Earthly life will end, just not in 2012 - SCIENCE!
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
The rate at which technology is advancing is so fast that by the time we're old most people's lives will likely revolve around augmentation, a combination of man and machine. It's not a story for SciFi movies any more because the principals, theory and research exists already today and the people working on them predict various figures in various tech and science journals, some say 30years whilst others say 50 years etc.
The pure flesh and bone humans we know today most likely won't be the same flesh and bone in say 1000 years time but they'll still be humans no less!
I always wonder about this and I read articles, journals and websites that talk about these advances and I see a few things kicking off in the near future (as in our lifetime):
1: The joining of man and machine (augmentation).
2: AI and nanotechnology (machines that can rebuild themselves), bio-nanobots have already been made in the lab recently for example.
3: The discovery of new particles thanks to the amazing machines like CERN's accelerator leading on to new ways to shrink technology and make it faster, a better understand of how the universe works.
4: Proper space travel (leading on from 3 above).
5: The adoption of alternative energies which are cheaper and will slowly cause the drop in use of the current fossil fuels, I guess this would lead on from part 3 as well.
None of those are scifi or outlandish, they're all real and all are realised today.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 528
hmmm
By that time Earth will have a shield constructed in space that protects us from such things.
By that time Earth will have a shield constructed in space that protects us from such things.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
So much to do - so little time
Pull your finger out.
By that time Earth will have a shield constructed in space that protects us from such things.
And we wont have the raw material's left to turn it on
By that time Earth will have a shield constructed in space that protects us from such things.
It's called a wall of obese Americans.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,166
- Location
- The land of Cows n Grass!
LOL Knowing how we run things and squabble over really stupid stuff I reckon we will leave everything to the last minute, pull the funding because building lightspeed spaceships cost too much and sit around ready to get wiped out.
Nobody knows how it will affect humans though, millions of years ago Earth's atmosphere was different, the dinosaurs didn't breathe the same quality (lol) of air that we do either and if the next asteroid hit(s) cause too much damage to the atmosphere like the one with the dinosaurs (covering the planet in black clouds) then we're not going to be any better off considering how much more fragile we are to a honking great big T Rex
It all depend son what size of asteroid or asteroids hit next time!
Hoever humans don't require a full ecosystem. we can hole up and produce everything we need now.
We're quite bit tougher than a t-rex, mammals are warm blooded unlike him so it's not a massive issue if there's not a lot of sun for a long time. That's why mammals survived last time and the majority of big reptiles didn't
T-rex would die because of that before we die of lack of oxygen through reduced plant life (but we can make oxygen)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
tbh no planet is safe. what's so safe about an object that rotates around an object that has a life span, and at the end either goes supernova or blackhole? not to mention can attract other large objects with its gravitational pull.
the only way we can survive anything the universe throws at us is to keep mobile - by mobile I mean being on an object that can avoid things like asteroids, blackholes, dark matter or what ever you want to call the obstacle.
if there will be such a thing as "the big crunch" -which I doubt there is, then we need to be in a position where we can create our own matter. in other words, create our universes or you could say "become our own gods" and tbh I don't see why that isn't possible with the progression of our understanding with our universe. I think it could be feesible to say we would be able to create our own planet that can move from sun to sun when need be - even on a whim. But tbh, that - I think is when we will be truely free from the dangers of space.
and yeah a "robotic planet" (think of the borg etc) sounds far fetched but if you look at the large scale it would. break it down to each country to make their own "piece" which (like our countries tectonic plates can merge with other countries to form new continents) fit together to make a whole new object.
anyway - not my problem.
the only way we can survive anything the universe throws at us is to keep mobile - by mobile I mean being on an object that can avoid things like asteroids, blackholes, dark matter or what ever you want to call the obstacle.
if there will be such a thing as "the big crunch" -which I doubt there is, then we need to be in a position where we can create our own matter. in other words, create our universes or you could say "become our own gods" and tbh I don't see why that isn't possible with the progression of our understanding with our universe. I think it could be feesible to say we would be able to create our own planet that can move from sun to sun when need be - even on a whim. But tbh, that - I think is when we will be truely free from the dangers of space.
and yeah a "robotic planet" (think of the borg etc
) sounds far fetched but if you look at the large scale it would. break it down to each country to make their own "piece" which (like our countries tectonic plates can merge with other countries to form new continents) fit together to make a whole new object.anyway - not my problem.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
So you're saying Humans won't develop and adapt to alternative energy processes that replace Oil once it runs out? Some of this process is already underway around the world, Japan with their Space orbit power beaming station for example which will provide continuous solar energy for their nation.
That's the most bizarre thing I have read all week and I've read some bizarre things this week.
Sometimes I'm glad I can keep most of my thoughts logical, for the sake of the future anyway
Its not built yet and it certainly won't be powering the whole of Japan, and frankly I'd be surprised if it gets done at all in the end. Massive solar station in space is all good and well, getting it there and it not getting damage is another, we have space junk numbering in the thousands of little pieces, with tiny commets and fragments constantly hitting, they want to build really a very very big target.
As for alternative energies in the pipeline, research is just that, it might come up with something brilliant, or something useless, or nothing at all. As it stands currently solar energy as used now, wind and water as used now, will NEVER supply the energy levels we want to use right now, let alone the power requirements a planet with 50-100% more people will have by the time oil becomes rare enough to be priced out of the market, which will happen long before oil actually runs out.
The fact is too power the states in solar, as it stands, needs a space the size of Arizona covered in solar panels, and of course, the problem is electricity doesn't transmit well, which is why you can't put a bunch of nuke stations out in the middle of nowhere, to be effective they have to be fairly close to cities as with all power forms. Its also said that all the manufacturing plants in the world right now making solar panels, would take a couple hundred years to build enough solar panels to cover Arizona, and thats power for the USA's current population, not the population in 50 years.
The way the western world, and China use power now, well you'd expect Africa, further out area's in Asia and everywhere else in the world to be using hugely higher levels of power in 50 years than they are now.
Solar, wind, water, ain't going to cut it. Wind power is a joke, the amount of turbines it needs to create enough power for a town is a joke, and they make noise, and take up a lot of land space, for very little power in return. Hydroelectric power, great for countries with big rivers they can build a damn on, not terrible for countries with large coastlines, useless for area's with low rainfall and deep inland.
Alternative power, as it stands today has ZERO chance of making up the shortfall in power when oil/coal become too expensive to simply burn to run your fridge, tv and computer, all the alternative power sources, combined, wouldn't cope with 1/1000th of the worlds power supply right now, let alone the usage levels we'll be at in 50 years.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
My point wasn't that it wouldn't be possible for humans to be alive for the next 16m years, it was simply that it's an awfully long period to expect them to be around for considering we've existed for a period that is barely the blink of an eye in cosmological terms. With such a relatively short period to make predictions based on it's difficult to extrapolate in any hugely useful way.
Maybe we'll manage to live on for that time in some form or another but I wouldn't be betting my great grandchildren^500's future on it.
Blimey, thats a lot of pessimism... just a few points though...
We dont need to cover Arizona with solar cells, we can instead cover roofs with them. That also solves the power distribution issue, energy is made where it is needed. Same could be done to a similar extent with wind turbines and geothermal in certain places. The beauty of alternative energy is that there is a solution for all locations. live in an inland desert with no wind or water then use solar cells (no cloud), live somewhere where theres lots of cloud then theres probably lots of running water...
With your stats on solar cells we have to remember they are todays stats. As cells become cheaper and more efficient then more people buy, more factories built etc... If the worst comes to the worst then we can always become more efficient. We are already seeing this due to the rise in fuel costs (petrol,electricity, gas) where consumers are buying more fuel efficient products. As demand increases for more efficient goods more companies are designing and manufacturing goods with higher efficiency. Is the increased milage of modern cars an issue to you? The increased efficiency of even graphics cards? Just because we need things more efficient doesnt mean they will be slower/less powerful.
Either way I guess we'll all just die of lethargy if this and othercthreads on the forum are anything to go by... "Oil is running out and there is nothing today that will replace it, ah well I'll just sit here and wait for the end..."
As for the thread and article, its fail...least they can do is realise there is a difference between extinctions and mass extinctions, along with the realisation that meteors are only one cause... Probably not the paper authors faults but the common media not understanding science...
Last edited:
that sounds a bit better....
We already know of ( and play with different sources of energy) on a smaller scale but needs some energy to get going
*cough* hydrogen
nuclear is clean till it melts down or we decide to fire missles at eacth other.
the only problem is the oil componies won't allow it cos they will be losing out ( althrought they will anyway once the oil runs low)
We already know of ( and play with different sources of energy) on a smaller scale but needs some energy to get going
*cough* hydrogen
nuclear is clean till it melts down or we decide to fire missles at eacth other.
the only problem is the oil componies won't allow it cos they will be losing out ( althrought they will anyway once the oil runs low)