If it is not relevant then why don't you suggest a relevant comparison and we can examine the facts.
Try comparing the flying car in the article with your average automobile today. Unfortunately they don't give mpg requirements for the flying car, but 2 hours at 55mph is not very good. I presume that it holds at least as much fuel as your average automobile.
"keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car"
That is a generalization and it is patently false as stated. It implies that anything that is airborne requires more energy than "a ground based rolling car".
It is only a patently false generalization if read separately from the "given mass" qualification which you so blatantly ignored by comparing an SUV with a light diesel powered aircraft. Not only did you disregard the mass differential, but you ignored the relative utility of each vehicle. A light diesel powered aircraft would in no way replace the general functionality of an SUV.
Compare this to a Ford Excursion or Chevy Suburban and you will see that the airplane is actually more economical in fuel usage.
Apples and oranges.
A more useful, but still not relavent, comparision would the most fuel efficient car and the most fuel efficient plane. Diesel hybrid cars get something like 80mpg... that is almost 4 times better than the most efficient plane.
So your blanket statement does not hold up even with present technology.
It does hold true despite your distortions and useless comparisons. It is a fact that for a given mass, it takes more energy to fy than to to roll. I don't see how you have disputed this.
Sorry, but this is not an issue of expecting all-free, all-the-time. If sites want to charge for content, then they can charge for content and restrict access. What they cannot do is expect people to voluntarily download and look at advertising on a public website. It is the same way with broadcast TV. They can push the advertising, but they cannot expect to anyone to sit still and watch it. Nor can they stop people from finding clever ways of skipping over it completely. People are just goign to have to find better ways of making money.
Quite simply, sites that put ads on their page depend on the profit from those ads to support themselves. The page authors chose to put those ads there.
This is just not true. There was a time when very few sites had ads. Plenty of volunteer only sites exist that do not have ads. FOr example, open source project home pages. Web space is so cheap these days as to make it and insignificant monthly cost... unless you are dealing with so much traffic, that you pay lots. In which case, you can charge people for the content. In many cases, people use ads to make a profit... not just to support the site.
The page authors chose to put those ads there. If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content. If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.
Bullshit. I have the right to view a web site any damn way I please. With any web browser. I can even view just the page source if I want. There is no implicit or explict contract between me and a site administrator aside from the legal obligation i have to respect their copyright.
This "social contract" BS is something marketers dreamed up to make it "bad" to block their ads. The TV people say the same thing about how you're "breaking contract" by muting commercials, getting up off your duff for a drink, or skipping past them on a recording you made
WOuldn't you call citizenship a social contract? It is an implicit contract that obligates you to obey the laws of the land. It is most certainly not made up by marketers... although it is abused by them.
There is no such thing as an implied or "social" contract - by their very nature, contracts are not implications! The whole terminology is a marketing exercise designed to appeal to the "guilt" that just because someone is giving you something, you ought to pay for it.
There is one very real social contract that you are bound by. And that is your citizenship in your home country (or whatever country you happen to be in, although to a lesser extent) You are bound to obey the laws of the land. That said, I think advertisers are seriously abusing the concept of a social contract if they claim you have some kind of obligation to look at their ads.
As far as I'm concerned, they've violated any form of 'social contract' en masse by hijacking peoples' PCs for new ways of delivering ads. I believe that installing software through bugs in the web browser is tantamount to breaking into someones' computer. Companies that design and implement such software, and other companies that contract for their ads to be delivered should be prosecuted and their owners/directors jailed for their abuses.
In the defense of web site admins, I'd like to note that they often don't have control over the particular ads that they display. The company they contract with to deliver the ads decides that. And even they aren't totally responsible. Sometimes the individual advertisers slip the nasty stuff by the advertising broker.
That said, web site admins do have a responsibility to choose a respectable ad broker. One which does not tolerate malware and such at all. I know they exist.
Yeah, that was my point. Do you not think that there is a difference between mere survival of the species and the common good of those who are alive now? What good does it do you, your friends, your family, or anyone you know to have space colonies if the the Earth is destroyed with all of you on it? This is why I say we focus on making Earth a better place. Help people "get more intelligent."
Sure, space exploration is neat. I think we can learn a lot. But to start seriously considering space to be some kind of alternative home that will preserve the human race... come on. That is just stupid. I know a huge asteroid could theoretically kill life on Earth. I know a big volcano could foul things up pretty bad, but geez, don't let bad disaster movies run politics. We have some real problems now. Colonizing space should be pretty low priority.
You're right. More people using less resources will probaly still result in more resoures being used.
No, I am talking about more people using *more* resources although more efficently on a per task or function level. Let's take automobiles for example. They have become gradually more fuel effiecent, but we drive them much more.
How would you suggest we solve this, killing off people? Or maybe mass steralization, that's always been popular. Why not send people into space?
What a terribly unfair way to frame the question. I refuse to answer.
Yes, I would, at least of an individual. Modern cars are more fuel efficent than cars in 1960. Electricity is generated more cleanly and manufacturing is less wasteful. On mass yes we do consume more now than we did in the 1960s and with better technology we are able to harvest resources more quickly, however if our individual consumption trends down and we can keep control on the number of individuals (see my above point) then we will start to reduce our impact.
My point is that our individual consumption is NOT down. There is no basis for this fantasy regarding more efficiency and less consumption per individual. We consume more and produce more waste, as individuals, than ever before. The reason you don't see a lot of the waste is because you consume so much crap made in places like China or Mexico.
Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
What a weird idea that working to prevent a problem might actually help solve that problem.
Sorry, I should have made that more clear. There are two different problems. One is the extinction of the species which is "solved" by colonizing space so that if and when the Earth does become largely uninhabitable, the human race doesn't completely die off. The other problem is the Earth potentially becoming largely uninhabitable (or at least really uncomfortable). Now, if we make space colonization and survival of the species the highest priority, we take focus away from solving the problem of the Earth becoming really uncomfortable. The question is, when do we all but give up on Earth and start looking for a new home to screw up? YOu say now? I say we wait until our culture is capable of respecting the land. Otherwise, the universe is better off without us.
We can't uninvent the technology we have, so our only option is to improve it. A massive space project will help make more improvements than sitting around and waiting for the problem to solve itself.
False dichotomy. There are any number of things we can do besides sitting around waiting for the problem to solve itself and a massive space project.
My whole point is that you simply can't make blanket statements
Blanket statements like: This is true, and will always be true. People are just not going to "get more intelligent" anytime soon. The solution that works with humans *in the real world* is to set up a system whereby the default human behavior actually serves the common good.
If that isn't a blanket statement (multiple, actually), i don't know what is.
like, "The money used on space colonization would be better used feeding the poor." Which is what you're saying
It is? Wow. You must be telepathic. Funny how I never said anything remotely like that.
It's a tradeoff. I'm saying that I don't know the best side to pick. You're saying that you do (feed the poor), but you haven't given me any concrete evidence for your claim.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say one word about feeding the poor vs. colonizing space. I did give a hypothetical example where the poor are killed to improve overall metrics. But that is it. You're way off in right field by yourself on this one.
I never said it did. I'm saying it has a probability to do so.
But you haven't said how it might do that.
Again you're confusing your *opinion* of what would happen (the metrics would improve if we didn't colonize space), with what might happen.
Pardon? I didn't say the metrics would imrove if we didn't colonize space. I was questioning the theoretical value of making space colonization a high priority with regards to the common good. I am talking about what might happen. Are you actually going to talk about it with me or not?
Colonization has the potential to improve those metrics if the earth is destroyed. Whether or not it actually does is an entirely different question, and one that you cannot answer no matter how times you repeat it.
Yeah, and killing the sick and the poor has the potential to improve the metrics for those who remain. So what? WHat is your point? What do the quality of life metrics for the surviors of some hypothetical event have to do with the immediate value of space colonization?
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, of course it does.We can compute the metric, whatever it might be, before humans all die.
We can compute the sound of a some imaginary tree failing in the woods, but we can't imagine the economic and social effects of diverting resources to space colonization right now?
After all during the colonizing year (when Europ 'blessed' the world with civilization) didn't the colonies usually end up with more progressive populations, willing to be more practical than hold onto old social norms*.
Do you consider slavery and puritanism, for example, to be progressive? I suppose slavery is practical, but I'm not sure it was progressive.
Especially since (aside from the criminals) those who left to colonize were generally interested in building a better place then where they came from.
In a rather selfish way, sure. I mean, they did have get rid of the people who were already there . Overall, I wouldn't call it a particuarly bright spot in human history.
A space program would naturally require humans to develop the kind of technology that uses resources very efficently.
I said efficiently AND effectively. No matter how efficient it is, mindless consumption is only effective at depleating resources.
Also consider that the space race in the 1960s gave rise to a lot of new technology, a new space race now would serve to create a lot of new technology, that would also be usefull to reduce humanity's impact on the planet.
Would you say that we have had less of an impact on the planet since the 1960's? As far as I can tell, technology has only served to increase our impact. I'm sure the Earth would breath a sigh of relief if we went back to fighting with sharpened sticks and living out of caves.
Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
No one knows what decisions should be made for the true common good. None of us can predict the future. It also depends on what metric you use to determine common good. First of all, your opinion doesn't count as a good metric. A good metric is something like, "average standard of living" and/or "percentage of wealth held by the top 5% of the population". Each of these things change how the common good is acheived.
How does making colonization of space the highest priority improve any of these metrics? My point is that it doesn't. It will probably detract from the common good as resources are taken away from infrastructure to build a safe haven in space for a few lucky people.
Now, if earth is destroyed, then there are few good metrics that show the common good being served unless we have something out there. Because if there are no humans, then the metrics are pretty low.
If there are no humans, metrics dont' exist. That isn't the same as low metrics.
Colonizing space might service the species, but it certainly doesn't service the common good.
You're contradicting yourself here. Unless of course you think that helping out our species isn't the same as the common good. You're going to have to explain yourself.
THat is exactly what I think. Ensuring the survival of the species does nothing for the 6 billion people who are alive now.
Can it really be said that the common good is being serviced if we are talking about colonizing space to save the species from self-destruction? Does it serve the common good to make colonization of space a high priority even though the vast majority of humans will continue to live on Earth for the forseeable future? Colonizing space might service the species, but it certainly doesn't service the common good.
'to survive'. Finally we come to the heart of the matter...the reason that should have been number one, with the two reasons listed above in support of it. Humankind must colonize space, and do it soon. Between the dwindling rescources available to us while we remain shackled to a gravity well, and the impending mass-extinction events (asteroid, pandemic, super-volcano...take your pick), we are left with very little time in which to secure our species' future. Establishing a viable space-community should be the primary goal of the human race.
I couldn't disagree more. Learning to get along and use resources efficiently and effectively should be the primary goal of the human race. You eliminate most of the immediate danger to life on Earth right there. And it doesn't cost a dime. If humans can't manage to get along and use resources efficiently, I see no point in saving them (humans). Don't knock this "gravity well." It is the best home you will ever see. I'm sorry that you feel shackled to it. Maybe you need to get out more. There is a beautiful planet out there and I will bet anything that you haven't explored but a tiny fraction of it.
Call me crazy for asking, but can we really take it for granted that colonizing space is a good thing? Both the "to live" and "to survive" arguments seem to be largely predicated on the survival of the species insinct with very little reason to back it up.. The article plays on our fear of self desctruction and to a lesser degree, natural disaster. Why is survival of the species so important beyond what we can do here and now? If we do manage to destroy Earth, do we really deserve the rest of the solar system... or even the galaxy? Personally, I think we should think harder about getting our shit together here before we seriously consider colonizing space. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat history. Perhaps it is time to make a stand and say "We've got to learn to make it here."
I don't think this is going to be a popular sentiment on a forum such as/., but I thought i should bring it up.
*BUT* what I would not understand, is that if the atmosphere then, being 40% hydrogen - the lightest gas we know of - How would beasts that heavy be able to fly through such a thin atmosphere without a massive load of difficulty???
"Thin" refers to the density of the gas, not its molecular weight. Hydrogen is not necessarily any "thinner" than any other gas.
As society gets more secular and starts making judgements without God, we will become more miserable.
By all means, let us scrap this pesky secular democracy and bring back the days of authoratarian theocratic rule. Yay! Maybe we can oppress a few unbelievers while we are at it. Yay!
I am amazed at all the scientists who think they know "facts" when their theories are not really anything more then a "best guess". And their guesses care changing all the time. God's story has not changed at all.
I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.
Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.
We are living in a time with relative ethics.
Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?
We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment?
Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.
We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.
That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.
What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.
Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".
They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.
If we presume there was more hydrogen then than there is now, what happened to it? Or, on what basis would you assume that the past would be different than the present?
Hydrogen tends to float out into space as it is displaced by heavier gasses. So there could have been lots of hydrogen in the past and as heavier gasses filled the atmosphere, the hydrogen would have been driven out. Or it could have reacted with oxygen to form water.
Slashdot Mirror
Try comparing the flying car in the article with your average automobile today. Unfortunately they don't give mpg requirements for the flying car, but 2 hours at 55mph is not very good. I presume that it holds at least as much fuel as your average automobile.
"keeping a mass, such as an air car, airborne consumes more energy than a ground based rolling car"
That is a generalization and it is patently false as stated. It implies that anything that is airborne requires more energy than "a ground based rolling car".
It is only a patently false generalization if read separately from the "given mass" qualification which you so blatantly ignored by comparing an SUV with a light diesel powered aircraft. Not only did you disregard the mass differential, but you ignored the relative utility of each vehicle. A light diesel powered aircraft would in no way replace the general functionality of an SUV.
-matthew.
Apples and oranges.
A more useful, but still not relavent, comparision would the most fuel efficient car and the most fuel efficient plane. Diesel hybrid cars get something like 80mpg... that is almost 4 times better than the most efficient plane.
So your blanket statement does not hold up even with present technology.
It does hold true despite your distortions and useless comparisons. It is a fact that for a given mass, it takes more energy to fy than to to roll. I don't see how you have disputed this.
-matthew
...there goes the morning commute(ers).
-matthew
Maybe people have been waiting for a deafening jet alternative that sucks gas faster than Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Love Liza."
-matthew
Sorry, but this is not an issue of expecting all-free, all-the-time. If sites want to charge for content, then they can charge for content and restrict access. What they cannot do is expect people to voluntarily download and look at advertising on a public website. It is the same way with broadcast TV. They can push the advertising, but they cannot expect to anyone to sit still and watch it. Nor can they stop people from finding clever ways of skipping over it completely. People are just goign to have to find better ways of making money.
-matthew
This is just not true. There was a time when very few sites had ads. Plenty of volunteer only sites exist that do not have ads. FOr example, open source project home pages. Web space is so cheap these days as to make it and insignificant monthly cost... unless you are dealing with so much traffic, that you pay lots. In which case, you can charge people for the content. In many cases, people use ads to make a profit... not just to support the site.
The page authors chose to put those ads there. If you don't want to see the ads, then you have no right to view the content. If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.
Bullshit. I have the right to view a web site any damn way I please. With any web browser. I can even view just the page source if I want. There is no implicit or explict contract between me and a site administrator aside from the legal obligation i have to respect their copyright.
-matthew
WOuldn't you call citizenship a social contract? It is an implicit contract that obligates you to obey the laws of the land. It is most certainly not made up by marketers... although it is abused by them.
-matthew
-matthew
There is one very real social contract that you are bound by. And that is your citizenship in your home country (or whatever country you happen to be in, although to a lesser extent) You are bound to obey the laws of the land. That said, I think advertisers are seriously abusing the concept of a social contract if they claim you have some kind of obligation to look at their ads.
-matthew
In the defense of web site admins, I'd like to note that they often don't have control over the particular ads that they display. The company they contract with to deliver the ads decides that. And even they aren't totally responsible. Sometimes the individual advertisers slip the nasty stuff by the advertising broker.
That said, web site admins do have a responsibility to choose a respectable ad broker. One which does not tolerate malware and such at all. I know they exist.
-matthew
Uh, yeah, thanks for the imput. ;-P
-matthew
Sure, space exploration is neat. I think we can learn a lot. But to start seriously considering space to be some kind of alternative home that will preserve the human race... come on. That is just stupid. I know a huge asteroid could theoretically kill life on Earth. I know a big volcano could foul things up pretty bad, but geez, don't let bad disaster movies run politics. We have some real problems now. Colonizing space should be pretty low priority.
-matthew
No, I am talking about more people using *more* resources although more efficently on a per task or function level. Let's take automobiles for example. They have become gradually more fuel effiecent, but we drive them much more.
How would you suggest we solve this, killing off people? Or maybe mass steralization, that's always been popular. Why not send people into space?
What a terribly unfair way to frame the question. I refuse to answer.
Yes, I would, at least of an individual. Modern cars are more fuel efficent than cars in 1960. Electricity is generated more cleanly and manufacturing is less wasteful. On mass yes we do consume more now than we did in the 1960s and with better technology we are able to harvest resources more quickly, however if our individual consumption trends down and we can keep control on the number of individuals (see my above point) then we will start to reduce our impact.
My point is that our individual consumption is NOT down. There is no basis for this fantasy regarding more efficiency and less consumption per individual. We consume more and produce more waste, as individuals, than ever before. The reason you don't see a lot of the waste is because you consume so much crap made in places like China or Mexico.
Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
What a weird idea that working to prevent a problem might actually help solve that problem.
Sorry, I should have made that more clear. There are two different problems. One is the extinction of the species which is "solved" by colonizing space so that if and when the Earth does become largely uninhabitable, the human race doesn't completely die off. The other problem is the Earth potentially becoming largely uninhabitable (or at least really uncomfortable). Now, if we make space colonization and survival of the species the highest priority, we take focus away from solving the problem of the Earth becoming really uncomfortable. The question is, when do we all but give up on Earth and start looking for a new home to screw up? YOu say now? I say we wait until our culture is capable of respecting the land. Otherwise, the universe is better off without us.
We can't uninvent the technology we have, so our only option is to improve it. A massive space project will help make more improvements than sitting around and waiting for the problem to solve itself.
False dichotomy. There are any number of things we can do besides sitting around waiting for the problem to solve itself and a massive space project.
-matthew
Blanket statements like:
This is true, and will always be true. People are just not going to "get more intelligent" anytime soon. The solution that works with humans *in the real world* is to set up a system whereby the default human behavior actually serves the common good.
If that isn't a blanket statement (multiple, actually), i don't know what is.
like, "The money used on space colonization would be better used feeding the poor." Which is what you're saying
It is? Wow. You must be telepathic. Funny how I never said anything remotely like that.
It's a tradeoff. I'm saying that I don't know the best side to pick. You're saying that you do (feed the poor), but you haven't given me any concrete evidence for your claim.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? I didn't say one word about feeding the poor vs. colonizing space. I did give a hypothetical example where the poor are killed to improve overall metrics. But that is it. You're way off in right field by yourself on this one.
-matthew
But you haven't said how it might do that.
Again you're confusing your *opinion* of what would happen (the metrics would improve if we didn't colonize space), with what might happen.
Pardon? I didn't say the metrics would imrove if we didn't colonize space. I was questioning the theoretical value of making space colonization a high priority with regards to the common good. I am talking about what might happen. Are you actually going to talk about it with me or not?
Colonization has the potential to improve those metrics if the earth is destroyed. Whether or not it actually does is an entirely different question, and one that you cannot answer no matter how times you repeat it.
Yeah, and killing the sick and the poor has the potential to improve the metrics for those who remain. So what? WHat is your point? What do the quality of life metrics for the surviors of some hypothetical event have to do with the immediate value of space colonization?
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, of course it does.We can compute the metric, whatever it might be, before humans all die.
We can compute the sound of a some imaginary tree failing in the woods, but we can't imagine the economic and social effects of diverting resources to space colonization right now?
-matthew
Do you consider slavery and puritanism, for example, to be progressive? I suppose slavery is practical, but I'm not sure it was progressive.
Especially since (aside from the criminals) those who left to colonize were generally interested in building a better place then where they came from.
In a rather selfish way, sure. I mean, they did have get rid of the people who were already there . Overall, I wouldn't call it a particuarly bright spot in human history.
-matthew
I said efficiently AND effectively. No matter how efficient it is, mindless consumption is only effective at depleating resources.
Also consider that the space race in the 1960s gave rise to a lot of new technology, a new space race now would serve to create a lot of new technology, that would also be usefull to reduce humanity's impact on the planet.
Would you say that we have had less of an impact on the planet since the 1960's? As far as I can tell, technology has only served to increase our impact. I'm sure the Earth would breath a sigh of relief if we went back to fighting with sharpened sticks and living out of caves.
Let me get this straight, we are suposed to want to colonize space to save the species from self-destruction... and somehow this is magically going to help prevent it? If we want to reduce our impact on the planet, we need to stick right here and work on it. Not run away into space and hope the technology "trickle down" will fix the problems for the people who are left behind.
-matthew
How does making colonization of space the highest priority improve any of these metrics? My point is that it doesn't. It will probably detract from the common good as resources are taken away from infrastructure to build a safe haven in space for a few lucky people.
Now, if earth is destroyed, then there are few good metrics that show the common good being served unless we have something out there. Because if there are no humans, then the metrics are pretty low.
If there are no humans, metrics dont' exist. That isn't the same as low metrics.
Colonizing space might service the species, but it certainly doesn't service the common good.
You're contradicting yourself here. Unless of course you think that helping out our species isn't the same as the common good. You're going to have to explain yourself.
THat is exactly what I think. Ensuring the survival of the species does nothing for the 6 billion people who are alive now.
-matthew
-matthew
I couldn't disagree more. Learning to get along and use resources efficiently and effectively should be the primary goal of the human race. You eliminate most of the immediate danger to life on Earth right there. And it doesn't cost a dime. If humans can't manage to get along and use resources efficiently, I see no point in saving them (humans). Don't knock this "gravity well." It is the best home you will ever see. I'm sorry that you feel shackled to it. Maybe you need to get out more. There is a beautiful planet out there and I will bet anything that you haven't explored but a tiny fraction of it.
-matthew
Call me crazy for asking, but can we really take it for granted that colonizing space is a good thing? Both the "to live" and "to survive" arguments seem to be largely predicated on the survival of the species insinct with very little reason to back it up.. The article plays on our fear of self desctruction and to a lesser degree, natural disaster. Why is survival of the species so important beyond what we can do here and now? If we do manage to destroy Earth, do we really deserve the rest of the solar system... or even the galaxy? Personally, I think we should think harder about getting our shit together here before we seriously consider colonizing space. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat history. Perhaps it is time to make a stand and say "We've got to learn to make it here."
/., but I thought i should bring it up.
I don't think this is going to be a popular sentiment on a forum such as
-matthew
Likewise, one could say that the way evolution happened hasn't changed, only our theories about it have.
-matthew
"Thin" refers to the density of the gas, not its molecular weight. Hydrogen is not necessarily any "thinner" than any other gas.
-matthew
By all means, let us scrap this pesky secular democracy and bring back the days of authoratarian theocratic rule. Yay! Maybe we can oppress a few unbelievers while we are at it. Yay!
-matthew
I've heard plenty of different version of "God's story." Each Christian sect has a slightly different version and/or interpretation. Many even believe in Evolutionary Theory and consider "God's story" to be allegorical. And then there are non-Christian religions which have totally different version's of "God's story." A lot of Creationists like to present a unified front against evolution, but we all know they are very much divided.
I believe we should teach creationism in schools, it will serve more people better. Out of a high school graduation class of 1000, how many will go on to a career in science? Say that 700 of them go on to college and that 300 go into the work force. Of the 700, 100 decide they want to major in physics or chemistry. Of them 70 get weeded out. You now have 30 people who will continue. The other 970 people will be better served with an education that focuses on creationism.
Ahh, so that's it. It isn't really about the truth. Tt is about what people need to know or what YOU think will serve them better. I have a better idea. Lets teach people to seek the truth and give the best known facts. At least that would be honest. You are talking about manipulating people.
We are living in a time with relative ethics.
Name a time when ethics were absolute and didn't vary widely between cultures and individuals. Do you mean Biblical times when people were stoned to death for adultery?
We are living in an increasing secular society, where life means little.
As opposed to when? Biblical times where people were, again, stoned to death for petty crimes? And whole cities were struck down by a vengeful God? How do you account for the fact that most modern societies today have abolished capital punishment? Really, I think yoiu are projecting your cynicism and disillusionment more than describing the way things are or where they are headed. You are romanticizing the past.
We all watched in horror as the Teri Shiavo in Florida was starved to death.
Actually, many watched in relief as a severely brain damaged woman was allowed to die. Depends on how you look at it.
That never should have happened, in the light that there is information that her husband might have beat her the night she collapsed, and the uncertainty of her wishes.
What shouldn't have happened is that the story should never have made the news. It should never have made it to congress. It was a private matter and I am appalled that people like felt you needed to make it your business. I know you think you have some clue about the situation, but you don't.
Even our most prized and well written scientists believe in God. Einstein believed in God, he was quoted as saying "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are just details".
They believed in God and yet they didn't believe in Creation. Why do you tihnk that was? Actually, the original sciensts did believe in creation until they started investigating the natural world and found that it couldn't have been created as "God's story" says.
-matthew
Hydrogen tends to float out into space as it is displaced by heavier gasses. So there could have been lots of hydrogen in the past and as heavier gasses filled the atmosphere, the hydrogen would have been driven out. Or it could have reacted with oxygen to form water.
-matthew