|
The furthest picture we have ever taken in to space, absolutely mind bending! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
sure take into consideration several factors as well.
Our population boom in the past couple of hundred years.
Our dependancy on such a catered environment in order to survive.
We have only been "civilized" for about 8000 years in comparison to our last specie divergence 250,000 years ago
At this rate how long do you think we will last?
We are comming close to breaching carrying capacity
Natural selection is not taking place to naturally immune ourselves from specific diseases (we are simply all surviving and manufacturing medication to supersede our evolution).
As complex organisms we are not capable of adapting to significant environmental change without our desinged social systems (which can be jeopardized by intra species conflict). Without this structure that we have depended on for the past several hundred years we are for surely doomed towards extinction. |
Our technology allows us to live in virtually any environment we choose to settle down in, save for the moon or the bottom of the ocean. However, carrying capacity is far from being reached on earth. The problem with most 'carrying-capacity' models is it takes into account the over-consumption of more modernized societies like our own, yet still takes the population of EVERYONE into account.
The problem begins with every person, especially in the US, wanting everything for themselves rather than realizing that we have to share this chunk of rock. If we weren't such a consumptive, selfish society, there wouldn't be mass poverty with tens of thousands of people dying every day from starvation and malnourishment, and overzealous biased scientists telling us doomsday is near and we're running out of room.
Most kids (in the west) are growing up in a society that reinforces the ideal of constant consumption, and most people are too irresponsible and closed-minded to see outside their own little box. We need to save, not endlessly consume like an infection.
The United States represents just four percent of the world's population and consumes close to half of its resources. That is not sustainable. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
Our technology allows us to live in virtually any environment we choose to settle down in, save for the moon or the bottom of the ocean. However, carrying capacity is far from being reached on earth. The problem with most 'carrying-capacity' models is it takes into account the over-consumption of more modernized societies like our own, yet still takes the population of EVERYONE into account.
The problem begins with every person, especially in the US, wanting everything for themselves rather than realizing that we have to share this chunk of rock. If we weren't such a consumptive, selfish society, there wouldn't be mass poverty with tens of thousands of people dying every day from starvation and malnourishment, and overzealous biased scientists telling us doomsday is near and we're running out of room.
Most kids (in the west) are growing up in a society that reinforces the ideal of constant consumption, and most people are too irresponsible and closed-minded to see outside their own little box. We need to save, not endlessly consume like an infection.
The United States represents just four percent of the world's population and consumes close to half of its resources. That is not sustainable. |
tell 'em about the robots that are gonna run our society for us!! :p i'm kiddin' brotha man. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
Our technology allows us to live in virtually any environment we choose to settle down in, save for the moon or the bottom of the ocean. However, carrying capacity is far from being reached on earth. The problem with most 'carrying-capacity' models is it takes into account the over-consumption of more modernized societies like our own, yet still takes the population of EVERYONE into account.
The problem begins with every person, especially in the US, wanting everything for themselves rather than realizing that we have to share this chunk of rock. If we weren't such a consumptive, selfish society, there wouldn't be mass poverty with tens of thousands of people dying every day from starvation and malnourishment, and overzealous biased scientists telling us doomsday is near and we're running out of room.
Most kids (in the west) are growing up in a society that reinforces the ideal of constant consumption, and most people are too irresponsible and closed-minded to see outside their own little box. We need to save, not endlessly consume like an infection.
The United States represents just four percent of the world's population and consumes close to half of its resources. That is not sustainable. |
do you think we will honestly be able to top the life history of prehistoric animals such as the dinosaurs?
tyranosaurus remained existing for 3 million years without change. we are only 250,000 years now with a huge population increase in the past 10,000 years. Some sort of new world order has to come in place if we are to survive for the next couple of hundred years without major catastrophe.
We have turned into such a fragile species that is extremely dependent on industry, money and other inconsequential needs for survival that we have become useless in coordinating with nature.
Did you see how everyone panicked when we had that black out for 3 days? lol
and you're telling me we're giong to live on for millions of years. I seriously hope you are right but the odds are honestly against it. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
shortly after creating the universe, jesus walked on water. |
Approx. 4000 years after, was it?
Then again, the poster didn't say "Or believe in religion", so I still find the comment acceptable. |
|
|
| hooknife |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Approx. 4000 years after, was it?
Then again, the poster didn't say "Or believe in religion", so I still find the comment acceptable. |
all religions, every single one of them. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
do you think we will honestly be able to top the life history of prehistoric animals such as the dinosaurs?
tyranosaurus remained existing for 3 million years without change. we are only 250,000 years now with a huge population increase in the past 10,000 years. Some sort of new world order has to come in place if we are to survive for the next couple of hundred years without major catastrophe.
We have turned into such a fragile species that is extremely dependent on industry, money and other inconsequential needs for survival that we have become useless in coordinating with nature.
Did you see how everyone panicked when we had that black out for 3 days? lol
and you're telling me we're giong to live on for millions of years. I seriously hope you are right but the odds are honestly against it. |
The blackout was for ONE day. And as far as I can tell, the vast majority of people in' LOVED it, and wish it would happen more often. I didn't observe too many people panicking, and didn't read about too many panic attacks after the fact (for that matter, I don't think there was a spike in crime that night either, did you read about any?). And not that half-assed lights out bull the enviroreligionists try to push on us every year either, but a REAL blackout.
That being said, I agree with you that we are incredibly dependent on our technology, and it is that technology that has allowed our species to explode as a population.
I would, however, take a moment to state that I find the complete destruction of EVERY human in the world all at once to be unlikely without nuclear war. As a species, humans are actually champions of adaptation, precisely because we can invent technologies (like clothing, for instance) to help us survive when mother nature gives us the shaft.
The average westerner would probably die within a month of the destruction of electricity, but there would be a percentage of people that would adapt and survive, and pass those abilities on to their children, just like evolution is supposed to work. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
sure take into consideration several factors as well.
Our population boom in the past couple of hundred years.
Our dependancy on such a catered environment in order to survive.
We have only been "civilized" for about 8000 years in comparison to our last specie divergence 250,000 years ago
At this rate how long do you think we will last?
We are comming close to breaching carrying capacity
Natural selection is not taking place to naturally immune ourselves from specific diseases (we are simply all surviving and manufacturing medication to supersede our evolution).
As complex organisms we are not capable of adapting to significant environmental change without our desinged social systems (which can be jeopardized by intra species conflict). Without this structure that we have depended on for the past several hundred years we are for surely doomed towards extinction. |
How does understanding our own destiny in any way help predict the destinies of alien civilisations? They might live on a planet twice the size of ours, have far shorter or longer lifespans, far longer incubation periods or a greater level of harmony with their environment.
| quote: | Originally posted by drivingforce
Actually there was a formula devised using the drake equation. Not exactly what you want but provides a mathematical basis on following tendencies of life and the point that life extinguishes itself. |
I am aware of the Drake equation. Several of the variables it uses are based on sheer guesses which we have no idea of the accuracy of. An equation without accurate variables is essentially useless. Furthermore, the equation presumes that we haven't had contact with an alien civilisation because they have existed but exterminated themselves.
As far as I know, it doesn't account for the fact that the distances involved could be too vast for communication or detection of such a civilisation, or that the civilisation could be purposely concealing itself. While this may seem like a silly idea to us, sentient aliens could potentially evolve on a planet with a completely different mode of competition to ours (or lack of) which would see them acting in ways that seem completely irrational to us.
Additionally, it may well be that sentient life capable of space travel takes a lot longer to develop than we think. For all we know, humans could be the most advanced space travellers in the universe right now, or the least advanced.
I could go on and on like this, but there are plenty of things the equation assumes or does not consider. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
do you think we will honestly be able to top the life history of prehistoric animals such as the dinosaurs?
tyranosaurus remained existing for 3 million years without change. we are only 250,000 years now with a huge population increase in the past 10,000 years. Some sort of new world order has to come in place if we are to survive for the next couple of hundred years without major catastrophe.
We have turned into such a fragile species that is extremely dependent on industry, money and other inconsequential needs for survival that we have become useless in coordinating with nature.
Did you see how everyone panicked when we had that black out for 3 days? lol
and you're telling me we're giong to live on for millions of years. I seriously hope you are right but the odds are honestly against it. |
You underestimate the resilience of humans. Natural disasters could kill huge percentages of the population, wipe out our homes and our industry, but we would still survive I think. We didn't become the dominant species by taking this kind of punishment lying down. If 90% of us were killed by a world-wide disaster, the remaining 10% would hide wherever they could and learn to live like animals once again. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
The blackout was for ONE day. And as far as I can tell, the vast majority of people in' LOVED it, and wish it would happen more often. I didn't observe too many people panicking, and didn't read about too many panic attacks after the fact (for that matter, I don't think there was a spike in crime that night either, did you read about any?). And not that half-assed lights out bull the enviroreligionists try to push on us every year either, but a REAL blackout.
That being said, I agree with you that we are incredibly dependent on our technology, and it is that technology that has allowed our species to explode as a population.
I would, however, take a moment to state that I find the complete destruction of EVERY human in the world all at once to be unlikely without nuclear war. As a species, humans are actually champions of adaptation, precisely because we can invent technologies (like clothing, for instance) to help us survive when mother nature gives us the shaft.
The average westerner would probably die within a month of the destruction of electricity, but there would be a percentage of people that would adapt and survive, and pass those abilities on to their children, just like evolution is supposed to work. |
I dunno man... a million years is a long time. I'm just skeptical on the likelyhood of us succeeding as a species. For sure the moment that we are not able to manipulate the environment around us to adapt us instead of us adapting to it is our downfall.
I would think a few tribes would survive and perhaps we could continue on as a primitive sort of society somewhat like the native americans have done for thousands of years. Who knows. I'm not a fortune teller history as shown however that the most primitive species are the ones that survive the longest. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
You underestimate the resilience of humans. Natural disasters could kill huge percentages of the population, wipe out our homes and our industry, but we would still survive I think. We didn't become the dominant species by taking this kind of punishment lying down. If 90% of us were killed by a world-wide disaster, the remaining 10% would hide wherever they could and learn to live like animals once again. |
i think you overestimate the resilience of humans. again. you are basing this on how many years? 500 years? 600 years?
I am talking about several million years. How long have mosquitos dragonflys, centipedes and roaches been around? These are true dominant species who have existed close to or over a hundred million years (if not more). You are basing your ideas on a couple of centuries? Doesnt that sound a bit ridiculous? Its only a matter of time before a disease comes along when we are in a volunerable primitive state that wipes us out or something along those lines.
Don't you think you're being a bit naive? |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I dunno man... a million years is a long time. I'm just skeptical on the likelyhood of us succeeding as a species. For sure the moment that we are not able to manipulate the environment around us to adapt us instead of us adapting to it is our downfall.
I would think a few tribes would survive and perhaps we could continue on as a primitive sort of society somewhat like the native americans have done for thousands of years. Who knows. I'm not a fortune teller history as shown however that the most primitive species are the ones that survive the longest. |
What do you mean, history has shown us that primitive species are the ones that survive the longest? Don't get me wrong, personally I don't believe humans will survive an incredibly long time either, but your assertions are nothing more than guesses.
Please provide me with an example of a 'non-primitive' species that has become extinct in a short period of time. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
What do you mean, history has shown us that primitive species are the ones that survive the longest? Don't get me wrong, personally I don't believe humans will survive an incredibly long time either, but your assertions are nothing more than guesses.
Please provide me with an example of a 'non-primitive' species that has become extinct in a short period of time. |
primitive is probably the wrong word to use. I meant to say specialized to a specific environment.
If you are specialized to an environment and that environment changes. your species will go extinct. The usual outliers are organisms that are able to survive in any environment (bugs, bacteria some water vertebrates, mollusks etc)
Most organisms that have evolved over a short period of time become extinct. The fact that they have evolved simply shows that they needed to change in order to suit the environment thus their predecessors died out.
A good example would be all of our ancestors lol.
look at how many hominid variations we have had over the past 2 million years.
* Homo habilis†
* Homo rudolfensis†
* Homo ergaster†
* Homo georgicus†
* Homo erectus†
* Homo cepranensis†
* Homo antecessor†
* Homo heidelbergensis†
* Homo rhodesiensis†
* Homo neanderthalensis†
* Homo sapiens
o Homo sapiens idaltu†
* Homo floresiensis†
all extinct.
now you can argue semantics here clearly because simply we are seeing variation in the morphology as speciation (we determine that). But essentially that variation means that the ancestral morphology is useless and thus is discontinued (extinction).
Thus the argument (which is valid) states that the organisms that have changed the least over the dawn of organisms are those that are the most successful in surviving.
Why change when you don't need to? This is the definition of a successful species.
There are too many examples to list. |
|
|
|
|
