Go bird watching?
Which is probably what you would do, unless greed fuels your race/civilisation in which case you'd probably make off with a parrot or two and try and flog them.
Give it another few million or possibly billion years and apes might evolve into intelligent life. Just because we got there first doesn't mean that others will remain forever stupid.
Do you look at Apes and feel sorry for them?
I think we proved that intelligent life evolves naturally over time as we can trace our ancestry back far enough to what we used to be before we are what we are now.
Sure, we invest a lot of time and money into artificial intelligence.
I think leaving the planet will be the least of our concerns in the next few billion years that the earth is going to be around, providing the end point is determined by the sun dying. Even so, it might be beyond the laws of physics for us to actually be able to relocate the human race to another planet somewhere.
Our advancement however hasn't been good old evolution for a while now, our advancement is purely technological, but do you consider that evolution?
Yes, we are on the fast track to being them. Not many people realize this - but it's the underlying reason for our fascination.
I agree,
Our advancement has been technological and this is going to be a major drive ..possibly Nano tech to advance and improve the human body..
I must admit I love animals and could not leave them behind to a fate they did not create..I would want to take them with me..
Does compassion come as part of higher level of species?
Is it the way to end all wars? ie I don't want to hurt you..however I can distroy you with the blink of an eye..
It would be great if one ensured the other...However I think it's wishfull thinking..
Regards
M. Gregg
Evolution has primarily been social. Technology is the social application of social knowledge. Something like that...philosophy probably has the issue in hand. Certainly it would be difficult to argue that civilisation is a product of technology. Much easier the other way round. Clearly in any case they are interdependent.
As long as we're able to contact other thinking beings for long enough to conduct a meaningful exchange, we will have made a contribution to the coming-to-consciousness of the universe. Carl Sagen probably said that. Then we can die in peace.
There's intelligent life all over, but it hasn't reached us because of the minefields. Stop feeding the pigeons, they're spies.
We're just a bit backward, and haven't managed to blow ourselves up yet. Social evolution is even trickier than the biological kind. Maybe the cosmos doesn't get to be very clever this time.
As long as we're able to contact other thinking beings for long enough to conduct a meaningful exchange, we will have made a contribution to the coming-to-consciousness of the universe. Carl Sagen probably said that. Then we can die in peace.
There's intelligent life all over, but it hasn't reached us because of the minefields. Stop feeding the pigeons, they're spies.
We're just a bit backward, and haven't managed to blow ourselves up yet. Social evolution is even trickier than the biological kind. Maybe the cosmos doesn't get to be very clever this time.
Do not underestimate parrots.
My parrot Pepe, helps me in my work.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/213901-silly-questions-answers-11.html#post3060066
How can anyone know what is "close enough"?
If when we speak of ionizing radiation, no one can say "low enough" for a human being.
I can not be so sure, gamma radiation travels at speed c, is high, but finite.
Who knows, perhaps already exploded...
For when we can see, it will be too late !
I have a feeling that I heard this during a discussion debunking the 2012 December apocalypse over on the astropherevids channel on youtube.
We do know quite well what close enough is when it comes to these things and we also know what type of star it requires to create one and we don't have one close enough to us to do any severe damage. We are impacted by gamma ray bursts as it is, but they are too feeble to do any serious damage.
We do know quite well what close enough is when it comes to these things and we also know what type of star it requires to create one and we don't have one close enough to us to do any severe damage. We are impacted by gamma ray bursts as it is, but they are too feeble to do any serious damage.
It is more likely that world society will break down....again, and we will knock ourselves back a few notches with conflict. It is just that this time we have the technological advances to do a good job of it; from weapons of mass fear to engineered disease/poisons and nano-tech machines. Certainly wouldn't be the first time conflict sets us back. Things got ugly in Europe for well over a milinea after Rome fell. Just one of many such unfourtunate turn of events for a society that had little to do with a natural disaster.
A comet could crash into earth causing significant destruction, but the possibility of that is quite remote. The only star that is close enough to our solar system to affect us with a gamma ray burst is in the Orion constalation called Beatleguese. It has the mass, rotational velocity, and axis of orientation that could place the gamma burst in our general direction when it goes nova.....in over 100,000y from now. Not my concern.
Now if the caldera known as Yellowstone park were to go off, that would be a world changing event. The word is still out on that one, but history seems to suggest it is not ripe yet and won't be for a long time. Just hope no-one gets a curly hair up their bung hole and try to crack it open with a large nuke.....I wonder if that would be possible?
A comet could crash into earth causing significant destruction, but the possibility of that is quite remote. The only star that is close enough to our solar system to affect us with a gamma ray burst is in the Orion constalation called Beatleguese. It has the mass, rotational velocity, and axis of orientation that could place the gamma burst in our general direction when it goes nova.....in over 100,000y from now. Not my concern.
Now if the caldera known as Yellowstone park were to go off, that would be a world changing event. The word is still out on that one, but history seems to suggest it is not ripe yet and won't be for a long time. Just hope no-one gets a curly hair up their bung hole and try to crack it open with a large nuke.....I wonder if that would be possible?
Last edited:
It is more likely that world society........snip.......to crack it open with a large nuke.....I wonder if that would be possible?
Exactly we have other things to worry about. If we manage to make it to the point where our civilisation is being threatened due to the death of the sun then I'd say we've done extremely well.
One of the reasons why I like the idea of terraforming Mars and relocating is so that we've got a second chance should the Earth fall victim to a massive nuclear war. Or live on the moon. Of course it's far more likely that we will do something to screw ourselves up before that becomes realistic or a super bug will wipe us out.
All euphemisms, used to say elegantly: "I don't know", also serve to sustain our arrogance.
Strongly agree !
All euphemisms, used to say elegantly: "I don't know", also serve to sustain our arrogance.
Yes, but you're saying this as if it's some kind of bad thing. If they were called 'oblique angled filament particles' and 'reverse expansion energy' then we wouldn't be here. No one goes on endlessly about the Higgs Boson as some kind of euphemism for 'we don't know', but if it was called the Dark particle people would probably view it in a different way.
We do know quite well the secrets of the universe, that we must hide our ignorance behind concepts such as "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy"...
You're right, sleep peacefully.
You do not understand the irony, right?
It is not arrogant to say "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy"...
It is arrogant to say "We do know quite well what close enough is..."
Last edited:
But neither are things that we once had trouble explaining, and neither are things that we have now explained. Rather they are both names given to things required by logic to patch up anomolies. The concern about them doesn't arise from their names, but from the fact that their names accurately describe properties that seem to put them outside the realm of the falsifiable. They are not alone in this. Statistical statements about the likelihood of life on Earth, for example, are equally suspect. If logical necessity were sufficient for science, then god would be admissible too.
If science goes on much longer, explanations will become as complicated as the things they're supposed to explain, and we'll be back to square one.
This simply depends on the current understanding of the universe and how things work. The names are quite unfortunate because Dark whatever has implications that the general public are more then capable of coming to certain conclusions about, rather then it being named something obscure that they cannot in any way relate to. People perceive Dark matter and Dark energy as something they are not just because of the name they've been given.
I personally don't think there's any concern surrounding either of the two, intrigue yes, but there's nothing to be concerned about, all it shows is that there's more to 'it' then first meets the eye and this is what makes science interesting.
This is what science is about though, taking something that appears simple on the surface, but then once you try and explain it on a fundamental level you realise it's a lot more complex then you originally thought.
You mean, that you know it?
Explain it to me please, with math, you're talking about physics, not philosophy.
I belong to the general public, and I'd like to learn.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.