Clown Car 2016

[Timsup2nothin]

How could we choose to do otherwise?

Natural selection led to the elephants' tusks. Why would they choose not to use them?

Our ability to override natural selection is actually a wide ranging ability with a multitude of potential applications. If we chose to apply it more to expanding our range than modifying our environment we would have different results, for example. The elephant's tusks, on the other hand, have a pretty limited range of applications, so using them for the obvious purposes is a pretty much automatic thing for the elephant to do, not really a choice.

 

[Borachio]

If we chose to apply it more to expanding our range than modifying our environment we would have different results, for example.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to me that we expand our range by modifying our environment. By and large.

For example, we modify our (immediate) environment to such an extent that we can live in Antartica, and even space.

But perhaps you mean something different by "range".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to me that we expand our range by modifying our environment. By and large.

For example, we modify our (immediate) environment to such an extent that we can live in Antartica, and even space.

But perhaps you mean something different by "range".

If we had applied every bit of technological development and research that has been applied to 'making the Earth more comfortable' towards 'getting some of our eggs out of this single basket' our survivability as a species would have been greatly improved.

 

[Traitorfish]

Consider the fragility of modern civilization. Should war, natural disaster, or any other factor disable the ability of civilization to continue to produce and distribute these vaccines where are we? We have prevented our own species from selecting for stronger immune systems, while simultaneously providing anti bacterial and anti viral agents that have helped select for the strongest members of their species.

I agree, the strength of the species is a gross thing to think about, by the way, but that doesn't change the reality that natural selection is a process that got us here and over riding it may not have been our best move ever.

What if a comet smacks into the earth and kills everybody? What if aliens invade? What if the robots rise against us?

You can't organise around a society around the premise of a B-movie.

 

[Borachio]

If we had applied every bit of technological development and research that has been applied to 'making the Earth more comfortable' towards 'getting some of our eggs out of this single basket' our survivability as a species would have been greatly improved.

Oh right. You're on about the colonization of other planets and solar systems?

Yeah. I don't buy it. At least, not on a scale to be significant and not in the foreseable future.

But in any case, I just don't see any catastrophe that's liable to extinguish the human species on Earth entirely. Not in the next 500,000 years or so.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Once humans settle another planet alike Earth, they'll be immortal.

 

[Borachio]

But why? And would there be no communication between the other planet and Earth? So wouldn't you still in effect have one population?

 

[gay_Aleks]

As in, the human race. The human government that created that colony.. not so.

 

[Borachio]

Yes, I gathered you meant the species.

But I still don't see why colonizing another planet would necessarily mean the species would continue indefinitely. It could happen. But it could happen if humans never left Earth, too. Another planet might make it more likely. Or it might not. It might even make it less likely.

I just don't know on what you're basing your assertion.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Because, if experience from what happened on Earth in the last 4000 years shows anything, we're pretty good at exploiting natural environments. If we have the technology for colonization, then imagine how fast population would rise there. These people would eventually become disgruntled with that planet, settle out, and the process will repeat infinitely, until some alien asses decide to wipe out the colony. That will be of course the fate of many colonies. But a number of them will prosper and create new colonies.

Aaaaaaand, award for derail of the month: from US nuts running for presidency to space colonization, in 4 pages.

 

[Borachio]

Imagine this counter scenario.

Humans continue to colonize planets until they encounter some really hostile alien civilization which recognizes its cosmological duty to eradicate the human species from the Universe.

Alternatively, humans don't do any space colonization, keep a low profile on planet Earth, and so escape detection indefinitely.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You obviously haven't met a whole lot of humans. Sure, we might be squishy, die quickly in most situations that include something different from a temperate climate and anything over/under 1 G, but we sure don't give up. Eventually, the evil space aliens will either lose, we'll win, or most likely case scenario, it'll end in a stalemate.

And staying on Earth forever is essentially death for the human race. Be it that we'll destroy it in a nuclear fire, or our greed reaching unimaginable levels, or a space race deciding that the Earth will do good as a space restaurant so long as all the natives are wiped out...

 

[Borachio]

Let me get this straight.

On Earth, human beings are destined to perish.

In space, human beings are indestructible.

Why do you think this?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Because, 7 billion people dispersed on a planet that can sustain in best case scenario, 3 billion is a rather bad idea?

While, in space, we can grow indefinitely. There's no limit to our growth, apart from entropy, and the number of planets we'll be able to inhabit, which will increase as technology develops.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why even bother with other planets? Gravity wells are hideously inefficient, as is having to scrape around in planetary crusts for resources. It seems plausible that, by the time mass-migration to other star systems become an option, we'll have partially or entirely abandoned planets altogether in favour of giganto space habitats.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Earth cannot support us indefinitely. Eventually, we'll dig out the last minerals, chop down the last forest.. As someone said, one cannot forever live in a cradle.

 

[Borachio]

I don't see why forests should disappear. If there's one renewable resource it's timber.

And with efficient enough recycling, why should mineral wealth ever be exhausted either.

As for the planet being unable to support 12 billion people (where it's likely to plateau), I don't see why not. It already supports 7 billion without too much trouble.

It may not be able to support 12 billion at the consumption rates of the average squandering American today, but why would it want to? Sooner or later people are going to be fed up with sitting in traffic jams dreaming of the latest model of consumer good.

Or maybe not? Perhaps you're right. But again, I don't see how colonizing space is going to affect this picture of human nature.

 

[gay_Aleks]

But as the population increases, so does the demand for timber. Eventually, there'll be a point where the demand will overwhelm the rate at which forests re-grow.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure why. As the demand for timber rises, the price rises and the demand falls back again. (Assuming the supply remains constant.)

I agree the Earth is finite. But then so is the known Universe. Any argument you have against the sustainability of human life on Earth must certainly also apply to the Universe.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What if a comet smacks into the earth and kills everybody? What if aliens invade? What if the robots rise against us?

You can't organise around a society around the premise of a B-movie.

Extinction level events do happen to the Earth. And it doesn't take an extinction level event to kill off pharmaceutical companies.