The Scientific Revolution

Aceedwin · Feb 22, 2011 5:39 PM

Recently I've been thinking a lot about science. Science is still striding forth dragging humanity behind it, even if we don't feel its effects as much as we once did. We've got CERN up and running, dissecting existence, we're cloning organisms left and right, and computers are only getting better. Believe it or not, we've got force fields. Ya rly.

However, many scientists are predicting something equivalent to the renaissance of the 1500s. We're talking cloning humans, a Theory of Everything, genetic design, extraterrestial contact, space travel, all sorts. Moreover, most of the people on this board will probably live to see it, with ages averaging between 14 and 20, and in our rich countries.

This topic is about that predicted point, and its effects on our lifestyles, our ethics, and anything else.

ontels · Feb 22, 2011 7:40 PM

I'm all for sciance in all (well most) of it's forms, humanity must evole or die, no need to cling to tradition like a scared caveman.

Starscream · Feb 22, 2011 7:50 PM

If we start building houses and cities on the Moon or Mars I'm so *bleep*ing there!

Aceedwin · Feb 22, 2011 7:54 PM

I want an AI companion. Turn down the irony filter, maybe give him a mockney accent if I get bored. That's what gets my WANT vote.

Starscream · Feb 22, 2011 8:01 PM

Also I want a small genetically engineered dinosaur for a pet.

Come on you KNOW that they're gonna do it. Those little *bleep* would sell like cupcakes!

Latias fan · Feb 22, 2011 9:21 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

I want an AI companion. Turn down the irony filter, maybe give him a mockney accent if I get bored. That's what gets my WANT vote.

I would like this as well.

Swaffy · Feb 23, 2011 7:32 AM

Remember this, if anything:

Macroevolution and science are two separate things.
Do not ever mix them, as it is improper to do so.

Macroevolution: Kinds evolve into different kinds, such as bears evolving
into iguanas and Opra Winfrey evolving into a walrus
Microevolution: Species within a kind breed and their young change minor
aspects such as hair color and size, such as a Terrier dog breeding with a Poodle.

Aceedwin · Feb 23, 2011 11:22 AM

Swaffy wrote:

Remember this, if anything:
Macroevolution and science are two separate things.
Do not ever mix them, as it is improper to do so.
Macroevolution: Kinds evolve into different kinds, such as bears evolving
into iguanas and Opra Winfrey evolving into a walrus
Microevolution: Species within a kind breed and their young change minor
aspects such as hair color and size, such as a Terrier dog breeding with a Poodle.

Of course they're not the same thing. Macroevolution is part of science. There's a lot more to science than just long-term evolution.

I reckon that all we need to create immortality is cloning, nanobots, and a map of the human brain. We grow a suitiable body, and then transplant the brain, using the nanobots to keep the brain active and healthy. That's how I think we'll get immortality, anyway.

ontels · Feb 23, 2011 12:13 PM

I read a few articles about sciantists thinking they will be able to get Humans to live to around 1000 and they may unlock that secret within our lifetime.

JazzJackrabbit · Feb 23, 2011 4:59 PM

ontels wrote:

I read a few articles about sciantists thinking they will be able to get Humans to live to around 1000 and they may unlock that secret within our lifetime.

That's almost as believable as Al Gore.

ontels · Feb 23, 2011 8:25 PM

Me no get refrance, but I'm just telling you what I read.

Neotyguy40 · Feb 25, 2011 9:35 PM

10 years ago, we were at single core 1 GHz processors as a maximum. We now have 12-core 3 GHz processors with the skill that a super computer had 20 years ago.

The average laptop has twice the power that the computer used to send Apollo 11 to the moon had.

We are able to sequence DNA over a million times faster than previous attempts.

Solar and wind turbines are twice the efficiency of 10 years ago.

We are able to make artificially engineered plants that grow almost 100 times faster then normal.

Warfare is becoming almost entirely handled by robotic operators.

Artwork is being pushed in multiple directions too, with advanced CGI, 3d visuals, and games can handle artwork almost 10,000 times more complex than a decade ago.

We can map out neuron data in our head and control computers using our minds already.

20 years ago in science fiction books (specifically some of Isaac Asimov's), there were concepts of touchscreen-style computers that allowed you to do anything. We now have tablets like the iPad fitting those descriptions.

Future is now and onwards for us.

ontels · Feb 25, 2011 9:52 PM

People just don't apreciate it because we still don't have flying cars.

Aceedwin · Feb 25, 2011 9:54 PM

You have to admit, it'd be an awesome way to lower congestion.

ontels · Feb 25, 2011 9:55 PM

Yeah but test would be way harder, it would be like having a mini pilots licance.

Aceedwin · Feb 25, 2011 10:00 PM

A bit.

By the way, if people want flying cars, why don't they just buy helicopters?

What would be your first thing to do if you had a time machine. I'd father the entire human race, I think.

ontels · Feb 26, 2011 7:47 PM

Because you can't park helicopters outside of your local supermarket. tongue

I would make it my mission in life to destroy all time machines, ever heard of the butterfly effect?

Aceedwin · Feb 26, 2011 8:57 PM

You'd just park in on the roof.

Butterfly effect doesn't work, because whatever you do, you've already done. So you're not changing anything. Just walking in the footprints you've already made. PROTIP: You cannot physically kill your ancestor before they spawn their successor.

Maybe I just don't like butterflies.

ontels · Feb 26, 2011 11:07 PM

You know thats silly.

What would prevent you from killing him? It's not like a divine being would stop you and say"Sorry this is against the rules!"

Aceedwin · Feb 26, 2011 11:14 PM

You'd do it wrong. Say you tried to shoot your great-grandfather Ben. You'd miss, it'd be non-fatal, maybe you'd even shoot the wrong person. But your existence proves that your great-grandfather survived long enough to procreate, and since it's in the past, it cannot be changed.

bmah · Feb 27, 2011 1:52 AM

Aceedwin wrote:

By the way, if people want flying cars, why don't they just buy helicopters?

Is this is a serious question?

Neotyguy40 · Feb 27, 2011 2:17 AM

The butterfly effect DOES apply, but in a different sort of way.

If you go back in time, pick up Grandpa Joe's old springfield and shoot him fatally, he will definitely die. However, that will cause you not to be born, go back in time, and shoot him. However, due to a single random variable (quantum randomness, for example), the universe will correct itself. Infact, there are a few ways to correct itself:

1. Grandpa Joe died of some sort of virus or cancer, which can easily change route given a small particle changing direction. This way, he dies in a way that wasn't caused by the time machine, insuring that you were never born and unable to kill him.

2. Wipe out the human race would seem pretty likely too, or some sort of evolutionary ancestor of ours. Seeing how genetics gets transformed by a single piece of DNA, a particle could likely mess up the mutation and create a race that isn't human, or possibly not even create the beginning of our biological domain.

3. Earth may never be created. Or created in a different way. Considering the Earth was made over billions of years, the possibility of a tiny asteroid effecting the beginning shapes of Earth could enormously change if the Earth is habitable or even created correctly.

The butterfly effect will apply, but if quantum randomness exists, then the universe will correct itself. If not, then we are screwed. However, separate dimensions can't truly effect each other, so not only would it be impossible to travel back in time, but we would also wouldn't be effected by anything that happens in that dimension.

ontels · Feb 27, 2011 9:42 AM

Non of you really know what your on about do you?/

Aceedwin · Feb 27, 2011 10:54 AM

Nope, because we haven't sent anything back in time. However, at least my theory is based on logic and not some cosmic c variable nobody knows anything about, eh?

I'm just saying that helicopters are more practical than they look.

ontels · Feb 27, 2011 1:11 PM

There big, loud and danegerous.

#1 Feb 22, 2011 5:39 PM

The Scientific Revolution

#2 Feb 22, 2011 7:40 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#3 Feb 22, 2011 7:50 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#4 Feb 22, 2011 7:54 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#5 Feb 22, 2011 8:01 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#6 Feb 22, 2011 9:21 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#7 Feb 23, 2011 7:32 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#8 Feb 23, 2011 11:22 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#9 Feb 23, 2011 12:13 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#10 Feb 23, 2011 4:59 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#11 Feb 23, 2011 8:25 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#12 Feb 25, 2011 9:35 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#13 Feb 25, 2011 9:52 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#14 Feb 25, 2011 9:54 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#15 Feb 25, 2011 9:55 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#16 Feb 25, 2011 10:00 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#17 Feb 26, 2011 7:47 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#18 Feb 26, 2011 8:57 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#19 Feb 26, 2011 11:07 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#20 Feb 26, 2011 11:14 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#21 Feb 27, 2011 1:52 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#22 Feb 27, 2011 2:17 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#23 Feb 27, 2011 9:42 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#24 Feb 27, 2011 10:54 AM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

#25 Feb 27, 2011 1:11 PM

Re: The Scientific Revolution

Board footer