If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Scientists say there can be habitable moons outside our solar system: about four trillion of them. Chance of ET phoning Earth are increasing   (io9.com) divider line 61
    More: Cool, planetary habitability, Earth, Galilean moons, solar system, aliens, magnetosphere, space radiation, Universe Today  
•       •       •

1435 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Sep 2013 at 9:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-27 10:12:12 AM
M-O-O-N. That spells extraterrestrial life.
 
2013-09-27 10:13:48 AM
What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?
 
2013-09-27 10:16:39 AM
Yesterday's news: Neil deGrasse Tyson says moons could contain life.

Today's news: Scientists say moons could contain life.

Tomorrow: Scientists say there's life in space?
 
2013-09-27 10:24:09 AM

RedTank: What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?


There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.
 
2013-09-27 10:28:37 AM

Mad_Radhu: RedTank: What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?

There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.


Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.
 
2013-09-27 10:37:10 AM
IF he/she/it used AT&T chances are the call was dropped.
 
2013-09-27 10:41:38 AM

Mad_Radhu: There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.


It's true with the bacteria yes, but I would imagine complex life would have a hard time evolving in that environment, but I could be wrong.

DjangoStonereaver: Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.


A moon could possibly have those thing which would help yes.  I wasn't sure how much radiation would be deflected by a magnetic field alone.  Wouldn't have to be exceptionally powerful, more powerful than our own?
 
2013-09-27 10:43:37 AM
Aliens will never talk to us. We're made of meat.
 
2013-09-27 10:49:02 AM
FTFA: "Even if only  one per cent had moons-this percentage is probably much higher-that would leave us with  four quintillion moons (4,000,000,000,000,000,000). If only  0.001 percent were habitable, the final number of potential life habitats would be mind-blowing:  four trillion. "

I really hate when the do this, start with the 1% thing.

Maybe its 1%, maybe its .01%, maybe its .00001%. Maybe the starting point is 0.0000001% have moons .

and potentially habitable moons isn't 0.001%, but say 0.00000000000000001%.

1% is not the smallest number available, stop using it like its a mandatory starting point.
 
2013-09-27 10:50:31 AM

Son of Thunder: Aliens will never talk to us. We're made of meat.


We're made of meat?

/flapping our meat at each other to communicate
 
2013-09-27 10:53:53 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: FTFA: "Even if only  one per cent had moons-this percentage is probably much higher-that would leave us with  four quintillion moons (4,000,000,000,000,000,000). If only  0.001 percent were habitable, the final number of potential life habitats would be mind-blowing:  four trillion. "

I really hate when the do this, start with the 1% thing.

Maybe its 1%, maybe its .01%, maybe its .00001%. Maybe the starting point is 0.0000001% have moons .

and potentially habitable moons isn't 0.001%, but say 0.00000000000000001%.

1% is not the smallest number available, stop using it like its a mandatory starting point.


Is 1% a bad estimate in this case?  You're suggesting that 1% is overly optimistic but I would think it's likely very pessimistic.

I will say that I appreciate the overuse of 1% as minimum base and the fact that when dealing with huge quantities that it could potentially distort the data...
 
2013-09-27 10:56:18 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Mad_Radhu: RedTank: What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?

There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.

Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.


Also, consider that the moon would need:

To reflect the correct amount of heat back into space,  too much reflected back: runaway ice age, too little: runaway greenhouse.

To have a mass great enough to retain an atmosphere, too little mass and the atmosphere disappears.

To be in the correct cometary/meteoric impact zones in the solar system, too many impacts and life, if it appears, gets snubbed again and again.

To be in orbit around a planet with a stable sun whose variability won't fry or freeze any life.

To be in a part of the galaxy where it and it's home planet don't risk having it's orbit disrupted by too many nearby stars, so not too crowded or near the center of the host galaxy

To be in a part of the galaxy where it and it's home planet don't risk never being created or having enough raw materials for life, which come from stars going supernova, so it can't be in a part of the galaxy where there's too few stars like the outer fringes of a galaxy.

To have it's own rotation not tidally locked, as Earth's moon is, otherwise, as in our moon for example, you'll have days that are 14 days long, extreme heat, and nights that are 14 days long, extreme cold.

To have an atmosphere conducive to life, and doesn't rain life destroying chemicals.

I could go on, but the number is way, way lower than 4 trillion.  All of these reasons I've listed, (there's way more but I don't remember them), are scientific, however the media never discusses these.  I do detect a certain zeal and glee that some people feel that discovering life on other worlds will automatically invalidate religion in general and Christianity in particular, (although it's Muslims who tend to behead homosexuals).

Maybe a frank discussion of just how hard it is to find the right planet might just cause humanity to take better care of this planet.  For the record we do a pretty good job of this now in the developed west, although that hasn't always been the case, but the developing world seems to think arsenic and chromium in the water is a fair price to pay to undercut the west in price for a few generations.
 
2013-09-27 11:00:25 AM

RedTank: Mad_Radhu: There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.

It's true with the bacteria yes, but I would imagine complex life would have a hard time evolving in that environment, but I could be wrong.

DjangoStonereaver: Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.

A moon could possibly have those thing which would help yes.  I wasn't sure how much radiation would be deflected by a magnetic field alone.  Wouldn't have to be exceptionally powerful, more powerful than our own?


The parent planet's own magnetic field would do a good job of protecting the moon from the
emissions of the local star, and not all gas giants emit radiation the way that Jupiter does (hell, Jupiter is
pretty much a failed star).  And even if it did, the parent planet's magnetic field would tend to localize
any radiation in belts like our Van Allen belts.  A moon orbiting in a low-radiation belt wouldn't need a
powerful magnetic field as a shield in that case.

/If said moon had little teddy bears with spears, though, I say drop an asteroid on it with a mass driver.
 
2013-09-27 11:03:15 AM

Flash_NYC: I could go on, but the number is way, way lower than 4 trillion.  All of these reasons I've listed, (there's way more but I don't remember them), are scientific, however the media never discusses these.  I do detect a certain zeal and glee that some people feel that discovering life on other worlds will automatically invalidate religion in general and Christianity in particular, (although it's Muslims who tend to behead homosexuals).

Maybe a frank discussion of just how hard it is to find the right planet might just cause humanity to take better care of this planet.  For the record we do a pretty good job of this now in the developed west, although that hasn't always been the case, but the developing world seems to think arsenic and chromium in the water is a fair price to pay to undercut the west in price for a few generations.


Agreed.  But unfortunately we're definitely going to fark up this planet no question.  The more people we have on this planet the more we will be forced to make choices at the expense of the planet with no long term plan because humans are really bad at, and always will be bad at, thinking beyond their own lifetime.

That may seem bad... but perhaps that will motivate us to move on at some point no matter the cost.
 
2013-09-27 11:05:11 AM

DjangoStonereaver: /If said moon had little teddy bears with spears, though, I say drop an asteroid on it with a mass driver.


Aw... Ewok murderer...
 
2013-09-27 11:15:32 AM
4 trillion, so that's what?  One habitable moon per galaxy of which we now need to factor in percentage of intelligent life?
 
2013-09-27 11:39:26 AM

DjangoStonereaver: /If said moon had little teddy bears with spears, though, I say drop an asteroid on it with a mass driver.


I say we farm the creatures, kill 'em, stuff them full of asbestos and sell them to kids. Cheaper than real teddy bears.
 
2013-09-27 11:45:01 AM

Flash_NYC: DjangoStonereaver: Mad_Radhu: RedTank: What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?

There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.

Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.

Also, consider that the moon would need:

To reflect the correct amount of heat back into space,  too much reflected back: runaway ice age, too little: runaway greenhouse.

To have a mass great enough to retain an atmosphere, too little mass and the atmosphere disappears.


Both of these are valid, though rather self evident if you're talking about bodies that can support carbon
based life similar to that here on Earth.

To be in the correct cometary/meteoric impact zones in the solar system, too many impacts and life, if it appears, gets snubbed again and again.

This wouldn't be as big an issue for moon as it would be for a planet I think:  If its orbiting a gas giant
that was significantly large, the parent planet's gravity would tend to attract random objects to it,
cleaning out space quite effectively.

Though..... that might subject a moon to a higher chance for cometary/meteoric impact, something that
may not have been taken into account in this study......  Hmm....

To be in orbit around a planet with a stable sun whose variability won't fry or freeze any life.

Again, this is a given with the premise of a body supporting life, but again the characteristics of the
parent planet could help mitigate any shortfalls of stellar behavior (Jupiter, for example, radiates more
heat than it absorbs from our sun, and the volcanoes on Io are due to the gravitational tides of the Jupiter
flexing it and generating friction).

The coldness factor was always the one thing that kept me from believing in the whole 'habitable moon'
trope in SF considering how far our gas giants are from our sun, but with the discovery of star systems
where you have a large gas giant orbiting very close to the star (in some cases, closer even than Mercury
is to our sun), I am much more willing to believe it is possible.

To be in a part of the galaxy where it and it's home planet don't risk having it's orbit disrupted by too many nearby stars, so not too crowded or near the center of the host galaxy

To be in a part of the galaxy where it and it's home planet don't risk never being created or having enough raw materials for life, which come from stars going supernova, so it can't be in a part of the galaxy where there's too few stars like the outer fringes of a galaxy.


Again, this would be a given.

To have it's own rotation not tidally locked, as Earth's moon is, otherwise, as in our moon for example, you'll have days that are 14 days long, extreme heat, and nights that are 14 days long, extreme cold.

The tidally locked requirment you posit is about the only thing you state that I don't agree with, for the
reasons I've given above.

To have an atmosphere conducive to life, and doesn't rain life destroying chemicals.

I have to say:  this is the best Fark thread I've seen since the last Yoga pants pic fest (since the powers
that be no longer allow boobie pic threads).
 
2013-09-27 11:47:12 AM
That's no moon....
 
2013-09-27 11:51:08 AM
Ok, now what?
 
2013-09-27 12:02:53 PM
Any news on the chances of an unobtainium deposits on those moons?
 
2013-09-27 12:16:17 PM
i162.photobucket.com

Approves
 
2013-09-27 12:45:50 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Ok, now what?


You fill stainless steel tubes with kerosene and wish really hard that the universe can be crossed in the time of a commercial break.
 
2013-09-27 12:48:13 PM

Oysterman: Yesterday's news: Neil deGrasse Tyson says moons could contain life.

Today's news: Scientists say moons could contain life.

Tomorrow: Scientists say there's life in space?


CNN one week from now:  Scientists say there's life on Earth's moon.
 
2013-09-27 01:24:26 PM
There is a HUGE difference between "contains life" and "habitable."  I think when we think about moons we tend to clump them into the same category as earth-like exoplanets.

While it's entirely possible that a moon like Europa could contain a buried ocean that has life, even the conservative estimates in the article seem wildly high for habitability.

Moons tend to be smaller, which means they have weaker magnetic fields and lower gravity.  This means that they have less shielding against cosmic and solar winds, and a much lower escape velocity, both of which help eliminate any atmosphere.  If you take the moons around Jupiter as an example, even the planets their next to can make habitability nearly impossible right now, when you factor in things like the amazingly powerful radiation belts and the incredible tidal forces that both impact Jupiter's moons.

So, cool prospects, but life is not the same thing as aliens.
 
2013-09-27 01:26:48 PM

gnosis301: CNN one week from now:  Scientists say there's life on Earth's moon.


There is.  Unfortunately we brought it there.  And no, it's not exactly thriving.  We just haven't properly sterilized our equipment for a couple of our probes.
 
2013-09-27 01:32:06 PM
Any baobab trees on these moons?
 
2013-09-27 01:40:14 PM

RedTank: Spanky_McFarksalot: FTFA: "Even if only  one per cent had moons-this percentage is probably much higher-that would leave us with  four quintillion moons (4,000,000,000,000,000,000). If only  0.001 percent were habitable, the final number of potential life habitats would be mind-blowing:  four trillion. "

I really hate when the do this, start with the 1% thing.

Maybe its 1%, maybe its .01%, maybe its .00001%. Maybe the starting point is 0.0000001% have moons .

and potentially habitable moons isn't 0.001%, but say 0.00000000000000001%.

1% is not the smallest number available, stop using it like its a mandatory starting point.

Is 1% a bad estimate in this case?  You're suggesting that 1% is overly optimistic but I would think it's likely very pessimistic.

I will say that I appreciate the overuse of 1% as minimum base and the fact that when dealing with huge quantities that it could potentially distort the data...


At this point, we haven't found even a single moon with a habitable environment.  We don't have the data to make 1% a reasonable estimate.
 
2013-09-27 01:44:28 PM
YUB NUB!

jaydeanhcr.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-27 01:54:34 PM
Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.
 
2013-09-27 01:59:01 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.


Never is a pretty long time. We're certainly not leaving it for the next few centuries, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we'll get it sorted out a few hundred years from now.
 
2013-09-27 02:19:43 PM
Sadly, any calls we receive will be from a civilization that is long dead or extinct.  The speed of light is such a downer.
 
2013-09-27 02:52:01 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.


Define "space"?

The observable universe is, I believe, what they're referring to, which has a radius of about 46 billion light years.
 
2013-09-27 04:49:43 PM

DjangoStonereaver: Mad_Radhu: RedTank: What about all the massive amounts of radiation from the likely gas giant they would be orbiting?

There is bacteria on earth that can shrug off 500,000 rads, so it may be possible for more complex organisms to evolve in an irradiated environment. Of course, we probably don't want to meet them because they have acid for blood.

Don't forget that a large enough moon would have an atmosphere and possibly a magnetic field that would
deflect radation from the surface.


A large moon around a gas giant would still feel an uneven gravitational pull on it's core. I have absolutely no idea what effect this would have on a metallic core and it's magnetic field. It would make for an interesting experiment.
 
2013-09-27 04:51:35 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.


If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.
 
2013-09-27 05:19:11 PM

RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.


Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.
 
2013-09-27 05:19:27 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

Never is a pretty long time. We're certainly not leaving it for the next few centuries, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we'll get it sorted out a few hundred years from now.


You actually think we'll be around for a couple of more centuries? Pretty sure we will have eaten everthing there is down to the last cheetoh by then. A few fun facts that will likely accelerate our demise is bee colony collapse, near shore dead algae blooms, overpopulation combined with a climbing life expectancy....I could go on. Nah, we're pretty much doomed as a species.  That's not to say Human v2.0 won't do something cool, but they won't look like us.  What we need is a rock solid pandemic.  Erase about 80% of the planet's inhabitants ought to ensure 2-3 more centuries of human misery. Then all the survivors have to do is figure out how to conquer speed of light, or bend time/space and how to protect human meatbags from deep space radiation over long durations. Alpha Centauri is right around the block.  *rolls eyes*.
 
2013-09-27 05:22:13 PM

Prophet of Loss: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.

Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.


Well if there is a point where 'space' ends, what's on the other side? Anyone who says Sha'Ka'Ree and God gets a punch in the dick.
 
2013-09-27 05:32:30 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Dingleberry Dickwad: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

Never is a pretty long time. We're certainly not leaving it for the next few centuries, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we'll get it sorted out a few hundred years from now.

You actually think we'll be around for a couple of more centuries? Pretty sure we will have eaten everthing there is down to the last cheetoh by then. A few fun facts that will likely accelerate our demise is bee colony collapse, near shore dead algae blooms, overpopulation combined with a climbing life expectancy....I could go on. Nah, we're pretty much doomed as a species.  That's not to say Human v2.0 won't do something cool, but they won't look like us.  What we need is a rock solid pandemic.  Erase about 80% of the planet's inhabitants ought to ensure 2-3 more centuries of human misery. Then all the survivors have to do is figure out how to conquer speed of light, or bend time/space and how to protect human meatbags from deep space radiation over long durations. Alpha Centauri is right around the block.  *rolls eyes*.


I actually agree that we need a good pandemic, although I wouldn't go as far as 80% of the population, maybe 50-60%. Your rather pathetic echoing of the sentiments of another well known Farker at the end of your statement is a bit silly though. Much like that daft bastard, you seem to be implying that people are actually saying that solving the problems of stellar or interstellar travel is a trivial matter when no one is.
 
2013-09-27 05:34:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Prophet of Loss: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.

Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.

Well if there is a point where 'space' ends, what's on the other side? Anyone who says Sha'Ka'Ree and God gets a punch in the dick.


Maybe it doesn't just end. Maybe it just graduall falls apart. Maybe as you get closer to the boundary area, space breaks down to the point where you can't actually reach the perimeter, like the event horizon of a black hole.
 
2013-09-27 05:40:20 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Dingleberry Dickwad: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

Never is a pretty long time. We're certainly not leaving it for the next few centuries, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that we'll get it sorted out a few hundred years from now.

You actually think we'll be around for a couple of more centuries? Pretty sure we will have eaten everthing there is down to the last cheetoh by then. A few fun facts that will likely accelerate our demise is bee colony collapse, near shore dead algae blooms, overpopulation combined with a climbing life expectancy....I could go on. Nah, we're pretty much doomed as a species.  That's not to say Human v2.0 won't do something cool, but they won't look like us.  What we need is a rock solid pandemic.  Erase about 80% of the planet's inhabitants ought to ensure 2-3 more centuries of human misery. Then all the survivors have to do is figure out how to conquer speed of light, or bend time/space and how to protect human meatbags from deep space radiation over long durations. Alpha Centauri is right around the block.  *rolls eyes*.

I actually agree that we need a good pandemic, although I wouldn't go as far as 80% of the population, maybe 50-60%. Your rather pathetic echoing of the sentiments of another well known Farker at the end of your statement is a bit silly though. Much like that daft bastard, you seem to be implying that people are actually saying that solving the problems of stellar or interstellar travel is a trivial matter when no one is.


An 80% or whatever pandemic won't fix the problem, as in 100 - 200 years we'll be right back in the same predicament. What will fix the problem is to raise the 3rd world countries to 1st world status. Only then will population growth be contained.
 
2013-09-27 06:07:51 PM

Son of Thunder: Aliens will never talk to us. We're made of meat.


Great short film!
 
2013-09-27 08:49:14 PM

RedVentrue: Much like that daft bastard, you seem to be implying that people are actually saying that solving the problems of stellar or interstellar travel is a trivial matter when no one is.


Oh I agree, no one has said a walk in the park.  QA is more pessimistic than me. I have a smaller view I guess.  I see the problems we have now, and see little in the way of a humanizing event, that energizes the hive into what is really needed....a species agenda. Humans are far too fractured in their petty bullshiat to ever consider something so noble, as nature would have it, as a survival of the species dogma. We're smart, just not smart enough.
 
2013-09-27 09:02:35 PM

RedVentrue: An 80% or whatever pandemic won't fix the problem, as in 100 - 200 years we'll be right back in the same predicament. What will fix the problem is to raise the 3rd world countries to 1st world status. Only then will population growth be contained.


Well, as long as illiterate monkeys fornicate in the name of some sky wizard, it's a losing proposition.  Religion is an anchor and a cancer.
 
2013-09-27 09:21:28 PM

RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Prophet of Loss: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.

Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.

Well if there is a point where 'space' ends, what's on the other side? Anyone who says Sha'Ka'Ree and God gets a punch in the dick.

Maybe it doesn't just end. Maybe it just graduall falls apart. Maybe as you get closer to the boundary area, space breaks down to the point where you can't actually reach the perimeter, like the event horizon of a black hole.


So, in the absence of something, there is nothing. But the concept of nothing is now suspect. All of this has to be in a container. I want to talk to the planning comission.
 
2013-09-27 09:35:54 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: RedVentrue: Much like that daft bastard, you seem to be implying that people are actually saying that solving the problems of stellar or interstellar travel is a trivial matter when no one is.

Oh I agree, no one has said a walk in the park.  QA is more pessimistic than me. I have a smaller view I guess.  I see the problems we have now, and see little in the way of a humanizing event, that energizes the hive into what is really needed....a species agenda. Humans are far too fractured in their petty bullshiat to ever consider something so noble, as nature would have it, as a survival of the species dogma. We're smart, just not smart enough.


That wasn't my post, but I'll take a stab at it. Humanity as a whole is very fractured and divisive with itself, and I think that this is also a survival strategy. Humans will try every possible way to make something work. I see a lot of "their petty bullshiat" as incentive we provide for each other to spread out and claim more territory, which is another survival instinct. It is not neccessary that an appreciable percentage of humanity leave Earth, only enough to survive us should we fail here. It would be nice if we could all work together, but we aren't built that way, and as far as survival is concerned, not neccessary. It only needs to work one time, with one group.
 
2013-09-27 09:42:34 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: RedVentrue: An 80% or whatever pandemic won't fix the problem, as in 100 - 200 years we'll be right back in the same predicament. What will fix the problem is to raise the 3rd world countries to 1st world status. Only then will population growth be contained.

Well, as long as illiterate monkeys fornicate in the name of some sky wizard, it's a losing proposition.  Religion is an anchor and a cancer.


Greed, tribal thought, and screwing over ones neighbor for fun and profit, are as great a threat to humanity's future. The problem is not so much with religion, as with the psychopaths that have control of religion. The same could be said of the banking system, and government.
 
2013-09-27 09:58:13 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Prophet of Loss: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.

Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.

Well if there is a point where 'space' ends, what's on the other side? Anyone who says Sha'Ka'Ree and God gets a punch in the dick.

Maybe it doesn't just end. Maybe it just graduall falls apart. Maybe as you get closer to the boundary area, space breaks down to the point where you can't actually reach the perimeter, like the event horizon of a black hole.

So, in the absence of something, there is nothing. But the concept of nothing is now suspect. All of this has to be in a container. I want to talk to the planning comission.


It is what it is, and I'm not saying that that's what it is, only that it's one possibility. Unless we could get there and experience it for ourselves, we can only speculate. Anyone who tells you different is either lying, or religious, and that includes the scientists.
 
2013-09-27 10:12:44 PM

RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: RedVentrue: An 80% or whatever pandemic won't fix the problem, as in 100 - 200 years we'll be right back in the same predicament. What will fix the problem is to raise the 3rd world countries to 1st world status. Only then will population growth be contained.

Well, as long as illiterate monkeys fornicate in the name of some sky wizard, it's a losing proposition.  Religion is an anchor and a cancer.

Greed, tribal thought, and screwing over ones neighbor for fun and profit, are as great a threat to humanity's future. The problem is not so much with religion, as with the psychopaths that have control of religion. The same could be said of the banking system, and government.


Hence, my point.  One unifying human species agenda. Not there. We know just enough to be dangerous.
 
2013-09-27 10:15:56 PM

Prophet of Loss: RedVentrue: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Space is infinite.  4 trillion is a finite number.  This does not compute.

And we're never leaving this anthill anyway.

If space is expanding, then it can't be infinite.

Well the current theory is that its expanding. Lets talk again 10 years.


Sounds like the global warming debate, but that's a discussion for another thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report