Science and technology - the Q & A thread

[Funky Ghost]

Sure, let's go mess up another planet and deplete IT'S resources!

Is drinking water messing up resources? We are tool users and everything we create comes from a resource. It's a quaint notion to think we would be better off not using the resources of "mother earth" but really, I have zero desire to live in a non tech, or worse, anti tech world. To have tech ( and this include not just quality of life but life giving technologies ) resources are needed.

 

[12bass]

I don't think the question is whether or not we use resources - it's a given. Rather, it is a matter of how we use the Earth's finite resources and whether or not we do so in a sustainable manner. Right now, it looks like some parts of the world are doubling down on unsustainable, polluting, fossil fuels instead of moving toward sustainable renewable energy. This need not imply eliminating technology altogether, but rather requires the development of new technology.

 

[Funky Ghost]

I don't think the question is whether or not we use resources - it's a given. Rather, it is a matter of how we use the Earth's finite resources and whether or not we do so in a sustainable manner. Right now, it looks like some parts of the world are doubling down on unsustainable, polluting, fossil fuels instead of moving toward sustainable renewable energy.

Completely agree. What needs to be considered though is where they are along the tech path. We had our industrial age a long time ago. Places like China are in the midst of theirs as well as a simultaneous tech age and a desire to catch up. With experience comes wisdom ( hopefully ). When they ( and other burgeoning nations ) begin to see the import of sustainability they too will come in line, I feel.

 

[Tom Bomb]

To quote from The New Science of Meaning | The Huffington Post,

"Mere milliseconds after the photons leaping from the screen hit your retinas, you not only recognize the words and letters, but you extract meaning from them. Before a second has passed, you've assembled an idea of what the sentence as a whole means, and as a result, you can make inferences that are unstated; you can prepare an appropriate response; and you can even predict what word is going to come potato.

I mean, "next." How you do this -- how you make meaning out of photons or sound waves -- is one of the great, persistent mysteries of the human mind. And until recently, we had no idea how our brains make meaning. And worse, we didn't even know how to figure it out. But that's all changing." [emphasis added]​

In the five odd years since this statement was made, what's changed?

 

[jmlee]

I also worked through degrees to a PhD, and if you don't have an established faith in the value of science and observable fact by the time you get there, you either haven't been paying attention or you've decided to reject much of what you learned in the process.

After 35 years as a university professor, I've reached the inalienable conclusion that any sufficiently hardworking monkey can get a PhD. [Damn, just got banana on my keyboard!] I've also come to the conclusion that science is one of many means of obtaining knowledge and gaining insight into the universe and the meaning of existence. It's a pretty good means, and it seems to be the best at delivering tangible results. And it's been an excellent day job (can you say tenure?) which has provided me with the wherewithall to purchase far too many basses. That said, if I push on a cow, science can tell me how far to push before the cow tips over; it can't tell me why that's a dumb, mean thing to do.

 

[12bass]

While science is among the greatest of human endeavors, notions like meaning, value, ethics, etc... are outside the domain of scientific inquiry and fall into the realm of philosophy (note that historically science is actually an offshoot of philosophy).

 

[D M C]

In the five odd years since this statement was made, what's changed?

Is it the potato?

 

[Tom Bomb]

Is it the potato?

Next!

 

[hbarcat]

Sure, let's go mess up another planet and deplete IT'S resources!

A couple observations.

1) Taking resources away from another planet will never be profitable because every ounce of it would need to be lifted out of that planet's gravity well at gargantuan expense.

2) That leaves mining the smaller asteroids which, by nature, cannot have life of any kind, or even simple atmospheres. They are all just giant lumps of rock and ice and metal.

 

[Aberdumbie]

Question:

What kind of investment should we (human beings) make in having a presence in space?

At the moment, all we have is the International Space Station in low Earth orbit. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to send people back to the moon to establish bases there, and at least that much to establish a foothold on Mars or in the asteroids. Would it be worth spending that kind of money?

I believe it is human nature to explore. We have to explore. It's in our DNA to explore..... I was fortunate to be old enough to sense the national pride we all shared when we landed on the moon. Even for an eleven year old kid it felt monumental. It was the only time in my life I saw a tear in my grizzly old granddads eye..... If we as a species become so self absorbed with our own immediate interests that we lose our need to explore I believe the end result will be a sad and tragic one.

 

[catcauphonic]

Is drinking water messing up resources? We are tool users and everything we create comes from a resource. It's a quaint notion to think we would be better off not using the resources of "mother earth" but really, I have zero desire to live in a non tech, or worse, anti tech world. To have tech ( and this include not just quality of life but life giving technologies ) resources are needed.

I don't think the question is whether or not we use resources - it's a given. Rather, it is a matter of how we use the Earth's finite resources and whether or not we do so in a sustainable manner. Right now, it looks like some parts of the world are doubling down on unsustainable, polluting, fossil fuels instead of moving toward sustainable renewable energy. This need not imply eliminating technology altogether, but rather requires the development of new technology.

I'd like to echo @12bass's sentiments to answer that, and add that polluting water sources is messing up resources. And yea, @hbarcat ... the shipping cost would be astronomical

 

[Funky Ghost]

I'd like to echo @12bass's sentiments to answer that, and add that polluting water sources is messing up resources. And yea, @hbarcat ... the shipping cost would be astronomical

Who said anything bout polluting Using and polluting are two different things. Drinking water is consuming a resource. I just put that to see how far use is allowed to go. Some folks can get rather extreme. I addressed 12bass in a reply. I wonder, if you have thought about a single volcanic eruption and it's environmental effect on the environment. It surpasses mans ability and indeed mans capacity to pollute. The ecosystems adapt. I'm not condoning the action of misuse, I'm just pointing out that mans effect often times seems to be over stated especially to forward a talking point. As in most things of this nature ( heh ) the truth lies somewhere between.

 

[12bass]

Who said anything bout polluting Using and polluting are two different things. Drinking water is consuming a resource. I just put that to see how far use is allowed to go. Some folks can get rather extreme. I addressed 12bass in a reply. I wonder, if you have thought about a single volcanic eruption and it's environmental effect on the environment. It surpasses mans ability and indeed mans capacity to pollute. The ecosystems adapt. I'm not condoning the action of misuse, I'm just pointing out that mans effect often times seems to be over stated especially to forward a talking point. As in most things of this nature ( heh ) the truth lies somewhere between.

There is a principle in ethics that one's ethical obligations are dependent upon one's capacities. By this principle, humans are not responsible for the products of volcanic eruptions or other natural sources because we lack the capacity to control them. We are, however, responsible for the pollution generated by human activity. Further, outside of a small group who have a dogmatic ideological bias toward free-market economics, there is little doubt in the scientific community that humans are changing the environment and have an undeniable responsibility for causing climate change. Moreover, even if we were not the primary cause (which the evidence suggests we are), we still have an ethical obligation to mitigate the damage we cause to the environment. If we refuse to accept this responsibility, we do so at our own peril as a species (not to mention all of the other species that will suffer because of our foolishness).

 

[D M C]

^^This^^ +1,000,000

 

[Aberdumbie]

I often play the role of devils advocate. And I truly am not wanting to offend or raise anyone ire here...... But whenever I hear this. I cannot help but point out. Climate has been changing since time immemortal. Only 10,000 years ago (a blip geologically) most of North America was covered by a glacier...... Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom has been melting them for the last 10,000 years..... Man impacts all we touch. But believing we can affect Mother Nature is a bit obtuse of us isnt it?

 

[12bass]

I often play the role of devils advocate. And I truly am not wanting to offend or raise anyone ire here...... But whenever I hear this. I cannot help but point out. Climate has been changing since time immemortal. Only 10,000 years ago (a blip geologically) most of North America was covered by a glacier...... Mother Nature in her infinite wisdom has been melting them for the last 10,000 years..... Man impacts all we touch. But believing we can affect Mother Nature is a bit obtuse of us isnt it?

Nope, not at all unreasonable; there is undeniable evidence of human impact on the environment, particularly in the period since the Industrial Revolution. Ice cores give us at least 800,000 years of climate data (and they are only one line of evidence): Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

Note: I'm not going to follow up on this topic further here because it will inevitably become political.

 

[hbarcat]

Please tread carefully on the topic of environmentalism. It's inherently about science and technology, but adding politics into the mix is strictly forbidden on this forum.

Thank you.

 

[neckdive]

Please tread carefully on the topic of environmentalism. It's inherently about science and technology, but adding politics into the mix is strictly forbidden on this forum.

Thank you.

I would think debating Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Science would be appropriate in a science thread.

It's really just H0 vs H1. Even the SA link above doesn't explain why temperature change precedes changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. It merely reduces the number of years CO2 lags behind temperature changes to 200 years.

 

[BBQisgood]

Insofar as I have really, really enjoyed this thread (I think it is almost as good as BBQ), and would very much like to see it continue in the spirit in which it started, I'd like to say this:

If smoking meat contributes to global warming, then bye-bye Earth. Bring on the ribs.

 

[fdeck]

I'm afraid that for me, the words "quantum mechanics" and "intuitive feel" will never appear in the same sentence (other than this one). I think I have a pretty good "intuitive" feel for ideas like curvature of space-time, parallel universes, and nth-dimensional universes, but quantum mechanics always sounds to me like "night is day and up is down."

This is why I belong to the "shut up and calculate" school. If quantum mechanics can't be pleasant, then it might as well be useful. In my view, one problem with making QM intuitive, is that we don't even know what "intuitive" should look like. And I think the remarkable progress made in the past century may owe itself to setting that question aside.

Sure, we can't make QM intuitive in terms of classical expectations, but what we call classical physics isn't more than a couple of centuries old.

The one subject that I never studied in school was gravitation, so I'm now working my way through a textbook on the subject. I've gotten to the point where I can finally measure the distance between two things that are very close together in spacetime. Another 1200 pages to go.