125 unanswered questions for humankind

Lafortezza · 08-07-2005 4:54am #1

A really interesting article about how much we really don't know about the universe. The top 125 questions are listed, and there are essays devoted to the top 25 questions, which I listed below.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/

-What Is the Universe Made Of?
-What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
-Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
-To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
-Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
-How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
-What Controls Organ Regeneration?
-How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
-How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
-How Does Earth's Interior Work?
-Are We Alone in the Universe?
-How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
-What Determines Species Diversity?
-What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
-How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
-How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
-How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
-How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
-What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
-Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
-Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
-Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?
-How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
-What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
-Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?

Fascinating reading when you're on a quiet nightshift in work..

nesf · 08-07-2005 7:30am

This should really be in Science not Humanities. I know, not as many people read science but it's not a humanities thread

The Quantum essay. It's vague to say the least. From a (quick) read, it didn't seem to actually say much about the question it asked (from my viewpoint on a subject I know a fair bit about).

The HIV article looked ok, but again it didn't really say much but was just a broad synthesis of some generic points on the topic.

Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. It's obviously written for the general public so maybe expecting decent essays was too much to ask.

I don't have time to read the other essays. Maybe the ones I read were lackluster or something.

toiletduck · 08-07-2005 9:56am

lafortezza wrote:

-What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?

expensive oil, now!

Neuro · 08-07-2005 12:57pm

lafortezza wrote:

-How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?

I don't see how this is an "unanswered question". Trivers and Hamilton figured this out using game theory back in the late sixties.

StonedParadoX · 08-07-2005 3:36pm

-What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?

rape seed oil
google it
or eilish oils

http://www.eilishoils.com/

Neuro · 08-07-2005 6:12pm

StonedParadoX wrote:

-What Can Replace Cheap Oil?

From the Skeptical Environmentlaist:

"The solar energy influx is equivalent ot about 7,000 times our present global energy consumption. Or put in a different way: even with our relatively inefficient solar cells, a square area in the tropics 469km (291 miles) on each side - 0.15 percent of the Earth's land mass - could supply all our current energy requirements."

nesf · 08-07-2005 6:27pm

Neuro wrote:

From the Skeptical Environmentlaist:

"The solar energy influx is equivalent ot about 7,000 times our present global energy consumption. Or put in a different way: even with our relatively inefficient solar cells, a square area in the tropics 469km (291 miles) on each side - 0.15 percent of the Earth's land mass - could supply all our current energy requirements."

No it couldn't.

Although, I don't think the example is meant to be literal. Or at least I sincerely hope not anyways.

Neuro · 09-07-2005 12:53am

nesf wrote:

No it couldn't.

Why not?

rsynnott · 11-07-2005 11:35pm

Neuro wrote:

Why not?

First of all, it gets dark. That would be an issue. Have two great big solar panels you say? Ah, but that brings up the REAL problem with the giant solar panel idea; no even vaguely efficient way to transfer power over very long distances. In practice, you could possibly run desert areas off solar power during the day. During the night, in the absence of some sort of non-existant super-battery charging through the day, you'd have trouble.

Fusion power is still our best hope for clean energy; fission is our second.

Sleepy · 12-07-2005 10:02am

How about Hydro electicity from something along the lines of Turlough Hill in Ireland? Is that not already a clean, efficient means of generating power?

rsynnott · 12-07-2005 10:17am

Sleepy wrote:

How about Hydro electicity from something along the lines of Turlough Hill in Ireland? Is that not already a clean, efficient means of generating power?

It's expensive, can only be implemented in certain places, requires huge maintainance and is horribly ecologically disruptive.

Moriarty · 12-07-2005 1:44pm

Turlough hill doesn't generate power, it just stores it. When there's excess power on the national grid, they pump water up into the reservoir. When more power is needed for the grid, they run the water from the reservoir through the turbines. It's there to help even out the peaks and troughs of useage.

rsynnott · 12-07-2005 1:53pm

Oh, yep, that one (I was thinking of a conventional hyrdo plant). Again, though, those are expensive to build.

Neuro · 12-07-2005 2:49pm

rsynnott wrote:

Oh, yep, that one (I was thinking of a conventional hyrdo plant). Again, though, those are expensive to build.

I think most alternatives to oil are expensive, if they weren't we'd be using those alternative energy sources and not oil.

nesf · 12-07-2005 5:46pm

*thinks of all the threads he's seen locked on here because they weren't a "humanities" thread*

amp · 12-07-2005 7:31pm

*thinks that nesf should shut the hell up unless he wants to contribute to this thread*

Back on-topic.

kasintahan · 12-07-2005 7:37pm

Neuro wrote:

I think most alternatives to oil are expensive, if they weren't we'd be using those alternative energy sources and not oil.

Not true, it's vested interests that maintain our reliance on oil.

rsynnott · 12-07-2005 8:59pm

Neuro wrote:

I think most alternatives to oil are expensive, if they weren't we'd be using those alternative energy sources and not oil.

Not entirely true; for instance, coal is cheap, and a lot of countries use it extensively; it does, however, kill people in the surrounding area. Large-scale nuclear isn't too expensive, but is politically unpopular.

nesf · 13-07-2005 12:11am

amp wrote:

*thinks that nesf should shut the hell up unless he wants to contribute to this thread*

Back on-topic.

This entire thread could be considered off topic for this forum and since it's so terribly broad (ie 125 questions), on topic doesn't mean much. At the moment, energy conservation is being discussed. This is related to humanities how? Last time I checked the sciences weren't under the umbrella of humanities.

I think that questioning this threads place in this forum is valid, since it has nothing to do with the forum's topic and there is a dedicated forum elsewhere on this site.

Yes I could take it to feedback, but tbh, why bother? It's not like I have a complaint or anything.

rsynnott · 13-07-2005 12:22am

Hmm, yep, quite right; most of them are scientific or scientific/religious questions.

Lafortezza · 13-07-2005 11:34am

sorry

125 unanswered questions for humankind

Comments