No. If we point our telescopes at Ceres, and you find an article about thermonuclear weapons and how they can be used to destroy cities or even asteroids if the weapons are large enough, that does not mean we are "seeking Ceres in case we want to destroy it." Logic. That sounds more emotional than logical. (It's a sentiment I agree with, however it is not based in logic.) I hope you are joking. If not, you are so far off base it's funny.
I am not arguing the point, but perhaps it is too narrow. I see Life merely as one of several natural dynamical phenomena. The concept of movement (even if relative) suggests a variable physical environment which experiences evolution. Not too far removed from the concept of variable evolutionary process of biological organisms. The law of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" is equally applicable to both states of physical expression.
Oh, I underwrite that one hundred and one percent. Death is the most Logical devolution of Life, physically. And yet the Appliquees of it vary so magnificantly from form to form, and are artistically, as juxtaposed against Philosophically, one can hardly even call it a Science.
Really, reading an article on the evil empire Iran and you find an article about thermonuclear weapons and how they can be used to destroy cities, does not mean we are sending flowers to Iran, either. Logic. Iran is 7239 miles from US, Ceres is an average distance of 257 million miles (413 million kilometers) from earth. Why are we looking for Cinderella planets at all? Logic does not "convey messages", it is an evolving database from which messages may be logically extrapolated. Yes it is. If we don't heed the logical consequences of our destructive practices, we may just become an extinct species. That is a logical consequence of a mass extinction event , such as we are experiencing "AS WE SPEAK". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction No I am not joking. Mankind is rushing headlong into a mass extinction event and we just keep at it, until it becomes a matter of "closing the barn doors too late". So far off base????? How about 50 years (one generation) and homebase (earth) has become unlivable and needs to be terraformed from sctratch?
Agreed. In fact, it does not follow that we are planning to do either - send flowers _or_ nuclear weapons. Right. And extrasolar planets are many light years (that's at least 23 510 000 000 000 miles) away. Sounds like you have just made an argument that we likely won't try to terraform them, eh? But again, that's not logic. That's values, as in "it's good to keep the ecosystem working for the long term." If your goal is to make as much money as quickly as possible, it is logical to sacrifice the ecosphere to attain that aim. And a great many people have done just that, proving the validity of that logic. Yes, you are so far off base it's funny. You said that the ecosystem needs to be "utilized in a logical manner" because "that is how all other species treat the earth." Every other species on Earth multiplies as much as it can and does as much damage as it can to the ecosystem. Look at the rabbits in Australia. The wolves and moose on Isle Royale. Zebra mussels. Heck, a fermenter in a brewery. Every species out there does as much harm as it can (i.e. expands as much as possible, uses up as much of the Earth's resources as possible, and has as many offspring as possible) and is stopped only when they destroy the ecosystem they are in, or something else eats them. There's a monologue in the Matrix by one of the agents: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure. He is also fundamentally wrong. It is especially funny that he is giving that speech in Sidney (which is where the Matrix was filmed) - a continent that has been decimated by rabbits. In other words, mammals.
No, that's just not true in many respects. a) All organic life in a specific environment contributes to the stability and sustenance of that environment. It has evolved that way. b) There are only two species on the increase, humans and insects. Humans because we are able to CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT and the insect because it can adapt to any environment. Insects have been through it all for some three hundred million years of global extinction events. Most logically, insects will inherit the earth from humans. c) The honeybee has evolved a symbiotic relationship with flowering plants, which has proven to be a beneficial survival strategy to both species, with many positive side benefits to the general environment. Pollinating insects feed about 70% of all living species on earth. Predatory (invasive) or Parasitic survival strategies are ultimately self-defeating strategies. Natural history can attest to that. I believe humans can be considered an invasive species, or as Carlin observed; "a surface nuisance". Humans are able to anticipate the logical long term consequences of global destruction of the ecosphere. It looks like we are not so smart as we believe we are. Mankind does not present a logical problem to the earth, mankind presents a logical problem to itself. Just consider the man-caused spread of "invasive species" in unprepared environments. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.environmentalscience.org/invasive-species A logical consequence, dead native species. The mathematics confirm the observation (data).
If you want to commit suicide it is logical to do it quickly, is that what you mean? I agree, logic is not always reasonable but reason is always logical......difference.
Insects are not a species. Not even close. There are several species of bird, mammal, flowering plant, and arthropod, on the increase. A couple of species of rat. Starlings. Dandelions. Carp - three or four species. Parasitism is one of the most successful strategies. Most viruses that invade large animals, even pathogens, cooperate, rather than kill - the common cold, for example. Many people think Ebola will evolve in that direction - thereby allowing its spread. And so forth. You should not use examples from biology for illustration - you know almost nothing about biology.
Yes, invasive species. They increase while eradicating native species. Without natural predators, the increase of the invasive species is exponential in a limited space, until there is not sufficient food supply to sustain growth and decline sets in. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ So this proves your superior knowledge of biology? I like mathematics, they don't lie. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On land, in the seas, in the sky, the devastating impact of humans on nature is laid bare in a compelling UN report. One million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction. Nature everywhere is declining at a speed never previously seen and our need for ever more food and energy are the main drivers. These trends can be halted, the study says, but it will take "transformative change" in every aspect of how humans interact with nature. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48169783 Does any of this belong under the science of Logic? Ants only have logical functions. They don't think at all. They don't need to. This way they also make no mistakes.
Well, it depends on how long it would take to terraform a planet or how long it would take to reach an already terraformed cinderella planet, ready for use. According to Hazen, he has high confidence that Life exists elsewhere in the universe, which would suggest other life supporting planets. If you are going to dream dream big in centuries, not in one generation time span to disaster. The worst is yet to come. Interestingly and logical albeit illegal, world wide planting of commercial and recreational hemp would have an immediate positive impact on the environment, especially on carbon levels in the air. Among its other excellences it is a hardy, pest resistant, low water consuming, but much more effective carbon scrubber than trees, and is a seasonally renewable harvestable resource that can be used for a host of commercial and medicinal purposes, while providing beneficial ecological impact while growing. If planted in all inhospitable areas of the planet (where it will still thrive) its ecological and biological benefits would be drastic, IMO.
You're right. And they're everywhere and increasing in numbers......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/in-depth/ Looks like we are considering the potential uses of Ceres. Idle speculation?
Absolutely not. No organism has evolved to start dying off once they were close to the carrying limit of the environment. They exceed it, then they die when they destroy their ecosystem and/or disease and predation decimates them. Are you sure you want to follow that "natural" model? And rats, and zebra mussels, and rabbits, and feral pigs, and kudzu. Yep. And still, Africanized bees are spreading, destroying other bee species wherever they find them. As are all survival strategies in the long term. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. If we drive ourselves to near-extinction (or actual extinction) we will be following our natural course, as 99.99% of all other species have. And a natural one. Ah, so you are a proponent of introducing invasive species when it suits you. Just as a coal company CEO might choose to destroy a mountain range to maximize his profits. How logical.
If you want to commit suicide it would be logical to choose an effective means. If you want to make a lot of money it would be logical to spend resources to do so. Define your goals first, then you can decide what's most logical in terms of how to achieve them. No, reason is not always logical. It might well be reasonable to tell your wife she looks skinny, even though from a purely logical standpoint she is not.
Looks like you have made yet another argument against your claim that we are researching extrasolar planets in case we have to terraform them.
Well, you can cherry-pick all data for exceptions. I have already cited the decline in honeybee population, which may turn out to be the greatest disaster of all. But here is a third definitive statement of the decline in world populations of most species, whereas claims to the contrary come from highly dubious sources. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ Did you read that Trump just about fired all climate scientists recently? Destroy the science and the problem will go away!!. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html And we are arguing about which species are disappearing the fastest or slowest?? As I said the most accurate assessment is that, aside from microbial life, there are two major populations which are generally on the increase. Humans (and house-pets) and Insects. Humans because we can and have altered the environment in the past 300 years, the insect because it has already survived every possible extinction event in the past 300 million years. May I remind that all migrations result in an increase in local populations, while decreasing globally. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180124092459.htm What the science shows is that when more habitat is lost the remaining habitat must accommodate a greater density of displaced species. There is your local increase. I am dismayed that there is an argument about global extinction rates which are increasing every decade, instead of raising cautionary voices against the status quo. You do realize that any appearance of uncertainty will be used by the rapists of natural resources to claim that the jury is still out and in fact may not even exist. Wake up and smell the smoke. https://www.worldometers.info/
Yes. Natural selection will always stabilize a population to its most adapted species. Invasive species? And who is to blame for the creation of the Africanized bee? No one is arguing that point. Stable population does not mean no extinction. Just an overall death rate that equals a birth rate of the mahority of individuals. Oh and that means we should keep drilling oil and be responsible for the fastest possible way we will go extinct? That is just a very short-sighted sighted statement. Yes and where man has perished, the insect will thrive. A logical observation which I already advanced earlier. What??? Have you gone mad?? Here I sit warning in the strongest terms of what mankind may logically expect if we continue to ruin our environment, and you dare accuse me of advancing the idea of speeding up extinction because that would be a logical result of greedy Big Oil, which you compare to my observation that evolution is a logical result of animals adapting to their environment, instead of destroying it. Boooo..that's not honest debate. That bothers me, seriously. Coming from you that is very disappointing. Very illogical. On a science forum, no less.
Uh - no. Populations don't stabilize. Again, look at the moose/wolf population on Isle Royale. Moose proliferate until they denude the island. Then wolves proliferate and eat almost all the moose. The forest recovers. The wolves die out because they have no food. Moose return. Over and over. They never get to "stability." Yep. You know, like you advocate. But again that is not nature. That is your view of a Disney ecosystem. In real ecosystems, crashes, extinctions, disease, famines. ecosystem collapse etc are the rule. Not at all. It is logical to drill as much as possible, as fast as possible, if your goal is short term profit. I do not think that is a good goal. It's logical; it's just choosing the wrong goals. ?? You advocated for introducing invasive species. You said you wanted to introduce an invasive species in areas it will thrive because you feel there will be benefits to us. That is EXACTLY the reason that rabbits were introduced to Australia. Rabbits would thrive in Australia, and be good food, fur and hunting game. And there's no way a cute furry critter would be a problem. Until it destroyed much of Australia's ecosystem, of course - because they did not understand the effects of invasive species on ecosystems. ?? You are missing most of what I said above. Your issue is that you misunderstand logic. You think good outcomes are logical ones. That's not what logic is. Logic is a way to reason; a systematic method using agreed-on rules to achieve valid results. To an oil baron, whose goal it is to generate hefty returns for his investors, it is logical to drill as much as possible as quickly as possible. That is good - for him. It is not good for the planet as a whole. Since he will not be around to see too much of the damage that CO2 will do, and rich people aren't as vulnerable to climate change, he can logically claim that the immediate good to him will outweigh any harm to him. Do you think a good outcome would be a more sustainable world? Great. I agree. But that does not make the oil baron's decision any less logical.
