Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 21 of 30«1219202122232930»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
spacerDate: Wednesday, 27.07.2016, 15:17 | Message # 301
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Israel
Messages: 1257
Status: Offline
DoctorOfSpace, no 3D glasses? finally!! i have eye glasses so if i want to watch 3D movie i have to put 3D glasses on top of my eye glasses and its looks pretty weird! cool




"we began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan

-space engine photographer
 
PlutonianEmpireDate: Wednesday, 27.07.2016, 15:34 | Message # 302
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 474
Status: Offline
Uhhh... Humanity has a future?

tongue





Specs: Dell Inspiron 5547 (Laptop); 8 gigabytes of RAM; Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4210U CPU @ 1.70GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz; Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit; Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics 4400 (That's all there is :( )
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 27.07.2016, 16:57 | Message # 303
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Online
Chip Makers Admit Transistors Are About to Stop Shrinking

Quote
Moore’s Law has been slowing for a while. But the U.S. industry that exploits it has finally recognized that it is about to die.

The Semiconductor Industry Association—made up of the likes of Intel, AMD, and Global Foundries—has published the 2015 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. It suggests that, after decades of miniaturization, transistors look set to stop shrinking in size altogether by 2021. After that date, the report claims, it will not be economically efficient to reduce the size of silicon transistors any further.

The prediction is an acknowledgment that Moore’s Law—which states that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years—isn't simply slowing. It’s grinding to a halt.

Earlier this year, Intel announced that it was slowing down the pace of chip advancement and pushing back the release of its smallest-ever transistor technology—made up of features as small as 10 nanometers—from 2016 to 2017. In fact Intel has already warned that conventional silicon transistors could only keep shrinking for another five years.


Rest of article
https://www.technologyreview.com/s....rinking




Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change
Quote
Record temperatures in the first half of 2016 have taken scientists by surprise despite widespread recognition that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense, the director of the World Climate Research Program said.

The earth is on track for its hottest year on record with June marking the 14th straight month of record heat, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said last week.

Temperatures recorded mainly in the northern hemisphere in the first six months of the year, coupled with an early and fast Arctic sea ice melt and "new highs" in heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels, point to quickening climate change, it said.


http://www.reuters.com/article....rpc=401





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 05:19 | Message # 304
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Online
Seems like alarmism but an interesting read nonetheless

Mankind has eaten into its year’s supply of natural resources – in just seven months

Quote
Humans have used up a full year’s worth of Earth’s ecological resources in just over seven months, its fastest rate ever, according to an annual environmental report.

“Earth overshoot day”, marks the date at which humanity’s demand on the planet exceeds that which it can regenerate in a year. This year it will fall on Monday 8 August, its earliest date yet.

Earth overshoot day is calculated by the international think tank Global Footprint Network, which measures the world’s demand for resources against ecosystems’ ability to supply them.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news....36.html





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
SalvoDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 06:35 | Message # 305
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
DoctorOfSpace, question: what does the article mean for "resources"? Does it mean raw material, food or both?




The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
AerospacefagDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 11:07 | Message # 306
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Earth overshoot day is calculated by the international think tank Global Footprint Network, which measures the world’s demand for resources against ecosystems’ ability to supply them.

I think that would answer the question. These people imply that we consume too much, therefore the planet can not sustain our population for an extended period. In the same time other people of the same cohort state that we must consume more to cure our economy disproportions. Something tells me that one of these strategies (or maybe both) are counter-productive.

Also, there's this phrase.
Quote
However, the speed at which we are depleting resources has dropped, the network said.

If it tells me anything, it means that they have no idea what they are talking about.



Edited by Aerospacefag - Monday, 08.08.2016, 11:07
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 11:41 | Message # 307
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
If it tells me anything, it means that they have no idea what they are talking about.


I think the paragraph that followed explained it:

Quote
In a statement, Global Footprint Network said: “The rate at which Earth Overshoot Day has moved up on the calendar has slowed to less than one day a year on average over the past five years, compared to an average of three days a year since the overshoot began in the 1970s.”


So it sounds like GFN was saying the rate at which the resources are depleted (however they measure it -- it looks very involved) is increasing more slowly than it had been. Which makes sense. And it would look like the author of the article made an oops and confused an acceleration for a speed.





 
AerospacefagDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 13:27 | Message # 308
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
So it sounds like GFN was saying the rate at which the resources are depleted (however they measure it -- it looks very involved) is increasing more slowly than it had been. Which makes sense. And it would look like the author of the article made an oops and confused an acceleration for a speed.

Yes indeed, this is what I was implying. The "total amount available" is one thing, and the rate of reduction is a derivative of that number (dx/dt), which is the sum of rate of consumption and rate of recovery. And the acceleration of this rate is a second derivative (dv/dt or d^2x/dt^2), which means that we are still accelerating, even if the acceleration has been slowed down either by ecology, or, more likely, economic crisis.

However, there's other thing that taints this project - we don't know how to calculate the amount of resources planet is able to regenerate, since there's a lot of them, and most of them clearly are not linear functions, but a complex systems. Even with application of law of big numbers, it is hard to assume what is the reference point. What will happen to the “Earth overshoot day" if the amount of things we "consume" will exceed the capacity of planet, say, twice. A "TWICE overshoot day"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMvpAz38qSo
Then, there's a question of agriculture, which is not mentioned at all, as if we are still in stone age, foraging for food from the land and seas. There's a question of non-renewable resources, which are not mentioned as well, as if we are actually will be able to live without them some day.

So, let's say, that there was a time when aforementioned rate of consumption was so small that nature recovered it for less than a year. What was the point where we could have breached the limit? What was the time, where our nature ceased to recover most of all our important resources and we started to live "in debt". Simply speaking, how old this “Earth overshoot day" really is. This is the most important question.

I am educated at mathematics, and I can not see the meaning of that blabbing beyond attempts to gather some money for some vague point of saving the planet. Dixi.


Edited by Aerospacefag - Monday, 08.08.2016, 13:31
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 19:33 | Message # 309
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
What will happen to the “Earth overshoot day" if the amount of things we "consume" will exceed the capacity of planet, say, twice. A "TWICE overshoot day"?


If consumption is equals the capacity for that year, then it lands on December 31. If consumption is twice the capacity, then it lands on June 30th. If 10 times capacity, then February 5th. This is pretty simple math.

Look, I've never even heard of this project before. I agree with Doc in that the article for it is more in the vein of alarmism. But I tried looking at the project in more detail before deciding it was flawed or stupid. I think calculating something like the biocapacity of the planet is a tall order, sure, but their methods look rather rigorous and the metric they devised seems to be a functional one.





 
steeljaw354Date: Monday, 08.08.2016, 20:11 | Message # 310
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
I really think we need to stop polluting and destroying Earth, we are destroying ourselves by doing so

Edited by steeljaw354 - Monday, 08.08.2016, 20:12
 
AerospacefagDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 21:52 | Message # 311
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
If consumption is equals the capacity for that year, then it lands on December 31. If consumption is twice the capacity, then it lands on June 30th. If 10 times capacity, then February 5th.

Then it might explain why the speed with which that day is moving forward is slowing down - the law of inverse numbers. Past June 30th it will move twice as slow as at December 31 even if the rate would remain constant. However, it is not a biggest problem.

Quote Watsisname ()
I think calculating something like the biocapacity of the planet is a tall order, sure, but their methods look rather rigorous and the metric they devised seems to be a functional one.

I looked at it briefly, it seems like a pretty complex model with application of multiple weight coefficients that are named "equivalence factors". A complex of linear equations with one determined result, but since it is just a model, all coefficients may be adjusted for whatever reason that lies outside the model. Basically, carbon emissions are very important in this model since the coefficients are very significant. This leads to the statements as below, which bear some sort of information, but we can't definitely say what it is.

Quote
Greenhouse gas emissions account for 60 per cent of humanity’s ecological footprint


So, my conclusion is still the same - even though scientists do know what that definition is, the rest of the narrators are not aware of that, or even subtly interested. It is too complicated for general population and needs to be compressed for easy, erm, consumption. Cue the alarmism, as DoctorOfSpace noted here.

Quote steeljaw354 ()
I really think we need to stop polluting and destroying Earth, we are destroying ourselves by doing so

OK, I won't try to hide my opinion behind vague complaints and will state it clearly. The humanity as we know it is doomed, it was doomed not the day we started to produce more than planet can "heal", but much, much earlier. There's no need to stop at this point and reverse to the nature either - this would be the catastrophe as great as the ecological one we are approaching. What is important is to determine what we have to do to escape our ecological environment before we destroyed it along with ourselves. We have to make our own environment that is controlled and separated from Earth's and therefore can not do any more harm to ourselves. We are part-way towards the end of his process, but there's lot of obstacles along the way to 100% independence of Earth biosphere.

 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 08.08.2016, 23:01 | Message # 312
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
Then it might explain why the speed with which that day is moving forward is slowing down - the law of inverse numbers. Past June 30th it will move twice as slow as at December 31 even if the rate would remain constant. However, it is not a biggest problem.


Right, it lost the linearity. This is basically converting a simple mathematical idea "consumption vs. capacity" to "day of year in which we exceeded capacity" which can be used for publicity purposes. Hence the unsurprising alarmism. But all it is is a different way of reporting the same thing -- it takes more than one Earth to provide the resources we use at the rate we use them, and here's by how much. That there is a date at all means our current practices are unsustainable. That the date strikes earlier means we're moving in the wrong direction. And I think that's all people need to get out of it.

I also think this style of reporting tends to miss out on the nuance of population and economic dynamics. Unsustainable practices do not remain unsustainable for very long, by necessity. Something will change, new equilibria will be found. The point of analyzing it should be to recognize that this will have to change, and to get us thinking about when and how we might make choices to affect that change.





 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 11:51 | Message # 313
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
So we are supposed to leave Earth? I think we should stop using oil and fossil fuels, instead we should be using stuff like nuclear, fusion, solar, dams, etc. Then we should stop eating meat, because it pollutes the environment because it releases methane and whatnot, might buy us time. After we leave Earth we allow it to return to it's natural human less state.

What steps do you suppose we take? Where do we go?


Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 11:58
 
AerospacefagDate: Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 15:44 | Message # 314
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote
Something will change, new equilibria will be found.

On the larger scale, that is. Humans tend to expand their living area to find more easy resources. I mean, there were a lot of projects like solar reflectors, space electric stations, space habitats and so on, but until much too late, they will be unsustainable. It seems, modern economy is unable to take a big jump that is needed to overcome many of our problems, so I do not see how we may actually achieve anything in that field.

Quote steeljaw354 ()
So we are supposed to leave Earth?

That idea has been in the air since the beginning of the 20th century, but I actually remember only one person who sounded it that early.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
On the other hand, it is just one of possibilities, a more simple one, but it is impossible for a billions of humans to leave Earth in any foreseeable period. Maybe there will be some other way. Most likely we will be forced to rebuild Earth from the state of wasteland some day.

Quote steeljaw354 ()
Then we should stop eating meat, because it pollutes the environment because it releases methane and whatnot, might buy us time.

I wouldn't ever consider leaving a meat diet for such creature as genetically unmodified human (which is, by accident, an omnivore). There must be many ways around it. The most important part is this though: to give us a time to gather all that we need, we should act right now - however if we act aimlessly it will be as much of a waste of time as not acting at all.


Edited by Aerospacefag - Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 15:52
 
steeljaw354Date: Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 16:03 | Message # 315
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Well how would all the humans get off this planet? Imagine all the rockets we would have to send up, and by the time that is done there is lots of space debris so space travel from Earth is going to be hazardous. What planets and moons are we going to colonize? A space elevator might work but I'm sure we don't have a material that is strong enough. How would one build a space elevator?

I think we should start reducing our population, number of nukes and make peace with other nations so eventually the world will be united. War needs to stop. Once we fix this planet up, we can leave it. One step at a time. You can't spread out if you don't have a planet, moon, asteroid, etc. We must fix this planet up, when we do we have more time to spread out. We don't have the technology to spread out yet, we can but in small numbers. We must fix the planet up and then wait until we invent better ways.


Edited by steeljaw354 - Tuesday, 09.08.2016, 16:25
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
Page 21 of 30«1219202122232930»
Search: