The sun

[ProveIt]

Inspired by a post in the top ten thread...

Antix wrote

6) (Cant remember what led to the stupid part, but here goes) A guy I work with said that he believed the sun would literally last forever. Doing my best not to laugh, I simply corrected him, saying that the sun will eventualy burn up all of its fuel and that'll be it. He said that it was still his belief and that I couldn't prove that the sun will burn out. I stood in stunned silence for a while before asking where the sun was getting new energy from, and right on que, he replied: God. (I then decided it was appropriate to laugh hysterically)

Scientists have discovered that it takes four years for us, on Earth, to know that a star has died out simply because we can no longer see it. (right? - Do to speed of light and what not...) Where the sun is a star... Scientists can determine when a star has died earlier than you or I looking up an realizing it is gone... what with technology and all. What kind of warning will everyone have before the sun goes out? Are there dimming effects were the last few years will just get colder and colder and darker and darker? Or is it a less predictible... one minute there is light, the next it is dark...?

Are we talking we will fuck up the Earth beyond livablilty long before this occurs? Millions of years? Never?

[a different tim]

About a billion years until the earth's basically unlivable because the sun's temperature is slowly but constantly rising. About 4 billion before it becomes a red giant and fries the place like a doughnut in hot oil. You could probably get several centuries warning from the spectral lines but I can't remember the details. Time enough for plenty of anal.

A joke I heard about this: Two astronomers in a bar, talking about this subject. A bystander overhears them and comes up to one, white as a sheet:
"When did you say the sun was going to cook the earth?"
"About 4 billion years"
"Thank fuck for that! I thought you said 4 million....."

[anthonyjfuchs]

ProveIt wrote

Are we talking we will fuck up the Earth beyond livablilty long before this occurs? Millions of years? Never?

We've effectively ended our own evolution by protecting the weak members of the species, meaning that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In the meantime, we're anally raping the planet so badly that we're actually changing the conditions in which we exist.

Now remember:

1) human life evolved according to the conditions of the Earth
2) we're changing those conditions
3) we are unable to evolve to exist in the new conditions (demonstrated above)

I think it's clear that our inability to evolve into a state that will allow us to survive the new conditions that we've created quickly enough is what will drive us extinct. And this assumes that we don't kill ourselves off with nuclear weapons and biochemical terrorism first.

Fuckin brilliant.

My money says we're extinct in under a thousand years.

The best part is, once we're finally gone, I wager it takes the Earth no more than a century to clear up the evidence that we were ever here.

but before all that happens, all the ice on earth would have melted and all that will be left will be a few mountains poking out of a vast sea. there certainly wont be enough habbitable land to sustain animals and crops for us to survive in any great numbers.

[ProveIt]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

We've effectively ended our own evolution by protecting the weak members of the species, meaning that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In the meantime, we're anally raping the planet so badly that we're actually changing the conditions in which we exist.

Now remember:

1) human life evolved according to the conditions of the Earth
2) we're changing those conditions
3) we are unable to evolve to exist in the new conditions (demonstrated above)

I think it's clear that our inability to evolve into a state that will allow us to survive the new conditions that we've created quickly enough is what will drive us extinct. And this assumes that we don't kill ourselves off with nuclear weapons and biochemical terrorism first.

Fuckin brilliant.

My money says we're extinct in under a thousand years.

The best part is, once we're finally gone, I wager it takes the Earth no more than a century to clear up the evidence that we were ever here.

First let me state that your condesending tone has struck a nerve and you may wish to watch your footing.
1) human life evolved according to the conditions of the Earth
Agreed

2) we're changing those conditions
Partial credit - Yes we are changing some conditions, but the Earth would have provided many changes on its own. Who is to say that those changes would make the Earth any more livable than todays current state.

3) we are unable to evolve to exist in the new conditions (demonstrated above)
(I think that it is obvious that the words 'demonstrated above' are used extreamly loosely here.)
Are you surmising that we should now just give up as far as surviving goes? 4 Billion years is not enough of a time span to come up with a new plan? Even your own belief that we will be gone in 1 thousand years... not enough time?

Even a nuclear event would not necessarily render all life extinct. It would have an affect on the world as a whole, and there is a great chance that all life would suffer as far as todays standards go. But there have been many obsticles in history that life has overcome. "Life" not necessarily limited to human life.

I think it's a poor assumption on your part to claim that over the course of 4 billion years we will lack the ability to evolve and overcome.

[Rhinoqulous]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

We've effectively ended our own evolution by protecting the weak members of the species, meaning that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In the meantime, we're anally raping the planet so badly that we're actually changing the conditions in which we exist.

We haven't removed ourselves from nature. So while the "weak members" of the species are surviving, this doesn't mean they're reproducing. Also, we don't really have a basis for making claims on how natural selection, evolution, etc. work for culturally complex species (as we only have ourselves to make observations of), so it seems premature to claim that we've ended our own evolution (that we've transcended from nature). A metropolis is just as much part of nature as an ant hill is.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

We've effectively ended our own evolution by protecting the weak members of the species, meaning that survival of the fittest no longer applies. In the meantime, we're anally raping the planet so badly that we're actually changing the conditions in which we exist.

Put down the conan novels and tarzan books and step away from the social darwinism slowly with your hands in the air.

Point one-you have no clue what characteristics will be adaptive in the future

Point two-we use culture as our primary mode of adaptation--not biological evolution, it is more efficient and far faster than biology and can value any number of traits that biology cannot and does not.

Point three-The planet may kill us off---but our damage to the planet may be temporary at best--me i think we will finally get it and force the required changes. WIll it be an easy road? No. Will it happen in time to prevent some catastrophic changes?

Once again probably not.

But we have a nasty habit of being able to cope with almost anything...things decay theings rise again...

My only fear is that it willhave to be added to the commandment list--

Thou shalt not litter

Before anyone takes it seriously.

My prediction--a war between the atheist and the theist...with the atheists losig and being driven underground --where they set up an entire society with its own subterranean culture and technology all the while refusing to believe in the existance of the sun...

meanwhile above ground the theists will kill each other off in a paroxysm of internecine fighting until the fundamentalists are left.

They refuse to believe that the wearth is not flat or revolves around the sun and eventually end up growing hair all over their bodies and hunting for grubs from under the bark of fallen logs.

The theists send a probe to outer mongolia to check the exitance of the sun..and find a huge tribe of tasty theist monketys that solve their food probelms due to the dying out of the bland glowing fungus that they have lived off of for the past millenium.

Religion is naturally illegal--the music gets worse for a while until folks allow themselves a equivalent emotional connection to the universe as it is and humanity as it may become as they did to a theistic god.

" On my own" and " sound fo silence" become huge re-hits with the swinging youth atheist crown and life goes on.

The sun fires the earth but we don't care because we have been energy beings with such a fundamental grasp of the nature of existance gained through scientific inquiry that we no longer require a planet.

Unfortunately not having conquored our own egos when we find another planet with basic proto life we stick in a bunch of wierd objects and items to begin the whole god thing over again. For them. As a joke.

[ProveIt]

Rocketman wrote

Put down the conan novels and tarzan books and step away from the social darwinism slowly with your hands in the air...

...My prediction--a war between the atheist and the theist...with the atheists losig and being driven underground --where they set up an entire society with its own subterranean culture and technology all the while refusing to believe in the existance of the sun.

meanwhile above ground the theists will kill each other off in a paroxysm of internecine fighting until the fundamentalists are left.

They refuse to believe that the wearth is not flat or revolves around the sun and eventually end up growing hair all over their bodies and hunting for grubs from under the bark of fallen logs.

The theists send a probe to outer mongolia to check the exitance of the sun..and find a huge tribe of tasty theist monketys that solve their food probelms due to the dying out of the bland glowing fungus that they have lived off of for the past millenium.

Religion is naturally illegal--the music gets worse for a while until folks allow themselves a equivalent emotional connection to the universe as it is and humanity as it may become as they did to a theistic god.

" On my own" and " sound fo silence" become huge re-hits with the swinging youth atheist crown and life goes on.

The sun fires the earth but we don't care because we have been energy beings with such a fundamental grasp of the nature of existance gained through scientific inquiry that we no longer require a planet.

Unfortunately not having conquored our own egos when we find another planet with basic proto life we stick in a bunch of wierd objects and items to begin the whole god thing over again. For them. As a joke.

Remind me again who you were pointing to when you said "put down the conan novels and tarzan books...". Just what are you reading? All that comes to mind is a bad remake of Demolition Man...

PocketRocket wrote

Point two-we use culture as our primary mode of adaptation--not biological evolution, it is more efficient and far faster than biology and can value any number of traits that biology cannot and does not...

Just who is this 'we' you speak of? I tend to gravitate toward the biological side... Saves on ignorant opinions and such and generally sticks to facts... but that's just one of my opinions I suppose.

Point the first--anthonyjfuchs and his concept of biological evolution as being highjacked by "saving the weak"--the terms are situational and subjective. Any species that can have the majority of its population reproduce cannot by evolutionary standards be stated to be preserving the weak.

Second --don't call me pocket rocket--although I own one and it is a fantastic little device--it is electric blue and I for one feel my manhood threatended by comparison to electric blue things.
And third--biological eveolution occurs--cultural eveolution does the same job faster and more efficiently.

It is however predicated upon a continuum of knowledge passed fromone culture member to another--

example --through biological evolution to speak to a person on the other side of the world one would need to be able to have a slow progression of biological modificatins that can be passed along to the offspring--and a real requirement to be able to do so.

Millions of years.

Bell invents the telephone we can all do it within a century.

Now we can even send more than voice messages--i can copty the entire encyclopedia britannica and send it as an attachment or simply direct you to an on-line source.

No biological evolution required.

BE happens--but it is passive. Culture is not it is active and very very fast.

[ProveIt]

Rocketman wrote

Second --don't call me pocket rocket--although I own one and it is a fantastic little device--it is electric blue and I for one feel my manhood threatended by comparison to electric blue things.

Don't get your panties in a bunch... it's a sign of affection. Geesh. Moments ago, as I pondered how you would take the nickname, I came across a post of yours with similar conotations... Don't be the prude now... Seriously, if you're going to whine about it I can dumb it down a bit and I'll just call you PR... but that may offend some of our Rican visitors... Maybe Eva can weigh in on that... ;)

Rocketman wrote

And third--biological eveolution occurs--cultural eveolution does the same job faster and more efficiently.

It is however predicated upon a continuum of knowledge passed fromone culture member to another--

example --through biological evolution to speak to a person on the other side of the world one would need to be able to have a slow progression of biological modificatins that can be passed along to the offspring--and a real requirement to be able to do so.

Millions of years.

Bell invents the telephone we can all do it within a century.

Now we can even send more than voice messages--i can copty the entire encyclopedia britannica and send it as an attachment or simply direct you to an on-line source.

No biological evolution required.

BE happens--but it is passive. Culture is not it is active and very very fast.

Try to stay in the lines... You are painting far to broad of strokes to have meaningful conversation. In order to address all points you are attempting to cover you may need to write pages... and my attention span simply can't take it. There are too many half thoughts and incompletes for me to even begin picking apart this post. Bottom line, there is not a need to compare apples to bananas. Both biological evolution and cultural evolution may have their place. I don't think that that was up for debate really. But both are subcategories of evolution and study completely different things. It's along the same lines of saying that a pie graph of atheist vrs theists would be just as effective as atheists vrs those who believe in Christ - merely because they are both on a pie chart. (Probably not the best reference I could come up with... but really, I'm not trying all that hard if you're not going to.)

Cultural evolution does not do the same job that biological evolution does. They may be drastically similar... but not the same. Am I wrong? Certainly cultural evolution could not be considered more effective... as it is based off of biological, no? Would biological not trump cultural?

BE happens--but it is passive. Culture is not it is active and very very fast.

Say again with proper punctuation so that I may gather your meaning... please?

[ProveIt]

From the butterfly effect thread... (referred to in my previous post)

PR wrote

Actually the Butterfly Effect refers to the act of strapping a butterfly vibrator on your best girl under her clothes while you hold the remote in your pocket.

At regular intervals you trigger the remote and watch her try and maintain her composure as she schmoozes at a bar.

My mistake for misunderstanding... I thought you were one that had a spine...

[Eva]

actually, i'm a little more than a mere visitor....

.

ProveIt wrote

Try to stay in the lines... You are painting far to broad of strokes to have meaningful conversation. In order to address all points you are attempting to cover you may need to write pages... and my attention span simply can't take it. There are too many half thoughts and incompletes for me to even begin picking apart this post. Bottom line, there is not a need to compare apples to bananas. Both biological evolution and cultural evolution may have their place. I don't think that that was up for debate really. But both are subcategories of evolution and study completely different things. It's along the same lines of saying that a pie graph of atheist vrs theists would be just as effective as atheists vrs those who believe in Christ - merely because they are both on a pie chart. (Probably not the best reference I could come up with... but really, I'm not trying all that hard if you're not going to.)

Cultural evolution does not do the same job that biological evolution does. They may be drastically similar... but not the same. Am I wrong? Certainly cultural evolution could not be considered more effective... as it is based off of biological, no? Would biological not trump cultural?

"Cultural evolution" is perhaps better known as Memeology, for one. There's no need to attack the guy for relating to a fairly well accepted theory. Second, you need to define "trump" if you're going to use it where it doesn't really apply. Memes replicate, mutate and are selected for much faster than genes in human populations. Evolutionary theory describes the situation very effectively, as you suggest, but to rank one above the other in a purely quantitative way is irrational. Natural Selection was first applied to genes, but the theory itself applies to anything that reproduces differentially and competes for limited resources. You can look at it as memes reproduce in biological machines, and are thus second-level, or you could say that memes work much faster and might have a more significant impact on our lives (in the form of technology, etc.). Applying a kind of ostensible betterness quality to them is not valid.

[ProveIt]

You are demonstrating too many theistic characteristics for me to continue this conversation. If I were to continue, against my better judgement, I am certain that in addition to the plums and watermelons, which you have just tossed in with the apples and bananas, you may want to throw in a kitchen sink or some even more inane ideas... If you were able to comprehend that I am not even debating the differences that you are pointing out, I may find value in continuing. Shall my opinion of your intellect change in the future I may decide to add my two cents... Until then I'm gonna rethink the gravity of initiating conversation with you.