Re: Atheists dying
From: Mario Petrinovich (mario.petrinovic1_at_zg.htnet.hr)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: makemyday_at_worldnet.att.net: "Re: DAFNgapz Unchanged - No Surprize"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- In reply to: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Next in thread: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Reply: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 09:15:10 +0100
Kermit:
> Mario Petrinovich:
> > No. You are under wrong impression. Look at the things you
> > wrote,
> > and think a little about them. How those things could be solved? Do you
> > have
> > any idea? These are just your wishes. Nothing more. There are no
> > technical
> > limitations to your engineeting problems? This is not a SF. Humankind
> > went
> > long way in the past 100 years. This became possible with advence of
> > democracy, and new, capitalist way of doing things. But, is there any
> > sign
> > (except your wishes) that this will go on and on? You even didn't solve
> > todays problems qualitatively. Look at polution, unhealty living. You
> > are
> > working twice more than a slave in Roman empire once worked. Your life
> > actually deteriorated.
> > You mentioned other planets. On this I will show you what I
> > mean.
> > How will we get there? Is this just an engineering problem? You saw it
> > many
> > times in SF movies. Pioneer 11 needs 286000 years to get to another
> > star. Do
> > you have a solution? Basing on what do you think this will be solved,
> > ever?
> > The other things you've mentioned is of same nature. Yes, people went
> > long
> > way in the past 100 years, but is there any more ways to go ahead? Your
> > wishes must rely on some facts. In the 60' we flew on Concord. Not
> > anymore.
> > In the 60' man was on the Moon. Russians still didn't get there, and man
> > is
> > back to Earth. We do have probes, but not man. And it is long way to go
> > to
> > the nearest stars. And when we get there, what would we do there? And,
> > as a
> > matter of fact, what would we do on Mars? It is like some polar region.
> > What
> > would we do in polar regions on Earth? Nothing. And the rest of what you
> > wrote is of the same nature. To reduce illnesses still will not make you
> > young. It will just keep you alive. Nothing more. Your nerves will go to
> > hell, and you will not be able to sleep. Do you ask yourself how life
> > looks
> > like when your whole day is gloomy. Not only one day, whole future life.
> > And
> > the things are getting worse and worse. Or when you go mad. Don't
> > remember
> > your name. How will you solve this? No, this isn't just a clear cut,
> > like you are imegining things (IMO). -- Mario
>
> Your post, I think, says more about your emotional state of mind than
> it does about the world and our state of progress. I know folks who
> are doing cutting edge medical research, and I hear time estimates
> like "30 years". Perhaps they will run into unexpected problems, and
> it will take longer. but they see no fundamental barrier.
>
> I am old enough to remember when people were telling me that we would
> never get to the moon - and this was *after the Sputnik went into
> orbit. An expedition to Mars is expensive; it takes a lot of energy
> and material and many, many people co-operating for some years. But
> one thing we are quickly getting really good at is manipulating lots
> of data, and manipulating a lots of little things - like molecules.
> Hell, I remember when people said we would never map the human genome
> - it was just too much information. Now I see weekly news reports of
> another species mapped.
Yes. I just tolked about those things with my friend from childhood.
When we were children we had SF series on TV. And they all were showing life
on Earth in the next (watch this) 30 years. Exactly 30 years. Now I am 42. I
still remember series called "1999". Another one was about 2001. I was SF
fan. I watched SF movies made before WWII. In those series cars are flying.
But, cars didn't actually change much. They didn't develop the way you are
talking. We find some new thing. This thing develop a little, and then
development starts to slow down. I am following all those things since I was
a child. Science I read all the time. I am particularly interested in space
exploration.
In short, today we don't have those SF series anymore. The last ones
still didn't materialize. You could, simply, show series from 30 years ago,
and say that this will be 30 years from now. If you don't notice hairstyle
from 60', you would accept it as today's SF. 30 years is a good number. It
gives people who have money, hope that they will see a miracles in their
lifetime (you are excellent example). And they will be more that happy to
give money for this. And scientiests are more than happy to accept this
money.
Regarding information manipulation. Well, I had my first "computer"
20 years ago. Since then I upgraded it whenever it was neceseary. Well, it
isn't neceseary for some time, now. Development stopped. They have problems
with heating. And HD needs to be much faster. And OS cannot be much more
complicated. They can overcome this, but I showed you what I mean. Once if
they overcome this, there will be another thing. But that thing will be much
harder to overcome. Even if they overcome this, there will come another,
even more hard to overcome. This one they will never overcome.
Regarding Mars. There isn't a proplem in energy, materials, or the
number of people. Nobody will notice the ammount of energy or materials
spent on this. Problem is human, and risk involved. In SF movies we saw a
lot of space traffic. I was amazed as a child. But, the more I learned about
this, the more I started to wonder why they are even try. A Space Shuttle
example can tell you a lot. You involve new technology, which you don't use
on Earth, and you cannot do much testing of it (especially in space
environment). Development of this will be much slower than development of
similar things on Earth. Development on Earth is moved (realated to) by the
number of users. In space you don't have this. You cannot develop something
on only one example. People aren't so smart (you know). In most cases they
figure out that something is wrong, only when it fails. This is how
development happens. Every idiot can do this. We don't develop something
with our brain (in most cases). We are simply looking if something will
fail, and then are trying to fix it. This is an excellent example to show
you that every stupid animal can develop the way we are developing. We are
not so good thinkers. When they came to Jupiter, with Galileo, SCIENTIESTS
were very surprised how things aren't at all like they thought they will be.
Although they were top scientiest, although they new a lot about those
things already, although there were probes which flew by Jupiter, before.
This is the real state of facts. And mission to Mars is imposible to make.
Of all the problems, humans are the worst. They simply couldn't stand it,
alive. Even keeping humans on Earth, in closed environment, failed. That
Bush speach, about Mars exploration, was actually giving up of Mars mission
(everybody who knows anything about this, will tell you that).
> It sounds to me like *your days are *already gloomy. I'm sorry that is
> so, but I assure you that *I'm having a ball. Doesn't matter if I'm
> creaky in the mornings, my wife of 27 years & I just went to class
> this morning and trained for two hours. In a little bit, we're going
> down to the plant store and buy some flower bulbs. My kid is watching
> science fiction on TV. We're wondering if we can get enough financial
> aid to send her to MIT, or if she will have to "make do" with CalTech.
> I'm not rich by American standards, but life is good. Roman slaves had
> it better than American slaves 150 years ago did, but how do you
> suppose their retirement plan was compared to mine?
I can just say that the very fact that you are spending 2 hours in
gym, can tell a lot. As you said, you didn't need this when you were 20. You
are taking 2 hours of hard excersize just to feel good? Do you need it so
much? Why you cannot feel good without it (like when you were 20). These are
the things I am talking about. If you were doing nothing during those 2
hours, lying on bed, contemplating the world around, you would know more
about world around, and wouldn't concentrate your energy in wrong direction.
I mean, why are you doing all this. To bit crap out of 20 year old you?
People should be healthy without additional work put on it. If they put
additional work on feeling good, and being healthy, then something is wrong
with them.
> Scientific advances are continuing to accelerate. We are finding out
> many ways in which the body develops and repairs itself, how chemical
> imbalances affect the emotions, how genes create the body features
> they do. It is just a matter of time. Don't ask your Literature Major
> buddies at the coffeee house about these things; read the popular
> science magazines on the state of research. Or if you can find one,
> ask a researcher.
>
> Ending war? Now *that's a tricky problem, and may never be solvable as
> long as we're human. But staying young forever? Easy - it'll be
> routine in 200 years, maybe 50. Perhaps they'll even have an effective
> treatment for Existentialist despair.
Yes. Perhaps. -- Mario
> I wonder if I should take classes in a foreign languge or catch up on
> my math when the kid goes off to school. Hmm... Kermit
- Next message: makemyday_at_worldnet.att.net: "Re: DAFNgapz Unchanged - No Surprize"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin"
- In reply to: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Next in thread: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Reply: Kermit: "Re: Atheists dying"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
