Space: What's out there III

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
sknguy II

Entanglement is Erwin Schrodinger's theory that Einstein famous called "spooky action at a distance". It's one of the mechanisms they are using for teleportation experiments. Researchers have successfully transported particles between two locations by the way. But the applications could be much broader in relating to anything that's transportable, specifically the information about something is what's transported/communicated. Scientists only know how it works right now, but not the why it works, so unfortunately it's still "spooky".

macktheknife

Well, I hate to burst the multi-dimensional bubble but somebody already gave a party and no one showed.

Fidel

Top comments: Sorry Hawking,I couldn't make it, I had important business to attend to. -John Titor."

---

What could possibly be more important than traveling to this point in the space-time continuum? I mean it's not like we aren't very technologically or culturally advanced. Today we have first past the post, socialism for bankers, economies based on war and aggression, and striped toothpaste. This is paradise, no? Surely this period in human history is more enticing to time travelers than, say, the stone age. It's like Mike Myers said in Austin Powers part whichever: We've got it all, ba-by, yeah! They don't know what they're missing. Or do they? 

Same with the aliens. Why do technically advanced species not come here and steal our energy reserves derived from dead plants? Here we are come get us! They could do an alien mind transplant of TransCanada Pipeline execs and build a conduit from here to Alpha Centauri if they rilly are superior beans. It makes no sense. Therefore they can not exist.

macktheknife

But it`s Hawking! Do you not agree that he is one of our times most brilliant minds? If you wanted to visit an era, would you not want the opportunity to visit with Aristotle, Einstein, Copernicus, Hawking?

Seriously, if the argument is, and I`ve read the argument, that we are too uninteresting to bother with, I say pashaw. Stephen Hawking is one of our most brilliant scientific minds of OUR AGE. If I was alive in 3042 I would definitely have him on my most wanted to hang with list.

Fidel

macktheknife wrote:

But it`s Hawking! Do you not agree that he is one of our times most brilliant minds? If you wanted to visit an era, would you not want the opportunity to visit with Aristotle, Einstein, Copernicus, Hawking?

Seriously, if the argument is, and I`ve read the argument, that we are too uninteresting to bother with, I say pashaw. Stephen Hawking is one of our most brilliant scientific minds of OUR AGE. If I was alive in 3042 I would definitely have him on my most wanted to hang with list.

What if, in the future, every other person has Einsteinian intelligence? Superhuman intelligence?

What if we are a dead end in human evolution? How interesting would we be to time travelers then? 

What if a species eventually survives/evolves from us that is non-biological or even a hybrid cyborgenetic species more robust and intelligent than modern man? 

What if striped toothpaste and fossil fuels from dead plant matter are just not on their travel itineraries? What if predatory and aggressive species like ourselves are a dime a dozen and, according to Carl Sagan et al, are destined to destroy ourselves in a fit of passion? What if highly evolved species aren't visiting us like we tend to avoid frequenting quarantine hospitals filled with people suffering incurable and infectious diseases?

I remember reading that the Queen and Philip of Greece were supposed to travel on the royal boat to a port near my hometown in northern Ontario. The towns folk spent a lot of money rennovating a hotel for the couple and paved streets for a royal visit that never took place. The grandiose  hotel became run down over the years and streets have since been paved over and widened. People died waiting for the Queen and her husband to visit. I think a few of them even began to question whether the Queen and Phil are real people.

macktheknife

Fidel wrote:

What if, in the future, every other person has Einsteinian intelligence? Superhuman intelligence?

What if we are a dead end in human evolution? How interesting would we be to time travelers then?

What if a species eventually survives/evolves from us that is non-biological or even a hybrid cyborgenetic species more robust and intelligent than modern man?

What if striped toothpaste and fossil fuels from dead plant matter are just not on their travel itineraries? What if predatory and aggressive species like ourselves are a dime a dozen and, according to Carl Sagan et al, are destined to destroy ourselves in a fit of passion? What if highly evolved species aren't visiting us like we tend to avoid frequenting quarantine hospitals filled with people suffering incurable and infectious diseases?

I remember reading that the Queen and Philip of Greece were supposed to travel on the royal boat to a port near my hometown in northern Ontario. The towns folk spent a lot of money rennovating a hotel for the couple and paved streets for a royal visit that never took place. The grandiose  hotel became run down over the years and streets have since been paved over and widened. People died waiting for the Queen and her husband to visit. I think a few of them even began to question whether the Queen and Phil are real people.

I say humans are dumb as fuckin posts generally with a spattering of brilliance throughout history , with no change to that ratio in the present, so not much hope for the future that people will generally become so overloaded with knowledge that travelling back in time to meet Hawking would be boring.

If we had discovered multi-universes, time travel, worm holes, etc., someone surely would have arrived for a bit of a chat a t Stephen Hawkings party.

Fidel

I think Hawking does not say that time travel is impossible only that it is not practical. It would require the energy of a star. 

I think that any civilization capable of harnessing the power of a star would consider us to be primitive and, therefore, not very interesting.

Sorry Stephen.

Why do future people not come here, to a parallel stream in the space-time continuum entirely, and say, Greetings! We come to give you trinkets and beads and high technology so advanced that you might possibly destroy yourselves faster and-or destroy other parts of your solar system more efficiently? Why not help us speed up the process of self-destruction? It makes no sense. 

If they hate us, like we surely hate them for snubbing us, then why don't they offer us the technology to destroy ourselves with? Or do we possess that capability already?

macktheknife

Aw c`mon! Seriously? You wouldn`t wnat to have a beer with Plato or Angelo?  A time travelling possible future would undoubtedly include humans keen to experience, first hand, the ideas put forward by the great thinkers of a given time.

Fidel

Plato was a clever guy, but I would not want to live in a world centrally planned by him. No I wouldn't. Not then or now.  It would be a hellish existence don't you think?

And, what if time travelers are all around us but invisible so as not to interract with us and thusly avoiding to alter the future and perhaps even destroying the future?

What if...?

What if UFO's are a kind of Darwinian time traveler from the future or even parallel worlds? What if they are von Neumann probes piloted by synthetic organisms/robots? I just blew your mind, Mac. You are now reeling from these strange and wondrous possibilities.

macktheknife

Fidel wrote:

Plato was a clever guy, but I would not want to live in a world centrally planned by him. No I wouldn't. Not then or now.  It would be a hellish existence don't you think?

And, what if time travelers are all around us but invisible so as not to interract with us and thusly avoiding to alter the future and perhaps even destroying the future?

Well we don't have to LIVE in Plato's world, just visit. Perhaps no more than a sip of champagne and some polite converstaion.  But the second part of your assumption supposes people are uniformly in agreement about contact with people in the past. Our understanding of human nature makes this possibility laughable. No there would be unscrupulous individuals who would wish to capitalize on the past. That is for 100% certain.

autoworker autoworker's picture

God particles?

Fidel

macktheknife wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Plato was a clever guy, but I would not want to live in a world centrally planned by him. No I wouldn't. Not then or now.  It would be a hellish existence don't you think?

And, what if time travelers are all around us but invisible so as not to interract with us and thusly avoiding to alter the future and perhaps even destroying the future?

Well we don't have to LIVE in Plato's world, just visit. Perhaps no more than a sip of champagne and some polite converstaion.  But the second part of your assumption supposes people are uniformly in agreement about contact with people in the past. Our understanding of human nature makes this possibility laughable. No there would be unscrupulous individuals who would wish to capitalize on the past. That is for 100% certain.

 

Oh c'mon! Capitalize on the past? Monetarily?

Would it be possible for another species to have evolved without money or ditched their monetary systems after one too many too big to fail banking collapses? Think about it. An advanced species will have eliminated material poverty and the need for labour. Robots or synthetic organism will do their work. And they will have been careful enough to observe Isaac Asimovian rules for robots to do no harm when designing them. Or perhaps the robots are intelligent and design themselves. 

No material poverty or disease, and certainly no need for wars and resource grabs perp'd  against themselves or us. We can not assume that advanced species are predatory or war-like. It makes more sense that they are peaceful and have survived their own technological adolescence by perhaps centuries or even thousands and millions of years. Money? They don't use it in Star Trek.

A sip of Plato and talk of champaign sounds very appealing. But what if I alchohol is not in future diet plans? What if there is something far more pleasant and intoxicating to drink in the future? Designer champaigns and beer from any century made at your finger tips by "the replicator"? We might be able to avoid vaccinations and bringing home dengue fever in favour of staycations in future, too.

macktheknife

Ah but you are assuming technological advance coincides with general human advance. Understandable error. How do we know an "advanced" society can evolve to a star trek like existence. Perhaps it's more Ferengi than Starfleet. Perhaps governments are no more honest than today and discover they can manipulate the past to benefit the future, or in other words, the present. Would those governments resist the temptation?

Truly if time travel were possible it would have been done, that we have not seen it means it is not possible.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

What was there before the Big Bang?

macktheknife

Boom Boom wrote:
What was there before the Big Bang?

There is no before, science has little answers for after as well. Believe what you will, or not.

sknguy II

Boom Boom wrote:
What was there before the Big Bang?

Classical physics (I use the word "classical" with apprehension) has no real explanation beyond dealing with just the after-effects of the big bang. But string theory, on the other hand, is making some possible conclusions. Unfortunately, I can only give you one quick and dirty explanation of one suggested event. This also relates to how the idea of a multiverse came about by the way.

Because the tiny strings in string theory are just filaments of energy, and in turn these strings comprise the fabric of space itself, there is an amount of "kinetic" energy inherently present within the fabric of space. From what I understand there are varying concentrations of string energy in space. And sometimes there is a huge discharge (for unknown reasons) of this energy. And that causes many big bangs to occur. The big bang, in our case, was essentially a discharge of string energy at some point in the eternal fabric of space. This discharging of energy happens elsewhere in space, and at distances infinitely beyond our ability to detect. These other discharges also create other universes.

The surveys of the cosmic background radiation through the years have mapped the after-effects of "our" big bang. This background radiation is the residual heat left by our big bang event. It's hoped that, with improving technologies, these types of surveys may help us detect the big bangs of other universes. Therein helping to give credibility to string theory.

MegB

sknguy II wrote:

Entanglement is Erwin Schrodinger's theory that Einstein famous called "spooky action at a distance". It's one of the mechanisms they are using for teleportation experiments. Researchers have successfully transported particles between two locations by the way. But the applications could be much broader in relating to anything that's transportable, specifically the information about something is what's transported/communicated. Scientists only know how it works right now, but not the why it works, so unfortunately it's still "spooky".

Entanglement is no longer theoretical.  Quantum computing has proven that the observation of a particle or piece of data changes it. 

sknguy II

Rebecca West wrote:

sknguy II wrote:

...Researchers have successfully transported particles between two locations by the way....

Entanglement is no longer theoretical.  Quantum computing has proven that the observation of a particle or piece of data changes it. 

Smile Yup, I know.

macktheknife

Quantum entanglement is no longer theoretical? Please refer us to the groundbreaking research that proves that.

sknguy II

Looking around there's quite a bit on the internet about this related work. This from IBM. And a bit more here.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I remember having fun driving my parents berserk with my insane questions when I was little.

macktheknife

sknguy II wrote:

Looking around there's quite a bit on the internet about this related work. This from IBM. And a bit more here.

OK just a hint, anything Quantum related is NOT proven science. We have ideas and it`s all great but none of it is `Theory of Relativity`science yet.  Proof is a mathematical equation that works.

MegB

In quantum computing, it has been documented that the transfer of data can be analysed according to the differences between what is sent and what is received.

There ya go ...

MegB

Rebecca West wrote:

In quantum computing, it has been documented that the transfer of data can be analysed according to the differences between what is sent and what is received.

There ya go ...

ETA: yeah, it's weird crazy shit ...

MegB

 

In quantum computing, it has been documented that the transfer of data can be analysed according to the differences between what is sent and what is received.

There ya go ...

ETA: yeah, it's weird crazy shit ...

Fidel

Okay Rebecca's a nerd, too, and you're outnumbered again, Mac. Sorry. Laughing

Hey look at this wiki bitty on David Deutsch, a leading quantum theorist. And Deutsch's theory is considered one of the more conservative as theoretical physicists go. 

Quote:
The Church-Turing thesis
This emergentist posture allows Deutsch to do some serious work with the Church-Turing thesis (or "Turing principle" as he calls it), which is fundamental in theoretical computer science. In the strong form he favors it implies that a universal quantum computer, capable of rendering any physically possible environment, actually exists near the end of spacetime in every universe and is maintained by sentient beings with the knowledge required to increase its memory, computing cycles, and energy supply.

A quantum puter at the edge of spacetime and maintained by sentient beans. Okay, now I just blew mine own mind. Yep it's blow'd up rrreal good.

sknguy II

So yeah...... given the speed at which radio waves travel through space, some time during 2012 there will have been roughly 2500 stars within the 76 light year range that could have received Hitler's 1936 nazi propeganda space broadcast. Although, there have been plenty of other weaker signals from earth that escaped into space before that one.

EDIT: You know I think it's more like about 2600 star systems within that area. You know what else? Now we're all just a bunch of Earth punks. Sorry people, just totally wasting a day off here.

macktheknife

Rebecca West wrote:

 

In quantum computing, it has been documented that the transfer of data can be analysed according to the differences between what is sent and what is received.

There ya go ...

ETA: yeah, it's weird crazy shit ...

I understand QM has and is increasingly, from scientific observation, a better way to describe our world, but it has not IMV, made the leap to prime time just yet. Classical physics has resulted in the world we know today, we drive cars, fly in airplanes and surf the net all due to the efforts of classical physicists like Einstein. As of this point in time there are NO quantum computers available anywhere. Why? Because QM is still working the bugs out. Like quantum decoherence.

" Decoherence represents a challenge for the practical realization of quantum computers, since they are expected to rely heavily on the undisturbed evolution of quantum coherences. Simply put; they require that coherent states be preserved and that decoherence is managed, in order to actually perform quantum computation."

Fairly large bug. The problem with QM, IMHO, is that at its' core, everything can be a 1 or a 0, at the same time. That's essentially chaos. While it may eventually be observed to be true, and in my opinon is likely correct, QM  doesn't explain how the order we observe is in harmony with sub atomic chaos.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

The Bolshoi simulation

I know it's been a awhile.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

autoworker wrote:

God particles?

 

Higg's Boson: Analogies Help

It's all about symmetry breaking(For layman Leon Ledermen helped to define the God particle). So the analogies help to direct one's attention to the conceptual ideas about mass?

 

Of course no one has to live in Plato's world but there is definitely a lot to be learned from it. The point is that through science constant referrals in terms of Plato's Cave has shaped many discussions. Look at Holography or how one looks to the basic pattern organization of quasi-crystals.

Fidel
MegB

That many steps closer to understanding quantum theory and string theory.

sknguy II

I remember in the early 90's when publicity about string theory was suggesting that the theory was a serendipidous discovery and ahead of it's time. The same could be said about a lot of other ideas, like general relativity. What I find it interesting to understand is the tension between the proponents of string theory and those of the standard model. For my part, they're fundamentally describing the same things, only using different languages. Just don't talk about multiverses and extra dimensions around the wrong crowd.

Fidel

macktheknife wrote:

Ah but you are assuming technological advance coincides with general human advance. Understandable error. How do we know an "advanced" society can evolve to a star trek like existence. Perhaps it's more Ferengi than Starfleet. Perhaps governments are no more honest than today and discover they can manipulate the past to benefit the future, or in other words, the present. Would those governments resist the temptation?

Ah! But there have been naysayers throughout history, and not just armchair skeptics. A leading British Royal astronomer once said that transatlantic ocean crossings by heavier than water steamships would be impossible. He said that rough North Sea and Atlantic ocean would swallow steel ships. The same person said that we might as well fly to the moon.

Another scientist balked at heavier than air craft and said talk of mechanical flight from New York to Los Angeles in a few hours would never happen. 

In just 50,000 years or so man has progressed from using stone tools to landing on the moon. It's a relative blink of an eye and tiny slice of time in the evolutionary scheme of things. Technological advancement is a given in our own example. Like biological evolution, tech advancements are just a matter of time. Kardashev and Dyson described how civilization with economic growth rates average one percent per year would have certain energy requirements. At some point fossil fuels either run out and they die, or it forces the civilization to develop new and sustainable energy sources. From certain assumptions they calculate advancement from our current type 0 status to that of type I in about 100 years. Type II(Federation in Star Trek) in just a few centuries. Type III(Empire from Star Wars) in about a thousand years. Type IV in just a few thousand more. Who knows if type V or VI(God-like) exist? Can we doubt Darwinian evolution and technological progress? 

macktheknife wrote:
Truly if time travel were possible it would have been done, that we have not seen it means it is not possible.
 

Behold! This is but one story of abundant circumstantial evidence for... time travelers? Travelers from "another world"?:

Roswell New Mexico, 1947.

And some say there have been other close encounters around the world. Some western world governments have been more transparent to the public than others with respect to disclosure of information. Some of us ask, why does the U.S. Government not simply announce it if true? harkening back to 1947, the beginning of the cold war, the U.S. Government released four different stories about the Roswell incident: 

1. A flying saucer
2. A radar reflector and weather balloon
3. A Mogul balloon train over 500 feet long with 23 balloons, sonobuoys, etc.
4. And most recently, a Mogul balloon train plus crash test dummies dropped at least six years AFTER the 1947 crashes Southeast of Corona and West of Magdalena.(Stanton Friedman)

Well, which was it? Canadian physicist Stanton Friedman says that the U.S. Government and especially the C.I.A. have been lying to the public about Roswell for a long time. Which of the above four scenarios is the truth? Skeptics have said that the first report by the U.S. Military was made by a flunky who didn't know his job. But as Canadian Stanton Friedman says, that wasn't true, either. 

OTOH, why wouldn't they tell the truth? Why wouldn't the U.S. Government or U.S. Military simply say, Hey, yeah, we found a crashed disc. And by the way, there were aliens aboard the craft just as dozens of eye witnesses have reported since 1947. And another by the way, these things are flying in USAF and NATO air space all the time, and there isn't a darned thing we can do about it. Why wouldn't they just say that?

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Quote:
To be sure, the majority of research into string theory is not focused on how the theory connects to the real world; rather, most physicists are exploring questions at a more theoretical level. Such formal work is necessary, because as noted above, we need a deeper understanding to fully formulate the theory. Even the many theorists who are interested in how string theory connects to the real world don’t typically think much about what it means to test the theory. Fortunately, an increasingly active group of “string phenomenologists” are focusing on formulating a string-based description of the world and testing that understanding. They are already making testable predictions, and will increasingly do so.String Theory and the Real World by Gordon Kane

 

Quote:
This year the lecture was given by the 2010 winner of the Isaac Newton medal, Professor Edward Witten, Institute for Advanced Study and was chaired by Professor Michael B Green, Cambridge University. There are two parts to the lecture. Videos by Kevin Hull> See Also: Newton lecture 2010: String theory and the Universe

Fidel

Higgs boson find could make light-speed travel possible, scientists say

Lack of money threatening progress. The obvious solution is to scrap CERN and particle research in order to prop-up an insanely bad monetary/debt system. Bankers before science always.

NorthReport

 

Nasa may miss Curiosity Mars rover's landing signal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18861463

macktheknife

Fidel wrote:

 

Ah! But there have been naysayers throughout history, and not just armchair skeptics. A leading British Royal astronomer once said that transatlantic ocean crossings by heavier than water steamships would be impossible. He said that rough North Sea and Atlantic ocean would swallow steel ships. The same person said that we might as well fly to the moon.

Another scientist balked at heavier than air craft and said talk of mechanical flight from New York to Los Angeles in a few hours would never happen.

In just 50,000 years or so man has progressed from using stone tools to landing on the moon. It's a relative blink of an eye and tiny slice of time in the evolutionary scheme of things. Technological advancement is a given in our own example. Like biological evolution, tech advancements are just a matter of time. Kardashev and Dyson described how civilization with economic growth rates average one percent per year would have certain energy requirements. At some point fossil fuels either run out and they die, or it forces the civilization to develop new and sustainable energy sources. From certain assumptions they calculate advancement from our current type 0 status to that of type I in about 100 years. Type II(Federation in Star Trek) in just a few centuries. Type III(Empire from Star Wars) in about a thousand years. Type IV in just a few thousand more. Who knows if type V or VI(God-like) exist? Can we doubt Darwinian evolution and technological progress?

 

I'm not a naysayer, just a realist. Our species has made it to this point on the backs of incessant warring and genocide. This is not an enlightened species.

I did not say we wouldn't traverse the stars one day, just that the society that we evolve to, as envisioned by shows like star trek, may be incorrect, or maybe correct in that we would be more akin to the borg than starfleet.

Every great empire from then till now has been built on slavery, treachery and murder. At this very moment scientists around the world are conducting secret research for the military. Research that I am sure would make every one of us shudder with fear.

We may make it to Type IV, but to be honest, I pity the society that would come into contact with us.

Fidel

macktheknife wrote:
I did not say we wouldn't traverse the stars one day, just that the society that we evolve to, as envisioned by shows like star trek, may be incorrect, or maybe correct in that we would be more akin to the borg than starfleet.

In a way I hope we do evolve toward a borg society of sorts. Some say the borg, with their goal for hive collective made-up of different species, represents the former USSR. But that would assume certain cold war propaganda was true, like the one that said the Soviets were bent on world domination. Stanley Kubrick's movie character described the former Soviets as evil and carrying out diabolical plots, like polluting our bodily fluids with fluoridated water. None of it was actually true, though.

And I think science fiction writers sometimes project human history on the universe itself. What else can we use for reference except ourselves? We assume that because we have evolved from stone age to imperialism, feudalism to colonialism, and now predatory capitalism, that so, too, might every other species evolve in exactly the same stages. And to be honest, I think even that takes some imagination. Similarly, Frank Drake and other astronomers and astrophysicists believed that because it is mankind's nature to be aggressive and violent that most if not all advanced civilizations would likely destroy themselves in a fit of passion. However, as Carl Sagan mentioned, that might not be the case. And if it isn't the case just one percent of the time, then the possibilities for advanced species out there in just this galaxy are breathtakingly good.

macktheknife wrote:
We may make it to Type IV, but to be honest, I pity the society that would come into contact with us.

And you may be exactly right. I don't want to believe it. I want to believe that if there are advanced civlizations out there, they will have no need to enslave us or to travel all this way just to steal resources which are probably plentiful on billions of other planets. If they come here, I think it would be as a scientific expedition. Why did Darwin set out on trans oceanic crossings to visit the Galapagos? It was to satisfy his scientific curiosity. But again I can only hope you are wrong.

Quote:
At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment. - H.G Wells. War of the Worlds, Chapter One

macktheknife

Fidel wrote:

 

macktheknife wrote:
We may make it to Type IV, but to be honest, I pity the society that would come into contact with us.

And you may be exactly right. I don't want to believe it. I want to believe that if there are advanced civlizations out there, they will have no need to enslave us or to travel all this way just to steal resources which are probably plentiful on billions of other planets. If they come here, I think it would be as a scientific expedition. Why did Darwin set out on trans oceanic crossings to visit the Galapagos? It was to satisfy his scientific curiosity. But again I can only hope you are wrong.

Quote:
At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment. - H.G Wells. War of the Worlds, Chapter One

But I said OUR society, not other societies. There may be a society that doesn`t forcefully take what it wants, but that is not OUR society. Other advanced socities may be benevolent but NOT our society. We have proven ourselveles over thousands of years to be a domineering,aggressive, murderous society.

Not about OTHER societies, but OUR society. I would fear for others based on what I know about us. We take no prisoners.

There may very well be civs out there that feel no need to enslave, or murder, but that`s not us.

Fidel

Professor Barnhardt wrote:
Well that's where we are. You say we're on the brink of destruction and you're right. But it's only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve. This is our moment. Don't take it from us, we are close to an answer. - The Day the Earth Stood Still, 2008

The good news is we're still here. Will we survive our own technological adolescence? Who can possibly know?

macktheknife

Oh, I never said WE wouldn`t survive. WE will do just fine. Other species.....not so much.

macktheknife

I guess what I`m trying to convey here is we will, maybe, excel in the technological realm, but our history suggests we will be the same conquesting species we have always been. Thus I pity the species that comes into contact with us if we are in a technologically superior position. That is all.

Fidel

And I think that if we do survive tech adolescence, we might also outgrow this current phase of human development. ie predatory capitalism. We might change from a society addicted to energy derived from dead plants. We may eventually value knowledge and clean drinking water more than material possessions. People like Karl Polanyi believed we were never so materialistic and greedy as we have been cajoled and prodded into becoming over the last 30-35 years or so. I believe humans value people and relationships more than money or material acquisitions. People around the world know that things are not right today. And at the precipice we will change. Before we collectively step off into the abyss there will be change. Change is happening now.

macktheknife

But our predatory socity is not based on fossil fuel, it is only enhanced by it. Face it Fidel, we are crocodiles. Technology is not freeing us but further enabling our predatory ways.

macktheknife

Maybe a technological precipice, but our resolve to crush all other species remains. I am afraid I am not so jingoistic with regards our `progress`. Our species has and continues to prove itself predatory, thus I cannot cheerlead our advancement.

Fidel

We will have to find energy sources other than fuel from dead plants if we want to maintain technological progress. Fuel from dead plant sources isn't very advanced. The precipice is rushing toward us. Kardashev and Dyson said we will most likely learn to harness the greatest source of energy in the solar system and perhaps only few thousand years later, the galaxy. There is no future in blood for oil wars of conquest. At the precipice we must change.

Fidel

And since there is no future for a world of predatory capitalism, we must change. Change is in our genes. At the precipice we are genetically predisposed to change. We are running out of time, though. 

macktheknife

I don`t know about predatory capitalism. I just know about predatory behavoiur, and that is us. Capaitism or not, we bite. Get it. Communism, we bite, socialism we bite, we are predators. We are crocodiles in spirit. Fuzzy bunnies in flesh. I have no hope for us. Yes I can say I am actively rooting against our species.

Fidel

macktheknife wrote:

I don`t know about predatory capitalism.

Some of us lived through the cold war era, and we think the problem is predatory capitalism in this post-cold war era. And we've noticed an increase in wars and aggression by the Atlantic Alliance countries since 1991. All wars are resource grabs since imperialist times through today. But things are not going so well with funding of wars. It is incompatible with the post WW II promise of freedom, democracy and global prosperity. During the Vietnam war, for instance, predatory capitalist nations France and the USA were viewed the world over as not just to have supported the wrong side - they were the wrong side. It's happening again today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today they are losing the propaganda war just as they did in the 1960's and 70's. The unipolar world they thought would prevail is proving to be unsustainable in a number of ways but especially in economic and political terms. 

The last century saw the demise of a number of world empires: the Ottoman empire, Qing empire; Russian empire; German empire; Japanese empire; British empire; French empire; Portuguese empire; Italian empire; Spanish empire; Nazi empire; and the USSR.

That is real progress in a relatively short amount of time. And it's not looking too good for the last vicious empire in this century, don't you think?

Pages