Humanity and why we have hope.

[kristalris]

The earth would heal eventually, there's at least the capability to make underground environmental stabilizers and in a few countries around the world there's giant underground domes that can hold thousands of people, there's few meteors in the solar system that can actually destroy the entire crust of the Earth that we are in the orbit of, most meteors are under heading near us are less than 100km large, not saying it's good if one hits, it will do a lot of damage and probably wipe out many species, but it's not going to boil the oceans away or strip the atmosphere or destroy all of the crust, it would just theoretically leave a crater 1000km large, like that one near Mexico, Earth still survived. Even if humanity get's wiped out another species will just take its place eventually.

Well the question then is what would you do? Try to go sit in the dome and hope to survive or commit suicide for loss of hope? Domesday preppers.

 

I at the moment am not very interested in Domesday prepping but would put our collective resources into detection and prevention. If detected early enough it should be technically feasible to steer the thing clear of earth. I saw an idea once about placing a solar sail on the thing.

[PeterJ]

Is suspect we're not going to have any choice about what we do, Our house will be put in order for us whether we like it or not. .

[kristalris]

Is suspect we're not going to have any choice about what we do, Our house will be put in order for us whether we like it or not. .

Agree, but then rather later than sooner, if we can help it.

[Phi for All]

I think you're indulging yourself here. There are many ways of doing so. A very common one is to fall into fashions of opinion which are routinely expressed--so routinely that they succeed in passing in and out of consciousness without much of any critical analysis.

 

So, we have in your presentation a host of such commonplace notions, offered in what seems to me is a rather easy and off-hand way.

Please pardon my previous brevity, or the lack of sufficient time to address all the things that seem important to you, or my own selfish adherence to stances I've already discussed elsewhere in the forums at greater length. I have to be honest, I don't really seek out discussions with you because you tend to nitpick over minutia I place less relevance on. Perhaps I was worried that if I had taken the time to flesh out every single observation with you in a less easy and offhand way it might have been too lengthy a post to capture the consideration of the other participants.

 

 

This glosses over without consideration the question of whether and to what extent we could secure the inovation, progress and discovery by means which are deliberately calculated to eliminate competition, inequality and waste. I believe that our usual methods are hide-bound practices which grew up in a piece-meal and often power-interest-serving manner and that with that comes the rather large doses of competition, waste, futility and inequality. But these are typically what the economists call "externalities"--those who reap the benefits of such practices are generally one (privileged) set of people and those who bear the burdens and costs are another (much less privileged) set of people.

Again, please forgive my shorthand treatment of what obviously is a huge deal to you. Perhaps next time I will be able to go into much greater detail for your benefit, and hopefully without leading the thread off topic.

 

 

Whether or not it's a negative aspect would depend entirely on what the ramifications are, the costs and benefits in actual life, of "reaching for the stars," wouldn't it? If that "reaching" means in fact that there are numerous vital interests which suffer, which go begging in dire need for lack of adequate public (or private) money, then the real consequences of reaching for the stars, however noble or impressive they may seem to the people who advocate for them, are that dollars spent to one end are not available for use toward other ends. The determining factors in such divvying up are all matters of the arrangements of power in society.

Well, that's certainly an argument that can be applied to anything you don't approve of. It remains a fact that we're capable of doing a myriad of things at the same time, and many are long-term investments I don't expect you to fully appreciate, especially since I'd be willing to bet you made purchases last year using funds that could have been spent on any of a number of more humanitarian endeavors.

 

 

No? Everything I know about public finance, budgets, and the everyday stake-holding and turf-protecting of public officials, corporate powers, their lobbying arms, and their opponents in search of support for competing claims on public and private money tells me that your assertion is about as far from the actual facts of the modern world as one can get.

You should join the discussion on Why is NASA more important than feeding starving people. After that, I think you should write a letter to everyone funding R&D on anything that doesn't meet your approval and talk them into keeping their money, or perhaps just giving it to the poor.

 

 

All of that helps us understand why your priorities are as you present them here. But those hopes aren't vouchsafed. There is no reason why, besides offering you comfort and peace of mind, they cannot also be in practical fact simply vain, unrealized hopes.

 

What if we aren't always trying to better ourselves?--and, after all, isn't it an easy exercise to point to convenient supporting examples and ignore counter-examples? There are always some trying to "better themselves"--however "better" is defined. And there are always others who aren't? The crux is how many are there of each kind? What are the relative proportions? What is the direction of the current trends, tendencies? You can " ... hope that exploring space might give us a better appreciation for Earth," but we know, don't we?, that no one has ever suggested that this be, even hypothetically, a potential condition of present or future allocation of precious resources. When has an engineer, a scientist or other professional participant ever suggested that, in case the hoped for better appreciations for earth don't pan out, don't materialize, then, well, we're going to very seriously review and adjust the terms, conditions and levels of resource allocations to those ends? Instead, the fact is, if the hopes are forlorn, this is too little and too late in influence. No one would pass on next term's or next session's funding because the pay-offs in earth-appreciation weren't demonstrable. I know of no effort even to measure or observe them.

I can point to the progress we've made as a great indicator to support my claims. I appreciate multiple points of view, but not when those viewpoints are purposely devoid of objective reasoning. Sure, we have a long way to go, but just as surely we've come a long way from where we've been, and I think you purposely avoid that fact.

[SamBridge]

Well the question then is what would you do? Try to go sit in the dome and hope to survive or commit suicide for loss of hope? Domesday preppers.

 

I at the moment am not very interested in Domesday prepping but would put our collective resources into detection and prevention. If detected early enough it should be technically feasible to steer the thing clear of earth. I saw an idea once about placing a solar sail on the thing.

The solar sail was for telescopes. But yes if it is detected early enough it would take minimal energy to steer a meteor off course, but there's no garuntee it would work, the meteor could have a very rugged shape and the weight that it's hit with would just make it spin. That's why I'm researching something better, which is an indestructible shield, the only problem is making it large scale would require massive amounts of energy, if such a device was build to deflect a meteor it would essentially have to be powered by nuclear reactors that travel with the generator, if a meteor snuck up by surprise it couldn't be built in time, but if it was built pre-hand it would just be a matter of getting it into orbit at the right position, so with all the research being done and the capability of computers I think there's a good chance we can take care of meteors.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamBridge

[Moontanman]

I've been reading this thread and I'd like to comment. Too-Open-Minded, great idea for a thread dude!

 

Sadly it has brought out some real pessimists and while pessimism has it's place I can't use it to pour doom and gloom on the future of the human race.

 

I think our reluctance to use nuclear weapons is far more significant than some seem to be willing to admit. in fact I think it goes beyond that. We humans have shelved the deadliest weapons before nuclear weapons became a threat. Poison gas was used then withdrawn due to the horror it revealed. Humans made the decision not to use chemical and biological weapons in modern times.

 

In earlier human history such restraint was unheard of, the enemy was... the enemy, you killed him any way you could. If that meant catapulting dead bodies of plague victims over the city wall so be it. If it meant selling everyone conquered into slavery it was done, few people even thought of objection. Killing everyone man woman and child? It was not just done it was celebrated. If nuclear weapons had been made available to ancient humans does anyone here think they wouldn't have been used as many times as weapons were available?

 

Human culture has advanced, geologic history has no bearing on the issue...

 

Star Trek.... Oh how I love it when people sneeringly use that to ridicule someones argument... Why is some silly bullshit made up 3500 years ago that does nothing but separate and deny the basic humanity of anyone different more valid than something made up now that is inspiring and speaks to human rights and diversity and the celebration of those ideals? IDIC... google it... is a basic concept of the United Federation of Planets, yes it's fiction but fiction can be used to spread hope and a celebration of those who are different. Why is that so trivial and fictional writings of thousands of years ago that do nothing but sow dissension and mistrust between men who are different or who believe different are so valid that civilizations can base their entire morality on them?

 

BTW, no i don't expect there will ever be a Star Ship Enterprise, it's the philosophy not the technobabble that is important...

 

I think we can move past bronze age mythology and if we want to replace it with a modern mythology and follow it and be free to change it as the need arises because we know it is made up and can be changed as we change... I think that is a good thing...

 

I think Humanity has good reason to be hopeful. We can conceive of something better and we do it! maybe 3500 years ago the mythology they created was better than what they had at the time but we can and do provide our own path and space travel and colonization of the universe is a good way to go.

 

This advance might seem slow to us in the here and now but i can remember when in my own believed country people who were different were ostracized and denied their humanity, if you care to read history it was much worse not that long ago...

 

It's been an uphill battle and not with out setbacks and i am sure there will be more but the overwhelming trend is toward humanity becoming more moral than our own gods...

 

I think it's quite possible that we can and will spread earth life through the galaxy, maybe the local group of galaxies as well (it's difficult to conceive of much more within reasonable time lines) one thing is sure, staying on the Earth and going down with the ship is not acceptable, it's not the human way, humans want to know what is over the next hill, what is beyond that and on and on, humans survive, it's why we dominate the planet and technology willing... the rest of the universe...

[SamBridge]

I've been reading this thread and I'd like to comment. Too-Open-Minded, great idea for a thread dude!

 

Sadly it has brought out some real pessimists and while pessimism has it's place I can't use it to pour doom and gloom on the future of the human race.

 

I think our reluctance to use nuclear weapons is far more significant than some seem to be willing to admit. in fact I think it goes beyond that. We humans have shelved the deadliest weapons before nuclear weapons became a threat. Poison gas was used then withdrawn due to the horror it revealed. Humans made the decision not to use chemical and biological weapons in modern times.

 

In earlier human history such restraint was unheard of, the enemy was... the enemy, you killed him any way you could. If that meant catapulting dead bodies of plague victims over the city wall so be it. If it meant selling everyone conquered into slavery it was done, few people even thought of objection. Killing everyone man woman and child? It was not just done it was celebrated. If nuclear weapons had been made available to ancient humans does anyone here think they wouldn't have been used as many times as weapons were available?

 

Human culture has advanced, geologic history has no bearing on the issue...

 

Star Trek.... Oh how I love it when people sneeringly use that to ridicule someones argument... Why is some silly bullshit made up 3500 years ago that does nothing but separate and deny the basic humanity of anyone different more valid than something made up now that is inspiring and speaks to human rights and diversity and the celebration of those ideals? IDIC... google it... is a basic concept of the United Federation of Planets, yes it's fiction but fiction can be used to spread hope and a celebration of those who are different. Why is that so trivial and fictional writings of thousands of years ago that do nothing but sow dissension and mistrust between men who are different or who believe different are so valid that civilizations can base their entire morality on them?

 

BTW, no i don't expect there will ever be a Star Ship Enterprise, it's the philosophy not the technobabble that is important...

 

I think we can move past bronze age mythology and if we want to replace it with a modern mythology and follow it and be free to change it as the need arises because we know it is made up and can be changed as we change... I think that is a good thing...

 

I think Humanity has good reason to be hopeful. We can conceive of something better and we do it! maybe 3500 years ago the mythology they created was better than what they had at the time but we can and do provide our own path and space travel and colonization of the universe is a good way to go.

 

This advance might seem slow to us in the here and now but i can remember when in my own believed country people who were different were ostracized and denied their humanity, if you care to read history it was much worse not that long ago...

 

It's been an uphill battle and not with out setbacks and i am sure there will be more but the overwhelming trend is toward humanity becoming more moral than our own gods...

 

I think it's quite possible that we can and will spread earth life through the galaxy, maybe the local group of galaxies as well (it's difficult to conceive of much more within reasonable time lines) one thing is sure, staying on the Earth and going down with the ship is not acceptable, it's not the human way, humans want to know what is over the next hill, what is beyond that and on and on, humans survive, it's why we dominate the planet and technology willing... the rest of the universe...

There are a lot of set-backs, but ultimately it seems like the human race is making more progress and becoming more open minded, more counties don't have slavery and are desegregating, especially with the globalization of information like the internet where people can share ideas much faster, world leaders don't want the entire world to become a giant heap of nuclear garbage. As for moving off of the planet, eventually it will be necessary but not for at least 9.9 million years at least, and that's a 50/50 if Earth will get flung into a cluster of black holes and neutron stars. Chances are there isn't going to be a giant meteor capable of wiping out all life, just a good chunk of it. There is likely going to be enough time for space travel to develop. If humanity get's wiped out by a giant meteor, life will still have one last chance to develop to the level we are now and discover space travel before the sun expands and boils the oceans away.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SamBridge

[ralfy]

For me, it is very hard to imagine that the human race will do well in the long run simply because of the lack of resources. Only around 12 pct of the world's population are responsible for over 60 pct of personal consumption, but most of the other 88 pct want the same middle class lifestyle. 60 pct earn only around two dollars daily, but they want to earn more, and the global middle class is counting on them to earn more because the middle class can only enrich itself by selling more goods and services to the rest.

 

For example, I read in one article that in 1984 per capita meat consumption in China was around 20 kg a year. Twenty years later, it rose to 50 kg. Another article stated that soon China will need up to half of various resources just to maintain economic growth. The IEA maintains that just to maintain global economic growth in the long term we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.

 

Some ecological footprint studies argue that ave. global footprint per capita has already exceeded biocapacity, and the first is set to increase further given that global middle class while the latter drops due to environmental damage, lack of resources, etc.

[Moontanman]

For me, it is very hard to imagine that the human race will do well in the long run simply because of the lack of resources. Only around 12 pct of the world's population are responsible for over 60 pct of personal consumption, but most of the other 88 pct want the same middle class lifestyle. 60 pct earn only around two dollars daily, but they want to earn more, and the global middle class is counting on them to earn more because the middle class can only enrich itself by selling more goods and services to the rest.

 

For example, I read in one article that in 1984 per capita meat consumption in China was around 20 kg a year. Twenty years later, it rose to 50 kg. Another article stated that soon China will need up to half of various resources just to maintain economic growth. The IEA maintains that just to maintain global economic growth in the long term we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.

 

Some ecological footprint studies argue that ave. global footprint per capita has already exceeded biocapacity, and the first is set to increase further given that global middle class while the latter drops due to environmental damage, lack of resources, etc.

 

The same things were being said 50 years ago, we will find new resources, that's why space travel is so important, once we expand into space resources will be unlimited...

[too-open-minded]

I'm more worried about corruption in government and economy hindering humanity than our ecological footprint.

[kristalris]

We can and hopefully will do something in time before it spirals out of control.

 

I guess we are certainly going to have interesting times ahead of us and a lot of wars. Testing with rats a while ago showed that if you put to many of them in a to confined space war will break out. What we saw in Rwanda between the Tutsi's and Hutu's I'm convinced was due to overpopulation as a conditio sine qua non.

 

What ever we do or don't do we are going to see more wars over water, food and resources.

 

Even if we find possible solutions it must involve correct use of wisdom with which you can effectively battle corruption.

 

If we keep on acting unwisely like up till now we are surely in for it on this planet. For everyone to a more or less degree.

 

And BTW China has an enormous army and might find itself in a similar situation as Japan before the war or take even Galtieri and the Malvina's (Falklands).

 

A lot of the problems can be averted but only after swift and decisive action IMO.

[ralfy]

 

The same things were being said 50 years ago, we will find new resources, that's why space travel is so important, once we expand into space resources will be unlimited...

 

Never mind space travel. According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain global economic growth.

 

Oil discoveries peaked in 1964.

 

Oil production per capita peaked in 1979.

 

The IEA argued that conventional oil production peaked in 2005, which is why we are now resorting to non-conventional sources. How much do we have of that? According to the IEA, at best we will increase energy production from all oil and gas sources worldwide by 9 pct during the next two decades. The bad news is that energy demand has to go up by 1.4 to 2.0 pct each year to maintain economic growth.

 

Finally, theoretically we can use other energy sources to make up for lack of oil, but the retooling process will take decades, and the IEA states that we should have started the transition a decade ago.

 

With that, it's always nice to imagine that we will engage in space travel, etc., but we have to be realistic.

 

I'm more worried about corruption in government and economy hindering humanity than our ecological footprint.

 

The two are actually connected to biocapacity. For example, the U.S. used the military to prop up the petro-dollar after U.S. oil production started going into decline after 1970, and the economy is "hindering humanity" because as BP has revealed conventional oil production has not been able to catch up with demand since 2005.

[too-open-minded]

Hope.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-mining-project-aims-deep-space-colonies-050627126.html;_ylt=An4Se16zdhh9xeF1qAvYvIOHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTRlaHBiYnVjBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBTY2llbmNlU0YgU3BhY2VBc3Ryb25vbXlTU0YEcGtnAzk0NDcxMTNlLTQ5MjAtM2Q0OS1iZTFlLWYyNDVmNDFmYmMyMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgNhNmYyY2EyMy02NDY1LTExZTItOTFiMy1kZmIyOWI1YzUxMDI-;_ylg=X3oDMTI1MG9icjRhBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlfHNwYWNlLWFzdHJvbm9teQRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3

[Phi for All]

Hope.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-mining-project-aims-deep-space-colonies-050627126.html;_ylt=An4Se16zdhh9xeF1qAvYvIOHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTRlaHBiYnVjBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBTY2llbmNlU0YgU3BhY2VBc3Ryb25vbXlTU0YEcGtnAzk0NDcxMTNlLTQ5MjAtM2Q0OS1iZTFlLWYyNDVmNDFmYmMyMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgNhNmYyY2EyMy02NDY1LTExZTItOTFiMy1kZmIyOWI1YzUxMDI-;_ylg=X3oDMTI1MG9icjRhBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlfHNwYWNlLWFzdHJvbm9teQRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3

If these guys can pull this off, they can stockpile those resources off-planet and charge just under what it would cost to boost those resources from Earth (for a while at least, until good old free market competition drives the prices down). And the more they can standardize and use those resources to improve their fleet, the cheaper it'll get.

 

And I love that they're keeping the concept of Fireflies alive. Screw you, FOX Network execs, this is happening and you blew it!