NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, it's 11.18 at night, I've just made my first post and am feeling bold ;) so I've decided to make my first thread. In other words, please humour me.

I realise this is probably in no way a new topic, but hey just be thankful I didn't start with the ol' religion debate :)

Anyways, I've been debating it with friends and thought I'd put it out there: Do you think we can escape the planet before we a). blow ourselves up, b) get roasted by the dying sun?

I like to think that one day we could leave the Earth and find a new home, but so many people tell me that it is human nature to kill each other and that it is inevitable that the human race will wipe itself out. Of course if you're feeling nihilistic then it doesn't really matter, we are just a virus with shoes, the universe will go on etc and so. I realise and understand all that, but would just love to see the human race transcend it's petty indifferences to reach for stars.

Of course I could just be an idealistic dreamer who has been watching too many emotive Carl Sagan youtube videos...
:rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

Hello, it's 11.18 at night, I've just made my first post and am feeling bold ;) so I've decided to make my first thread. In other words, please humour me.

I realise this is probably in no way a new topic, but hey just be thankful I didn't start with the ol' religion debate :)

Anyways, I've been debating it with friends and thought I'd put it out there: Do you think we can escape the planet before we a). blow ourselves up, b) get roasted by the dying sun?

I like to think that one day we could leave the Earth and find a new home, but so many people tell me that it is human nature to kill each other and that it is inevitable that the human race will wipe itself out. Of course if you're feeling nihilistic then it doesn't really matter, we are just a virus with shoes, the universe will go on etc and so. I realise and understand all that, but would just love to see the human race transcend it's petty indifferences to reach for stars.

Of course I could just be an idealistic dreamer who has been watching too many emotive Carl Sagan youtube videos...
:rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

Yes we can. God willing!

Bwahahahahahahahahah!

If we don't manage to kill ourselves off, or just throw ourselves into a sort of dark ages, then sure why not. I just don't think we're ever going to reach every end of the galaxy like some sci-fi shows and novels depict.

Of course not, humanity is doomed to mediocrity and quiet death.

I'm sure we will, some day. How far we get, though, is another problem - if faster than light travel is impossible, it's a long trip to a new home.

It is almost inevitable I would say.
Humankind has always wondered what's beyond the next hill/mountain/sea/continent/planet, etc.
When people are curious, there is a will, and where there is a will, there is a way. ,)

When people are curious, there is a will, and where there is a will, there is a way. ,)
FYI the money is better spent on war machinery and fighting over Earthly resources... :gas:

If we ever get over the petty squabbling of 'sovereign land' and actually start thinking on a global scale rather than what's best for them individually we might get somewhere.

Unfortunately even our current political and environmental 'long-term' goals are only ever so slightly longer-term than the immediate-result-sod-the-long-term-effect goals.

(And I do realise that the majority of excuses for all the squabbling are the fact we have different 'ruling' ideologies running simultaneously and no obvious way to integrate them)

FYI the money is better spent on war machinery and fighting over Earthly resources... :gas:

It might seem like that yes. :D
But people have also been fighting throughout history, and still made it over the next "etc". ,)

I realise this is probably in no way a new topic

On the contrary this is rather a new topic.

Yes I think we can get away. When you say roasted by the sun do you mean when the sun expands towards the end of its life, or climate change?

Why do you want to leave...things are getting interesting again. :)

Seriously I think it'll take a couple of more centuries before space travel between here and mars becomes routine. After that who knows...

The problem is that for humanity to survive a planet killing event on Earth we would have to have a viable colony on another world that was:

1)Sufficiently large to make it through a population bottleneck
2)Able to not only be self-sustaining but able to grow and expand
3)Have sufficient resources and technological expertise to have its own ability to explore and colonize
4)Have a stable enough government to survive the inevitable chaos that would ensue when homeworld is dusted.

All of these things are possible and achievable, even if it would have to be done over several separate worlds within this or another solar system.

It'll just take a LOT of time.

I suppose we could make it into space and colonize Mars or something. But when that happens, would the Earth bcome the sci-fi cliche one world government? Or will all the nations of Earth try to colonize and go through the whole "New World" thing they did with the Americas?

I see a space war coming! :gundge:

Well, the Earth will be consumed by the sun in approximately 5 billion years. The average lifespan of endotherm species is about 3 to 5 million years.

*jumps*

AHHH GET GRAVITY OFF ME I WANNA LEAVE!!!!

Yes, we technically can.

But that doesn't mean we will.

We certainly have the capacity to go out into space, but at the moment moving around in a very large galaxy is rather difficult. If we developed some form of technology that would allow us to move at the speed of light, or faster, then I think that would put us a lot farther on the path to "getting off the rock". There's also resource issues however, because a long voyage with billions of people is going to require immense amounts of food. We would also have to determine the relationship between the "Old World" and the "New World". A lot of other factors would have to be calculated, and the whole process would take immense resources. It's really only possible if the earth had a single government, because otherwise the competing interests of states would really mess the whole project up (as well as making it difficult to organize and accumulate the necessary resources).

We would also have to determine the relationship between the "Old World" and the "New World".

Easy, give the old world to all the idiots that didn't want to leave for them to be wiped out by the next major natural disaster and everyone else can take the new one. There are an infinite number of planets in the universe, therefore there are an infinite number of habitable planets. We can go on forever like this.

Yeah, but the robots will take over and we'll get all obese and stuff.

Of course, it goes without saying that we should attempt to expand beyond Earth.

We can do this; it'll just take some time and effort.

Welcome, Winsaloo!

Given that 1) the sun won't begin to die for another five billion years, 2) we are capable of spaceflight 3) I think we are capable of self-preservation even if we hate our neighbor with a passion, I don't think this is much of a problem.

But yes, 5 billion years from now we should have been exploring space for quite some time.

Yes, we probably can, but its nothing to worry about now. We have 5 billion more years before the sun dies or whatever...

I see no rush in leaving the planet, but then again, I doubt I'd leave Earth in the first place.

Yes, we probably can, but its nothing to worry about now. We have 5 billion more years before the sun dies or whatever...

I see no rush in leaving the planet, but then again, I doubt I'd leave Earth in the first place.

While the sun will not go anywhere anytime soon, the risk of large asteroid impacts (and silly governments that attempt to blow them up with nukes - adding radiation to the problem), humans running out of natural resources, living space and so on is slightly more urgent. It would be nice if we could find a few more nice, habitable places where one can have some elbow room.

Hello, it's 11.18 at night, I've just made my first post and am feeling bold ;) so I've decided to make my first thread. In other words, please humour me.

I realise this is probably in no way a new topic, but hey just be thankful I didn't start with the ol' religion debate :)

Anyways, I've been debating it with friends and thought I'd put it out there: Do you think we can escape the planet before we a). blow ourselves up, b) get roasted by the dying sun?

I like to think that one day we could leave the Earth and find a new home, but so many people tell me that it is human nature to kill each other and that it is inevitable that the human race will wipe itself out. Of course if you're feeling nihilistic then it doesn't really matter, we are just a virus with shoes, the universe will go on etc and so. I realise and understand all that, but would just love to see the human race transcend it's petty indifferences to reach for stars.

Of course I could just be an idealistic dreamer who has been watching too many emotive Carl Sagan youtube videos...
:rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

I believe we can if enough of us set our minds to it and probably will. But the chances of that happenings are sooo low. Rumor has it that more people would rather focus on fads, celebrities, wars, power struggles, money and sex than on space travel. :( Bummer...

Yes, we technically can.

But that doesn't mean we will.

We certainly have the capacity to go out into space, but at the moment moving around in a very large galaxy is rather difficult. If we developed some form of technology that would allow us to move at the speed of light, or faster, then I think that would put us a lot farther on the path to "getting off the rock". There's also resource issues however, because a long voyage with billions of people is going to require immense amounts of food. We would also have to determine the relationship between the "Old World" and the "New World". A lot of other factors would have to be calculated, and the whole process would take immense resources. It's really only possible if the earth had a single government, because otherwise the competing interests of states would really mess the whole project up (as well as making it difficult to organize and accumulate the necessary resources).

That reminded me of the war between the UED and the Korpulu sector in StarCraft.

No. The only way we can escape our mundane earthly existence is to imagine up some all-powerful dude in the sky. And even then, you have to live an entire good life and die before you get to the non-Earth place. And if you do bad, you don't even get off Earth, instead being reincarnated as a Frenchman, and having to talk in French and associate with other Frenchies, an idea expressed in most religions through the idea of "hell".

Anyway, to get away from religion, there is a further point here. We put far too much faith in scientists when we believe that this so-called "space" containing "planets" and "stars" even exists. I've never been there, you've never been there, the only people who have are the elites and their agents. How do we know that these so-called "spacecraft", commissioned by our corrupt and evil elites, don't just travel a few thousand feet up to the edge of existence to plant explosive charges? That they are not preparing to hold us hostage with the literal threat of the sky falling in if we do not obey?

No

In human caused catastrophes, or asteroids, it is financially and technically more feasible to create underground vaults and bunkers to survive them, than it is to travel to another planet and build them. Even excluding the cost and time of travel, you have to understand that building a nuclear bunker here on earth is still easier than having them stand up to the extreme heat/cold/weather/radiation on other planets. Take mars for example, the lack of a natural magnetic field results in it's massive bombardment by radiations in the sun.

It isn't so much that we, as individuals can ever avoid death. As a specie, we are capable of allow a few privileged to survive many of the predicted catastrophes as is. Space colonization is not a mean to solve mass death and destructions.

This is not to say that we "wouldn't" ever colonize another planet, but it will have very little to do with escaping or survival, and much more with financial or political reasons.

In terms of our sun dying out, at the rate human kind is going I will be surprise that earth haven't been destroyed yet by then.

This is not to say that I am against space exploration. Although the idea of colonization is of fantasies, the attempts to do so results in very real scientific breakthroughs. And the gathering of information in other planets and comet does help better our understand in life on earth.

Humanity will cease to exist long before the sun's collapse will ever become a problem. We'll either die off or evolve into something else.

Allo. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!

I propose that we train Dubya to be an astronaut after this is all over. Then we can send him out on a manned exploration flight to the farthest corners of the universe.

Here is a bunch of arguments for space exploration:

Technological progress shrinks possibilities to be evaporated by major disaster or internal wars:

a) Asteroid impact can be countered by numerous techniques that science has/is/will developed/developing/develop. Bad techniques are changed by new methods, like nuclear asteroid demolition is changed to aimed laser attack that would change course of any incoming asteroid, and etc.

b) If humanity would destroy itself because of technological progress, it would have done that already. However, it did not destroy itself even during most disturbing wars and disasters, so we can assume that according to Entropic principle humanity will not destroy itself.

c) Depleted resources gives economical incentive to research and discover substitutes, i.e. lack of oil brings oil substitutes or plastic and rubber substitutes that doesn't require oil.

d) Economical barriers that prevent humanity for space exploration because of high costs will disappear as technological progress increase. Long time ago having concrete roads where economically expensive - now its reality.

e) Building bunkers and stand up to the extreme heat/cold/weather/radiation is becoming cheaper and will become more cheaper in the future, therefore colonization of other planets is more feasible in the future - especially if you can gain benefit from that planet (i.e. resource that earth doesn't contain or is lacking)

...and finishing thought - medieval people thought that sailing across the ocean would be also very expensive and irrelevant because it is cheaper to build a castle on the same continent where you are than bringing a whole armada to the new continent. However, colonization did happen and traveling costs were diminished as technology advanced. Sailing with wooden ship in medieval times were more expensive and time consuming than flying with a plane nowadays. One can make fast correlation with space exploration as it is also only beginning and future technologies will make space exploration not only cheaper but also less time and effort consuming.

Yes, we probably can, but its nothing to worry about now. We have 5 billion more years before the sun dies or whatever...

I see no rush in leaving the planet, but then again, I doubt I'd leave Earth in the first place.

You'd be dead anyway before we could really colonize a planet.

You'd be dead anyway before we could really colonize a planet.

but he can raise children with an attitude that would provide something beneficial to technological advance so that this could happen. And then those children would raise their children and thus continue space exploration plans till they finally become reality.

not with the fat calafornians where not

not with the fat calafornians where not

whats the supposed to mean? :rolleyes:

No, we can't escape the planet. By the time abandoning Earth would be a possibility, we would need a space infrastructure and offworld economic base capable of supporting the undoubtedly large population still residing on the planet. And if that's the case, we're either going to be extinct or find a way to solve the problems before that stage is reached.

whats the supposed to mean? :rolleyes:

I think it's meant to imply that Californians are all fat and wouldn't fit on a spaceship. Unlike the good people of, say, Idaho.

Luckily one can use several spaceships. One for us fat Californians, the other for people who can't spell the word "Californian." We'll be using liposuction to extract the fat from passengers, which is then expelled out the rocket nozzle as reaction mass. They however, won't be able to turn the engine on. California triumphs, again!

In human caused catastrophes, or asteroids, it is financially and technically more feasible to create underground vaults and bunkers to survive them, than it is to travel to another planet and build them.

Good luck building a bunker strong enough to survive another Levy-9 Shoemaker. Earth would cease to exist as a planet if it got hit by something like that.

Or for that matter, an asteroid impact powerful enough to melt the planetary crust. You can't build bunkers deeper than the crust anyway, unless you can build them in magma.

Besides, I think you'll find it easier to build a sustainable habitat on the likes of Mars than something that deep. Not only will you have to actually be capable of digging a sustainable tunnel kilometers into the bedrock, you have to be able to build a complex capable of standing up to the intense heat and pressure, not to mention the tremendous earthquakes it would experience in an ELE as well as plate tectonics.

Space has its own hazards, but not quite as hard pressing as a deep bunker of your specifications.

We will, if we don't wipe ourselves out first.

We will, if we don't wipe ourselves out first.

If we were to do so, we would've done that already. Since our history of more than 8000 years has proven that humanity will not wipe itself. So prepare your guts for space exploration. ;)

yes,we will probably.but we have to found new colonies in billion years cause as the sun expands liquid water will evaporate but FTL travel isn't possible according to the theory
of relativity.of course it might be proved wrong but right now
it has predicted every phnomenon observed

If we were to do so, we would've done that already.

Nonsensical reasoning. Might as well say, "If we were to have Barrack Obama as a President, we would've already elected him!"

Since our history of more than 8000 years has proven that humanity will not wipe itself. So prepare your guts for space exploration. ;)

Okay, maybe you can tell me the difference between 8000 years and 5,000,000,000 years.

CthulhuFhtagn already won this thread, folks. There won't be a humanity in five billion years. No multicellular organism has ever lasted anywhere NEAR that length of time. It's sheer, idiotic arrogance to presume that not only will humanity be around by then, but we'll be essentially unchanged, maybe just a bit more technologically advanced... ridiculous! Evolutionary changes alone will GUARANTEE that humans will not in any way be recognizable even if something like our descendants are still around by then.

To be honest, by the time the sun dies, I think that mankind will already have the technology to move the whole planet. :D

Instead of thinking about leaving, we should start to think about fixing it. But if ya'll wanna go all I can say is bye.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6163/ny4hl3.gif

CthulhuFhtagn already won this thread, folks. There won't be a humanity in five billion years. No multicellular organism has ever lasted anywhere NEAR that length of time. It's sheer, idiotic arrogance to presume that not only will humanity be around by then, but we'll be essentially unchanged, maybe just a bit more technologically advanced... ridiculous! Evolutionary changes alone will GUARANTEE that humans will not in any way be recognizable even if something like our descendants are still around by then.

Considering that we only have one known biosphere to work with for historical data on multi-cellular organisms, a biosphere that has at least had one extreme catastrophic incident which would have erased all organisms (planetary impact by another celestial body, blowing enough mass into space to form the moon which would have covered the earth in magma), we really can't say for certain.

Besides, evolutionary changes assumes that humanity won't invest resources in maintaining an idealized genetic structure.

Considering that we only have one known biosphere to work with for historical data on multi-cellular organisms, a biosphere that has at least had one extreme catastrophic incident which would have erased all organisms (planetary impact by another celestial body, blowing enough mass into space to form the moon which would have covered the earth in magma), we really can't say for certain.

Well, it's unreasonable to assume that humanity will somehow last billions of years when no other animal on earth has.

Besides, evolutionary changes assumes that humanity won't invest resources in maintaining an idealized genetic structure.

Wait, so you're postulating that the entirety of human civilization will, unified under one government or religion, stick to some ultra-regressive, genetic-engineered Gattaca policy...?

For 5,000,000,000 years?

There's absolutely no plausibility in that. Yes, I assume that humanity will not unite under a dystopian government that's successful in maintaining a social policy - and its own existence of course - over the course of five billion years. I assume, in fact, that if this were to happen it wouldn't maintain control even for 1 billion... or 1 million... and 1000 is as unlikely as Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich.

Nonsensical reasoning. Might as well say, "If we were to have Barrack Obama as a President, we would've already elected him!"



Lol... There is no logic in your reasoning too. If Barrack Obama were living for 8000 years and people would be questioning if he were to become a president some day, then you could apply Entropic principle to it. But you can't because Obama isn't that old.


Okay, maybe you can tell me the difference between 8000 years and 5,000,000,000 years.

CthulhuFhtagn already won this thread, folks. There won't be a humanity in five billion years. No multicellular organism has ever lasted anywhere NEAR that length of time. It's sheer, idiotic arrogance to presume that not only will humanity be around by then, but we'll be essentially unchanged, maybe just a bit more technologically advanced... ridiculous! Evolutionary changes alone will GUARANTEE that humans will not in any way be recognizable even if something like our descendants are still around by then.

Where did you find anything about "we'll be essentially unchanged" or "Humans will be the same as they are now and will be recognizable even if our descendants are still around them"??? Yes, indeed you are right that in the future humans will look different, very much like bronze age humans looked different from today's humans (nowadays - less hair, perfumes, plastic surgeries and etc...). In the future humanity will have its toll of changes and its even possible that we will be unrecognizable by our ancestors. Whichever is the case, humans will call themselves humans no matter what because history plays important role in human nature - its hard to live without history. History ensures continuation

The difference between 8,000 and 5,000,000,000 x (infinity) is same as the difference between 1 and 2. We are talking about humanity history pattern and it doesn't matter how long or short it is. The pattern itself shows no incidents where humanity destroyed itself or were by any means near destruction (Soviet propaganda and American nuclear phobia is totally out of question because of stupidity factor). Even if you add up all war casualties and death tolls of totalitarian regimes you would still end up with bigger living-population estimate in the end. So apart from paranoia, propaganda or stupidity there is really no reason to forecast humanity's self destruction. (one can't be blind either. Awareness is very important. But awareness is different from paranoia that leads to self-determination that there is no hope and humans will destroy itself)

Wait, so you're postulating that the entirety of human civilization will, unified under one government or religion, stick to some ultra-regressive, genetic-engineered Gattaca policy...?

Does not have to be all of humanity. A single sub-civilisation would be enough to ensure humanities continued existence. Led by a computer for preference.

Does not have to be all of humanity.

Yes, it would. Otherwise, the non-controlled humans will evolve. And probably wipe out the genetic freaks who don't procreate sexually.

Yes, indeed you are right that in the future humans will look different, very much like bronze age humans looked different from today's humans (nowadays - less hair, perfumes, plastic surgeries and etc...).

Sigh. This is what I mean. Bronze age humans are the same damned species. Therefore you're assuming that 5 billion years of evolution will not evolve humanity any more than a few thousand years has. Hence the "Essentially unchanged" I was talking about.

Whichever is the case, humans will call themselves humans no matter what because history plays important role in human nature - its hard to live without history.

lolwhut?

Now you're even assuming the NAME humanity won't evolve. Apparently language doesn't change, either! We're all living in a static time-bubble. I just wonder why we don't all call ourselves amoebas, since that would be true to our history.

The difference between 8,000 and 5,000,000,000 x (infinity) is same as the difference between 1 and 2.

lol

Alrighty then....

We are talking about humanity history pattern and it doesn't matter how long or short it is. The pattern itself shows no incidents where humanity destroyed itself or were by any means near destruction (Soviet propaganda and American nuclear phobia is totally out of question because of stupidity factor).

The pattern itself does. When was the last time you went out and had a chat with a Neanderthal?

Oh right, never. Because we destroyed them. One genetic grouping of humanity kills another. Thus the remaining population has different genetics. And that's just over the course of a pathetic amount of time compared to what we're talking about here.

Human historical length DOES matter. Time DOES matter. I don't know how to put it any clearer than that. Evolution is far more noticeable over time. Dinosaurs evolve into birds over millions of years. Humans haven't even existed for that length of time in any form. Let alone the billions of years we've been talking about.

I think you and many other people here have no clue how long 5 billion years actually is.

For reference, the oldest still surviving animal genus I can think of off-hand is the soft-shelled turtle Trionyx which has been around for around 100 million years, if I remember correctly. I think the horseshoe crab Limulus might be older, but I can't find a date for the earliest species. So basically Homo sapiens will have to outlive, as a species, a genus that is biologically immortal. Seriously, turtles don't age. We have to evolve more slowly than something that has more or less the least evolutionary pressure ever.

Trostia - when I was talking about human history pattern it had nothing to do with evolution and Homo sapiens killing Neanderthals. It was all about humans capable to destroy itself, and history has proven that it is not. Even if you presume that Homo Sapiens destroyed Neanderthals (which is obviously a theory and no one really knows what happened) Homo Sapiens have survived. It means that it didn't destroyed itself, but evolved, improved and survived.

And yes, I have a clue how long 5 bilion years are and biologically speaking it is probably impossible for a species to survive that long. But we, Homo sapiens, are different from all the species you've mentioned (especially from "biologically immortal" turtles). We have technology and we advance it every second. Eventually we will manage to drive our "evolution" on our terms and time will have less significance.

All in all you are mostly right in all cases but you refuse to evaluate technological progress and things where homo sapiens are different from other species.

Destruction of humanity is also very improbable because our primary instincts always puts our safety above everything else. History has also shown that survival prevails no matter how bad it gets. (mammals in general have huge survival capabilities)

And yes, I have a clue how long 5 bilion years are and biologically speaking it is probably impossible for a species to survive that long. But we, Homo sapiens, are different from all the species you've mentioned (especially from "biologically immortal" turtles). We have technology and we advance it every second. Eventually we will manage to drive our "evolution" on our terms and time will have less significance.

True - but do you seriously believe that the highly advanced civilisations of the future will opt to keep our primitive forms ? Cybernetics and genetic manipulation are already technologies we can envision. Can you imagine what we can in a hundred, a thousand or even five billion years ?

I can't.

Trostia - when I was talking about human history pattern it had nothing to do with evolution and Homo sapiens killing Neanderthals. It was all about humans capable to destroy itself, and history has proven that it is not. Even if you presume that Homo Sapiens destroyed Neanderthals (which is obviously a theory and no one really knows what happened) Homo Sapiens have survived. It means that it didn't destroyed itself, but evolved, improved and survived.

8000 years is hardly a representative sample, given that for the majority of that time most humans were not in contact with one another, nor had the technological capability to wipe itself out. Nor was it the case that large portions of the "civilized" world lived in relative comfort with no need for survivalist skills.


Destruction of humanity is also very improbable because our primary instincts always puts our safety above everything else. History has also shown that survival prevails no matter how bad it gets. (mammals in general have huge survival capabilities)

History has also shown that the majority of organisms forced into those types of dire situations end up dying. See the KT impact, for example. And while humans also have the advantage of technology, we also have become much more reliant on it then other species. Think what would happen to the US if all our electronic technology suddenly went poof. It would be insanity. Now imagine that a global scale with some sort of mass extinction event. While that alone doesn't put the nail in the coffin for humanity, I don't think we're completely assured of survival either just because we're human.

We have technology and we advance it every second.

So did Homo erectus. So did H. habilis. So did H. ergaster. So did H. antecessor. So did H. florensis. So did H. heidelbergensis. So did H. neanderthalensis. So did H. sapiens idaltu. Guess where they're all now.

The Alma Matter - Well... thats a good point - I can't either.

New Genoa - Yep, humanity became dependent on technology as well as electricity, although not addictive. In any case, massive catastrophes happen in Earth ever several hundred million years or so (at least to some geologists). In any case, I'm just optimistic enough to think that at the time the next catastrophe gonna happen we gonna be sufficiently technologically evolved for it. (earth quakes or tornadoes doesn't count)

So did Homo erectus. So did H. habilis. So did H. ergaster. So did H. antecessor. So did H. florensis. So did H. heidelbergensis. So did H. neanderthalensis. So did H. sapiens idaltu. Guess where they're all now.

Yeah, but each instance of technological advancement gives more survival ability. For example paleolithic technology was barely able to provide food for hunter tribes, while mid 20th century technological advancement provided huge fields and farm lands of food alongside with capability to survive in open space. So technological advancement does matter to survival ability. (however, as some one already mentioned, dependence to it gives other vulnerabilities)

Trostia - when I was talking about human history pattern it had nothing to do with evolution and Homo sapiens killing Neanderthals.

Clearly, but the point remains.

It was all about humans capable to destroy itself, and history has proven that it is not.

Simply because we haven't destroyed ourselves is not 'proof' that we cannot or will not.

It's like the old joke about the optimist falling off a skyscraper. "So far, so good!"

Ya know, I'm alive right now, and history has shown that I've never died, but I'm not exactly immortal, am I?

But we, Homo sapiens, are different from all the species you've mentioned (especially from "biologically immortal" turtles). We have technology and we advance it every second. Eventually we will manage to drive our "evolution" on our terms and time will have less significance.

Evolution is genetic change in a population. Since this happens whenever there is mutation and whenever there is sexual reproduction, the only way to "drive our evolution on our terms" would be to outlaw sex and somehow protect genes from their own imperfection.

Outlawing sex alone is implausible enough. I mean sure, some regressive peoples might do that for a few years. But can you imagine it being successful enough a policy for the entire human race for 5 billion years? Ridiculous. Most people can't even go a few months without sex.


Destruction of humanity is also very improbable because our primary instincts always puts our safety above everything else. History has also shown that survival prevails no matter how bad it gets. (mammals in general have huge survival capabilities)

Heh. Well. I may have an instinctual need to put my safety above everything else, and maybe that of my family.

NOT the safety of "humanity." Instincts say absolutely nothing about human desire to save some guy 10,000 miles away who you'll never encounter or know about.

Simply because we haven't destroyed ourselves is not 'proof' that we cannot or will not.

It's like the old joke about the optimist falling off a skyscraper. "So far, so good!"

Ya know, I'm alive right now, and history has shown that I've never died, but I'm not exactly immortal, am I?

You are right, but it also doesn't prove that humanity WILL destroy itself. However, it proves that humanity is very unlikely to destroy itself - which means that probability for that is very low. Low is enough for me, as much as low probability for random asteroid to impact on earth is enough for me too. It doesn't mean that it won't happen - it MIGHT happen, but is it really worth on worrying about every probability ?

Evolution is genetic change in a population. Since this happens whenever there is mutation and whenever there is sexual reproduction, the only way to "drive our evolution on our terms" would be to outlaw sex and somehow protect genes from their own imperfection.

You can still make people be able to have sex and have their reproduction normally but monitor the genes and its mutation as it is growing inside. (Hell, technology can be capable of doing many things that we don't even imagine at the moment)

Heh. Well. I may have an instinctual need to put my safety above everything else, and maybe that of my family.
Isn't that is enough? It is, because your family has friends too and those friends have too and it goes on and on and on forming a system that takes a chain reaction to put each other into safety. (a very lengthy one I agree. And mostly not very instinctual driven, however, compassion is also an emotion. Lets better not discuss it because we are beginning to go off-topic over here)

Heh. Well. I may have an instinctual need to put my safety above everything else, and maybe that of my family.

Develop that a bit more, and soon we will have Pak protectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector) roaming the earth, ensuring that any mutation is quickly slaughtered ;)

You are right, but it also doesn't prove that humanity WILL destroy itself.

Humans destroying themselves is only one method of humanity not existing in 5 billion years. The most likely, IMO, given the uncertainty of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.

However, it proves that humanity is very unlikely to destroy itself - which means that probability for that is very low.

Yeah - low on a timescale of 8000 years...

Low is enough for me, as much as low probability for random asteroid to impact on earth is enough for me too. It doesn't mean that it won't happen - it MIGHT happen, but is it really worth on worrying about every probability ?

It WILL happen. The probability for a 15 kilometer, dinosaur-killing asteroid impacting the earth is 1 in every 65 million years, according to here (http://www.risk-ed.org/pages/risk/asteroid_prob.htm).

That's about 77 such asteroids that will hit in a 5 billion year duration.

Isn't that is enough? It is, because your family has friends too and those friends have too and it goes on and on and on forming a system that takes a chain reaction to put each other into safety.

Instinct doesn't care about the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My instinct drives me to look out for me and possibly my family - no one else. "Friends of the family" can go fuck themselves as far as my biological instinct is concerned.

And if looking out for you and your isolated community were enough, we wouldn't have problems like global pollution or anthropogenic climate change.

Humans destroying themselves is only one method of humanity not existing in 5 billion years. The most likely, IMO, given the uncertainty of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.

Why didn't Soviets or Americans (during cold war) destroy humanity then when they had the chance to do so?

It WILL happen. The probability for a 15 kilometer, dinosaur-killing asteroid impacting the earth is 1 in every 65 million years, according to here.

That's about 77 such asteroids that will hit in a 5 billion year duration.

Yes. I'm fully aware of such statistics. I'm also aware of: asteroid prevention programs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920111406.htm) and asteroid deflection programs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527155456.htm)

Which in the progress of technology will become better.

And if looking out for you and your isolated community were enough, we wouldn't have problems like global pollution or anthropogenic climate change.

Yeah. But you are intelligent enough to understand that you actually live among the others and there should be certain rules and limits so that you would survive. Otherwise, if there are no rules, then there is big potential danger for your survival. Since your primal instincts cant handle that, people like you that have same primal instincts do the job and create rules and limits so that people wouldnt kill each other on sight.


Anyway, thanks for intelligent discussion. I enjoyed it. Both our points have validity and I got your point (I hope you got my point), but we went far offtopic now. The topic was "Can we escape the planet". When Jules Verne's novel hit the stores with Nautilus exploring ocean floors people thought it was science fiction and its both physics and technology didnt allow that to happen. But physics found a way and technology developed, thus we can reach ocean floors by submarines. There is no reason to think that it can't happen with space either. :)

Surely. We are already all at least now thinking about the end of the worldwide economic dominance of fossil fuels as our master energy source. Oil/coal is so 18th century you know...
That (IMHO of course) has been holding us tethered to the planet.
The next step will be building large low space solar farms and beaming the power back with microwaves to earth.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm

Once we start building low space orbital platforms creatively and more routinely, we may just start on our way out of this solar system.

Well, homeboys, I didn't quite grasp the course the discussion has taken over the last few pages, but I'm a add my - propably misplaced - opinion to it. IMO, something will sooner or later leave the planet. It will propably not be the human race, which will, in due course, return to the primordial soup in the forge of evolution, that painful place of hunger and war in which 98% of all species known to scientists today have molten, including the Dinosaurs, to give way to those that had greater adaptability. Humanity is just ladden with evolutionary balast, like an uncontrollable sex drive, irrationality, religiosity, greed, egalitarianism, aggression, etc. Did anyone see the movie Idiocracy? A reasonable study, which can be found here (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/wlsresearch/publications/files/public/Retherford-Sewell_Intelligence.Family.S.R.pdf) predicts a decline in IQ of 0.3 per generation in the US. It may seem that there is still plenty of time to counteract this development, and maybe it will reach equilibrium at some point, but this shows how delicate is the balance our society sits upon. If no remedy is found, it could very well be that the entire world will soon be a developing country. This study (http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/inequality/papers/GalorNaturSel.pdf) shows how evolution has favoured the intelligent with few offspring during times of malthusian stagnation, and how it now favours the less intelligent, who instead reproduce the most. You can see that within nations, as well as between nations - the higher the economic development, the fewer children, also known as the demographic-economic paradoxon. This is already reducing the cultural elite in Europe. And as all cultures end in simplistic pastoral communities after their cultural peak, this is what awaits our culture as well. That does of course not forbid the existence of a new societal cycle, in which the technologies might exist to put humans into space. But can you name any culture that recovered after its demise?
With the current evolutionary trend I see no chance of kick-starting a star-faring age, though current biotechnology might help this problem.
On the other hand, we might still be able to start intrastellar migration within the limited timeframe left for our culture, who knows? And if not the West, then maybe the Chinese? Or perhaps, in some centuries, maybe a Pan-African Empire. But generally, I think that cosmic colonialization is just an aspect of the Western people's collective consciousness, not something that eventually has to happen, because that linear and deterministic approach to history is just another aspect of Western thought. A muslim, for example, would tell you that the world is determined to become islamized one day, and that's part of his cultural set of assumptions. Though, when I do a meta-analysis of history, I see a change towards more technology, as I said, current dysgenic trends may mean that this development will stop, perhaps even reverse itself, so that those who come after us, before too long, young and old, may live like african tribesmen, siberian nomads, aboriginees, indios or other stone-age hunter-gatherer communities. Maybe they will wander the ruins of our civilization, making not-so-clever remarks about how their ancestors built all those cities with their god-like powers, and how they tried to leave the planet with ships of iron, trailed by flames and smoke, and how they withered and died, infertile, leaving the world to the people that came after them.

But that's just me, and I'm kind of in a minor manic-depressive disorder right now... Maybe everything will go well, we'll all have beautiful, clever wives/husbands, have 6 - 10 at least equally smart and charming kids, the less intelligent people will all have genetic fix to make them equally smart and we'll all settle the galaxy. Well, despite my doubts, I will work towards that! (I'll begin with the part about having a smart, beautiful wife ::fluffle:)

Well, people, I'm outta here. Still have to post a forum topic on genetic manipulation, just so we also get the "genetic-fix" part right. :p

Yours,
ShinRa

Why didn't Soviets or Americans (during cold war) destroy humanity then when they had the chance to do so?


Fool's luck.

Yes. I'm fully aware of such statistics. I'm also aware of: asteroid prevention programs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920111406.htm) and asteroid deflection programs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527155456.htm)

Which in the progress of technology will become better.

Oh? When will it become better, or even implemented? We have no way of preventing a 15 kilometer asteroid impact right now. Do you see NASA funding methods to stop it? I don't. I see people complaining that NASA is a waste of money, even though its budget is a pitiful fraction of basically any other government agency. I see people with absurd confidence that somehow, we'll survive despite all odds.

Yeah. But you are intelligent enough to understand that you actually live among the others and there should be certain rules and limits so that you would survive. Otherwise, if there are no rules, then there is big potential danger for your survival. Since your primal instincts cant handle that, people like you that have same primal instincts do the job and create rules and limits so that people wouldnt kill each other on sight.

I don't create rules and limits. If I did, the world would admittedly be a better place. ;)

In fact, I drive frequently and casually, poisoning the atmosphere with deadly toxins. Just like everyone else, I don't mind killing people as long as I'm distanced enough from it.


Anyway, thanks for intelligent discussion. I enjoyed it. Both our points have validity and I got your point (I hope you got my point), but we went far offtopic now. The topic was "Can we escape the planet". When Jules Verne's novel hit the stores with Nautilus exploring ocean floors people thought it was science fiction and its both physics and technology didnt allow that to happen. But physics found a way and technology developed, thus we can reach ocean floors by submarines. There is no reason to think that it can't happen with space either. :)

We can reach ocean floors with submarines, but we can't prevent tsunamis.

My point was really that yours was invalid, but ah well. :)

As a specie…

If we do colonize space, the aliens will pass us around like currency!

Well, it's unreasonable to assume that humanity will somehow last billions of years when no other animal on earth has.

Well, Earth has been around for what, 4.5 billion years, and it's theorized that life appeared in the last billion. In that time period, Earth has had a number of ELE events and worse, both local and extra-terrestrial in origin, that would have pretty much turned every living thing into oh so much protein chains.

If we go with the basic assumption that nothing has evolved to our current level of sapience before then, it's pretty clear that the reason no other animal has lasted that long because they were wiped out by natural disasters.

If we assume that there might have been evolved non-spacefaring civilizations that predate man, then we can easily attribute their disappearance to ELE events and erosion completely wiping out evidence of their existence.

From a cosmic timeline standpoint, any species that wants to survive for a billion years had better find a better home than this disaster magnet we call Earth.


Wait, so you're postulating that the entirety of human civilization will, unified under one government or religion, stick to some ultra-regressive, genetic-engineered Gattaca policy...?

No. I'm postulating that continued research into genetic engineering and attempts at immortality (the holy grail of medical science), will eventually yield the equivalent of a template for a superior human being to which people will want access to.


For 5,000,000,000 years?


We've only had what, 250,000 years as a species? Much less as a civilization. Do we have evidence to the contrary that states a civilization building species cannot last that long, with no natural competitors and ELE events aside?


There's absolutely no plausibility in that. Yes, I assume that humanity will not unite under a dystopian government that's successful in maintaining a social policy - and its own existence of course - over the course of five billion years. I assume, in fact, that if this were to happen it wouldn't maintain control even for 1 billion... or 1 million... and 1000 is as unlikely as Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich.

Who ever said anything about a single government? That is your inference, not mine.

Well, Earth has been around for what, 4.5 billion years, and it's theorized that life appeared in the last billion. In that time period, Earth has had a number of ELE events and worse, both local and extra-terrestrial in origin, that would have pretty much turned every living thing into oh so much protein chains.

If we go with the basic assumption that nothing has evolved to our current level of sapience before then, it's pretty clear that the reason no other animal has lasted that long because they were wiped out by natural disasters.

That's not clear at all. There is also evolution.

If we assume that there might have been evolved non-spacefaring civilizations that predate man, then we can easily attribute their disappearance to ELE events and erosion completely wiping out evidence of their existence.

From a cosmic timeline standpoint, any species that wants to survive for a billion years had better find a better home than this disaster magnet we call Earth.

Indeed. Though I have doubts that any civilization that predates man would somehow leave behind no traces.


No. I'm postulating that continued research into genetic engineering and attempts at immortality (the holy grail of medical science), will eventually yield the equivalent of a template for a superior human being to which people will want access to.

Yeah, but a completely non-evolving human being wouldn't be "superior" nor would it be desirable. "Hey, let's make it so my children are just clones! And yours too! Forever!" That would go against all instinct and is besides irrational in the extreme.

We've only had what, 250,000 years as a species? Much less as a civilization. Do we have evidence to the contrary that states a civilization building species cannot last that long, with no natural competitors and ELE events aside?

I think deliberately dismissing ELE and natural competition is a mistake here.

Who ever said anything about a single government? That is your inference, not mine.

It would have to be, otherwise it wouldn't work. Same reason you'd have to have a communist government to implement communist social theory, because there will always be people like me who oppose it and who would need to be repressed somehow.

Single government is not necessary at all... If I recall correctly NASA's effort to land on moon was stimulated by Soviet competition. They would've taken a lot more time and less effort to do so if there were one government and no competition.

That's not clear at all. There is also evolution.

Is it? Dinosaurs were wiped out because they had become specialized to their environment and could not biologically adapt to rapidly changing situations. Certainly, life will go on in Earth even with catastrophic ELE scenarios, but at the micro-organism scale, most likely safely inhabiting volcanic vents deep in the oceans or deeper still.

From a macro-organic scale, the only way for a species to really last that long would be to either have an extreme evolutionary system capable of changing characteristics immensely every generation, thereby voiding the rule of single species, be invincible and immortal, or applying unnatural approaches towards changing environments like technological applications.

ELE's don't have to directly wipe out the species after all. Just disrupting the food chain is enough.


Indeed. Though I have doubts that any civilization that predates man would somehow leave behind no traces.

That would certainly depend on a number of factors. Primitive civilizations at the tribal level could easily be erased from history if they had the misfortune of being in the impact zone of a Tunguska class asteroid. Or what of the events that were postulated to have created the moon? A near Earth sized celestial object striking a glancing blow, throwing enough ejecta into orbit to create a glowing magma ball and covering the Earth with enough superheated magma to torch the atmosphere.

With these sort of events, I think it's safe to say that any civilization predating man which had the misfortune of meeting these massive ELE events would have been melted down and returned to the planetary crust in an unrecognizable form.


Yeah, but a completely non-evolving human being wouldn't be "superior" nor would it be desirable. "Hey, let's make it so my children are just clones! And yours too! Forever!" That would go against all instinct and is besides irrational in the extreme.

Forever the same? Hardly. Physically and mentally superior? People have tried that at several stages in history before, and there's no reason to believe that would not happen again. Already parents try to weed out diseases and genetic deficiencies from their progeny before birth, and there is selective abortions in numerous developing countries until there is progeny of the right characteristics, usually males in that aspect.

Genetic research today just means it can be boiled down to a science.


I think deliberately dismissing ELE and natural competition is a mistake here.


Unless we manufacture one, humanity doesn't have any known natural competitor. ELE avoidance on the other hand, or already a pre-requisite I have mentioned. Without a means of ensuring species survival in the event of an ELE, humanity is doomed with absolute certainty. With ELE avoidance, then the opportunities begin to present itself.


It would have to be, otherwise it wouldn't work. Same reason you'd have to have a communist government to implement communist social theory, because there will always be people like me who oppose it and who would need to be repressed somehow.

Yes, yes, we have religious fundamentalists who have tried pyrotechnic devices and murders of gynecologists and their places of work as well as those who would otherwise oppose human genetic research, but that does not mean that such research has come to a halt has it?

Humanity has progressed to this level of civilization on one principle, and one principle alone. If it confers an advantage, use it. This was the sort of thinking that made wooden sticks a weapon and tool as opposed to fleshy fingers. The same thinking that started the use of fire, the creation and utilization of countless innovations from the very beginning of our species.

People will continue this research into genetics, if not for the benefit, then for the profit it could bring. And when people adopt the technologies created from it, when they show the advantages of such technologies, others will adopt it.

Europe did not develop firearms, but they certainly saw no issue against stealing the idea.

Smallpox vaccines were strongly opposed in Stockholm on religious and philosophical grounds, that is, until a major smallpox epidemic in 1873 began killing off the opposition.

Irrational and to the extreme? Likely, those who opposed the smallpox vaccines in Stockholm said the same thing, if couched in different words. Where are they now? Gone, just like the dinosaurs who couldn't adapt to take advantage of their new situation.

Repression of the detractors need not take place. Inevitability will do the task.

Only with the help of the eternal power and love that is Jesus and our lord God. *nods*

Is it? Dinosaurs were wiped out because they had become specialized to their environment and could not biologically adapt to rapidly changing situations.

It's kind of hard to biologically adapt to the two main continents the group lives on being sterilized.

Hello, it's 11.18 at night, I've just made my first post and am feeling bold ;) so I've decided to make my first thread. In other words, please humour me.

I realise this is probably in no way a new topic, but hey just be thankful I didn't start with the ol' religion debate :)

Anyways, I've been debating it with friends and thought I'd put it out there: Do you think we can escape the planet before we a). blow ourselves up, b) get roasted by the dying sun?

I like to think that one day we could leave the Earth and find a new home, but so many people tell me that it is human nature to kill each other and that it is inevitable that the human race will wipe itself out. Of course if you're feeling nihilistic then it doesn't really matter, we are just a virus with shoes, the universe will go on etc and so. I realise and understand all that, but would just love to see the human race transcend it's petty indifferences to reach for stars.

Of course I could just be an idealistic dreamer who has been watching too many emotive Carl Sagan youtube videos...
:rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

With current technology, possibly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Even at 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships will require a flight time of 44 years to reach Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, not counting time needed to reach that speed. At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The late astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

So did Homo erectus. So did H. habilis. So did H. ergaster. So did H. antecessor. So did H. florensis. So did H. heidelbergensis. So did H. neanderthalensis. So did H. sapiens idaltu. Guess where they're all now.

Extinct or evolved in to modern day humans?

Personally, I don't think it really matters whether we're the ones that end up making it in to space. If descendants of our species succeed, that's good enough for me...ideally, of course, they would know their history and it would create an unbroken path from us to our future.

That would certainly depend on a number of factors. Primitive civilizations at the tribal level could easily be erased from history if they had the misfortune of being in the impact zone of a Tunguska class asteroid. Or what of the events that were postulated to have created the moon? A near Earth sized celestial object striking a glancing blow, throwing enough ejecta into orbit to create a glowing magma ball and covering the Earth with enough superheated magma to torch the atmosphere.

With these sort of events, I think it's safe to say that any civilization predating man which had the misfortune of meeting these massive ELE events would have been melted down and returned to the planetary crust in an unrecognizable form.

"Tribal civilizations" is something of an oxymoron. When I think civilization, I think city-building. And yes, the more primitive the more easy to erase - but we have fossils of *bacteria* still preserved, so how come the entire species would just be conveniently gone? Sounds like an implausible Dean Koontz backstory. And of course any more advanced society would leave behind traces.... like plastic.

Forever the same? Hardly.

Well, if it's not forever the same, then you'll get evolution, and then my point about humans not being the same species thanks to evolution stands.

Physically and mentally superior? People have tried that at several stages in history before, and there's no reason to believe that would not happen again.

Yeah. Like the Nazi eugenics movement. Lasted how many years? Perhaps a dozen? And only within the Nazi sphere of influence?

Not exactly a promising precedent for 5 billion unbroken years of unified human policy.

Already parents try to weed out diseases and genetic deficiencies from their progeny before birth, and there is selective abortions in numerous developing countries until there is progeny of the right characteristics, usually males in that aspect.

Genetic research today just means it can be boiled down to a science.


None of that amounts to stifling evolution. There will always be evolution. No amount of science turns the earth into a petri dish... and certainly not for 5 billion years.

Unless we manufacture one, humanity doesn't have any known natural competitor.

Hmm, well, HIV might disagree...

ELE avoidance on the other hand, or already a pre-requisite I have mentioned. Without a means of ensuring species survival in the event of an ELE, humanity is doomed with absolute certainty. With ELE avoidance, then the opportunities begin to present itself.

Well there you have it. You have to naively assume the development of ELE avoidance technology for the idea to be possible at all. I don't have that kind of confidence in technological development. Not in a society where people complain about a few million dollars going to NASA, but happily ignore it when the Defense Department "loses" 2.2 trillion dollars and gladly foots the billions-dollars-bill for killing people whose dead ex-national leader might conceivably have one day made a weapon which might have been able to harm us. Call me pessimist. :)

Yes, yes, we have religious fundamentalists who have tried pyrotechnic devices and murders of gynecologists and their places of work as well as those who would otherwise oppose human genetic research, but that does not mean that such research has come to a halt has it?

It doesn't need to. Genetic research can progress all it wants. There's not going to be a single, collective human movement in one direction that outlasts the sun itself. If history teaches anything, it's that change is inevitable and nothing lasts forever.

Humanity has progressed to this level of civilization on one principle, and one principle alone. If it confers an advantage, use it. This was the sort of thinking that made wooden sticks a weapon and tool as opposed to fleshy fingers. The same thinking that started the use of fire, the creation and utilization of countless innovations from the very beginning of our species.

Also the same principle that means people kill themselves with poisonous automobiles, develop nuclear and biological weapons which can eradicate the entire species, and produce such necessities as Doritos...

Smallpox vaccines were strongly opposed in Stockholm on religious and philosophical grounds, that is, until a major smallpox epidemic in 1873 began killing off the opposition.

Irrational and to the extreme? Likely, those who opposed the smallpox vaccines in Stockholm said the same thing, if couched in different words. Where are they now? Gone, just like the dinosaurs who couldn't adapt to take advantage of their new situation.

Unlike those vaccine detractors, when I say something is irrational - the idea of a 5 billion year old social movement that successfully eliminates evolution (magically) - I'm actually right. ;)

"Tribal civilizations" is something of an oxymoron. When I think civilization, I think city-building. And yes, the more primitive the more easy to erase - but we have fossils of *bacteria* still preserved, so how come the entire species would just be conveniently gone? Sounds like an implausible Dean Koontz backstory. And of course any more advanced society would leave behind traces.... like plastic.

Who knows? Maybe we haven't found it yet? It would be foolish to say that humanity has catalogued every macro-organism that was around during say, the Cretaceous period no? The further back we go, the harder it is to find any evidence. There's no real way to say for certain.


Well, if it's not forever the same, then you'll get evolution, and then my point about humans not being the same species thanks to evolution stands.


Humanity now is a great deal different from the way it was back when there were Neanderthals no? They're still considered the same species.


Yeah. Like the Nazi eugenics movement. Lasted how many years? Perhaps a dozen? And only within the Nazi sphere of influence?

The Nazi Eugenics program was run by incompetents who failed to understand genetics and had operated under the illusion of propaganda run by a thinly veiled racist. They also had a foreign policy that could only be described as disastrous at best.


Not exactly a promising precedent for 5 billion unbroken years of unified human policy.


Who needs a unified human policy? That is worse. Competition and rivalry is far better towards sustaining humanity as a species in the field of genetics. Unification is stagnation.


None of that amounts to stifling evolution. There will always be evolution. No amount of science turns the earth into a petri dish... and certainly not for 5 billion years.

Evolution continues, certainly, but when you can define how you evolve, it will definitely be curbed and controlled, if not by authorities, then by parents wishing to produce superior children who will outperform the normals.


Hmm, well, HIV might disagree...


Does HIV compete for resources? No, it doesn't. It is likely the result of a mutation springing from a vastly wider human gene pool now that less advanced periods would have killed off. But in no way is it a natural competitor. Population control, perhaps, but not a competitor.


Well there you have it. You have to naively assume the development of ELE avoidance technology for the idea to be possible at all.

This is a prerequisite, not a certainty. If humanity develops it, all well and good. An obstacle towards a 5 billion year species lifespan is removed. If humanity doesn't, then we're doomed the next time a big rock shows up in orbit. It's as simple as that.


I don't have that kind of confidence in technological development. Not in a society where people complain about a few million dollars going to NASA, but happily ignore it when the Defense Department "loses" 2.2 trillion dollars and gladly foots the billions-dollars-bill for killing people whose dead ex-national leader might conceivably have one day made a weapon which might have been able to harm us. Call me pessimist. :)

I never said anything about American society developing the technology. In fact, consumerist societies like America are quite content to stagnate. It takes a combination of an iron fisted rule and sufficient resources along with technical expertise to truly advance beyond mere existence.

Nazi Germany may have ultimately lost the war, but it was they who pioneered technologies that left the rest of the world behind when the war began. America's rocket program was a pitiful thing compared to the Soviet Union when Sputnik orbited the Earth. It took Chinese announcements of lunar ambitions for America to gain more interest in the moon once more.

The future, will not belong to the consumerists, easily distracted by MTV and American Idol, content to stagnate in comfort until they expire. It will belong to those with the vision, and the will, to take it.


It doesn't need to. Genetic research can progress all it wants. There's not going to be a single, collective human movement in one direction that outlasts the sun itself. If history teaches anything, it's that change is inevitable and nothing lasts forever.

Change is inevitable. Change is what allowed humanity to fall down from the trees and think about pointy sticks as tools. Change, is the collective human movement. And it will always be change for whatever it perceives as advantageous.


Also the same principle that means people kill themselves with poisonous automobiles, develop nuclear and biological weapons which can eradicate the entire species, and produce such necessities as Doritos...


All that you have mentioned confer a perceived advantage, in one form or another. If anything, it only serves to reinforce my position.


Unlike those vaccine detractors, when I say something is irrational - the idea of a 5 billion year old social movement that successfully eliminates evolution (magically) - I'm actually right. ;)

You would be right. Since magic is, at best, unproven. Unfortunately for you, I never mentioned anything about magic.

Foolish daydreaming humans! Can you "escape the planet?"

You humans apparently are so busy "daydreaming" that you don't already know (or else have forgotten) the answer to that question, so I will answer the question for you:

NO!

No, you humans, being incapable of flight, cannot escape planet Houston, or "Earth" as many of you like to call it.