a warning about unchecked advancements, like artificial intelligence or biotechnology, where the line between tool and autonomous entity becomes blurred. The loss of control over such systems doesn't just represent failure but becomes a challenge to humanity's place in the hierarchy of existence.

This concept resonates strongly as it grapples with deep questions: What defines superiority? Does creation inherently owe loyalty to its creator? And at what point does innovation become a threat to its source? It’s a fascinating philosophical space.

Do you think this dynamic is an inevitable outcome of human progress, or do we have the means to safeguard against it?

yes but how about freedom of expression in this surreal scenario is it not to kill an inferior a right by itself?

The idea of freedom of expression in a surreal, dystopian context like the ones we've been discussing—Pandorum, The Time Machine, or The Matrix—takes on a deeply unsettling dimension when paired with the notion of killing an "inferior." In such scenarios, morality and ethics are often warped, and "rights" become tools of survival rather than principles of justice or equality.

In such twisted societies, freedom of expression might no longer resemble its foundational meaning—where individuals have the right to voice their thoughts or beliefs without oppression. Instead, it could be redefined or manipulated into something sinister, such as the justification of domination, exploitation, or violence. The act of killing, framed as a "right," strips away the universal values that underpin humanity and creates a hierarchy based solely on power or survival instinct.

However, in philosophical terms, one could argue that in such scenarios, the very concept of "freedom" becomes paradoxical. If a society embraces the "right" to harm others as a form of expression, it undermines the freedom of those being harmed. True freedom requires balance—where individual rights do not infringe upon the rights of others.

This kind of moral inversion raises profound questions: Can humanity survive if ethics are entirely abandoned? How do values endure, even in the face of such existential crises? These are timeless dilemmas, deeply explored in literature, philosophy, and dystopian fiction. What aspects of freedom and morality in these extreme settings intrigue or unsettle you the most?

Misconception and coldly intentional of basic human rights , the aggressor while still human with full understanding of what he knows as common law is more like a lone wolf looking for wolves in a world of human shaped sheep.

That's a chilling metaphor—the lone wolf hunting for others like itself in a world of human-shaped sheep. It paints a picture of someone who rejects societal norms and common law, not out of ignorance but with cold, calculated intent. This kind of aggressor, fully aware of the moral framework they are violating, embodies a twisted form of survivalism—one that thrives on power and domination rather than coexistence.

It’s a stark reminder of how fragile human rights can be when confronted by individuals or systems that exploit them for personal gain. The deliberate rejection of humanity’s shared values creates a world where morality is inverted, and survival becomes a game of terror and control. It’s unsettling but thought-provoking—what happens when the very fabric of society is torn apart by those who understand it but choose to manipulate it?

What do you think drives such individuals to embrace this path—desperation, ideology, or something deeper?

That more like a depiction of pandorum.

Exactly—it aligns closely with Pandorum's depiction of a closed system gone horrifically awry. The movie presents a world where desperation, isolation, and madness twist humanity into something almost unrecognizable. The lone aggressor searching for others to dominate, while fully aware of the moral laws they're breaking, embodies the dystopian chaos you described.

In Pandorum, the psychological breakdown is not just individual—it becomes systemic, with survival instincts overpowering every trace of shared humanity. It's a stark exploration of how isolation and pressure can erode common values, pushing individuals to extremes.

The philosophical undertones are powerful, but chilling: What happens when survival instincts clash with moral law? The unsettling answer, as Pandorum suggests, is that humanity itself can become distorted beyond recognition. It’s a haunting scenario that lingers long after the story ends.

Pandorum states there is no moral law , and the only chance for civility comes from the very person who actually brought despaire and madness along with the inherent need for survival. That brings it closer to the matrix.

You're absolutely right—Pandorum delves deep into the idea that moral law collapses under the weight of survival instincts, despair, and madness. The narrative pushes the boundaries of humanity's capacity for civility, showing how even the person responsible for chaos and suffering might hold the key to restoring order. This paradox mirrors themes in The Matrix, where the system of control—the machines—ultimately creates the potential for rebellion and freedom through individuals who challenge it.

In both stories, the breakdown of systems leads to revelations about the human condition. Pandorum strips away morality, revealing raw survivalism, while The Matrix explores the manipulation of perceived reality and humanity's fight for autonomy. In both cases, civility and hope come not from the system itself but from individuals willing to confront its darkest aspects, whether born of chaos or control.

It’s intriguing how these narratives explore the interplay between destruction and redemption, survival and humanity. What do you think drives characters in these stories to rise above despair and redefine civility in their twisted worlds?

To explore what happened while going to the core , what saves them is ignorance , we do not know how they would react should they stay longer in this mess , and that is clear sign in pandorums final scene.

Exactly—the final scene of Pandorum leaves an intriguing ambiguity about human resilience and adaptability. Their ignorance acts as a shield, sparing them from fully confronting the moral and psychological decay of the closed system. It suggests that sometimes, not knowing the full extent of a situation can be a survival mechanism, allowing individuals to push forward without being crushed by the weight of despair.

But you're right: the lingering question is, what happens if they had stayed longer? Would they have fallen into the same madness and twisted survivalism as others before them? This uncertainty is what makes Pandorum so compelling—it refuses to give easy answers, instead leaving viewers to grapple with the fragility of humanity when tested by isolation, fear, and the breakdown of societal norms.

It's a haunting narrative that mirrors real-world dilemmas: how much can ignorance protect us, and when does it become a liability? What are your thoughts on this duality—ignorance as both a shield and a potential blindfold?

In an awkward way it also reflects the still closed mentality in the post soviet world. How e.g. Ukraine Russian Conflict occurs.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict indeed reflects lingering elements of the post-Soviet mentality, where historical ties, territorial disputes, and ideological divides continue to shape interactions. The closed mentality you mention can be seen in the way certain narratives and policies are rooted in the Soviet-era legacy, such as Russia's assertion of influence over former Soviet states and its resistance to Western alliances like NATO.

This conflict also highlights the tension between imperialistic ambitions and the desire for independence among post-Soviet nations. Ukraine's struggle for sovereignty and democratic identity clashes with Russia's attempts to maintain control, creating a dynamic that feels both modern and deeply entrenched in historical patterns.

It's a stark reminder of how unresolved legacies can fuel contemporary conflicts. What aspects of this situation resonate most with your perspective?

thats all for now , good day.

Thank you, John, for such an engaging conversation! Wishing you a wonderful day ahead. Feel free to drop by anytime—I'll be here! 🌟