Blank Discussion Topic

PJfanwillneverleave1

.

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

http://gizmodo.com/scientists-hope-to-eradicate-disease-with-massive-mosqu-1788379798

It’s truly unknown what kind of broader effect the systematic extinction of mosquitos would have on the eco-system. The little pests are generally believed to have no broader purpose than to survive and spread disease. But without long-term impact studies, it’s difficult to say whether or not the destruction of mosquito species would come without consequence.

This is interesting because well known and respected biologist Edward O. Wilson, who has studied the insect world for decades said in one of his books (one that emphasizes the importance of protecting all species from premature- that is, human caused, extinction) that the one species that might be a candidate for intentional extinction would be the mosquito. But he said this with much caution because we don't yet fully understand all the relationships between species. In fact, the mosquito might be one of natures tools for keeping human numbers in check. If we eliminate the mosquito and eventually all diseases we will be responsible for limiting our own numbers. If we can't do that (the obviously likely scenario) our over-inflated numbers will lead to our demise through resource depletion (already happening).

All that said, if scientists do succeed in eliminating mosquitoes I will shamefully admit to a certain degree of pleasure. And much as I hate to admit it, I would not miss poison oak either.

Free

I say we don't mess with nature.

brianlux

Free said:

I say we don't mess with nature.

Have to agree. Screwing with nature is the root of our most serious problems (not to mention all the other wonderful species we are taking down). When we disrupt natures cycles as severely as we've done, we imperil ourselves.

J. Allen Boone wrote a wonderful book about human/animal communication called Kinship With All Life. He talked about how he was able to be friendly with skunks such that they never prayed around him and even was able convince ants to leave his kitchen. I would love to make some kind of deal like that with mosquitoes!

hedonist

Based on these responses, how can anyone NOT mess with nature? Unless someone is a deliberate asshole, just living does that.

Life feeds on life.

So maybe it's being part of nature vs fucking with it.

And how does once "convince" ants to leave a space? Honestly, I'd rather do that than spraying them while shouting "die, you fuckers!" and then sweeping up the carcasses.

PS - here's your praying skunk

brianlux

hedonist said:

Based on these responses, how can anyone NOT mess with nature? Unless someone is a deliberate asshole, just living does that.

Life feeds on life.

So maybe it's being part of nature vs fucking with it.

And how does once "convince" ants to leave a space? Honestly, I'd rather do that than spraying them while shouting "die, you fuckers!" and then sweeping up the carcasses.

PS - here's your praying skunk

eau de cute!

As for asking ants to leave- well, that was a really great chapter in Boone's book but I never got the hang of it. He said it requires a bit of patience. Hmmm, that might be the problem, hahaha!

lukin2006

Can World's Rarest Bear Be Saved?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/04/140417-rarest-bears-world-mongolia-gobi/

lukin2006

Ontario’s moose population under threat, some bats may be wiped out entirely, environment report says

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/26/ontarios-moose-population-under-threats-bats-may-be-wiped-out-entirely-environment-report-says.html

lukin2006

Most of World's Biggest Beasts Could Be Extinct by 2100

http://www.livescience.com/55598-most-megafauna-faces-extinction.html

Godfather.

......mosquito's suck.

Godfather.

mickeyrat

Godfather. said:

......mosquito's suck.

Godfather.

I see what you did there.....

Godfather.

mickeyrat said:

Godfather. said:

......mosquito's suck.

Godfather.

I see what you did there.....

so..Froyd was right. LOL !

Godfather.

HughFreakingDillon

mosquitoes are treacherous in Winnipeg in most summers. it can make going to the cottage a horrendous outing rather than a relaxing weekend (and my father in law refuses to screen in the porch). but with that said, I can't say I support the extinction of any species on purpose. it's actually kind of funny when people from Vancouver come to Winnipeg in the summer. many of them turn into one massive mosquito bite.

but they exist for a reason. all things do. otherwise they'd be extinct naturally. I can only imagine what the unintended consequences would be.

pjalive21

everything serves some sort of purpose, who are we to decide what that purpose is....im sure there could be an argument made for making humans extinct with all the damage we cause

lukin2006

We put ourselves in charge of deciding, it's not up to us to choose...

A Provincial Park and National Park near me have conducted deer culls under the rouse that they are protecting the vegetation ... meanwhile both parks I visit, the provincial park allows camping, and the campers are the ones destroying the vegetation, not enough brains to stay on trails, same as the national park ... people trampling off the trails. I do not support any cull...

brianlux

pjalive21 said:

everything serves some sort of purpose, who are we to decide what that purpose is....im sure there could be an argument made for making humans extinct with all the damage we cause

Sadly that is very true!

But then if we wanted to we could change our destructive behavior.

Godfather.

hay folks, wrong right good or bad we are the top of the food chain so screw those sceeters ! LOL !

Godfather.

PJ_Soul

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them (which hurts to say, because I HATE the little fuckers!!).
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls on other people's behalves, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. If keeping up a good natural balance is the priority, all foreign aid should be cut off too. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

Same here.... I know this viewpoint pisses a lot of people off though, lol. I mean, the argument basically tells people that all those donations they make to those charities for starving and sick kids in Africa are in fact ultimately harming the planet and the human race, and that all those cancer treatments that saved their mother/father/child/friend probably should never have been made in the first place. It is indeed a difficult subject.

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

That guy must have some REALLY good drugs!

I like futuristic stories but only if they are plausible. James Howard Kunstler's "World Made By Hand Series" ( World Made by Hand, The Witch of Hebron and A History of the Future) about the post peak oil near future are excellent.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

I think the main point in colonizing space it to find and have access to way more resources.
I fully, 100% support space exploration. Don't worry Brian, you won't have to live in a bubble on Mars, you and I will be dust in the ground by then. But yeah, if I could colonize space I'd definitely do it. I would volunteer. Space exploration is awesome (and yes, it does have a utilitarian benefit too). But don't forget about technology. in 800 years it's entirely possible the humans will have discovered a way to make an atmosphere on other planets and shit like that. Don't think about in today's terms.

Stephen Hawking is a fucking genius, and seems to have a sensitivity about things that many pure scientists do not. The difference between him and many other people who might be comparable is that Stephen has a big imagination too. I personally greatly admire that quality in him.

lukin2006

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

I think the main point in colonizing space it to find and have access to way more resources.
I fully, 100% support space exploration. Don't worry Brian, you won't have to live in a bubble on Mars, you and I will be dust in the ground by then. But yeah, if I could colonize space I'd definitely do it. I would volunteer. Space exploration is awesome (and yes, it does have a utilitarian benefit too). But don't forget about technology. in 800 years it's entirely possible the humans will have discovered a way to make an atmosphere on other planets and shit like that. Don't think about in today's terms.

Stephen Hawking is a fucking genius, and seems to have a sensitivity about things that many pure scientists do not. The difference between him and many other people who might be comparable is that Stephen has a big imagination too. I personally greatly admire that quality in him.

I agree with you on Hawking. He states theories that could make him either a genius or a laughingstock. So far it's the former.

maybe one day we'll be able to travel in Star Trek type distances and FIND other habitable planets, but I don't know about creating a world anything like what we have now. Just stop fucking this one up. It's gorgeous beyond imagination.

brianlux

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

lukin2006

brianlux said:

lukin2006 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Better to cure the disease. I assume mosquitoes are very important to the food chain. Insects and fish and birds eat them.
I mean, if we want to really get into it, we also have to wonder if humans are right in eradicating diseases. Disease is how nature controls populations, and humans continue to grow way too much in population, beyond what resources can accommodate, because they keep figuring out how to prevent natural population control without controlling birth rates (and in fact reducing infant mortality rates while they're at it, vastly compounding the problem). Technically, humans shouldn't be trying to cure anything or working around other natural population controls, like famine caused by drought or flooding, etc. Of course, human morality and technical knowledge gets in the way of this very scientific and objective viewpoint.

It's too bad we humans are not better at limiting our inflated numbers. If we were, I would be more open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes because some of the disease they spread are hideous- but they also serve to curb population.

Difficult subject. If I had to answer definitely one way or another I would have to go with the "don't screw with nature" approach.

I "subscribe" to a page on facebook called Earth We Are One, and they often have really off the wall "articles" and posts. the other day was one about some guy who claimed he travelled to the year 2745 and spent two years there (how do you spend two years in one year?). 300 million people on the planet, no central government or economy as we know it, just a collective where everyone had what they needed.

sounds like unsung's utopia.

Sounds pretty good actually, I hope the guy is a true time traveller, lol.

It does sound good. What's interesting is that in one of his books, Edward Abbey wrote about what he envisioned as the idea society and what this time traveler envisioned (or "saw") was pretty much what Abbey described.

Well Stephen Hawking thinks that we're simply fucked unless humans manage to colonize space/other planets within the next 800 years (which is perfectly feasible, given the rate at which humans now progress in technological terms).

I liked what I'd heard of Hawking until I started to read more about him. I think the man is very bright but I think some of that is over-hyped. Publisher's love his stuff and know how how to maximize his popularity and book sales. I know- I will get scorched for saying these things.

As for colonizing space, that is ridiculous. We don't have the resources or time to make that happen before it is too late and who on earth want's to live in some bubble on Mars anyway? No thanks!

Agree, colonizing space is ridiculous. and hopefully won't happen...wonder what damage we've done to the earth and it surrounding atomsphere with this space travel?

Right! Let's use up more money and resources and trash the planet so we can go get more resources... and trash another planet!

Agreed ... my biggest concern with all this space travel and with it seemingly getting easier to access is for space to be further weaponized ... and eventually by roque states, if not already...