Should mankind survive?

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:25 pm


User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:27 pm

Fyyr wrote:Carbon dioxide and water is not useful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Which requires an input of energy.
Fyyr wrote:How is gasoline under the ground useful?
Because the energy required to extract and refine it is less than the energy produced by the final product.
Fyyr wrote:If hydrogen molecules are just leaving the Earth, and flying off out into space, that just defies the Law of Gravity.
No more than the space shuttle defies gravity.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:35 pm

Fyyr wrote:
There were two to four (and possibly even more) human species living 30,000-50,000 years ago. Suppose only one evolved the ability to eat their own species or related species in relative safety, while the others had the choice of starving or dying to prion disease. It only takes a slight evolutionary advantage for one species to dominate.
I dont understand your point here. If it's that we will evolve into Moorlocks and Eloi, that's a possibility I suppose. If your saying we already are(or were) the Moorlocks with immunity from prion disease, that's doubtful.
We're not immune, we're resistant. Given how widespread cannibalism was in human groups worldwide, it might have been an evolutionary advantage over the other species that couldn't rely on that food source.

There was an article in Science about this some years ago, also discussed here.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:36 pm

Are you trying to make my point for me?
Immunity
Simon Mead of University College London, and others, showed in their genetic and clinical assessment that people who survived the epidemic in Papua New Guinea were carriers of a prion-resistant factor. Mead's group has shown the source of immunity to be the inheritance of a genetic variant of prion protein G127V.[14][15] This work remains breaking news as of November 22, 2009, and further implications of the discovery including evidence for rapid natural selection of populations are being discussed.[16]

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:55 pm

Tudamorf wrote: Which requires an input of energy.
The Sun. Like I said, it's not going anywhere soon.
Because the energy required to extract and refine it is less than the energy produced by the final product.
We can use sugars for energy just as we use petrochemicals. I still don't know why leaving gasoline in the ground is useful, or how it is useful. It only becomes useful when we bring it up and use it. I think ultimately you are saying that we should leave it in the ground for future generations to use; if that is true, I fail to see the reason to do that. Honestly, I don't really like most people who are alive, I certainly am not going to sacrifice for people who are not even born yet. Screw them, they have to figure out their own energy problems(when they become alive).
No more than the space shuttle defies gravity.
Ok, fair enough. Hydrogen is leaving the Earth because it's used as fuel for rockets. That makes sense.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:04 pm

Tudamorf wrote:Are you trying to make my point for me?
No, not really.

Other than humans are very susceptible to prion transmission, and pathogenicity.

I also don't think that there is enough evidence yet to suggest that prion diseases are very old. Other than most humans do have an innate trait of revulsion towards cannibalism. But that denotes a selection process opposite of what you are suggesting.


I don't have that revulsion trait, if you stood between me and a full stomach, you're just steak to me.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:19 pm

Tudamorf wrote: Given how widespread cannibalism was in human groups worldwide, it might have been an evolutionary advantage over the other species that couldn't rely on that food source.
Given?

You have to give details of this. I don't know how widespread or contained prehistoric cannibalism was.


I have already stated many times, that food would not be a limiting factor in prehistoric hunter gatherer societies. You may continue to disagree with those opinions if you like. A species which converts itself to cannibalism when other food sources are available would lead to extinction. The cases of cannibalism that I am most familiar with are because other food sources are in small supply

50,000 years ago there just were not enough humans on the planet to have to go into starvation/cannibalistic mode. There was just too much food, and if not right here, it was right over there in that river or lake, sea, grove of trees or berry bushes.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:21 pm

Fyyr wrote:The Sun. Like I said, it's not going anywhere soon.
It's also not increasing any time soon, and it takes energy and resources to harness it.
Fyyr wrote:I still don't know why leaving gasoline in the ground is useful, or how it is useful. It only becomes useful when we bring it up and use it. I think ultimately you are saying that we should leave it in the ground for future generations to use;
Leaving it in the ground is useful because it does less harm there. But that's besides the point that it will be gone soon.
Fyyr wrote:Ok, fair enough. Hydrogen is leaving the Earth because it's used as fuel for rockets. That makes sense.
No, that's not what I meant. Hydrogen can reach escape velocity on its own. Look up Jeans escape.
Last edited by Tudamorf on Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:28 pm

Fyyr wrote:Given?

You have to give details of this. I don't know how widespread or contained prehistoric cannibalism was.
http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue9/cole.html

It's obvious that it was widespread. It's in the archaeological record (see above link for examples), modern hunter-gatherers do it, mythological texts discuss it (including Judeo-Christian mythology), and humans selected for genetic protection from prion disease (see the Science article).
Fyyr wrote:A species which converts itself to cannibalism when other food sources are available would lead to extinction.
Are chimpanzees extinct?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Should mankind survive?

Post by Fyyr » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:36 pm

Tudamorf wrote:It's also not increasing any time soon, and it takes energy and resources to harness it.
It doesn't have to increase. Not for me.

The hypothesis is that after Peak Oil, and there is no easy energy, human populations will die back to pre industrial definitely, and probably pre agricultural numbers. They will have all the plant energy they will need. It will not take any extra energy for plants to photosynthesize.

Leaving it in the ground is useful because it does less harm there. But that's besides the point that it will be gone soon.
You say that carbon dioxide and water is harmful. I know that it is necessary for life. We have a difference of opinion.

Like I said, I don't care if it runs out after I am dead. Why should I? Those people are not even alive yet. Why should I bear undue hardship now, while alive, for people who are not even born. That is absurd. When they become alive, they can solve their own energy problems.

I am not going to stop driving my H2, just because you want me to save gas for the smelly great grandkids of the people living next door to me. I don't even like the people living next door to me, I wouldn't save gas for them; why should I save gas for their great great grand kids? They are not even alive. If they need to ride horses or donkeys to work, then that's what they have to do.

No, that's not what I meant. Hydrogen can reach escape velocity on its own.
How?

Post Reply