US Space program future?
By
Alpha-One,
Posted on: 2011-07-28 04:51 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
NO species will be alive on this planet at that point. The planet will be dead because the sun will have died at 4.5 billion years, and will have expanded as it burns its fuel to the point where the planet is roasted, if not drawn into the sun, before that. Various models looking at the sun's increase in luminosity suggest it may be too hot in *1* billion years for water - and life - to exist on Earth. |
Originally Posted by Durakken
The species known as **** sapien sapien will not be alive on this plant in 4-5 billion years
|
Quote:
| And saying all those other types of animals doesn't work because when you talk about humans you mean a specific creature. Where as when you say shark or dinosaur you are talking about a general type of creature. Obviously a specific creature has a shorter longevity than a general type. |
And that I pointed out the *exact same thing* when listing those - the point being that *nothing* has lived long enough to say a creature *can't* exist that long without minimal evolutionary changes, thanks to the various extinction events that have hit the planet - but that I doubt we would anyway, between our own evolution and our self-destructive behaviour?
You guys all need to calm down, relax, and watch Cosmos. Also Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe. And then Cosmos again. Everything's gonna be OK, for values of OK that have meaning to the human lifespan. 
Quote:
Well, depending on the type of alien and the available condiments... they just might.
|
Originally Posted by _Klaw_
If the aliens don't like how we do things they can bite me.
|
Rabbits & Hares:Blue (Mind/Emp Controller)Maroon (Rad/Thermal Corruptor)and one of each AT all at 50
MA Arcs: Apples of Contention - 3184; Zen & Relaxation - 35392; Tears of Leviathan - 121733 | All posts are rated "R" for "R-r-rrrrr, baby!"|Now, and this is very important... do you want a hug? COH Faces @Blue Rabbit
Quote:
Please don't take this the wrong way but... seek profissional help and seek it fast.
|
Originally Posted by MrHassenpheffer
I'm certain they want us to solve our own problems because we can. Earth is our home, but their terrarium. These guys build planets. Just an educated guess, we aren't the only life they have cultivated. If complications prevent evolution or worst case scenario our environment becomes unlivable, it's going to be something along the lines of a massive relocation. To us it would seem impossible, to them its the push of a button. That blue beam of light that could immobilize moving objects was the single most impressive display of technology I have ever seen. Nothing we have even comes close to it.
You know that old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention" that's what we should count on. Our ability to understand and solve problems is the closest thing we have to super powers. There's ways to solve every problem we have on this world, some with technology some with simply changing a few man made laws. Unless something unforeseen happens, we should be able to help ourselves. |
Rabbits & Hares:Blue (Mind/Emp Controller)Maroon (Rad/Thermal Corruptor)and one of each AT all at 50
MA Arcs: Apples of Contention - 3184; Zen & Relaxation - 35392; Tears of Leviathan - 121733 | All posts are rated "R" for "R-r-rrrrr, baby!"|Now, and this is very important... do you want a hug? COH Faces @Blue Rabbit
Quote:
Then we can kill them and take their stuff. That'll learn 'em.
|
Originally Posted by Demobot
I am quite content to not meet them until we can do so on equal technological terms.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark One
When America spends more money on air-conditioning the tents of soldiers than they do on NASA, something is deeply, deeply, wrong.
|
Y'know I cant even fathom where your coming from with that one?
Is providing some comfort to somebody working and sleeping in an area where the heat index reaches 115-120 degrees on a regular basis somehow a bad thing?
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Quote:
I think it's more of a criticism on how underfunded NASA is than on the amount of money spent on soldier's air con.
|
Originally Posted by ebon3
Y'know I cant even fathom where your coming from with that one? Is providing some comfort to somebody working and sleeping in an area where the heat index reaches 115-120 degrees on a regular basis somehow a bad thing? |
Quote:
Exactly.|
Originally Posted by Zikar
I think it's more of a criticism on how underfunded NASA is than on the amount of money spent on soldier's air con.
|
It wasn't a criticism of providing aid to our soldiery. It was rather a statement on the the balance of funding that the government doles out, i.e. an entire department's yearly budget vs just one portion of war-footing for two wars that'll never actually end. As well as a statement to those who believe that NASA gets obscene amounts of money.
I've talked to some people that believe NASA gets around 50% of total available federal funds. Not a joke. And they act surprised when they find out it's like 0.5% (and continually dropping).
I see, personally, I would have used any number of domestic "bridge to nowhere" projects myself (although the entirety of some never to be named foreign efforts certainly come under that catagory), but your point stands.
I'm also in agreement with you, funding NASA certainly has better long term consequneces than say the Gravina Island Bridge project.
I think one of NASA's bigger problems is how the public see's them. I've read and heard on more than one occassion somebody replying simply; "Why do we waste money sending people into space when people are starving on earth".
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Quote:
It just came to my mind, that all the 'problems on the earth' seem to come down to 2 things:|
Originally Posted by MrHassenpheffer
I'd rather man kind fix all problems on this Earth before venturing outwards, we might not be as welcome to leave this world as we may think, and yes.... I do know something.
|
Who 'owns' what,
and how we can get those things (the 'what') from one place to another.
Maybe if we were obsessed less with the former, and more innovative with the latter...
It does sadden me for the entire human race when someone repeats that tired chestnut. It's like a miner saying to his wife about their son, "Why bother to teach Jimmy to read? I never learned anything good from anything I read, so it's worthless. Give him a shovel and a pick, and he'll be fine."
OR we could give our next generation the tools with which to see further than the end of their own noses. As messed up as our generation (I'm ~40) is/was/has been, we are responsible for a few advances here and there.
I'm pretty sure, as much as I like to watch them play/etc., that people like Michael Jordan and Derek Jeter and Serena Williams and Brad Keselowski would freely admit that people should really check their scales when comparing their 'heroism' to the heroism of the people in NASA. Too bad the former, as great as they are in the American 'heroscape', are considered first when people ask kids who they look up to, rather than the latter.
I think having a frontier that a few Real heroes* venture into occasionally for the sole purpose of venturing there, to see what we see, and sometimes coming back with a surprise or 2, is worth what we spend on it. It's the Next Thing. And it's a thing for the Human Race, not just Americans - but as an American, I'd like to say we continue to be at the front of that journey, all due respect.
(IRL, Real Heroes include, among many others, all of our Military service personnel, and anyone willing to strap on 1.2 million pounds of high explosive in a tube and ride it into a vacuum in the name of Science. And the people who design that tube.)
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
My response is because that kind of thinking would have kept us using the horse and carriage. No one could have guessed what technologies have been created due to space exploration.
|
Originally Posted by ebon3
I think one of NASA's bigger problems is how the public see's them. I've read and heard on more than one occassion somebody replying simply; "Why do we waste money sending people into space when people are starving on earth".
|
The first step in being sane is to admit that you are insane.
Quote:
The intellectual approach would actually be to reduce the amount food we human's are producing. Our unchecked totalitarian agriculture policy is what is fueling our exponential population growth and is the primary reason we're exceeding the human carrying capacity of planet earth. Like the war on drugs, the war on hunger cannot ever be "won". More food actually translates into a greater precentage of starving people and suffering. It also leads to the stripping of the planet's bio-diversity as we remove hundreds of native species (both plant and animal) to make room for a very narrow number of new ones to feed us. |
Originally Posted by Desmodos
An argument could be made that the primary problem on Earth is people. Remove the people, and the Earth would have no more problems. The easy way out would be genocide. The intellectual approach would be space travel.
|
I do believe that humans have a place here on earth (we're here, after all). We're not an inherently flawed creation that our culture and religions would have us believe. We've simply been living in a manner that isn't sustainable for the last 10,000 years or so. The goods news is that 10,000 is a small percentage of time. Not only for the earth but for **** sapiens sapien as well. We lived in sustainable ways as modern humans, no different than we are today, for some 200,000 to 300,000 years prior to our current culture that was derived in the fertile cresent a mere 10,000 years ago.
Is space flight and space travel stimulating and interesting? I would argue "yes" in a heartbeat. It is both those things and I'm not aganist the practice in any way. It isn't a true solution to our problems either. Even if we could colonize the Moon, Mars and all the places of the Solar System, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't living in a sustainable manner. It may alleivate our problems of over-population but would be little more than a band-aid. We'd still wind up in the same pickle as it were.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
Quote:
I had a long post but the stupid system logged me out... basically... No, you're wrong and most of what you said shows a lack of knowledge in history, politics, and many other areas. Excess food doesn't cause population growth, Humans have never lived in balance with nature, and colonizing other planets would very much change our ability to sustain such environments.
|
Originally Posted by Organicide
The intellectual approach would actually be to reduce the amount food we human's are producing. Our unchecked totalitarian agriculture policy is what is fueling our exponential population growth and is the primary reason we're exceeding the human carrying capacity of planet earth. Like the war on drugs, the war on hunger cannot ever be "won". More food actually translates into a greater precentage of starving people and suffering. It also leads to the stripping of the planet's bio-diversity as we remove hundreds of native species (both plant and animal) to make room for a very narrow number of new ones to feed us.
I do believe that humans have a place here on earth (we're here, after all). We're not an inherently flawed creation that our culture and religions would have us believe. We've simply been living in a manner that isn't sustainable for the last 10,000 years or so. The goods news is that 10,000 is a small percentage of time. Not only for the earth but for **** sapiens sapien as well. We lived in sustainable ways as modern humans, no different than we are today, for some 200,000 to 300,000 years prior to our current culture that was derived in the fertile cresent a mere 10,000 years ago. Is space flight and space travel stimulating and interesting? I would argue "yes" in a heartbeat. It is both those things and I'm not aganist the practice in any way. It isn't a true solution to our problems either. Even if we could colonize the Moon, Mars and all the places of the Solar System, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't living in a sustainable manner. It may alleivate our problems of over-population but would be little more than a band-aid. We'd still wind up in the same pickle as it were. |
Quote:
Why did I use the air conditioning comparison? Because it's something that people would immediately understand. It's not some boondoggle project in the middle of nowhere that no one's ever heard of before and can be chalked up to government being government.
|
Originally Posted by ebon3
I see, personally, I would have used any number of domestic "bridge to nowhere" projects myself (although the entirety of some never to be named foreign efforts certainly come under that catagory), but your point stands.
I'm also in agreement with you, funding NASA certainly has better long term consequneces than say the Gravina Island Bridge project. |
Quote:
I'll have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of my understanding as it concerns history, politics and many other "areas". I would be the first to admit that politics was never my strong suit if that helps any but I know enough to get by. What I find most puzzling about your comments though was your assessment as it concerns "humans never living in balance with nature". We've done so since our inception as a species. We're no more a cancer on this planet than gorillas, cheetahs or tuna are. I think you're mistaking what noted animist and cultural thinker Daniel Quinn has called, "The Culture of maximum Harm" for human beings as a whole. This is simply not true. |
Originally Posted by Durakken
I had a long post but the stupid system logged me out... basically... No, you're wrong and most of what you said shows a lack of knowledge in history, politics, and many other areas. Excess food doesn't cause population growth, Humans have never lived in balance with nature, and colonizing other planets would very much change our ability to sustain such environments.
|
Did some species make way as humans moved forward on their path. Yes, they surely did. The giant ground sloth found in central and south america was thoguht to be a victim of human encroachment. This could be said of any food chain when a new top-teir predator is introduced. That doesn't make humans seperate from the rest of life on this planet. We're positivley part of it.
As for the fantasy of space colonization being our savior, I'll have to admit that I'm confused. If we continue to grow our population as we have been (which is to say exponetially, doubling our population in half the time every cycle) we'd still burn out. It's a non-sustainable behavior. It doesn't solve the underling problem. A band-aid.
If food doesn't cause population growth, I'd like to know where it is all these people are coming from? Are they being created from thin air? We are literally, in every sense of the word, what we eat. Every year we tell ourselves, If we just make a little more food we can feed the hungry. We then grow more food every year and...wait, there's even more starving people the next year. It's very easy to point at "politics" as a reason for hungry people but it's no-where near the main cause. We are artificially supporting masses of people living in regions that cannot sustain them. We've repeated this mistake for the last 10,000 (give or take a few thousand years).
I would propose trying something different next year. Let's pretend that I could keep food production for 2011 where it was for 2010. I'd be willing to bet we'd see the same amount of starving people we had in 2010. Not more, not less. Just about the same.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
It's not the food causing more people to appear. It's humans natural desire to reproduce (and the nature of sex) coupled with an unwillingness, either through ignorance, religious indoctrination, or poverty, to afford legitimate and effective means of birth control that would allow one to engage in the act but without the consequences. Include the factor that larger families mean that one can work more land, presumably, in less than technologically advanced societies, and thus in theory earn more money.
Look at America in the early years in the places that relied on manual labor to produce stuff. Lots of big families. Sure, not every person in that family survived, but more mouths meant more hands in the field. Now, however, we have sufficient technological advancements in the developed parts of the world that we don't need those large families to produce adequate sustenance.
It's not excessive food production causing population growth, it's population growth on the presumption that they'll be able to grow enough food to survive. If it was excessive food, you'd see the developed countries with far more children per couple than the undeveloped nations. But that's not what we see.
Space colonization can bring in new resources that we don't have now or new sources of stuff we do have but are running low on/easily accessible stocks of. Be it new plants with medical potential (if we find an M-class planet), new ores and minerals, or simply more places to grow food/textiles/wood/etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark One
It's not the food causing more people to appear. It's humans natural desire to reproduce (and the nature of sex) coupled with an unwillingness, either through ignorance, religious indoctrination, or poverty, to afford legitimate and effective means of birth control that would allow one to engage in the act but without the consequences. Include the factor that larger families mean that one can work more land, presumably, in less than technologically advanced societies, and thus in theory earn more money.
Look at America in the early years in the places that relied on manual labor to produce stuff. Lots of big families. Sure, not every person in that family survived, but more mouths meant more hands in the field. Now, however, we have sufficient technological advancements in the developed parts of the world that we don't need those large families to produce adequate sustenance. It's not excessive food production causing population growth, it's population growth on the presumption that they'll be able to grow enough food to survive. If it was excessive food, you'd see the developed countries with far more children per couple than the undeveloped nations. But that's not what we see. Space colonization can bring in new resources that we don't have now or new sources of stuff we do have but are running low on/easily accessible stocks of. Be it new plants with medical potential (if we find an M-class planet), new ores and minerals, or simply more places to grow food/textiles/wood/etc. |
Hey Dark,
I don't fully agree with the argument you put forward here. We can verify in the anthropoloigal record that every increase in food production has equaled an increase in the populaiton. This is beyond argument. It's been happening since the agricultural revolution and continues to this day forward. Birth Control is a bit of a white herring as well. We're told that it'll curb population growth and it never (not even once) has. This is also fact, not opinion. Even in the industrialized world, we see a growth in the population. Worse still, it's the industrialized world that is fueling the population explosion in the third world. We're sending food to regions of the world that cannot support the humans already there. Does this fact stink? Yeah, it really does. But so does the extinction of the human race. We, as a species (I think) have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that we need limits. It's a bitter pill, and I don't want to see people starve more than anyone else. I've come to the belief that it's better to stop supporting artifical population(s) and prolonging suffering in favor of a more reality based approach.
As for space colonization, it's an awesome dream. It really is. I'm a big sci-fi fan and on a personal level, I'd like to see us go to stars. To believe that it'll save us as a species, is in my opinion, a fantasy. There's an underlying problem that all the Class M planets in the universe won't solve. We're engaged in an orgy of food production as a culture. We're told unlimited food growth will solve our problems. If we just work a little harder and be a little more perfect and make a little more food, we'll be ok. But we won't. We haven't since this all started in Mesopotamia (sp?), and I think it's time we tried something different.
All species have an unfettered urge to reporduce, not just us humans. The difference is that we as a culture (not as a species) have refused to accept that turning all the food on earth to human food is a really bad idea. Every new acre that we put under the plow loses its bio-diversity. We're killing species off to the tune of 50-60 per DAY. Every link of the web that gets cut, makes the human species MORE vulnerable to extinction. It's all connected and we are part of the web wether we want to be or not.
Hunter gather societys (yes, some still exist even as we speak) understood this. Maybe not as I've typed it here, and not because they are "noble savages" but because they're content, happy and safe in their own culture. Which is more than a lot of people in this culture can say. It's a system that has worked for humans far longer than what you and I prctice today. It's unlikely that people such as myself could go back to this way of life. Plop me down with a tribe of hunter/gathers anywhere is the world and I'd likely meet my end quite soon. This doesn't mean that we have to go on living like gods of the earth, taking what we please without consequence either. We have options and we should explore them before it's too late.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
When you say that increased food production means increased population, are you not taking into account the possibility of the other way around? Once they learned agriculture, it became necessary to produce more people to do the work required to produce enough yields that a family could make a legitimate living farming (as well as having the capability to house them). Once we got the industrial revolution, it was not necessary for a family to have 12 children to work the fields. Humans, as well as most animals, will breed regardless of whether or not there is the food to support them. If you overpopulate, there'll be a die off either due to food shortage or increased disease factor.
It's a chicken and egg scenario. And you are basically absolving those populations of the results of their actions and heaping guilt for it all on the industrialized nations.
Look at the birth rates. Also, you might want to take a look at things like the Graying of Europe and Japan.
Pretty much every industrialized nation is on the low end of the totem pole. Meanwhile, the nations that have a less than industrialized nature have absurdly high BRs. And why is that? Because we've accepted that there are reasonable methods to allow us the enjoyment of the act, but without superstitious nonsense.
Well...not all of us, there's still a good number that prefer to keep their heads in the sand.
As to killing off species...while the loss of biodiversity is a bad thing, there is something people need to realize. It's believe that around 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. We have the capability to affect extinction, both positively and negatively. But let's be honest here, extinction is not a new thing and while one species dies off, another (or several) can rise up in time to take its place. Look up something called the Permian Extinction. It'll be an eye opener.
You know what... i explained exactly what the problem is AGAIN. And the same **** happened again.
Organicide, again, you are wrong. Everything you are saying is out of the mouth of someone who wrote it like a hundred years ago and has since been proven completely wrong.
population growth is caused by stupidity (but is nullified generally by another stupidity), poor farm families as Dark One said, and War because when war happens human instinct is to **** like rabbits
Humans have never been in balance. We've always changed (threw things out f balance) things to make the world better for us and it has always been 1 of 3 things we've done... Hunted things for food, Taken Prey from predators, or killed for protection... in every area of the world humans went into and this has been recorded as far back as humans have been alive big and strong predator animals die out shortly after humans enter their area. I'll put my bet on the first 2 99% of the time while leaving the 1% for the smart guys who did it on purpose.
Space is the savior of man kind because it gets us away from tribalism where that tribalism effects us and we can't do anything about it for the most part. If China wants to do something it ends up with it just doing it, us going to war, or us negotiating and them still doing it until it's solved. On a colony that would be different... Also it's just plain stupid to not get off thi rock as fast as possible... there are too many threats that could wipe s all out bcause we're still stuck on this rock.
Durakkhan @ Dark One,
I'm fully aware of lower birth rates in industrialised nations in relation to those in the third world. This doesn't change the fact that these lower rates in no way compensate for the massive expansion in the third world. Even if we extend this thought and pretend that one day the 3rd world will climb out of their morass, the number of humans will continue to grow exponentially as long as we continue to practice "totalitarian agriculture" which is to say, making all food into human food. This practice is harmful to the well being of our species. The world will be fine without us, continue to spin and provide life for the next. I'd like us to stick around.
Large farming families, birth control, war, human lust are all sympotoms of the disease. You're only looking at the last 10,000 years or so of our time here on earth while ignoring the remaining 90%. People didn't just show up with a plow in their hands tilling the soil. It's a realtively new culture we're in and it's proved to be a dangerous one. To say people were always a blight/scourge on Earth is patently false. Human beings abided by the laws of nature since their inception and still do so to this day (where you can still find them).
I'll end, as I always seem to do, with the warning that living on other planets/space stations/moons/colonies isn't the solution. It might well slow our culture's extinction but I don't buy it as a cure or an escape from it. We'll have the exact same problems on those space odysseys as we do here on Earth. In the science fiction meme, technology is the savior of mankind. If we could just escape this world and move to the next we'd be safer! Better off! It's no different than the story of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy that we tell our children. It's a story.
We don't HAVE to go on destroying the earth to feed our populaiton growth. The first 90% of our time here, we didn't do it. So it can be done. People aren't inherently bad or destructive because we weren't for a majority of our time here. Look past the birth of our culture and look to the birth of our species. You'll notice the two are very different.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
Except for the fact that people were destructive long before we got agriculture. Are you familiar with the method of hunting known sometimes as pit hunting or possibly cliff hunting? It was a method where herds of animals were forced off cliffs to fall to their deaths or herded into a pit to be speared/bludgeoned/etc. Far more meat than the hunters could eat. When the food in an area ran out, they'd move on to the next. Hopefully, the land would have enough left to recover and regenerate when the human migration came back to that area.
Humans have not abided by the laws of nature forever. We've always sought ways around it. Since the first monkey took up a rock and bashed in the head of either his neighbor or an animal, we've been altering the status quo. If we were abiding by nature, we wouldn't have worn the first pelts around our bodies to keep warm in places we wouldn't normally occupy at specific time frames. We wouldn't fill gourds with water so that we could travel farther. Hell, even setting the first broken leg was working against nature.
Space is our future. If only to prevent catastrophic events wiping out the species as a whole. All your eggs in one basket is not just for chickens.
Edit - We're only here now having this discussion because our ancestors were the survivors. Surviving means that sometimes you have to do things that were destructive and downright ugly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Except for the fact that people were destructive long before we got agriculture. Are you familiar with the method of hunting known sometimes as pit hunting or possibly cliff hunting? It was a method where herds of animals were forced off cliffs to fall to their deaths or herded into a pit to be speared/bludgeoned/etc. Far more meat than the hunters could eat. When the food in an area ran out, they'd move on to the next. Hopefully, the land would have enough left to recover and regenerate when the human migration came back to that area.
Humans have not abided by the laws of nature forever. We've always sought ways around it. Since the first monkey took up a rock and bashed in the head of either his neighbor or an animal, we've been altering the status quo. If we were abiding by nature, we wouldn't have worn the first pelts around our bodies to keep warm in places we wouldn't normally occupy at specific time frames. We wouldn't fill gourds with water so that we could travel farther. Hell, even setting the first broken leg was working against nature. Space is our future. If only to prevent catastrophic events wiping out the species as a whole. All your eggs in one basket is not just for chickens. |
I am familiar with cliff hunting and what it entails. That doesn't make human's any more destructive than other critters here. Elephants will eat, trample and destroy their favored food stuffs every where they go. Bears will catch a salmon and then only eat it's skin. Wolves catch them in the Pacific North West eating only the brains, leaving the rest to scavangers and, no joke, the trees (they find salmon DNA in the trees). Helping a wounded comrade by either setting their legs straight isn't unique to humans, either. Dolphins, Baboons, Chimps and Elephants have all been documented assisting wounded compatriots. This isn't going aganist the grain of nature, it's directly abiding by them. Cooperation is a wounderful result of evolution as far as I'm concerend. Give support: Get support is what makes tribal life so appealing to those who have it.
What does make OUR CULTURE (not all humans) destrutive is their refusal to to abide by the law of linited competition. Briefly, the law of limited competition is this: You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. Lions and hyenas will kill competitors opportunistically (as will other creatures, like baboons), but the law as stated holds true: they do not HUNT their competitors the way they hunt their prey. That is, they'll kill a competitor if they come across one (especially in conflict over food when food is scarce), but in the absence of a competitor, they won't go looking for one to kill. Such behavior would be evolutionarily unstable. (See THE SELFISH GENE by R. Dawkins.) As a strategy, it just doesn't pay off to use your time and energy hunting competitors that you DON'T eat (and that will fight back to the death) instead of using your time and energy to hunt prey that you DO eat. It's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of calories.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
Sure it makes us more destructive. Killing far more than what you need for survival is part and parcel of being overly destructive.
You're using an argument from a navel gazing book to reinforce your point? Come on man. There is a reason to hunt down and eliminate other tribes, namely the fact that in the future, your own progeny would then have less competition for the resources available. You must be unaware that animals like chimps do wage war on neighboring groups for resources. It's not something that is limited to humans. And said warfare is also practiced by the hunter/gatherer tribes that you seem to hold in high regard. This pretty much directly contradicts your second paragraph.
Quote:
Just give up Dark ^.^|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Sure it makes us more destructive. Killing far more than what you need for survival is part and parcel of being overly destructive.
You're using an argument from a navel gazing book to reinforce your point? Come on man. There is a reason to hunt down and eliminate other tribes, namely the fact that in the future, your own progeny would then have less competition for the resources available. You must be unaware that animals like chimps do wage war on neighboring groups for resources. It's not something that is limited to humans. And said warfare is also practiced by the hunter/gatherer tribes that you seem to hold in high regard. This pretty much directly contradicts your second paragraph. |
... Why am I the one telling others to give up this time?
Miserably.
An entire universe of wonders to behold. And where are we? Deadended on one rock that is eventually going to be nothing more than a cinder circling a moldering star corpse. A corpse that'll continue to shine for 10^32 years before it too finally truly dies.
In 6 billion years, there would be nothing there, presumably, that would even be recognizable as once having been H. sapiens. Just thing of that time frame. In 500 million years, this planet's life has went from simple little insects crawling around the ocean floor to the multitudes of species present. By the time the sun bloats up, 12 times as much time will have passed since the trilobites came on the scene.