So if an anti-abortion groups publishes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and time they normally arrive home after work of doctors performing abortions - that isn't fraud, it's just information. It should be protected speech, right? Google for the court's opinion. It doesn't match yours.
Yes, actually. Private corporations collect this information all the time and sell it to one another. Why should a citizen group be constrained from doing the exact same thing?
The onus is on the person who uses this information to actually go out and kill the doctors in question. This person is a fucking criminal, and should be treated as the filth he so obviously is. But the people who collected the information he used? I don't think so, any more than if I collected the information of anti-abortion protestors and published it on the web.
Somewhat wrong. If you shout it in the middle of the woods and there is nobody to hear it, that's true. If you shout it in the middle of the airport, that's entirely false.
Actually, he's right. The cops aren't obligated to do anything whatsoever about your actions. According to the courts, they aren't even required to intervene if they're on the scene of an actual crime while the crime is in progress.
As with many things, such tyranny was eventually made illegal.
That isn't "tyranny" to anyone but a raving socialist. My property is my property and you have exactly two choices when on my property: you can either shut your yap when I tell you to, or you can leave. If you refuse those choices, I'll call the nice sheriff and have your sorry ass hauled off to jail for trespassing. Don't like it? Too damned bad. Suck it up and deal with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Serenity a commercial flop?
No one will know until after foreign and dvd sales are counted.
Most movies these days don't make back the money they spend on initial theater releases. The real money comes long after the movie hits the theater. So we won't know about Serenity for another year or so yet.
Early indications are that it'll probably make back more money than was spent to produce and promote it, but not by much. Even so, it's enough to get a second movie going (most movies don't even do that well).
Wikipranks. Although the essence of a wikiprank is that you insert something which sounds plausible and bizarre at the same time. An example:
"Because of this widespread belief, the company actually started using prune juice in its product during the years 1946-1947. Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that the addition of prune juice often resulted in bouts of uncontrollable diarrhea, leading the company to discontinue the practice in 1948. This discovery did, however, prove valuable in the development of a short-lived sister product, "Dr. Pepper for Seniors", which was popularized with the ad slogan "It Really Gets Things Moving"."
My main dissapointment here, however, is that this will decrease the trust of the value of the information on Wikipedia.
You should always be suspicious of the information found on wikipedia. Blindly trusting to it is foolish.
I have a few friends (these are geeks as well mind you) who don't trust Wikipedia because essentially, 'anyone can write there'.
Your friends are smart. That's a very good reason not to take anything you find in wikipedia at face value. For obvious reasons, I should think.
Stunts like this while both funny & stupid are also devaluing the otherwise fairly valuable content of Wikipedia.
No, they point out the fact that wikipedia isn't a font of unshakeable wisdom, just a place where anyone can pretty much post anything they like and pass it off as fact to the ignorant. It makes people suspicious *and they should be*.
Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, it's an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not and never will be an authoritative source on anything. It's the very nature of the beast that makes all information found there suspect. Anyone who uses wikipedia as an authoritative source is a fool.
Anonymity is not necessary, and only leads people to act irresponsibly.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and I'd guess that more people would find them a better source on the value of anonymity than some guy posting on slashdot.
The other complaint I had does not seem to have been fixed -- the bullshit quests. You're a *god* -- why are you having to find lost sheep or bring wood to a bunch of sailors?
Because you start out as a pathetic, minor, forgettable little demigod and can only achieve greater status by increasing the number of people who worship your ass - which requires that you actually do something for them, else they'll find some OTHER pathetic, minor, forgettable little demigod to worship.
Just because you're a god doesn't mean you start out as Zeus. More like Demeter, or Persephone, and from there you have to work your way up the ranks.
Example of Google-Bombing. Go to Google and search "Miserable Failure" and hit "I Feel Lucky". Regardless of what your opinions are. That type of behavior is still wrong.
It's funny. And a perfect example of the beauty of the First Amendment.
If wikipedia has an army then they're some of the worst trained militia around. I've made some ah, "interesting" additions to wikipedia that have lasted for days, even weeks, before being discovered and deleted. "Wikipranks", they're called, although I admit that the changes are often subtle in nature (e.g., the addition of a line here, or a word there, that changes the entire context of the paragraph or adds shock value to it).
Others far more skilled in wikipranks have seen their subtle and hilarious alterations last for months. While it's true that the most popular pages (or those beloved by a specific core of obsessive fans) are generally immune to long-term prankdom, the vast majority of pages don't receive this sort of scrutiny. This includes entries which you'd think would get a lot of traffic, but for some reason remain prime wikiprank material because it appears that visitors either don't know any better, or are sufficiently amused that they leave the prank intact.
Dennett's also considered to be something of a crackpot who takes every opportunity he can to explain away human consciousness. Notice I didn't say "explain"; I said "explain away". The man is obsessive over the idea that actual consciousness is an illusion, and simply doesn't exist. His peers think he's a nut.
He's also incapable of expressing himself clearly and concisely. His book is like a bad lecturer's verbal vomit put to paper, wherein every single concept - concepts which'd normally take a few minutes to explain - are stretched out into entire class sessions (chapters). It's a dreadful read, unless you're the author and like listening to yourself talk.
The assertion that we have "hardwired functions in brain" for "spoken discourse" is certainly rather bold
What are you talking about? We've known this since I got my degree, which was ages ago. Not only can you study the specific area of the brain dealing with spoken (and written) language via certain tools (e.g., PET scan), you can also study people who've had that area of their brain damaged in a specific fashion. We've known that human beings have a language center for quite some time, and can even predict the problems you'll run into if a particular piece of that language center is damaged or destroyed.
This "argument" relies upon an *enormous* amount of assumptions, to the point where I question the intellecual honesty of making it.
I question the intellectual honesty of idiots who insist there MUST be intelligent life in the galaxy, yet can't for the life of them explain why this intelligent life has NEVER colonized Earth at any time during the last 1.5 billion years. It's clear they WANT there to be a nice little collection of prosthetic-nose-piece Star Trek aliens, but they consistently fail to account for why they didn't settle down on Earth sometime back in the Triassic.
How about we just say that we know of no other intelligent life in the Universe, and have no way of knowing that they exist or not at this point, and leave it at that.
How about not? According to the evidence (or lack thereof) at our disposal, along with a simple extension of logical thought (e.g., where are they and why have they never settled this planet) it stands to reason that Earth hasn't been colonized because no one's tried. And if that's the case then either intelligent life in our galaxy is unique, or it's very rare and ultimately a failure.
Dude this is already a standard part of the status quo.
No, it isn't. Real immortality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the rationing of the medical care we have available today. No one alive today has any realistic hope of NOT dying from old age, no matter what that age might be; real immortality gives them that hope, along with eternal youth to boot. How you can't see the absolutely huge difference between these two things is beyond me.
But it won't matter. The average guy on the street will see it, and will react violently if denied immortality. Like I said, the choice is a no-brainer.
Actually I'm closer to the old end of the scale
Somehow I doubt that, "dude".
I think you severely underestimate the consequence of creating a huge population very old people consuming much of societies resources.
If all of those folks currrently over 65 were given immortality, they'd no have a claim on social security or pensions. No one in their right mind would allow them to draw either FOREVER. They'd be young *and* they'd be some of the most skilled people on the planet; certainly wiser than their 25-year-old counterparts, and far, far more experienced. They'd have to go back to work because we wouldn't continue feeding and housing and clothing their lazy, newly-rejuvenated asses.
Whatever they consume they are, for the most part, going to produce a hell of a lot more, simply because they can run circles around the much younger and far less experienced work force. That's a good thing.
but they also suffer from an intense rigidity in thinking and demand routine.
The young often think that, mostly because the old aren't dumb enough to stupid things. They've lived, they've learned, they have no desire to repeat the foolish, idiotic antics of youth. If rejuvenated and returned to the work force they'd do quite a bit to stabilize society, and I also think we'd see long-term thinking replace short-term, short-sighted planning.
All that works for me. The last thing I want is a society dominated by people who're congenitally stupid because they haven't aged past that particular defect yet.
You can have a perfect knowledge of processes without the ability to predict much of anything. Perfect knowledge does not imply that a thing is also perfectly predictable.
Yeah, but Firefox supporters are like Mac fans: nearly religious in their zeal. The idea that Firefox's share is tiny in comparison to IE really rubs them the wrong way, as they're convinced that all stats that don't support their view of how things should be are inherently flawed.
Me, I see the Firefox percentages among average Joe and Jane to be hopeful signs for the Firefox developers, and indirectly for improved security overall. But then I'm not a fanatic; hell, I don't even use Firefox (Opera for me).
No, we got it, it's just that a good many of us think that the ISS serves no useful purpose and that nothing would be lost if it were decomissioned and allowed to burn up in the atmosphere. There are far better things we could be spending the money on.
There is no particular reason why we more than any other lifeform especially deserves to survive as a species.
It's not about 'deserving' anything. Who gives a shit if some person or another thinks we do or do not 'deserve' to survive? The universe certainly doesn't care. The fact is that with the exception of a few arrogant little pissants who'd jump for joy if the entire race was wiped out, the rest of us are perfectly okay with working to ensure our long-term domination of this little planet.
However, the idea that a small number of us might preserve our genes by going to some other rock in case the Earth gets it seems to me like pure science fiction.
I agree. There are no other habitable planets in the system. Earth is it. We should be focusing all of our energies, if we're going to focus them at all, on preserving THIS particular ball of mud, instead of trying to make some other, much less hospitable rock a back-up home. So if a killer asteroid is discovered, for instance, we try to move it out of Earth's path rather than say "ah well, at least those boobs on Mars will survive."
Me, being on Earth, could really give a flying fuck if the guys on Mars survive the catastrophe or not. I'm much, much more interested in making sure that my family and myself see the thing through intact.
Surely it's worth putting more effort into protecting those? A few people living in an artificial environment on Mars at huge expense is no substitute for New York, or Venice, or the English Lakes, or any of the other threatened places of the Earth. (FI, I'm thinking of the risk of destruction of NY by tsunami, not terrorism).
Spot-on. And it should be noted that any catastrophe so unavoidable that we couldn't stop it from destroying all life on Earth is probably something that would do Bad Things(TM) to other parts of the solar system as well - say, all of our solar models are wrong and the sun is going to expand precipitously in the next few years. In which case those guys on Mars are toast as well.
Getting off this planet is pretty much an essential point for the growth of humanity as a whole.
What precisely does this mumbo-jumbo mean? The "growth of humanity as a whole"??? What exactly do we accomplish by "getting of this planet" that benefits us in some sense that constitutes your definition of "growth"?
Will we have low cost efficient solar cells by then?
We already have low-cost efficient solar cells. The problem with solar cells is that there aren't that many places on the land surface of Earth where they can be deployed to support large-scale power demands. Unlike a coal plant, they can't be built near any community that needs them.
Also unlike coal plants, they're subject to weather, attenuation, seasonal variations, and night. These are things that don't affect solar collectors in space. No matter how efficient the cell is on Earth, it will *always* be an order of magnitude more efficient in space.
And you have to remember that production of solar cells is an extremely dirty, poisonous process. The byproducts are truly nasty, though most environmentalists don't know that or refuse to acknowledge it.
Will wind power or other green power sources advance to the point where a satellite providing power is pointless?
Wind power is only useful in specific areas as well; it's too variable outside of those areas to be practical for anything other than generating very small amounts of power. As for "other green sources", I haven't heard any mentioned that are anywhere near being remotely practical.
There's even an off chance that fusion power generation will be a reality
The fusion folks have been saying that practical fusion generation is just "ten years away" since the mid '60's. You'll note that 40 years later they're not that much closer to building a viable, affordable working fusion power plant than they were then.
We CANNOT build such a fusion power plant today, nor will we be able to any time in the near future. We CAN build solar collector satellites RIGHT NOW; the technology isn't something that's brand new.
Don't tell me , something along the lines of beaming down megawatts of microwave power thats been a staple of bad science fiction for years?
There's a reason it's called "bad science fiction". Mainly because, like all those 'killer greenhouse storm' movies, it's a load of crap.
A) Rather dangerous to anyone or anything who accidentaly gets under the beam or if the beam shifts due to faults on the satellite
As someone else pointed out, this is part of the bad science fiction. It may be painful to fly through the beam, but it almost certainly won't kill you. Not unless you're stupid enough to go stand on the collector dish, in which case I'd say you'd be doing the gene pool a favor.
B) you can generate the power on the ground anyway , so why bother?
Because for most of the Earth's livable land area, solar power isn't practical for large-scale power generation. Not to mention the fact that attenuation and weather aren't factors when it comes to collecting solar power from satellites in geocentric orbit. The amount of power you can collect and transmit is an order of magnitude greater than anything you can get on the ground, and you can do it with an orbital collector far smaller than what you'd have to build on the surface.
Not to mention which you'd be replacing coal-fired plants, which pump tons of radioactive material right into the atmosphere every year.
Hopefully not for too much longer. According to recent polls Americans are less likely to agree with or pay attention to environmental groups than at any other time since the '60's, and many who previously would've opposed the construction of nuclear power plants are now in favor of using them to replace current oil and coal-fired plants. The trend is especially marked with the under-40 age group, who describes itself as "disenchanted" and "increasingly skeptical" of environmentalist claims.
With the primary political base of environmentalism shrinking due to the aging of its main supporters, it's quite possible that nuclear power - once the Great Boogeyman of our hippy past - will make a strong resurgance. And with that comes the possibility of using it for other applications (international treaties to the contrary be damned).
The whole signalling thing is a red herring anyway.
Even if intelligent life were rare, over the entire history of the galaxy it stands to reason that at least one such life form enamored of oxygen-based planets would've managed to master instellar travel. Once that occurs and colonies are established, even massive local disasters would be incapable of wiping out the civilization as a whole. The colonies would grow, and in turn establish their own colonies, and so forth. Whether it takes one million years or ten million years such a race would eventually end up occupying every suitable planet within the entire galaxy, and since there's absolutely no reason to believe that their technology would suddenly stagnate, they'd probably end up terraforming quite a few other not-so-suitable planets as well.
That means that Earth would eventually be colonized as well - but it hasn't been. And since Earth is a late-comer in terms of galactic affairs (the sun being young in comparison to many G-class stars that have come before and long since burned out) they would've shown up here long, long before mammals even evolved, much less worked their way up to human beings. It simply doesn't make any sense that they'd colonize OTHER planets, but leave Earth alone. Earth simply isn't special, if life isn't a precious commodity, and if it were then Earth would be even higher on the 'must-colonize' list.
And yet here we are, and here they aren't. No one has colonized Earth. Logically that means that no one's been in a position to try. Which means that while life might be ubiquitous across the galaxy, intelligent life might actually be unique - at least in the Milky Way. Or so very, very rare that previous attempts have ended in abject failure.
Well, if you're immortal and forever young then you don't have any right to retirement anyway. You could work and save to allow yourself a few years off, but nobody would owe you a free ride after X number of years of labor. In fact, that would be an act of self-destruction for any society with access to immortality.
Slashdot Mirror
So if an anti-abortion groups publishes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and time they normally arrive home after work of doctors performing abortions - that isn't fraud, it's just information. It should be protected speech, right? Google for the court's opinion. It doesn't match yours.
Yes, actually. Private corporations collect this information all the time and sell it to one another. Why should a citizen group be constrained from doing the exact same thing?
The onus is on the person who uses this information to actually go out and kill the doctors in question. This person is a fucking criminal, and should be treated as the filth he so obviously is. But the people who collected the information he used? I don't think so, any more than if I collected the information of anti-abortion protestors and published it on the web.
Somewhat wrong. If you shout it in the middle of the woods and there is nobody to hear it, that's true. If you shout it in the middle of the airport, that's entirely false.
Actually, he's right. The cops aren't obligated to do anything whatsoever about your actions. According to the courts, they aren't even required to intervene if they're on the scene of an actual crime while the crime is in progress.
As with many things, such tyranny was eventually made illegal.
That isn't "tyranny" to anyone but a raving socialist. My property is my property and you have exactly two choices when on my property: you can either shut your yap when I tell you to, or you can leave. If you refuse those choices, I'll call the nice sheriff and have your sorry ass hauled off to jail for trespassing. Don't like it? Too damned bad. Suck it up and deal with it.
Max
because everyone loves at least a little attention once in a while
Speak for yourself. The only attention I want is from hot young chicks with big racks. Everyone else can fuck off.
Max
Anyone who doesn't find some value in watching Charlize Theron in skin-tight outfits for two hours isn't quite right in the head.
Max
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Serenity a commercial flop?
No one will know until after foreign and dvd sales are counted.
Most movies these days don't make back the money they spend on initial theater releases. The real money comes long after the movie hits the theater. So we won't know about Serenity for another year or so yet.
Early indications are that it'll probably make back more money than was spent to produce and promote it, but not by much. Even so, it's enough to get a second movie going (most movies don't even do that well).
Max
Wikipranks. Although the essence of a wikiprank is that you insert something which sounds plausible and bizarre at the same time. An example:
"Because of this widespread belief, the company actually started using prune juice in its product during the years 1946-1947. Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that the addition of prune juice often resulted in bouts of uncontrollable diarrhea, leading the company to discontinue the practice in 1948. This discovery did, however, prove valuable in the development of a short-lived sister product, "Dr. Pepper for Seniors", which was popularized with the ad slogan "It Really Gets Things Moving"."
Max
My main dissapointment here, however, is that this will decrease the trust of the value of the information on Wikipedia.
You should always be suspicious of the information found on wikipedia. Blindly trusting to it is foolish.
I have a few friends (these are geeks as well mind you) who don't trust Wikipedia because essentially, 'anyone can write there'.
Your friends are smart. That's a very good reason not to take anything you find in wikipedia at face value. For obvious reasons, I should think.
Stunts like this while both funny & stupid are also devaluing the otherwise fairly valuable content of Wikipedia.
No, they point out the fact that wikipedia isn't a font of unshakeable wisdom, just a place where anyone can pretty much post anything they like and pass it off as fact to the ignorant. It makes people suspicious *and they should be*.
Max
Wikipedia is not a forum for opinions, it's an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not and never will be an authoritative source on anything. It's the very nature of the beast that makes all information found there suspect. Anyone who uses wikipedia as an authoritative source is a fool.
Anonymity is not necessary, and only leads people to act irresponsibly.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and I'd guess that more people would find them a better source on the value of anonymity than some guy posting on slashdot.
Max
It doesn't have to understand humor or even the concept of "enjoyment". For it to be true AI, all it has to be is self-aware.
By your definition, any meat-based alien race that had no ability to comprehend humor wouldn't be truly intelligent.
Max
The other complaint I had does not seem to have been fixed -- the bullshit quests. You're a *god* -- why are you having to find lost sheep or bring wood to a bunch of sailors?
Because you start out as a pathetic, minor, forgettable little demigod and can only achieve greater status by increasing the number of people who worship your ass - which requires that you actually do something for them, else they'll find some OTHER pathetic, minor, forgettable little demigod to worship.
Just because you're a god doesn't mean you start out as Zeus. More like Demeter, or Persephone, and from there you have to work your way up the ranks.
Max
Example of Google-Bombing. Go to Google and search "Miserable Failure" and hit "I Feel Lucky". Regardless of what your opinions are. That type of behavior is still wrong.
It's funny. And a perfect example of the beauty of the First Amendment.
Max
If wikipedia has an army then they're some of the worst trained militia around. I've made some ah, "interesting" additions to wikipedia that have lasted for days, even weeks, before being discovered and deleted. "Wikipranks", they're called, although I admit that the changes are often subtle in nature (e.g., the addition of a line here, or a word there, that changes the entire context of the paragraph or adds shock value to it).
Others far more skilled in wikipranks have seen their subtle and hilarious alterations last for months. While it's true that the most popular pages (or those beloved by a specific core of obsessive fans) are generally immune to long-term prankdom, the vast majority of pages don't receive this sort of scrutiny. This includes entries which you'd think would get a lot of traffic, but for some reason remain prime wikiprank material because it appears that visitors either don't know any better, or are sufficiently amused that they leave the prank intact.
Max
Dennett's also considered to be something of a crackpot who takes every opportunity he can to explain away human consciousness. Notice I didn't say "explain"; I said "explain away". The man is obsessive over the idea that actual consciousness is an illusion, and simply doesn't exist. His peers think he's a nut.
He's also incapable of expressing himself clearly and concisely. His book is like a bad lecturer's verbal vomit put to paper, wherein every single concept - concepts which'd normally take a few minutes to explain - are stretched out into entire class sessions (chapters). It's a dreadful read, unless you're the author and like listening to yourself talk.
Max
The assertion that we have "hardwired functions in brain" for "spoken discourse" is certainly rather bold
What are you talking about? We've known this since I got my degree, which was ages ago. Not only can you study the specific area of the brain dealing with spoken (and written) language via certain tools (e.g., PET scan), you can also study people who've had that area of their brain damaged in a specific fashion. We've known that human beings have a language center for quite some time, and can even predict the problems you'll run into if a particular piece of that language center is damaged or destroyed.
Max
This "argument" relies upon an *enormous* amount of assumptions, to the point where I question the intellecual honesty of making it.
I question the intellectual honesty of idiots who insist there MUST be intelligent life in the galaxy, yet can't for the life of them explain why this intelligent life has NEVER colonized Earth at any time during the last 1.5 billion years. It's clear they WANT there to be a nice little collection of prosthetic-nose-piece Star Trek aliens, but they consistently fail to account for why they didn't settle down on Earth sometime back in the Triassic.
How about we just say that we know of no other intelligent life in the Universe, and have no way of knowing that they exist or not at this point, and leave it at that.
How about not? According to the evidence (or lack thereof) at our disposal, along with a simple extension of logical thought (e.g., where are they and why have they never settled this planet) it stands to reason that Earth hasn't been colonized because no one's tried. And if that's the case then either intelligent life in our galaxy is unique, or it's very rare and ultimately a failure.
Max
Dude this is already a standard part of the status quo.
No, it isn't. Real immortality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the rationing of the medical care we have available today. No one alive today has any realistic hope of NOT dying from old age, no matter what that age might be; real immortality gives them that hope, along with eternal youth to boot. How you can't see the absolutely huge difference between these two things is beyond me.
But it won't matter. The average guy on the street will see it, and will react violently if denied immortality. Like I said, the choice is a no-brainer.
Actually I'm closer to the old end of the scale
Somehow I doubt that, "dude".
I think you severely underestimate the consequence of creating a huge population very old people consuming much of societies resources.
If all of those folks currrently over 65 were given immortality, they'd no have a claim on social security or pensions. No one in their right mind would allow them to draw either FOREVER. They'd be young *and* they'd be some of the most skilled people on the planet; certainly wiser than their 25-year-old counterparts, and far, far more experienced. They'd have to go back to work because we wouldn't continue feeding and housing and clothing their lazy, newly-rejuvenated asses.
Whatever they consume they are, for the most part, going to produce a hell of a lot more, simply because they can run circles around the much younger and far less experienced work force. That's a good thing.
but they also suffer from an intense rigidity in thinking and demand routine.
The young often think that, mostly because the old aren't dumb enough to stupid things. They've lived, they've learned, they have no desire to repeat the foolish, idiotic antics of youth. If rejuvenated and returned to the work force they'd do quite a bit to stabilize society, and I also think we'd see long-term thinking replace short-term, short-sighted planning.
All that works for me. The last thing I want is a society dominated by people who're congenitally stupid because they haven't aged past that particular defect yet.
Max
You can have a perfect knowledge of processes without the ability to predict much of anything. Perfect knowledge does not imply that a thing is also perfectly predictable.
Max
Yeah, but Firefox supporters are like Mac fans: nearly religious in their zeal. The idea that Firefox's share is tiny in comparison to IE really rubs them the wrong way, as they're convinced that all stats that don't support their view of how things should be are inherently flawed.
Me, I see the Firefox percentages among average Joe and Jane to be hopeful signs for the Firefox developers, and indirectly for improved security overall. But then I'm not a fanatic; hell, I don't even use Firefox (Opera for me).
Max
No, we got it, it's just that a good many of us think that the ISS serves no useful purpose and that nothing would be lost if it were decomissioned and allowed to burn up in the atmosphere. There are far better things we could be spending the money on.
Max
There is no particular reason why we more than any other lifeform especially deserves to survive as a species.
It's not about 'deserving' anything. Who gives a shit if some person or another thinks we do or do not 'deserve' to survive? The universe certainly doesn't care. The fact is that with the exception of a few arrogant little pissants who'd jump for joy if the entire race was wiped out, the rest of us are perfectly okay with working to ensure our long-term domination of this little planet.
However, the idea that a small number of us might preserve our genes by going to some other rock in case the Earth gets it seems to me like pure science fiction.
I agree. There are no other habitable planets in the system. Earth is it. We should be focusing all of our energies, if we're going to focus them at all, on preserving THIS particular ball of mud, instead of trying to make some other, much less hospitable rock a back-up home. So if a killer asteroid is discovered, for instance, we try to move it out of Earth's path rather than say "ah well, at least those boobs on Mars will survive."
Me, being on Earth, could really give a flying fuck if the guys on Mars survive the catastrophe or not. I'm much, much more interested in making sure that my family and myself see the thing through intact.
Surely it's worth putting more effort into protecting those? A few people living in an artificial environment on Mars at huge expense is no substitute for New York, or Venice, or the English Lakes, or any of the other threatened places of the Earth. (FI, I'm thinking of the risk of destruction of NY by tsunami, not terrorism).
Spot-on. And it should be noted that any catastrophe so unavoidable that we couldn't stop it from destroying all life on Earth is probably something that would do Bad Things(TM) to other parts of the solar system as well - say, all of our solar models are wrong and the sun is going to expand precipitously in the next few years. In which case those guys on Mars are toast as well.
Max
Getting off this planet is pretty much an essential point for the growth of humanity as a whole.
What precisely does this mumbo-jumbo mean? The "growth of humanity as a whole"??? What exactly do we accomplish by "getting of this planet" that benefits us in some sense that constitutes your definition of "growth"?
Max
Will we have low cost efficient solar cells by then?
We already have low-cost efficient solar cells. The problem with solar cells is that there aren't that many places on the land surface of Earth where they can be deployed to support large-scale power demands. Unlike a coal plant, they can't be built near any community that needs them.
Also unlike coal plants, they're subject to weather, attenuation, seasonal variations, and night. These are things that don't affect solar collectors in space. No matter how efficient the cell is on Earth, it will *always* be an order of magnitude more efficient in space.
And you have to remember that production of solar cells is an extremely dirty, poisonous process. The byproducts are truly nasty, though most environmentalists don't know that or refuse to acknowledge it.
Will wind power or other green power sources advance to the point where a satellite providing power is pointless?
Wind power is only useful in specific areas as well; it's too variable outside of those areas to be practical for anything other than generating very small amounts of power. As for "other green sources", I haven't heard any mentioned that are anywhere near being remotely practical.
There's even an off chance that fusion power generation will be a reality
The fusion folks have been saying that practical fusion generation is just "ten years away" since the mid '60's. You'll note that 40 years later they're not that much closer to building a viable, affordable working fusion power plant than they were then.
We CANNOT build such a fusion power plant today, nor will we be able to any time in the near future. We CAN build solar collector satellites RIGHT NOW; the technology isn't something that's brand new.
Max
Don't tell me , something along the lines of beaming down megawatts of microwave power thats been a staple of bad science fiction for years?
There's a reason it's called "bad science fiction". Mainly because, like all those 'killer greenhouse storm' movies, it's a load of crap.
A) Rather dangerous to anyone or anything who accidentaly gets under the beam or if the beam shifts due to faults on the satellite
As someone else pointed out, this is part of the bad science fiction. It may be painful to fly through the beam, but it almost certainly won't kill you. Not unless you're stupid enough to go stand on the collector dish, in which case I'd say you'd be doing the gene pool a favor.
B) you can generate the power on the ground anyway , so why bother?
Because for most of the Earth's livable land area, solar power isn't practical for large-scale power generation. Not to mention the fact that attenuation and weather aren't factors when it comes to collecting solar power from satellites in geocentric orbit. The amount of power you can collect and transmit is an order of magnitude greater than anything you can get on the ground, and you can do it with an orbital collector far smaller than what you'd have to build on the surface.
Not to mention which you'd be replacing coal-fired plants, which pump tons of radioactive material right into the atmosphere every year.
Max
nuclear propulsion is politically off-limits
Hopefully not for too much longer. According to recent polls Americans are less likely to agree with or pay attention to environmental groups than at any other time since the '60's, and many who previously would've opposed the construction of nuclear power plants are now in favor of using them to replace current oil and coal-fired plants. The trend is especially marked with the under-40 age group, who describes itself as "disenchanted" and "increasingly skeptical" of environmentalist claims.
With the primary political base of environmentalism shrinking due to the aging of its main supporters, it's quite possible that nuclear power - once the Great Boogeyman of our hippy past - will make a strong resurgance. And with that comes the possibility of using it for other applications (international treaties to the contrary be damned).
Max
The whole signalling thing is a red herring anyway.
Even if intelligent life were rare, over the entire history of the galaxy it stands to reason that at least one such life form enamored of oxygen-based planets would've managed to master instellar travel. Once that occurs and colonies are established, even massive local disasters would be incapable of wiping out the civilization as a whole. The colonies would grow, and in turn establish their own colonies, and so forth. Whether it takes one million years or ten million years such a race would eventually end up occupying every suitable planet within the entire galaxy, and since there's absolutely no reason to believe that their technology would suddenly stagnate, they'd probably end up terraforming quite a few other not-so-suitable planets as well.
That means that Earth would eventually be colonized as well - but it hasn't been. And since Earth is a late-comer in terms of galactic affairs (the sun being young in comparison to many G-class stars that have come before and long since burned out) they would've shown up here long, long before mammals even evolved, much less worked their way up to human beings. It simply doesn't make any sense that they'd colonize OTHER planets, but leave Earth alone. Earth simply isn't special, if life isn't a precious commodity, and if it were then Earth would be even higher on the 'must-colonize' list.
And yet here we are, and here they aren't. No one has colonized Earth. Logically that means that no one's been in a position to try. Which means that while life might be ubiquitous across the galaxy, intelligent life might actually be unique - at least in the Milky Way. Or so very, very rare that previous attempts have ended in abject failure.
Max
and have nothing to retire ON when you get old
Well, if you're immortal and forever young then you don't have any right to retirement anyway. You could work and save to allow yourself a few years off, but nobody would owe you a free ride after X number of years of labor. In fact, that would be an act of self-destruction for any society with access to immortality.
Max