The End of the World has begun (1 Viewer)

[Christ Reynolds]

As for all the atheists on this forum, I don't see anything here that would necessarily tag anyone an atheist.

i dont either. many science books i have read (too many) talk about the ideas of religion vs science. however, the religion doesnt enter into this discussion. even if the forum allowed it, i would stop, that is a can of worms that i dont want to open, i'd be talking about that for quite some time. they would ban me just to shut me up! which will probably happen sometime soon anyway
CJ

 

[BrianW]

CJ, thanks for taking the time to clarify. I appreciate your indulgence. And I don’t think there’s any need to apologize for being passionate. I think most of us regard passion as a good thing, when properly placed.

now take the current situation we are discussing. this situation is as much of a fantasy as any movie, FOR US, simply because of the amount of time involved.

Quite true. Indeed, our discussion here probably has absolutely no practical value whatsoever in the stated goal of outliving our planet of origin as a species. I don’t think anything we discuss here will add to our ability to colonize another world. But, like you said, we are self-aware and we like to discuss such abstract notions regardless of their practical value. It’s simply our nature. But someone, somewhere, is at this moment adding to our ability to colonize another world. Everything we’ve ever accomplished as a species (the good and the bad) has begun as an abstract notion, an idea that someone had. We stand on the shoulders of those whose work has brought us this far, and we now take things like the Internet and garbage collection for granted. Though we won’t see it happen in our lifetime, our work today can bring us a tiny step closer to the goal of colonizing the stars, just as Newton’s work was a contributing step closer to landing us on the Moon. And though I am loath to agree that the light of self-awareness that has originated on our planet should be allowed to be extinguished, I’m glad you’re willing to celebrate that light by expressing your passion in such an abstract discussion.

[Edited to correct stupid spelling error.]

 

[Max Leung]

Christ, as a slightly relevant aside, have a look at this thread, and look for my post about parasites (other good info from the participants too):
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=119532
Basically, parasites are a driving force in the evolution of life. I posted something similar in a thread about human nature (I think it was called "Are humans good or evil"...probably easier to search for "human nature"). I haven't bothered adding to it because I could see that it would either get locked or go in circles.
Parasites make up a majority of the species on this planet, and a substantial percentage of the world's biomass (probably over 50%).
I am using the biological definition of parasite, not the "ewwww gross" definition.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I've read Dragonfly, Max. There are numerous factual errors in the book. The first one that disturbed me was the author's reference to the Skylab missions as having taken place in 1974-1975. That would be 1973-1974. Major error in a volume the purports to document the recent history of manned space stations. And, sure enough, scrutiny revealed a number of other errors.

Despite that, the book offers a fascinating glimpse into NASA's internal politics and the dictatorial reign of George Abbey over the STS-era astronauts.

Finally, and you all know this: No religious discussion!

 

[Christ Reynolds]

robert, i dont think you understand my point. i dont say that any species deserves to die. i say that us trying to live in an ecosystem that we were not meant to live in would be a horrible idea. pollution isnt the only reason.

This “we’d all be better off dead” philosophy is truly remarkable.

i agree it would be, but thats not what i am saying. if you honestly think that humans will be around for 500 million years, then you are an optimist of the highest order. my philosophy is "THEY would be better off dying with the planet if they have survived that long without the technological innovations to successfully move off, even if they live that long in the first place, which they wont." maybe i am the only one here who thinks that. good enough for me, but until then, i'll just take the name calling in stride, and stick up for what i think. it sure isnt worse than anything ive heard.

CJ

 

[RobertR]

THEY would be better off dying with the planet if they have survived that long without the technological innovations to successfully move off

Now we agree. If people haven't figured out how to go elsewhere, then yes, they'll pay the Darwinian price.

However, you went a step beyond and said we shouldn't "pollute" the rest of the Universe with our presence, which is a rather misanthropic statement.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Let's move on now, please. JB

 

[BrianW]

If we really want to know the nitty-gritty details of the fate that awaits Earth, here's our chance to witness the death of another world:
Death of a Distant World

 

[Jack Briggs]

Interesting story, Brian! An unhappy life awaits us if we're still here after the Sun has ended its tenure on the Main Sequence.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

Let's move on now, please

why? whats wrong with this thread exactly? i dont think anyone is getting anywhere with their arguments. i mean myself and everyone else, so we will just have to agree to disagree. just curious, why do you want us to stop? i have plenty more to say, but it would all be for nothing anyway.

CJ

 

[Jack Briggs]

If you care to discuss this privately, please send me a PM.

The originator of this thread wants to discuss planetary evolution, not debate the worthiness of humanity's existence.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I think the same type of logic that leads one to make broad, sweeping generalizations (correct or not) about the nature of humanity is the same type that looks only at trends of a life and does not allow for change -- cathartic, epiphanic, or other. I think it's the same logic that keeps one viewing a person who's committed a heinous act as unworthy of life. "He cannot change." "Humanity cannot change."
I firmly disagree. In all of us lies the potential for any action, that despite our environment we can make fundamental changes. Like a butterfly in China that flaps its wings and changes the weather pattern in the U.S. ("Hey, so that's who's to blame for this cold spell in the East!" ), all that might be needed to give humankind the impetus for a true, inner change of spirit, is the threat of a 1km-sized asteroid aimed squarely at our home world. Nothing convinces a human (or a group of humans) into action better than some fire under the feet.
On a tangential (but relevent) subject...
I used to be a hard determinist, or fatalist. I used to believe that *every* action was fundamentally causal, that every current state was result of past events, and the prerequisite for all subsequent events -- that there was nothing in all of existence that could not escape the fate of causality, that all our actions were "doomed" to follow a predefined course, because the laws of causality and physics dictated it so.
Then I had an epiphany -- if the present was the product (in both the abstract and the mathematical concrete definition of that word, product) of past and future actions, and if the present moment each of us experienced was the focus point, if you will, between the endless probabilities that were both past and future...then there hard determinism (and fatalistic thinking) fell apart completely -- it could not be logically defended.
Quantum physics helped give the above enough weight for me -- not because I think it's a tenet for the above, but because it neatly dissovles the former determinist argument of pure causality: Quantum physics is all about probabilities.
Given that neither option was wholly proveable, or even proveable enough to accept internally with as much comfort as one would, say, accept that the Universe started with the Big Bang, I decided to choose to internalize the latter over the former, since it (a) makes more sense to me, and (b) it's less depressing
If, then, nothing is predetermined, how could one accept that the tendencies humanity has shown are forever "locked in" with no escape from causing harm to the Universe through our continued malfeasance and disregard for our environments?
What RobertR said makes complete sense, and is enough to dissuade anybody from proclaiming that humanity should not reach out to the stars to avoid total doom on our home world. Knowing that each individual has the capacity for great good as well as that great evil is an equally compelling reason -- even if we start our journeys into the heavens with all our political and ... ahem, other ... baggage, that seed will carry through every generation, and in time our species could very well come to its senses and bring great good through the Universe (whatever that may be)...or it might even learn out there fundamental things about existence that may bring our species to such an enlightened level that we leave behind the things tha make humanity seemingly so petty today. And with the other view of reality I mentioned above -- that the present is a nexus of only past and future probabilities -- to support those two, I think we have an overwhelming reason to explore the Universe.
So, as I listen to that famous R.E.M. song, I'm wondering, as we colonize our solar system, will Mars one day break off and declare independence? Will a ship of aliens be skimming by our parsec just as we run our first Warp experiment, and become curious enough to investigate our species? Will we find a huge, black 1x4x9 slab hidden somewhere on our moon? (No need to answer that one, Jack ) Will we find a consciousness in some planet we try to colonize? Are there any timelords out there (and do they wear really long scarves)? There are a million questions out there...and that's perhaps THE most compelling reason to go.
"Small moves, Ellie. Small moves."

 

[Jack Briggs]

Dana, you've just won the Most Valuable Post award in this thread. Excellent post.

 

[Max Leung]

Dana, you might find this interesting: A Biological Understanding of Human Nature
I love this quote:

EDGE: Final thoughts?
PINKER: Chekhov once said, "Man will become better when you show him what he is like." I can't do better than that.

The interview also serves as a very good quick summary of Pinker's superb new book, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature".
I too am optimistic about the future. However, I don't think it is as quick and easy as the overused uncritical platitude that "human beings can be anything they want to be, right now!". In fact, all the scientific evidence clearly shows that humans are not globs of clay that can be moded into anything you want (the last two World Wars make that clear). However, like Chekhov said, no progress can be made until we know exactly what we are like, and what our limitations are. Thankfully, scientists are now looking at the human condition, and are drawing the same conclusions, based on solid evidence, what the great authors of fiction have known for centuries. They have this thing called "common sense" that academics in the last century have tried to deny (sadly they have used smear tactics and libelous campaigns against our best scientists, since they are incapable of refuting the evidence). There is a human nature, and the only way we can survive in the long term is to know exactly what that is.
You'd be insane to build a bridge as massive as the Golden Gate without any knowledge of physics. And you'd be insane to try to solve human problems if you have no idea what people want, or how they would react. Right now, we have little idea what is in our "baggage", to borrow your term Dana.
As for determinism, you don't have to use quantum mechanics to justify a lack of fatalism...Godel did just that when he proved, in strict mathematical terms, that any system of logic can never be complete. In other words, it is impossible to prove that the logic system you use can never allow a contradiction (this is a gross simplification, but then again I'm not a mathematician!). This also means that you can never predict what the consequences of a new theorem are. Logic itself is indeterminate!
Small moves, indeed. The study of human behavior is our first step to the colonization of the stars. Without it, we'd just as well suck vacuum.