The End of the World is Nigh, We're all Doomed!!!

[Mr Ham]

As for Pagafyr's proposal, I don't think any laymen with little knowledge of science can make any worthwhile contribution to the scientific community with home-made 'experiments'. I doubt there's anything to be gained from these projects.

 

..........................................................Layman are first degree class science student's...........................................................................

......

 

 

You may be presently very intelligent Mr. Ham. But were you born that way? I doubt it. I doubt anyone is fully developed mentally at birth to decide their future rank or official status.

 

Even if we were born with a library installed in our head's we still have to learn to use it and while we are at it, train our little tot muscles to get our head to quit wobbling around on the limp neck we were born with. Allot can be lost in the fabric of library exercises if the mind is too busy learning how to lift up our head and shoulders without yet learning to control our hands at the end of our arms, etc.

 

I find it amusing that one as intelligent as you can not see the masses bringing forth small discoveries which would benefit everyone in small ways to serve a greater whole and good.

 

I have more to share on the subject after you have considered the present allowance, Mr. Ham.

It seems I've misinterpreted yet another post. I just don't think people outside the scientific community can do much in terms of original and worthwhile research. I didn't mean to insult anyone or to boast about my own apparent intelligence. My apologies.

[Deleted54170User]

As for Pagafyr's proposal, I don't think any laymen with little knowledge of science can make any worthwhile contribution to the scientific community with home-made 'experiments'. I doubt there's anything to be gained from these projects.

 

 

"I just don't think" people "outside the scientific community" can do much in terms of original and worthwhile research. I didn't mean to insult anyone or to boast about my own apparent intelligence. My apologies.

 

 

You Don't Think?! Outside the Scientific Community?!

 

You're not insulting anyone but yourself and your own ability to think intelligently.

 

For you say you are an intelligent being and yet you seem to think that outside of those you hold in high esteem there are no others likely to be qualified to do simple experiments. But children are doing them in dirt shack's, shanty's, public school's, pay per class school's, and their mother's and father's are doing them with roots, vegetable's, and other organic material's every minute of the day and night.

 

They are probably not keeping a good scientific journal because it take's up so much of their precious time.

 

Please! Continue rambling in your own experimental way at your own behest, for I am sure you will learn from your own endeavors, mistakes, and successes too. One day we may find we are so very alike in that way.

 

I hope to rise to a better use of word's and reach a higher intellect with every discovery I make; and with every post I post, "I learn something."

[species5478]

Mr. Ham,

 

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye because instead of trying to find common ground, you're looking for flaws in whatever ideology I'm trying to confer to you. I seek reason, stimulating dialogue, and opens minds that aren't enslaved by the chains of self-righteousness. You seem to be seeking someone who will agree wholeheartedly with your ideals, and or submit to them. So really, what's the point in continuing this "debate" any longer? It would be just as pointless an endeavor as trying to find logic in the senselessness of your aspirations. So consider this:

 

Mr. Ham - Your profound lack of understanding/appreciation for scientific process is ridiculous.

 

And you're able to make that deduction from what? A few posts? That profoundly opinionated statement has no grounds in "science", whatsoever. I may very well have a Master's in Biogenetics and in fact, some of the links that you're so found of, could entail vast segments of my work.

 

Mr. Ham - What "scientific stagnancy" do you refer to?

 

The bulk of human technology has arrived only within the past 100 years. How long have current hominoids been alive? 10,000years? 100,000? 10,000,000? Before now, we've basically been living in a stagnant state. Why are you so proud of humanities' little "spurt" of inventiveness? Especially when we've grown stagnant once again. What was the last great invention? Television? Automobiles? What invention within the past 30 years hasn't involved regurgitating preexisting tech? Enhancing preexisting tech isn't necessarily advancement. And then there's nuclear, atomic, thermal, and biological weaponry. We have the power to destroy the world, but not leave it. All thanks to the scientific process. (big applause)

 

Mr. Ham - You mentioned that its "our own inhibitions" that have stopped scientific progress right? Of course, because nothing else is more important than our need to take to the stars. Medicine? Welfare? Industry? Business? Education? Law? Energy? None of that is as important right?

 

Only if the end product lead to colonizing distant bodies. If medicine is outweighed by biological weapons, then it wouldn't be worth it. If industry only serves to destroy the world's resources, then it isn't worth it. (especially if we go nowhere, like you're so keen on doing) Business with the sole purpose of attaining wealth, is useless. And why educate oneself with ignorance? We "learned" how to make nukes. Now how is that useful to the survival of our species? Laws can bring order, and be broken or stir revolutions. Energy? Are you talking about the kind that's polluting our atmosphere? Or the kind that polluting our oceans? Or the kind that's destroying all fertile land? Or the nuclear kind? Because we're using everything destructive and non-renewable. These things are very important, because they may very well spell our doom.

 

With your own words, you've attested a senselessness in leaving to find another world by stating, "…until we're inhabiting some other planet and destroying it's ecological systems too, you won't be satisfied." Yes, you're right. We're destroying this planet. In fact, we can destroy everything on this planet in a day's time. Isn't that reason enough to spread out? How can we save this planet when so many warring nations have the ability to destroy it? Don't you realize someone will eventually use their nuclear arsenal? America's already done it twice! So again, how do you propose that we save this planet? What's your ingenious plan? Please, save our world Mr. Ham!

 

Mr. Ham - Fulfilling our immediate needs is always more important than far off fantasies.

 

You think? An ape lives his entire life fulfilling his immediate needs, that why he's an ape. Looking beyond the moment is what separates humans, from animals. And space travel isn't a fantasy. Didn't a couple guys prove that by walking on the moon?

 

Mr. Ham - Oh wait a minute, you already have with your "scientific stagnancy" statement. But wait, I'm confused. You said there is a stagnancy in science yet you also praise the "scope of technology". You clearly can't divorce science from technology so what do you mean?

 

You're confused? I'm not surprised…"scientific stagnancy" doesn't eliminate the "scope of technology". I can't really make it any simpler than that. And to all the links you posted; I've seen them, and many more years ago. I know the theories. But thanks for sharing.

 

Mr. Ham - What endeavour will net us more immediate gain? Space research or green technology? Again I say "Saving our own planet, even to if only to prolong it's death, is a much more worth-while goal than searching blindly for a planet we might never reach.

 

Again, how do you save a planet destined for destruction? Nuclear arsenal would be one example. The sun burning out is another. A vast number of celestial bodies are on a collision with us. SOMETHING will eventually happen. You cannot deny that. We live in a volatile region of space. It's a fact. Nothing wrong with spreading out. You should also know that the search for an inhabitable planet is not a "blind one", friend. There's a "scientific process" involved. A very complicated one, in fact. And for that reason, I will not try to explain it to you.

 

I'm through with this subject because obviously, you'll never see reason. And before you try correcting me again, you should correct your grammar first, Einstein.

[Mr Ham]

@Pagafyr: I haven't insulted anyone or made any implications about myself. Unless every family has a particle accelerator in their backyard, an electron microscope in their home or a neutrino detector in their basement, I fail to see how any significant research can be made from one's home. That's not to say there aren't people out their capable of prominence within the scientific community, but these 'projects' you speak of have little merit.

 

And you're able to make that deduction from what? A few posts? That profoundly opinionated statement has no grounds in "science", whatsoever. I may very well have a Master's in Biogenetics and in fact, some of the links that you're so found of, could entail vast segments of my work.

A few reasons actually. I question your meteor theory for one. You seem to think a rogue meteor could somehow destroy Earth in one fell swoop. High unlikely. You also don't seem to realise how hard intergalactic travel is.

 

The bulk of human technology has arrived only within the past 100 years. How long have current hominoids been alive? 10,000years? 100,000? 10,000,000? Before now, we've basically been living in a stagnant state. Why are you so proud of humanities' little "spurt" of inventiveness? Especially when we've grown stagnant once again. What was the last great invention? Television? Automobiles? What invention within the past 30 years hasn't involved regurgitating preexisting tech? Enhancing preexisting tech isn't necessarily advancement.

200,000 years. Religion has been holding back science, as has ignorance on the part of scientists AND the public. Technology increase exponentially. Moore's Law mate. Science (and hence technology) has been going on at a steady pace. Theoretical physics has had very little activity since the 1900's. Don't discount theory because it isn't physical either. Oh and how can you say "enhancing of existing technology" isn't advancement? Now that's just being silly.

 

And then there's nuclear, atomic, thermal, and biological weaponry. We have the power to destroy the world, but not leave it. All thanks to the scientific process. (big applause)

Biological weapons: "Hey I found a chemical that f***s with our brain when you inhale it. We could make a weapon out of that"

Atomic weapons: "Hey look, these two sub-critical masses of uranium explode when I put them together to form a super-critical mass. We could make a weapon out of this."

Intergalactic travel: "We need propulsion systems capable of maintaining near-lightspeed travel or else we need to find a way to provide life-support for a limited population for xxx,xxx years so they can terraform an alien planet. Speaking of terraforming, we'll need a strong biodome and enough plant specimens to stabilise/create the atmosphere and a way to move such a dome with us through space. We'll need an energy source and fuel supply for xxx,xxx years as well as food, water and oxygen. We also need communications between such ships and/or between Earth. We now need a way to fool-proof everything so untrained personnel don't f*** themselves and everyone else on the way.

 

Oh wait a minute, before that we need to rigorously study pressure, temperature, climate patterns, planet composition, solar activity, characteristics of neighbouring planets and our path. We need to find a suitable landing site and colonisation site then plan path and trajectory of the vessel. We also need to make sure the path is clear so we don't run into a star or a asteroid belt or something. If even a single factor is off, we could all be dead.

 

Hey this isn't nearly as easy as making a weapon."

 

If medicine is outweighed by biological weapons, then it wouldn't be worth it. If industry only serves to destroy the world's resources, then it isn't worth it. (especially if we go nowhere, like you're so keen on doing) Business with the sole purpose of attaining wealth, is useless. And why educate oneself with ignorance? We "learned" how to make nukes. Now how is that useful to the survival of our species? Laws can bring order, and be broken or stir revolutions. Energy? Are you talking about the kind that's polluting our atmosphere? Or the kind that polluting our oceans? Or the kind that's destroying all fertile land? Or the nuclear kind? Because we're using everything destructive and non-renewable. These things are very important, because they may very well spell our doom.

The last time biological weapons were used was 30 years ago by a single country. You seem so adamant about your hatred for weapons and war that you fail to see how society functions. We don't function for war. War functions for society. You know what? Pretty much every scientist who worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan project regretted it. Richard Feynman, J. Oppenheimer, Glen Seaborg, Richard Tolman, Enrico Fermi and especially Hans Bethe. But atomic weapons had immediate gains. It was necessary for the survival of hundreds of thousands of people. Atomic weapons weren't created to be exploited like they are today. The fact that they are being flaunted and exploited is not a flaw in the original use, but a flaw in a hand-full of people who don't reflect society as a whole.

"Laws can bring order, and be broken or stir revolutions." Yes thats why we have created them. Laws are, however, innate and natural. You cannot ensure the survival of a species without laws. As that species develops a society, the laws have to evolve. As with atomic weapons just because a hand-full of people break the law, that doesn't reflect on society as a whole. We cannot function without law. You cannot function without law.

Yes energy is dirty and polluting so why don't we, oh I don't know, DEVELOP IT. HEY LOOK, YOU AND I JUST UNDERWENT A BASIC PROCESS OF ENGINEERING: identity a problem and come up with a solution. You want solutions? 174 petawatts is what I'll give you. 174 petawatts of FREE, COMPLETELY CLEAN energy falls on the Earth EVERY DAY. IF we can just DEVELOP solar cells to capture it all, our energy problems are over aren't they?

 

Of course the outlook seems grim if you take a pessimistic view on everything.

 

With your own words, you've attested a senselessness in leaving to find another world by stating, "…until we're inhabiting some other planet and destroying it's ecological systems too, you won't be satisfied." Yes, you're right. We're destroying this planet. In fact, we can destroy everything on this planet in a day's time. Isn't that reason enough to spread out? How can we save this planet when so many warring nations have the ability to destroy it? Don't you realize someone will eventually use their nuclear arsenal? America's already done it twice! So again, how do you propose that we save this planet? What's your ingenious plan? Please, save our world Mr. Ham!

All you read was "destroying it's ecosystems". Don't avoid the question. How is spreading out going to help unless we have the TECHNOLOGY to STOP DESTROYING THE ECOSYSTEMS without BENEFITING A FUNCTIONAL SOCIETY. Oh wait, you have zero faith in society because you think nuclear weapons are going to wipe us all out. America did it twice and saved millions of lives.

You asked how I propose to save the world? Green technology. The use of Nuclear energy until we have either Fusion power industrialised or mass production of high-capacity, full-spectrum solar cells. Maybe even Microwave Solar transmission if it ever gets going. Phase out petroleum and replace with biomass-sourced fuels. When green energy gets going, start producing fuel-cell cars. Introduce slash-and-char process to farmers so they can re-fertilise their land AND help with carbon sequestration. Reduce the amount of agricultural land, especially rice and cattle farms. Introduce subsidies for organic farms. Carbon tags and Carbon taxes should also be introduced, and their should be greater emphasis on local Clean-air acts. Phase out polymers in favour of biopolymers. Subsidise green-roofs, rainwater tanks and roof-top solar cells. Stop Urban sprawl somehow (maybe make lands taxes much higher). That's all I can think up of now. I'll add more if I can be bothered think of more strategies.

 

You think? An ape lives his entire life fulfilling his immediate needs, that why he's an ape. Looking beyond the moment is what separates humans, from animals. And space travel isn't a fantasy. Didn't a couple guys prove that by walking on the moon?

An Ape is not a valid analogy to human society. Perhaps there are a few apes in society, but that analogy is invalid. Likewise, space travel to the Moon is completely different to intergalactic travel and colonisation.

 

You're confused? I'm not surprised…"scientific stagnancy" doesn't eliminate the "scope of technology". I can't really make it any simpler than that. And to all the links you posted; I've seen them, and many more years ago. I know the theories. But thanks for sharing.

You cannot divorce technology from science.

 

Again, how do you save a planet destined for destruction? Nuclear arsenal would be one example. The sun burning out is another. A vast number of celestial bodies are on a collision with us. SOMETHING will eventually happen. You cannot deny that. We live in a volatile region of space. It's a fact. Nothing wrong with spreading out.

I fail to understand your logic. Our planet is "destined for destruction' so you want to move us to another planet, which will sooner or later also be 'destined for destruction'. You think this'll work by funnelling ALL OUR RESOURCES into space travel with the hopes that those surviving from anarchy, disease and famine can colonise a planet thousands of lights years away (and of course those who survive 250,000+ years of travel).

Maybe we should brainstorm ideas on how to stop this planet, or that planet from being "destined for destruction" shall we? Hmmmmmmmm.......... I think I've got it! If we save THIS planet, we can buy us more time to work on going to THAT planet, with the added bonus of being able to prolong the death of BOTH planets.

And again, few celestial bodies are going to collide with us, not in the least with Jupiter and Saturn blocking the way for us. As for the sun burning out, it doesn't simple decide one day to burn out. You yourself speak of the rigours of searching for an Earth-like planet yet you cling onto the argument that "the sun will burn out".

 

You should also know that the search for an inhabitable planet is not a "blind one", friend. There's a "scientific process" involved. A very complicated one, in fact. And for that reason, I will not try to explain it to you.

"Hey look, a bright spot which looks like a star which looks like it might be able to sustain a planet which might be able to sustain life. The star and it's surroundings meet all the criteria. Lets look at the space around it for an Earth-like planet." Yes, its somewhat contrived but that's generally the process is it not? If that's wrong, enlighten me. You're in a debating forum to share ideas so don't say "I won't explain it to you because I'm faking a superiority complex".

 

I'm through with this subject because obviously, you'll never see reason. And before you try correcting me again, you should correct your grammar first, Einstein.

I'll never see reason? I'm reasoning with you right now. Are we not sharing ideas? Are we not critically refuting each others' arguments? No? Then fine. You can concede to me if you want. But don't run away under the guise of superiority. We're having a debate. That crap won't work here.

[Deleted54170User]

@Pagafyr: I haven't insulted anyone or made any implications about myself. Unless every family has a particle accelerator in their backyard, an electron microscope in their home or a neutrino detector in their basement, I fail to see how any significant research can be made from one's home. That's not to say there aren't people out their capable of prominence within the scientific community, but these 'projects' you speak of have little merit.

 

 

I just can't seem to find the heart to bicker with you. I was hoping for some element of surprise which I could have sank my mind into and realized a formula to write and share it to see if I had anything that might push the envelope of survival another generation further then the two minute til midnight theory. 2012 is coming around the bend soon enough.

[Mr Ham]

@Pagafyr: I haven't insulted anyone or made any implications about myself. Unless every family has a particle accelerator in their backyard, an electron microscope in their home or a neutrino detector in their basement, I fail to see how any significant research can be made from one's home. That's not to say there aren't people out their capable of prominence within the scientific community, but these 'projects' you speak of have little merit.

I just can't seem to find the heart to bicker with you. I was hoping for some element of surprise which I could have sank my mind into and realized a formula to write and share it to see if I had anything that might push the envelope of survival another generation further then the two minute til midnight theory. 2012 is coming around the bend soon enough.

Actually the Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight.

 

Now I didn't say there is nothing people at home can do. I just don't agree with your little 'projects'. There are a few other ways to benefit science without actually doing too much. Obviously, giving money to scientific research is one. A program I use, Folding@Home, uses the unused portion of your computers' processor to simulate protein folding. The information is then sent off to Stanford University where the scientists there do their thing. You can just run it in the background and it [usually] doesn't interfere with other programs. Essentially, you turn wasted CPU power into scientific research.

There's a similar program FightAIDS@Home which is essentially the same thing for a different cause; it runs in the background and utilises unused CPU power.

Similar in aim to Folding@Home is fold.it. You 'play' a game which is actually unfolding proteins. Its not as direct and I find it somewhat contrived but as long as somewhere down the line, scientific work is being done.

 

So there are actually a few ways people at home can help the scientific community. I don't think there is much to be gained from people doing research projects at home for science, but that's 3 ways anyone with a computer can do meaningful work. I found a whole bunch just on Wikipedia here that you can check out if you're really that keen to help out.

[Deleted54170User]

@Pagafyr: I haven't insulted anyone or made any implications about myself. Unless every family has a particle accelerator in their backyard, an electron microscope in their home or a neutrino detector in their basement, I fail to see how any significant research can be made from one's home. That's not to say there aren't people out their capable of prominence within the scientific community, but these 'projects' you speak of have little merit.

I just can't seem to find the heart to bicker with you. I was hoping for some element of surprise which I could have sank my mind into and realized a formula to write and share it to see if I had anything that might push the envelope of survival another generation further then the two minute til midnight theory. 2012 is coming around the bend soon enough.

Actually the Doomsday clock is at 5 minutes to midnight.

 

Now I didn't say there is nothing people at home can do. I just don't agree with your little 'projects'. There are a few other ways to benefit science without actually doing too much. Obviously, giving money to scientific research is one. A program I use, Folding@Home, uses the unused portion of your computers' processor to simulate protein folding. The information is then sent off to Stanford University where the scientists there do their thing. You can just run it in the background and it [usually] doesn't interfere with other programs. Essentially, you turn wasted CPU power into scientific research.

There's a similar program FightAIDS@Home which is essentially the same thing for a different cause; it runs in the background and utilises unused CPU power.

Similar in aim to Folding@Home is fold.it. You 'play' a game which is actually unfolding proteins. Its not as direct and I find it somewhat contrived but as long as somewhere down the line, scientific work is being done.

 

So there are actually a few ways people at home can help the scientific community. I don't think there is much to be gained from people doing research projects at home for science, but that's 3 ways anyone with a computer can do meaningful work. I found a whole bunch just on Wikipedia here that you can check out if you're really that keen to help out.

 

Keen!

 

I will continue to learn stuff on my fascinating scientific all knowing electronic computer like a child opening birthday present after birthday present.

[Harabec Weathers]

Another doomsday'er

 

Heres a very simple realization, if the civiization is going to collapse, and the world is going to end, then you should savoring the moments you have now. Live it up while you can. Everyones gonna die someday I mean why sweat it lol. Some sooner than others yes, but hey crap happens. Now im not saying dont fight to stay alive, Im just saying dont live in fear of tomorrow possibly being youre last.

[Deleted54170User]

Doom and Gloom, Rainy Day.

[Marxist ßastard]

One day, a frustrated young student was walking outside the temple when he came upon a Zen master. The student asked, "Master, how do I troll a thread that's made of troll?" The master replied, "One day, a frustrated young student was walking outside the temple..."