What's the most significant advance in the history of science?

[Tulkas12]

No, I would not like to die at age 25-30. And I don't know if science can ever truly explain exactly how the world "works." I am not suggesting a return to the stone age, and as much as I do think a hunter-gatherer society may be a good thing, I realize that is impossible in this day and age (sustainable intentional communities, or ecovillages, are much more realistic). I am sayng that agriculture brought about the beginning of civilization, which is bad. Secondly, most science is part of a military-industrial complex, which is not the right way to go with it.

Hey townsman,

I know this point of veiw well. I was wondering have you given much thought to space travel, and what might be good for the solar-system instead of just one planet?

 

[tomsnowman123]

You want to be a hunter gatherer? That is a terrible existence. It took the ag revolution a few thousand years to produce the first "cities" and city states. While you may no tlike civilization, it has produced just enough good stuff to make it better than living without its benefits. I do not believe that any civ, once civilized has ever elected to revert back to something less. The individuals who do so are usually disillussioned pretty quickly.

Not neccesarily, although I would disagree with it in being a terrible existance. If I were to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I would probably allow some technology, mainly that of which has a risk/cost/value tradeoff compelling enough to justify continued use, clotheslines, efficient thermal insulating, bicycles, etc., and the aforementioned technology in my earlier post.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Hey townsman,

I know this point of veiw well. I was wondering have you given much thought to space travel, and what might be good for the solar-system instead of just one planet?

Space travel doesn't seem like a viable option for future developement. How would communications and trade, politics, etc., be organized between planets? I am against globalization, and this would be like an extreme form of it. It is expensive, complex, and dangerous.

Having said that, if I were to learn that our planet is in extreme danger (which it might be already) I would support relocation to a different planet, if possible. Or maybe if I could start my own planet, that would be pretty cool...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not suggesting a return to the stone age, and as much as I do think a hunter-gatherer society may be a good thing, I realize that is impossible in this day and age

Western romanticism painted a noble picture of hunter gatherer societies that rarely showed how terrible and difficult they were to live in. It is a hand to mouth existence without any relief and subject to destruction at any moment by the whims of nature.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

No, I would not like to die at age 25-30. And I don't know if science can ever truly explain exactly how the world "works." I am not suggesting a return to the stone age, and as much as I do think a hunter-gatherer society may be a good thing, I realize that is impossible in this day and age (sustainable intentional communities, or ecovillages, are much more realistic). I am sayng that agriculture brought about the beginning of civilization, which is bad. Secondly, most science is part of a military-industrial complex, which is not the right way to go with it.

Bold by me.

Why is the beginning of civilization bad? It's just people trying to improve the quality of their lives and the lives of their children. What makes humans special is that we aren't satisfied with the way things are and constantly seek to improve them. Civilization is just the first step to our modern standard of living that we all currently enjoy.

I disagree with the allure of your ecovillage. You go live in it if you like, but it's not for everyone. I'll take the bright lights and excitement any day. A little decadence from time to time does wonders for the attitude.

I must also take issue with your analysis that "most science is part of a military-industrial complex". Maybe that was true in the old Soviet states, but not here in the West where the consumer is king. Drop by any shopping mall as a demonstrative example.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Western romanticism painted a noble picture of hunter gatherer societies that rarely showed how terrible and difficult they were to live in. It is a hand to mouth existence without any relief and subject to destruction at any moment by the whims of nature.

But as I said, I would probably live with some technology. Anyways, I believe humans need to become much more connected with nature, and work with it, not against it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not neccesarily, although I would disagree with it in being a terrible existance. If I were to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, I would probably allow some technology, mainly that of which has a risk/cost/value tradeoff compelling enough to justify continued use, clotheslines, efficient thermal insulating, bicycles, etc., and the aforementioned technology in my earlier post.

And how would you repair/replace your tech when it breaks or wears out? Move to a small town in North Dakota. That is probably pretty close to what you want.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Anyways, I believe humans need to become much more connected with nature, and work with it, not against it.

That is a very different question and has lots of answers, none of which need to involve hunter gatherer life styles.

 

[Tulkas12]

Space travel doesn't seem like a viable option for future developement. How would communications and trade, politics, etc., be organized between planets? I am against globalization, and this would be like an extreme form of it. It is expensive, complex, and dangerous.

Having said that, if I were to learn that our planet is in extreme danger (which it might be already) I would support relocation to a different planet, if possible. Or maybe if I could start my own planet, that would be pretty cool...

Yea, I geuss my point is (and its just sharing with you) that I believe its the prupose of any sentitent creature in the universe to protect life. I veiw this as our number one undertaking. To further this by getting off the home rock and trying to make sure that, as terrible am idea this is (lol), make more certain life's (as we know it) future.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Bold by me.

Why is the beginning of civilization bad? It's just people trying to improve the quality of their lives and the lives of their children. What makes humans special is that we aren't satisfied with the way things are and constantly seek to improve them. Civilization is just the first step to our modern standard of living that we all currently enjoy.

I disagree with the allure of your ecovillage. You go live in it if you like, but it's not for everyone. I'll take the bright lights and excitement any day. A little decadence from time to time does wonders for the attitude.

I must also take issue with your analysis that "most science is part of a military-industrial complex". Maybe that was true in the old Soviet states, but not here in the West where the consumer is king. Drop by any shopping mall as a demonstrative example.

Well, civilization has brought about totalitarian institutions that destroy human freedom and nature. I am seeking to improve human lives by standing against civilization.

As for the science part, mass consumerism may one of societies worst attributes right now. Comsnumerism breeds waste, and an "elitist" society. So either way, it's bad.

Finally, while I strongly disagree with you, well, disagreeing with me, I respect your decisions and would by no menas try to force mine onto you.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Space travel doesn't seem like a viable option for future developement. How would communications and trade, politics, etc., be organized between planets? I am against globalization, and this would be like an extreme form of it. It is expensive, complex, and dangerous.

The colonization of the New World was expensive, complex and dangerous, but the rewards were huge. The other planets also don't have the ethical problem that people already live there.

If there is money to be made from the other planets, by mining, tourism, whatever, capitalism will see to it that it gets accomplished.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yea, I geuss my point is (and its just sharing with you) that I believe its the prupose of any sentitent creature in the universe to protect life. I veiw this as our number one undertaking. To further this by getting off the home rock and trying to make sure that, as terrible am idea this is (lol), make more certain life's (as we know it) future.

And I agree that we have the right to try to survive, for the most part. If we had to relocate in order to survive as a species, you would see me ready to move out. Perhaps we could start off better on a new planet. Hopefully, however, we can save ours, I would hate to have to leave it.

Edited typos.

Edited a typo in "edited typos."

 

[tomsnowman123]

The colonization of the New World was expensive, complex and dangerous, but the rewards were huge. The other planets also don't have the ethical problem that people already live there.

If there is money to be made from the other planets, by mining, tourism, whatever, capitalism will see to it that it gets accomplished.

Your argument that planets don't have the ethical problem of current human rresidence is probably the biggest support for living on a different planet, imo.

And capitalism is not good, imo.

 

[Tulkas12]

The colonization of the New World was expensive, complex and dangerous, but the rewards were huge. The other planets also don't have the ethical problem that people already live there.

If there is money to be made from the other planets, by mining, tourism, whatever, capitalism will see to it that it gets accomplished.

This is truly a hope of mine. It is a main reason why I am a capitalist, capitalism drives man to be more than any other form of economics.

 

[Yuri2356]

Space travel doesn't seem like a viable option for future developement. How would communications and trade, politics, etc., be organized between planets? I am against globalization, and this would be like an extreme form of it. It is expensive, complex, and dangerous.

Well, unless it's possible to somehow trick the universe into letting you move faster than light, There will be no viable way to maintain a single governing body over more than one star system. Even the one system would start to stretch the resources of a centralized government for a while.

With setting up some sort of space colony, they would initaly be kept in line by a reliance on imports from Earth. If they eventually devellop self-sufficiency they can become autonomous, but can't really become a military threat to each other. In space, you can see the heat/light produced by a spacecraft's engines from light-hours away, easily. In a realistic scenario, a defender would have days, or even weeks and months to resopnd to an attack. So space will be a rather peacefull place for Terran, Martian, Selenite... and whatever other populations of humans arrise. And once we're out there, there's ambient power and mineral resources abound! We can expand industries without doing a thing to our dear homeworld, and continue to advance to whereever it is we're going.

Maybe start working on some sort of frivilous megaproject...

 

[Tulkas12]

And I agree that we have the right to try to survive, for the most part. If we had to relocate in order to survive as a species, you would see me ready to move out. Perhaps we could start off better on a new planet. Hopefully, however, we can save ours, I would hate to have to leave it.

Edited typos.

Edited a typo in "edited typos."

Its impossible to save unless we can save the Sun. That aside, I am a green right wing nut job. Oil is illogical, global warming and war aside. No other veiw can be had about having and depending on limited resource.

 

[tomsnowman123]

That is a very different question and has lots of answers, none of which need to involve hunter gatherer life styles.

But hunter-gatherer may be a good way to accomplish this.

And how would you repair/replace your tech when it breaks or wears out? Move to a small town in North Dakota. That is probably pretty close to what you want.

Good question. Obviously, if I did live with this, I would have to allow extremely localized production of such items, in as an unobtrusive and ecologically safe minded way as possible. Luckily, most of my technology puts very little strain on the enviroment, and again, its risk/cost/value tradeoff is compelling enough to justify continued use.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I am a green right wing nut job.

Yeah, power in numbers. I guess I am considered a green/eco anarchy nutjob.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well, civilization has brought about totalitarian institutions that destroy human freedom and nature.

Totalitarianism and humans mistreating and destroying each other started long before 'civilization' did. A large number or very old, pre-civilization, human skeletons show signs of death by other human weapons. What was the life expectancy before civilization came along? What difference does if make if you die young due to disease or due to a spear? Modern people like us live longer and more free lives due to the benefits of civilization.

As for the science part, mass consumerism may one of societies worst attributes right now. Comsnumerism breeds waste, and an "elitist" society. So either way, it's bad.

I love consumerism. Does that make me elitist? If freedom is good then isn't it my right to exercise my freedom and love consumerism if I choose to? Maybe you should drop by Vegas sometime, we can take my Escalade down to the strip and I'll show you how absolutely wonderful consumerism and decadence can be. Have you ever given it a fair try? Don't knock it until you've given it a go.

This isn't just my opinion either. The tourists flock here from around the world by the tens of millions for just such a taste of consumerism.

Finally, while I strongly disagree with you, well, disagreeing with me, I respect your decisions and would by no menas try to force mine onto you.

For whatever it's worth you just earned a point in my book. Just as I ask to be left to my lifestyle of choice you have every right to be left to yours. We don't all have to agree on all the issues in order to be able to agree to live together in peace.

 

[Kyriakos]

For detailed 3d computer game environments, and iirc also any digitised image, fractals are very important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals

If i recall correctly fractals in graphics are used so as to solve problems of massive complexity for the smallest (in pizel size) parts of the graphics, so that not so much memory or space is used for those small parts.

The most important scientific advance has to be mass sanitation though.