the.crooked Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 man are you saying that we are introducing LESS novel chemicals into our environment than ever before in human history? caus i'm afraid youre wrong. same deal with 'pure' agriculture, maybe in a very small minority of organic farms. Also both those examples if they even were true are just reverting back to the state we were once in not actually making improvements, just going back on mistakes. Also if you're workign with the theory of natural selection for your argument it seems as if youre going the entirely wrong way about it. Humans as 'adaptive beings' has nothign to do with our ability to quickly shape and live in a foreign environment. Im sure i dont need to verse you on natural selection but it's us adapting to our environment over millions and millions of years. it's not us changing an environment to suit ourselves. If i'm misunderstanding you and youre jsut saying we could live on a planet sufficiently similar to earth for survival then that's a no brainer but it has nothing to do with mars as it is obviously not sufficiently similar. And t obe honest I really cant see terraforming a different planet as working in the forseeable future due to efficiency issues among many many others. No No, I was not saying that we are introducing less novel chemicals into our environment than bever before. I agree that we are doing such here on earth. I was saying that should we find an "alien environment" which was close to that of previous periods of earth's environment, we should stand to see such happenings. Not that this is in any way what is happening here on Earth. Also, evolution, like most natural processes works within the confines of the argument between catastrophism and uniformitarianism. While, as you are arguing, it seems indicative in the fossil record of long periods of time for evolutionary changes to be reflected, there are also instances of evolutionary flourishing. Biological explosions during the cambrian era (if I'm not mistaken) are examples of such. So it would seem that while evolution as forever going process (uniform in its temporal progression) would have periods of change that seem more drastic than others (catastrophic in their relative levels of biological adaptation). Just like the repition of catastrophic floods over millions of years to create basins and canyons, such is the case with evolution. It is an ebb and flow. As for my statement of accelerating the process of evolution, I was referring to the concept of the population explosion of the late 20th century. If evolution is characterized by genetic adaptation through procreation, then the faster we procreate, the faster we bring about the possibility of genetic change. It is the same concept as flies. Because of their short life spans and fast gestation periods, changes in their evolution are reflected "quickly" in comparison to our own evolutionary track. But to increase the rate at which people are born is to do almost the same as decreasing our reproductive period. And thus increase the chances of evolutionary progression. Also, an interesting thing to consider as far as effecting the speed and track of evolution; Life expectancy has increased and those with life threatening conditions are living longer and longer with chances to procreate themselves. Thus we are seeing a change in the evolutionary imperative. Those people whom perhaps in past situations would not have lasted as invalids or unable to get past a prediliction to infection or disease are being afforded the opportunity to live and allow their genetic contributions to strive on. That each of us represent a specific biological identification, we represent specific genetic mutations through the course of our particular lineage. It is these mutations that are of concern, for all succesful evolution is is the dominance of one particular contingent mutation to survive in a given environment. Thus, a second contributing factor to the acceleration of evolution is the increase in viable mutations that are being allowed to exist within the possible genetic pool for procreation. As far as the viability of terraforming in current society. I was not saying we are anywhere near to the application of such ideals, I was merely suggesting that is one of our aims. Science fiction as representative of the continued tradition of Retro-Futurism expresses the technological (and thus applied science) aims of society. The juxtiposition of current social themes to predictions of future science is like that of a self fulfilling prophecy. Why? Science fiction shows us what science could maybe do in the future. And as such provides the creative fancy which fuels the direction we apply our pure scientific knowledge towards. Take the developement of varying monitors for computers as a perfect example. Representations of future display panels ranging all the way back to Chaplin's Modern Times, can be seen as analagous to current interactive lcd, disturbed air and plasma screen technologies. Even something as recent as Minority Report is predictive to the aims of applied science. There was a link that some people put up quite a while ago in the babble I think that applies here. Perhaps it was Mams. I'll try and find it. Or take the use of holograms. We now have small pieces of technology that create three dimensional holograms at a range away from the device. I don't even need to list the many science fictions that have requested such a technology. Essentially, I see science fiction as predictive of applied science in the scheme of human history. Thus the fact that terraforming has been in such a forum for quite some time, seems indicative to me that we are concerned with such. I can assure you it is something NASA has considered. I hope that provides some clarification as to what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Also, evolution, like most natural processes works within the confines of the argument between catastrophism and uniformitarianism. While, as you are arguing, it seems indicative in the fossil record of long periods of time for evolutionary changes to be reflected, there are also instances of evolutionary flourishing. Biological explosions during the cambrian era (if I'm not mistaken) are examples of such. So it would seem that while evolution as forever going process (uniform in its temporal progression) would have periods of change that seem more drastic than others (catastrophic in their relative levels of biological adaptation). Just like the repition of catastrophic floods over millions of years to create basins and canyons, such is the case with evolution. It is an ebb and flow. ok i didn't know that, but are we still talking evolving over millions of years or over the generation or two that would be necessary for survival on a foreign planet. As for my statement of accelerating the process of evolution, I was referring to the concept of the population explosion of the late 20th century. If evolution is characterized by genetic adaptation through procreation, then the faster we procreate, the faster we bring about the possibility of genetic change. It is the same concept as flies. Because of their short life spans and fast gestation periods, changes in their evolution are reflected "quickly" in comparison to our own evolutionary track. But to increase the rate at which people are born is to do almost the same as decreasing our reproductive period. And thus increase the chances of evolutionary progression. for this to be relevant to the situation of adapting to a foreign planet it would mean that a massive and varied population would have to be transported and supported on the planet in question, which is an extremely outlandish situation considering the insane levels of infrastructure needed to achieve and maintain it. Also, an interesting thing to consider as far as effecting the speed and track of evolution; Life expectancy has increased and those with life threatening conditions are living longer and longer with chances to procreate themselves. Thus we are seeing a change in the evolutionary imperative. Those people whom perhaps in past situations would not have lasted as invalids or unable to get past a prediliction to infection or disease are being afforded the opportunity to live and allow their genetic contributions to strive on. That each of us represent a specific biological identification, we represent specific genetic mutations through the course of our particular lineage. It is these mutations that are of concern, for all succesful evolution is is the dominance of one particular contingent mutation to survive in a given environment. Thus, a second contributing factor to the acceleration of evolution is the increase in viable mutations that are being allowed to exist within the possible genetic pool for procreation. It seems to me as if the survival of all these UNfittest through the marvels of modern medicine would be a negative in the evolutionary sense as they are displaying genetic qualities that are not contingent with a strong ability to survive and thrive. As far as the viability of terraforming in current society. I was not saying we are anywhere near to the application of such ideals, I was merely suggesting that is one of our aims. Science fiction as representative of the continued tradition of Retro-Futurism expresses the technological (and thus applied science) aims of society. The juxtiposition of current social themes to predictions of future science is like that of a self fulfilling prophecy. Why? Science fiction shows us what science could maybe do in the future. And as such provides the creative fancy which fuels the direction we apply our pure scientific knowledge towards. Take the developement of varying monitors for computers as a perfect example. Representations of future display panels ranging all the way back to Chaplin's Modern Times, can be seen as analagous to current interactive lcd, disturbed air and plasma screen technologies. Even something as recent as Minority Report is predictive to the aims of applied science. There was a link that some people put up quite a while ago in the babble I think that applies here. Perhaps it was Mams. I'll try and find it. Or take the use of holograms. We now have small pieces of technology that create three dimensional holograms at a range away from the device. I don't even need to list the many science fictions that have requested such a technology. Essentially, I see science fiction as predictive of applied science in the scheme of human history. Thus the fact that terraforming has been in such a forum for quite some time, seems indicative to me that we are concerned with such. I can assure you it is something NASA has considered. I hope that provides some clarification as to what I meant. thats all well and good man but time travel and faster than light travel are also our science fiction aims and we arre realistically about as close to achieving that as we are to the ability to transform an inhospitable planet (or even a section of one) into something that can support life that has evolved over countless millenia into a state that is perfectly tuned for the conditions of its home planet. this is all very interestign for me i look forward to your reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poo!brain Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 yes but is it a proven fact that ther is water on mar i relly do think ther is alians or something not human up ther come on think about it why is ther just one big black thing with stars in it and why is ther other planist think about it you might just reach to the other side one day because i have..how much is it to go to space in a shit somert like £8:000:000 aint it well thats what i red in a book once all the famouse acters are doing it because it`s a trip of a life time not many people get to go to space!!!!but i can tell you one thing at the minit i am more spacet out than neil armstrong ever was and ever will be!:king:lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 discovery channel? i think i saw that. glad i'm not the only nerd who watches that sometimes. scientists are leaning towards the water they've seen ebbing in and out of that one gully as being underground part of the time. Eh, my girlfriend is always watching it and I catch some of it. It's interesting stuff but I can't stand the commercials and I don't like how a lot of the shows play up the "apocolypse scenario" bit, it is far too sensational. I'd prefer Nova if I ever had the time to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 Eh, my girlfriend is always watching it and I catch some of it. It's interesting stuff but I can't stand the commercials and I don't like how a lot of the shows play up the "apocolypse scenario" bit, it is far too sensational. I'd prefer Nova if I ever had the time to watch it. we're on the same wavelength as far as that. commericals are awful and the apocalypse thing...i was mentioning that to my dad. he thinks it's weird, too. i don't watch tv unless i'm at their house babysitting dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 nova was teh hotness when i was a kid. bill nye like what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Anyone have a photo of these "pyramids"? I would like to create my own obscure postulation aswell. http://www.mars-earth.com/raw35a72.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASER1NE Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 If there was ANY intelligent life on mars we would have seen it by now, microscopic bacteria doesnt count because who fucking cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivre Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 i dont understand how we didnt know this before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 http://www.mars-earth.com/raw35a72.jpg That looks like a fucking face to me. Those COULD be pyramids, I dunno. You figure that a few thousand, even mililons of years of erosion would eliminate the step-look of today's pyramids. The likelyhood of and alien race either existing on Mars or landing on Mars and making their mark is not much less likely than it not happening. All the internet pseudo-physicists might disagree, but truth is they know just as little about what kind of life is out there as real scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 oh thats right, just attack my credentials... asshole. no really, your right. we know nothing. thus the reason for my complete faith in my own speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slush.e Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 this movie is dope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 If there was ANY intelligent life on mars we would have seen it by now, microscopic bacteria doesnt count because who fucking cares you're right it probably wouldn't be too exciting if there was microscopic bacteria but it would answer the age-old question: "is there life beyond our planet?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 this movie is dope in some ways. mad shitty in others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 If there was ANY intelligent life on mars we would have seen it by now, microscopic bacteria doesnt count because who fucking cares what if the intelligent life on mars died out millions of years ago? that would still be a big deal if we found evidence of that, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_gooch Posted December 25, 2006 Share Posted December 25, 2006 That looks like a fucking face to me. Those COULD be pyramids, I dunno. You figure that a few thousand, even mililons of years of erosion would eliminate the step-look of today's pyramids. The likelyhood of and alien race either existing on Mars or landing on Mars and making their mark is not much less likely than it not happening. All the internet pseudo-physicists might disagree, but truth is they know just as little about what kind of life is out there as real scientists. exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.