First off I don’t believe in any form of god or divine being. Secondly, I don’t believe we continue after dying in any shape or form. The idea the energy of our existence permutates into the universe after we die? Well, it’s cute but that’s about it. Third, the universe is on a course of self-destruction.
Strangely, the strict dictionary description of Athiest is the non-belief in god – which means that certain spiritualist groups, who believe their soul continues after death but there is no divine being are Athiest. I am not this.
The belief our consciousness does not continue after life was first given the name Eternal Oblivion. (As far as I can tell) Bit grandiose but there you go. Second, the belief the universe is on a one way mission of self-destruction is given the term Big Freeze.
So, for starters, I’m an EOBF.
I’m 50 now, started believing this around 13 and it has been a real struggle. From complete hopelessness to depression to drugs (which, strangely did work? But when you give up the drugs, it all comes back.) Needless to say, these thoughts have had a profound effect on my life.
When I was in my early 40’s I decided one day I would try and ‘think my way out of it’ or, at the very least, ‘find a different thought path’ as opposed to, what I lovingly call, ‘mourning the death of the universe’. While scientists state: “The universe created us so that it may know itself.” I have always felt more that: “The universe created us so that it may mourn its own demise.”
I found refuge in the thought: ‘what does this practically mean for the human race?’ This, I have discovered, to be a really great thought! Rather than the moping: ‘there’s no point in anything anyway’ it lead to a singular question: ‘what is the point?’ Now rather than going for some grandiose answer my brain came up with one really quickly: ‘Me and the human race. We are the point.’ After a little more thought, it sharpened to: ‘the continuance of the human race.’
Being conscious – the fact that we are conscious – is the point. And the more consciousness we can bring into existence, the better. Which does tie up with why biologists say we are here, to reproduce, which is nice, but I realised that afterwards.
But it is here where my agreement with Christians and Humanists (which, I think, is just a continuation of Christian teachings without the god bit) parts ways.
Firstly, we can reproduce at around 13. See historical data for what time kids can start work – around 7. So realistically speaking, the human race can see out the lifetime of the planet earth by only living to around 20 years old. So as long as humans live to 20ish, they can die then and we’ll be around for as long as the planet is around. That is not a good thought, it’s definitely not a nice thought – but it does seem realistic.
Secondly, we can push off this planet and get to a different planet. Here’s a realistic view of going to Mars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los Not such a good idea.
Third, it appears, through normal mining techniques, we’re going to start running out of various metals and minerals. Take into account that on average we lose about 40% of what we recycle due to the recycling process and, well, that doesn’t help much. You can look this up for yourself on the internet but keep a close eye on cobalt – we need it for anything electronic in the modern day? So mobile phones, laptops, batteries… Yeah. It’s a biggie. A ticking clock. This really does push the idea we need to go to other planets though… After ‘running out’ the world does still hold these materials? The problem is we need to mine mountains and the sea bed – mainly the sea bed – to get at them. To put this into perspective, we can't even reach the deepest sea bed, never mind mine it.
Fourth, the pollution, plastic waste, environmental damage just by us being here and building houses… Sadly all of this could be drastically reduced by drastically reducing the human population. Chop the world’s population in half and suddenly it’s half the space, half the plastic, half the environmental damage… I saw someone state: ‘You’re being anti-human!’. Which is a fair point… The problem is the reality of our universe does appear to be anti-human.
Fifth, lets say we do manage to colonise the solar system and suck all the goodness outta it, it, once again, is finite. So we’re living under a ticking clock. Hang on a sec, no matter what we do, or where we go, we’re always living under the ticking clock of resources. So wherever we go, we gotta keep moving.
Six, the answer is to leave this solar system, go to another one! Awesome, we’ll just hop around solar systems. From what I’ve read and seen, the closest sun will take voyager around 40,000 years to get to. Now realise that using our propulsion rockets that we use on present day spacecraft that carry humans, it’ll take around 78,000 years. Now realise that our best nuclear power stations run for 40 years – but they’ve been upgraded to last 70 years… Yeah. That’s a problem. Ah, lastly? Just keep in mind that the closer you get to the speed of light, the denser material becomes. You’re made of material. Begs the question: How fast can the human being travel before the human density reaches a point where your heart simply can’t pump blood around anymore? Scientists are guessing (with maths) it’s around a quarter of the speed of light. Closest star is around 4.5 light years away so around the 20 year mark. 20 years in space, radiation, weightlessness all equals human body problems…
So, as far as I can tell, we either start pumping all our money into rocket propulsion and scientific research for space exploration? Or we may as well just get used to farming our lives away and anyone getting over the age of 20 is kinda redundant. And the ticking clock for earth? 1.5 million years. A star is going to pass close by our solar system and it’s gravity will affect our sun. Can’t see that going too well.
So your thoughts please? And please don’t come at me with empathic or religious belief systems and the like… Unfortunately, where reality is concerned? We only need to live to 20 years old. And us going around saving each other? Unfortunately that’s just kinda adding to the problem.
For the final point, Albert Einstein was born in 1879… Total world population at the time? About 1.5 billion. Total world population today? 7.7 billion. I bring this up because we could lose around 4/5ths of the world’s population and still create minds like Einstein. Just so you know…
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Holy hell... *shaking head to clear the cobwebs*... No offense, Quetos, but have you ever heard of brevity? Dude, you have about five or six points of discussion in just one OP. Good grief! I understand a person has to vent sometimes and get shit off his/her chest, but if you want any type of productive discussions, then I suggest you break down that stream-of-consciousness novel you just wrote into more manageable pieces. Just a suggestion.
@ Tin Man
"Hmmmmmph,wha?snnmphhhhh" Tin Man that you? Wow...I can remember getting up, Captain Cat came onto my lap, I opened my computer at the forums page and starting reading a post about "the future" and then...nothing...Oh! Tin Man..wait, here it is...all I did was read the first para and *eyes close, chest moves in regular rhythm, eyeballs start to exhibit REM*
Hello Quetos, welcome to Atheist Republic.
Your post has a lot of different issues that you seem to be collecting into one huge garbage bin.
One of the foundations of physics is Conservation of Energy. It cannot be created or destroyed. So on my death, the energy remaining in my body will perpetuate on, even if it is just pushing up daisies.
You seem to have the opinion that this universe is supposed to be benign to life. IMO this universe is optimized to create black holes. Where life can exist in this known universe is less than 0.0000001% of known universe. And I am being very gracious with my numbers. The truth is that just about any spot in this universe will kill you dead instantly.
The universe does not care about you or me, it just follows the laws of physics.
Yea, mankind is on course for self extinction. I hope we never achieve colonies, because this species is too destructive. But give this Earth a few million years after mankind dies out, and everything will be completely recycled. Mankind will die, but this planet will endure.
If doomsday comes, so what? It could come in a few million years, it could come tomorrow in the form of a gamma rays sprayed out from a neighboring supernova. This is always something in space that could exterminate this human species overnight, get over it, stop living in fear.
To echo a bit about what David said, why spend your precious few unknown number of days here on our microscopic oasis in the cosmos worrying about things you cannot control and that you will likely never experience? You could die within the next few minutes just by simply going outside to walk your doggie and have a tree limb fall on you and impale you. Or you could possibly live another fifty to a hundred years, depending on the advances of medical technology. Either way, stop wasting your time being miserable about something that happens to EVERYBODY at some point in time. As the old saying goes, "Nobody gets out of this game alive." Might as well enjoy it while you can.
@Quetos: HOLY FUCK - A WALL OF TEXT.... SOMEONE HAS NO IDEA HOW TO BREAK THINGS DOWN INTO SIMPLE IDEAS.
1. RE: You don't believe in a God or an afterlife. Got it.
2. RE: Something about the universe that makes no sense and you are 50. Okay. (Perhaps you will tie this in to something later.)
3. RE: "I’m 50 now, started believing this around 13." That's unfortunate. It must have really interfered with your teenage years. I can't imagine being 13 and thinking you are 50. Have you sought counseling? Now that you actually are 50, have things gotten better?
4. RE: "But when you give up the drugs, it all comes back." I never used drugs to the extent that anything had to come back. You might be right but how in the hell would I know.
5. RE: "Needless to say, these thoughts have had a profound effect on my life." The thought that you were 50 years old when you were only 13? I can see how that is a problem. So..... what's next?
6. RE: While scientists state: “The universe created us so that it may know itself.” WTF? Are you high right now...... come on.... you can tell uncle Cog. Have you been playing in the magic mushroom patch again?
7. "“The universe created us so that it may mourn its own demise.” At least share some of those shrooms before they come and take you away!
8. RE: "The continuance of the human race.’ is the point of the universe" Wow are you in for a disappointment. Space radiation, Andromeda smashing into the Milky way, rogue asteroids, solar flares, and the expansion of the universe into eventual darkness are all betting against your inane assumption.
9. RE: WTF? "he human race can see out the lifetime of the planet earth by only living to around 20 years old." You must be peaking. Talk to me again when you come back down. Total and complete rambling nonsense.
10. RE: "Fifth, lets say we do manage to colonize the solar system." WE??? WTF are you on about now. If "WE" colonize anything, you will not be around to see it. You are 50 years old. You will be lucky to see the next generation of computers.
11. RE: "Awesome, we’ll just hop around solar systems." Have you forgotten that space is expanding. No, we will not hop around the solar systems. Eventually we will not even be able to see the stars. WTF are you on dude!
12. " You’re made of material. Begs the question: How fast can the human being travel before the human density reaches a point where your heart simply can’t pump blood around anymore? " Humans have survived up to 40 Gs. but it is a crap shoot. It depends on how fast the acceleration is. Theoretically, we could all be moving at the speed of light right this moment and be completely unaware of it. It's all relative.
13. RE: "So your thoughts please? " Thoughts about what? Incoherent ramblings?
14. RE: "get over it, stop living in fear." I won't even give it a second thought. It is not, nor has it ever been an issue for me. If you took your meds regularly, you would not find it to be much of an issue either.
Qetos: we’re going to start running out of various metals and minerals
There's a lot of stuff there, and I haven't the time to tackle all of it. So I'll just pick this one point.
It's good to care for the environment and to use resources efficiently. But can you name one resource that's ever been totally exhausted in the history of the world? Do you think the Stone Age ended because we ran out of stone?
The process goes like this. Supplies of cavorite, an essential substance for hover-boards, start to run low. The price soars. It becomes economically feasible to recycle cavorite from old hoverboards, or to develop alternatives. People stop mining cavorite. And all through this, the amount of cavorite on Earth remains exactly the same as ever.
There's no reason or excuse for pessimism. To ensure the future of the human race, we just need to build a giant space ark starship and load it with politicians, preachers, priests, popes, ayatollahs, lamas, and Trumps. And then fire it straight into the Sun.
Hehe! Thank you Algebe for the giggle! Think you missed out Lawyers and Judges! Lolz!
From everything I’m reading, the most efficient form of recycling we have at the moment loses 40% of materials… So 100 tons of scrap metal becomes 60 tons and so forth… Do you have different figures? Would you throw a link in please? I’d really appreciate it.
As a starter, here’s a link concerning mining and planet earth running out of natural resources – and yes, I know, I’m referring to: “Under present mining techniques”.
An example of a resource hitting this is gold in South Africa. Anglo American (company) was a massive miner of gold there. It was only after the depth of the mines meant temperatures hit 70 odd degrees centigrade (I’m quoting my father – I was only 13ish at the time?) that cooling the mines no longer became feasible due to costs. It was at this time Regan and Thatcher started putting pressure on SA politically – strangely coinciding with the costs of mining…
As a second point, see coal mining in Wales, United Kingdom.
Soz, quick edit, oil off the shores of Scotland is also running out - it's one of the main arguments against Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and going it alone.
In both SA and Wales, mining has continued but I believe (am under the impression?) SA’s last gold mine will close shortly due to costs and the last coal mine in Wales closed a few years ago.
While I do understand this is a bit of a: “The end is nigh!!!” shout, pessimism and all that – I think – please contradict me if I’m wrong that several scientists have brought this to the world’s attention. But we live in a capitalist world and this doesn’t sit well with our political beliefs so it’s been hush hushed and poo pooed. Having SA and Wales as examples, I am under the impression that this is actually true - as in this is the reality of the situation. If correct, isn't it amazing to think that what we're experiencing right now is the best lifestyle the human race, in it's entirety, will ever experience? That this is as good as it gets? That's just crazy thoughts - it really blows my mind. I was brought up on Star Trek and Star Wars, the future just keeps getting better right? But for the last decade or so, kids should realistically expect their life styles to be less than their parents. For me that statement is truly mind-blowing.
Here’s a link to YouTube and Jimmy Carter talking about energy conservation. In it he also mentions depleting resources. This was aired in 1977 - so I was 7 at the time? I came across this a few years back, 2 or 3? Again, blew my mind. I mentioned it to my dad (he's 82 now) and he just looked at the floor: "Yeah, old Jimmy just couldn't let it go... Ended his political career ya know?"
I honestly didn't know people were considering this - let alone the president of the USA! - back in 1977! Again! Mind blown!
Is South Africa the only place with gold? Resources can be depleted in particular locations, but globally we've never run out of anything.
Coal-mining in Wales has gone, but it's still going strong in Australia and elsewhere. But it's a dirty, dangerous business that's bad for miners and the environment. I see it as a 19th century sunset industry that will be superseded by cleaner alternatives long before the reserves run out. (If you want to know the reality of coal-mining in Wales, Google "Aberfan disaster". I'm old enough to remember that horror, which was caused by an industry owned and run by the UK government.)
Ditto for oil. With the growth of wind and solar power, and the emergence of better nuclear technologies and maybe even fusion, I think the energy extraction industries will disappear entirely within a few decades.
People were certainly worried about environmental damage and resource depletion back in the 70s, and also in the 50s and 60s. I was there. In addition to air pollution from coal and gasoline, we also had strontium from nuclear tests, lead from gasoline and paint in the air and soil,and fuel oil from ships on the beaches.Everybody smoked everywhere.
Nothing much happened to improve the situation until the first oil crisis. People like that idiot Jimmy Carter fanned a mood of pessimism and hopelessness. Compare his whine about inevitable depletion and decline with Kennedy's inspirational speech about the space program. Fortunately capitalism responded more effectively. We got cleaner, smarter cars, better mining and refining technology, and new sources of energy resources. Today we can fill our cars up with sunshine from solar panels on the roofs of our houses. Instead of wasting fuel and carbon traveling across town to work, we can work at home behind computer screens. If we'd listened to the peanut farmer, we'd be eating lentils by candlelight.
I think recycling is a lost cause. It's too expensive and creates some of the crappiest jobs imaginable. Imagine sorting through other people's garbage 8 hours a day. And a lot of the waste that we so carefully sort ends up in landfills or spilling off barges into the sea. We need to develop biodegradable packaging, such as modified forms of paper, and better biodegradable plastics. We need beer bottles and clear plastic wrap that you can compost and spread on your roses.
To protect the environment and build better economies, we need to be guided by logic and intelligence, not religious fervor.
The problem is gold has run out in SA. Coal has run out in Wales. Coal will run out in Australia. Again, it will 'run out; as in it will no longer be as affordable as it is now.
I nearly moved to Aberfan.
I can't see religion of any description dominating the world again as it has done to this point. The problem with Atheism is it comes along with the statement: "There is no good or evil." There's just people doing what they do and other people deciding if they like it or not. While Dave and others think empathy should rule, I have - and I'm sure you have as well - met many folks along the way who simply aren't empathic..Being an Atheist as well, why should people who aren't empathic bow their heads to those who are?
"While Dave and others think empathy should rule"
I also mentioned that leaders should be selected on the basis of their ability to solve society's problems. That involves a rational mind capable of ignoring the rabble noises, determination, and the ability to prioritize and make good decisions. Empathy is important, but it is not the prime driving force in leadership.
@Quetos: it will 'run out; as in it will no longer be as affordable as it is now.
That's not the same thing. When mining becomes uneconomical, recycling (aka urban mining) becomes more affordable, as does the development of alternative materials or sources. All of this happens long before any resource is ever totally depleted. We need to enhance the accuracy of these market signals also reflect the "external" costs of extracted coal and oil, such as air pollution and plastic waste.
The problem with Atheism is it comes along with the statement: "There is no good or evil."
I never heard an atheist make that statement. Good and evil are a reflection of our instincts as social primates, refined through our experiences in families and society. Empathy is the foundation for that. Empathy is expressed in the "Golden Rule", which was formulated by both Buddha and Confucius centuries before Jesus was born (or invented).
There are people who lack empathy. We call them psychopaths. Psychopaths are unlikely to obey either secular laws or religious commandments, so their existence neither affirms theism nor negates atheism.
"From everything I’m reading, the most efficient form of recycling we have at the moment loses 40% of materials… So 100 tons of scrap metal becomes 60 tons and so forth… Do you have different figures? Would you throw a link in please? I’d really appreciate it."
Steel is 100% recyclable. If you put ten tons of scrap steel into a furnace, you get ten tons of melted steel ready for processing.
Aluminum is also 100% recyclable. In fact, it requires less energy to recycle than to process the ore coming out of the ground.
The only thing standing in the way of efficiency in recycling is the efficiency of collecting the material.
@Quetos Re: " I was brought up on Star Trek and Star Wars, the future just keeps getting better right?"
Ummm... Just as a point of technicality, Star Wars was actually, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...". Sooooo.... *shrugging shoulders*... Although, in all fairness, I admit it would definitely be wicked-cool to make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Thank you for the responses all.
I’ll start answering Cognostic:
2 = you read it wrong.
3+4+5+6+7 = antagonistic.
8. Sorry, don’t think you got what I implied when I said Big Freeze. Regardless of what the human race does, or will ever do, the second law of thermodynamics will have it’s way and all matter in the universe will become energy. This energy will spread out equidistant till eventually it stops when it reaches maximum entropy. So your point concerning what could kill the human race is immaterial to the argument – because even if we survive everything you mention? The end result of the universe is no matter. No matter? No human beings. And everything and anything created within the universe will be lost. No more stars, no more planets, no more atoms, no more electrons, no more quarks… no more anything. So even if the human race ends up in a Dyson sphere around the last ever sun in the universe… Or we just have a good old nuclear war right now and wipe ourselves out, the total end result of human race remains the same – nothing. The destination of the human race and everything it creates is nothing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson stated: “Its the not the Destination, It's the journey.” And I feel it is the underlying pin of Mark Twain’s: “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. At the end of the novel, where Huck has been trying to get Sam somewhere to free him from slavery, Tom Sawyer turns up and says that Sam has been free the entire time. Is this Mark Twain stating the journey is a waste of time? Or did he write the book to amplify the point that it is the journey that counts? Or did he just want us to think about it? Or a fourth possibility I haven’t considered? Up to you.
So if you want a more humanistic approach to the idea – mainly because your alive – there’s this.
9. In order for the human race to procreate and continue it’s existence it needs to reach an age where it can bear and look after the offspring until that offspring can look after itself. The idea of ‘child’ and ‘adult’ are created by human beings – it portrays how we think of things rather than something factual. The original Star Trek asks this question numerous times but I think it’s best shown in the movie: Logan’s Run. Cracking little film if you can get your hands on it. Now putting your emotions aside and considering the life cycle of human beings – it looks like if we only ever get to the age of 20 the human race will survive. It is the answer to the question: “What age does the average human being have to reach in order to survive till planet earth can no longer sustain human life.”
10. antagonistic. By we I mean the human race.
11. antagonistic – we (the human race) may find a different means of travel – be it warp engines or worm holes. If the Higgs Boson particle does exist (it’s still highly debatable even though there’s a nobel prize involved.) maybe there’s something we can do with that? There’s a load of great theoretical stuff on Youtube (try and watch Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson first)
12. Your clearly not reading what I’ve written.
14. If you don’t care nor give it a second thought, why did you read everything I wrote and answer in full? Why are you even on these forums? While you’re not bothered by either the point of your existence or the existence of the human race – some of us are.
“What age does the average human being have to reach in order to survive till planet earth can no longer sustain human life.”
What a strange question. And I do wonder how you arrived at this question.
Why didn't you instead ask "what is the minimum age for procreation?" because no matter how the question is worded, it concerns the age a female can bear offspring. And do you not think that a young age can be a limiting factor in our specie's possible survival?
I have no problem with young doctors operating on me, but would you feel comfortable with a 19 year old surgeon? Or how about a 19 year old Supreme Court Judge rendering a major decision? Experience does carry weight.
"While you’re not bothered by either the point of your existence or the existence of the human race – some of us are."
I am very aware of the possible futures of this universe and this species called Man. But I learned a long time ago not to lose sleep over something I have absolutely no control over. My sole action on this area is that I advocate against colonization, that instead mankind needs to learn to clean up it's own mess and not destroy the sole planet we are sure will sustain us.
I recall watching Logan's Run, I had the hots for Jenny Agutter.
"I recall watching Logan's Run, I had the hots for Jenny Agutter."
Me too. I can also remember her very fondly in the Aussie film "Walkabout" .
Available free on Youtube
Jenny is now 67.
@Cranky47: I had the hots for Jenny Agutter."
A wonderful actress, who's also starred in "The Railway Children", "American Werewolf in London", and "Call the Midwife".
After many roles where she generally got separated from her clothes, she's ended up playing a nun of all things.
Yair, Jenny makes a surprisingly good nun. I also liked her as the corrupt/traitor spy Tessa in the terrific BBC show "SPOOKS"
re: 8. Sorry, don’t think you got what I implied when I said Big Freeze. Regardless of what the human race does, or will ever do, the second law of thermodynamics will have it’s way and all matter in the universe will become energy.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to a "CLOSED SYSTEM." The universe is not a 'closed system." "5. Examples of misuses of entropy and the Second Law for the entire universe
As we have noted above the formulation of the Second Law as the ever increasing entropy has been featuring in
literatures ever since Clausius coined the term “entropy” and (unjustifiably) concluded that the entropy of the
universe always increases.
As is well known, Clausius formulated one version of the Second Law (heat flows from a hot body to a cold
body). Unfortunately, Clausius failed in over generalizing the Second Law. His well-known and well quoted
“The entropy of the universe always increases.”
I do not know how Clausius arrived at this formulation of the Second Law. One can only guess that what has
motivated him to conclude that the entropy of the universe always increases is the erroneous argument described in
the previous section. Unfortunately, such a generalization is unwarranted. Although most authors will tell you that
the entropy of the universe always increases, the truth is that no one has ever measured or calculated the entropy of
the universe. In fact, no one has ever defined the entropy of the universe. Therefore, any statement regarding the
change in the “entropy of the universe” is meaningless.
Here is a quotation from a relatively recent book by Atkins (2007)2
“The entropy of the universe increases in the course of any spontaneous change. The key word here is universe; it
means, as always in thermodynamics, the system together with its surroundings. There is no prohibition of the
system or the surroundings individually undergoing a decrease in entropy provided that there is a compensating
Such a generalization is not only untrue, it is simply meaningless."
AND IT DOES NOT MATTER ANYWAY; WE WILL ALL BE LONG GONE AND DEAD.
9. (Exception noted to the rebuttal. "IF")
10. No! I thought you were speaking of hamsters!
11. RE: "Awesome, we’ll just hop around solar systems." Have you forgotten that space is expanding. No, we will not hop around the solar systems. Eventually we will not even be able to see the stars. WTF are you on dude!
12. You're clearly not writing what I have read.
13. That's what happens to woo woo bullshit.
14. Everyone on the site knows why I respond to woo woo bullshit. I have a lot of free time on my hands. I only have to work about 20 hours a week and that gives me time for projects, and entertainment like this.
FYI - my existence has nothing to do with the existence of the universe. You worry your little head about anything you want to worry about. Here - have a cookie. Now go play nicely with the other kids. Oh! And before I forget. You are on an atheist forum. You must have pushed a wrong button. You wanted the Cosmology or Theoretical Physics forum. Thank you for playing, here is your cookie.
@ Cognostic – You come across as an angry young man my friend. Which is cool, I was very angry when I was young. Just try not to kill yourself along the way – to date, 1st friend killed himself at 15 because of this, 4 in my early 20’s and the last one at 40. This is neither a thing nor not a thing. It simply is what it is. I wish on you happiness which, on reflection, brings a tear to your eye.
I’m going to bow out of any physics discussions – a win for you all! – mainly because traveling at that speed is theoretical at the moment so best leave it till we actually start traveling at that speed and see what happens. But thank you for your corrections.
Thank you for the cookie, I shall enjoy it at my leisure.
@Quetos Re: To Cog - "Thank you for the cookie, I shall enjoy it at my leisure."
Um, just so you know, those are MY cookies Cog so liberally passes out to others around here. Hell, I even started putting a lock on my cookie jar, but the pilfering little varmint still somehow manages to get to them. But, hey, you are welcome just the same. And, in all fairness, just be happy he didn't offer you a banana. NEVER accept a banana from Cog. Just politely decline, and then run away as fast as you can. Just a little FYI.
RIGHT NOW: you have a speed much greater than 1/4C relative to much of the universe. Funny how your heart seems to still be pumping blood without even noticing.
What isn't so funny is your wildly inaccurate statements about science/math. I mean if you are willing to just make shit up that is easily checked, why should anyone pay attention to anything you have to say about something not so easily checked (like statements about god)?
I haven't made any statements about god. I don't care about god. Also, how relativity works has nothing to do with my argument. If this means you bow out, so be it.
Ok, I'll bite. I just couldn't be bothered to go and find it but here it is:
It's right at the bottom of the article.
The Telegraph? Really, you use that as a source on science topics? A better source would be the third grade "physics for dummies".
You are referencing "but once you reach an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, your mass starts to increase rapidly."
Yes, I agree with that statement. But how do you make the leap to making it harder for your heart to pump blood? I will refer you back to some of the conditions of Special Relativity, ""the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference)".
I had to spend a lot of time reading and studying physics and cosmology to grasp exactly what relativity is. By the nature of your post I respectfully state you do not know enough about relativity, and cease making incorrect assumptions.
I wouldn't be turning to a popular publication to claim that a principle older than Newton is wrong. But worse than that, the article you linked does not even repeat your claim. It seems like it is a non-sequitur.
I'll do better than that, I'll derive it for two frames with unaccelerated motion between them along the first axis (attached image):
I pity anyone that tries to go 1 on 1 with nyarl on anything math/physics related.
Heh; well for what it is worth, it is interesting to see how easily a very logical sounding argument can go off the rails. Quetos was essentially saying that density = mass/volume. Then pointing out that in certain situations the mass can increase. Therefore concluding that the density must increase in those situations. Sounds pretty good! But this contains the hidden and false* assumption that the volume does not change in those situations also.
* - By false I just mean does not match up with the last 100 years of physics research.
When I first complained, I only knew that it violated a principle, I didn't know the nuts and bolts of how the principle would turn out to be true with just the math/physics equations. It turns out that after crunching all the math, the mass and volume both get scaled by the same amount: the Lorentz factor. So they cancel out leading to no change in density.
I've long said (only half kidding) that nature conspires to preserve Special Relativity. Every time I run across something that seems to threaten it, when we crunch the numbers, something weird will happen to save Special Relativity at the last moment. In this case it was the fact that the numerator and denominator were scaled up by the same factor, leading to no change in density.
.@ David Killens
To answer your question: How did you arrive at this question… Gotta be an ironic giggle in there somewhere…
So we know we’re subjective, not objective. But how can we attempt an objective view point? Now I’m aware this is impossible but I think there’s fun in the attempt. As my one friend said: “I like mental bubblegum!” The first thing we’ve got to do is remove emotion. So that ain’t gonna happen – so, instead, let’s try our best to keep it to a minimum.
We begin with EOBF. No afterlife, no point in the existence of the universe.
But we’re here… So begins our dilemma.
“There is no point in anything anyway…” True. But the problem is we’re still here. Because we know there is no point us being here. Any point we give for being here is as equally relevant as any other point. Unfortunately every point is equally as useless as opposed to every point being equally valid.
One of the great things about thinking this is that everyone, and I mean everyone, is equally useless as well – in other words, the
space time continuum theory is about as useful as the cry of a new born babe. Both will end up being nothing more than energy once the universe has played out. Now you might think I’m sitting here rubbing my hands in glee at this prospect – but I’m not. I think, personally, that this is terrible. But if you look at it objectively, that all things will lead to a universe of pure entropic energy, it seems, unfortunately, to be true. Why is it great? Well, all those people you looked up to, all those wise sayings, all the things you tried to achieve? They are all gone now. They are all just as redundant and meaningless as everything else. Success and failure, good and evil are only relevant to yourself and other life forms. In the grand scheme of things? It means nothing.
So let’s take what you said: “My sole action on this area is that I advocate against colonization, that instead mankind needs to learn to clean up it's own mess and not destroy the sole planet we are sure will sustain us.” Clearly as good a point as any. Let’s say you are successful. All the pollution is cleaned up, we find clean, continual energy and the earth, with all her bounty endures till the universe calls time in whatever manner it deems fit. Eventually the earth will, 2nd law of thermodynamics, turn to energy… blah, blah. Let’s say we go the other way and crack the earth with nuclear weapons… The earth cracks in half, the iron crystal core is thrown into space, the atmosphere escapes, everything dies… Eventually all the bits of earth, 2nd law of thermodynamics, turn to energy… blah, blah… The end result remains the same.
The one problem which comes back time and time again is that we’re here now. As in you and me. So I’m putting forward – as a suggestion – that we take us into account. I know it’s selfish but hey, there ya go. So now your point: “…mankind needs to learn to clean up it's own mess and not destroy the sole planet we are sure will sustain us.” Becomes all important. The goal of your statement is the sustainability of the human race – mind if I reword that to the continuance of the human race? Same thing really isn’t it.
Next question: Is sustaining the human race so it can continue enough?
I’d venture a not really… If we find some kind of automated cross pollination then that’s all the insects dead (don’t need them). If we can grow meat in labs at the rate required to feed everyone who wants it, that’s all animals dead (don’t need them). If we have huge self-sustaining oxygen creation machines (which also ensures the right level of ozone layer gasses) we don’t need all the grass, trees, the bacteria in the sea… But the planet will still sustain us – the human race will continue…
If we make all these machines self-sustaining through whatever means – then how long, exactly, do we need human beings to survive for in order to procreate and take care of their young? Around 20 years old. Think about this for a second – as long as we create a society which allows people to live till around 20 the human race will survive. Isn’t that just crazy? What this means is all this caring for the elderly, doctors, nurses, medicines, being nice to each other and all the rest of it isn’t actually required. And yes, I’m with you if you’re thinking: “Ok, but I want all that stuff! I want to live in a caring environment! I want medicine! I want to live till a ripe old age!” I agree – but what I’m trying to do is show that those wants are subjective, not objective. These things are not required for the sustainability of the human race. When I first thought this thought I was in shock for about a week.
As to doctors, judges, lawyers and the like – well – were there any of these in the caveman days? Answer no – so not required. And, strangely, the human race can continue just as it has in the past, in any epoch, so romans with all their wars or caveman or any other time you desire to pick… And the human race will continue… I read somewhere all of the human race can be traced back to 12,000 people… Isn’t that just crazy? But we could, for instance, state that all we ever need is 50,000 people on the planet and yes, the human race will endure till the end of the earth.
And isn’t that just the craziest stuff you’ve ever heard? But, strangely, it meets all your criteria and mine… Hell, if we knock the human population down to 50,000 and put ‘em all in mud huts – hey, no need for all the self-sustaining machines! Earth will become a paradise again! So we just need to bump off 7,999,950,000 people, implement some kind of thing that kills any human beings once the population gets above 50,000 and job done.
So, you get your wish and I get mine. Earth is a paradise and the human race exists till the end of the earth.
Apart from it being absolutely preposterous that is… I mean, we could have some new guy come in, be twice as bad as the worst dictator that ever lived, kill 7 billion people – and the human race would still continue…
Sustainability, continuance – it isn’t enough. We have to go to space, we have to colonise. We, the human race, are like a virus on the earth and in the universe, a parasite. We will continue to consume whatever resources we come across and bend it to our own desires. The one bit of solace we can take is that this is the way we are made – this is the way we interact with the universe. And it is, most definitely, the universe which made us the way we are (see Darwinism).
The only thing which is stopping us is resources… And us running out. Because then we’re just stuck here. On planet earth. And I totally agree with you – if we stay here we seem to be hell bent on destroying ourselves. Through one way or another.
Jenny Agutter? First fell in love with her in The Railway Children, loved her in Logan's Run and nearly fell apart when she appeared topless (all my childhood dreams come true) in American Werewolf In London. Her and Jody Foster - my childhood crushes!