8 ms·
The last survivors of the end of the world
- tehwalrus 13y agopresumably he has guessed the path evolution will take? It seems rather far fetched to be able to predict something so uncertain and dependent on e.g. anthropomorphic behaviour (including the behaviour of whatever we evolve into), geology, climate, sun, solar system events, etc.
- Filligree 13y agoYes, this is basically a "What would happen if intelligence never evolved" story.
- runarb 13y agoIt’s not so much evolution he is predicting, but the biological and geological future of the Earth based on several known long-term effects. The rate of cooling of the Earth’s interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects, and a steady increase in the Sun's luminosity is well documented. The sun is just another star, and the basic of star phases is good understood. The sun will eventually burn up most of its fuel and enter a red giant phase that destroys the Earth if we don't intervene [0]. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_phases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_phases
- ams6110 13y agoEvolution requires natural selection pressure, which we've largely eliminated. I don't think our species will evolve much more unless we deliberately start selectively breeding.
- yaks_hairbrush 13y agoEvolution requires selection pressure, whether natural or otherwise. And there's still selection pressure from so many sources. Partial list: Some people die before they reach breeding age, some people refuse to have children, some people are born unable to have children, some people have children with dead-beat spouses, some people are simply incapable of caring properly for kids, some people are prohibitively undesirable as mates, and so on.
- maxharris 13y agoThis article is based on the assumption that we won't figure out a way to manage and/or refuel the sun, even in a billion years. Given the incredible technological progress since the industrial revolution (cooking by fire to walking on the moon and nuclear power in under two centuries), I am highly skeptical of this assumption. The only things that can stop us are regressions to the primitive, of which I know of only two forms: the first is belief in the supernatural and its primacy as the basis of abstract thought. The second is nihilistic hatred of man and progress masked as practical necessity and love of nature. I stand for life, and for progress. I am proud, and you should be, too. Whatever challenges nature holds in store for us, we can figure it out!
- phaemon 13y ago> (cooking by fire to walking on the moon and nuclear power in under two centuries), I really don't know what to make of this. You surely can't think that "cooking by fire" was the height of technological sophistication in the year 1813?
- herval 13y agoI'm pretty sure he meant 2 thousand years (obviously, not two centuries)... but I'm not sure what to make of your comment.
- phaemon 13y agoReally? You think that saying "cooking by fire was the height of technology 2000 years ago" is a reasonable statement? My comment is wondering what he really meant; your explanation makes him sound like an idiot, frankly.
- maxharris 13y agoSorry guys, I meant "cooking over an open fire." Setting campfire smores and charcoal grills aside, this is a pretty primitive way of cooking. If you came from a place where this was your only option for heating your food, you'd be astounded at the cleanliness and ease provided by any modern gas or electric range. For most of human history, the vast majority of people cooked their food over open fires. Cooking with anything more advanced is an aspect of modern living that is only a very recent development, especially given that the time scale I was addressing is a billion years long.
- fragsworth 13y agoI don't understand why everyone immediately dismisses the possibility of "life" on planets like Jupiter, Venus, and even the Sun. We have an extremely limited understanding of these places. We barely have an inkling of how elements and compounds behave in such temperatures/pressures/environments, particularly with respect to each other. Even on Earth, places we consider to be "harsh" environments are often found to be thriving with life.
- sktrdie 13y agoWhat kind of "life" would be possible on the Sun? I don't think basic life form - even the rawest form you can think of - can survive at those temperatures. It's hostile even to complex chemistry. "harsh" environments on Earth, such as the depths of the oceans, are still quite life-friendly compared to places like the Sun, Venus or Jupiter. Nobody is dismissing the possibility of life on the Sun, Venus or Jupiter... it's just very unlikely. I would personally rate more life-friendly places such as Europa or Titan. The oceans of Europa could be thriving with sea-life and it's so exciting to have that possibility right in our own solar system.
- phaemon 13y ago> What kind of "life" would be possible on the Sun? Life is a kind of pattern that can replicate itself in a certain environment. We usually consider it as chemical reproduction but why should it be. There's more energy in stars and complex magnetic structures. Who's to say that over billions of years some of them couldn't become replicating?
- fragsworth 13y agoRight, the problem is people give life the arbitrary prerequisite of being "in a solid/liquid state". All you need is an energy source and a structure that can absorb the energy and contain enough information to reproduce. It can be made of anything and on any time scale.
- coldtea 13y ago>I don't understand why everyone immediately dismisses the possibility of "life" on planets like Jupiter, Venus, and even the Sun. Indeed, why would anyone immediately dismiss life on the Sun! Dr. Peter Venkman: Ray, pretend for a moment that I don't know anything about metallurgy, engineering, or physics, and just tell me what the hell is going on. Dr Ray Stantz: You never studied.
- theorique 13y agoEvolution itself is evolving.