Technology, Science and the Environment.

[SpacedX]

If there is one positive to the current situation, it is my wish that it will afford appreciation throughout governments, administrations and some citizens of the world to visualise and accept the fragility and impermanence of our tenure on the earth. The current not only reinforces the human cost of viral pandemic but the wider implications of AMR which is as big a threat as climate change or nuclear annihilation. 

 

If you factor the odds of a volcanic super-eruption together with the chances of a major comet/asteroid impact threatening civilisation - projected at 1 in 5,000 per 100 years - on this alone, an extinction event comes out at 1 in 335 per 100 years. To put this in perspective, the average human is more likely to die from one of the above than we are to get killed in the crash of a commercial airliner. 

 

To an extent, the current situation has torn at the veneer of normality, and stripped away the flimsy facade of security with a sobering realisation that we are all vulnerable - ironically, even within the relative sanctity of our own homes, surrounded and furnished by perceived first world assurance of the modern technological age. 

 

On the otherside of this lockdown, we have to learn to nourish our insight into impermanence every day. This has provided a glimpse into the ephemeral nature of our species. If we do, we will live more deeply, suffer less, and enjoy life much more. To echo Alan Watts, man suffers because of his craving to possess and keep forever things which are essentially impermanent. But it's also about saving us from ourselves. Sustaining life on a habitable planet isn't simply about solar panels and wind turbines, but whether humanity can become better and wiser to avoid our own catastrophe. 

And if we wish to endure as a species, then we have to really start looking to get off this rock. In the last tenth of a percent of the lifetime of our species, in the instant between Aristarchus and ourselves, we reluctantly noticed that we were not the centre and purpose of the universe. All species become spacefaring or extinct. As long as we are a single-planet species, we are vulnerable to extinction by a planet-wide catastrophe, natural or self-induced. The single simplest reason why human space flight is necessary, stated as plainly as possible: keeping all your breeding pairs in one place is a ****ing dumb way to run a species. As the late Stephen Hawking opined, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

[yorkie1999]

49 minutes ago, Line-X said:

If there is one positive to the current situation, it is my wish that it will afford appreciation throughout governments, administrations and some citizens of the world to visualise and accept the fragility and impermanence of our tenure on the earth. The current not only reinforces the human cost of viral pandemic but the wider implications of AMR which is as big a threat as climate change or nuclear annihilation. 

 

If you factor the odds of a volcanic super-eruption together with the chances of a major comet/asteroid impact threatening civilisation - projected at 1 in 5,000 per 100 years - on this alone, an extinction event comes out at 1 in 335 per 100 years. To put this in perspective, the average human is more likely to die from one of the above than we are to get killed in the crash of a commercial airliner. 

 

To an extent, the current situation has torn at the veneer of normality, and stripped away the flimsy facade of security with a sobering realisation that we are all vulnerable - ironically, even within the relative sanctity of our own homes, surrounded and furnished by perceived first world assurance of the modern technological age. 

 

On the otherside of this lockdown, we have to learn to nourish our insight into impermanence every day. This has provided a glimpse into the ephemeral nature of our species. If we do, we will live more deeply, suffer less, and enjoy life much more. To echo Alan Watts, man suffers because of his craving to possess and keep forever things which are essentially impermanent. But it's also about saving us from ourselves. Sustaining life on a habitable planet isn't simply about solar panels and wind turbines, but whether humanity can become better and wiser to avoid our own catastrophe. 

And if we wish to endure as a species, then we have to really start looking to get off this rock. In the last tenth of a percent of the lifetime of our species, in the instant between Aristarchus and ourselves, we reluctantly noticed that we were not the centre and purpose of the universe. All species become spacefaring or extinct. As long as we are a single-planet species, we are vulnerable to extinction by a planet-wide catastrophe, natural or self-induced. The single simplest reason why human space flight is necessary, stated as plainly as possible: keeping all your breeding pairs in one place is a ****ing dumb way to run a species. As the late Stephen Hawking opined, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

Apart from the romulans Name one species that has become space fairing.

Edited 11 April 2020 by yorkie1999

[Nicolo Barella]

On 04/03/2020 at 00:34, MC Prussian said:

"probably..." Wow, science is so precise nowadays.

Just to isolate this, science has always been a collection of theories waiting to be disproven. Things we take as "facts" just haven't been disproven worthily yet. Its entirely based on weighing up as much evidence as possible and making an educated guess essentially towards what we think is right, and then testing it out more. The tenuous nature of science has always existed and indeed has got us to where we are today. When a scientist says "probably" I trust them more than a scientist that is unduly assertive of their findings. National Geographic had a decent article on this a few years back, I can't find it now though...

[Nicolo Barella]

 

On 01/03/2020 at 19:18, The Bear said:

Why is the population set to decline in 2050?

 

Given how fast it grows I've often thought that developed countries should try and limit family sizes by restricting benefits once a certain size is reached (e.g no more money after  two kids. You want more then pay for them yourselves). Of course I may be coming across as stupendously ignorant there, but it seems a logical way of doing things rather than the "you're not allowed kids" method in say, China. 

In fairness, had China not implemented their policy, there would be another 400 million people on this Earth right now... they took the hit for us! A one child policy is extreme, but personally I am in favour of a global two child policy, (not with mandatory abortions like China does) with more children being allowed but heavily disincentivized through loss of benefits and potentially fines.

[Nicolo Barella]

On 01/03/2020 at 14:05, leicsmac said:

A thought occurs to me:

 

As much as it is needed to convince certain parts of the world that climate change is in fact a real problem...what happens when that is successful (either by successful persuasion or by the Earth making it blatantly clear)? How long before the first set of power cuts in poor neighbourhoods at scheduled times, or personal transportation cut off to all but the wealthy and public transportation still wildly unfit for purpose?

 

Because you can bet if the people who deny the effects of climate change right now because it doesn't affect them personally have control over the response when they deny it no longer, that response will certainly not be even-handed.

 

Might make one long for the days where they simply denied it all.

Google eco-fascism, its underlying ideas are already beginning to take hold in some small sections of society. I think it is inevitable that it will be big in many countries, especially once climate refugees really start to kick into another gear.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On 03/03/2020 at 14:14, MC Prussian said:

Surely anyone with a decent, healthy amount of common sense looks at that chart and detects that something's not quite right about it.

 

What you've re-published here is an 800'000-year x-axis which is very compressed, what we see here are merely averages. And herein lies the problem: If the creators were honest and open, they'd have to stretch the axis all the way, year by year. I bet the difference in CO2 levels today compared to earlier decades, millennia and whatnot wouldn't be that evident or "eye-catching", because you'd see much more spikes going way past the 400 PPM range.

 

Shame few people see past such a simplified and misleading graph, opting to believe what they see instead.

This is what I'd call propaganda to serve a particular cause.

Noticed this little debate on the legitimacy of the above graph, so thought I'd look up the source. 

 

It's here, alongside a more condensed graph on CO2 levels - so if you wanted to read the report that goes alongside both here you go. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Line-X said:

If there is one positive to the current situation, it is my wish that it will afford appreciation throughout governments, administrations and some citizens of the world to visualise and accept the fragility and impermanence of our tenure on the earth. The current not only reinforces the human cost of viral pandemic but the wider implications of AMR which is as big a threat as climate change or nuclear annihilation. 

 

If you factor the odds of a volcanic super-eruption together with the chances of a major comet/asteroid impact threatening civilisation - projected at 1 in 5,000 per 100 years - on this alone, an extinction event comes out at 1 in 335 per 100 years. To put this in perspective, the average human is more likely to die from one of the above than we are to get killed in the crash of a commercial airliner. 

 

To an extent, the current situation has torn at the veneer of normality, and stripped away the flimsy facade of security with a sobering realisation that we are all vulnerable - ironically, even within the relative sanctity of our own homes, surrounded and furnished by perceived first world assurance of the modern technological age. 

 

On the otherside of this lockdown, we have to learn to nourish our insight into impermanence every day. This has provided a glimpse into the ephemeral nature of our species. If we do, we will live more deeply, suffer less, and enjoy life much more. To echo Alan Watts, man suffers because of his craving to possess and keep forever things which are essentially impermanent. But it's also about saving us from ourselves. Sustaining life on a habitable planet isn't simply about solar panels and wind turbines, but whether humanity can become better and wiser to avoid our own catastrophe. 

And if we wish to endure as a species, then we have to really start looking to get off this rock. In the last tenth of a percent of the lifetime of our species, in the instant between Aristarchus and ourselves, we reluctantly noticed that we were not the centre and purpose of the universe. All species become spacefaring or extinct. As long as we are a single-planet species, we are vulnerable to extinction by a planet-wide catastrophe, natural or self-induced. The single simplest reason why human space flight is necessary, stated as plainly as possible: keeping all your breeding pairs in one place is a ****ing dumb way to run a species. As the late Stephen Hawking opined, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

I hope that you're right, but given the very human ability to rationalise the truth, I fear that this might just be another crisis that humanity gets over and carries on in the same self-interested way as before.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Google eco-fascism, its underlying ideas are already beginning to take hold in some small sections of society. I think it is inevitable that it will be big in many countries, especially once climate refugees really start to kick into another gear.

Yep, I'm aware of it (there's been hints of it back in this thread already - "too many brown people being a drain on the environment!...oh, sorry, no, 'birth rates are too high in third world countries and they really won't reassert themselves with a better standard of living', there, that sounds better!") and eco-fascism is exhibit A for the above.

[whoareyaaa]

On 01/03/2020 at 04:05, leicsmac said:

A thought occurs to me:

 

As much as it is needed to convince certain parts of the world that climate change is in fact a real problem...what happens when that is successful (either by successful persuasion or by the Earth making it blatantly clear)? How long before the first set of power cuts in poor neighbourhoods at scheduled times, or personal transportation cut off to all but the wealthy and public transportation still wildly unfit for purpose?

 

Because you can bet if the people who deny the effects of climate change right now because it doesn't affect them personally have control over the response when they deny it no longer, that response will certainly not be even-handed.

 

Might make one long for the days where they simply denied it all.

Check out Agenda 2030 this is what's happening now

[SpacedX]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I hope that you're right, but given the very human ability to rationalise the truth, I fear that this might just be another crisis that humanity gets over and carries on in the same self-interested way as before.

 

You'll no doubt be familiar with all this, but it's quite sobering in type. On Thursday 23rd March 1989, an asteroid weighing 50 million tons and larger than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier intersected the earth's orbit missing the planet by a mere 400,000miles. That's six ****ing hours. Six hours earlier, the earth had been precisely at the point where the asteroid crossed. It was travelling at 46,000mph and had not been detected until after the event. Had it struck the planet the energy released would have been equivalent to 2,500 one megaton H bombs. Very few people learnt about this near cataclysmic event because at the same time the Exxon Valdez ran aground, dumping 11.3 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. The horror and magnitude of this environmental disaster dominated headlines and front pages for weeks and asteroid 4581 Asclepius was lucky to get column space. In In 1937, an asteroid that astronomers named Hermes passed within 200,000 miles of Earth - this may have been a mile across. At the same time, Hitler was causing arses to twitch by reversing the treaty of Versailles, uniting with Austria and ominously mobilising the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland. 

 

This is understandably not something that concerns us in our daily lives which is why last year when an asteroid travelling at 50,000 passed within 40,000 miles of the planet very few knew about it. Had it been around the middle of the size range estimates it could have released the equivalent explosive energy of about 10 megatons of TNT similar to the 1908 Tunguska airburst. Two major bolide events are predicted every century. Imagine that over NYC or Tokyo. The energy released by an impactor is governed by diameter, density, velocity, and angle. Apparently, the diameter of most near-Earth apollo asteroids that have not been measured by radar or infrared can typically only be estimated within about a factor of two based on the asteroid brightness. On April 13 2029 Apophis passes within a distance of around 19,262 miles from Earth's surface - a hair's breadth in astronomical terms and ten times closer than the moon, and also within the orbits of man made geostationary satellites. Because of the proximity, it will be as bright as magnitude 3.1. It will be the closest asteroid of its size in recorded history. Had it have passed through an admittedly very small gravitational key hole then that would have placed in on an irreversible trajectory to strike the earth in 2036 - (which is precisely when I was intending to retire!!). 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

You'll no doubt be familiar with all this, but it's quite sobering in type. On Thursday 23rd March 1989, an asteroid weighing 50 million tons and larger than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier intersected the earth's orbit missing the planet by a mere 400,000miles. That's six ****ing hours. Six hours earlier, the earth had been precisely at the point where the asteroid crossed. It was travelling at 46,000mph and had not been detected until after the event. Had it struck the planet the energy released would have been equivalent to 2,500 one megaton H bombs. Very few people learnt about this near cataclysmic event because at the same time the Exxon Valdez ran aground, dumping 11.3 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. The horror and magnitude of this environmental disaster dominated headlines and front pages for weeks and asteroid 4581 Asclepius was lucky to get column space. In In 1937, an asteroid that astronomers named Hermes passed within 200,000 miles of Earth - this may have been a mile across. At the same time, Hitler was causing arses to twitch by reversing the treaty of Versailles, uniting with Austria and ominously mobilising the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland. 

 

This is understandably not something that concerns us in our daily lives which is why last year when an asteroid travelling at 50,000 passed within 40,000 miles of the planet very few knew about it. Had it been around the middle of the size range estimates it could have released the equivalent explosive energy of about 10 megatons of TNT similar to the 1908 Tunguska airburst. Two major bolide events are predicted every century. Imagine that over NYC or Tokyo. The energy released by an impactor is governed by diameter, density, velocity, and angle. Apparently, the diameter of most near-Earth apollo asteroids that have not been measured by radar or infrared can typically only be estimated within about a factor of two based on the asteroid brightness. On April 13 2029 Apophis passes within a distance of around 19,262 miles from Earth's surface - a hair's breadth in astronomical terms and ten times closer than the moon, and also within the orbits of man made geostationary satellites. Because of the proximity, it will be as bright as magnitude 3.1. It will be the closest asteroid of its size in recorded history. Had it have passed through an admittedly very small gravitational key hole then that would have placed in on an irreversible trajectory to strike the earth in 2036 - (which is precisely when I was intending to retire!!). 

Yep, impact events are a keen area of study of mine. Most sobering.

 

Thankfully, however, we have most of the ones over 1km in size accounted for. But there's always the few we don't, and ones smaller than that (a few hundred metres) can still give a population centre a very, very bad day if they're unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the right time - 4581 Asclepius, for instance, would have come down with overall energy of over 1 Gigaton of TNT and would have left a crater 3 miles in diameter.

 

All of this is one of a variety of reasons to actually get out there - but like the current Covid-19 crisis, humans seems bound and determined, for the most part, to think "it will never happen to me".

[Nalis]

Latest issue of National Geographic is interesting 50 years on from the first Earth Day with a focus on what 2070 will look like for the planet. Half of the issue dedicated to the optimistic outlook and the other half on the pessimistic outlook.

[Nicolo Barella]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Latest issue of National Geographic is interesting 50 years on from the first Earth Day with a focus on what 2070 will look like for the planet. Half of the issue dedicated to the optimistic outlook and the other half on the pessimistic outlook.

To be honest it felt like they included the optimistic one just for a bit of a gimmick... It didn't feel very convincing at all. Maybe that's just my current mood though. Like, the big success she starts off with to imbue us with a bit of hope is that cars are cleaner than they were in the 70s... that's a bare minimum improvement, and completely neglects how many times the electric car industry has been totally quashed by the rest of the automobile industry. Cars are also still one of the major contributors to climate change. Her thing about change sometimes being really quick also rings hollow - yes, cars replaced horses in fifteen years, because of the extreme economic incentives. Acting to stop Climate Change is literally the opposite of economic incentive. That's why its still a problem, and wasn't solved like the ozone layer.

 

Also, "The purist idea that all species can be sorted into “native” or “invasive” will be retired. It never made much sense anyway." This triggered me more than I'm willing to admit, even with the addendum that island nations like New Zealand would be exceptions to the rule.

[whoareyaaa]

7 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

To be honest it felt like they included the optimistic one just for a bit of a gimmick... It didn't feel very convincing at all. Maybe that's just my current mood though. Like, the big success she starts off with to imbue us with a bit of hope is that cars are cleaner than they were in the 70s... that's a bare minimum improvement, and completely neglects how many times the electric car industry has been totally quashed by the rest of the automobile industry. Cars are also still one of the major contributors to climate change. Her thing about change sometimes being really quick also rings hollow - yes, cars replaced horses in fifteen years, because of the extreme economic incentives. Acting to stop Climate Change is literally the opposite of economic incentive. That's why its still a problem, and wasn't solved like the ozone layer.

 

Also, "The purist idea that all species can be sorted into “native” or “invasive” will be retired. It never made much sense anyway." This triggered me more than I'm willing to admit, even with the addendum that island nations like New Zealand would be exceptions to the rule.

All governments are currently in the process of making this happen by 2030... how much this virus plays apart we will never know. 

 

this is from the UN

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

All governments are currently in the process of making this happen by 2030... how much this virus plays apart we will never know. 

 

this is from the UN

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

Unfortunately, in this regard there is often a big difference between what every big nation says it's going to do and what they actually do.

[Nicolo Barella]

2 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

All governments are currently in the process of making this happen by 2030... how much this virus plays apart we will never know. 

 

this is from the UN

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

None of it is binding, I'll be surprised if we manage to get enough done in time to prevent serious ecosystem collapse

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

None of it is binding, I'll be surprised if we manage to get enough done in time to prevent serious ecosystem collapse

I hope you're wrong, but who knows?

 

The problem is, as is being shown in a limited scale with Coronavirus now, is that too few people seek to plant trees when they know that they themselves will never see the shade they give.

[SpacedX]

50 years ago...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52264743

 

Incredible images. The temperature in the stricken SCM Odyssey plunged to about 3°C and the Lunar Module, Aquarius, which acted as the 'lifeboat' was only marginally warmer. Had the accident happened on the return journey, minus the LEM, the crew would have been doomed. 

 

Amusingly, On April, 1970, the Grumman Aerospace Corporation - the manufacturers of the Lunar Module - despatched a prank $312,421.24 invoice for towing services to North American Rockwell who made the service module that malfunctioned and had to be returned to earth under the power of the LEM.

 

The actual problem was not with Rockwell, but instead due to a lack of due diligence at NASA not cross checking their own orders and contractor work. The manufacturer of the O2 tanks in the CSM, Beech Aircraft were supposed to have replaced a 28 volt thermostat switch with a 65 volt version, but failed to do so. Something that simple, a component costing a few cents, nearly grounded the $25 billion Apollo programme for good and almost claimed the lives of three brave men. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52312260

 

Well. Bugger.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52312260

 

Well. Bugger.

Just on the off chance we have any species from other planets, galaxies or dimensions reading - “See, this is how you make a proper mess of your planet” 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Just on the off chance we have any species from other planets, galaxies or dimensions reading - “See, this is how you make a proper mess of your planet” 

Don't worry, the threat of pending global collapse has driven ratings of the TV show "Terran Shore" through the roof on at least two dozen colonised planets.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Don't worry, the threat of pending global collapse has driven ratings of the TV show "Terran Shore" through the roof on at least two dozen colonised planets.

Suppose if we are going down, might as well make it in flames 

[leicsmac]

Doesn't seem all that important right now, but exciting times next month:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52333932

[ozleicester]

Possibly the most depressing movie ive ever watched.

The deniers will love it.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Good test. Always good to know things can be handled even if it all goes wildly Pete Tong.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52530828

 

Some good news!