Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Jul 2011, 1:21 am

Philologos wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Personally, I see a challenge to get out there. I want to conquer the universe.


That beats the fable of the frog and the ox.

We just got through talking the immensity of the universe.

Since the earliest settlement, through several changes of administration, the current inhabitants have come close to conquering Britannia.

So - even if in the next 50 years your brain and / or consciousness and / or psych profile is installed in a self propelled glozine powered titanium alloy vehicle, how much conquest of the universe do you personally expect to do?

And what do you think are the odds of the Beta Cygni 24ians homing on your hypertail 40 parsecs from here and conquering you out of the sky?


The solar system will do for me and pretty much it seems quite uninhabited except for Earth. The construction of nuclear pulse propulsion interstellar craft in orbit could commence once this solar system has a self sufficient and prospering spacefaring civilization. By that time, remote sensing technology will more than likely have advanced enough imaging systems with resolutions high enough to see weather patterns on exosolar planets, and so any planets able to be terraformed or artificially inhabited would be able to be determined prior to sending a generation ship outward through interstellar space. If there are aliens, then we'd leave them alone. If there aren't, the more planets for human civilization then.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

29 Jul 2011, 1:30 am

The solar system is a more reasonable bite, certainly, that you and yours might conceivably chew.

However - surely terraforming is not compatible with Green goals? Besides the fact we are [whether or not you buy into the entire warming package] having trouble maitainig the terraforming of this planet.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

29 Jul 2011, 2:46 am

Philologos wrote:
The solar system is a more reasonable bite, certainly, that you and yours might conceivably chew.

However - surely terraforming is not compatible with Green goals? Besides the fact we are [whether or not you buy into the entire warming package] having trouble maitainig the terraforming of this planet.


the reason GW is seen as a problem on earth is that there are beings to suffer from it.

also the very reasons our atmosphere is heating is what is needed for an effective way of terraforming.

if all the greenhouse gasses were produced on mars we would not only help our enviroment but also terraform mars in the process, some additions would also be needed and the greenhouse gasses blown off due to a lacking magnetosphere would need replenishment to maintain the temperature rise.

though before all this starts a few dozen or so asteroids crashed into the right places should kickstart the process (the weather on mars with an earthlike atmoshpere would also provide some nice comparison between weather patterns)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

29 Jul 2011, 11:51 am

Oodain wrote:
Philologos wrote:

However - surely terraforming is not compatible with Green goals? Besides the fact we are [whether or not you buy into the entire warming package] having trouble maitainig the terraforming of this planet.


the reason GW is seen as a problem on earth is that there are beings to suffer from it.

also the very reasons our atmosphere is heating is what is needed for an effective way of terraforming.

if all the greenhouse gasses were produced on mars we would not only help our enviroment but also terraform mars in the process, some additions would also be needed and the greenhouse gasses blown off due to a lacking magnetosphere would need replenishment to maintain the temperature rise.

though before all this starts a few dozen or so asteroids crashed into the right places should kickstart the process (the weather on mars with an earthlike atmoshpere would also provide some nice comparison between weather patterns)


So - would you assume the high-minding Earthlings would not terraform Beta Cygni 24 unless it was devoid of all recognizable life? And that we would not gerrymander our definitions so that the slimebugs and the fuzzballs thet feed on do not vcount as "life"?

And I still say we should learn to fix this planet before we start befouling the next.



Reindeer
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 372

29 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm

I'm either an atheist or satanist so I don't think there exists a god and really don't see why one should exist.
I do and will always believe in science!
And I think this picture is fitting

Image


_________________
AS: 132
NT: 36
AQ: 40


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

29 Jul 2011, 3:43 pm

Reindeer wrote:
I'm either an atheist or satanist so I don't think there exists a god and really don't see why one should exist.
I do and will always believe in science!
And I think this picture is fitting

Image


What does it mean to you to believe in science?

As in I believe in grass, because you are aware grass exists?

As in I believe in my government, because I have reason to trust them?

As in I believe in freedom, because I see it as a good thing?

Science exists. I believe that. So does music, sex, sunlight, grass, the Internet.

So does God, but you have not worked your way there from the evidence you have examined.

I believe the analyses of science, subject to the treble caveat that some of us are just wrong and think that all the Chamba dialects are AdamawaEastern, some of us fiddle the data, and none of us know everything. I also believe my parent's stories of their younger life, my personal observations, many factual news reports, most of what Number 1 Son chooses to tell me, and the atlas. All of those subject to similar caveats

I also believe inputs from God - but it is hard to listen when you do not have a clue to the source.

I believe in freedom as a ood thing and would love to have it. I believe in civil discussion, in skepticism, in aiding fellow castaways soi far as in me lies.

I also believe in the basic principles of Christianity as a good thing. And to believe that you do not have to believe in God's existence or trust him - you just have to reject active flight from what you do not believe.



aelf
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 56

29 Jul 2011, 4:54 pm

Philologos wrote:
So - would you assume the high-minding Earthlings would not terraform Beta Cygni 24 unless it was devoid of all recognizable life? And that we would not gerrymander our definitions so that the slimebugs and the fuzzballs thet feed on do not vcount as "life"?


Personally, I assume that civilized humans will preferentially colonize planets that already have life, because those are the planets on which it would be easiest to sustain life with the least amount of work. And then they'd wipe out most of it and replace it with earth-life (if they couldn't easily enslave the life that was already there).



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

29 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm

aelf wrote:
Philologos wrote:
So - would you assume the high-minding Earthlings would not terraform Beta Cygni 24 unless it was devoid of all recognizable life? And that we would not gerrymander our definitions so that the slimebugs and the fuzzballs thet feed on do not vcount as "life"?


Personally, I assume that civilized humans will preferentially colonize planets that already have life, because those are the planets on which it would be easiest to sustain life with the least amount of work. And then they'd wipe out most of it and replace it with earth-life (if they couldn't easily enslave the life that was already there).


Actually, such a course of action would be wrong, but if it were to be done the proper way to do it is to wipe out life there first before colonization. Otherwise you risk who knows what sort of diseases. But either way, it's better to just leave such worlds alone if any exist apart from Earth.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

29 Jul 2011, 7:21 pm

aelf wrote:
Philologos wrote:
So - would you assume the high-minding Earthlings would not terraform Beta Cygni 24 unless it was devoid of all recognizable life? And that we would not gerrymander our definitions so that the slimebugs and the fuzzballs thet feed on do not vcount as "life"?


Personally, I assume that civilized humans will preferentially colonize planets that already have life, because those are the planets on which it would be easiest to sustain life with the least amount of work. And then they'd wipe out most of it and replace it with earth-life (if they couldn't easily enslave the life that was already there).


That is the normal assumption based on understanding humanity and observing terrestrial colonization [Think the White High;lands in Kenya and the like]. What idiot would terraform more than he has to?



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

30 Jul 2011, 3:19 am

why wouldn't God be interested in an interesting planet with interesting forms of intelligent life? What we know of the universe, which some say is only 4% of what is actually out there, does not diminish our value one iota. We are not just meaningless debris floating through space. Even if there are many alien species in various planets and galaxies, that doesn't make our existence unimportant as there are probably uniqueness to us and our species like Tchaikovsky's Fifth not found anywhere else in the universe.

The word "toldot" (meaning "record" or "Generations") in genesis is both used to describe the creation of the universe(Genesis 2:4 - "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth when God created them") and a person's life(Genesis 5:1 - "And these are the generations of the of Adam"), because every one of us is a whole world, unique in our experience, insights, etc. The same can be used to describe all the unique life-forms in the universe, unique in their experience and none less important to the intelligent creator of the universe. Just as Genesis 5:1 equalizes every human being in value and significance because of our shared common ancestry as eminating from Adam, the universe(s) are all equal in value and significance because of our shared common designer as eminating from one creator who created it all, time and space, out of nothing. Again, to repeat my earlier point... we are not meaningless debris floating through space.

The more science learns, the only thing that becomes more insignificant is our past knowledge and understanding of things, as newer data makes it less relevant. Our worth(Human beings, life on earth, this planet, our galaxy, this universe) only diminishes in front of those who wish to see it so.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.