Question The Earth is scheduled for demolition

[Urwumpe]

But the question is: do you want to die, or have a small chance of survival?

Die in space of slow intoxication or starvation, or die on Earth?

 

[Linguofreak]

Our knowledge of artificial biospheres is still mostly embryonic. Even a simple thing like oxygen producing / CO2 consuming is running into problems when tested against a real artificial environment. Another problem is a quickly spreading harmful germs infestation, displacing the biotas we would like to have. Very little is done to study birth and growth in artificial biospheres.

Thus far, we can't live without the natural biosphere, and a generation-ark's crew is pretty much doomed because of this.

It's not that we can't, it's that it's too expensive to do without economic support from somewhere that doesn't have to manufacture every necessity of life from the ground up.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also: A single human requires a few square kilometers of nature for survival and it is not like industry found a way to make this more effective - on the contrary, the food mass production of the so called first world requires more area than the third world, for feeding as many humans.

 

[T.Neo]

Die in space of slow intoxication or starvation, or die on Earth?

Ok, so I'm wrong. Humanity is absolutely doomed and has no chance of survival.

Survival in space long-term is clearly impossible with current technology and any collective project would be flawed due to widespread chaos and political unrest.

Is that satisfactory?

 

[Urwumpe]

Is that satisfactory?

No, but there is some sort of lack of alternatives.

It would be far better we could magically just wave with our hands and Earth makes a jump to the left, we'll be doing the timewarp and all is saved.

But practically, we not only don't know yet how to do this with current technology, we have also no clue how to even bring technology to this state of independence. Even a lunar base in the next 20 years would never be planned to be self-sufficient. It would be a way to probe the way to self-sufficiency, but I doubt we will achieve a good solution for even just 200 astronauts in a base in the next 50 years... maybe in 100 years, if we would concentrate on the challenge.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Conclusion: let's get down to work and research.

 

[Linguofreak]

Yes, but an expensive industry certainly beats greeting obliteration with open arms. My general belief is that it does work (or else it wouldn't be given the attention that it has by countless scientists), although we'll never be sure until we actually try it out.

Countless scientists, yes. But scientists are only good for telling you about theory. For practice, you need engineers.

 

[T.Neo]

Countless scientists, yes. But scientists are only good for telling you about theory. For practice, you need engineers.

Hence "We'll never be sure until we actually try it out".

 

[Urwumpe]

This has just one tiny error in it - engineers ARE scientists. A scientific theory is not different at all to building something that works as intended. The same kind of paperwork, the same meetings, the same work. Engineers are not tinkerers, who throw parts into a large bucket and stir it until something useful comes out of it. Changing your engineering is just like changing a part of a theory - when you do it, you better know why you do it, because otherwise you have not advanced at all and when your machine/theory breaks, you will start from zero.

(A scientific theory could of course also be seen as a machine that produces predictions out of input data, assistants and coffee)

 

[Ghostrider]

Ok, so I'm wrong. Humanity is absolutely doomed and has no chance of survival.

In the long time, that's exactly the case.

 

[T.Neo]

In the long time, that's exactly the case.

May I offer you a Prozac?

 

[Ghostrider]

May I offer you a Prozac?

I used to take Prozium, but then I stopped and since then my Gun-Kata has improved, though not without incident.

 

[Ark]

I used to take Prozium, but then I stopped and since then my Gun-Kata has improved, though not without incident.

:thumbup:

 

[JamesG]

The legion of threats to this planet are the biggest incentive I can think of for colonization of the solar system. Unfortunately the motivation and concrete backing for it needs something more currently hypothetical threats and vague ideas of economic advantages.

We are in that awkward, vulnerable moment in history where we are aware of how tenuous life is, but yet unable to do much about it.

I think we would all agree that our odds of perpetuating our species and life in this solar system are very poor if we were to have to scramble from our current state.

How about we turn to the more productive idea of what you would do if the UN came to you and said, "In 5 years the world is going to be destroyed. How would you get 10K human beings to someplace safe (at least the Earth-Sun Lagrange points) before that occurs?"

Assume you have the cooperation of nearly every government on Earth and have access to half of the world's GDP (~30T US$) per year. Basically you can have anything you want and access to the best minds and technology available. The world does go to "hell in a handbasket", but enough security forces remain effective to secure resources and an optimum enclave for launch sites and manufacturing.

 

[Ghostrider]

The world does go to "hell in a handbasket", but enough security forces remain effective to secure resources and an optimum enclave for launch sites and manufacturing.

There's a problem with this reasoning and it is: how do you motivate the security forces to do their job? Not with money, it's going to be useless. Not with comforts, not with anything material. You can't promise all of them and their families a place on the spaceships. Unless you're hiring Sardaukars, they'll either desert you or take over the spaceship as soon as it's complete.

 

[Linguofreak]

This has just one tiny error in it - engineers ARE scientists. A scientific theory is not different at all to building something that works as intended. The same kind of paperwork, the same meetings, the same work. Engineers are not tinkerers, who throw parts into a large bucket and stir it until something useful comes out of it. Changing your engineering is just like changing a part of a theory - when you do it, you better know why you do it, because otherwise you have not advanced at all and when your machine/theory breaks, you will start from zero.

(A scientific theory could of course also be seen as a machine that produces predictions out of input data, assistants and coffee)

Jein.

To be completely literal about it an engineer is indeed a scientist. But when the general public thinks of a "scientist," they're generally thinking about the type that is engaged in figuring out how the universe works, rather than the type that is engaged in building things with our existing knowledge of how the universe works. That type of scientist tends to be very good at figuring out what could work in theory, but tends to be overly prone to assuming spherical cows when the question of putting theory into practice comes up.

 

[Urwumpe]

That type of scientist tends to be very good at figuring out what could work in theory, but tends to be overly prone to assuming spherical cows when the question of putting theory into practice comes up.

And that is a difference? Engineers also often start with designing cars with n wheels only to then specialize on the case of n=4. :lol:

And if you go by what the public thinks, theories are only guesses. Which brings us to a Star Trek quote:

No, Spock. He means that he feels safer about your guesses than most other people's facts.

 

[movieman]

Has no-one here watched 'When Worlds Collide' ?

 

[vonneuman]

Has no-one here watched 'When Worlds Collide' ?

Apparently not.
Ok movie btw.

 

[n72.75]

We have no need to worry, the earth won't be destroyed until Tuesday.