[SeaGypsy]

My bet is the ancient Indian philosophy is correct in that it simply will never be done. Life begat life, turtles all the way in both directions, chickens & eggs all the way back. Material science has not, I believe will not, ever explain the first turtle, the first chicken or the first egg.

[Sixstrings]

I have no problem with mixing religion & science so long as the difference is acknowledged. Many scientists leave room in their hard rationality for a spiritual factor, even cause, to life. I do have a problem with utterly stupid ideas like espoused by the likes of KJ, Hawking, that us shaved monkeys should, could or would be in any way bettered by living eternally in a tin can artificial gravity in space.

Colonization of the solar system and beyond, has nothing to do with spirituality, or religion.

Although, if one is a Christian, doesn't the Bible say something like "go forth and multiply." Which also happens to be the only scientifically discernable "meaning of life" -- survival, procreation of the species, and spreading out as much as possible.

But anyhow it's not about religion, a space colony is just the next step, just as breaking out of Africa through the Sinai was a step, and natives walking the land bridge to North America was a step, and Polynesians sailing rafts to South America was a step.

There's a whole universe out there, let's go colonize it.

Besides stupid, it is horrid that anyone claiming any kind of care for the planet which has nurtured us to our existence is so worthless as to be seen as no more than a launching pad for this eternal fantasy man. This idea very strongly correlates to apocalyptic religion.

What Stephen Hawking is talking about, is just logical and rational. To best ensure the survival of mankind as a species, then man must break out of the bottleneck and into the solar system, and then beyond.



Yes, Earth is beautiful and it's home, but SG there's a whole galaxy out there FULL of planets. There's going to be X number of goregous earths, too. This is fact, astronomers are discovering new exoplanets left and right lately, they're all over the place.

There are as many stars in our galaxy as grains of sand on earth, and there are as many galaxies as grains of sand -- so, you do the math there. Why keep mankind bottled up on this one little head of a pin when there's a whole universe out there.

P.S. and aren't you aware that the earth is finite and temporary, anyway? It will all end one day. If not nuke war then asteroid impact is a surety, those impacts regularly wipe out all the dominant species and then new ones get a chance. Then eventually, the whole planet gets incinerated as the sun goes red giant and swallows it up.

So -- it has to be done, SG, it has to. Do you want our species to just lay down and die, as the sun swallows the planet? Sure, you can say well that's a billion years from now or whatever, but ya gotta start somewhere right. Don't put off to the future what needs to be done while we have the tech to get it started.

It MUST be done SG. The sun will eventually go red giant and swallow the planet.

[Strummer]

The sun will eventually go red giant and swallow the planet

Humans have managed to push the biosphere on the brink of destruction in less than 200 years of industrial civilization and you are talking about the sun going red giant being a threat? This is EXACTLY why all this dreaming about space colonization is like religion.

[SeaGypsy]

You are really pissing me off now 6. We must learn to live on this planet you idiot. Until we have done that we have no right to spread our filthy virus like selves anywhere.

[Sixstrings]

Humans have managed to push the biosphere on the brink of destruction in less than 200 years of industrial civilization and you are talking about the sun going red giant being a threat? This is EXACTLY why all this dreaming about space colonization is like religion.

Well, it's not like NOT colonizing the solar system, being anti-space, somehow means that we're suddenly going to live on Earth and be good boys and girls and make a garden of Eden, ya know?

The planet's gonna get trashed no matter what we do. If we want to continue our own species, which is the directive in our DNA and only "meaning of life" there is anyway -- then we'd better branch out.

P.S. I looked it up, actually the sun won't go red giant for another 5.4 billion years. Yeah, that's a long time.

But still -- it's gonna happen. So, logically, one CANNOT be "against" colonization of space. Life from earth (either us or what we evolve into or another future species from earth) WILL *have to* get off this planet or expand, or else life on earth was all for naught and has no legacy.

You see my point there, right? That yes it's a long time from now but still, the planet's gonna be incinerated so somebody will need to get off the planet?

Or, it could be another extinction-event asteroid impact. That happens every x number of years, it's why mammals are dominant and not dinosaurs, and there was another group dominant before the dinos and they got a meteor impact and that's why dinosaurs became dominant.

We're actually overdue for one of those extinction event asteroid impacts, NASA could spot one tomorrow for all we know.

[Sixstrings]

You are really pissing me off now 6. We must learn to live on this planet you idiot. Until we have done that we have no right to spread our filthy virus like selves anywhere.

SG, the solar system and rest of the universe is "part of nature." Earth isn't all there is. There's more out there.

I'm just doing a thinking exercise here, what's really better, dialing back on tech advancement and the industrial age -- or, put the pedal to the metal and ramp up to Star Trek and start branching out ya know?

The more tech advancement humans attain, the more they can do to preserve the planet anyway, whether that is redirecting asteroids (which nasa is planning to do), or in the future that could be terraforming. Making Mars earth-like, or rehabilitating earth.

I think you and me just view it differently, you don't think about the rest of the universe. To you, "nature" is just this one planet. I don't really see a difference, Jupiter's Europa actually has more water than Earth does. SG, the natural world extends beyond just this planet, it's everything out there.

There are asteroids with trillions in gold and platinum, on them. And Titan has oceans of LNG. It's a chemical soup factory, humans can either grab it and make use of it or leave it undeveloped -- "nature" doesn't give a sh*t. We may as well use the stuff, nobody else is going too. (that we know of lol)

Of course this planet is special though and rare in the galaxy, of course it needs to be protected, but being ant-tech and anti-industry and anti-space development doesn't get that accomplished. And #1 is just survival of homo spaiens, that's more important than the "planet." There are other "planets" out there. As a species, our job is just to not go extinct. There are a few ways to get that done, live within the habitat we have, or branch out, or both.

[Newfie]

You are really pissing me off now 6. We must learn to live on this planet you idiot. Until we have done that we have no right to spread our filthy virus like selves anywhere.

My thoughts EXACTLY!

[Strummer]

SG, the solar system and rest of the universe is "part of nature."

No they aren't. "Nature" is specific to this planet, separated by empty space from other planets, and shielded from radiation by the atmosphere and the magnetic field. It could be that there are biospheres on other planets, but they are totally separated and most likely completely different from our nature.

[Newfie]

Six wrote"doesn't the Bible say something like "go forth and multiply." Which also happens to be the only scientifically discernable "meaning of life" -- survival, procreation of the species, and spreading out as much as possible."

Six, I think that you are generally correct on this, but with a caveat and my own pet theory on the meaning or purpose of life.

Caveat...this works up to the point where we are so successful at multiplying that we ruin the planet and as a result drive our population numbers down. Some would argue that our planetary degradation is lowering the overall number of people it can support. Others will argue that we are facing our own extinction. In effect were are committing sucked through obesity.

As to the meaning or purpose of life I think a reasonable argument could be made along these lines. In the same manner that gravity, a pretty weak force, is relentless in getting its way, Entropy is a kind of relentless force. In the same sense that water "wants" to run down hill nature "wants" to eliminate stores of energy.

Plant matter has stored much energy that can only slowly be reduced by natural processes. It makes some sense that Nature would create, cause to evolve, a creature that "eats" or reduces these stores of energy. By doing so it is working with Entropy, or is an agent of Entropy, to reduce energy stores.

What humans "do" is two things.....we multiply like crazed bunnies, and we "eat" energy stores that are otherwise unavailable to be reduced by other processes.

If you say we are defined by what we do the what we do is assist Entropy by reducing otherwise locked up energy stores.

What we "do" is cause Earth, and thus the Universe, to rot faster.

This is not a new idea, or uniquely mine. I can't recall the physicists from whom I first heard it. Teller? I'll try to google it but I'm on a Neanderthal connection.

[Sixstrings]

No they aren't. "Nature" is specific to this planet, separated by empty space from other planets, and shielded from radiation by the atmosphere and the magnetic field. It could be that there are biospheres on other planets, but they are totally separated and most likely completely different from our nature.

No, they are not "totally separated."

It's actually likely that life was planted on earth via meteor impact from somewhere else. And if it did originite here then material from earth has possibly already seeded other planets.

It's not a closed system, at all.

Throughout the solar system evolution there has been exchange between planets, from impacts. A big meteor crashed into mars and that sent material flying out and some of it landed on earth and survived re-entry. That's what those organism fossils are that nasa was talking about, years ago, they're from a martian meteor.

Then, there are deep space comets that transfer material between solar systems.

The latest thinking is that the whole galaxy has been seeded in this way, and galaxies have exchange too over vaster time frames.

There's a reason why earth has certain organisms that can survive the vacume of space, radiation, and temp extremes -- they probably have ET origin.

If you don't believe me, just watch the new "Cosmos," I think that's where I saw all this. I found it interesting -- I never realized the degree of exchange between planets. Especially in earlier development, the whole solar system was one big game of billiards with everything crashing into everything.

There are times in earth's history when ALL life was wiped out from impact, yet life came back again -- scientiests say that's because it got planted all over again by another meteor impact, or material returning back to earth that got ejected from the last extinction impact.

Anyhow -- the whole universe is "the natural world." I don't know why some of you guys are so hostile about it, like This is Earth -- this is Not Earth.

A planet is a darn planet, it's the same old sh*t man. Just a lot of variations. Mars used to have blue skies and oceans, too. Earth will lose its oceans and atmosphere one day, too, burned off by the sun. All of nature changes, nothing is permanent, and everything is in motion. Planets orbit the sun, and the sun is orbiting that big black hole in the middle of this spiral galaxy we're in. The galaxies are in motion, too, and collide and merge and rip each other up. Stars have cycles, when they go nova they spread out material for a new nebula and it all starts all over again.

I'm just saying it's a big kettle of stew here, it's the whole solar system and beyond, it's not like "nature" is just earth, it's a larger system than that.

There are probably 4-8 billion Earth type planets in the milky way galaxy:

8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets exist in Milky Way alone

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/8-8-billion-habitable-earth-size-planets-exist-milky-way-f8C11529186

Why the hostility about space exploration? I really don't get it. It's like someone yelling at Jacques Cousteau to not dare dive under the ocean, because "we haven't saved the land yet."

This is just what humanity does, when the habitat is full then people emigrate out to somewhere that doesn't have any people yet. That's actually good for the original habitate, it relieves the over population pressure.

[Strummer]

The proto-origins of life does not equal "nature".

[SeaGypsy]

Really not a nice person.

[Sixstrings]

The proto-origins of life does not equal "nature".

Says who?

You're saying earth is a closed system, and I'm saying it is not. The sun affects us, and changes in solar cycles, and then we get regular meteor impacts and material exchange from elsewhere.

One could think of planets like continents -- there are barriers, but not entirely closed, things float to shore from some other island etc.

I just do not understand your point, or SG's hostility about space.

Real climate scientists are actually VERY interested in studying the climate on Titan, for example, and other places. More knowledge is always better. Knowing about how climate works on Titan can help understand Earth's climate, better. If we know what happened to climates on Venus and Mars then that's more knowledge for what can happen to earth.

All of space tech furthers climate science. The probes, the satellites, that's what's giving a lot of the data about the climate.

So why the hostility?

I'm not saying earth shouldn't be saved, I'm just saying we should be doing BOTH --expand into space, and do the other things, it's not one or the other. The natives on easter island would have been smart to do both, too -- stop cutting down all the trees, but at the same time build some darn boats before the last trees are gone! Do both and survive!

[Sixstrings]

Really not a nice person.

SG, WHY does space stuff make you so mad?

If you think I'm saying this climate we have doesn't matter because we can just find another, then no I'm not saying that.

We just need to be doing both, in case one of the approaches does not work out.

There is nothing to be angry or hostile about here, Stephen Hawking is right, it's a simple rational logical argument that for the species to survive then it has to break out of the earth bottleneck.

Nobody is saying earth is not special, of course it is, there are maybe 8 billion other ones in the galaxy but they are all still rare and we are special. The composition of this solar system, overall, is in the rare category for the other solar systems now being studied.

SG, listen to Carl Sagan, who can get mad at him? He was a nice guy:

THE SAGAN SERIES - The Frontier Is Everywhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY59wZdCDo0&list=UUnazaabF3nhnIEax6tYG-PA

Sagan was right, we're nomads, this is what we do. I only disagree with him in that we'll actually branch out a lot faster than he envisioned. But we'd better get started on it now regardless, while we have the tech, before there is another dark age caused by whatever reason. And that's what Stephen Hawking says too, and elon Musk, and no neither one of those guys are gods but they do happen to be correct about that.

[Strummer]

The proto-origins of life does not equal "nature".

Says who?

The process of evolution.

"Nature" is what was created by evolution as a reaction/adaptation to the specific planetary conditions on Earth.

[Synapsid]

Six,

What's your evidence that an impact wiped out previous forms and allowed dinosaurs to become dominant?

[Sixstrings]

Caveat...this works up to the point where we are so successful at multiplying that we ruin the planet and as a result drive our population numbers down. Some would argue that our planetary degradation is lowering the overall number of people it can support. Others will argue that we are facing our own extinction.

Well you are right of course, it's the Easter Island scenario. On Easter Island they were cutting down trees to roll stones to make those totem things they were so obsessed about.

My only point is that yes, they would have been wise to stop doing that before the last tree got cut down, but also that they should have used the last logs to build some boats too!

As for the meaning of "life.." -- nobody knows what that is.

What use is "life," in the universe? It exists some places, and not in others. We don't know yet if all life is carbon based, or if there is a silicon based or other lifeform. It's likely that most intelligent species, if they advance and make it far enough, evolve into machine life.

When we discover the "aliens" they will likely be cybernetic or all AI.

The commandment in Genesis:

Genesis 9:7

New International Version
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

The Bible just mentions Earth, not the rest of the universe, but it's fair to assume that if there is a God he'd probably prefer we continue multiplying OFF the earth once the earth was all filled up with us. We really need a third testament here, the Bible isn't telling us what to do once the planet is full.

I find it interesting how that bit of Genesis matches up with what life does, naturally. It's in our DNA. Whatever the cosmic reason is behind it, or if there is one, it's just what life does once it gets rolling and replicating -- it multiplies, it competes with other life, its only "meaning" is survival and procreation.

Everything exists for some reason, whether we know the reason or not. Life apparently has a role in the universe ecosystem. It's all got to be for some reason, it can't just be billions of empty galaxies with billions of empty planets for no reason ya know?

Bringing this back around to species survival, we have to branch out and go for that "Star Trek" future because there actually could be some Borg or klingons out there. We're warlike, it's safe to assume other forms of life are too. So what happens if we just sit back and do nothing and then we get visited one day by some alien empire. We'd get squashed, right? And that would be the end of humanity, which became alpha on earth but never got off earth, and some other alpha predator in the galaxy takes us out.

Whether you're a Christian or evolutionist, both conclusions are the same, as a species we are supposed to be mulitplying and surviving. Evolution-wise, species survival wise, there is greater survivability chance and strength with dominance and numbers.

The funny thing about our species is since we are apex on the planet, we have to compete against each other. We have got to branch out to a bigger habitat, this planet alone is just too small now.

As to the meaning or purpose of life I think a reasonable argument could be made along these lines. In the same manner that gravity, a pretty weak force, is relentless in getting its way, Entropy is a kind of relentless force. In the same sense that water "wants" to run down hill nature "wants" to eliminate stores of energy.

Yes. The way that organisms compete and replicate, evolution, I think that's as much of a natural force as gravity is.

We're smart enough to devise some societal system to put in our own population control, of course, but that really is going against the grain of the basic DNA for all life. Life wants to multiply and spread out, until it hits a barrier, then it will find equilibrium one way or another or that species may go extinct. Life that's able to BRANCH OUT, is what survives. Life that can handle threats, is what survives.

Homo sapiens is pretty apex these days -- we're the first species that can now avoid the next extinction event asteroid impact. No other species was able to do that. But we'll be able too -- just divert the asteroid. This isn't fantasy by the way, nasa is working on being able to do that, that's part of what the asteroid landing mission is about.

Plant matter has stored much energy that can only slowly be reduced by natural processes. It makes some sense that Nature would create, cause to evolve, a creature that "eats" or reduces these stores of energy. By doing so it is working with Entropy, or is an agent of Entropy, to reduce energy stores.

What humans "do" is two things.....we multiply like crazed bunnies, and we "eat" energy stores that are otherwise unavailable to be reduced by other processes.

Okay now you're onto something there, the big picture "meaning of life" and its part to play in the universe ecosystem.

What we "do" is cause Earth, and thus the Universe, to rot faster.

Interesting. Well okay, so if that is our role, then hadn't we better branch off the planet and help the rest of the universe out with the entropy problem? Maybe this is what makes SG mad about it, because it conflicts with all the ideas of the green movement. The radical iidea that we have a role to play and that is to consume and use energy and use stuff up. If that's our role in the universe, then we need to play that role, it apparently needs us. Just as a forest needs those ants and microbes to faster break material down.

The only issue here is that it's time to branch out off the planet, not fight our basic nature and role in the universe.

No other species on earth can do this, we're the only ones with rockets. It's up to us alone. If we do fall back and go extinct, then there may be time for another species to advance and reach our same point and perhaps they will make it farther off the planet than we did. But really, we've got the tech RIGHT NOW to get it started, and we had the tech with the Apollo program half a century ago. There's really no excuse. It's just our society structure and priorities that's holding it back.

Space will have to MAKE MONEY for the next great leap to happen, that's how we're structured, it's no different than colonization of the New World and how it was gold and silver and beaver pelts that got it rolling.

[Sixstrings]

Six,

What's your evidence that an impact wiped out previous forms and allowed dinosaurs to become dominant?

Permian–Triassic extinction event

The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, colloquially known as the Great Dying,[2][3] occurred about 252 Ma (million years) ago,[4] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[5][6] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[7] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[8][9] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[5] possibly up to 10 million years.[10]

Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[7][11][12][13] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was probably due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include one or more large bolide impact events, massive volcanism, coal or gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[14] and a runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor due to methane clathrate dissociation or methane-producing microbes known as methanogens;[15] possible contributing gradual changes include sea-level change, increasing anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

Impact is one of several possible causes of the Permian–Triassic extinction. I think that was the cause, or that it could have been impact PLUS volcanism and the other possibilities combined. I heard this in a lecture somewhere but can't remember it.

But anyhow it doesn't matter, that's not the point, the point is that this planet has a history of all the life getting wiped off it and then all the dominant species are gone and then something new gets a chance. Like dinosaurs, then they got wiped out (except for the avian precursors), and the little mammals had their shot.

Our prime directive as a species is to survive and avoid the next mass extinction event. It's not just about climate change. It's a lot of things. Like we're actually overdue for another massive meteor impact -- to survive, we've got to branch OFF this planet, and also track asteroids and be able to divert them. This is not science fiction, nasa is working on this capability now.

[Synapsid]

Six,

The reason I asked the question is that I know of no evidence for a large impact in connection with the Permo-Triassic extinction. There was a claim a decade or two ago from a worker at UCSB but no one could duplicate the work, or even the sampling.

[SeaGypsy]

6, yours is the pathological voice of a virus without an ethical backbone beyond self replication. You are a sick member of a sick species, like your buddy Hawkings. For starters what you are on about just isn't going to happen, ever, so you are really just wasting resources. Secondly & more importantly, you seem utterly unable to see the damage we are doing, have done & look to keep doing, to this, the only planet we actually know we can live on. Sick, twisted virus.