3 ms·

I strongly disagree with this. We have several hundred million years left, and we've only been around as an intelligent civilization for what, 100K years? 200

by dheera 6y ago

I strongly disagree with this. We have several hundred million years left, and we've only been around as an intelligent civilization for what, 100K years? 200 years ago nobody would even think of flying on Earth, and yet here we are, taking it for granted that you can get almost anywhere on this planet within 24 hours for a couple thousand dollars, and within a century of inventing the car we landed a robot on freaking Mars. Now I do think that we will take charge of evolution and invent a form of life that will be our successor to withstand a much harsher range of conditions and absent from the "bugs" of current life such as cancer and heart disease, rather than our current unreliable meat bags, but we'll make it happen nonetheless. All that said -- I do want to see more attention toward terraforming Earth as well. Even with zero global warming, the sun's brightness will increase such that our oceans will boil away within 1 billion years, even though it won't actually engulf the Earth for another 4 billion. I would think it's realistic to extend the habitable period of life on Earth from ~300 million years to maybe 2 billion years with some terraforming tricks. That will buy us more time to terraform Mars or Saturn's moons in preparation for the red giant phase of the sun. Also, learning to terraform the Earth can reverse global warming, because, you know, politicians don't give a fuck about stopping it, so we should attempt to learn to reverse it as a backup plan while the political environmental efforts continue in parallel.

margalabargala 6y ago
It's been 241 years since the first manned unpowered flight, in a hot air balloon. Granted that's a long way from getting anywhere on the planet, but I'm skeptical that 41 years after that event no one was thinking of flying.
OmicronCeti 6y ago
I think the disconnect here is between potential and probable. Humanity likely has the potential for interstellar travel, but our nature will prevent it in my opinion. Homo sapiens have twice come to the edge of nuclear oblivion already (being saved only by luck essentially), and I would wager we are are speeding much faster towards nuking each other than reaching the stars.
- dheera 6y ago
  If nuclear war breaks out, it will be sad, we will lose a lot of our population, and cities will be destroyed, but I do not think a nuclear breakout will result in the death of humanity. I cannot see a realistic war scenario in which we will destroy every habitable corner of the planet. And if we can cure cancer in the next 50 years (I think realistic), we'll have even better odds of surviving an event, as a species.
  - OmicronCeti 6y ago
    The collapse of all plant life would mean the death of humans. Nuclear winter is a well-studied and modeled phenomenon.
    - dheera 6y ago
      I don't think we would collapse all plant life. While we have the theoretical capability to destroy all plant life, I think realistically we'd end up obliterating a few cities before war would cease, and a full-on nuclear winter is unlikely.
      - OmicronCeti 6y ago
        > I don't think we would collapse all plant life. I mean it's not really about what you think. See the top two links here about the devastating effects of small-scale conflicts - https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00794-y https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00794-y - https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117 - https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4630.1283 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4630.1283 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030509 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030509 - https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1986.10423349 https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1986.10423349 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235
      - kergonath 6y ago
        You don’t need to kill all plants, just enough of those we can eat. Not even all of those, either. Look into history to see what happens when enough people don’t have enough to eat.
kergonath 6y ago
> We have several hundred million years left, and we've only been around as an intelligent civilization for what, 100K years? This sounds wildly optimistic, considering our chronic inability to fix our behaviour before it results in excessive damage. Never mind the occasional asteroid. > 200 years ago nobody would even think of flying on Earth, and yet here we are, taking it for granted that you can get almost anywhere on this planet within 24 hours for a couple thousand dollars, and within a century of inventing the car we landed a robot on freaking Mars. The myth of Icarus is a bit older than 200 years. So are Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings. Plenty of people did in fact think of flying, most probably before they had any way of writing it down for us to read.

by dheera 6y ago

margalabargala 6y ago

It's been 241 years since the first manned unpowered flight, in a hot air balloon. Granted that's a long way from getting anywhere on the planet, but I'm skeptical that 41 years after that event no one was thinking of flying.

OmicronCeti 6y ago

I think the disconnect here is between potential and probable. Humanity likely has the potential for interstellar travel, but our nature will prevent it in my opinion. Homo sapiens have twice come to the edge of nuclear oblivion already (being saved only by luck essentially), and I would wager we are are speeding much faster towards nuking each other than reaching the stars.

dheera 6y ago
If nuclear war breaks out, it will be sad, we will lose a lot of our population, and cities will be destroyed, but I do not think a nuclear breakout will result in the death of humanity. I cannot see a realistic war scenario in which we will destroy every habitable corner of the planet. And if we can cure cancer in the next 50 years (I think realistic), we'll have even better odds of surviving an event, as a species.
- OmicronCeti 6y ago
  The collapse of all plant life would mean the death of humans. Nuclear winter is a well-studied and modeled phenomenon.
  - dheera 6y ago
    I don't think we would collapse all plant life. While we have the theoretical capability to destroy all plant life, I think realistically we'd end up obliterating a few cities before war would cease, and a full-on nuclear winter is unlikely.
    - OmicronCeti 6y ago
      > I don't think we would collapse all plant life. I mean it's not really about what you think. See the top two links here about the devastating effects of small-scale conflicts - https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00794-y https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00794-y - https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919049117 - https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4630.1283 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4630.1283 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030509 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030509 - https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1986.10423349 https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1986.10423349 - https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235 https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008235
    - kergonath 6y ago
      You don’t need to kill all plants, just enough of those we can eat. Not even all of those, either. Look into history to see what happens when enough people don’t have enough to eat.

kergonath 6y ago

> We have several hundred million years left, and we've only been around as an intelligent civilization for what, 100K years? This sounds wildly optimistic, considering our chronic inability to fix our behaviour before it results in excessive damage. Never mind the occasional asteroid. > 200 years ago nobody would even think of flying on Earth, and yet here we are, taking it for granted that you can get almost anywhere on this planet within 24 hours for a couple thousand dollars, and within a century of inventing the car we landed a robot on freaking Mars. The myth of Icarus is a bit older than 200 years. So are Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings. Plenty of people did in fact think of flying, most probably before they had any way of writing it down for us to read.