Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Science and/or Nature...

Page 5 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Apr 2010, 9:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:


As the definition indicates, a steady state does not necessarily include the surrounding environment. By your take equilibrium is a fantasy since the entire universe is subjected to the the second law.


The second law of thermodynamics only holds in closed thermodynamic systems. Here on earth (taken as a local system) we are wide open to energy from the sun. Which is why life on this planet can evolve and even thrive at times. With incoming energy disorganized systems can self-organize. Overall the universe is running down but locally we are doing fine. We can decrease our entropy at the expense of the sun which in throwing off entropy will some day run down and cool off. The total entropy in the universe is increasing, but the entropy on the surface of this planet is decreasing, precisely because we are not in a (locally) closed system.

ruveyn


Nevertheless, even on Earth, specific areas of high energy flow downhill to the level of the environment. Ice melts, hot coffee goes cold and in general the human body must derive energy to maintain its temperature equilibrium. That it can derive this energy is due, basically, to the sun's stored energy among other sources. The input of the energy of the sun can be a problem in hot climates but even there, without the homeostatic machinery of life, a corpse grows cold and the equilibrium of normal body temperature is lost.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 11:42 am

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
druidsbird wrote:
Can scientific progress and living harmoniously with nature be *not* mutually exclusive?

Keeping in mind how much scientific research depends on energy production and manufacturing.


What is "living harmoniously" with Nature?

My first cut at a rough definition: getting what we need from Nature without destroying it.

ruveyn

What is "destroying [nature]?" Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only shuffled about.


True. Perhaps I should have said getting from Nature what one needs without creating conditions that kill us in the getting. A strategy for getting our needs from nature should be consistent with our long range survival as a species.

See if that works.

ruveyn

That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 12:17 pm

Orwell wrote:
That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.


Long run is a period approximately equal to the time that primates have been around. That would be about 2 to 6 million years more. Very, very long run means we are toast well before the sun gets so hot it will boil off the oceans (about 1.5 billion year when the hydrogen in the sun is used up and it starts to fuse helium).

I don't think any mammalian species we know about has made it to ten million years. Some insects have and some one celled critters have been around for billions of years.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Apr 2010, 12:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.


Long run is a period approximately equal to the time that primates have been around. That would be about 2 to 6 million years more. Very, very long run means we are toast well before the sun gets so hot it will boil off the oceans (about 1.5 billion year when the hydrogen in the sun is used up and it starts to fuse helium).

I don't think any mammalian species we know about has made it to ten million years. Some insects have and some one celled critters have been around for billions of years.

ruveyn


If we do manage to keep the planet inhabitable the tools we are innovating with genetics today almost guarantees we will be playing games with our humanity in a matter of a century or so. Humanity most probably will cease to exist as we know it once that starts.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 1:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I don't think any mammalian species we know about has made it to ten million years. Some insects have and some one celled critters have been around for billions of years.

It is uncertain how much the various arthropods and unicellular organisms have actually changed over the eons, but the fossil record does show them remaining physiologically constant. It seems that larger, more complex organisms are not as evolutionarily stable as smaller, simpler ones, probably because of a greater dependence on specific details of the environment.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 1:50 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
I don't think any mammalian species we know about has made it to ten million years. Some insects have and some one celled critters have been around for billions of years.

It is uncertain how much the various arthropods and unicellular organisms have actually changed over the eons, but the fossil record does show them remaining physiologically constant. It seems that larger, more complex organisms are not as evolutionarily stable as smaller, simpler ones, probably because of a greater dependence on specific details of the environment.


Which indicates our fragility as a species. We should relate to nature in such a way that we can satisfy our needs until changes in the environment doom us to extinction. That could be as short a time as the next Big Rock from Space lands on our planet or it could be millions of years or amounts in between. In the long run we are doomed if we need this planet to live on. Eventually the sun will burn much hotter than it does now and the heat will do us in, if nothing else.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 2:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In the long run we are doomed

No need for the qualifiers on this statement. Even if we somehow colonized other solar systems, the entropy of the universe will continue to increase, and there are only so many stars in the sky.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Apr 2010, 3:07 pm

Orwell wrote:
That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.

Why delay the outcome? All species go extinct also because their ancestors become different species, so why not evolve past being human?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Apr 2010, 3:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.

Why delay the outcome? All species go extinct also because their ancestors become different species, so why not evolve past being human?


To rapidly evolve from human beings into carbon, please press the red button. (This is a joke, not intending to be mocking you AG).



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

14 Apr 2010, 5:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In the long run we are doomed

No need for the qualifiers on this statement. Even if we somehow colonized other solar systems, the entropy of the universe will continue to increase, and there are only so many stars in the sky.


The sum of the increase of the entropy of the universe is greater than zero. I would like to add emphisis on the "unverse." We can theoretically create a cubic lightyear of space where the increase in entropy is equal to 0. As long as the entropy of the universe increases, we should be fine. Humans are some of the most adaptive mammals to ever exist. We will last a lot longer than apes. If we evolve, I wouldn't say we wouldn't be human. These evolved humans will just be a little better suited to the environment than us, and will keep are history. Saying that evolved humans don't count as humans is logical, but it has no real effect on humans. None. They will probably teach about us in their schools saying how much stuff we screwed up and how we were the first step to a modern world. Just like it is.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 6:29 pm

fidelis wrote:
We can theoretically create a cubic lightyear of space where the increase in entropy is equal to 0.

Only in the short run. Eventually, we will not be able to keep sucking energy out of the rest of the universe to maintain low local levels of entropy.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


druidsbird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 505
Location: not Alderaan

14 Apr 2010, 6:42 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
druidsbird wrote:
Can scientific progress and living harmoniously with nature be *not* mutually exclusive?

Keeping in mind how much scientific research depends on energy production and manufacturing.


What is "living harmoniously" with Nature?

My first cut at a rough definition: getting what we need from Nature without destroying it.

ruveyn

What is "destroying [nature]?" Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only shuffled about.


True. Perhaps I should have said getting from Nature what one needs without creating conditions that kill us in the getting. A strategy for getting our needs from nature should be consistent with our long range survival as a species.

See if that works.

ruveyn

That's somewhat better. If I wanted to nitpick, I would point out that there is no strategy consistent with our long range survival as a species. As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead. Human extinction is an inevitability. The goal then should be to delay this outcome as long as is feasible, and ideally to minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms.


Orwell and Ruveyn, you two are starting to word these ideas the way I wish for clarity's sake I could have with my OP.

My question should have been: Can we humans continue our astonishing advances and at the same time "minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms."

And is there "a strategy for getting our needs from nature... consistent with our long range survival as a species. "

And if not, what do you think our strategy should be?


_________________
Darth Vader. Cool.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 8:59 pm

druidsbird wrote:
My question should have been: Can we humans continue our astonishing advances and at the same time "minimize the extent to which we hasten the extinction of other organisms."

Sure. Pollution regulations go a long way towards that goal. The next main thing would be to limit human population size (no organism of our size or greater is anywhere close to our population density) but that is a very tricky business as has been seen in China. It is projected that the human population will peak on its own by 2050 and then reach a more or less stable level, so I don't worry too much about population.

Quote:
And is there "a strategy for getting our needs from nature... consistent with our long range survival as a species. "

Once we have lessened our dependence on burning fossil fuels for our energy needs, I don't see why not.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Apr 2010, 9:55 pm

druidsbird wrote:
And is there "a strategy for getting our needs from nature... consistent with our long range survival as a species. "

And if not, what do you think our strategy should be?


Well, for starters we should not harvest from a population of living organisms any faster than those organisms reproduce. So checkpoint one would be the sustainability of our harvesting rules. Can we do the harvest as harvest over a very long time.

Also we should consider substituting a less fragile population for the population we harvest from.

The rule is take what we need, not just what we want. Needs are few, wants/desires are infinite.

Another rule in regard to energy is to regard conservation as a valid substitution for finding brand new energy sources. Make what we use go further by efficient design of machinery. I have been told that we could cut back our energy use by twenty five percent (in the U.S.) without depriving ourselves of comfort or prosperity. A lot of what we do it bad habit, rather than rational policy. The best way to sell conservation is to show that it will decrease our costs over a reasonable time span, so conservation is NOT sacrifice or deprivation, it is just careful rational use of what we have. We don't have to starve or freeze in the dark to do a better thing. Our reward should be to have our prosperity and comfort at the lowest feasible cost.

Another rule would be, leave something for the great-grandchildren.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 15 Apr 2010, 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Apr 2010, 10:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Another rule in regard to energy is to regard conservation as a valid substitution for finding brand new energy sources. Make what we use go further by efficient design of machinery. I have been told that we could cut back our energy use by twenty five percent (in the U.S.) without depriving ourselves of comfort or prosperity. A lot of what we do it bad habit, rather than rational policy. The best way to sell conservation is to show that it will decrease our costs over a reasonable time span, so conservation is NOT sacrifice or deprivation, it is just careful rational use of what we have. We don't have to starve or freeze in the dark to do a better thing. Our reward should be to have our prosperity and comfort at the lowest feasible cost.

Seconded. At my university, thousands of lights are left running 24/7, even when no one is using them. And many buildings on campus have the air conditioning turned on very aggressively, to the point of discomfort.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

15 Apr 2010, 4:43 am

fidelis wrote:
Saying that evolved humans don't count as humans is logical, but it has no real effect on humans.

To approximately the same extent true for evolved apes.
Whatever that extent may be.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."