Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Primary discussion forum. Also, feel free this use as a hangout for fans of the funny non-story based comics.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Sentios » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:01 pm

Valhallen wrote:NASA mostly concentrates on temporary high gs and long-term low gs. I don't know of any research on chronic high gs offhand, but I would think that fat people would be a rough approximation. Assuming that's the case, up to a few gs would be livable with greater risk of chronic conditions, but several gs might be more than anyone can handle through acclimatization alone.


That's a rather reckless assumption, fat people are not only more heavy, everything from blood pressure, to cholesterol, to even the simple increase is size plays a factor in their condition, and dietary intake as well of course.

Actually, hunter-gatherer societies had rates of violent deaths that far exceed any modern society. The violent death rate mentioned there of 30-50% well exceeds the death rate of World War II on a per capita basis, even among the countries hardest-hit. Death statistics for medieval societies didn't show up on a quick search, but I thought they were mostly caused by disease and famine. These articles seem to agree on the violence front.


The group in the first article has the highest mortality rates, terrible choice to use as an example of norms. The article specifically makes a point to differentiate between the group of interest and others (such as those in Africa).

The second article uses examples from after we stopped being hunter gathers to say we've been getting more peaceful, however this can only extrapolate to cover human history after the paradigm shift... in other words it can only extrapolate up until after we stopped being hunter gathers. It has no bearing on how we were before that because that is an entirely different way of living. If anything the article only could support the idea that the change from hunter-gather gave rise to unprecedented violence which we're only now recovering from.

As for the third article... well this graph defeats it for me. http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-conte ... deaths.jpg

>% of population
As the population increases more people can die and the percentage can still go down.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." People have been jerks to each other since time immemorial, and if you want to talk about what people are generally like (their nature, say) that should be taken into account.


That assume that human nature is real, human nature does not have to be real for history to repeat itself.
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7881
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby EagleMan » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:29 pm

So why would we need several generations to reach there Ace? We're just going to reach 1/3 or 1/4 the speed of light and assume that's what he meant and function off that premise?
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Sentios » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:56 pm

Moving at 1/4 the speed of light the trip would take roughly 80 years, unless you want your colonists to be geriatrics.........
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7881
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby EagleMan » Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:02 am

Yep, which is why it's a question. Unless it was meant for the whole generation to have been dead by then which makes the timeframe even longer and one's speed even more arbitrary (and slower, of course).
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Jay » Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:35 am

I have no sentimentalism about single generation achievements.

Similarly, I have no wish to make any specific promises about speed the whole trip there. I'd prioritize certainty of having adequate fuel to make the whole journey over getting there ASAP, though of course one must balance fuel storage against food storage (or space required for food production).

I'm essentially standing at the point where I'd support suicide-after-next-generation-capable-of-looking-after-itself, abortion, and eugenics within the closed space of the vehicle to ensure that the population inside the craft remains controllable and overall useful.

Since the goal of the enterprise is to get to the other planet, not create a humane (by our contemporary understanding of it) society on a chunk of metal hurtling through space.

Obviously though, volunteers only. And we can't expect to be capable of maintaining any real sort of communication with them over time.
Internet Celebrity ToastCrust
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | FFXIV: Lenini Leni (Hyperion)
RP Mod of the 3rd Astral Era
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 30944
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:44 am
Location: Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby zepherin » Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:15 am

Sentios wrote:Moving at 1/4 the speed of light the trip would take roughly 80 years, unless you want your colonists to be geriatrics.........

Theoretically we can cheat by making space shorter.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Vegedus » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:55 am

But 1/4 c isn't especially easy to reach to begin with. I forget the details, but various special relativity phenomenons make it even harder, like how objects increase in weight when they increase in speed. I'm not sure how the twin paradox would effect it, besides that the trip would seem longer for those back on earth, which is irrelevant.

Jay wrote:Similarly, I have no wish to make any specific promises about speed the whole trip there. I'd prioritize certainty of having adequate fuel to make the whole journey over getting there ASAP, though of course one must balance fuel storage against food storage (or space required for food production).

Well, it's space, drag is negligible. We wouldn't need fuel during the trip, because there's nothing to slow the spacecraft down. It's even possible to speed up by using the gravity wells of various stars and planets. As soon as we reach the needed speed, we're golden, and can just dump the fuel tanks.
Image
Will make apocalypse themed fiction for food
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 10232
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:46 pm
Location: Denmark, at world's end
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Valhallen » Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:16 am

Sentios wrote:That's a rather reckless assumption, fat people are not only more heavy, everything from blood pressure, to cholesterol, to even the simple increase is size plays a factor in their condition, and dietary intake as well of course.
Yeah, which is why I proposed it as a rough approximation in the absence of anything better. In higher gravity, people will have higher blood pressure to pump blood up the steeper gravity well; the alternative is unconsciousness. It's probably not as bad an approximation as you seem to think.

Sentios wrote:The group in the first article has the highest mortality rates, terrible choice to use as an example of norms. The article specifically makes a point to differentiate between the group of interest and others (such as those in Africa).
I seem to have misread 3-7% as 37% due to a graphic/formatting problem, but that point still counters your statement that "Our oldest societies (the hunter gathering sort) were far more peaceful than our medieval societies, know why?" because of the existence of extremely violent hunter gatherer societies. I included that more for the spectacular counterexamples than for representative information about hunter gatherers, since there are only 5 groups there. That's what the other articles were for.

Sentios wrote:The second article uses examples from after we stopped being hunter gathers to say we've been getting more peaceful, however this can only extrapolate to cover human history after the paradigm shift... in other words it can only extrapolate up until after we stopped being hunter gathers. It has no bearing on how we were before that because that is an entirely different way of living. If anything the article only could support the idea that the change from hunter-gather gave rise to unprecedented violence which we're only now recovering from.
Not really.
that article wrote:At the widest-angle view, one can see a whopping difference across the millennia that separate us from our pre-state ancestors. Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage, quantitative body-counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with axemarks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own. It is true that raids and battles killed a tiny percentage of the numbers that die in modern warfare. But, in tribal violence, the clashes are more frequent, the percentage of men in the population who fight is greater, and the rates of death per battle are higher. According to anthropologists like Lawrence Keeley, Stephen LeBlanc, Phillip Walker, and Bruce Knauft, these factors combine to yield population-wide rates of death in tribal warfare that dwarf those of modern times. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.


Sentios wrote:As for the third article... well this graph defeats it for me. http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/wp-conte ... deaths.jpg
How does it defeat it? It shows that "primitive" societies tend to have more war deaths per capita than "civilized" societies. The main exception there, the Andaman, are notable for their exceptional isolation and low population.

Sentios wrote:>% of population
As the population increases more people can die and the percentage can still go down.
And that's apparently what happened. When speaking of how violent societies are, isn't violence per capita what matters?

Sentios wrote:That assume that human nature is real, human nature does not have to be real for history to repeat itself.
Rather, the conclusion is that humans have a nature because people tend to be jerks across times and places {let's ignore the questions of a purely biological nature, which obviously humans have}. How would you propose falsifying the notion that humans don't have a nature? If you can't answer that, you've not engaged in empirical investigation.

Vegedus wrote:But 1/4 c isn't especially easy to reach to begin with. I forget the details, but various special relativity phenomenons make it even harder, like how objects increase in weight when they increase in speed.
Relativistic effects aren't very significant at .25c.

Vegedus wrote:Well, it's space, drag is negligible.
Unless you're using a Bussard ramjet.

Vegedus wrote:We wouldn't need fuel during the trip, because there's nothing to slow the spacecraft down. It's even possible to speed up by using the gravity wells of various stars and planets.
Gravitational speed boosts from stars and planets are several orders of magnitude too small for getting to .25c. You'd need a black hole or neutron star that's moving a good fraction of c relative to the starting point.

Vegedus wrote:As soon as we reach the needed speed, we're golden, and can just dump the fuel tanks.
You'd need a lot of fuel to slow down if you plan to stop in the target system, unless you're using a Bussard ramjet.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Jay » Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:36 pm

Not to mention, as cool as astronomers are, I wouldn't trust them to be 100% accurate.

You're gonna want something around for course corrections and emergencies.
Internet Celebrity ToastCrust
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | FFXIV: Lenini Leni (Hyperion)
RP Mod of the 3rd Astral Era
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 30944
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:44 am
Location: Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby zepherin » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:16 pm

Vegedus wrote:But 1/4 c isn't especially easy to reach to begin with. I forget the details, but various special relativity phenomenons make it even harder, like how objects increase in weight when they increase in speed. I'm not sure how the twin paradox would effect it, besides that the trip would seem longer for those back on earth, which is irrelevant.

actually at 1/4 c the time,weight dilation is only 1.0327. Which means that for every hour that passes in the ship 1.0327 passes outside the ship. Weight is 1.0327 pounds for every pound and the ship becomes longer and thinner changing the ship so if it were 1 foot long it would be 1.0327 feet long and the width would decrease proportionately.

But there is some interesting things involving quantum entanglement which would mean we only need to make the trip once. Especially if we can get a unmanned ship going 1/2 the speed of light and our life spans are double.

I think that Stargates are a more feasible technology than FTL travel.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Valhallen » Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:09 pm

zepherin wrote:Weight is 1.0327 pounds for every pound and the ship becomes longer and thinner changing the ship so if it were 1 foot long it would be 1.0327 feet long and the width would decrease proportionately.
Actually, the length would decrease by that factor as seen by an "at rest" observer, and the width would be unchanged. You might be thinking of gravitational distortions, which can cause stretching as easily as contraction.

zepherin wrote:But there is some interesting things involving quantum entanglement which would mean we only need to make the trip once. Especially if we can get a unmanned ship going 1/2 the speed of light and our life spans are double.

I think that Stargates are a more feasible technology than FTL travel.
That would take a lot of work even if physics turns out to allow it, and raises some philosophical questions anyway. The supporting technologies for preparing and maintaining a person scale quantum system should allow some pretty interesting stuff.

I think a wormhole network is the most plausible from a real physics standpoint, but that would take negative mass, which nobody seems to know how to make.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Sentios » Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:16 pm

Valhallen wrote:Yeah, which is why I proposed it as a rough approximation in the absence of anything better. In higher gravity, people will have higher blood pressure to pump blood up the steeper gravity well; the alternative is unconsciousness. It's probably not as bad an approximation as you seem to think.


Oh but why fat people, why not a body builder? He would be heavier and experience a more moderate increase in blood pressure. You've picked an example you found convenient because fat people are clearly unhealthy rather than looking for the 'best example'.

I seem to have misread 3-7% as 37% due to a graphic/formatting problem, but that point still counters your statement that "Our oldest societies (the hunter gathering sort) were far more peaceful than our medieval societies, know why?" because of the existence of extremely violent hunter gatherer societies. I included that more for the spectacular counterexamples than for representative information about hunter gatherers, since there are only 5 groups there. That's what the other articles were for.


that article wrote:At the widest-angle view, one can see a whopping difference across the millennia that separate us from our pre-state ancestors. Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage, quantitative body-counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with axemarks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own. It is true that raids and battles killed a tiny percentage of the numbers that die in modern warfare. But, in tribal violence, the clashes are more frequent, the percentage of men in the population who fight is greater, and the rates of death per battle are higher. According to anthropologists like Lawrence Keeley, Stephen LeBlanc, Phillip Walker, and Bruce Knauft, these factors combine to yield population-wide rates of death in tribal warfare that dwarf those of modern times. If the wars of the twentieth century had killed the same proportion of the population that die in the wars of a typical tribal society, there would have been two billion deaths, not 100 million.

How does it defeat it? It shows that "primitive" societies tend to have more war deaths per capita than "civilized" societies. The main exception there, the Andaman, are notable for their exceptional isolation and low population.

And that's apparently what happened. When speaking of how violent societies are, isn't violence per capita what matters?


So your argument is 'violent hunter gathers exist today thus all/the majority of our ancestors were violent hunter gathers' and also that 1 death is means a more violent society than a society with 100s of millions of deaths?

Rather, the conclusion is that humans have a nature because people tend to be jerks across times and places {let's ignore the questions of a purely biological nature, which obviously humans have}. How would you propose falsifying the notion that humans don't have a nature? If you can't answer that, you've not engaged in empirical investigation.


I might ask how you propose to retro actively create a nature based on events, if such a human nature exists then you should be able raise children and have them kill each other when turned loose. That's all that's occurred, 'lots of wars happened clearly it's in our nature' it couldn't have been caused by religion, patriotism, economics, despotic kings, horrendous atrocities or the like. Nope clearly we just like to go to war spontaneously as is our nature.

http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumani ... eHuman.htm
Wizard Status. 5 more years
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 7881
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The RP Graveyard
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Ace of Flames » Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:11 pm

Valhallen wrote:I think a wormhole network is the most plausible from a real physics standpoint, but that would take negative mass, which nobody seems to know how to make.
Considering it falls up, wouldn't fire be negative mass?

So to travel outside the solar system, we need to set ourselves on fire.
I am Michael the Dick-Stabber; I seek out rapists and other such perverts to stab them in the dick!
(Inspired by Twilight Princess)
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:52 pm
Location: The New World
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby PunkyChipsAhoy » Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:57 pm

Isn't fire plasma? Therefore it has mass?
A Pimp Named Jeezy Creezy: Lasting all the way up to Valentine's.

And the Pimpeth lord sat amidst his real ballin' players, the Apostles, and raisingeth his cup of Cristal as they devoured the grapes and cheese from the finest bitches in town he said

"Sleepery Dee, Sleepery Doo.
Whoever betrays me tonight, I'll mo'fuckin' cap you!"
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13061
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: ....
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby zepherin » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:01 pm

Valhallen wrote:I think a wormhole network is the most plausible from a real physics standpoint, but that would take negative mass, which nobody seems to know how to make.

But we don't know where any wormholes are we know that quantum entanglement works. And we are doing it on larger and larger scales. We are up to being able to entangle semiconductors, which is a huge step.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby DaCrum » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:01 pm

Ace of Flames wrote:
Valhallen wrote:I think a wormhole network is the most plausible from a real physics standpoint, but that would take negative mass, which nobody seems to know how to make.
Considering it falls up, wouldn't fire be negative mass?

So to travel outside the solar system, we need to set ourselves on fire.

-.-

It doesn't fall up. Hot air rises due to a lower density.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby zepherin » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:09 pm

He was making a joke. I got a chuckle.

Ace of Flames go dance for nobody.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby nobody » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:45 am

Did someone call?

I get a dance from ace of flames? :D
Image
Nowhere man please listen.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8103
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Nowhere land.
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Ace of Flames » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:12 pm

The only dance I know is falling flat on my face. Is that good enough?
I am Michael the Dick-Stabber; I seek out rapists and other such perverts to stab them in the dick!
(Inspired by Twilight Princess)
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:52 pm
Location: The New World
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby PunkyChipsAhoy » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:04 pm

I thought you also knew how to thrust your crotch?
A Pimp Named Jeezy Creezy: Lasting all the way up to Valentine's.

And the Pimpeth lord sat amidst his real ballin' players, the Apostles, and raisingeth his cup of Cristal as they devoured the grapes and cheese from the finest bitches in town he said

"Sleepery Dee, Sleepery Doo.
Whoever betrays me tonight, I'll mo'fuckin' cap you!"
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13061
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: ....
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Ace of Flames » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:11 pm

Only for about 2 seconds before I loose interest.
I am Michael the Dick-Stabber; I seek out rapists and other such perverts to stab them in the dick!
(Inspired by Twilight Princess)
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:52 pm
Location: The New World
Gender: None specified

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Jay » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:03 pm

I don't wanna know what kind of interest you would let loose while thrusting your crotch.
Internet Celebrity ToastCrust
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | FFXIV: Lenini Leni (Hyperion)
RP Mod of the 3rd Astral Era
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 30944
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:44 am
Location: Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Mathias » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:06 pm

I got a rise out of that, Jay.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11856
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Fire up chips.
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby Valhallen » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:18 am

Sentios wrote:Oh but why fat people, why not a body builder? He would be heavier and experience a more moderate increase in blood pressure. You've picked an example you found convenient because fat people are clearly unhealthy rather than looking for the 'best example'.
I considered that, and bodybuilders probably would be a better comparison for slight increases in gravity. However, the context for that was a discussion of what humans' ultimate tolerances were. Bodybuilders just don't get heavy enough to correspond to more than a couple gs. Magnus Ver Magnusson, multi-World's Strongest Man, for example, is listed at 287 pounds and 6'3". For someone that tall with a reasonable build, 287 pounds is 2 gs if you're very generous. Therefore, only fat people suffice as models of what greater gs might do.

Sentios wrote:So your argument is 'violent hunter gathers exist today thus all/the majority of our ancestors were violent hunter gathers' and also that 1 death is means a more violent society than a society with 100s of millions of deaths?
Not really. That extremely violent hunter gatherer societies have existed counters your blanket statement that hunter gatherer societies are peaceful, and that violent societies would kill themselves off. The other articles I linked showed that hunter gatherer societies are generally more violent than other societies on a per capita basis. And per capita is what I would use for comparing the violence of societies.

Consider the modern US vs. the precontact Ache mentioned in the first article I linked. In 2009, the US had a little over 15,000 murders, for about a .005% chance per person per year. The Ache had far fewer, but averaged about a 1% chance per person per year. Which society would you say is more violent?

Sentios wrote:I might ask how you propose to retro actively create a nature based on events, if such a human nature exists then you should be able raise children and have them kill each other when turned loose. That's all that's occurred, 'lots of wars happened clearly it's in our nature' it couldn't have been caused by religion, patriotism, economics, despotic kings, horrendous atrocities or the like. Nope clearly we just like to go to war spontaneously as is our nature.
I'm not proposing "creating" a nature. I'm proposing that we recognize a nature that's always been there. As it happens, people do raise their children to carry on feuds that have been going on for generations, and children aren't always nice to each other in the absence of such prodding.

It is in humans' nature to partake in community rituals, support the community in opposition to other communities, perform trade and other economic activities, centralize executive power when possible, and do unpleasant things for the sake of the previous activities. I never said that it's humans' nature to go to war spontaneously for no reason. Rather, people have killed each other throughout history for reasons common throughout history. What of what I've been saying do you disagree with?

The part of this article most relevant to this discussion is the work cited of Douglas Fry, but "Other "primitive" societies which are often pointed out as violent or warlike -- certain native American or African tribes -- may range from static hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies, but are not included in the over 80 nomadic societies Fry has researched." So it seems that that sample, while not completely irrelevant, is not a representative sample of hunter gatherer societies, of which there currently remain far more than 80, many of which do not allow outsiders to visit. If a hunter gatherer society is mobile enough to qualify as nomadic (though that article doesn't explain the definition used, nor those used to define "low" levels of aggression and warfare), it probably means that they need to move around to get enough food, implying that the carrying capacity of the land is relatively low, implying that other tribes would not be very near, reducing the potential and incentive for external conflict. The inverse is noted in the quote above, that hunter gatherer societies that are less mobile (probably because they can get the food they need locally, implying greater carrying capacity, implying nearer neighbors) have been found to be rather violent.

In "nomadic"' cases, as Fry is said to note in his paper, the society tends to deal with conflict internally through less violent means than societies with external targets of aggression. Note that the article uses Fry's work not to claim that hunter-gatherer societies were on the whole peaceful, but that that some were peaceful, notably more so than many people thought. This is to support the article's thesis that we are not doomed to have a violent society in the future if we are guided by humanism. Further, regarding your claims of a human nature, even that article says "Aggression, Fry and Hand admit, is a part of human nature ... perhaps even genetically or neurologically so ..." and an unbiased understanding of this nature is recognized to be necessary if society is to be improved reliably.

Ace of Flames wrote:Considering it falls up, wouldn't fire be negative mass?
So to travel outside the solar system, we need to set ourselves on fire.
Relative to the air, yes. however, it seems that building a stable wormhole requires something with negative mass relative to empty space. You can get something sort of like that via the Casimir effect, but that's not nearly enough from what I've heard.

zepherin wrote:But we don't know where any wormholes are we know that quantum entanglement works. And we are doing it on larger and larger scales. We are up to being able to entangle semiconductors, which is a huge step.
Yes, but as currently understood, entanglement cannot transmit information FTL. So far as I know, the only ways to travel from point A to point B faster than light as reckoned by an observer in normal space that are compatible with known physics are some exotic General Relativity spacetime constructs, of which wormholes would probably be the most useful.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Scientist find possible inhabitable planet

Postby zepherin » Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:55 am

Valhallen wrote:Yes, but as currently understood, entanglement cannot transmit information FTL. So far as I know, the only ways to travel from point A to point B faster than light as reckoned by an observer in normal space that are compatible with known physics are some exotic General Relativity spacetime constructs, of which wormholes would probably be the most useful.

Well that is kind of the problem of entanglement is that while the changes are instant when you look at it or try to control it the waveform collapses. And nobody knows what the state of the particle or sets of particles are going to be at a given time, but wormholes have never been seen, have never been measured, are currently fiction. We can measure entanglement, we can see entanglement and we can force entanglement. Still I suppose my liberal use of quantum entanglement at a mansized level could be considered a wormhole because a person moving through one side of the entangled particles and simultaneously coming out the other would qualify and it may just not be possible.
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 9152
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:57 pm
Location: Murder Capital
Gender: None specified

PreviousNext

Return to Snafu General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest