Jump to content

Really want to save the planet? GET OFF IT!


Mallette

Recommended Posts

Marvel, i can assure you from my perspective if g0d was brought into the conversation it was'nt as a red herring to stop the conversation. It was in fact brought in by yourself, and i guess your intention was to stimulate. My hope is that this thread is important enough that it will not be locked. I for one have what i believe to be points of discussion related to this thread that some might find to not be politically correct and religous in context. However i will hold back any contentious postings and feel the waters so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marvel, i can assure you from my perspective if g0d was brought into the conversation it was'nt as a red herring to stop the conversation. It was in fact brought in by yourself, and i guess your intention was to stimulate. My hope is that this thread is important enough that it will not be locked.

I can accept that. If you can also accept that I didn't bring it up just to stimulate the conversation. I just don't think you can leave it out.

We all tend to talk more and listen less, but it should be the other way 'round. One's view of the world is shaped by his religious beliefs. Some may be more accurate that others, and we may find there is more common ground than not, especially when it comes to social issues. Those real world issues, if you will, are always governed by our view of life, the world, God, gods, whatever. Sometimes it doesn't matter the reasoning if the goal is correct [ that is not to say the ends justify the means... that isn't what I mean ]

Many cultures have been awful polluters, but the pollution used to be more organic, so there was almost always the ability for the land to heal. So a nomadic people could stay somewhere and pollute (which often happened) and then move on. The pollution would break down, be equalized, and eventually, a livable area again. Just like a good compost pile. Now, we make things that don't break down... it will be around a long time, way too long, and much of it is dangerous. Part of it has to do with the volume, but the largest problem is WHAT it is.

So... I am not wanting to get this locked. I won't point fingers (well, I might, but they will also point at me on occasion). I, like Dave, want to hear some answers. Or, at the very least, some ideas that might prove useful.

Got to go... time for a chat with my gf, who sits on the other side of the world.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the originator of this thread, I'd like to politely ask all contributors to leave religion out of the discussion. Whilst my personal belief is that a "General" discussion should be open to any topic that might be discussed in a public place, my understanding is that the moderators may not see it that way.

So, if we simply agree (or not...just try to live with it) that survival of the species is important (or not) to persons regardless of their views on religion and not relevant to how it plays out, we can discuss this important question in peace.

Please?

Kind regards to all persons of good will, and peace to those without,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave-

I agree that avoiding discussing the survival of the human race and how space travel fits into that goal is better accomplished without debating religion. Each individual's personal philosophy is important to him or her and will inevitably color the inferences she or he draws from the discussions and the implications he or she makes, but it does not need to be debated to address what I see as the topic implied by you in your thread: the viability and desirability of space exploration.

I'm not against space exploration. I recognize the non-military spin-off benefits from the space exploration to date. I just question the practicality of manned space flight beyond our solar system.

Sure, we've come a long way quickly during the last century. Before 1903 most people believed that controlled flight with a heavier than air machine was impossible. Less than 70 years after Kitty Hawk Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon.

The biggest practical hurdle to manned space flight beyond our solar system is time. If we could travel near the speed of light it would take more than 4.2 Earth years to get to the nearest star (and more than 4.2 Earth years to return). To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that we would find an environment suitable for colonization orbiting that nearest star.

Given the size of space and the distances involved, how would we select a destination? Assume that another planet in the infinite universe is able to support life as we know it (possible, if not probable). How would we know that? Radio/TV signals travel at the speed of light. It's been only a little more than 100 years that Earth's inhabitants have been sending such signals out into the ether; first the dots and dashes of Morse Code and later I Love Lucy shows.

It's a crude and imperfect analogy, but if the Milky Way Galaxy were the entire Universe and the Earth our house, those radio/TV signals have not yet reached the post office, let alone the Moon, Mars or beyond our solar system. At 4.2 light-years to the nearest star, we can't go cruising about the Universe looking for a place to visit.

Practical manned space exploration will require covering the vast distances at a speed faster than light. I'm not so "arrogant" to say that it can never happen. I'm saying that it will require technology and thinking that is well beyond anything that presently exists. Mankind will need to remove the shackles of time to explore the vastness of space. We'll need to think and act beyond the dimensions of time and space in which we presently operate.

One last thought. Whatever is true is true, without the acceptance or approval of humans. The principles of mathematics are not true because they passed a referendum. The principles of physics were true long before Newton or Einstein. Two plus two equals four because it does, not because a majority of humans agree that it does.

Thanks for the starting this thought provoking (encouraging is a friendlier term) thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take on this for what it is worth. 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Why do we think things will be different for our species?? Mother Nature has been rolling with the punches for billions of years...what we as a species are doing to the planet is really nothing to Her. Although humans rule the earth for the moment, we certainly will not always do so. We really should think of ourselves as just another on the long list of life forms that have come and gone in the natural world. Life will not only go on without us, it will probably thrive....at least until another species becomes dominate.

So it is a kind of good news bad news look at things. The good news is that no matter how badly we screw things up, it is all very natural and life will certainly go on...the bad news is of course for the human race. Should we count on our technological genius to somehow get us through, or get us off this planet? I think not. So if we really have concern for our grandchildren and for other life forms, we should most definately try to leave a smaller footprint as we stroll through our lives.

Where does faith fit in to this for me? I have great faith in Mother Nature's enormous capacity to shrug off disasters and given enough time, She will recover and thrive. Believing this to be true is somehow enough for me.

Garth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One time I postulated in a discussion of space travel a "what if" along the lines of, what if there is an adjoining reality where everything is FASTER than our light? I am not suggesting that seriously here as a postulate, but more to suggest the level of our ignorance. I cannot offer anything to suggest that statements that LITERAL FTL travel is impossible for a physical object, but I can with certainty state my belief that there is more than one way to get from point A to point B than go fast. From this viewpoint, I cannot take anyone seriously who states that "travel to the stars will never happen because FTL travel is scientifically impossible." That statement only suggests that one cannot travel to the stars employing FTL technology, which cannot exist. While I am not so certain, I choose not to take that one on as, again, not really relevant.

There are undoubtable "X" ways to travel to the stars by means yet unknown...though some have been postulated by far greater minds than my onw. And, ASMOF, I can give you TWO ways to do it with sub-light. The most obvious is a large asteriod hollowed out, fitted with a drive (let's just say some sort of magnetohydrodynamic device for the sake of fuel efficiency and evenutual top speed) with thousands of humans on board representing everything needed for a colony. This ship would take a VERY long time to accelerate, but would finally reach significant fraction of light speed. Likewise, decelleration would take a long time. The trip would require centuries. However, life would be good with 1g gravity from rotation of the asteroid and from fields, streams, and such provided to make it "homey." People would be born, live out life, and die there. Eventually, the target system would be reached and hopefully there would be either an habitable or terraformable planet there, If not, they'd have to move on. Might not even be a big disappointment sense this asteriod would be home to all of them anyway. Or perhaps some would stay and others would move on.

The above is within current technological horizons and one or more part of it suggested either by well regarded scientists or fiction writers.

When I was a kid my mind was expanded forever by Madeleine L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in Time." It is trully extraordinary how many things come to pass first mooted by science fiction writers, with Well's electric-power submarine (Ever hear of "Electric Boats" shipyards?) being a prime example, and now I see people every day wearing bluetooth earpieces that look for all the world exactly like Lt. Uhuru's that was so exotic and difficult to imagine in 1967. Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio was pretty hard to swallow, and the series pretty much went beyond believebility in the late 60's with the magnetic space coupe and two-way wrist TV. At least one of those technologies is with us already.

Recently, at the end of a program on stealth technology, one of the interviewees who had worked at Lockheed said that very shortly before he passed away Ben Rich told hime that "...if you think this is something, we have things out in the desert beyond your comprehension." There was no further comment but I believe this to be the dieing declaration of a man who would have LOVED to have been able to tell all he knew and could not resist at least a hint on his way out. The things we DO know and the technologies we HAVE would put the most advanced scientists of the '30's into a seizure.

Arthur C. Clarke said "Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology Is Indistinguishable From Magic." For me, one of the most profound and revealing statements of the 20th century, and one that should release the mind to imagine ANY possibility as realizable.

All the above is written to support my contention that it is not technology that stands in the way of mankinds release from the womb, but WILL. It also offers, coincidently, the solution to all our problems of living on this earth, but must be a part of that solution as well. Even if you do not support my dream that someday this planet might be allowed to return to its natural ways as Human Homeworld Primitive Area or whatever, you must either find a way to take up less space and less resources to even extend its ability to support intelligent life...and even then you are only talking centuries before the pumps fail and the ship goes down with all on board. About the only exception to that would be if we concentrated our energies on becoming non-corporeal lifeforms. That's doable...of course, in doing so we also release our need to BE on Earth so it is still my primary solution.

O...good morning!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct.

As will be ours if we don't act very soon.

>Why do we think things will be different for our species??

Read your own statement...while I cannot prove it, I have no evidence to believe that any of the others really THOUGHT about it. :-).

Dave

PS-Neil: Thanks for your post. It appeared after my long one below and I believe I expressed my response to you in it. Telepathy? Probably not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mallette....We dont need a hollowed out asteroid to travel through space...Think of the toilet paper problem... We are on a beautiful blue space ship with a atmosphere, Water.. and ways of cultivating crops....We are traveling within our own galaxy ..The galaxy is moving at a fast rate.. But on a collision course with another galaxy,,,,Dont worry thats a few billion years away....So enjoy the ride...Live out your miserable lives...enjoy your religions and be at peace with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maron:

>We dont need a hollowed out asteroid to travel through space...Think of the toilet paper problem
We have an ingenious high-tech solution for that called a "bidet."

>Live out your miserable lives...
Mine has been GLORIUS so far...such that even if it ends miserably I'll be thankful.

>enjoy your religions
Oh, but I do.

>and be at peace with each other.
Amen.

OTOH, I have children. If you do not, you can be excused if your only concern for our homeworld is that it last your time. If you DO, and figure you have no responsibility for them if you die...well, let's just say I have a problem with that.

In my case, I not only have children who I hope will have the opportunity to do likewise, but also have a strong survival instinct that extends right out to EVERYBODIES children. After all, I don't want mine to be alone...

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this subject is important.............I too have my Rants, i.e. SUV'S............but lets take this off the Form.........to someplace else. Please

OK, I don't have much experience in "General." In most BBS's, it's open to anything within civil constraints and community values. If that is not true here then I'll bow to your request and return to my hovel in 2 channel audio. However, when I arrived I noted threads about football, family deaths, and all sorts of things.

If I mis-construed, set me straight.

Kind regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave-

IMO this is an entirely appropriate topic for this forum. It prevents no one from discussing tweeters, squawkers, etc. somewhere else on the forum. It compels no one to participate.

It's my understanding that the forum's moderators discourage discussions of religion or politics. Those topics need not be interjected into this thread.

I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave-

IMO this is an entirely appropriate topic for this forum. It prevents no one from discussing tweeters, squawkers, etc. somewhere else on the forum. It compels no one to participate.

It's my understanding that the forum's moderators discourage discussions of religion or politics. Those topics need not be interjected into this thread.

I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

And thank you, kind sir.

I live out in the 'burbs (2 channel audio) and don't get out much. However, I thought I'd spin downtown here for a change and see what all the hubbub was about. There appeared to be discussions of cabbages and kings as well as chinese capacitors and I was a bit weary of endless discussions of interconnects and the devil in the digital so thought I'd join the fracas.

As I posted to the complainant previous, I'll be happy to return to my comfy cottage out in 2 channel land and rules of our neighborhood association out there...:-)

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maron: Actually a fascinating point. How about 1/6 gravity as on the moon? Consider a pressurized dome with a 600 yard football field. Minimal padding required due to the grav. Of course, you'd need binoculars to keep up with the ball and who was doing what to whom where...but WHAT A GAME!

I've never been a big ballet fan, though mainly because all but the handful of true masters tend to look ungainly and silly to me. I was taken once to the "Royal Winnepeg Ballet" in Singapore and had to suppress laughter all the way through...wound up calling it the Royal Pegleg Ballet (Please, no offense intended...just my uneducated opinion). It occured to me that the same performers might reach true grace and beauty in lunar gravity. It would be beautiful.

Regards,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It's my understanding that the forum's moderators discourage discussions of religion or politics. Those topics need not be interjected into this thread.

This is true. Please keep religion and politics out of conversations, please. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disregard...............Dave your right...........

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp

Took a look. Relevance? Global warming is hardly the foremost threat to human existence. It's been going and coming for eons. I agree that our carbon effluents are probably accelerating the current cycle, but have no way of knowing how much. The end of the last "warm" cycle happened in the 13th century. At that time, the best wine in Europe was being grown in Britain(!). The "Little Ice Age" persisted into the early 19th century with the "Year with no summer" of 1816 when the still abnormally cold winter was further influenced by a volcanic cloud in the high atmosphere. However, even today we've not reached the warm levels of the pre-13th century period...which is, by the way, considered by historians to have been a pretty nice period for human civilization. Why is it we hear nothing of the benefits of a warming climate? After all, "'tis an ill wind indeed that blows nobody good."

The header of the global warming page said "All ten of the hottest years on record, globally, have occurred in the last fifteen years." Sheesh, "on record." I submit we have no records except the geologic record that are of any consequence. If we had records of the entire period of human existence they'd hardly account for the time of a single electron orbit compared to the age of the Earth.

Let me repeat "I believe global warming is a fact, and that carbon emmissions are accelerating it, and Al Gore is its prophet."

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that the forum's moderators discourage discussions of religion or politics. Those topics need not be interjected into this thread.

This is true. Please keep religion and politics out of conversations, please. Thanks

Mam, yes Mam!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...