PDA

View Full Version : Science Hawking says "Abandon Earth or Face Extinction"


Pestilence
08-09-2010, 12:27 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/09/abandon-earth-face-extinction-warns-stephen-hawking/

Abandon Earth or Face Extinction, Stephen Hawking Warns -- Again

It's time to abandon Earth, warned the world's most famous theoretical physicist.

In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said.

"I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future."

"But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.

That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or about 50,000 years using current rocket science.

Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."

This is not the first time Hawking has warned of impending planetary doom. In 2006, the physicist warned that Earth was at an ever increasing risk of being wiped out. And lately, Hawking has become quite outspoken.

In April, he warned of the dangers of communicating with aliens, telling the Discovery Channel that extra-terrestrials are almost certain to exist -- and humanity should avoid contact with them at all cost.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

The answer, he suggests, is that most of alien life will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals -- the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history -- and they could pose a serious threat to us.

In May Hawking said he believed humans could travel millions of years into the future and repopulate their devastated planet. If spaceships are built that can fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them.

“Time travel was once considered scientific heresy, and I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a crank," he said in Stephen Hawking's Universe.

"These days I’m not so cautious.”

CaliforniaChief
08-09-2010, 12:28 PM
Can we send him first?

Buck
08-09-2010, 12:30 PM
He's dying to be relevant for the time being, but I agree with him that inevitably we will need to colonize in space.

Battlestar Galactica style.

DMAC
08-09-2010, 12:34 PM
It seems as though his talky machine has become self aware.

ClevelandBronco
08-09-2010, 12:39 PM
We could make it look like someone tripped on his cord.

Hydrae
08-09-2010, 12:47 PM
I completely agree that our best chance at long-term survival is to get outposts offplanet. We will be doing good to succeed in this endeavor in the next 200 years though, IMO.

Saulbadguy
08-09-2010, 01:22 PM
It's not really that easy to do, I don't think. JMO though. I also think there are other humans out there, anyways, so it's all good.

Goldmember
08-09-2010, 01:28 PM
I agree with him. Man will destroy himself through nuclear attacks within the next 100 years, IMO. Start over again with a better life form in a few centuries.

Bearcat
08-09-2010, 01:31 PM
Playing a regular season game in London doesn't seem so bad now.

Frazod
08-09-2010, 01:34 PM
My best friend has a doctorate in physics and knows several people who have met Hawking. Apparently he's a complete bastard - treats everybody around him like dirt and enjoys running into/over people with his wheelchair.

I guess I can't really blame him for being angry at life, though.

Ebolapox
08-09-2010, 01:37 PM
he's likely not far off.

there's a great book about how societies after the fertile crescent (the advent of agricultural societies and vast elimination of 'primitive' societies) have very short lifespans and, essentially, always self-destruct.

"Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. this diatribe by hawking is strangely apropos in regard to the book.

Goldmember
08-09-2010, 01:38 PM
My best friend has a doctorate in physics and knows several people who have met Hawking. Apparently he's a complete bastard - treats everybody around him like dirt and enjoys running into/over people with his wheelchair.

I guess I can't really blame him for being angry at life, though.

Many scientists have over-inflated egos and think others' opinions matter little.

CosmicPal
08-09-2010, 01:39 PM
I saw a documentary about this very thing a few weeks ago.

One scientist suggested something that could be very plausible, and that is to build sustainable communities on the ocean floor. It would be far more difficult to colonize another planet than it would be to colonize the ocean floor. It'd be expensive as hell, because you'd have to catch, store, and release oxygen and fresh water. Plus, you can only live so many feet under the sea without getting yourself crushed to death or whatever.

beach tribe
08-09-2010, 01:40 PM
I agree with him. Man will destroy himself through nuclear attacks within the next 100 years, IMO. Start over again with a better life form in a few CENTURIES.

Huh?

Fruit Ninja
08-09-2010, 01:40 PM
This is just common sense. I know this dude is a genius, but duh on what he's saying.

Rain Man
08-09-2010, 01:41 PM
I completely agree, much to Hawking's relief. He doesn't want to get into an Internet argument with me.

Goldmember
08-09-2010, 01:48 PM
I was being a bit sarcastic there

Goldmember
08-09-2010, 01:50 PM
I saw a documentary about this very thing a few weeks ago.

One scientist suggested something that could be very plausible, and that is to build sustainable communities on the ocean floor. It would be far more difficult to colonize another planet than it would be to colonize the ocean floor. It'd be expensive as hell, because you'd have to catch, store, and release oxygen and fresh water. Plus, you can only live so many feet under the sea without getting yourself crushed to death or whatever.

What if there is no air to catch?

Goldmember
08-09-2010, 01:51 PM
I completely agree, much to Hawking's relief. He doesn't want to get into an Internet argument with me.

I know I wouldn't!!

jwazzie
08-09-2010, 01:52 PM
I will have what he is having

MOhillbilly
08-09-2010, 01:54 PM
I completely agree that our best chance at long-term survival is to get outposts offplanet. We will be doing good to succeed in this endeavor in the next 200 years though, IMO.

humans would be doing beyond good. The chances of this happening are 0%.

DMAC
08-09-2010, 01:55 PM
I completely agree, much to Hawking's relief. He doesn't want to get into an Internet argument with me.Yes, it would be very easy to interrupt him.

CosmicPal
08-09-2010, 01:56 PM
What if there is no air to catch?

In the event of war, you would have stored that oxygen and fresh water for later use.

blaise
08-09-2010, 02:06 PM
For some reason I imagine Stephen Hawking turning his wheelchair into a space ship and he's flying through the galaxy shooting lasers from it, and battling alien species. After he blows up some alien ship he could be like, "You. Got. Served."

Dave Lane
08-09-2010, 02:06 PM
Eventually we have to leave this planet or die out period. Of course the for certain part of the equation is still a billion years off so we have a little time to work with.

Inspector
08-09-2010, 02:10 PM
It is my understanding that for survival we'll need duct tape and plastic sheeting.

jAZ
08-09-2010, 02:16 PM
I hate when the media twists the words of scientists like this. At no point did Hawking say "abandon" earth.

He's saying colonize other locations because the threat that one day we might destroy ourselves on this one is too great.

And he's right. While the headline writer for this article is completely wrong.

jAZ
08-09-2010, 02:17 PM
I hate when the media twists the words of scientists like this. At no point did Hawking say "abandon" earth.

He's saying colonize other locations because the threat that one day we might destroy ourselves on this one is too great.

And he's right. While the headline writer for this article is completely wrong.

blaise
08-09-2010, 02:24 PM
I hate when the media twists the words of scientists like this. At no point did Hawking say "abandon" earth.

He's saying colonize other locations because the threat that one day we might destroy ourselves on this one is too great.

And he's right. While the headline writer for this article is completely wrong.

I don't see the big deal with using the word abandon. It means to leave in the face of danger. He's saying human existence on earth is in danger of someday destroying itself.

Monty
08-09-2010, 02:31 PM
For some reason I imagine Stephen Hawking turning his wheelchair into a space ship and he's flying through the galaxy shooting lasers from it, and battling alien species. After he blows up some alien ship he could be like, "All your base are belong to us"

FYP

jAZ
08-09-2010, 02:33 PM
I don't see the big deal with using the word abandon. It means to leave in the face of danger. He's saying human existence on earth is in danger of someday destroying itself.

We wouldn't be abandoning the planet. Any more than we abandoned the East coast in favor of moving west. We spread out... we didn't abandon.

blaise
08-09-2010, 02:34 PM
We wouldn't be abandoning the planet. Any more than we abandoned the East coast in favor of moving west. We spread out... we didn't abandon.

I don't know who's overreacting more, the headline writer or you.

Mr. Laz
08-09-2010, 02:39 PM
He's right, eventually we will have to expand or collapse simply from a population stand point. Not to mention the human tendency to trash everything.

Chief Faithful
08-09-2010, 02:40 PM
Hawking as been watching too much Wall-e.

Hog Farmer
08-09-2010, 02:42 PM
Hawking knows damn good and well the Annunaki are headed this way on planet Nibiru. He's just under government gag orders. Get ready boys, 2012 is gonna be fun. Hope you like lizard.

jAZ
08-09-2010, 02:45 PM
I don't know who's overreacting more, the headline writer or you.

It's a sad day when pointing out the facts gets twisted into over-reacting.

Mr. Laz
08-09-2010, 02:47 PM
I don't see the big deal with using the word abandon. It means to leave in the face of danger. He's saying human existence on earth is in danger of someday destroying itself.
because using the tone they did and word "abandon" makes it sound like Hawking is yelling "The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling"

oh noes, run 4 u lifes!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qyhZ9_eXCHM/Sh8eJsJt2QI/AAAAAAAAA4Y/k8bJakQH8N8/s400/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg


when really he is just talking about the philosophical eventuality of life on earth.

BWillie
08-09-2010, 02:48 PM
Well, he's right.

blaise
08-09-2010, 02:50 PM
It's a sad day when pointing out the facts gets twisted into over-reacting.

He said "our only chance at long term survival" was to find other places to live. The fact is that you would need to abandon earth to do that. Unless you know of some specific time frame attached to the word "abandon" I'd say, yes you're over reacting a bit. So, if he said we need to leave tomorrow it would be abandoning, but in a thousand years it's not? When exactly does the definition of abandon kick in?

blaise
08-09-2010, 02:55 PM
because using the tone they did and word "abandon" makes it sound like Hawking is yelling "The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling"

oh noes, run 4 u lifes!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qyhZ9_eXCHM/Sh8eJsJt2QI/AAAAAAAAA4Y/k8bJakQH8N8/s400/chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg


when really he is just talking about the philosophical eventuality of life on earth.

He's saying it could be a couple of hundred years. If his idea is that we need to colonize other planets, then I'd say 200 years isn't really that long of a time frame to work with.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2010, 02:57 PM
Its more viable to 'final solution' two thirds of the planet.

Garcia Bronco
08-09-2010, 03:04 PM
LOL Hawking...tell us something we don't know.

Brock
08-09-2010, 03:06 PM
He's saying it could be a couple of hundred years. If his idea is that we need to colonize other planets, then I'd say 200 years isn't really that long of a time frame to work with.

I'd put it more in the category of "never".

Mr. Laz
08-09-2010, 03:07 PM
I'd put it more in the category of "never".
never what?

Brock
08-09-2010, 03:10 PM
never what?

It'll never happen.

ClevelandBronco
08-09-2010, 03:13 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if we fuck up this planet to the point that we have to abandon it, I hope we don't survive.

Garcia Bronco
08-09-2010, 03:14 PM
My best friend has a doctorate in physics and knows several people who have met Hawking. Apparently he's a complete bastard - treats everybody around him like dirt and enjoys running into/over people with his wheelchair.

I guess I can't really blame him for being angry at life, though.

Once could be considered an accident. The second or 3rd time he's taking a dump.

Garcia Bronco
08-09-2010, 03:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if we **** up this planet to the point that we have to abandon it, I hope we don't survive.

Don't worry we won't survive. Our end is already written

RedThat
08-09-2010, 03:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if we **** up this planet to the point that we have to abandon it, I hope we don't survive.

Whatever man puts in, he gets back what he deserves.

Amnorix
08-09-2010, 03:19 PM
Well, as a functional matter clearly we're overburdening the planet, and the burden we put on it can't increase indefinitely or it won't support all of us.

I just read yesterday that for all our fears of shark attacks, etc., it's humans killing them. Mostly as a result of the Asian delicacy of shark fin soup, humans kill approximately 50 million sharks per year.

50 million

per year

Yeah.

Eventually we'll screw things up so bad it wont' support us. But that's more or less our own problem tos olve. The planet will continue, in one form or another, with or without us. I think colonizing into outer space makes sense when the technology can support it. Man has always moved into the unknown. But the tech isn't there yet, so it's all very hypothetical at this point.

RedThat
08-09-2010, 03:22 PM
Well, as a functional matter clearly we're overburdening the planet, and the burden we put on it can't increase indefinitely or it won't support all of us.

I just read yesterday that for all our fears of shark attacks, etc., it's humans killing them. Mostly as a result of the Asian delicacy of shark fin soup, humans kill approximately 50 million sharks per year.

50 million

per year

Yeah.

Eventually we'll screw things up so bad it wont' support us. But that's more or less our own problem tos olve. The planet will continue, in one form or another, with or without us. I think colonizing into outer space makes sense when the technology can support it. Man has always moved into the unknown. But the tech isn't there yet, so it's all very hypothetical at this point.

And thats the thing, so if thats the case, were pretty much doomed.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2010, 03:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE

Amnorix
08-09-2010, 03:33 PM
Whatever man puts in, he gets back what he deserves.

I like how you said what I wanted to say in like 1/10th the number of words....

Frazod
08-09-2010, 03:34 PM
It sure would be nice if we survived long enough to colonize space, but who the hell's going to do it? Maybe the Chinese?

Current NASA Priorities:

1. Equal opportunity hiring
2. Making nice with the Muslims for inventing the abacus
3. Global warming

Not current NASA priorities:

A VEHICLE WE CAN ACTUALLY USE TO GET INTO OUTER FUCKING SPACE

:shake:

philfree
08-09-2010, 03:56 PM
That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for humanity.


Battlestar Galactica?

I've had the thought that humans on earth might have come from seeding. There might have been some people already here because it was a good enviornment. Then for some reason the seeded people lost their technology and had to start almost from scratch and ended up being absorbed by the native population.



:shrug: Didn't say I believed it all the way.


PhilFree:arrow:

BWillie
08-09-2010, 04:10 PM
I don't really care. I'm not having kids. I have about 50 more years left to live. Sounds fine if Skynet becomes self aware in 2050 or something.

Crush
08-09-2010, 05:07 PM
He's right.


This man has no dick.

Detoxing
08-09-2010, 05:23 PM
You guys are seriously over thinking this shit. The universe is a computer simulation. We are just living in a simulated world. Imagine we are the San Diego zoo. Just a bunch of animals living in captivity. We think we can get out, but we really cant. And every once in awhile someone comes along, abducts us, prods us with Ancient Alien space probes and puts us back in our cage.

One day it will all be over. Some dorky green alien with bad acne will get bored and send a giant meteor hurling threw space at us just to watch us burn like ants under a magnifying glass.

And then he'll start a new race on jupitor.

BWillie
08-09-2010, 05:26 PM
You guys are seriously over thinking this shit. The universe is a computer simulation. We are just living in a simulated world. Imagine we are the San Diego zoo. Just a bunch of animals living in captivity. We think we can get out, but we really cant. And every once in awhile someone comes along, abducts us, prods us with Ancient Alien space probes and puts us back in our cage.

One day it will all be over. Some dorky green alien with bad acne will get bored and send a giant meteor hurling threw space at us just to watch us burn like ants under a magnifying glass.

And then he'll start a new race on jupitor.

There is no evidence to support or refute this. It could really be as stupid as that.

Baconeater
08-09-2010, 05:31 PM
You guys are seriously over thinking this shit. The universe is a computer simulation. We are just living in a simulated world. Imagine we are the San Diego zoo. Just a bunch of animals living in captivity. We think we can get out, but we really cant. And every once in awhile someone comes along, abducts us, prods us with Ancient Alien space probes and puts us back in our cage.

One day it will all be over. Some dorky green alien with bad acne will get bored and send a giant meteor hurling threw space at us just to watch us burn like ants under a magnifying glass.

And then he'll start a new race on jupitor.
It's Jupiter. And girls already go there to get stupider.

Brock
08-09-2010, 05:32 PM
We're definitely headed for Uranus

ChiefaRoo
08-09-2010, 06:04 PM
humans would be doing beyond good. The chances of this happening are 0%.

500 years and we'll be all over the solar system.

BWillie
08-09-2010, 06:11 PM
I need to send my dad who is younger than me back in time to screw my mother before I was born so I can exist for I am the leader of the resistance or else we are all doomed

Count Zarth
08-09-2010, 07:30 PM
Zefram Cochrane invents warp drive in 2063. We're good.

I just hope we can get wifi out that far...I need my Chiefsplanet on other planets.

jAZ
08-09-2010, 07:45 PM
He said "our only chance at long term survival" was to find other places to live. The fact is that you would need to abandon earth to do that. Unless you know of some specific time frame attached to the word "abandon" I'd say, yes you're over reacting a bit. So, if he said we need to leave tomorrow it would be abandoning, but in a thousand years it's not? When exactly does the definition of abandon kick in?

No, he's saying that we will want to populate other planets in order to ensure the survival the the species. He doesn't remotely say that everyone on earth needs to be moved from the planet. In fact, it's logistically stupid to try to move the existing population. You move the seeds for a new one population and let them procreate a new population.

That's not abandoning anything. That's spreading out.

Humans didn't abandon Europe when Christopher Columbus made it's way to America.

boogblaster
08-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Life as we know will change in next 100 years .. history shows that .. but we won't be here anyway ......

jAZ
08-09-2010, 08:13 PM
It sure would be nice if we survived long enough to colonize space, but who the hell's going to do it? Maybe the Chinese?

Current NASA Priorities:

1. Equal opportunity hiring
2. Making nice with the Muslims for inventing the abacus
3. Global warming

Not current NASA priorities:

A VEHICLE WE CAN ACTUALLY USE TO GET INTO OUTER ****ING SPACE

:shake:
I work with some very high up folks in NASA contracting (ie, sitting in the front row at at Obama's announcement of his new NASA strategy back in the spring). I talked him the day after returning from that trip and he explained the overall strategy Obama is taking with NASA and when you hear it, it suddenly all makes perfect sense.

Obama is going to be the President who transitions our human space flight program from a government monopoly to a viable commercial one.

With NASA being the over whelming force dominating space flight in the US and basically the world, it sucks out all of the oxygen from a nacent commercial space flight industry. And the industry of "space tourism" isn't going to drive the development of a truely commercial space transportation industry. The dollars just aren't there for private industry to make a profit from it.

So we are deliberately leaving a vacuum in the industry and sending a signal to industry that they can step in and invest in the assets that will be required to have private industry lead a new age in space transportation.

Otter
08-09-2010, 08:14 PM
Life as we know will change in next 100 years .. history shows that .. but we won't be here anyway ......

I'm sorry to inform all of you but I've already made arrangements to have my head attached through cryogenics to synapses in 30 foot tall heavily armed titanium host robot body at which time I will rule with an iron fist.

Just feel fortunate most of you here are Chiefs fans and we'll have a common denominator to discuss when I'm deciding you fate.

I'm sorry, I just got done watching "Big Bang Theory".

jAZ
08-09-2010, 08:29 PM
What's interesting to me about this entire discussion is something that Michiu Kaku talked about one night years ago on Art Bell. It's called the Kardashev scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring an advanced civilization's level of technological advancement. The scale is only theoretical and in terms of an actual civilization highly speculative; however, it puts energy consumption of an entire civilization in a cosmic perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. These are based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonization. In general terms, a Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.[1]

...

The human civilization as of 2010 is currently somewhere around 0.72, with calculations showing we will reach Type I status around 2100 and Type II status around 11200.

The trick is that as we as a civilization evolve and harness greater and greater energy, we run a greater and greater risk of destroying ourselves.

We as humans have to evolves not just technologically, but also socially. Because as we have access to greater and greater sources of energy... the sources of energy we have today will become more common place.

Imagine a day (100 years from now) when an average person has access to a personal sized cold fusion energy pack that has the power of a small nuclear reactor. A devise like that can be used to destroy an entire city.

So our social systems have to evolve in such a way that we almost become a truely pacifist society. Otherwise, one population will destroy another.

The implications for the sort of organized, doctrine-based, my God is right, and your God is wrong... religions that we have in our society today are huge.

Fascinating stuff.

Frazod
08-09-2010, 08:58 PM
I work with some very high up folks in NASA contracting (ie, sitting in the front row at at Obama's announcement of his new NASA strategy back in the spring). I talked him the day after returning from that trip and he explained the overall strategy Obama is taking with NASA and when you hear it, it suddenly all makes perfect sense.

Obama is going to be the President who transitions our human space flight program from a government monopoly to a viable commercial one.

With NASA being the over whelming force dominating space flight in the US and basically the world, it sucks out all of the oxygen from a nacent commercial space flight industry. And the industry of "space tourism" isn't going to drive the development of a truely commercial space transportation industry. The dollars just aren't there for private industry to make a profit from it.

So we are deliberately leaving a vacuum in the industry and sending a signal to industry that they can step in and invest in the assets that will be required to have private industry lead a new age in space transportation.

Yeah, I'll bet. :whackit:

jAZ
08-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Yeah, I'll bet. :whackit:

I don't lie.

Frazod
08-09-2010, 09:04 PM
I don't lie.

You also apparently don't know when you've been lied to.

WV
08-09-2010, 09:23 PM
I think he needs to lay off the medical...

|Zach|
08-09-2010, 09:25 PM
I'm sorry to inform all of you but I've already made arrangements to have my head attached through cryogenics to synapses in 30 foot tall heavily armed titanium host robot body at which time I will rule with an iron fist.

Just feel fortunate most of you here are Chiefs fans and we'll have a common denominator to discuss when I'm deciding you fate.

I'm sorry, I just got done watching "Big Bang Theory".

So.

Otter.

We are cool right?
:hmmm: LMAO

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/002/e/7/Mech_Warrior___Uziel_by_Shimmering_Sword.jpg

Psyko Tek
08-09-2010, 09:51 PM
Yes, it would be very easy to interrupt him.

you're gonna take his batteries out ain't cha?

Psyko Tek
08-09-2010, 09:53 PM
We wouldn't be abandoning the planet. Any more than we abandoned the East coast in favor of moving west. We spread out... we didn't abandon.

I think abandoning the east coast may be a good idea

Pioli Zombie
08-09-2010, 09:57 PM
What the fuck does he know? He can't even walk.

Psyko Tek
08-09-2010, 09:59 PM
It sure would be nice if we survived long enough to colonize space, but who the hell's going to do it? Maybe the Chinese?

Current NASA Priorities:

1. Equal opportunity hiring
2. Making nice with the Muslims for inventing the abacus
3. Global warming

Not current NASA priorities:

A VEHICLE WE CAN ACTUALLY USE TO GET INTO OUTER FUCKING SPACE

:shake:

IMO
nasa has been severely screwed
away from reusable vehicles
back to capsules

baaad move

Pioli Zombie
08-09-2010, 10:06 PM
I mean if he was so smart why hasn't he figured out a way to stand the fuck up??

Ebolapox
08-09-2010, 10:24 PM
I mean if he was so smart why hasn't he figured out a way to stand the fuck up??

because ALS is a serious condition?

jAZ
08-09-2010, 11:46 PM
You also apparently don't know when you've been lied to.

You aren't required to believe me.

But this is without question the strategy that the Obama folks are following. They are privatizing the basic transportation role.

To be clear, we are not talking about deep space stuff.

It's the stuff we already know how to do well. But as long as NASA is running the space shuttle, private industry won't enter the market. So they stand down the space shuttle and let the private industry step in.

They are still working on their deep space program. Which I believe is expected to go to go to an asteroid rather than mars or the moon. But I think that's still under discussion.

DaneMcCloud
08-09-2010, 11:47 PM
Bring on the aliens.

Hopefully, they'll take out the politicians first.

Count Zarth
08-09-2010, 11:49 PM
Bring on the aliens.

Hopefully, they'll take out the politicians first.

The politicians ARE the aliens.

jAZ
08-10-2010, 12:14 AM
You aren't required to believe me.

But this is without question the strategy that the Obama folks are following. They are privatizing the basic transportation role.

To be clear, we are not talking about deep space stuff.

It's the stuff we already know how to do well. But as long as NASA is running the space shuttle, private industry won't enter the market. So they stand down the space shuttle and let the private industry step in.

They are still working on their deep space program. Which I believe is expected to go to go to an asteroid rather than mars or the moon. But I think that's still under discussion.

In case you just distrust me:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/obama.space/index.html

The new strategy reflects a new era of international cooperation on space travel, Obama said, also noting that NASA always has collaborated with private companies on building space vehicles and other work.

Leroy Chiao, a former astronaut and the current vice president of Excalibur Almaz, a private manned space flight company, said it's time to "give the commercial guys a chance."

"NASA's job really should be to focus on pushing outside of low-earth orbit, of either going to explore near-earth asteroids, going back to the moon to test architecture and modules and hardware, operations for an eventual visit to Mars. So, NASA really should be thinking farther," Chiao said, adding that private companies could serve as a "taxi service" for NASA.

DaneMcCloud
08-10-2010, 12:21 AM
I just hope the aliens are hot

blaise
08-10-2010, 04:34 AM
We wouldn't be abandoning the planet. Any more than we abandoned the East coast in favor of moving west. We spread out... we didn't abandon.

Maybe you missed the part where he said that there was a probabilty of Earth being destroyed. Hawking isn't advocating Manifest Destiny, he's saying we will need to plan on leaving Earth someday because it's in peril of being destroyed.

blaise
08-10-2010, 04:48 AM
No, he's saying that we will want to populate other planets in order to ensure the survival the the species. He doesn't remotely say that everyone on earth needs to be moved from the planet. In fact, it's logistically stupid to try to move the existing population. You move the seeds for a new one population and let them procreate a new population.

That's not abandoning anything. That's spreading out.

Humans didn't abandon Europe when Christopher Columbus made it's way to America.

He doesn't say everyone needs to be moved from the planet, just that the ones left here would probably die. Yeah, you're right, it would be insane to think the ones here should abandon or die.

Inspector
08-10-2010, 09:26 AM
We're definitely headed for Uranus

Ouch, that would hurt.

But seriously, didn't we already send the space family Robinson's out to find a place? Well, them and that idiot Dr. Smith?

Where ever we end up, I hope there is a good Chinese buffet there.

Inspector
08-10-2010, 09:27 AM
I just hope the aliens are hot

Ask Captain Kirk about that.

He liked the green ones with 3 boobies.

Bob Dole
08-10-2010, 10:08 AM
Seems an appropriate place to quote Maynard...

"Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this bullshit, three ring, circus sideshow of freaks."

SDChiefs
08-10-2010, 10:21 AM
Seems an appropriate place to quote Maynard...

"Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will. I sure could use a vacation from this bullshit, three ring, circus sideshow of freaks."

See you down in Arizona Bay.

Fairplay
08-10-2010, 10:48 AM
Bon Voyage, and don't take any wooden nickels.

Rausch
08-10-2010, 12:25 PM
Learn to swim...

MOhillbilly
08-10-2010, 12:32 PM
500 years and we'll be all over the solar system.

'we' is relevant.

Rausch
08-10-2010, 12:51 PM
'we' is relevant.

Might be the deepest $#it I've ever watched the MoBilly say...









(even if he means relative)

MOhillbilly
08-10-2010, 12:53 PM
Might be the deepest $#it I've ever watched the MoBilly say...









(even if he means relative)

i wrote relative first, but whatever.

Rausch
08-10-2010, 12:58 PM
i wrote relative first, but whatever.

...

ClevelandBronco
08-10-2010, 01:01 PM
We is realative.

Rausch
08-10-2010, 01:10 PM
We is realative.

:spock:

CrazyPhuD
08-10-2010, 01:22 PM
Meanwhile NASA has annouced the new space contract up for bid. The construction of the S.S. Bontany Bay.

Otter
08-10-2010, 01:24 PM
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

HolyHandgernade
08-10-2010, 01:29 PM
Advancements in synthetic life will make prolonged space missions more probable. One of the problems with survival is the biological body's adaptation to a foreign biological environment. If we can figure out how to synthesize our own food, we would stand a much better chance. Without it, even if you found a habitable planet, your body might not accept or be attacked by the micro-organisms for which it is not familiar.

Rausch
08-10-2010, 01:37 PM
Advancements in synthetic life will make prolonged space missions more probable.

Ask yourself if that is truly the most logical step to space exploration (hint: it is.)

And if you can run with that as a given I think it explains most UFO (those that aren't classified aircraft or natural events) experiences.

If you're smart enough to get here what we do is interesting but completely irrelevant to you...

Pioli Zombie
08-10-2010, 03:09 PM
If you had diahrea in zero gravity it would go all over the place.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-10-2010, 04:09 PM
Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?

CrazyPhuD
08-10-2010, 11:07 PM
If you had diahrea in zero gravity it would go all over the place.

Maybe you'd also probably zip around like a deflating balloon....

Jayhawkerman2001
08-11-2010, 01:37 AM
seeing how far the human species has evolved over the past 5000-10000 years to now tells me that eventually we will have the power and technology to get us to other stars and planets. We are explorers and always looking for the next place to settle

CrazyPhuD
08-11-2010, 01:42 AM
seeing how far the human species has evolved over the past 5000-10000 years to now tells me that eventually we will have the power and technology to get us to other stars and planets. We are explorers and always looking for the next place to settle

We need our Lebensraum!

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 01:45 AM
seeing how far the human species has evolved over the past 5000-10000 years to now tells me that eventually we will have the power and technology to get us to other stars and planets. We are explorers and always looking for the next place to settle

LMAO

ROFL

5000-10,000 years?

The human species didn't do fucking shit until the formation of the United States, which completely separated Church and State.

Mankind has progressed 1,000,000,000 times since 1789. And each year (not even 18 months, as predicted by Moore's law), technology keeps pushing advances forward at an exponential rate.

By the end of this century, I wouldn't be surprised if humans have colonized Mars and moved on from there.

As long as the computers haven't taken over. And that's not a fantasy.

Guru
08-11-2010, 05:05 AM
Meanwhile NASA has annouced the new space contract up for bid. The construction of the S.S. Bontany Bay.http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_khan_preview.jpg

Ebolapox
08-11-2010, 07:58 AM
seeing how far the human species has evolved over the past 5000-10000 years to now tells me that eventually we will have the power and technology to get us to other stars and planets. We are explorers and always looking for the next place to settle

eh, we OURSELVES haven't evolved much as a species. now, our CULTURE and SOCIAL evolution has been mindblowing. but as far as actual, physical evolution, there hasn't been much (barely any measurable data, fwiw)

Fairplay
08-11-2010, 08:03 AM
I thought Hawking died for some reason.

No matter.

Last one off planet earth is a rotten egg.

Ebolapox
08-11-2010, 08:05 AM
LMAO

ROFL

5000-10,000 years?

The human species didn't do fucking shit until the formation of the United States, which completely separated Church and State.

Mankind has progressed 1,000,000,000 times since 1789. And each year (not even 18 months, as predicted by Moore's law), technology keeps pushing advances forward at an exponential rate.

By the end of this century, I wouldn't be surprised if humans have colonized Mars and moved on from there.

As long as the computers haven't taken over. And that's not a fantasy.

if we want to be purely technical, the human species did a LOT before the formation of the USA... survive (not a foregone conclusion, as species go extinct daily), evolve sentience (not a common event, obviously) and consciousness (likely more common than we can imagine, if you believe some of the science that is going on with the brains of the 'higher mammals'), the development of agriculture (without which we would not have become a nation), and COUNTLESS other developments that, without which, the USA wouldn't have even been a fart into the wind.

that's even ignoring the vast amount of civilizations that burned out before we came about. for their day, they pushed many envelopes as far as technology and science/mathematics (the egyptians, greek city-states, romans, etc.)

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 11:41 AM
if we want to be purely technical, the human species did a LOT before the formation of the USA... survive (not a foregone conclusion, as species go extinct daily), evolve sentience (not a common event, obviously) and consciousness (likely more common than we can imagine, if you believe some of the science that is going on with the brains of the 'higher mammals'), the development of agriculture (without which we would not have become a nation), and COUNTLESS other developments that, without which, the USA wouldn't have even been a fart into the wind.

that's even ignoring the vast amount of civilizations that burned out before we came about. for their day, they pushed many envelopes as far as technology and science/mathematics (the egyptians, greek city-states, romans, etc.)

I agree but mankind was literally in the Dark Ages until the formation of the US and advances made in the 20th century. Once Mankind was free of the Church and religious persecution (if not death), men were able to share their ideas with the world. Many other like-minded men were encouraged, not discouraged, to work together and advance the human race.

The invention of the microprocessor has sped up the course of human technology and events exponentially. It's too bad that men like Pythagoras, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicous, et al weren't alive to see the remarkable evolution of technology that we know share.

Of course, none this would have happened without the Roswell crash...

:D

Groves
08-11-2010, 11:57 AM
Once Mankind was free of the Church and religious persecution (if not death), men were able to share their ideas with the world.

You have a lot of football knowledge, and incredible understanding of hollywood and culture. I don't think your grasp of the history of technology is serving you well in this case.

Any assertion that religion as a whole slows progress or exploration or inventiveness is simply unsupported. Some religions are very much in the front of scientific advancement and have been for centuries. Christianity and Humanism/Atheism are huge proponents of knowing how the world works, but for different reasons.

Other religions do indeed put the kibosh on such activity as harmful or "unholy".

As is usually the case, there are good and bad examples of each side, but that doesn't negate the general truths.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 12:04 PM
You have a lot of football knowledge, and incredible understanding of hollywood and culture. I don't think your grasp of the history of technology is serving you well in this case.

Any assertion that religion as a whole slows progress or exploration or inventiveness is simply unsupported. Some religions are very much in the front of scientific advancement and have been for centuries. Christianity and Humanism/Atheism are huge proponents of knowing how the world works, but for different reasons.

Other religions do indeed put the kibosh on such activity as harmful or "unholy".

As is usually the case, there are good and bad examples of each side, but that doesn't negate the general truths.

The Catholic Church had a tremendous stranglehold on knowledge. Had not such a stranglehold existed, mankind would be much further along technologically than it is today.

It's that simple.

And I'm not trying to indict religion or religions but it wasn't until modern man was able to break free from the church that technological advances became a daily occurrence instead of a century at a time.

Mankind languished for several millenniums before that happened. There's no way you can convince me that it was a coincidence.

Groves
08-11-2010, 12:35 PM
There's no way you can convince me that it was a coincidence.

I'm sorry if that means the topic is closed.

There has been much evil done by people in this world, it's true. I don't know of any religion that claims otherwise.

Nobody can make an argument, however, that Christians haven't been vital to the propulsion of science and scientific advancement, not with facts anyway.

Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology)
Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer)
Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method)
Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system)
Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry)
Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology)
John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory)
Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology)
John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode)
James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics)
William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics)
Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion)
Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy)
James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light)
Gregor Mendel (father of genetics)
Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation)
Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory)

It's a smattering, and I'm certainly not claiming that all advancement has been made by Christians, that would be silly indeed.

Throwing all religions into one pot with this issue doesn't work.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 12:50 PM
I'm sorry if that means the topic is closed.

There has been much evil done by people in this world, it's true. I don't know of any religion that claims otherwise.

Nobody can make an argument, however, that Christians haven't been vital to the propulsion of science and scientific advancement, not with facts anyway.

Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology)
Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer)
Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method)
Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system)
Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry)
Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology)
John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory)
Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology)
John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode)
James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics)
William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics)
Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion)
Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy)
James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light)
Gregor Mendel (father of genetics)
Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation)
Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory)

It's a smattering, and I'm certainly not claiming that all advancement has been made by Christians, that would be silly indeed.

Throwing all religions into one pot with this issue doesn't work.

What about the 3500 years prior to the birth of all of those people? I'm not just singling out one religion, I'm saying that ALL religions have been guilty of torturing, maiming and killing anyone with ideas contrary to the state's religion.

morphius
08-11-2010, 12:54 PM
The Catholic Church had a tremendous stranglehold on knowledge. Had not such a stranglehold existed, mankind would be much further along technologically than it is today.

It's that simple.

And I'm not trying to indict religion or religions but it wasn't until modern man was able to break free from the church that technological advances became a daily occurrence instead of a century at a time.

Mankind languished for several millenniums before that happened. There's no way you can convince me that it was a coincidence.
It could be argued that the whole feudal system held back people more than did the Catholic Church.

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 12:56 PM
It could be argued that the whole feudal system held back people more than did the Catholic Church.

All hail gunpowder.

SDChiefs
08-11-2010, 01:11 PM
Why does everything having to do with science become a religous debate?

Pants
08-11-2010, 01:14 PM
eh, we OURSELVES haven't evolved much as a species. now, our CULTURE and SOCIAL evolution has been mindblowing. but as far as actual, physical evolution, there hasn't been much (barely any measurable data, fwiw)

Except that the average height of a European male in 1600 was around 5 foot tall.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 01:16 PM
Why does everything having to do with science become a religous debate?

Because they'll forever be linked due the actions of the church.

It's inescapable.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 01:16 PM
Except that the average height of a European male in 1600 was around 5 foot tall.

White men can't jump

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Except that the average height of a European male in 1600 was around 5 foot tall.

id say on average the men 2 generations removed would crush the men of this generation.
we are a soft culture.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:20 PM
eh, we OURSELVES haven't evolved much as a species. now, our CULTURE and SOCIAL evolution has been mindblowing. but as far as actual, physical evolution, there hasn't been much (barely any measurable data, fwiw)

I might suggest that in population inflationary times of a species that mutations are introduced but it takes a deflationary action that allows for selection (not overwhelming destruction) to actually change the population genetic makeup and therefore allow for noticeable biological descent that might be noticed.

CrazyPhuD
08-11-2010, 01:24 PM
Why does everything having to do with science become a religous debate?

Well because in all honesty you could argue that religion is the antithesis of science and vice versa. It's not a coincidence that if you were to poll scientists you would find them substantially less religious than the general populace. That is likely not a coincidence. Simply the best science is about asking great questions which is something that tends not to go over well with most religions.

CaliforniaChief
08-11-2010, 01:25 PM
I don't take what Dane is saying as an assault on Christians at all. When the church governed outside of its God-given purpose and intervened in the affairs of the state, both church AND state suffered. Constantine, who declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, did more damage to the church than had he persecuted the church (see the first century). Likewise, fear and control exerted by the church did have a very negative effect on people and society, IMO.

When the church sticks to sharing good news, helping people, and offering hope...it tends to thrive. And its communities do too.

If what we as Christians believe is true (which I do believe), why would we be threatened by science and progress? Shouldn't it all lead to our conclusions anyways? Just my take. Sorry if it's a bit off-topic.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:26 PM
also the cranial mass has changed since archaic humans. Our skulls are more fragile. Additionally Europeans have milk tolerances not found in other pools. The twitching muscle speed associated with East Africans.

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:28 PM
I might suggest that in population inflationary times of a species that mutations are introduced but it takes a deflationary action that allows for selection (not overwhelming destruction) to actually change the population genetic makeup and therefore allow for noticeable biological descent that might be noticed.

explain deflationary action please.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:32 PM
explain deflationary action please.

Population drop that has genetic selection advantages for those that inherited the "better genes" against that forcing factor that is leading to population drop. Disease, famine (smaller size selected because you need less to eat), etc.

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:35 PM
Population drop that has genetic selection advantages for those that inherited the "better genes" against that forcing factor that is leading to population drop. Disease, famine (smaller size selected because you need less to eat), etc.

hmm. got it.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:36 PM
The more dramatic the drop, up to a point, the more acute the population genetic changes. This could go for isolation as well but we all know how humans like to get around and have sex so isolation is hard in the human population.

Baconeater
08-11-2010, 01:37 PM
The twitching muscle speed associated with East Africans.
Racist.

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:38 PM
also the cranial mass has changed since archaic humans. Our skulls are more fragile. Additionally Europeans have milk tolerances not found in other pools. The twitching muscle speed associated with East Africans.

Alot of this has to do with hybrid vigor correct?

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:39 PM
The more dramatic the drop, up to a point, the more acute the population genetic changes. This could go for isolation as well but we all know how humans like to get around and have sex so isolation is hard in the human population.

post 135.

mlyonsd
08-11-2010, 01:44 PM
I doubt aliens would stop here because they were out joy riding and just happened to notice the light was on when they flew by.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Alot of this has to do with hybrid vigor correct?

One has to be careful here. Human selection for traits in domesticated animals narrows the genetic makeup and exposes recessive traits. But there is also nurture as in food from the environment that influences whether the full genetic capacity is enabled. And self selection in human populations does result in noticeable differences between groups and the corresponding exposure of recessive deleterious genes. The hybrid vigor may allow for hiding the recessive traits in cross mating but it is selection against a forcing factor in shrinking populations that actually can remove or at least change the relative genetic makeup of the population. Not growing populations so much

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 01:53 PM
fascinating post.

Pants
08-11-2010, 01:54 PM
i <3 tiptap

tiptap
08-11-2010, 01:56 PM
i <3 tiptap

Are you commenting on my grammar. or what.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 02:05 PM
Racist.
I am actually envious of that faster muscle twitch. Just like I am envious of taller Dutch physique. I am only 5' 7" alas I have neither in my biological makeup up.

And I am not looking to deprive or circumscribe someone of their political and personal rights based on any of those traits.

MOhillbilly
08-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Are you commenting on my grammar. or what.

reading your posts in this thread was kinda like talking to my dad about space exploration.

Pants
08-11-2010, 02:09 PM
Are you commenting on my grammar. or what.

No, I just have a man-crush on you. No homo.

tiptap
08-11-2010, 02:17 PM
Isn't this a space exploration thread? One will have to think about these evolution/genetic/developement restrictions in moving out in the Milky Way. Or else we may not recognize each other moving opposite directions around the galaxy.

mlyonsd
08-11-2010, 02:26 PM
Isn't this a space exploration thread? One will have to think about these evolution/genetic/developement restrictions in moving out in the Milky Way. Or else we may not recognize each other moving opposite directions around the galaxy.We'll all kill each other off before that happens.

Groves
08-11-2010, 02:47 PM
I'm not just singling out one religion, I'm saying that ALL religions have been guilty of torturing, maiming and killing anyone with ideas contrary to the state's religion.

Excellent point, but insufficient.

It's not just all religions, it's all everythings. All non-religions, all races, all cultures. Not all equally, but none of them are excluded. This guilt of torturing, maiming, and killing isn't bound simply to religions or even governments, it's a people problem, and we all gots the problem.

tooge
08-11-2010, 03:30 PM
Notice that Hawking mentions "if we can avoid disaster in the next two centuries, the species should be safe" That is basically a critical mass statement. Nobody really knows what the critical mass of our species is because technology keeps changing it with things like engineered food etc. However, it would seem that we would reach some critical mass in the next few hundred years and then some major deflationary event would happen that was brought on simply by having surpassed the planets carrying capacity for humans. Course, it could be an asteroid tomorrow too.

Huffmeister
08-11-2010, 03:54 PM
I doubt aliens would stop here because they were out joy riding and just happened to notice the light was on when they flew by.
Of course not. They stopped here to build pyramids.


:D

RedThat
08-11-2010, 04:23 PM
Why does everything having to do with science become a religous debate?

Because science is factual. It is based on truth and has evidence to support truth. That is what the scientific community preaches and teaches.

Religion on the other hand, is opposite. It is mythical and based on blind faith.

You can't put those two together and expect them to get along because what they both teach are polar opposites of each other. And sooner or later, once science proves religion wrong, eventually religious theories become contradicted. Pretty much explains the debate right there.

Sweet Daddy Hate
08-11-2010, 04:58 PM
Our Lizardian Overlords shall save us!

Ebolapox
08-11-2010, 05:22 PM
I agree but mankind was literally in the Dark Ages until the formation of the US and advances made in the 20th century. Once Mankind was free of the Church and religious persecution (if not death), men were able to share their ideas with the world. Many other like-minded men were encouraged, not discouraged, to work together and advance the human race.

The invention of the microprocessor has sped up the course of human technology and events exponentially. It's too bad that men like Pythagoras, Newton, Gallileo, Copernicous, et al weren't alive to see the remarkable evolution of technology that we know share.

Of course, none this would have happened without the Roswell crash...

:D


to quote sir. isaac newton, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" (ignoring the fact that the quote in question was ACTUALLY an insult thrown at robert hooke, a contemporary of newton's who disagreed with many of newton's findings... very contemptuously. hooke was a 'little person,' fwiw). without the developments of all of our predecessors, we don't HAVE the microprocessor in the first place. without, oh, the number zero (thank you, Pingala) we don't have binary code which was the basis of computations.

I could go on and on. we build on the ruins of early, great civliizations that had technology beyond that which we give them credit for.

Groves
08-11-2010, 05:25 PM
I do know this one simple fact.

Before the USA existed: no pizza rolls.
Since the USA has been formed: pizza rolls.

That's pretty strong.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 05:25 PM
to quote sir. isaac newton, "we stand on the shoulders of giants" (ignoring the fact that the quote in question was ACTUALLY an insult thrown at robert hooke, a contemporary of newton's who disagreed with many of newton's findings... very contemptuously. hooke was a 'little person,' fwiw). without the developments of all of our predecessors, we don't HAVE the microprocessor in the first place. without, oh, the number zero (thank you, Pingala) we don't have binary code which was the basis of computations.

I could go on and on. we build on the ruins of early, great civliizations that had technology beyond that which we give them credit for.

Oh, I know and totally agree.

I just can't believe that it took 3500+ years to get to the 20th Century in terms of rapid innovation.

It just seems too long.

Ebolapox
08-11-2010, 05:35 PM
Oh, I know and totally agree.

I just can't believe that it took 3500+ years to get to the 20th Century in terms of rapid innovation.

It just seems too long.

eh, a lot of hiccups along the way. you're correct, the catholic church held back astronomy a great amount of time, and from astronomy we vastly increased our math and physics knowledge (newton is said to have 'come up with' calculus to deal with some of the calculations dealing with motion)

hell, we're not even mentioning how many great scientists were lost to history via disease (the black plague of the 1300's killed 1/4 of all europe, including burgeoning scientists) and war (we lost many great scientists to world war I... if memory serves, henry moseley was a physicist (that likely would have won the nobel prize in physics in 1916) who was killed in service of the british during WWI.

Groves
08-11-2010, 05:36 PM
It is based on truth and has evidence to support truth.

Religion on the other hand, is opposite. It is mythical and based on blind faith.

You've apparently not read much of modern physics or the Bible.

That's a jab, but it's actually pretty amazing how some modern science is actually quite without the kind of proof or evidence that most would recognize.

Religions are a mixed bag, because some are quite content to fly in the face of science and not even care about the contradictions, where others are always reforming their views based on new evidence.

Fish
08-11-2010, 05:38 PM
Oh, I know and totally agree.

I just can't believe that it took 3500+ years to get to the 20th Century in terms of rapid innovation.

It just seems too long.

Moore's Law.....

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 05:57 PM
Moore's Law.....

Yeah, absolutely. But why did it take 3500 years to get to the 20th century in terms of innovation?

H1N1 furthered some of the things I'd previously mentioned but there has to be more.

I'd always read that if the fire at Alexandria hadn't occurred, man would have flown by 1,000 AD.

It's just amazing that so much knowledge was lost in that fire to setback mankind a full millennium.

Param
08-11-2010, 08:00 PM
warp drive. Or a way to harness massive amount of energy to power our race into the future. That is THE next great invention.

DaneMcCloud
08-11-2010, 10:23 PM
warp drive. Or a way to harness massive amount of energy to power our race into the future. That is THE next great invention.

I'll take Cold Fusion for $1,000, Alex

T-post Tom
08-11-2010, 10:46 PM
warp drive. Or a way to harness massive amount of energy to power our race into the future. That is THE next great invention.

Done:

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000815527/polls_Cat_toast_0156_296692_poll_xlarge.jpeg

Ebolapox
08-12-2010, 07:27 AM
Yeah, absolutely. But why did it take 3500 years to get to the 20th century in terms of innovation?

H1N1 furthered some of the things I'd previously mentioned but there has to be more.

I'd always read that if the fire at Alexandria hadn't occurred, man would have flown by 1,000 AD.

It's just amazing that so much knowledge was lost in that fire to setback mankind a full millennium.

h1n1? get the strain of flu right!

and fwiw, why are you going with the 3500 year figure? you're not a young earth creationist I'd assume... if we're going to be honest with ourselves, most scientists who study the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens put the age of our species at roughly 100,000-150,000 years. granted, that's making your time figure look optimistic, but still.

Fairplay
08-12-2010, 06:40 PM
Alright I have my bags packed and ready to go on the next rocket or UFO that has space available. It's Mars or bust, it's got to be better then Earth.

We can build a statue in honor of Hawking. Imagine future traveler landing there seeing that!

Roll your clothes it packs nicely and keeps them wrinkle free.

Fairplay
08-12-2010, 06:52 PM
Imagine being the first settlers there and you come across a boulder that said, Killroy was here, lol

DaneMcCloud
08-12-2010, 06:56 PM
h1n1? get the strain of flu right!

LMAO

My apologies.

and fwiw, why are you going with the 3500 year figure? you're not a young earth creationist I'd assume... if we're going to be honest with ourselves, most scientists who study the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens put the age of our species at roughly 100,000-150,000 years. granted, that's making your time figure look optimistic, but still.

I was throwing out 3,500 as a reference to recorded history, which really isn't accurate either.