Losing Faith...In Humanity.

Turtwig

People often say to me, (or rather close friends that know my personal stance/beliefs) that my view of life is so depressing, the idea that when we die that's it. Well, sadly, my view on some aspects of humanity is the most depressing.

After a rather strenuous few days, my friends and I decided that for sake a few laughs we'd finally dwell into the whole 'Evolution Is Not True Agrument' by watching videos on youtube. Firstly, this group involved both a Muslim,Christian, Agnostic,Atheist, and Atheist (Me:P). All of whom accept evolution as being factually true. So, uh yeah, you can see where this going now. We, I suppose, rather naively and definitely arrogantly, thought that the debates would be a good auld laugh : they weren't. In fact,they left me rather depressed with humanity as a whole.

Eveything was twisted, evolution was supposedly a materialistic theory which somehow included Abiogenesis that completely ruled out a creator. As an atheist, I love debating stuff about life with people, but I'm begining to meet more and more 'close minded' people who have, shall I say, rather uniformed views of science and completely false ideas of what supposedly has been proven by science but really hasn't been. The trouble is how can you be expected to repeatably and respectfully debate stuff with people who have been misinformed about everything that you are going to discuss:(.
So, yeah, to the point of this thread.
I know that some people here don't believe that the majesty of the universe offers proof of God, I'm of the same boat. My point is that I would prefer theists have at least an informed view of the universe and the ACTUAL proofs that it could offer for God, not phoney ones invented by some idiot in a position of authority who decides to pass his personal opinion off as fact.
Louie Giglio, made a good vid 'Indescribeable', and I was really impressed with his position towards science he clearly stated what was science and what was his own personal opinion. If only others would follow this stance then we wouldn't have the mess we are in today. Normally, though if a theist says something nonsensical (even in the eyes of other theists) and the atheist disagrees then the consensus I get from some people is that it must be true for them, otherwise they are atheistic? Hopefully, I am wrong here, but if I'm not I'd like to ensure that from now on theists are exposed to the truth, not false personal opinion. For this reason, I am thinking of compiling a thread whereby we add possible proofs of God through rational science and debunk the nonsensical ones. I know this may sound counter intuitive, but wouldn't you rather have theists die with truth about the world in their heads rather than just general falsities which were preached upon them by others, and thus, make it almost impossible to engage in rational discussions with them?
Even, if we only get the truth through to 1% it will have been worth it.
That's just my view, I'm interested in hearing the opinons of others, and hopefully getting some help:)

Note : This is just purely about knowledge, not about their religious beliefs.

Rev Hellfire

Clearly you have to much time on your hands

If you're searching the internet for anything other than idiots and liars you're wasting your time.

Turtwig

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Clearly you have to much time on your hands

Actually, I don't

It's just I rather people were exposed to the truth before some nut get's to them and confuses them utterly.:(

Dades

If this thread is to survive let there be no more reference to specific conversations had on the Christianity forum. The place for discussion of those conversations is in the thread they are posted.

Keep it general and we'll be all good.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

If this thread is to survive let there be no more reference to specific conversations had on the Christianity forum. The place for discussion of those conversations is in the thread they are posted.

Keep it general and we'll be all good.

Generalised it a bit more, hopefully it's still understandable, but more so I hope it's ok now:)

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

After a rather strenuous few days, my friends and I decided that for sake a few laughs we'd finally dwell into the whole 'Evolution Is Not True Agrument' by watching videos on youtube.

Don't go looking on youtube for signs of intelligent life here on Earth. You will go mad.

Malty_T wrote: »

My point is that I would prefer theists have at least an informed view of the universe and the ACTUAL proofs that it could offer for God, not phoney ones invented by some idiot in a position of authority who decides to pass his personal opinion off as fact.

In 1959, Marta Gellhorn -- possibly the 20th century's finest reporter -- wrote the following in her outstanding book The Face of War:

Marta Gellhorn wrote:

When I was young I believed in the perfectibility of man, and in progress, and thought of journalism as a guiding light. If people were told the truth, if dishonor and injustice were clearly shown to them, they would at once demand the saving action, punishment of wrong-doers, and care for the innocent. How people were to accomplish these reforms, I did not know. That was their job. A journalist's job was to bring the news, to be the eyes for their conscience. I think I must have imagined public opinion as a solid force, something like a tornado, always ready to blow on the side of the angels.

During the years of my energetic hope, I blamed the leaders when history regularly went wrong, when cruelty and violence were tolerated or abetted, and the innocent never got anything except the dirty end of the stick. [...]

It took nine years, and a Great Depression and two wars ending in defeat, and one surrender without war, to break my faith in the benign power of the press. Gradually, I came to realize that people will more readily swallow lies than truth, as if the taste of lies was homey, appetizing: a habit. (There were also liars in my trade, and leaders have always used facts as relative and malleable. The supply of lies was unlimited.) Good people, those who opposed evil whenever they saw it, never increased beyond a gallant minority. The manipulated millions could be aroused or soothed by any lies. The guiding light of journalism was no stronger than a glow worm.

I belong to a Federation of Cassandras, my colleagues the foreign correspondents, whom I met at every disaster. They had been reporting the rise of Fascism, its horrors and its sure menace, for years. The doom they had long prophesied arrived on time, bit by bit, as scheduled. In the end we became solitary stretcher-bearers, trying to pull individuals free from the wreckage. If a life could be saved from the first of the Gestapo in Prague, or another from behind the barbed wire on the sands at Arlegès, that was a comfort but it was hardly journalism. Drag, scheming, bullying and dollars occasionally preserved one human being at a time.

For all the good our articles did, they might have been written in invisible ink, printed on leaves and loosed to the wind.

Now, granted Gellhorn was talking about WWII and not the face-slapping stupidity of creationism, but the principle's the same -- a lot of people just don't care what they believe, preferring to coddle themselves in myth-information.

My advice: subscribe to The New Yorker, listen to BBC Radio 4, grab a coffee and relax. There are a lot of smart people out there and you'll have more fun listening to them than speaking to the deaf.

Stercus Accidit

Society is complicated, life is complicated.


Who cares how it works once it works, unfortunately, that seems to be it, once you are doing ok in life the mind closes up, and it rarely needs to open again.


I imagine most atheists/agnostics feel like this at some stage, I look at american republican politics, I see 1.84 min wage posters, I see creationism in schools, women flogged in trousers. To quote Tommy Tiernan "the world is fcuked, the world is fcuked!"


I'd be interested in how others deal with it, apathy?


It would almost drive you to faith scientology!

Stark

If you really want a "good auld laugh", look up "Banana: an atheist's nightmare"

Stercus Accidit

Stark wrote: »

If you really want a "good auld laugh", look up "Banana: an atheist's nightmare"

If people click on that link, this forum will be empty in no time!

Húrin

There is no reason at all to have faith in the goodness of your fellow man. My evidence is all of recorded history, both that of civilisation and that of the evolution of species. We take what we can get and the rest can burn.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

There is no reason at all to have faith in the goodness of your fellow man. My evidence is all of recorded history, both that of civilisation and that of the evolution of species. We take what we can get and the rest can burn.

What history are you looking at? I see one that we mostly helped each other to get here, otherwise how would we be here?

Anyways this is about our open-mindedness, not our goodness from what I'm reading.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

What history are you looking at? I see one that we mostly helped each other to get here, otherwise how would we be here?

So you think that societies helped each other out rather than beat the hell out of each other for all of history in an attempt to get more resources? Do you think European civilisation is currently ruling the world because the other civilisations were kind enough to help out the Spanish, British, Americans, etc? Did the upper class get where they are because the working class were kind enough to help them?

How does a narrative of human history consisting mostly of altruism mesh with evolution? Where is the room for the elimination or subjugation of the weak? Do you think that the current maldistribution of wealth in the world is evidence that humans are good and help each other?

Really I don't know how people can be so deluded about life.

pH

Húrin wrote: »

So you think that societies helped each other out rather than beat the hell out of each other for all of history in an attempt to get more resources? Do you think European civilisation is currently ruling the world because the other civilisations were kind enough to help out the Spanish, British, Americans, etc? Did the upper class get where they are because the working class were kind enough to help them?

How does a narrative of human history consisting mostly of altruism mesh with evolution? Where is the room for the elimination or subjugation of the weak? Do you think that the current maldistribution of wealth in the world is evidence that humans are good and help each other?

Really I don't know how people can be so deluded about life.

But at least we agree that religion has been an integral part of the majority of these societies for the last couple of millennia, so even if one is not willing to blame all the above ills on religion, you can still categorically say that religion is not the answer, it's had over 2,000 years to produce a peaceful and equitable society and utterly failed, so it would be foolish to think that in the future religion could play any part in fashioning a "better" society.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

So you think that societies helped each other out rather than beat the hell out of each other for all of history in an attempt to get more resources? Do you think European civilisation is currently ruling the world because the other civilisations were kind enough to help out the Spanish, British, Americans, etc? Did the upper class get where they are because the working class were kind enough to help them?

How does a narrative of human history consisting mostly of altruism mesh with evolution? Where is the room for the elimination or subjugation of the weak? Do you think that the current maldistribution of wealth in the world is evidence that humans are good and help each other?

Really I don't know how people can be so deluded about life.

Your looking at it from a top down sortof view. If you break all that down mainly we spend our time helping out each other. Its mostly on the family and friends level but generally people have been nice to each other and have been getting nicer for a long time.

Were talking generally here, theres plenty of scope for wrongdoing and unfairness but to make that the evidence of the definition of what humanity is is a huge mistake.

The average person is a good person. The way you put your first post you made it sound like everyone would gut thier mothers for a slice of toast.

kiffer

eoin5 wrote: »

... you made it sound like everyone would gut thier mothers for a slice of toast.

Is there butter or jam or something on the toast? Also what kind of bread?

People generally help each other out... however I think in large groups we tend to try a bit of a "can't someone else do it" attitude. For example... if we see someone in distress and there are only say 5 people around it quickly becomes apparent that no one is helping the distressed person so one or more of the 5 will quickly move to help... On a street with 500 people at any given moment, hundreds can walk by thinking that someone else will help and few people want to be the first to act (oh I don't have any first aid training, someone else will have some and they'll help)... Or the first to call the police because pretty much everyone is thinking one of the other 500 people will do it...

Then once a few people move to help others would just get in the way... So it looks like only a hand full of the crowd are willing to help at all... Which may not be the case at all if there were fewer people present.

What do you think?

eoin5

kiffer wrote: »

Is there butter or jam or something on the toast? Also what kind of bread?

People generally help each other out... however I think in large groups we tend to try a bit of a "can't someone else do it" attitude. For example... if we see someone in distress and there are only say 5 people around it quickly becomes apparent that no one is helping the distressed person so one or more of the 5 will quickly move to help... On a street with 500 people at any given moment, hundreds can walk by thinking that someone else will help and few people want to be the first to act (oh I don't have any first aid training, someone else will have some and they'll help)... Or the first to call the police because pretty much everyone is thinking one of the other 500 people will do it...

Then once a few people move to help others would just get in the way... So it looks like only a hand full of the crowd are willing to help at all... Which may not be the case at all if there were fewer people present.

What do you think?

Yup, this is true. I donno why this is, maybe its got to do with a fear of standing out in a croud. Also in croud circumstances people might be more skeptical of someone calling for help as crouded areas are the most popular places for scams.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

But at least we agree that religion has been an integral part of the majority of these societies for the last couple of millennia, so even if one is not willing to blame all the above ills on religion, you can still categorically say that religion is not the answer, it's had over 2,000 years to produce a peaceful and equitable society and utterly failed, so it would be foolish to think that in the future religion could play any part in fashioning a "better" society.

Where in my post did I claim that religion will create utopia? I wasn't talking about religion at all, except the "religion" of faith in one's fellow man/humanism. I thought that atheists didn't like faith, and only believed thing with solid evidence.

eoin5 wrote: »

Your looking at it from a top down sortof view. If you break all that down mainly we spend our time helping out each other. Its mostly on the family and friends level but generally people have been nice to each other and have been getting nicer for a long time.

We humans help our tribe yes, I don't dispute that. We recognise that our own welfare is dependent on that of our tribe.

We certainly haven't been getting nicer. Over the past few hundred years we have merely exported and outsourced the violence that used to characterise life in Europe.

Were talking generally here, theres plenty of scope for wrongdoing and unfairness but to make that the evidence of the definition of what humanity is is a huge mistake.

There isn't just "scope", there's evidence of it. Fairness isn't built into nature's process. It's something that only humans recognise.

The average person is a good person. The way you put your first post you made it sound like everyone would gut thier mothers for a slice of toast.

If the circumstances are bad enough, then yes, people kill other people to ensure their own survival.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

We humans help our tribe yes, I don't dispute that. We recognise that our own welfare is dependent on that of our tribe.

We also have "feelings" that help this. Its part of the humanity deal. We actually like to help people were close to.

We certainly haven't been getting nicer. Over the past few hundred years we have merely exported and outsourced the violence that used to characterise life in Europe.

I've shown you that its a safer place to live now more than ever with a Ted video in a past thread. Remember the one with Stephen Pinker explaining that people once had a 60% chance of being killed by another human. You can argue about the last few hundred years but in the long run over our 100000+yr species we are far nicer than we were. Itll be a long time before the dust settles on globalisation.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

We also have "feelings" that help this. Its part of the humanity deal. We actually like to help people were close to.

To be sure. And we will be brutal to those people we are not close to if we think we have to.

I've shown you that its a safer place to live now more than ever with a Ted video in a past thread. Remember the one with Stephen Pinker explaining that people once had a 60% chance of being killed by another human. You can argue about the last few hundred years but in the long run over our 100000+yr species we are far nicer than we were. Itll be a long time before the dust settles on globalisation.

We aren't "nicer" or morally superior - we're just living in an environment that doesn't demand what those people thousands of years ago did.

Due to peak oil I would give the progress globalisation another ten years. I expect in another 200 years we'll be back and 19th century levels of globalisation. Globalisation as it is now rests entirely on cheap energy, especially cheap petrol/deisel for all those trucks and ships.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

To be sure. And we will be brutal to those people we are not close to if we think we have to.

Yes, and who do we spend most of our time with? This is how weve survived, by helping out each other on a personal level for an awfully long time.

We aren't "nicer" or morally superior - we're just living in an environment that doesn't demand what those people thousands of years ago did.

I think weve made progress by our own steam. Conquering fears, learning discipline, building up knowledge and education. Developing medicine etc.

Goduznt Xzst

eoin5 wrote: »

I think weve made progress by our own steam. Conquering fears, learning discipline, building up knowledge and education. Developing medicine etc.

The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Húrin wrote: »

And we will be brutal to those people we are not close to if we think we have to.

The pessimist fears this is true.

Dr Pepper

OP, I share your loss of faith in humanity... I think the Tommy Tiernan quote hits the nail on the head with his usual poetic eloquence. A quote from Scar in The Lion King also comes to mind a lot lately, "I'm surrounded by idiots!". Every time I turn on the TV, radio, see Lisbon treaty posters, read the most popular forums on boards, glance at the most popular newspapers, drive a car on a public road, etc...

No doubt, we humans have made incredible scientific and technical progress, especially in recent centuries/millennia, despite the above. I think this is due to the contributions of a very small, intelligent minority (and usually in the face of major resistance from the majority/establishment). If an advanced alien culture started to observe Earth today, I can't help but think they would wonder "How ever did these imbeciles ever figure out how to land 2 rover on Mars?".

I sometimes feel like society shouldn't be 'allowed', don't deserve, or at least aren't ready for some of the advancements that have been made. Maybe our species is still more suited to sitting around in caves and hunting/gathering and perhaps even lighting fires now and then. I don't think most humans would even be able to light a fire without a box of matches or a lighter and a packet of Zips! Do we have the right to travel in jumbo jets and use iPhones?

Ah, maybe I'm just going through a phase at the moment or I'm particularly disillusioned with things like rampant consumerism in modern Ireland, the Lisbon debate, irrational union protests, etc, etc, etc (one could go on all day). I do realise that it's not a good way to be and I hope I can regain my faith (in humanity) some time soon!

I think robindh's advice was about right and I have come to the same conclusion. Just try to read plenty and surround yourself with the work of the intelligent minority and everything might just be all right It's comforting to know at least that you are not alone!

/rant over

Please let me know if you agree, disagree or have any advice.

Goduznt Xzst

Dr Pepper wrote: »

I sometimes feel like society shouldn't be 'allowed', don't deserve, or at least aren't ready for some of the advancements that have been made.

I remember reading some of Carl Sagans opinions on life in this Universe. Basically he was of the opinion that given the sheer number of stars, and in turn planets in the Universe, that life occurring should be moderately likely, and in turn Intelligent life occurring, to a lesser extent.

But if this where true then as we listen to the Universe we should be able to hear the transmissions from these millions or billions of other planets inhabited with technologically advanced lifeforms. The complete absence of any artificially created signals (thus far) can only lead to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either we are alone in this Universe as advanced, self aware lifeforms, or that as species on other planets reached technological advancement they advanced too quick to cope and inevitably destroyed themselves, leaving no trace of their brief transmissions.

Earth would seem to be a prime example of the latter. Our technology is evolving at a much faster rate than we are and for every advancement that claims to help humanity, we seem to create 100 more that don't.

Turtwig

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I remember reading some of Carl Sagans opinions on life in this Universe. Basically he was of the opinion that given the sheer number of stars, and in turn planets in the Universe, that life occurring should be moderately likely, and in turn Intelligent life occurring, to a lesser extent.

But if this where true then as we listen to the Universe we should be able to hear the transmissions from these millions or billions of other planets inhabited with technologically advanced lifeforms. The complete absence of any artificially created signals (thus far) can only lead to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either we are alone in this Universe as advanced, self aware lifeforms, or that as species on other planets reached technological advancement they advanced too quick to cope and inevitably destroyed themselves, leaving no trace of their brief transmissions.

Earth would seem to be a prime example of the latter. Our technology is evolving at a much faster rate than we are and for every advancement that claims to help humanity, we seem to create 100 more that don't.

Ok admittingly I'm derailing my own thread here but:

We did not discover other planets until the 1990s, we now know there's quite a lot of them, but as they are so far away any information we see of them is in the past i.e they might still just be bacteria.
The same goes for any alien race observing us, they're most likely seeing the dinosaurs.

The idea of civilisations destroying themselves, was proposed by some sci-fi writer (can't remember who) he basically proposed different civiliasation classes (we're class zero) and 90% of class zeros NEVER make it class one. For obvious reasons either they destroyed themselves or nature did.

Dr Pepper

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

I remember reading some of Carl Sagans opinions on life in this Universe. Basically he was of the opinion that given the sheer number of stars, and in turn planets in the Universe, that life occurring should be moderately likely, and in turn Intelligent life occurring, to a lesser extent.

But if this where true then as we listen to the Universe we should be able to hear the transmissions from these millions or billions of other planets inhabited with technologically advanced lifeforms. The complete absence of any artificially created signals (thus far) can only lead to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either we are alone in this Universe as advanced, self aware lifeforms, or that as species on other planets reached technological advancement they advanced too quick to cope and inevitably destroyed themselves, leaving no trace of their brief transmissions.

Earth would seem to be a prime example of the latter. Our technology is evolving at a much faster rate than we are and for every advancement that claims to help humanity, we seem to create 100 more that don't.

That's funny, I just finished reading Cosmos (the book to which I think you are referring).

On every second page he seems to use phases like "if we survive the next few centuries". By the end of the book I was thinking to my self "Wow, this guy doesn't have a lot of faith in humans surviving the near future". I almost got the feeling he was being a bit paranoid. The cause of our probable self-destruction he kept giving was nuclear holocaust (which at the time of the cold war may have seemed like it was only around the corner).

I took comfort in the fact that we have come almost 3 decades since that book was written and there is no sign of World War III breaking out any day soon but then I realise that most people probably felt the same way in 1938/39. I guess it's also only a matter of time before nuclear weapons fall into the hands of extremists/terrorists. Also, whatever about current nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, it may not be too far into the future before nuclear fusion is cracked and we unleash some of the other strong forces of nature. Sometimes I wonder if some genius conducting an experiment some day hits on something really big and accidentally wipes out the whole planet!

Maybe Sagan was not so paranoid. Do other scientists/sociologists agree that the self-destruction of the species is likely? If so, you don't often hear about it!

CerebralCortex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Earth would seem to be a prime example of the latter. Our technology is evolving at a much faster rate than we are and for every advancement that claims to help humanity, we seem to create 100 more that don't.

The next century will be interesting becuase up until now technology hasn't allowed us to change ourselves only provided us with the opportunity to do the things we like to do with far more ease to much primitive thinking fused with terrible power.

Dades

Large Hadron Collider malfunction? :pac:

Dr Pepper

Oh no, I'm getting worried now. What about that anti-matter stuff? I believe that's another one that could wipe us out if tinkered with.

Although 1 nuke in the hands of the wrong person seems like the most possible of doomsday triggers. It couldn't be much more difficult to do than say, hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into buildings!? :eek:

Turtwig

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Oh no, I'm getting worried now. What about that anti-matter stuff? I believe that's another one that could wipe us out if tinkered with.

Although 1 nuke in the hands of the wrong person seems like the most possible of doomsday triggers. It couldn't be much more difficult to do than say, hijacking 4 planes and crashing them into buildings!? :eek:

Urghh quit believing, anti matter is presently harmless.

Let me ask you this, do you actually think it is possibl,e given our current level of technology, to annihilate human beings in altogether?

We may killl billions, but so far we do not yet possess the technology to destroy either this planet or homo sapiens in total.
We are, however,at risk of some religious nuts destroying our advancements in knowledge and understanding:(.

Dr Pepper

Malty_T wrote: »

Let me ask you this, do you actually think it is possibl,e given our current level of technology, to annihilate human beings in altogether?

No, I'm no expert but I'd imagine the current scenario would be a terrorist detonation of a nuke, possibly followed by a fairly destructive tit-for-tat nuclear campaign. Funnily enough, I think if we are going to face a large scale annihilation, it might be better for the long-term survival of homo sapiens if it happens sooner rather than later (when we might have the kinds of technology capable of wiping out the entire planet in one foul swoop!).

Can't help but picture this now which is not what I'm talking about

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

Let me ask you this, do you actually think it is possibl,e given our current level of technology, to annihilate human beings in altogether?

Maybe I've read/watched too much sci-fi, but do we not have 'doomsday diseases' stored in vials 10 stories underground?

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Maybe I've read/watched too much sci-fi, but do we not have 'doomsday diseases' stored in vials 10 stories underground?

Even if we do, what are the odds on it contaminating the entire human population?

@Dr Pepper, nukes would be useless if you want to eradicate the human species. Too slow and impractical.

Afterthought: Dades, There is also a scientific theory which proposes that every human being is immune to something, even diseases that may never exist.

Goduznt Xzst

Malty_T wrote: »

Even if we do, what are the odds on it contaminating the entire human population?

Who said there'd be only one type of pathogen?

I'd recommend reading up about the US' motivation behind supporting the "Biological Weapons Convention". After WWII the Americans got their hands on pretty much all of Japans wartime biological warfare and testing in China (in exchange for a mere slap on the wrist of the scientists that committed these atrocities). What became alarmingly apparent from the Japanese tests was just how simple it was to create devastating biological agents. Americas technological superiority and its ownership of "the bomb" would be made redundant, as any backwater 3rd world country could create biological weapons that could kill equal or greater numbers of humans than any nuclear weapon.

It was in Americas best interests to sanction and outlaw biological weapons. They did not need them as it had it's advanced mechanized artillery, and this would also ensure that the countries too poor to develop these weapons couldn't take the cheap root out and develop biological weapons instead.

Biological Weapons are cheap, simple and devastating. I would not discount them as being capable of destroying mankind.

Turtwig

I do not doubt for a second the existence of deadly pathogens, but do you guys seriously thing it is possible to wipe out almost 7 billion people using our technology. I'm sorry, but it just seems highly improbable.

CERN seems to be our best chance, but their energy is still far low...
I hope,

Dr Pepper

Malty_T wrote: »

@Dr Pepper, nukes would be useless if you want to eradicate the human species. Too slow and impractical.

True, I was suggesting that by a strange twist they may prove to be our salvation by almost wiping us out (and not completely wiping us out like future technologies might be able to do). The survivors would take a very long time to get back to the technological capabilities of today. Makes you wonder if the species could be doomed to spend the next millennia going through a miserable existence of cycles of mass destruction and re-growth.

Do people here think we will get through the next century or two with the kind of stability that has existed since WWII?

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But if this where true then as we listen to the Universe we should be able to hear the transmissions from these millions or billions of other planets inhabited with technologically advanced lifeforms. The complete absence of any artificially created signals (thus far) can only lead to 1 of 2 conclusions. Either we are alone in this Universe as advanced, self aware lifeforms, or that as species on other planets reached technological advancement they advanced too quick to cope and inevitably destroyed themselves, leaving no trace of their brief transmissions.

You've left out a few other options:

1. Other civilizations don't broadcast long-range signals in the first place
2. Other civilizations are too far away for their signals to have reached us (either in time, or in strength)
3. They've reached us, but we don't see or recognize them

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

You've left out a few other options:

1. Other civilizations don't broadcast long-range signals in the first place
2. Other civilizations are too far away for their signals to have reached us (either in time, or in strength)
3. They've reached us, but we don't see or recognize them

I believe most of that was covered when I said "(thus far)".

On the first point it's worth reading about the fermi paradox. Yes you could postulate that an advanced Alien civilization might not bother with radio transmissions, but it is widely held that the development of radio transceivers are a natural part of the progression towards technological advancement.

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

you guys seriously thing it is possible to wipe out almost 7 billion people using our technology. I'm sorry, but it just seems highly improbable.

To completely wipe out humanity, you'd need to infect every tiny inhabited island on the planet. So yes, that's a tall ask.

But wiping out everyone on continental landmasses isn't too far a stretch.
Hawaii might be the new seat of world power though. :pac:

Dr Pepper

robindch wrote:

You've left out a few other options:

1. Other civilizations don't broadcast long-range signals in the first place
2. Other civilizations are too far away for their signals to have reached us (either in time, or in strength)
3. They've reached us, but we don't see or recognize them

Sagan himself admits that the theory (Drake's equation) is not at all reliable. Mainly because most of the variables/factors in it are completely unknown and require fairly wild speculation.

To refer to your points 1 & 3, he defines 'advanced civilisations' fairly simply as species capable of communicating by radio waves or capable of radio astronomy or something like that (i.e. lifeforms we could detect from here). That definition however, may not be accurate to start with. The distances involved (your point 2) are taken into account with in the equation in some ways too.

Anyway, there is not much point in arguing the merits of the equation since, as I said, there are so many unknown quantities involved (e.g. the likelihood of life starting given the reasonably suitable conditions or what are suitable conditions). He leads on to say that this is why the search for life on other planets/moons in our solar system is so important. If it can happen twice independently in our immediate neighbourhood, you would expect that it can happen anywhere!

Goduznt Xzst

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Anyway, there is not much point in arguing the merits of the equation since, as I said, there are so many unknown quantities involved

Precisely, which is why I said it was his "opinion" and not in anyway to be taken as fact. There are a myriad of problems with the idea. Namely, in 100 years (or less) Earth will probably be radio silent to the universe but we will still be advancing technologically.

Nevertheless, whether or not the idea is to be proven true or not you can't help but parallel it to Earth in it's current state of technoligical advancement.

Dr Pepper

There's another interesting unknown in the equation - If life does emerge, what are the chances of intelligent life developing. I find it odd that the dinosaurs had a couple of hundred million years of dominance and evolution and still never managed to get their act together. Anybody heard any theories as to why that is the case?

Goduznt Xzst

Dr Pepper wrote: »

I find it odd that the dinosaurs had a couple of hundred million years of dominance and evolution and still never managed to get their act together.

You mean why they didn't evolve advanced brains with highly developed centers for long term memory? Why is a cat not a dog tbh?

While it is accepted that evolution, for the majority, tends towards increasingly complex lifeforms. The specific traits that humans have that allow us to shape and understand our world are not requisites. The only important factor in evolution is survival, and the dinosaurs did pretty well in that regard.

Calibos

Dr Pepper wrote: »

True, I was suggesting that by a strange twist they may prove to be our salvation by almost wiping us out (and not completely wiping us out like future technologies might be able to do). The survivors would take a very long time to get back to the technological capabilities of today. Makes you wonder if the species could be doomed to spend the next millennia going through a miserable existence of cycles of mass destruction and re-growth.

Do people here think we will get through the next century or two with the kind of stability that has existed since WWII?

We are not doomed to cycles of mass destruction and re-growth. We've got one chance at this advanced civilisation lark. One episode of mass destruction and the survivors and all their decendants are doomed to pre-industrial civilisation for ever more.

The reason being, that if we suffer an episode of mass destruction and lose our technology we wont ever be able to re-develop it. Its the catch 22 of needing resources to develop technology. Of course the survivors would still have the cognitive ability to re-develop it but they will no longer have the easily accessible resources to develop it that we did. We've used up all the easily accesible resources over the last 200 years.

To get at the remaining resources you need high technology. To achieve high technology you need access to the remaining resources. Catch 22.

If there had ever been a sentient technological dinosaur civilisation there would be zero evidence for it 100 million years later due to plate tectonics and 100 million years of weathering and erosion. How we know there was never a dinosaur civilisation without having access to that evidence or lack thereof is the fact that there was so much natural resources easily accessible waiting for us to dig it up with our bare hands.

In other words. If we blow this one chance at technological civilisation........

We're Fcuk'ed !!

Dr Pepper

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You mean why they didn't evolve advanced brains with highly developed centers for long term memory? Why is a cat not a dog tbh?

While it is accepted that evolution, for the majority, tends towards increasingly complex lifeforms. The specific traits that humans have that allow us to shape and understand our world are not requisites. The only important factor in evolution is survival, and the dinosaurs did pretty well in that regard.

True. Maybe as has been discussed in this thread an 'advanced brain' is actually not good for long-term survival at all! (but then evolution would not know that. It does not have a plan.)

However, even if advanced brains are not requisites for survival, I still don't see why we developed them and the dinosaurs did not. You would think that intelligence would be a fairly consistent benefit in natural selection (i.e. I'm more intelligent and better at figuring out how to catch prey, therefore I am more likely to survive and pass on my 'advanced brain' traits). Surely after all that time, the dinosaurs should have been super intelligent?

Maybe the development of intelligence would be highly unlikely if the evolutionary 'experiment' was run many times from scratch.

Dr Pepper

Calibos wrote: »

We are not doomed to cycles of mass destruction and re-growth. We've got one chance at this advanced civilisation lark. One episode of mass destruction and the survivors and all their decendants are doomed to pre-industrial civilisation for ever more.

The reason being, that if we suffer an episode of mass destruction and lose our technology we wont ever be able to re-develop it. Its the catch 22 of needing resources to develop technology. Of course the survivors would still have the cognitive ability to re-develop it but they will no longer have the easily accessible resources to develop it that we did. We've used up all the easily accesible resources over the last 200 years.

To get at the remaining resources you need high technology. To achieve high technology you need access to the remaining resources. Catch 22.

If there had ever been a sentient technological dinosaur civilisation there would be zero evidence for it 100 million years later due to plate tectonics and 100 million years of weathering and erosion. How we know there was never a dinosaur civilisation without having access to that evidence or lack thereof is the fact that there was so much natural resources easily accessible waiting for us to dig it up with our bare hands.

In other words. If we blow this one chance at technological civilisation........

We're Fcuk'ed !!

That's interesting but I think if the dinosaurs had developed technological civilisation, you would expect to find gameboys in the hands of some of the many dino fossils and blue tooth earpieces in their ears At least, you would think that buildings and machines would be more likely to survive 100 million years of weathering than the bodies of dinosaurs, but they don't!

Your theory of lack of resources is also interesting. You would hope that some survivors would have enough knowledge and education to manage without coal and oil and still develop technology but maybe not. Maybe with the loss of communications and education (the breakdown of society as we know it), that knowledge would die out after a few generations.

CerebralCortex

Calibos wrote: »

We are not doomed to cycles of mass destruction and re-growth. We've got one chance at this advanced civilisation lark. One episode of mass destruction and the survivors and all their decendants are doomed to pre-industrial civilisation for ever more.

The reason being, that if we suffer an episode of mass destruction and lose our technology we wont ever be able to re-develop it. Its the catch 22 of needing resources to develop technology. Of course the survivors would still have the cognitive ability to re-develop it but they will no longer have the easily accessible resources to develop it that we did. We've used up all the easily accesible resources over the last 200 years.

To get at the remaining resources you need high technology. To achieve high technology you need access to the remaining resources. Catch 22.

If there had ever been a sentient technological dinosaur civilisation there would be zero evidence for it 100 million years later due to plate tectonics and 100 million years of weathering and erosion. How we know there was never a dinosaur civilisation without having access to that evidence or lack thereof is the fact that there was so much natural resources easily accessible waiting for us to dig it up with our bare hands.

In other words. If we blow this one chance at technological civilisation........

We're Fcuk'ed !!

Reminds me of Thomas Malthus

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34848.html

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Reminds me of Thomas Malthus

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34848.html

Reminded me of a book I read recently:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50896/book_review_of_the_last_hours_of_ancient.html

Calibos

Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming that as an original thought by myself. I should have prefaced my post with, "I read this somewhere....."

I don't see the connection with either link btw

My point is that if we regress to pre-industrial levels of technology after a cataclysm and then have to learn everything again and develop everything again, were does one get the coal to fuel the boiler and the iron to build the boiler of the steam engine that drives the innovation to ultimately build the mobile phone or the nuclear powerstation at the other end of the technological scale. We've been adding rungs to the technological ladder at an increasing rate for the last 200 years. The people who started building the ladder with the first rung picked up the raw materials to start building it straight off the ground. If we have to start over, where are we going to get the materials to start the first rung of the new ladder. There are no raw materials lying around anymore

mewso

Dades wrote: »

Hawaii might be the new seat of world power though. :pac:

Well they have an active volcano which might scupper their plans for world domination.

On intelligent life elsewhere I read an Asimov book a long time ago where he calculated the likelihood of intelligent life in the universe. One stumbling block he speculated might be that the moon played a part in us coming to be and that it's exact size etc. may have been a factor. I'm no expert and this idea may be outdated but if it's a valid theory it would significantly affect the chances of intelligent life somewhere out there.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Yes, and who do we spend most of our time with? This is how weve survived, by helping out each other on a personal level for an awfully long time.

And by destroying whose who we don't help. That is why there is such a terrible maldistribution of wealth and power in the world. The have nots are just hanging on from the attempts of the strong - the ancestors of the "haves" - to eliminate them. The North American natives are a great example. Read Jared Diamond.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

And by destroying whose who we don't help. That is why there is such a terrible maldistribution of wealth and power in the world. The have nots are just hanging on from the attempts of the strong - the ancestors of the "haves" - to eliminate them. The North American natives are a great example. Read Jared Diamond.

There are more people in North America now than there was despite what has happened in the past. Ways of life shift in sometimes wrong, horrific wars but theres no denying that people helped people to grow the continent into what it is today. You can talk about haves and have-nots but have you taken into account how people do what they can to help their family and friends. How do you fill the blanks of that equation?

I guess our main problem here is its impossible to quantify niceness. Doesnt the evidence that were killing each other less over the long term suggest that what makes us good is losing to what makes us bad? I cant think of any other variable in the whole fuzzy mess that has any such clarity.