THE END OF THE WORLD!

[theslug]

I have decided to become a mankind supremacist. When we rise, those grey bastards had better get ready for some payback. Galaxies will collide to get out of our way.

If Mass Effect taught me anything it's that you don't want to be a mankind supremacist. Because then you miss out on having sweet passionate nailing sessions with blue humanoid tentacle haired alien chicks. They also have boobs so it's completely natural.

[alanschu]

No, I'm sure Christians didn't invent "The End of the World" theories and philosiphies, if they did, there would probably be a bounty on all Christians heads and result in practically another holoucast, only with Christians.

 

 

Hahaha I'm just speechless

[Aristes]

Supreme Overlord and Commander. The blue skinned chics will just flock to you!

[Purkake]

No, I'm sure Christians didn't invent "The End of the World" theories and philosiphies, if they did, there would probably be a bounty on all Christians heads and result in practically another holoucast, only with Christians.

 

 

Hahaha I'm just speechless

 

Cramming that much stupidity into one sentence take some skill.

[Humodour]

The sun will incinerate the atmosphere and boil the oceans in about 500 million years. At 1 billion years, life on Earth will cease to exist (except possibly for extremophile bacteria and archaea). At 5 billion years, the sun will have engulfed the earth completely - normally the Earth would be thrown farther out into the solar system as the sun loses mass, but tidal interactions will actually pull it in.

 

The thing is, the dinosaurs didn't exist 250 million years ago. Humans have only existed really for about 0.1 million years. Civilisation has only existed for about 0.01 million years. Artificial electricity and the accompanying technological age has only existed for about 0.0001 million years. 6 millions years ago, Humans, Chimps and Bonobos were one species. 4 million years ago humans and chimps were still ****ing each-other. 100 million years ago, birds were still maniraptora dinosaurs.

 

Humans won't be around in 500 million years, whether we wipe ourselves out (doubtful) or thrive (probable). Whatever sentient being is around, though, human ancestry or not, it will undoubtedly have developed the capability to outlive the death of its star.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Considering how fast technology advances these days, I would not be surprised if we got to another planet than Earth (how, I have no idea) before the year 3000.

 

But I'm not betting any money on it, ok?

[Humodour]

Considering how fast technology advances these days, I would not be surprised if we got to another planet than Earth (how, I have no idea) before the year 3000.

 

But I'm not betting any money on it, ok?

 

Would you bet any money on us getting to another planet before the year 500,000,000 though? I would. I'd bet lots. Not least of all because I'd never have to pay up.

[Aristes]

I actually think your point is good, but it's not 'undoubtedly.' There are too many variables in play, not the least of which is that we will overcome substantial obstacles and that they can be overcome. While I grant you that scientific discovery has progressed at exponential speed, you have to keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, in the grand scheme of things, our sample of time is minute. We don't have a large enough section of time to accurately gauge whether we will be able to continue our advancement at breakneck speed. Moreover, if simply living and evolving has the potential to break through these problems, why has there been no directly conclusive evidence of extra-terrestrials. The universe is a big place, but it stands to reason that, should there be potential for life on even a small fraction of planets, and if we can surmise that technology will advance at a similarly breakneck speed in any sentient population, that some of these species must have been around for considerably longer than us and must have found a way to convey their intelligence through vast amounts of space. After all, your assumption is that we will inevitably be able to transport a sufficient population that our earthborn sentient species (human in ancestry or not) will survive the death of the sun. It stands to reason, that being the premise, that our efforts to communicate would precede the actual ability to transport.

 

I'm not trying to harsh your buzz. I agree with the idea in general, but I don't think it's foregone. Rather, I think you, like most human beings, and like me if I'm to be honest, are optimistic because it's not in our makeup as a species to believe in insurmountable obstacles. We've always found a way, and therefore we believe we always will find a way. In my heart, I have the same faith, but my mind tells me that there is really no conclusive evidence.

[Calax]

My question is what will we do first, going to another planet or setting up space colonies in orbit at the gravitational lagrange points around our planet.

 

 

Sorry the colonies thing is stolen strait from the land of Gundam. I'd guess the colonies because of the sheer amount of time that'd be required to get between, say, mars and earth (the window of opportunity for mars launches are, I believe, a year + apart, due to orbital requirements).

[Humodour]

I actually think your point is good, but it's not 'undoubtedly.' There are too many variables in play, not the least of which is that we will overcome substantial obstacles and that they can be overcome. While I grant you that scientific discovery has progressed at exponential speed, you have to keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, in the grand scheme of things, our sample of time is minute. We don't have a large enough section of time to accurately gauge whether we will be able to continue our advancement at breakneck speed. Moreover, if simply living and evolving has the potential to break through these problems, why has there been no directly conclusive evidence of extra-terrestrials. The universe is a big place, but it stands to reason that, should there be potential for life on even a small fraction of planets, and if we can surmise that technology will advance at a similarly breakneck speed in any sentient population, that some of these species must have been around for considerably longer than us and must have found a way to convey their intelligence through vast amounts of space. After all, your assumption is that we will inevitably be able to transport a sufficient population that our earthborn sentient species (human in ancestry or not) will survive the death of the sun. It stands to reason, that being the premise, that our efforts to communicate would precede the actual ability to transport.

 

I'm not trying to harsh your buzz. I agree with the idea in general, but I don't think it's foregone. Rather, I think you, like most human beings, and like me if I'm to be honest, are optimistic because it's not in our makeup as a species to believe in insurmountable obstacles. We've always found a way, and therefore we believe we always will find a way. In my heart, I have the same faith, but my mind tells me that there is really no conclusive evidence.

 

Pffft.

 

500 million years. You can go as slow as you damn-well like (both literally in terms of space ship speed, and in terms of technological progress), you'll still survive death of your star with that time frame on your side. All you need is a) some form of space travel (check) and b) some semblance of terraforming or the like. NASA and co are working on b now, with the aim of setting up a space colony on the Moon by 2020... but we've already got a space station - it's not hard to imagine these efforts being expanded to suit some sort of Noah's Ark in space. Can you imagine it taking any more than 1000 years for Earth to get a self-sufficient space colony set up if it put it's collective mind to it? I can't imagine it taking even 50 years, personally.

 

Calax: The immediate goal for the world's space agencies is a Lunar Colony. America's on track to have one by 2020 or so. China claims it's on track for 2020 (doubtful). Japan and India are eyeing 2030. Many people want to go after Mars once that's done. Buzz Aldrin has been writing seriously about Mars colonies for a while now if you want to google his stuff. He reckons America's best bet is to send people to Mars permanently once they've got the tech (which they do now, just not the will). He thinks America should leave the moon to other countries. But in regards to a Lunar Colony, at the moment NASA is working on things like lunar robots, lunar plants (peas survive fine on the moon apparently), and lunar power sources (solar and nuclear are the most promising).

[Aristes]

We've gone from the colonizing of the moon to ensuring the survival of a sentient species past the death of the sun? My friend, we can all be optimists, but that's a lot of variables to ensure anything. On the other hand, maybe we will actually get our act together and get out of dodge. On the third hand, that presumes that the only real impediment to a sentient species making it off this rock is the life-span of the sun. Now that's a lot of variable. But, hey, I'm a human being. I'm pulling for us also, you know. Even if the us of the future is some tentacled and radioactive monster with ten eyes and bad breath. I want someone to build the Tower of Babel or maybe re-enact the flight of Icarus.

[Gorth]

maybe re-enact the flight of Icarus.

Never underestimate the power of genetic engineering. Just select "wings" from the add-on menu

[Aristes]

We're still humans, Gorth. If we use the addon menu, you know what most folks will use it for.

[Humodour]

We've gone from the colonizing of the moon to ensuring the survival of a sentient species past the death of the sun? My friend, we can all be optimists, but that's a lot of variables to ensure anything. On the other hand, maybe we will actually get our act together and get out of dodge. On the third hand, that presumes that the only real impediment to a sentient species making it off this rock is the life-span of the sun. Now that's a lot of variable. But, hey, I'm a human being. I'm pulling for us also, you know. Even if the us of the future is some tentacled and radioactive monster with ten eyes and bad breath. I want someone to build the Tower of Babel or maybe re-enact the flight of Icarus.

 

The bolded bit is the only argument of yours I think is worth taking seriously. The rest sounds like you playing devil's advocate while disagreeing with yourself in the process.

 

But the thing is, even the bolded bit is questionable. If enough sentient Earthlings pooled resources together for a brief period of time (say, 50 years, depending on basic technological level), they'd be able to produce a self-sufficient space colony. Now, due to the time-frame we're talking about, it's probable that this would happen many thousands of times of over before our sun died - even if one accepts the bizarre notion that war is humanity's natural state and our current era of democratic peace will end soon (heck the main reason we went into space to begin with was because of a war).

 

Am I saying it's absolutely inevitable humanity will survive? No. But the alternative is as unlikely as me picking 5 cards randomly from my deck right now and getting a royal flush in diamonds (about 3.84769292 * 10^-7 for reference).

[Oner]

I have a question herr teacher! ,o/

Why is it a problem if our species dies out?

[Aristes]

I'm not playing devils advocate. I discard your argument pretty much out of hand because, while I things look cut and dried to you because of your current situation, I think you are downplaying some significant impediments to your galactic plans. First of all, we need to assume that everything we can fashion on earth will suffice to maintain a self sustaining vessel that would allow transport of enough of a sentient species and that nothing will befall either the planet or that vessel before that sentient species was ensured survival elsewhere. You present it as a done deal. Playing devil's advocate would assume that I agree with you but I'm present counter arguments. I'm not. I think it is a possibility because I assume that scientific discovery will generally progress faster as we've seen from human experience. However, it is not necessarily that this will be the case. Moreover, that science assumes that it can overcome every barrier to our galactic ambitions, whereas it is actually quite possible that there are barriers that we simply will not be able to surpass. We've managed to do so many wonderful things on this planet, and in such a short period of time, that we think that there is no natural law that we cannot overcome. I don't take that for granted.

 

Look, we don't have a huge difference between us. It's small but it is distinct. You believe it is all but certain a sentient species will make it off of the earth and survive outside of the solar system, whereas I believe it is possible. That's it. All I'm saying is that it's not all but certain. There's just as much chance whatever life is or will be here will not survive even to the death of the sun, let alone past it.

[Humodour]

I think it is a possibility because I assume that scientific discovery will generally progress faster as we've seen from human experience. However, it is not necessarily that this will be the case.

 

Why would rapid scientific progress need to be the case? The technology required to move humans to another planet already exists. That would be the simplest form of space colony. Also, such issues have far less to do with scientific progress then they do with technological progress - you seem to repeatedly conflate the two.

 

Moreover, that science assumes that it can overcome every barrier to our galactic ambitions, whereas it is actually quite possible that there are barriers that we simply will not be able to surpass.

 

Such as? "The laws of physics might prevent it" is a pretty damn tenuous argument, especially in light of the fact that we already know manned space travel is perfectly possible. As I see it the single biggest barrier to an off-world colony would be radiation shielding - something we've grown accustomed to dealing with due to things like the ISS and nuclear power.

 

Look, we don't have a huge difference between us. It's small but it is distinct. You believe it is all but certain a sentient species will make it off of the earth and survive outside of the solar system, whereas I believe it is possible. That's it. All I'm saying is that it's not all but certain. There's just as much chance whatever life is or will be here will not survive even to the death of the sun, let alone past it.

 

Well, your arguments with respect to technological barriers stink, but I have little quarrel with your implications of social barriers to surviving the death of a sun (except the sheer magnitude of time-scale we're dealing with).

Edited August 20, 2009 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

My best friend promised me a power armor if I help him conquer the galaxy. Anyone want to join?

 

I'm in.

[Aristes]

Okay, we're going to house, feed, keep warm, keep cool, permanently power a space station crammed with enough people to last for centuries in the best forseeable fuel we will have available and my arguments regarding technological barriers suck? Yeah, and we're going to build it in fantasy land and there will be nothing unforseen out there either. Everything is going to run perfectly. The computers say so. By the way, the universe will last as is forever also.

[Humodour]

Okay, we're going to house, feed, keep warm, keep cool, permanently power a space station crammed with enough people to last for centuries in the best forseeable fuel we will have available and my arguments regarding technological barriers suck?

 

Well, yes, because you have been arguing that the laws of physics might prevent us sorting out what are effectively logistical issues.

[Gorth]

Okay, we're going to house, feed, keep warm, keep cool, permanently power a space station crammed with enough people to last for centuries in the best forseeable fuel we will have available and my arguments regarding technological barriers suck?

 

Well, yes, because you have been arguing that the laws of physics might prevent us sorting out what are effectively logistical issues.

The Europeans are already doing experiments with FTL communication. If you can transmit info faster than light, then it isn't impossible to imagine FTL travel

[HoonDing]

Photons move exactly at the speed of light... FTL is physically impossible since it implies an infinite mass.

[Aristes]

Okay, we're going to house, feed, keep warm, keep cool, permanently power a space station crammed with enough people to last for centuries in the best forseeable fuel we will have available and my arguments regarding technological barriers suck?

 

Well, yes, because you have been arguing that the laws of physics might prevent us sorting out what are effectively logistical issues.

If you want to boil my argument down to that level, then you're essentially making the same argument that the Roman citizen makes at 1AD. We've been successful this far, thus our empire is eternal.

 

What I said is that there are too many variables to say it's all but a done deal. It could happen. I'd like to think we can do it, but I don't think it's all but certain we'll outlive the sun.

[Gorth]

Photons move exactly at the speed of light... FTL is physically impossible since it implies an infinite mass.

Claiming it to be impossible doesn't stop the guys from the University of Vienna from actually doing it in real, practical tests

[Oner]

Do the impossible, break the breakable,

RAW RAW Fight the power