|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
Do you think mankind has reached it's pick?
March 24th, 2011, 15:16
Mankind reach pick
pick good
pick good
--
Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
March 24th, 2011, 16:04
Nope.
That's basically the answer.
You have people in every era who think:
1. We are moving so fast. You know, the past century we've invented this. Done that. Traveled this far….
2. We are so slow, we must have reached the end. It's finished.
3. We are all going to die in the next 10,20,30,… years. The world is going to end. God is coming to save us, don't you see the signs ? God is coming to kill all of us! God save the Queen!
They're all wrong. They always have been. The only people that will probably be right at some point is that the world would end, but even that isn't certain.
Mars, even IF we had the technology. Going with the fastest manned craft which is about 40000 km/h and closest Earth has been to Mars in the past decade was 55 million km.
So that's at least 1375 hours of flight IF that speed is not only attained but maintained throughout the whole flight, which is very unlikely. On top of that, you would need massive containers for fuel to be able to fly not only one way but to come back too. So that's at least 120 days of flight. Considering that that's 4 months in space of not doing anything, the bones of the astronauts would have started their demineralization process.
How long do you expect people to stay on Mars for after 2 months flying in space and then expecting a 2-month return. don't forget that every unit of weight needs 3 units of fuel to compensate for it…
Good enough explanation ?
That's basically the answer.
You have people in every era who think:
1. We are moving so fast. You know, the past century we've invented this. Done that. Traveled this far….
2. We are so slow, we must have reached the end. It's finished.
3. We are all going to die in the next 10,20,30,… years. The world is going to end. God is coming to save us, don't you see the signs ? God is coming to kill all of us! God save the Queen!
They're all wrong. They always have been. The only people that will probably be right at some point is that the world would end, but even that isn't certain.
Mars, even IF we had the technology. Going with the fastest manned craft which is about 40000 km/h and closest Earth has been to Mars in the past decade was 55 million km.
So that's at least 1375 hours of flight IF that speed is not only attained but maintained throughout the whole flight, which is very unlikely. On top of that, you would need massive containers for fuel to be able to fly not only one way but to come back too. So that's at least 120 days of flight. Considering that that's 4 months in space of not doing anything, the bones of the astronauts would have started their demineralization process.
How long do you expect people to stay on Mars for after 2 months flying in space and then expecting a 2-month return. don't forget that every unit of weight needs 3 units of fuel to compensate for it…
Good enough explanation ?
March 24th, 2011, 16:24
As far as brain size and density goes, we've pretty much plateaued, and that's more a physiological limitation than any other. The female birth canal is only so big, and women already suffer enough pain and stress during childbirth.
As far as societal evolution is concerned, one must understand that the process of evolution is slow, and that's if it occurs at all. Human beings have pretty much removed the selective pressures that the natural world might place on us, so the only ones we might respond to are ones that we place upon ourselves, inadvertently or voluntarily, ie: running out of fossil fuels vs adopting minimalist lifestyles. We also must realize that our societies and interactions are still mostly driven by sexual selection, competition, and resource exploitation: we still respond to, and reward, physical or intellectual fitness, dominance displays, and territory control. The evolutionary forces and adaptive behavior that gave rise to every other form of life on the planet affected us as well. Is it possible to change? Absolutely. Is it going to happen quickly? Absolutely not, if at all. All it takes is one cataclysmic effect - some bottleneck genetic drift - and you'll see pretty quickly how unenlightened we actually are.
The advances in science, technology, and the arts, as well as the growth of the entertainment industry are largely made possible by the lack of selective pressure. Have we peaked? Not necessarily. However, what we largely have is illusory; it can all go away faster than any of us think.
As far as societal evolution is concerned, one must understand that the process of evolution is slow, and that's if it occurs at all. Human beings have pretty much removed the selective pressures that the natural world might place on us, so the only ones we might respond to are ones that we place upon ourselves, inadvertently or voluntarily, ie: running out of fossil fuels vs adopting minimalist lifestyles. We also must realize that our societies and interactions are still mostly driven by sexual selection, competition, and resource exploitation: we still respond to, and reward, physical or intellectual fitness, dominance displays, and territory control. The evolutionary forces and adaptive behavior that gave rise to every other form of life on the planet affected us as well. Is it possible to change? Absolutely. Is it going to happen quickly? Absolutely not, if at all. All it takes is one cataclysmic effect - some bottleneck genetic drift - and you'll see pretty quickly how unenlightened we actually are.
The advances in science, technology, and the arts, as well as the growth of the entertainment industry are largely made possible by the lack of selective pressure. Have we peaked? Not necessarily. However, what we largely have is illusory; it can all go away faster than any of us think.
March 24th, 2011, 16:57
Well Mr. Buzzkill, acctually the human kinds average height and living expectancy and a lot of other things has increased faster than ever before.
This is probably mostly because of diet changes though. But still it is an enormous change.
This is probably mostly because of diet changes though. But still it is an enormous change.
March 24th, 2011, 17:17
Absolutely, and that's primarily due to our increased control over our environment. Cancers are far less deadly than they were a hundred years ago, the development of penicillin means that bacterial infections that may have killed us a hundred years ago are now minor inconveniences, and vaccination has done more to increase the life expectancy of children than anything else. Agriculture has integrated technology, with the use of herbicides, pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, so we all eat better - at least in industrialized nations. All human interventions. We're also seeing a dramatic increase in antibiotic resistant organisms, like MRSA and VRE, the common influenza virus is only a couple of mutations away from developing into a pandemic that makes the seasonal virus look like a picnic (swine flu actually killed fewer people than the seasonal flu), and modern agriculture's use of chemicals and genetic engineering to increase crop yields is being loosely connected to the increase in certain types of cancers, as well as an obesity epidemic that's spreading outside the US. The number of children being diagnosed with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes means that, in the next 50 years, we might witness the first occasion where our life expectancy drops instead of rises.
I believe the phrase most commonly used is, "house of cards."
I believe the phrase most commonly used is, "house of cards."
March 24th, 2011, 17:19
Originally Posted by JDR13
So you really think we possess the technology to colonize Mars, when we have yet to even reach it with a manned spacecraft, and probably won't for at least 20 years?
I think you need to read up on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_mission_to_Mars
I have little doubt that it we put focus on it like we did the moon landing, we could accomplish it in less than 20 years. The problem is that the cost would be massive. I've seen estimates as low as $100b and as high as $2Trillion. The US, or a group of nations, could do it, but it would either take a massive extension of debt (not feasible in the current economic state) or taking that money from elsewhere (not politically viable). Even if they could make it happen, what's the payoff?
I do think at some point in human history, we'll need to visit other solar bodies for acquisition of raw materials, but at this point, the only benefit of colonizing Mars is that it would great for science and just plain fucking cool!
--
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
March 24th, 2011, 17:27
Don't forget that the main reason we need to expand to other planets is the earth being over-populated. So I'd say the sooner we manage it the better.
March 24th, 2011, 17:34
Originally Posted by GothicGothicnessIn the very long term? Yes, but in the short term, with most western countries having birth rates that result in a stable or declining indigenous population, we're not going to be in a situation where over population is going to be a real problem in our life times for most of us.
Don't forget that the main reason we need to expand to other planets is the earth being over-populated. So I'd say the sooner we manage it the better.
Plus, the money spent on colonizing another planet could be put to much better use in improving our agricultural yields.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extra-terrestrial colonization, and I'd like to see if sooner rather than later, but I don't think overpopulation will the driver in our lifetimes.
--
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
March 24th, 2011, 17:38
Originally Posted by blatantninjaAdditionally, it's not simply a factor of population, but how that population utilizes it's resources. The US is so incredibly wasteful that our population of 3-400 million is doing the same, if not more, ecological damage as China, with a population 2-4 times as large.
In the very long term? Yes, but in the short term, with most western countries having birth rates that result in a stable or declining indigenous population, we're not going to be in a situation where over population is going to be a real problem in our life times for most of us.
Plus, the money spent on colonizing another planet could be put to much better use in improving our agricultural yields.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extra-terrestrial colonization, and I'd like to see if sooner rather than later, but I don't think overpopulation will the driver in our lifetimes.
March 24th, 2011, 18:45
Originally Posted by blatantninjaIn our lifetime, no, but that's not the problem. The problem is going to be within a few generations, if people don't stop breeding at the present rate.
In the very long term? Yes, but in the short term, with most western countries having birth rates that result in a stable or declining indigenous population, we're not going to be in a situation where over population is going to be a real problem in our life times for most of us.
March 24th, 2011, 19:06
The problem with humanity is not that it has reached its peak but that the progress ushered in by 1st world countries has turned into stagnancy as people have grown overly complacent from how"comfortable" technology has made them and how removed they can be, if they choose, from any government oversight.
March 24th, 2011, 19:19
Originally Posted by JDR13I've read that world population should peak about 2050 and then begin declining. Even China is on a path to have a declining population in the near future, primarily due to their one child policy.
In our lifetime, no, but that's not the problem. The problem is going to be within a few generations, if people don't stop breeding at the present rate.
Essentially, the theories of Paul Ehrlich and Malthus aren't widely accepted anymore. Part of it is a function of the inverse relationship between prosperity and birth rates, which will affect China and to a lesser extent India. For developing countries (as well as the developing parts of India and to a lesser extent China), are only able to grow their populations to a point that their local, or easily accessible non-local, resources can support them, then it's famine time.
Don't get me wrong, due to population problems, I think the next 50 years are going to see some very ugly events and a lot of harm will be done to the environment, but ultimately, the issue will correct itself. We're never going to get to a point where there are simply too many people on the planet for it to support itself.
Check this out:
Country Comparison :: Total fertility rate
Nearly half the countries on the list are below the replacement birth rate.
--
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
---------------------------------
"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"
- Davy Crockett
March 24th, 2011, 21:25
Dude, that's a CIA link! Now they know who I am, and are tracking my every move. Aiyiyiyiyiiiiiii
March 25th, 2011, 01:58
Hmm.. I'd be very surprised if our population peaked in 2050, but I guess there's no way to know for sure. I certainly hope it's true though, as I've seen projections as high as 10.5 Billion by that year. That's around 33% more than today's population, in less than 30 years! Not good…
March 25th, 2011, 03:59
I have full confidence Mother Nature will keep us in check. Whether famine, disease, or disaster, there's just too many ways that have nothing to do with man's input to kill off fair numbers of us in short order. Tack on the joys of war (imagine what an extended battle between China and India would do to the global population even if it stays conventional) and we shouldn't have too much to worry about.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:57.


