I'm somewhat afraid that our species is damned to return to the dark ages. In our modern world, it is possible for the dumbest and most parent-incapable people to have many children and survive for quite awhile, as shown in the movie Idiocracy:
Our society has grown so powerful with the help of technology that the basic survival needs are covered fairly well for everyone, even homeless schizophrenics, so the idea of what drives most evolution (the strongest/most capable will survive) no longer applies. What drives it now is who can pump out the most babies and get more of your DNA out there. From what we've experienced, poorer, less intelligible, less capable families are the ones that have the most children. Thus, the future of our species is essentially these lower class individuals.
I'm not trying to be discriminatory towards all lower class people. Although, I think that's what it sounds like anyways. The fact is, lower class is lower class. The advancement of society and technology does not depend on lower class. It depends on the smartest and greatest people.
Perhaps in the future our species will be split between those that are intelligent and control things, and those that aren't and make the most babies. If it does end up this way, then I hope the smart ones at least perfect cloning technology or an artificial womb. Otherwise, we're all doomed. :(
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Why I disagree with Steven Hawking - Aliens
If you've noticed, there's a new show on Discovery called "Into the Universe with Steven Hawking." In one of the episodes Hawking discusses his opinion on alien lifeforms in the universe and if intelligent aliens were to visit Earth.
Hawking believes that the aliens to visit Earth would only be interested in our planet/sun for it's resources and most likely will declare war on us. The only way, he thinks, aliens would travel great distances is in vast armies of ships, traveling from planet to planet, collecting whatever resources and sucking it dry.
Steven Hawking is certainly a smart guy, but I don't buy it. An armada of ships traveling great distances does not seem very logical to me.
1.) It would take a lot more resources to supply than a single ship.
2.) It is possible to create artificial world-ships. If you've played Halo then you know what I'm talking about. If you put a spin on something in space, you can create a sort of artificial gravity, which would allow you to do just about anything we can do from Earth. Which would make the need to suck a planet dry, unnecessary.
3.) I find it unlikely that the only determinable source of energy for vast space travels would be a star. Yes, stars are powerful, but what's even more power is making your own star. With fusion reactor technology being worked on right now on Earth, I think aliens should be able to develop and perfect the technology. It would essentially be the same as creating your own star. Remember Dr. Oc's power generator thing in Spider Man 2? That's essentially what I'm talking about.
4.) We've noticed how societies develop through evolution. By being nice to your neighbor and helping them out, you both survive a little better than you would going it alone. So, why not do the same for intergalactic societies? By working together with humans, the aliens could learn about our world and the possible microscopic dangers that might affect them (as in War of the Worlds) if they were to visit. We could teach each other the things we've discovered about the universe and conquer it, as well as possible multiverse travel. The benefits of working together seem to be greater than war.
In my opinion, Hawking is stuck with the idea that aliens would be somewhat like us today. Since the birth of this country we've been in war after war with seemingly no end. Perhaps other life forms would do the same, but I'd think by the time they're exploring the universe, they will have finally learned the basics of moral behavior (unlike our poor species). I'm sorry Mr. Hawking, but I think SETI should keep at it a little longer.
Hawking believes that the aliens to visit Earth would only be interested in our planet/sun for it's resources and most likely will declare war on us. The only way, he thinks, aliens would travel great distances is in vast armies of ships, traveling from planet to planet, collecting whatever resources and sucking it dry.
Steven Hawking is certainly a smart guy, but I don't buy it. An armada of ships traveling great distances does not seem very logical to me.
1.) It would take a lot more resources to supply than a single ship.
2.) It is possible to create artificial world-ships. If you've played Halo then you know what I'm talking about. If you put a spin on something in space, you can create a sort of artificial gravity, which would allow you to do just about anything we can do from Earth. Which would make the need to suck a planet dry, unnecessary.
3.) I find it unlikely that the only determinable source of energy for vast space travels would be a star. Yes, stars are powerful, but what's even more power is making your own star. With fusion reactor technology being worked on right now on Earth, I think aliens should be able to develop and perfect the technology. It would essentially be the same as creating your own star. Remember Dr. Oc's power generator thing in Spider Man 2? That's essentially what I'm talking about.
4.) We've noticed how societies develop through evolution. By being nice to your neighbor and helping them out, you both survive a little better than you would going it alone. So, why not do the same for intergalactic societies? By working together with humans, the aliens could learn about our world and the possible microscopic dangers that might affect them (as in War of the Worlds) if they were to visit. We could teach each other the things we've discovered about the universe and conquer it, as well as possible multiverse travel. The benefits of working together seem to be greater than war.
In my opinion, Hawking is stuck with the idea that aliens would be somewhat like us today. Since the birth of this country we've been in war after war with seemingly no end. Perhaps other life forms would do the same, but I'd think by the time they're exploring the universe, they will have finally learned the basics of moral behavior (unlike our poor species). I'm sorry Mr. Hawking, but I think SETI should keep at it a little longer.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Freedom and the Media
Awhile back, in my post "Who To Trust", I explained how we determine who gives us information. A majority of the time, if the person is influential and convincing, even without any real evidence or proof for a claim, most people will believe them. For example:
That got me into thinking that maybe the best way to know who's intelligent, is to test how they determine who to trust. I might sound a little cocky or something, but I think it's true. If you can't figure out who is telling you the truth, then you can't be very intelligent.
So, with knowledge of how to control the less intelligible people, someone could easily gain presidency simply by being very influential and aspiring. If I was a very influential and aspiring person, believe me, I'd probably be able to pull it off. This might just be a great weakness to Democracy. Sure, we all have our own voice, but how do we know our voice is not just a repeat of something we heard on tv.
There must be some way around this issue, but either way I look at it doesn't seem very pleasant. We could either limit who gets to vote, or limit what is said on tv. Either one would be a direct obstacle towards freedom, which is what this country is all about, supposedly. But if the programming on tv is capable of making up our minds for us, then is that really freedom either? Honestly, I think the whole system should probably be reworked, but that would require the creation of a new country. Maybe when I'm a millionaire and buy my own island I'll get to work on that. Lol
That got me into thinking that maybe the best way to know who's intelligent, is to test how they determine who to trust. I might sound a little cocky or something, but I think it's true. If you can't figure out who is telling you the truth, then you can't be very intelligent.
So, with knowledge of how to control the less intelligible people, someone could easily gain presidency simply by being very influential and aspiring. If I was a very influential and aspiring person, believe me, I'd probably be able to pull it off. This might just be a great weakness to Democracy. Sure, we all have our own voice, but how do we know our voice is not just a repeat of something we heard on tv.
There must be some way around this issue, but either way I look at it doesn't seem very pleasant. We could either limit who gets to vote, or limit what is said on tv. Either one would be a direct obstacle towards freedom, which is what this country is all about, supposedly. But if the programming on tv is capable of making up our minds for us, then is that really freedom either? Honestly, I think the whole system should probably be reworked, but that would require the creation of a new country. Maybe when I'm a millionaire and buy my own island I'll get to work on that. Lol
Friday, April 9, 2010
Do you know what "IT" is?
If you've heard of "the game" (Haha you lost it) then you'll know how this works.
Basically, just say that you know what "IT" is and you win. "IT" is not really anything at all. And if someone tries to imply that "IT" really is something real then say to them "I don't think you really know what IT is...are you sure you know what IT is?"
Basically, just say that you know what "IT" is and you win. "IT" is not really anything at all. And if someone tries to imply that "IT" really is something real then say to them "I don't think you really know what IT is...are you sure you know what IT is?"
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Have aliens visited Earth?
I was just watching this video and it got me thinking...
These kinds of videos are very convincing. Although, I don't particularly buy it for a few reasons. For one, I think the people that believe in extraterrestrial's visiting Earth are simply so hopeful that this is true that they may stretch the truth or simply be purposefully ignorant.
Many of the clips in the above video could very well just be satellites passing by, a glare on the lens, or even a computer generated fake. The truth is we've never seen an extremely detailed and reliable photo/video of any such extraterrestrial craft and to think a small blurry dot floating across the screen is proof is just not enough.
I admit some of the clips are quite miraculous and I would very much like to know if we have E.T. watching us from the moon, but as far as we've experienced and learned so far, such life and intelligence is rare in the universe. Not to mention traveling several light years in a craft of some sort is virtually impossible.
Although, I have hopes that somewhere out there a planet has sustained a life form smart and powerful enough to create warp drives or inter-dimensional worm holes or whatever and has decided to help us out a little on our evolutionary path. I can only hope though, and like praying, it doesn't do shit :(
These kinds of videos are very convincing. Although, I don't particularly buy it for a few reasons. For one, I think the people that believe in extraterrestrial's visiting Earth are simply so hopeful that this is true that they may stretch the truth or simply be purposefully ignorant.
Many of the clips in the above video could very well just be satellites passing by, a glare on the lens, or even a computer generated fake. The truth is we've never seen an extremely detailed and reliable photo/video of any such extraterrestrial craft and to think a small blurry dot floating across the screen is proof is just not enough.
I admit some of the clips are quite miraculous and I would very much like to know if we have E.T. watching us from the moon, but as far as we've experienced and learned so far, such life and intelligence is rare in the universe. Not to mention traveling several light years in a craft of some sort is virtually impossible.
Although, I have hopes that somewhere out there a planet has sustained a life form smart and powerful enough to create warp drives or inter-dimensional worm holes or whatever and has decided to help us out a little on our evolutionary path. I can only hope though, and like praying, it doesn't do shit :(
My 'Pessimistic' Prediciton of the Future
Well I just made a post like this a few days ago, and I got to thinking that there are a lot of bad things that could kill us in the future. I'm going to try and list as many of them as I can and when they might take affect.
10-50 years from now:
-War with Iraq blows up into WWIII / Crusade War II
-War with North Korea (Nuclear Apocalypse)
-Global Climate Change starts to really take affect and cause major natural disasters
-Glen Beck's followers form a cult and try to take over the world. (It's possible)
-Illegal Mexicans become majority of population, middle-class virtually wiped out.
-Large corporations take over the world and we become their peasants. (Oh wait this is already true)
-390 meter wide asteroid Apophis hits the Earth causing debris to black out the sky all over the world. (predicted around 2036)
-We're well overdue for a Yellowstone eruption and with recent quakes it may be sooner than we think. It would obliterate most of North America.
50-100 years from now:
-Oil runs out in its entirety. A majority of people fall to the dark ages (if we don't switch power sources)
-Advances in robotics replaces workforce with robots. No jobs for anyone.
-Human overpopulation will cause every city to be much like the overpopulated cities of China and Japan.
-The world's atmosphere will be so polluted that the natural wilderness will have a hard time surviving.
-Mass extinctions all over the world mostly in part to human civilization.
100-500 years from now:
-Earth becoming a global desert.
-Probably send the planet into a similar state just after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
1000+ years from now:
-Insects are the few creatures still thriving. Eventual evolve to dominate the world.
-Signs of human civilization slowly being wiped off the face of the Earth.
This was just for fun. Most likely a majority of this will never happen, but only if we really try to make it not happen, especially the global warming issues. Or we can just sit around, let it happen, and pray for Jesus to save us.
10-50 years from now:
-War with Iraq blows up into WWIII / Crusade War II
-War with North Korea (Nuclear Apocalypse)
-Global Climate Change starts to really take affect and cause major natural disasters
-Glen Beck's followers form a cult and try to take over the world. (It's possible)
-Illegal Mexicans become majority of population, middle-class virtually wiped out.
-Large corporations take over the world and we become their peasants. (Oh wait this is already true)
-390 meter wide asteroid Apophis hits the Earth causing debris to black out the sky all over the world. (predicted around 2036)
-We're well overdue for a Yellowstone eruption and with recent quakes it may be sooner than we think. It would obliterate most of North America.
50-100 years from now:
-Oil runs out in its entirety. A majority of people fall to the dark ages (if we don't switch power sources)
-Advances in robotics replaces workforce with robots. No jobs for anyone.
-Human overpopulation will cause every city to be much like the overpopulated cities of China and Japan.
-The world's atmosphere will be so polluted that the natural wilderness will have a hard time surviving.
-Mass extinctions all over the world mostly in part to human civilization.
100-500 years from now:
-Earth becoming a global desert.
-Probably send the planet into a similar state just after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
1000+ years from now:
-Insects are the few creatures still thriving. Eventual evolve to dominate the world.
-Signs of human civilization slowly being wiped off the face of the Earth.
This was just for fun. Most likely a majority of this will never happen, but only if we really try to make it not happen, especially the global warming issues. Or we can just sit around, let it happen, and pray for Jesus to save us.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Who To Trust
I'm not a politician, theoretical physicist, astronomer, etc. I do not claim to be an expert on anything at all really. I know some things, but a majority of what I know is what people have told me. Whether those things are true or not, I can't really know for sure because I did not take the time to do the research. So, how do people know what they are told is true?
A big part of it has to do with who you trust. For example, if Richard Dawkins announced that he has done research in the evolution of humans and states that they are very close descendants of some ancient primate species, I would believe him because he is an expert in that particular field. Also, the fact that many other scientists have come to the same conclusion. Although, I don't particularly believe him on the basis of him being popular and showing up on TV occasionally. The point is that people with power are the people we trust and this should not be the way we base trust.
Now, for a negative example, let's say Glenn Beck makes an announcement that humans are not descendants of primates but actually created by god a few thousand years ago. I would not believe him for a number of reasons. He is not an expert in this field. He has no evidence to show. He does not have experts coming to the same conclusion. So why do people end up believing in him? He's on TV. Therefore, he has power/popularity.
Typically people of greater power than you or people that have a following are the people that are trusted (i.e. the president, radio hosts, your parents). Even if these people have done no research at all, they are trusted because of their greater power over you. You think of yourself as inferior and less knowledgeable compared to these people.
This is, what I believe, one of the greatest weaknesses that mankind possesses. We do not have the ability to learn everything individually. So, we must divide up the work and trust that those people doing a certain thing are doing it truthfully. Doctors go through school and do the work in order to help people medically. IT professionals study computers and programming languages in order to use and help people use computers, etc. In some cases, however, people are influenced to believe things that are not true because they have been told by a so called "expert" in a particular field that it is true, or in the Glenn Beck case, we might already have a positive opinion of the individual and might thus believe a majority of what he says. We cannot individually do all the research ourselves, so we must trust them.
However, what we can do is learn how to trust and who to trust.
They should earn our trust if:
If someone has done valid research into something.
If someone's research complies with someone else's similar conclusions.
If someone has proved themselves in the past in the same field of work.
They should not earn our trust if:
If someone has a large following of people.
If someone speaks fluently and with good vocabulary.
If someone shows off their power.
If someone is influential.
If someone makes a claim in a field of work they have not previously researched.
These are all just things to understand when someone tries to tell you some "truth" they think they have found. You don't have to believe me because, like I said, I'm no expert but I have done a bit of thinking in the matter and have read a few things related to this. So, believe me if you want to, but really it's up to you whether you want to trust me or not...perhaps, then proving my point.
A big part of it has to do with who you trust. For example, if Richard Dawkins announced that he has done research in the evolution of humans and states that they are very close descendants of some ancient primate species, I would believe him because he is an expert in that particular field. Also, the fact that many other scientists have come to the same conclusion. Although, I don't particularly believe him on the basis of him being popular and showing up on TV occasionally. The point is that people with power are the people we trust and this should not be the way we base trust.
Now, for a negative example, let's say Glenn Beck makes an announcement that humans are not descendants of primates but actually created by god a few thousand years ago. I would not believe him for a number of reasons. He is not an expert in this field. He has no evidence to show. He does not have experts coming to the same conclusion. So why do people end up believing in him? He's on TV. Therefore, he has power/popularity.
Typically people of greater power than you or people that have a following are the people that are trusted (i.e. the president, radio hosts, your parents). Even if these people have done no research at all, they are trusted because of their greater power over you. You think of yourself as inferior and less knowledgeable compared to these people.
This is, what I believe, one of the greatest weaknesses that mankind possesses. We do not have the ability to learn everything individually. So, we must divide up the work and trust that those people doing a certain thing are doing it truthfully. Doctors go through school and do the work in order to help people medically. IT professionals study computers and programming languages in order to use and help people use computers, etc. In some cases, however, people are influenced to believe things that are not true because they have been told by a so called "expert" in a particular field that it is true, or in the Glenn Beck case, we might already have a positive opinion of the individual and might thus believe a majority of what he says. We cannot individually do all the research ourselves, so we must trust them.
However, what we can do is learn how to trust and who to trust.
They should earn our trust if:
If someone has done valid research into something.
If someone's research complies with someone else's similar conclusions.
If someone has proved themselves in the past in the same field of work.
They should not earn our trust if:
If someone has a large following of people.
If someone speaks fluently and with good vocabulary.
If someone shows off their power.
If someone is influential.
If someone makes a claim in a field of work they have not previously researched.
These are all just things to understand when someone tries to tell you some "truth" they think they have found. You don't have to believe me because, like I said, I'm no expert but I have done a bit of thinking in the matter and have read a few things related to this. So, believe me if you want to, but really it's up to you whether you want to trust me or not...perhaps, then proving my point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)