/dev/null Posted June 13, 2006 Posted June 13, 2006 no not another Manbearpig thread. This time its coming from someone whose opinion I actually take seriously http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html if you didn't bother clicking the link, here's some extra incentive. expand the picture of the good doctor and check out his hot nurse
Jon in Pasadena Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 no not another Manbearpig thread. This time its coming from someone whose opinion I actually take seriously http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html if you didn't bother clicking the link, here's some extra incentive. expand the picture of the good doctor and check out his hot nurse 707992[/snapback] Well, although I have attended several of Dr. Hawking's technical lectures on quantum mechanics and cosmology in which he meandered off on anthropic principles and such, I haven't heard him speak specifically to the point of biospheric disaster. With the caveat that I (obviously!) don't know the full context, and I could, perhaps, be convinced if he supplied a lot of strong references, this remark strikes me as rather stupid on the face of it: "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of." Who, exactly, has unambiguously quantified the risk of all life being wiped out, much less provided an unassailable model that guarantees that risk to be a monotonically increasing function of time? No one I'm familiar with, I'm sure. Seems like a "pull that argument out of your butt" type of statement to me.
UConn James Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 If we blow up each other here on earth, do we really deserve to go to another planet and f--- that place up too? And, so 40 people can watch the Earth either explode in a fireball or go dark, then interbreed into beings that resemble Mr. Hawking?
SilverNRed Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 If we blow up each other here on earth, do we really deserve to go to another planet and f--- that place up too? 708018[/snapback] Yes. I really don't feel bad about !@#$ing up a couple planets to keep the species going. Hell, if we decide to blow up a planet just for the fun of it, I'm on board for that too.
Chef Jim Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Yes. I really don't feel bad about !@#$ing up a couple planets to keep the species going. Hell, if we decide to blow up a planet just for the fun of it, I'm on board for that too. 708118[/snapback] And of course all to the soundtrack provided by the universe's loudest rock band Disaster Area.
TheMadCap Posted June 16, 2006 Posted June 16, 2006 Who, exactly, has unambiguously quantified the risk of all life being wiped out, much less provided an unassailable model that guarantees that risk to be a monotonically increasing function of time? No one I'm familiar with, I'm sure. Seems like a "pull that argument out of your butt" type of statement to me. 708012[/snapback] What about the risk from a large impact from deep space?
Jon in Pasadena Posted June 17, 2006 Posted June 17, 2006 What about the risk from a large impact from deep space? 709279[/snapback] What about it? I'm sure there's xxx% probability of getting hit by something massive enough to seriously fug us up, but why would that risk be "ever-increasing"? Based on the number of recorded impact events on the moon, it looks like, in general, there's much less large crap flying around now than in the distant past. If anything, it appears to me that for the first time ever in the history of the Earth, we might almost be at the brink of developing technologies capable of dealing with some of those rocks. Wouldn't that mean the risk (of life-altering/destroying event) is (or will soon be) actually *decreasing* in time ?
Wacka Posted June 17, 2006 Posted June 17, 2006 What about it? I'm sure there's xxx% probability of getting hit by something massive enough to seriously fug us up, but why would that risk be "ever-increasing"? Based on the number of recorded impact events on the moon, it looks like, in general, there's much less large crap flying around now than in the distant past. If anything, it appears to me that for the first time ever in the history of the Earth, we might almost be at the brink of developing technologies capable of dealing with some of those rocks. Wouldn't that mean the risk (of life-altering/destroying event) is (or will soon be) actually *decreasing* in time ? 709846[/snapback] I think that the likely hood that it will occur in a finite amount of time is increasing, because it hasn't happened yet. The likelyhood that it will happen sometime is 100%. It has happened before and WILL happen again. Might be after we evolve into something else, but it will happen.
TheMadCap Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 What about it? I'm sure there's xxx% probability of getting hit by something massive enough to seriously fug us up, but why would that risk be "ever-increasing"? Based on the number of recorded impact events on the moon, it looks like, in general, there's much less large crap flying around now than in the distant past. If anything, it appears to me that for the first time ever in the history of the Earth, we might almost be at the brink of developing technologies capable of dealing with some of those rocks. Wouldn't that mean the risk (of life-altering/destroying event) is (or will soon be) actually *decreasing* in time ? 709846[/snapback] I would argue the probability of getting hit is not increasing. And while there is certainly less material floating around now than when the solar system was forming, we are far from being able to do anything about an impact at this point other than turning one dangerous falling object into seveal dangerous falling objects. And it is true that people are at the point where we can seriously mess ourselves up, even cause our own extinction. As more deadly weapons come into the hands of less capable hands, the risk goes up...
UConn James Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I would argue the probability of getting hit is not increasing. And while there is certainly less material floating around now than when the solar system was forming, we are far from being able to do anything about an impact at this point other than turning one dangerous falling object into seveal dangerous falling objects. And it is true that people are at the point where we can seriously mess ourselves up, even cause our own extinction. As more deadly weapons come into the hands of less capable hands, the risk goes up... 710191[/snapback] You mean to say that Bush's Weather Machine® can't be jury-rigged to change the trajectory of an object heading toward us? Pssshaw!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 You mean to say that Bush's Weather Machine® can't be jury-rigged to change the trajectory of an object heading toward us? Pssshaw! 710217[/snapback] It's not Bush's weather machine, it's the Russians'. But the Yakuza own it. Do the Yakuza have an interest in changing the trajectory of an earth-impact asteroid?
sweet baboo Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 expand the picture of the good doctor and check out his hot nurse 707992[/snapback] it was worth it...she's not hot or anything, but combined with him, she's a beauty nice melons too
Jon in Pasadena Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 It's not Bush's weather machine, it's the Russians'. But the Yakuza own it. Do the Yakuza have an interest in changing the trajectory of an earth-impact asteroid? 710228[/snapback] Yes, they'd be taking too big a hit in their takoyaki business...
Recommended Posts