Replacement for Oil or Space Travel

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yes that's a possibility, that humanity will keep doing what it's doing now. And the most probable too. But it's not absolutely certain.

It is quite certain i assure you... the United States military is spending billions upon billions to research better weapons INCLUDING SPACE WEAPONS...the accumulation of this research and funding will echo into hundreds of years or even thousands of years into the future, further solidifying our fate.... Mankind has a carnal nature... it would take divine intervention to ever force mankind to consolidate into a utopia.

[Edric O]

Your only counterpoint would be to say that "Perhaps humanity will create more than we destroy" ....but this is flawed.... because it is (and always will be) easier to destroy than it is to create.  Which is easier?.... to demolish a skyscraper or to build one?  Think about that.

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

[Dante]

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

How can you say that? That can be reduced to 'the ends justify the means.'

Space exploration can go wrong alright... Destruction of planets, alien ecosystems (if they exist), ourselves...

[Dragoon Knight]

*Dons flame-retardant Still-Suit and jumps into the topic*

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

Are you taking into consideration what Dante has been arguing about for some time now?  Other ecosystems are already created, and to expand, humanity may have to destroy them.  Just because we didn't build / create something, doesn't mean we can't destroy it.

Rather than have this seen as a simple "Yes-Man" post, I'd just like to clarify my own view regarding this issue.  I believe that humanity is - for want of a better term - the most superior race that we know of.  This isn't due to arrogance (which, I'm afraid, is exactly the same as egotism or "being an egoist :P) but simple empirical evidence.  The fact that we alone (in the absence of any evidence of alien cultures) seem to have developed advanced intelligence gives us the "right" to expand and survive, in my opinion.

Having said that, I do not believe that we have the "right" to destroy or interfere with other ecosystems.  I do believe that mining "dead" planets for minerals or metals is alright; if there is no life there, then I see no reason why the resources held within can't be used to benefit ourselves.  But in the end - or about 2 billion years :) - humanity is going to have to find another planet to live on.  This planet will have to be able to support human life, and therefore will most likely have an ecosystem in place already.  We're going to have to interfere with it to survive.

The only other option I can think of is terraforming a "dead" planet.  I know it's an improbable example, but has anyone seen "Total Recall"? :P

Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole matter.  General support for Dante, Gunwounds and Edric, and to some extent American Cyborg and Spectral Paladin; but with my own views mixed in. :)

*Takes cover*

[GUNWOUNDS]

As a matter of fact, we have built more skyscrapers than we demolished. How do I know that? Because some skyscrapers are still standing. If every skyscraper ever built were demolished, then none of them would still be standing, would they? And it is impossible to demolish more skyscrapers than we build, because we have to build one before we can take it down.

The thing about space is that there is nothing TO destroy. There is nothing TO kill. Space, as far as we can see, is empty of life, and filled only with inanimate rocks and gasses. Even if you have some sort of unusual affection for rocks, I think we can all agree that Humanity won't go into space and start blowing up rocks for the hell of it.

Because space is empty, because there is nothing for us to kill and destroy at the present time, we will have to CREATE things before we can destroy them. Of course we are a violent species. Of course we will spread quite a bit of destruction into space. But there's a catch: We will only destroy things that we created in the first place. And, unless we completely obliterate everything we ever created in space (which is highly unlikely), the final balance will be positive - we will create more things than we destroy. It's precisely the same thing as with the skyscraper example given above: As long as there are some skyscrapers still standing, we know that, overall, we built more skyscrapers than we destroyed. Under no circumstances can we possibly destroy more skyscrapers than we build.

That's the beautiful thing about space colonization: It simply cannot go wrong. No matter how much we destroy, no matter how much we kill, the final balance is still positive. Space is the realm of death right now. If we spread life, that is a positive thing, even if we end up killing part of the life we spread.

The skyscraper example was used to illustrate how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create...of course whether we do so is up to us....also it is possible to go negative if you destroy skyscrapers that dont belong to you...it doesnt necessarily have to be on a global mankind level...it can be national.. if china builds skyscrapers on the moon and America destroys them.. then the Chinese will definately have their pocketbooks go into the red.... also it is possible to go negative when you factor in natural habitats like rainforests and such.

[TheRedDuke05]

Anyway, that's my opinion on the whole matter.

[Dragoon Knight]

A single nation?  One, all powerful leadership?  A mega-army prepared to fight off hostile aliens?

Sorry; it might make a semi-decent fan fiction, but there's very little in your arguments that isn't illogical or impractical, hence the lack of support for them. :)

[Dude_Doc]

If humans become too powerful by working together, there will be virtually no limit to what they could achieve. I fear for exactly what those 'achievements' would consist of.

But you believe that humans are an evil force. We have never cooperated on a global scale, ever, in our history. How can you know that this will be a bad thing, once achieved? Our whole history is filled with death and suffering, butchering each other on the battlefield. We only know this - and if we break away from this trend, we will tread into a new prospect - "a new age" - of cooperation and understanding.

Because you believe that humanity deserves it, and that there is nothing more that the planet could achieve. I do not.

I never said humanity deserved anything. I'm saying that this is a way of life. Every known organism expands in any way, may it be at a slow pace or a fast one. If animals could expand into space and live on other planets, they would. And if every known organism on one single planet do this, then I'm sure other organisms in the universe shares the same destiny.

We are ourselves. Society reflects what is put into it, and what is put into it is done by individuals.

But not by all, or the majority, of the induviduals in society. It required one intellectual speaker to create one of the bloodiest mass-murderers in the previous century. It required one very good "dreamer" to create one of the world's biggest religions.

Did we all agree to create countries? To have kings who ruled us? Corporations that squeeze money out of poor countries?

The fact that we alone (in the absence of any evidence of alien cultures) seem to have developed advanced intelligence gives us the "right" to expand and survive, in my opinion.

I agree with this, because I think that if there are life on other planets, they will behave in a similar way. Organisms need a form of energy. If they are developed enough, they will go into space and seek out more energy.

[Dante]

But you believe that humans are an evil force. We have never cooperated on a global scale, ever, in our history. How can you know that this will be a bad thing, once achieved? Our whole history is filled with death and suffering, butchering each other on the battlefield. We only know this - and if we break away from this trend, we will tread into a new prospect - "a new age" - of cooperation and understanding.

Mm hm. And you think this will ever happen? If humanity ever unites, it will be because of a common enemy that is even worse. And once (if) that enemy is defeated, we'll go right back to killing each other. Just look at the Cold War following World War Two.

I never said humanity deserved anything. I'm saying that this is a way of life. Every known organism expands in any way, may it be at a slow pace or a fast one. If animals could expand into space and live on other planets, they would. And if every known organism on one single planet do this, then I'm sure other organisms in the universe shares the same destiny.

Why? Why would an alien species, by definition completely different from anything we know, behave in a similar way? And Destiny? What kind of idea is that? 'Destiny' is even more ridiculous than fate.

But not by all, or the majority, of the induviduals in society. It required one intellectual speaker to create one of the bloodiest mass-murderers in the previous century. It required one very good "dreamer" to create one of the world's biggest religions.

And could they have done that without soliders and deluded fools believers? Someone had to agree with them, someone had to make their ideas work. The fact that many people did indicates that an individual would be very ineffective on their own.

Did we all agree to create countries? To have kings who ruled us? Corporations that squeeze money out of poor countries?

We let it happen, didn't we?

I agree with this, because I think that if there are life on other planets, they will behave in a similar way. Organisms need a form of energy. If they are developed enough, they will go into space and seek out more energy.

On what do you base this? Has it ever happened before? We have all the resources we need on this planet, if only they would be used correctly. As for having the right to expand due to 'intelligence,' well I question what kind of enlightened race can still manage to be so careless and harmful.

[TheRedDuke05]

A single nation?

[nemafakei]

On egoism and arrogance, it's unhelpful to define from a lexical point of view whether they're identical or not, because you're trying to prove or disprove that two concepts are identical. A thesaurus and a dictionary might give you ideas on where to start, but you've got to think of words as you mean them in context rather than subject them to the rounding error of classification.

If we define egoistic as 'centring one's attention around oneself and one's own intersts', then for a race to try to spread itself into space for its own survival purpose is probably egoistic.

Now you could say 'what I mean by arrogant is that you assume that others should look up to you, and therefore space travel is egoistic but not arrogant'. Of course, what you mean by arrogant may not be what others mean by the word.

Different words can be used to make distinctions or they can be used to emphasise parallels, and a dictionary can't tell you how a word is being used in all contexts - get to the essence of the word, and get to the essence of what you mean. Then try to express what you mean by defining it. You may find that your definition acheives what your attempted equations could not so clearly show.

[Edric O]

How can you say that? That can be reduced to 'the ends justify the means.'

No, it can be reduced to "life is better than non-life".

Space exploration can go wrong alright... Destruction of planets...

Even if we do destroy a dead planet, how would that be wrong? Would it harm anyone, or any kind of lifeform? No, because it's a dead planet.

...alien ecosystems (if they exist)...

There is not an ounce of evidence that alien ecosystems exist. When people argued that human beings could all become peaceful, benevolent and utopian, you called it wishful thinking. Well, guess what? Believing in the existence of alien ecosystems is an even greater case of wishful thinking.

Your argument seems to be that "oh, humans shouldn't go into space, because we might eventually somehow end up hurting some lifeforms that may or may not exist". I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.

...ourselves...

If we don't go into space, we will die out. We have nothing to lose.

[Edric O]

Other ecosystems are already created, and to expand, humanity may have to destroy them.  Just because we didn't build / create something, doesn't mean we can't destroy it.

On Earth, there are ecosystems that we did not create. As such, it is possible for us to destroy what we did not create. But this is not possible on any other planets, because those planets have no ecosystems to begin with.

Having said that, I do not believe that we have the "right" to destroy or interfere with other ecosystems.

I don't think alien ecosystems exist. If they do, we can worry about it AFTER we actually FIND them. Until then, it is absurd to limit our expansion for the sake of imaginary aliens.

The skyscraper example was used to illustrate how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create...of course whether we do so is up to us....

Good. So you admit that human beings will NOT inevitably destroy more than they create.

also it is possible to go negative if you destroy skyscrapers that dont belong to you...it doesnt necessarily have to be on a global mankind level...it can be national.. if china builds skyscrapers on the moon and America destroys them.. then the Chinese will definately have their pocketbooks go into the red....

Of course, but we are discussing the expansion of mankind in general. Various human factions might destroy more than they create, but overall Humanity will create more than it destroys.

also it is possible to go negative when you factor in natural habitats like rainforests and such.  Its also easier to destroy a rainforest than it is to plant one.  And when you factor in extinction something you can never reclaim, that is definately going into the negative due to the fact that you destroyed something potentially priceless.

Indeed, but that only applies to Earth, not dead planets. As I pointed out, on a dead planet (like Mars), there is nothing TO destroy.

AS far as space goes.... you probably are right that it is empty and that we will only destroy what we create.....except that if you look at it on a national level we could destroy what others create as well...also if we terraform other planets the ecosystems there will start to develop on their own independent of us.... and therefore if we destroy that it will be like destroying the rainforest here on earth all over again.

Except that rainforest wouldn't have existed in the first place if it weren't for us. What is worse? To have a smaller rainforest, or to have no rainforest at all?

By the way, keep in mind that we're considering the worst case scenario here. It is of course possible for us to create a rainforest and NOT destroy any part of it.

Also trying to justify that we will only destroy what we create is sorta like the defense a pro-abortion activist would use.

I'm not defending anything. I'm not saying destruction is good, or even justified. All I'm saying is that even if we do destroy things we created on other planets (which does not have to happen), it will still be better (or less bad) than not creating anything at all.

[Dante]

No, it can be reduced to "life is better than non-life".

And that no matter how many things die, the end result will be worth it. That is what you said.

Even if we do destroy a dead planet, how would that be wrong? Would it harm anyone, or any kind of lifeform? No, because it's a dead planet.

Your point being? Life is not the only thing that matters. Venus has absolutely no life on it that we know of, and is highly unlikely to ever yeild any. Nevertheless, it is unique in the solar system, and uniqueness should be preserved, not destroyed. The same applies to... well just about everything.

There is not an ounce of evidence that alien ecosystems exist. When people argued that human beings could all become peaceful, benevolent and utopian, you called it wishful thinking. Well, guess what? Believing in the existence of alien ecosystems is an even greater case of wishful thinking.

Which is why I use the word 'if' whenever I deal with them. If they exist was what I said.

Your argument seems to be that "oh, humans shouldn't go into space, because we might eventually somehow end up hurting some lifeforms that may or may not exist". I'm sorry, but that's just pathetic.

Well that and I believe that it would be better for the universe as a whole if the species were to just spontaneously die. In the absence of that, staying confined to our own planet will have to do.

My argument, if you insist on summarising it, runs along the lines of "I believe than humanity does more harm than good. It always has, and always will. Thus any ideas involving the spread of humanity (colonisation of other planets) or the benefit of humanity (global cooperation) can only be a bad thing. Added to this is the need to preserve everything unique, to a certain extent."

If we don't go into space, we will die out. We have nothing to lose.

As should be clear by now, I don't care about 'us.' Just me. And since I have no hope of surviving long enough to make it into space, I'm quite happy damning the rest of my race to the same fate.

On Earth, there are ecosystems that we did not create. As such, it is possible for us to destroy what we did not create. But this is not possible on any other planets, because those planets have no ecosystems to begin with.

Point one, life is not all that matters. Point two, there are bound to be some somewhere. Please note that this is not a 'belief,' it is an expectation.

I don't think alien ecosystems exist. If they do, we can worry about it AFTER we actually FIND them. Until then, it is absurd to limit our expansion for the sake of imaginary aliens.

There is no way to prove or disprove, so it makes sense to take both possibilities into account. Since my argument functions whether there are aliens (sentient or otherwise) or not, I don't have a problem with this.

Of course, but we are discussing the expansion of mankind in general. Various human factions might destroy more than they create, but overall Humanity will create more than it destroys.

I have yet to see a human-created rainforest. Island. Dodo. Thylacine...

Indeed, but that only applies to Earth, not dead planets. As I pointed out, on a dead planet (like Mars), there is nothing TO destroy.

Except the planet itself. Or Olympus Mons. Various other physical features of the planet.

Except that rainforest wouldn't have existed in the first place if it weren't for us. What is worse? To have a smaller rainforest, or to have no rainforest at all?

To have a bigger rainforest. That's an option too, though few seem to wish it.

By the way, keep in mind that we're considering the worst case scenario here. It is of course possible for us to create a rainforest and NOT destroy any part of it.

Possible. Taking centuries of work, and unlikely to be untouched, but possible.

I'm not defending anything. I'm not saying destruction is good, or even justified. All I'm saying is that even if we do destroy things we created on other planets (which does not have to happen), it will still be better (or less bad) than not creating anything at all.

Ah. "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all," hmm? I'm not so sure. You put all that effort into making something work, and then tear it all down again. If anything, you'll be worse off afterwards because resources are depleted and everyone's demoralised.

[Dude_Doc]

Mm hm. And you think this will ever happen?

No one can be sure of the future. But I hope that I am right. I am willing to fight for it.

If humanity ever unites, it will be because of a common enemy that is even worse. And once (if) that enemy is defeated, we'll go right back to killing each other. Just look at the Cold War following World War Two.

It does not have to be an enemy from "another place" that unites us. We can do it by ourselves by living in a system built on cooperation, not competition. Of course the Cold War followed WW2. The Soviet Union was a centralized government, had a secret police and poured propaganda in almost every instance of it's existance. The US had almost a similar one. Both nations focused on patriotism, the love for one's country. Both nations wanted their system to be in the world.

But one thing they did not have was a humane society. All our wars were between different countries, different people, different beliefs. What people need to realize is that we are one, living on the same planet. And even better: every human is better off living under an utopian society. Everyone. You, me, people on this board. Wheter we like it or not.

Why? Why would an alien species, by definition completely different from anything we know, behave in a similar way?

The reason for me to believe this is because the universe is consistent with the same materials. Everything inside this universe needs a mass, they are consistent of atoms, in one form or another. Every planet needs a star to rotate around, a sun that gives the planet heat, and probably a better chance of evolving life. A moon is also preferable. Every life-form on earth needs water. All atoms known to us freeze at -316 (I think) C degrees, or 0 K.

I think you see where I am going with this. The universe was created out of "one". It may be huge, but is the universe really so different? If there are aliens, will they really be so different that we may never know their way of thinking? If so, their planet must also be different, but so must their evolution too, which leads to many kinds of changes throughout the process leading to life. Then, one could always ask, if there are other universes, if life is similar there than it is here, and that I can not know or theorize about.

But this is similar to the alien-question. Must there be other life-forms out there? Who decided this? Is it natural for every universe, maybe, just a chance? Are we lucky? Or do we expect our neighbours to drop by any time? Same thing. Why must they be so different?

And Destiny? What kind of idea is that? 'Destiny' is even more ridiculous than fate.

It all depends on how you look at it. Do we create everything now, or did others do it before us? Is what we do something that has already happened? If so, who are we then? And who are those who created this?

And could they have done that without soliders and deluded fools believers? Someone had to agree with them, someone had to make their ideas work.

Of course: it had never been tried before! Nazism was new, it was cool, you had to know it. Imagine Germany getting back on it's feet again, thanks to this "prophet"! "Communism" was new too, power to the peoeple! The fact is, we are all following Bush's and Blair's terror-propaganda. We're saying no to their wars, but we still fight them. We all know the West turns with oil, we know the dirty tricks of the mighty corporations, we say "ooh, that is scary", and then we go on eating our hamburgers.

The fact that many people did indicates that an individual would be very ineffective on their own.

And now we have a written history of it. We have functionable proof of our flaws.

We let it happen, didn't we?

Because it was new. If people had known, it would have been different. Now we know why we can't stay in this system, why we need to change, to evolve.

On what do you base this?

On what do you base that humans is the only spicies in the whole universe that behaves the way we do?

[nemafakei]

Edric, I'm all for space at some point, but your arguments suggest the options are 'space ASAP' or 'no space' - that may not be what you have in mind, but nevertheless.

What I am suggesting (and I think Dusty has hinted along these lines but not taken this course) is we try to make sure that we don't try to expand before we're sure we've spent enough time making sure we'll survive. 'Space later' could mean life in space when 'space ASAP' could mean we end up failing on earth and in space. Moving into space is a survival tactic in the long run, yes, but if we spend our resuorces on space travel and neglect the 'home' situation we could end up with nothing. We might get to mars but end up with a desperate earth destroyed by nukes, and die out without support.

Even if we don't have a united world, we need a co-operative world, and preferably one that we haven't spoilt so badly we'd be relying on other planets to support us. When we seriously go into space, we need to be doing so as a race, not as the US, the EU, China, or South America. If we go to as a race, then we'll have the least chance of ending up with nothing.

Space will wait. Earth won't.

[Dante]

It does not have to be an enemy from "another place" that unites us. We can do it by ourselves by living in a system built on cooperation, not competition. Of course the Cold War followed WW2. The Soviet Union was a centralized government, had a secret police and poured propaganda in almost every instance of it's existance. The US had almost a similar one. Both nations focused on patriotism, the love for one's country. Both nations wanted their system to be in the world.

Both nations were xenophobic and corrupt. Both nations demonstrated humanity's reactions to former allies. And I didn't say it would be an enemy from another place, I said it would be a common enemy. It could even be a disease. Competition keeps us reasonably sharp. It gives us something to focus against. It reduces toleration for mistakes. Cooperation only happens when one side hopes to benefit from the other. If that benefit stops, so does the cooperation.

But one thing they did not have was a humane society. All our wars were between different countries, different people, different beliefs. What people need to realize is that we are one, living on the same planet. And even better: every human is better off living under an utopian society. Everyone. You, me, people on this board. Wheter we like it or not.

Yeah, 'utopian' is by definition perfect, but not realistic. I think that's accurate enough.

The reason for me to believe this is because the universe is consistent with the same materials. Everything inside this universe needs a mass, they are consistent of atoms, in one form or another. Every planet needs a star to rotate around, a sun that gives the planet heat, and probably a better chance of evolving life. A moon is also preferable. Every life-form on earth needs water. All atoms known to us freeze at -316 (I think) C degrees, or 0 K.

Atoms don't freeze. Substances, however, do have reduced entropy values as they approach 0 Kelvin, which is impossible to achieve. And freeze at different temperatures. Still, just because some things can be taken for granted doesn't mean that others can too. If you live in a single room your whole life eating green food, you will believe that all food is green. This is not necessarily the case.

I think you see where I am going with this. The universe was created out of "one". It may be huge, but is the universe really so different? If there are aliens, will they really be so different that we may never know their way of thinking? If so, their planet must also be different, but so must their evolution too, which leads to many kinds of changes throughout the process leading to life.

Indeed. It is perfectly possible (pedantics, do not think that I am saying probable) that such a situation exists.

But this is similar to the alien-question. Must there be other life-forms out there? Who decided this? Is it natural for every universe, maybe, just a chance? Are we lucky? Or do we expect our neighbours to drop by any time? Same thing. Why must they be so different?

There is no 'must.' Only Maybe.

It all depends on how you look at it. Do we create everything now, or did others do it before us? Is what we do something that has already happened? If so, who are we then? And who are those who created this?

You're babbling. Fate is a weak way of justifying one's actions by saying "Oh, it was meant to happen. It's fate!" Which is one of the weakest arguments ever to have been put forward. Predestination, yes. Destiny, when used to mean predestination, yes. Destiny, when used to mean fate, no.

Of course: it had never been tried before! Nazism was new, it was cool, you had to know it. Imagine Germany getting back on it's feet again, thanks to this "prophet"! "Communism" was new too, power to the peoeple! The fact is, we are all following Bush's and Blair's terror-propaganda. We're saying no to their wars, but we still fight them. We all know the West turns with oil, we know the dirty tricks of the mighty corporations, we say "ooh, that is scary", and then we go on eating our hamburgers.

Exactly. We are the individuals, and what we put into society, we get back.

And now we have a written history of it. We have functionable proof of our flaws.

Flaws that have not magically disappeared.

Because it was new. If people had known, it would have been different. Now we know why we can't stay in this system, why we need to change, to evolve.

If we, as a whole, really wanted that, it would have happened by now.

On what do you base that humans is the only spicies in the whole universe that behaves the way we do?

Don't be dense. Not only did you not answer my point, but I did not say that humans have a unique behaviour pattern. I said that other species will not necessarily act as we do.

What I am suggesting (and I think Dusty has hinted along these lines but not taken this course) is we try to make sure that we don't try to expand before we're sure we've spent enough time making sure we'll survive. 'Space later' could mean life in space when 'space ASAP' could mean we end up failing on earth and in space. Moving into space is a survival tactic in the long run, yes, but if we spend our resuorces on space travel and neglect the 'home' situation we could end up with nothing. We might get to mars but end up with a desperate earth destroyed by nukes, and die out without support.

You're absolutely right. Both in the argument and that there was hinting on my part.

Even if we don't have a united world, we need a co-operative world, and preferably one that we haven't spoilt so badly we'd be relying on other planets to support us. When we seriously go into space, we need to be doing so as a race, not as the US, the EU, China, or South America. If we go to as a race, then we'll have the least chance of ending up with nothing.

Space will wait. Earth won't.

I agree in principle, but I don't think that's possible. Pessimist that I am.

[stefanhendriks]

We better hurry. Since the space is folding...  but if we wait enough, space will be decreasing and eventually after zillion years we end up with a big.. well, lets say it ends like it begins... Like in everything in life, its a circle ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

We better hurry. Since the space is folding...  but if we wait enough, space will be decreasing and eventually after zillion years we end up with a big.. well, lets say it ends like it begins... Like in everything in life, its a circle ;)

How sad... in a zillion years i am sure we would be so advanced it would be unreal... however no amount of technology could stop the Universe from doing a Big Crunch.... basically opposite of a Big Bang.

[Dude_Doc]

How sad... in a zillion years i am sure we would be so advanced it would be unreal... however no amount of technology could stop the Universe from doing a Big Crunch....

And even if we somehow could stop a Big Crunch, or if it doesn't happen in the first place, then all stars would sooner or later run out of "fuel", and we would anyway "die".

[Dante]

Stars are being born all the time. I highly doubt there will ever be a circumstance where they all 'run out.'

[Dude_Doc]

Stars are being born all the time. I highly doubt there will ever be a circumstance where they all 'run out.'

Yes, but they are created somehow, and with somekind of matter. Matter will not "disappear", but it will be transformed into a form which can not "turn into" stars. Of course, one must also consider that the universe will either expand forever/never collapse in order for this process to occur. We're talking trillions upon trillions of years here.

[GUNWOUNDS]

errr yes you are somewhat correct... in that all matter and concentrated energy eventually degrades into long wavelength heat radiation which is pretty useless for anything.

[Dude_Doc]

errr yes you are somewhat correct... in that all matter and concentrated energy eventually degrades into long wavelength heat radiation which is pretty useless for anything.

Exactly. There wouldn't be "anything" left. Just like they say: "everything that has a beginning has an end". Or something like it...

i guess we would have to hope that blackhole/whitehole implosion and expulsion kept things going...

I don't think that is possible. Black holes really suck. I believe there was some theory that sooner or later, all materia would be sucked in and literally "become" just one, big, eternal black hole, always sucking, always disturbing the peace of the universe.

However, I have come across a "theory" about the so called "Omega Point". And from what I understood, "we" could get unlimited power from it.

It reads: the universe is about to collapse. It gets smaller. As it gets smaller, information between "the inhabitants" is exchanged faster and faster, thus reaching conclusions and solutions faster. Just before the actual crunch, we would get such a power that can only be compared to the one's of God.

(Note: I don't think I have fully understood the "Omega Point Theory", but that is what I gathered from it. That and that there is some things that must be very exact in order for the Omega Point to happen (like a perfectly circular universe, etc)).

[Acriku]

That's assuming the "crunch" isn't nearly instant.