Thankful I'm in the winter of my life...

[birdguy 3,943]

4 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Can you point me in the direction of this "natural law" that dictates that the human species can only last a given time? And what is that time frame? I'd like to know.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

The time frame is unknown. It could be the comet or it could be the slow death of or depeletion of our natural resources to a point where life is no longer sustainable.  Or it could be the effects of global warming making the environment uninhabitable.

Everything only lasts a given amount of time due to nature, like the disappearance of dinosaurs or it could be manmade like human nature taking land and culture away from native peoples.

Look up Ishi, the last of the Modocs.

Noel 

[birdguy 3,943]

I think this subject of nature and man is well said in a book by James Michener titled 'The Source.'

It is basically about the natural and cultural history of the Holy Land from the time of cave dwellers and the first attempts at farming all the way through the invention a gods and their evolution to the 6-day War.

It's thread is the archeological dig of a tell.  As each level and artifact is uncovered the chapters revert to that time what Michener writes about it.

It's a fascinating book; but them I'm a Michener fan.

Noel

Edited April 11, 2021 by birdguy

[martin-w 3,235]

3 minutes ago, birdguy said:

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

 

Yeah, that's nothing to do with how long nature allows a species to exist. Nature does not apply any kind of time frame to how long a species can exist. Nature has no consciousness. Nature does not think. 

 

6 minutes ago, birdguy said:

The time frame is unknown. It could be the comet or it could be the slow death of or depeletion of our natural resources to a point where life is no longer sustainable.  Or it could be the effects of global warming making the environment uninhabitable.

 

Which are random events that might or might no happen. We know why a species can cease to exist, but I need evidence that nature dictates a given lifespan for a species. It doesn't, so if the human race avoids a killer asteroid by living on Mars for a further 500 years or one million years... nature doesn't give a monkey's. 

 

9 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Everything only lasts a given amount of time due to nature like the disappearance of dinosaur

 

Indeed, and the dinosaurs lasted for 165 million years. the human race has been around for 200,000 years. So I guess we have plenty of time to live hear, on Mars, or anywhere else we choose. 🙂

[birdguy 3,943]

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

Indeed, and the dinosaurs lasted for 165 million years. the human race has been around for 200,000 years. So I guess we have plenty of time to live hear, on Mars, or anywhere else we choose.

But the dinosaurs didn't have technology to destroy their environment and squander their natural resources like we do.  

Only man has the arrogance to think he is immortal, by either by escaping his crumbling environment to another planet or an orbiting city under a dome or escaping to an afterlife promised by various religions.

Noel 

[BillW 210]

Humans have the technology to destroy all life on earth. We can't seem to move past the desire to destroy each other in war. One day the wrong word not allowed will come to power and then it will be over. I fear this will happen well before we need to be concerned with moving to another planet.

 

Bill W

 

[birdguy 3,943]

While I disagree with Martin and his hopes of saving mankind by transplanting them on Mars I have an alternate theory that has been rolling around in my mind for some time.  In fact if I were younger I would write a Sci-Fi story about it.

What if we already are the survivors of a humanoid race that escaped their dying planet in the hopes making their species immortal?  Check this out.

Instead of trying to save a handful of people by colonizing a planet our predecessors just saved the DNA.

Then a number of scientists left their planet in several ships carrying the DNA samples going in several directions looking for planets with environments similar to their own.

One such ship found Earth in an early stage a mamillian development.  They merged their genetic DNA into several species of the early species they knew by their natural DNA would evolve into the great apes and let nature take it's course.  Over the centuries those apes with altered DNA evolved into mankind with enhanced intelligence and hands with opposing thumbs.

That would make us their immortality if we carry it on.

Far fetched?  Maybe, maybe not.  Perhaps just my imagination running wild.

Noel

Edited April 11, 2021 by birdguy

[charliearon 3,023]

Already done, Noel!  Star Trek TNG  "The Chase"  Talk about planting your seed everywhere!

 

 

[birdguy 3,943]

I'm a StarTrek NG fan.  I remember that episode.  That's where Picard got his ashes hauled with a lovely, but a bit crooked female archeologist who, in a later episode, teamed up with Q.  That's probably where I got the idea and forgot the source.  I guess I just embellished it a bit with more detail on the evolution part.

It's not that far-fetched.  And cheaper and with greater chances of success than colonizing Mars.

Noel

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

But the dinosaurs didn't have technology to destroy their environment and squander their natural resources like we do.  

Noel 

 

That's out of context though. 

You said... "There is nothing special about the human race that puts them above the natural law of the universe.  Only our science gives us the arrogance to think so."

And of course, the topic of conversation was extending the life span of our species by building colonies elsewhere. So again... there is no natural law of the universe that dictates a SPECIFIC time frame for a species to exist, its perfectly fine for our species, or any species to live a million years if out tech enables us to do it, or more, nature doesn't care. Thus, a specific time frame for a species to exist doesn't exist and is nothing to do with any, "natural law". And it not arrogant, its called the survival instinct and that's something evolution gave us whether we liked it or not. 

And no, science does not give us the arrogance to think so. On the contrary, science simply tells how we know the universe to function according to our current knowledge. 

 

Quote

Only man has the arrogance to think he is immortal, by either by escaping his crumbling environment to another planet or an orbiting city under a dome or escaping to an afterlife promised by various religions.

 

No, mankind does not think he is immortal and mankind does not think he will be immortal by building a colony elsewhere in the solar system. Its just about common sense, and if there's a credible threat to the species you do the logical thing. And that's precisely what evolution designed us to do. That's right, the "natural law" called evolution is propelling us to be a multiplanetary species to avoid a perceived threat. All in keeping with how evolution designed us.

Edited April 11, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Then a number of scientists left their planet in several ships carrying the DNA samples going in several directions looking for planets with environments similar to their own.

 

Been done before. 🙂

there's also the concept of the Von Neumann Probe. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

ALL species, no matter where they are in the universe, are likely to be just like life on this planet in terms of the survival instinct, and will be doing everything they can to survive as long as possible. Its a natural law. 😃

And yes, there's a very good chance that some species in the (possibly infinite) universe will have avoided any great filters and be literally millions of years old. 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by martin-w

[Novation 534]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Only man has the arrogance to think he is immortal, by either by escaping his crumbling environment to another planet or an orbiting city under a dome or escaping to an afterlife promised by various religions.

I'm 100% with you Noel... We need a radical change of our ways to preserve what we have, rather than stupid dreams of relocating to another, even more inhospitable planet, which is Sci Fi geek nonesence. Nowhere in our solar system can host us in any sort of sustainible way... we need to ******* look after what we have FFS! Anything else is the stuff of madmen.

[birdguy 3,943]

25 minutes ago, martin-w said:

And no, science does not give us the arrogance to think so

Science is the ultimate in arrogance.  It is science from the invention of gunpowder has enabled us to depart from the natural order and give us a dominion over the rest of nature both living and environmental.  It has given mankind the arrogance to enrich themselves by exploiting the lower species and the environment and the natural resources without caring about what happens to them as long as they create great wealth doing it.  

A while ago someone mentioned the child labor that mines the rare earths those enriching themselves at the expense of the environment.  You mentioned T-Shirts being made by child labor as if it made it all right.  If my guy is doing it then it's OK for your guy to do it.

You and I are opposite poles.  I think we are at a point to agree to disagree.  We are not gong to change each other's minds.

Noel

[Mike A 338]

https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k?t=8

 

[martin-w 3,235]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

Science is the ultimate in arrogance.  It is science from the invention of gunpowder has enabled us to depart from the natural order and give us a dominion over the rest of nature both living and environmental.  It has given mankind the arrogance to enrich themselves by exploiting the lower species and the environment and the natural resources without caring about what happens to them as long as they create great wealth doing it. 

 

Of course not. Its not science that's done that. You cant blame science. Science is just the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Its indifferent to emotions like arrogance. Einstein didn't develop special relativity and general relativity because he was feeling a bit arrogant that day. String theory and M-Theory and quantum field theory aren't here because of human arrogance. 

Its some human beings that are arrogant, not science. Science just discovers how the laws or reality function, its  human beings that decide how to use that knowledge, for good things or bad things. 

Rather than focusing on the bad things that human beings have used scientific discoveries for, why not contemplate the multitude of positive things science has been used for. Literally millions of lives have been saved by medical science, millions have been fed, millions have been provided with warm homes. Science is frequently used for positive things. In fact without the scientific method we would all be living in caves and you wouldn't be alive to utilise the amazing PC in your possession (that exists due to our knowledge of quantum physics) to make your incorrect claim  that science is arrogant. 

 

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

A while ago someone mentioned the child labor that mines the rare earths those enriching themselves at the expense of the environment.  You mentioned T-Shirts being made by child labor as if it made it all right.  If my guy is doing it then it's OK for your guy to do it.

 

Err, no I did not say it was all right. That's a misrepresentation of what I was saying. Of course its not all right. You are a very naughty man. I was pointing out that not just Tesla, but pretty much all manufacturing industries have that exact same issues. I was pointing out that its not just Tesla that have such issues to contend with.

The point, if you had read the rest of that post, so it was in context, is that at least Tesla are trying to address the issues by removing cobalt from the battery manufacturing process. In other words they are trying to deal with the issue and do the right thing.

And the point I was making was that because of that, the forum members claim that Musk and his companies were the perfect example of a company that doesn't care about the environment and thinks it can control, tame the natural world is misplaced. 

 

Quote

You and I are opposite poles.  I think we are at a point to agree to disagree. 

 

After  the misrepresentation, I agree. 🤨 Not nice.

[martin-w 3,235]

2 hours ago, Novation said:

I'm 100% with you Noel... We need a radical change of our ways to preserve what we have, rather than stupid dreams of relocating to another, even more inhospitable planet, which is Sci Fi geek nonesence. Nowhere in our solar system can host us in any sort of sustainible way... we need to ******* look after what we have FFS! Anything else is the stuff of madmen.

 

Of course its not Sci Fi geek nonsense. You do realise its actually happening. NASA are committed and SpaceX are at this very moment testing their spaceship with exactly that in mind. 

Its a colony that's proposed not "relocating" the entire species. 

 

Quote

Nowhere in our solar system can host us in any sort of sustainible way

 

Wrong! everything we would need for a colony on Mars is available on the planet. The only difficulty would be food. And that too has been solved. 

 

2 hours ago, Novation said:

look after what we have FFS! Anything else is the stuff of madmen.

 

There's a huge environmental movement doing just that, and we can actually do both, its not one or the other. But if a huge asteroid heads our way it wont matter. 

At this point I am fatigued, too many times have I had to repeat the same things over and over again.