[Politics] Harbingers of Doom?

[dangull]

Can't agree with your use of the word 'probably', seeing as there is absolutely no evidence of that happening so far. I'll give you 'possibly', at a push.

There is always a 'possibility' that AI will create some kind of unstoppable malevolence, or that messing around with quantum particles will create some kind of anti-matter that will consume the entire universe. Or maybe bashing hadrons together at close to light speed will create a black hole on earth. It could all be possible of course, but 'probable', no. The fact we're so aware of the potential risks with emerging technologies suggests that we aren't going to allow them destroy us.

I would say it's more probable, given current trends, that our technological advances will continue exponentially, as they have been. We will advance to free and limitless energy - knowledge and information, and with it technology, will continue to progress so rapidly that we will eventually become like gods, no longer bound by physical limitations. Space travel will become effortless. Natural disasters, pandemics, comets - none of it will be able to touch us, as we learn to control the physics of the universe and the biology of ourselves, as we ultimately colonise the solar system and the galaxy.

If ISIS or for that matter Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon humans could be wiped out quickly. Can't rule out Putin either.

 

[Insel affe]

If ISIS or for that matter Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon humans could be wiped out quickly. Can't rule out Putin either.

Clap, clap…

what a way to end a Friday night and usher in the weekend with joviality

 

[Commander]

If ISIS or for that matter Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon humans could be wiped out quickly. Can't rule out Putin either.

I don’t think they would. They’d fire it at New York or somewhere and would kill a few million people. The Yanks would then return the favour and turn that part of the Middle East to a pile of radioactive dust. I don’t think that situation would wipe out Humans at all.

 

[Insel affe]

I don’t think they would. They’d fire it at New York or somewhere and would kill a few million people. The Yanks would then return the favour and turn that part of the Middle East to a pile of radioactive dust. I don’t think that situation would wipe out Humans at all.

Here’s the problem…
they don’t have a missile that would reach America, we are their lap dogs, and within range, yes so is most of Europe but we are a prime message and target to frighten the rest of the world. We’re just a piss ant island that even Europe hates, no big lose, FIFA would be over the moon

 

[dannyboy]

Surely we see no evidence of intelligent life in the universe because we have only really just started looking for it? SETI started "listening" in1992? The observable universe is estimated to be 94 billion light years across - even if any signals are moving at the speed of light we have only "heard" 32 light years worth out of 94bn. That's a miniscule percentage.

Youd imagine a lot of potential civilisations starting way before ours and having the tech to reach or communicate with us rather than us searching for them

 

[studio150]

I've bookmarked this thread to bring out in 2041 and to post a video which predicts the end in 2083.

No point worrying when you're time is up, it's up.

 

[Zeberdi]

If ISIS or for that matter Iran got hold of a nuclear weapon humans could be wiped out quickly. Can't rule out Putin either.

ISIS is very unlikely to do so - Iran isn’t in the market of getting ‘hold’ of any nuclear weapons I don’t think, they are developing them themselves and are probably very close too - but don’t assume they will initiate anything when they do - it will take Iran years to stockpile enough nuclear weapons to pose a unilateral existential threat to humanity.
.
There are 9 Countries with nuclear weapons, including Israel - but only the US and Russia are on trigger alert and the potential for ‘accidental’ launchings with an automatic response is high. From where I am sitting, based on the current conflicts around the world, only the US, Israel and Russia pose the biggest risk of turning any limited tactical nuclear strikes into a spiralling out of control, all out nuclear war - MAD insures that scenario unless one side takes an ‘Alpha’ strike first, obliterating one before the other has the capability to respond.

Some light-hearted reading for the Friday night doomsday preppers:

Your Nuclear Attack Map for 2023

Nuclear incidents are not as rare as they seem. Read our article on the nuclear attack map to find out the areas most affected and plan accordingly.

www.mirasafety.com

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

They may have used primitive tools - made from wood or stone - the intelligence of a T-Rex was probably equivalent to a baboon but intelligence isn’t enough, the anatomy of the human brain is designed for complex frontal cortex functions, based on what we know, the dinosaur’s brain wasn’t.

The technology we have today was developed over 2 million years but it is an exponential development unlike the much slower evolutionary development of anatomy/physiology of the animal kikingdom

You're not thinking deeply enough about this. No one is saying that a Trex would have had the brain power, but you really think 130 million years of dinosaur evolution couldn't have developed advanced intelligence?

 

[dangull]

You're not thinking deeply enough about this. No one is saying that a Trex would have had the brain power, but you really think 130 million years of dinosaur evolution couldn't have developed advanced intelligence?

The fossil evidence would suggest not. They had puny arms and hands as well, so wouldn't have been able to use tools effectively.
Dinosaurs didn't completely die out, birds are supposed to evolved from them. They are also not very intelligent.

 

[Baldseagull]

Youd imagine a lot of potential civilisations starting way before ours and having the tech to reach or communicate with us rather than us searching for them

I would imagine they would be far more likely to try and communicate with one of the more advanced civilisations and perhaps the more civil civilisations, rather than one with dozens of different bullshit deities, and groups that want to kill eachother over them.

 

[dannyboy]

I would imagine they would be far more likely to try and communicate with one of the more advanced civilisations and perhaps the more civil civilisations, rather than one with dozens of different bullshit deities, and groups that want to kill eachother over them.

very good point

 

[Weststander]

Here’s the problem…
they don’t have a missile that would reach America, we are their lap dogs, and within range, yes so is most of Europe but we are a prime message and target to frighten the rest of the world. We’re just a piss ant island that even Europe hates, no big lose, FIFA would be over the moon

It would be by dirty bombs.

Then North Korea (new mates of Putin and Iran) are ever increasing the distance of their ICBM’s.

Happy days

 

[sydney]

Probably going to be a meteorite that nails the planet that we don't see coming.

yeah and with Bruce Willis struggling with illness we are probably rooted.

 

[sydney]

It would be by dirty bombs.

Then North Korea (new mates of Putin and Iran) are ever increasing the distance of their ICBM’s.

Happy days

Iranians i speak to here , and there are a surprising amount , tell me that the Iranian people are increasingly agitated about the state of their government and its agendas , the government does not have the wholesale backing of its population. A few religious lunatics dictating to a nation that has had a taste of freedom and enlightenment and is now being dragged in the wrong direction.

 

[zefarelly]

I was convinced when I got up on January 1st 2000, that I would be dressing in a silver jumpsuit, my breakfast would be in the form of a pill, I would jump into my hover car to go to work, and my work colleagues would be humanoid robots.


That didn’t happen either.

TBF hover cars were never going to take off . . . But the rest of it was perfectly normal

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Surely we see no evidence of intelligent life in the universe because we have only really just started looking for it? SETI started "listening" in1992? The observable universe is estimated to be 94 billion light years across - even if any signals are moving at the speed of light we have only "heard" 32 light years worth out of 94bn. That's a miniscule percentage.

Precisely.

Proxima B is the nearest habitable planet. Roughly 4 light years away. The fastest we have travelled so far is about 40,000 Kmh. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometres per second, which is 18,000,000 Kmh. Divide that by 40,000 and multiply by 4 and we get 1,800 years to reach the nearest habitable planet.

The odds that the nearest habitable planet is inhabited are very small. One can roughly multiply the amount of time needed to reach the nearest planet by the chances of each habitable planet being inhabited. The Drake equation comes up with this: "Only one in a million million (planets) has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."". This takes us into the realms of millions of millions of years, flying at 40,000 KMH before we arrived at a habitable planet.

Another way of looking at it is that if the universe is 94 billion (94,000,000,000) miles across, and there are 100 million words with life on them, given that the universe is a sort of disc, its area is pi x (94,000,000,000 squared), and with 100 million inhabited worlds, the average distance between them would be 277,702,857,142,857 miles. Divide that by 40,000 Kmh (24855 miles/h) we get 1,275,447 years.

So if there is life out there it is far too far away for an encounter, unless the nearest inhabited planet reached a point where they could travel at 40,000 KMh, 1.275 million years ago, and worked out where we live and set off in a straight line. It's possible of course, but....

 

[Happy Exile]

Precisely.

Proxima B is the nearest habitable planet. Roughly 4 light years away. The fastest we have travelled so far is about 40,000 Kmh. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometres per second, which is 18,000,000 Kmh. Divide that by 40,000 and multiply by 4 and we get 1,800 years to reach the nearest habitable planet.

The odds that the nearest habitable planet is inhabited are very small. One can roughly multiply the amount of time needed to reach the nearest planet by the chances of each habitable planet being inhabited. The Drake equation comes up with this: "Only one in a million million (planets) has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."". This takes us into the realms of millions of millions of years, flying at 40,000 KMH before we arrived at a habitable planet.

Another way of looking at it is that if the universe is 94 billion (94,000,000,000) miles across, and there are 100 million words with life on them, given that the universe is a sort of disc, its area is pi x (94,000,000,000 squared), and with 100 million inhabited worlds, the average distance between them would be 277,702,857,142,857 miles. Divide that by 40,000 Kmh (24855 miles/h) we get 1,275,447 years.

So if there is life out there it is far too far away for an encounter, unless the nearest inhabited planet reached a point where they could travel at 40,000 KMh, 1.275 million years ago, and worked out where we live and set off in a straight line. It's possible of course, but....

We can add into this the absolutely enormous amount of luck that would be needed to find intelligent life that coexisted at the same time as us in the 14 billion year life span of the universe so far, and that was able to communicate outside their planet at the same time we can send and receive signals too. It's estimated the earth has held conditions for life for 3.7 billion years. Homo sapiens have existed for such a tiny fraction of that - 0.07% - let alone been able to communicate outside the planet, that we're barely a blip on the timeline.

So finding a planet - or one finding us - where timelines coincide would be beyond lucky.

 

[sydney]

Precisely.

Proxima B is the nearest habitable planet. Roughly 4 light years away. The fastest we have travelled so far is about 40,000 Kmh. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometres per second, which is 18,000,000 Kmh. Divide that by 40,000 and multiply by 4 and we get 1,800 years to reach the nearest habitable planet.

The odds that the nearest habitable planet is inhabited are very small. One can roughly multiply the amount of time needed to reach the nearest planet by the chances of each habitable planet being inhabited. The Drake equation comes up with this: "Only one in a million million (planets) has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution."". This takes us into the realms of millions of millions of years, flying at 40,000 KMH before we arrived at a habitable planet.

Another way of looking at it is that if the universe is 94 billion (94,000,000,000) miles across, and there are 100 million words with life on them, given that the universe is a sort of disc, its area is pi x (94,000,000,000 squared), and with 100 million inhabited worlds, the average distance between them would be 277,702,857,142,857 miles. Divide that by 40,000 Kmh (24855 miles/h) we get 1,275,447 years.

So if there is life out there it is far too far away for an encounter, unless the nearest inhabited planet reached a point where they could travel at 40,000 KMh, 1.275 million years ago, and worked out where we live and set off in a straight line. It's possible of course, but....

i need to lie down..

one of my favourite subjects to be honest , i think its a good 3 or 4 hundred years before we have the tekkers to even think about space colonisation...the 94 B mile figure is open to debate , it could be far bigger , i find it fascinating.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We can add into this the absolutely enormous amount of luck that would be needed to find intelligent life that coexisted at the same time as us in the 14 billion year life span of the universe so far, and that was able to communicate outside their planet at the same time we can send and receive signals too. It's estimated the earth has held conditions for life for 3.7 billion years. Homo sapiens have existed for such a tiny fraction of that - 0.07% - let alone been able to communicate outside the planet, that we're barely a blip on the timeline.

So finding a planet - or one finding us - where timelines coincide would be beyond lucky.

Indeed.

All of this is why I found Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy so delicious when it came out. Blowing up the earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass. Plans on display at Alpha Centuri for years. Humans can't be arsed to take an interest in local affairs, etc.

That's how we became the apex predator - an ability to imagine beyond our experience. If there are some other silly buggers out there, going through the same pontifications, good luck to them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

i need to lie down..

You need to get up, first, mate