Once they saw what a mess we've made of the prison planet, why should they care? ...mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooders or not.
If you don't know what a "mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooder" is, then it's best that you never find out.
Baron Max
Can the human race survive the next 100 years?
- Thread starter CatherineW
- Start date
Once they saw what a mess we've made of the prison planet, why should they care? ...mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooders or not.
If you don't know what a "mamby-pamby, liberal doo-gooder" is, then it's best that you never find out.
Baron Max
Oh, I know what they are. Maybe it is a social comment that they weren't in the spell check dictionary. They are now 'cause I added them.
QW
QW
superstring01
Moderator
The concept of the generation starship has been around for decades. It could be built in orbit using current technology and powered by solar sails. That would make it rather primitive and slow, but nonetheless workable. The biggest challenges are to guess the "critical mass" of population needed to ensure the survival of civilization within a closed space for thousands or millions of generations, and to be able to steer and stop to replenish the raw materials lost to entropy.
By the time some other civilization's generation starship reaches us, the ship itself will be pretty old, but there's no guarantee that its science and other culture will have advanced far beyond us in such a small community. As I noted, it will be difficult to ensure that the distant descendants of the original crew don't become lazy and foolish with so much automation around. Sci-fi stories have been written around that theme: "There's a planet over there emitting radio signals. Does anybody remember how to stop this thing?"Don't you suppose that the creatures or other living things on that ship will have curiosity? Might they not want to stop here just to see the place, and even to talk to us, no matter how primitive we are? Assuming that the lightspeed limit can never be circumvented, it could have taken them a thousand years or more to find another inhabited planet with another species or type of sentient life. Even if they've been cryopacked (or in "standby mode") and very little time has passed for them, this encounter would have to be a momentous occasion and they wouldn't want to miss it.
Else, why are they out exploring at all?
I don't disagree with this, but barring any "need" to flee (and I agree we have the technology now, but not the desire), the reality is, few species, if any, would chose to build such a ship until it became not just technologically capable, but outright easy (in relative terms). There will--hopefully--be a day when we do the same (and I don't buy into the antagonistic alien shtick) when we'll just prance about out of curiosity. Again, any species capable of undertaking the same, wouldn't need to eliminate entire worlds just to "restock" the ship. They'd come around out of curiosity more than anything, so on this we agree, but I just don't think that they (or us for that matter) will resemble their earlier intelligent ancestors. The technology is just too tempting and the "abilities" and "tools" gained through such changes are too wild to ignore.
~String
What about radical environmentalists? I've seen more than one person on this very board postulate that the earth would be better off without the human race. Put that feeling together with a knowledge of genetic engineering and/or virology and it could spell big trouble. The movie 12 Monkeys portrayed a future in which 99% of the human race had been wiped out by just such an idiot.
That's one possiblity. Another is, as Fraggle suggested, that the generation ship was launched at a time when the species was not that much more advanced than us. And, in subsequent years, hasn't advanced much more owing to the small population aboard the ship.
Another possibility is that, for whatever reason, the aliens (or some subset of them, like the Amish) prefer their original form. Maybe they like fucking. Maybe it's religious. Consider this: If you, personally, were given the choice of living forever in your body maintained at its peak via nanotechnology; or as a disembodied spirit: What would you choose? I'd stay with the body. I like eating and fucking and breathing and, well, living.
Last edited:
Of course we do. We are only human after all. However, is that disembodied spirit option actually available, ... just asking . At some point the joy of sex and eating and all becomes diminished.
. At some point the joy of sex and eating and all becomes diminished.Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The radical environmentalists won't be able to accomplish any serious biological research without animal tests. That will cause a rift in the movement as the ARFs set all the animals loose and bomb the laboratories.
If someone believes the earth would be better off without us, I presume he would be a staunch advocate of space exploration.
Oh, my god! Absolutely not! The Earth would definitely be better without humans, but I damned sure don't want to send the same fucked up plaque out into space to fuck up the whole universe!
Geez, Fraggle, would you send a pestilence out into space? That's what man is on Earth ....a destructive pest!
Baron Max
I have no idea what you've just said because I don't know Dr. Jeffries or Fank and Ernest.
However, know you, I'm going to assume that it's some kind of personal insult directed toward me.
So, I ask you, Tiassa, .....Do you think man has been good for the planet Earth?
Baron Max
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
"Frank and Ernest" is one of the most widely published comic strips in this country. Do you live in Latvia? Its creator Bob Thaves should be one of your heroes because he won the Mencken Free Speech Award, and H.L. Mencken is obviously one of your prophets.
I've never seen that in the newspaper in my whole life. However, I did see a little "cartoon" booklet like that once at a bookstore.
H. L. Mencken??? Nope, never heard of him either.
No, I don't live in Latvia. But I do live in a cave in Texas.
Baron Max
Who cares? The earth isn't a sentient being, it doesn't care what we do. Whether the dominent species is dinosaurs, humans, or sea turtles; the earth will just keep spinning around the sun.
And I, for one, would love to see humanity spread around the universe. Raising hell where ever we go. Doing things both great and mundane, but happy most of the time either way.
Not surprising
Frank & Ernest, as Fraggle noted, is a widely-distributed daily comic strip. I recall in my childhood a frame that depicted the Earth talking to Saturn, discussing the former's bad case of people.
Dr. Leonard Jeffries is a controversial scholar with whom you're probably more familiar than you realize. Ever hear the argument that a black man can't be racist? While it make sense in a certain context, and at a certain point in American history, the idea was never really sold on those terms. At any rate, Jeffries is one of the proponents of that idea. I'm not sure it originates with him, but he's certainly gained some notoriety by the statement.
It may even have come into play when he successfully sued his employer, City University of New York, after they fired him once upon a time for making some mind-boggling statements. Among those was that the space shuttle Challenger disaster should be hailed as a good thing, since it stopped white people from spreading their filth across the Universe.
The idea that humanity does not deserve to continue in its endeavors is fairly widespread, and even found itself at the center of a second-generation Twilight Zone episode ("A Small Talent for War", 1986) when the UN scrambles to prove humanity's worth to its alien creators, only to find out too late that peace and civilization were not our task. Damn UN, always getting humanity wiped out.
And there is even a religion that believes peace and justice won't come until the end of the world, when only a fragment of humanity—the deserving, as such—are transformed into something greater than humanity; in other words, the capacity for genuine justice is not within human capability, hence we need divine intervention to save us from our inherent corruption.
Sure, Max. If you say so.
Depends on what you mean. From a human perspective, no. From the perspective, as such, of nature and the Universe? There is no good or bad about it. If we actually cause the planet to explode, for instance, it's just nature doing what nature does.
Baron Max said:
Frank & Ernest, as Fraggle noted, is a widely-distributed daily comic strip. I recall in my childhood a frame that depicted the Earth talking to Saturn, discussing the former's bad case of people.
Dr. Leonard Jeffries is a controversial scholar with whom you're probably more familiar than you realize. Ever hear the argument that a black man can't be racist? While it make sense in a certain context, and at a certain point in American history, the idea was never really sold on those terms. At any rate, Jeffries is one of the proponents of that idea. I'm not sure it originates with him, but he's certainly gained some notoriety by the statement.
It may even have come into play when he successfully sued his employer, City University of New York, after they fired him once upon a time for making some mind-boggling statements. Among those was that the space shuttle Challenger disaster should be hailed as a good thing, since it stopped white people from spreading their filth across the Universe.
The idea that humanity does not deserve to continue in its endeavors is fairly widespread, and even found itself at the center of a second-generation Twilight Zone episode ("A Small Talent for War", 1986) when the UN scrambles to prove humanity's worth to its alien creators, only to find out too late that peace and civilization were not our task. Damn UN, always getting humanity wiped out.
And there is even a religion that believes peace and justice won't come until the end of the world, when only a fragment of humanity—the deserving, as such—are transformed into something greater than humanity; in other words, the capacity for genuine justice is not within human capability, hence we need divine intervention to save us from our inherent corruption.
Sure, Max. If you say so.
Depends on what you mean. From a human perspective, no. From the perspective, as such, of nature and the Universe? There is no good or bad about it. If we actually cause the planet to explode, for instance, it's just nature doing what nature does.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
It's no insult to be compared to Frank & Ernest. America loves them, with good reason.
Since you didn't direct the question at me I'll give you an early Christmas present and not answer it, but I am curious about the standard by which you expect "good" to be measured in this context. The only people you can ask for an evaluation are... well... people. We might be a little biased in our own favor. The earth not only can't talk, but it isn't even alive, so we can be quite confident that it doesn't have an opinion. It's been pummeled by asteroids, perturbed by the gravity of two other major bodies and a host of minor ones, and subjected to capriciously variable solar and other radiation. It was formed in a cataclysm and has been very slowly changing from liquid to solid, a process which has a long way to go and involves violent eruptions of liquid and collisions of solid masses. It has hosted life for roughly 80% of its existence and that life has had substantial impact, such as enormously increasing the oxygen in the atmosphere, changing the texture of the surface to suit itself, and leaving vast buried deposits of hydrocarbons. The sun is already halfway through its lifecycle and long before it finishes it will raise the earth's temperature beyond the boiling point of water, and keep going.
So, now that we've got a firm grasp on the context, what does "good for the planet" mean? Perhaps you meant "good for the organisms," of which we are the only ones capable of voting?
I'm sure you'd appreciate the Sage of Baltimore. He called marriage "the end of hope" and described democracy as "amusing." He regarded Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce as our greatest philosophers and there was very little in American culture that escaped his criticism. He called Arkansas the "apex of moronia" and coined the word "booboisie" for the clueless middle class. He loathed FDR in his newspaper columns and thought the New Deal was just about the worst thing that ever happened. Yet he had his limits and was one of the first high-profile Americans to denounce the Nazis' treatment of Jews.
You're the first cranky old curmudgeon I've ever met who doesn't refer to him.
Alexgalaxy
Registered Member
The next 100 Years
The life continius the next 100 years, no problem.
Sounds... uh... a little morbid
The life continius the next 100 years, no problem.
No, I live next to Los Alamos... we are going to be toast soon.. so borrow as much money as you can and spend the hell out of it
Alexgalaxy
Registered Member
nuclear war: 50% probability
Global Warming : 15 %
Racism: 5%
Over Population: 30%
Natural Disaster: 30%
Medical Epidemic: 5%
Possible Alien Attack: 0 % (IMPOSSIBLE)
the Human´s living for the next 100 years o more.
"Don´t worry be HappY"
Global Warming : 15 %
Racism: 5%
Over Population: 30%
Natural Disaster: 30%
Medical Epidemic: 5%
Possible Alien Attack: 0 % (IMPOSSIBLE)
the Human´s living for the next 100 years o more.
"Don´t worry be HappY"
peak oil and other disappearing energy resources weren't mentioned, although they will play (well, their lack of) a huge part in the next 100 years.
This is kind of faulty logic. It is like saying this dam what we have a house below looks safe enough even though it has a few cracks in it (nuclear proliferation). But it has been holding back a huge water reservoir for 60 years, so statistically we are safe.
If a worldwide (not localized) nuclear war breaks out (let's say for the disappearing resources) it will have the same effect as a dam breaking. It doesn't matter that nukes caused very few deaths in 6 decades they could whipe out a large % of humankind....
This is kind of faulty logic. It is like saying this dam what we have a house below looks safe enough even though it has a few cracks in it (nuclear proliferation). But it has been holding back a huge water reservoir for 60 years, so statistically we are safe.
If a worldwide (not localized) nuclear war breaks out (let's say for the disappearing resources) it will have the same effect as a dam breaking. It doesn't matter that nukes caused very few deaths in 6 decades they could whipe out a large % of humankind....
The life continius the next 100 years, no problem.
Well, no problemo if your relatives are part of the surviving 100 million...