Reading that book as well as reading about an inconvenient truth kinda got me thinking: Global climate change could have some particularly nasty consequences; What do you suppose would happen if the polar ice caps melted? Would that somehow cause temperatures to plunge causing the rebirth of some nice glaciers? If temperatures did drop, is there any way that the movement of these glaciers, or, even the preceding movement of a large volume of water, would affect the earth's rotation in any way? If not, what about affecting plate tectonics and firing off more earthquakes and volcano eruptions? What if the earth had to damned near wipe everything out on its surface in order to bring things back into balance (sorry for anthropomorphizing here...)
Suppose that something similar to that is going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. If we were going to leave a message for a future civilization (possibly 10000 years from now) warning them on how to stop it, how would you do so?
That's the big question in Fingerprints of the Gods: How would you write a message that had to last >10k years? And if we (as a species) are older than we think, how would we read the message of a civilization, left to us, >10k years ago? Would we even recognize it as a message, or would bloody egyptologists, the Roman empire, the Spanish inquisition and crypt looters get in the way of ever understanding that message?
Even if you think that Hancock is a bit of a loon (and who isn't?) the book is incredibly interesting...
I remember him stressing that in his book as well. Though I think he also took a poke at the spanish for burning down the oldest library in the world... in any event, the wikipedia entry has a fairly nice summary of the ideas presented in the book. I'm not really a big fan of the Earth Crustal Displacement theory... Einstein was, if that helps lend it some credibility.... in any event, there is evidence that a pole shift has taken place before, so it's not clear how many times it may have happened, and how long it would need to be in effect for there to be solid traces of it... maybe there's a geologist in the crowd who could shed some light on how fast the poles would have to shift for there to be no detectable change in the magnetic materials in rocks.
It's been a while since I've read fingerprints of the gods, the only "science" I really remember was the calculations involving the earth's precession to determine what the night sky would have looked like thousands of years ago, and then using that to try and draw conclusions of what some of these very large structures, like the sphynx and pyramids, were trying to say, if anything. What was the mitochondrial DNA testing used for?
It's actually kinda funny; I've heard stories from a couple of people I work with who all know this one guy, let's call him Bob. Bob is military, and, like most military guys who love their job, doesn't have much time for women. So Bob hires a hooker once a week... it's the same hooker each time, she comes over after work and leaves in the morning. Bob pays her a bit extra to bring beer and pizza with her. The guy apparently always has a smile on his face and claims that it's cheaper than being married to a non-working housewife.... especially when you factor in that most people who know Bob personally are also military and have at least one divorce each under their belts. So paying for "friendship" isn't always as stupid as it sounds... some people just don't have time to forge the bonds that make the rest of us human... that doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to them.
I know you're joking, but given the fact that we're finding old stuff based on some pretty intense knowledge, I'm starting to think that Graham Hancock might be right about us being older, as a race, than we think we are. He attracts a lot of criticisms, but mostly from egyptologists because his interpretations of artifacts found contradict theirs. The book is an excellent read though.
meh, it's a bit pedantic, I know, but I think the point that the GP was trying to make is that the environment isn't actually a thing...well... it is, but it's more of a collection of things and it's more of an anthropormophized thing than an "actual" thing.
To make it a bit more clear: You can neither harm, nor kill the environment.
You can harm/kill the organisms living in that environment simply by changing some of the operating parameters of that environment though... So the panic-stricken screams of "JOO'RE KILLING T3H ENVIRONMENT!!11oneone" should really be "You're changing the environment in such a way that you're either going to kill us or screw with some part of the food chain which could eventually kill us."
Anthropomorphizing the whole shebang in such a way that "killing" the environment is isomorphic to killing us is a smaller mouthful though.
wow... I remember UO. I also remember trying to get 100 in smithing and mining so that I could make money... I quit that after a few weeks because the game began to seem a bit too much like work. So then I tried my hand at some PvP, but got my ass handed to me because I wasn't pimped out... so I tried building my skills so that I could actually do some of the fun stuff... but I quit that after a few weeks because the game began to seem a bit too much like work.
There's a pattern there, but I'll be damned if I can find it...
myes, the Canadian government wanted to contract Microsoft to extend support on Windows NT (cuz upgrading a network of server farms across the country is a pain in the ass)... Microsoft said "sure, for $20 million a month"... so now we're upgrading. It would have really sucked if we were using a FOSS product where 1/20th of that would get us a couple of developers to maintain the damned thing for us instead of upgrading a system that was meeting our needs perfectly.
I did ask it honestly, and tried to keep traces of sarcasm out.
The part that I don't understand is based off the fact that I believe we need to look for an alternative solution AND cut CO2 emissions. You seem to either view the two as being mutually exclusive, or you are just simply against cutting CO2 emissions on a global scale, the follow up question that I have is why? What is your reasoning for not cutting CO2 emissions?
Please don't sidetrack the issue by claiming that it will damage the American economy as others have in this thread. The rational suggestion that people are making is that CO2 emissions be cut by everyone so the economic ramifications, if not near zero (through a loss in some sectors balanced by a gain in others) will at least have its effects felt globally, and not just by the first world nations.
Wrt 2 and 3, I have a question: Since these actions are ones that you favour including*, can you tell me, what will the effect on plant life (i.e. our giant planetary CO2 scrubbers, which actually produce CO2 when they don't get enough light for photosynthesis) be from lowering the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, and, by extension to the plants themselves? I mean, it will likely result in a net CO2 increase, or the death of a LOT of plant life (which will probably result in a net CO2 increase) but will this net CO2 increase be compensated for by the reduction in sunlight striking the surface, or will the net CO2 increase cause the temperature to go up anyway?
Since you're a rocket scientist, the results of these proposed changes to a closed system (i.e. the earth), which is orders of magnitude more complex than a rocket, should be as simple as increasing payload capacity simply by adding more fuel, right?... oh... wait... that actually spurs about a millionty design changes in the original rocket, doesn't it?
* - Note that I said you favour including them; I'm not making a value judgement as to which of the 4 options you actually favour.
I agree with your statement of agreement, in all but a small part: burning oil in a large facility, with scrubbers on the exhaust and emissions monitoring/control (much tighter than the emissions control of joe sixpack's broken down POS in the middle of Arkansas, I might add) is, while horribly environmentally unfriendly, still probably more friendly than millions of smaller facilities housed in vehicles.
It would be nice if governments would get off their asses and get some of these environmentally friendly power generation techniques out there... I mean, here in Canada there's a big push to go nuclear, but I'm not sure if the push is quite big enough...
but that's just the point, isn't it? They very well could be powered by wind technology, or nuclear, or, in 50 years (always just another fifty years >.<) fusion... it's easier to pack an environmentally friendly power generation source into something the size of, oh, Wisconsin, than it is to pack one into a family sized vehicle.
And this is exactly the reason why I think throwing particulate matter into the atmosphere, or a bunch of shit at a lagrange point between the earth and the sun scares the fuck outta me. By doing so, we limit the amount of photosynthesis-friendly-sunlight we let in and then produce more CO2... what a fucking wonderful idea... find the man that thought up the idea of reducing the light we allow onto the surface of the planet and give him a prize... preferably with a velocity > 900m/s
Slashdot Mirror
Suppose that something similar to that is going to happen and there's nothing we can do to stop it. If we were going to leave a message for a future civilization (possibly 10000 years from now) warning them on how to stop it, how would you do so?
That's the big question in Fingerprints of the Gods: How would you write a message that had to last >10k years? And if we (as a species) are older than we think, how would we read the message of a civilization, left to us, >10k years ago? Would we even recognize it as a message, or would bloody egyptologists, the Roman empire, the Spanish inquisition and crypt looters get in the way of ever understanding that message?
Even if you think that Hancock is a bit of a loon (and who isn't?) the book is incredibly interesting...
I remember him stressing that in his book as well. Though I think he also took a poke at the spanish for burning down the oldest library in the world... in any event, the wikipedia entry has a fairly nice summary of the ideas presented in the book. I'm not really a big fan of the Earth Crustal Displacement theory... Einstein was, if that helps lend it some credibility.... in any event, there is evidence that a pole shift has taken place before, so it's not clear how many times it may have happened, and how long it would need to be in effect for there to be solid traces of it... maybe there's a geologist in the crowd who could shed some light on how fast the poles would have to shift for there to be no detectable change in the magnetic materials in rocks.
It's been a while since I've read fingerprints of the gods, the only "science" I really remember was the calculations involving the earth's precession to determine what the night sky would have looked like thousands of years ago, and then using that to try and draw conclusions of what some of these very large structures, like the sphynx and pyramids, were trying to say, if anything. What was the mitochondrial DNA testing used for?
meh... have you seen pictures of John Romero? She obviously doesn't eat much :)
oh... only +2 funnah... I guess the moral here is that if you're a slashdot user, you can't even buy friends... well played myspace... well played...
It's actually kinda funny; I've heard stories from a couple of people I work with who all know this one guy, let's call him Bob. Bob is military, and, like most military guys who love their job, doesn't have much time for women. So Bob hires a hooker once a week... it's the same hooker each time, she comes over after work and leaves in the morning. Bob pays her a bit extra to bring beer and pizza with her. The guy apparently always has a smile on his face and claims that it's cheaper than being married to a non-working housewife.... especially when you factor in that most people who know Bob personally are also military and have at least one divorce each under their belts. So paying for "friendship" isn't always as stupid as it sounds... some people just don't have time to forge the bonds that make the rest of us human... that doesn't mean they shouldn't have access to them.
I know you're joking, but given the fact that we're finding old stuff based on some pretty intense knowledge, I'm starting to think that Graham Hancock might be right about us being older, as a race, than we think we are. He attracts a lot of criticisms, but mostly from egyptologists because his interpretations of artifacts found contradict theirs. The book is an excellent read though.
Though aliens would be fun too, I suppose...
"Oh god, that woman is John Romero!"
Thank god I wasn't drinking any coffee.... at any rate, I've now found a new sig... score :)
meh, it's a bit pedantic, I know, but I think the point that the GP was trying to make is that the environment isn't actually a thing...well... it is, but it's more of a collection of things and it's more of an anthropormophized thing than an "actual" thing.
To make it a bit more clear: You can neither harm, nor kill the environment.
You can harm/kill the organisms living in that environment simply by changing some of the operating parameters of that environment though... So the panic-stricken screams of "JOO'RE KILLING T3H ENVIRONMENT!!11oneone" should really be "You're changing the environment in such a way that you're either going to kill us or screw with some part of the food chain which could eventually kill us."
Anthropomorphizing the whole shebang in such a way that "killing" the environment is isomorphic to killing us is a smaller mouthful though.
wow... I remember UO. I also remember trying to get 100 in smithing and mining so that I could make money... I quit that after a few weeks because the game began to seem a bit too much like work. So then I tried my hand at some PvP, but got my ass handed to me because I wasn't pimped out... so I tried building my skills so that I could actually do some of the fun stuff... but I quit that after a few weeks because the game began to seem a bit too much like work.
There's a pattern there, but I'll be damned if I can find it...
You'd figure there would be at least a couple ladies with mod points out there who would agree with the parent... cept maybe for the shocker part.
and I found your post funny as well... though I was afraid for a second that you were serious... my caffeine levels must've been low or something ;-)
meh, it was a horribly failed attempt at being humourous.
I really do wonder what the major donators to the museum would say about global warming and the science behind trying to effect climate change...
so you're saying we should pump methane into the atmosphere and light it on fire?
<sarcasm>Actually, no. Our knowledge is complete. Visit the Creationism Museum to learn more.</sarcasm>
Fixed that for you...
oh shit... I forgot the quotation marks around "upgrading" and the heavy use of the tags... my bad...
myes, the Canadian government wanted to contract Microsoft to extend support on Windows NT (cuz upgrading a network of server farms across the country is a pain in the ass)... Microsoft said "sure, for $20 million a month" ... so now we're upgrading. It would have really sucked if we were using a FOSS product where 1/20th of that would get us a couple of developers to maintain the damned thing for us instead of upgrading a system that was meeting our needs perfectly.
meh... semantics ;-)
I did ask it honestly, and tried to keep traces of sarcasm out.
The part that I don't understand is based off the fact that I believe we need to look for an alternative solution AND cut CO2 emissions. You seem to either view the two as being mutually exclusive, or you are just simply against cutting CO2 emissions on a global scale, the follow up question that I have is why? What is your reasoning for not cutting CO2 emissions?
Please don't sidetrack the issue by claiming that it will damage the American economy as others have in this thread. The rational suggestion that people are making is that CO2 emissions be cut by everyone so the economic ramifications, if not near zero (through a loss in some sectors balanced by a gain in others) will at least have its effects felt globally, and not just by the first world nations.
sweet jesus, I'll finally be able to run MC, BWL and AQ40 back to back!!11oneone
lol, how'd that work out for ya?
Wrt 2 and 3, I have a question: Since these actions are ones that you favour including*, can you tell me, what will the effect on plant life (i.e. our giant planetary CO2 scrubbers, which actually produce CO2 when they don't get enough light for photosynthesis) be from lowering the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, and, by extension to the plants themselves? I mean, it will likely result in a net CO2 increase, or the death of a LOT of plant life (which will probably result in a net CO2 increase) but will this net CO2 increase be compensated for by the reduction in sunlight striking the surface, or will the net CO2 increase cause the temperature to go up anyway?
Since you're a rocket scientist, the results of these proposed changes to a closed system (i.e. the earth), which is orders of magnitude more complex than a rocket, should be as simple as increasing payload capacity simply by adding more fuel, right?... oh... wait... that actually spurs about a millionty design changes in the original rocket, doesn't it?
* - Note that I said you favour including them; I'm not making a value judgement as to which of the 4 options you actually favour.
It would be nice if governments would get off their asses and get some of these environmentally friendly power generation techniques out there... I mean, here in Canada there's a big push to go nuclear, but I'm not sure if the push is quite big enough...
but that's just the point, isn't it? They very well could be powered by wind technology, or nuclear, or, in 50 years (always just another fifty years >.<) fusion... it's easier to pack an environmentally friendly power generation source into something the size of, oh, Wisconsin, than it is to pack one into a family sized vehicle.
And this is exactly the reason why I think throwing particulate matter into the atmosphere, or a bunch of shit at a lagrange point between the earth and the sun scares the fuck outta me. By doing so, we limit the amount of photosynthesis-friendly-sunlight we let in and then produce more CO2... what a fucking wonderful idea... find the man that thought up the idea of reducing the light we allow onto the surface of the planet and give him a prize... preferably with a velocity > 900m/s