New telescope is going to revolutionize what we know about our universe

[QUOTE=bladefd]Bigger philosophical issue. Why would we want to stop evolution of humans at this early stage even if it were possible? Do the ends of that justify the means? Current Homo Sapiens are still a very young species. By stopping cell degeneration, you are essentially stopping evolution of humans to where it is now. So that's it? We will be at this stage forever and ever? Screw that. Humans will be bit different genetically in 15,000-20,000 years. I don't want that process to stop. We are still a very flawed species if you really think about it. We are only a few steps over chimps for crying out loud (we share what? 97% of dna?).

Then comes to ethics issues. Face it - if you change the DNA makeup of a few, you have to alter it for everyone, regardless of class, race, gender, skin color, etc. Who or what gets to decide that? Money? **** that. If money were to buy you immortality so that would mean the rich right now would never die and so they would stay rich forever. The poor? They would die every generation and so never gather any wealth/resources. Same rich dominate the world forever?[/QUOTE]

No what I am saying is it is a natural process; the Y chromosome is destroying ape-like phenotypes within our DNA; this is why we are not as strong as them, why we don't have thick fur to protect us from the environment, and why our feet is not flat to walk long distances. If we are evolving based on the conflictual environment, then it would go to reason we would develope those traits for us to survive better.

We are not becoming more ape-like; our DNA is destroying those ape genes to make us intelligent beings and we are evolving through intelligence and not any physical means.

Compare a human to an ape as far as intelligence goes: seriously do you think we are in the same ball park at all. An ape's greatest mental accomplishment is pulling ants out of a hole with a twig; dude we are studying dark matter and about to conquer space.

That's the difference. We might be 98% ape DNA, but that small 2% (which resides in the Y chromosome) is making a killing, and guess what, we don't know where it came from since no other species on earth could've of passed it on to us. We are one of a kind.

[QUOTE=bladefd]Bigger philosophical issue. Why would we want to stop evolution of humans at this early stage even if it were possible? Do the ends of that justify the means? Current Homo Sapiens are still a very young species. By stopping cell degeneration, you are essentially stopping evolution of humans to where it is now. So that's it? We will be at this stage forever and ever? Screw that. Humans will be bit different genetically in 15,000-20,000 years. I don't want that process to stop. We are still a very flawed species if you really think about it. We are only a few steps over chimps for crying out loud (we share what? 97% of dna?).

Then comes to ethics issues. Face it - if you change the DNA makeup of a few, you have to alter it for everyone, regardless of class, race, gender, skin color, etc. Who or what gets to decide that? Money? **** that. If money were to buy you immortality so that would mean the rich right now would never die and so they would stay rich forever. The poor? They would die every generation and so never gather any wealth/resources. Same rich dominate the world forever?[/QUOTE]

I suppose that it would be a given that in a scenario in which we could do that to our own DNA we would tamper with evolution. But simply because we remove the aging process wouldn't mean we would stop evolution. Death would still happen because the tech won't protect us from other threats, simply our own aging. So the mutations, which would NEED to occur eventually, could still go down.

I still feel like the biggest hurdle would be mentally. Think about the memories aspect of it. 1000 years of memory? I'm not sure our information recall system could handle that without some form of augmentation. Everything would blur, your brain would be a mess.

See I'd love to live to be 1000 years so I could just keep learning and discovering all the things I wouldn't otherwise have the chance to. But that it a moot point if I don't remember discovering the things because then I'd still feel like I do right now.

[QUOTE=bladefd]Bigger philosophical issue. Why would we want to stop evolution of humans at this early stage even if it were possible? Do the ends of that justify the means? Current Homo Sapiens are still a very young species. By stopping cell degeneration, you are essentially stopping evolution of humans to where it is now. So that's it? We will be at this stage forever and ever? Screw that. Humans will be bit different genetically in 15,000-20,000 years. I don't want that process to stop. We are still a very flawed species if you really think about it. We are only a few steps over chimps for crying out loud (we share what? 97% of dna?).

Then comes to ethics issues. Face it - if you change the DNA makeup of a few, you have to alter it for everyone, regardless of class, race, gender, skin color, etc. Who or what gets to decide that? Money? **** that. If money were to buy you immortality so that would mean the rich right now would never die and so they would stay rich forever. The poor? They would die every generation and so never gather any wealth/resources. Same rich dominate the world forever?[/QUOTE]

If we can alter our DNA we can speed up evolution...we can create perfect flawless beings

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]If we can alter our DNA we can speed up evolution...we can create perfect flawless beings[/QUOTE]

Even with all of our advancement we will never be as effective as nature when it comes to determining what a flawless being is. As the environment changes so too will the need and we will [U]never[/U] be able to be as efficient as evolution is in that regard. I rarely deal in absolutes but I am confident in that statement.

If evolution is capitalism then us trying to create flawless beings in communism.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]

we can remove it from our DNA...it is possible, and many predict it to happen somewhere in the somewhat near future...I think most are guesstimating 40 or so years[/QUOTE]


I would pay arm and legs for this, but then what's the point? LOL

Seriously, there are talks about cell regeneration technology and I am all ears and interested in this as well. My only problem is, let's say I do this and have the funds for it, and let's say I don't want to die and decide to live much longer or forever even, how would I be viewed in the eyes of God? For sure I would be Public Enemy #1

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]I would pay arm and legs for this, but then what's the point? LOL

Seriously, there are talks about cell regeneration technology and I am all ears and interested in this as well. My only problem is, let's say I do this and have the funds for it, and let's say I don't want to die and decide to live much longer or forever even, how would I be viewed in the eyes of God? For sure I would be Public Enemy #1[/QUOTE]

What God? You don't see me asking what James Bond thinks about my fashion sense, or if it's ok with Gandalf to make fun of midgets...

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]If we can alter our DNA we can speed up evolution...we can create perfect flawless beings[/QUOTE]

Flawless people could make humanity weaker in some ways. There would be no need for compassion. Our strongest trait is that we have the capacity to care for our weakest members. Remove them and I don't want to see how society turns out. Probably something akin to Nazi Germany. And I'm not being facetious. Not everything we do is genetic, some of it is learnt, and creating a race of perfect clones will probably lead to some type of elitist and unsympathetic alien race.

[QUOTE=macmac]What God? You don't see me asking what James Bond thinks about my fashion sense, or if it's ok with Gandalf to make fun of midgets...[/QUOTE]


Oh my bad, that's right there is no God. Carry on bruh, let me post about my God, son.

[QUOTE=miller-time]Flawless people could make humanity weaker in some ways. There would be no need for compassion. Our strongest trait is that we have the capacity to care for our weakest members. Remove them and I don't want to see how society turns out. Probably something akin to Nazi Germany. And I'm not being facetious. Not everything we do is genetic, some of it is learnt, and creating a race of perfect clones will probably lead to some type of elitist and unsympathetic alien race.[/QUOTE]

This is true. The more we evolve, the less we will be humane; this is because the Y chromosome is destroying a lot of genetic codes that make us more animalistic. I think humans are inevitably evil because of this process: as we evolve, we will be more intelligent beings and less connected with nature. Why the Y is doing this to our genetic, we have no idea, but it is what makes us human: we don't have fur, flat feet, and many other phenotypes that will keep us as apes.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]Even with all of our advancement we will never be as effective as nature when it comes to determining what a flawless being is. As the environment changes so too will the need and we will [U]never[/U] be able to be as efficient as evolution is in that regard. I rarely deal in absolutes but I am confident in that statement.

If evolution is capitalism then us trying to create flawless beings in communism.[/QUOTE]
The human race has already screwed over evolution due to medicine and technology...we no longer have alpha males, every male of every type with every flaw is producing children now...so many people are born with issues that would never come up in nature.

In nature, there is no hospital...if you are flawed you die or don't reproduce.

[QUOTE=miller-time]Flawless people could make humanity weaker in some ways. There would be no need for compassion. Our strongest trait is that we have the capacity to care for our weakest members. Remove them and I don't want to see how society turns out. Probably something akin to Nazi Germany. And I'm not being facetious. Not everything we do is genetic, some of it is learnt, and creating a race of perfect clones will probably lead to some type of elitist and unsympathetic alien race.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I wouldnt want humanity to do that. Just extending our lives and removing our major birth defects is fine with me.

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
We are not becoming more ape-like; our DNA is destroying those ape genes to make us intelligent beings and we are evolving through intelligence and not any physical means.

Compare a human to an ape as far as intelligence goes: seriously do you think we are in the same ball park at all. An ape's greatest mental accomplishment is pulling ants out of a hole with a twig; dude we are studying dark matter and about to conquer space.

That's the difference. We might be 98% ape DNA, but that small 2% (which resides in the Y chromosome) is making a killing, and guess what, we don't know where it came from since no other species on earth could've of passed it on to us. We are one of a kind.[/QUOTE]

So a human being with 2% more DNA difference will be making a killing over our current self. With our current self, we have the Hubble telescope, the spaceshuttle, studying dark matter, etc as opposed to chimps being able to use stick tools to pulls ants out of a hole. Imagine a human being with 2% DNA difference from us. What will they be doing?

[QUOTE=bladefd]So a human being with 2% more DNA difference will be making a killing over our current self. With our current self, we have the Hubble telescope, the spaceshuttle, studying dark matter, etc as opposed to chimps being able to use stick tools to pulls ants out of a hole. Imagine a human being with 2% DNA difference from us. What will they be doing?[/QUOTE]

I would hypothesize their brains would be much larger and the body would be much smaller, shorter than the typical human. That 2% is actually destroying phenotype genes that make us ape-like, so if we multiply that capacity by 2X, I'm willing to bet those humans can be capable of consciousness projection (3rd eye), telepathy, and various other spiritual new age voodoo stuff normal humans don't believe in because they can't view it objectively. That's just a guess. That 2% is such a small portion of our genetic makeup, but it is probably responsible for 99% of our human capacity. The 98% ape genes have very little to do with who we are as humans.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]The human race has already screwed over evolution due to medicine and technology...we no longer have alpha males, every male of every type with every flaw is producing children now...so many people are born with issues that would never come up in nature.

In nature, there is no hospital...if you are flawed you die or don't reproduce.[/QUOTE]

We haven't screwed it over because we have changed our environment. So really it's just a part of it, we have evolved through our environment to the point we can change it to suit us. We have extended lives, and even completely wiped out species threatening to us. But when the environment changes on US and we need to adapt we won't be able to create our own changes as well as nature would.

I'm having a hard time saying what I'm thinking. Does that make sense?

[QUOTE=Graviton]Eh poor little humans, trying to discover something they obviously can't comprehend.

How about focusing on Earth and how to sustain it and better it for the future instead of wasting all those resources on space programs and irrelevant information we have no use for.

Humans using their telescopes to "guess" what is out there is no different than an curious ant trying to figure out what's that big shoe that stomps them all the time.[/QUOTE]

tldr; we should retreat back into our caves because things are hard to do.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]We haven't screwed it over because we have changed our environment. So really it's just a part of it, we have evolved through our environment to the point we can change it to suit us. We have extended lives, and even completely wiped out species threatening to us. But when the environment changes on US and we need to adapt we won't be able to create our own changes as well as nature would.

I'm having a hard time saying what I'm thinking. Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]
Kind of understand, but if medicine and technology count as part of our evolution then wouldn't DNA modification count as well?

[QUOTE=shlver]No, we should be more focused on the ocean or other uninhabited areas on earth for colonization, not space. The costs are too prohibitive and our technology too primitive to even consider it.[/QUOTE]

Why not both? Explore everything.

Honestly, cost would have little to do with it if world governments would get their priorities straight. The money has always been there...it's been flushed down the toilet by militarism, financial swindling and corporate welfare.

There aren't things in our oceans coming up trying to kill us on a massive scale...meanwhile we have asteroids blowing up over our heads with absolutely no way to protect the only planet we have. That should chill every human being on Earth to the bone.

We have plenty of plausible plans on paper to deflect these things - with zero funding.

I'm not even talking about colonization yet...I do agree some of the technologies required aren't there yet to do that overnight but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to colonize another planet (or the moon as a trial run) in the next 50 years. Now is the time to continue to do the groundwork required to prepare for colonization and long-range space exploration for future generations.

Space is the Final Frontier yo. The Ocean is too deep and scary.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]cell degeneration is in our DNA...in all animals DNA

nature has us die because that is the only way animals can evolve...

we can remove it from our DNA...it is possible, and many predict it to happen somewhere in the somewhat near future...I think most are guesstimating 40 or so years[/QUOTE]

as crazy as it sounds...

our cell's regenerate so fast, and as we age we regenerate at a slower pace and the copy of the cell get's corrupted. [B]( that's what aging is, think about making a copy of a picture on copy machine....you have the original photo>>>the copy is slightly worse>>>>>the 2nd copy is slightly worse then the 1rst copy...and so on and so forth.)[/B]

If we can tap into our DNA and make our body grow new cell's as we age....we could live much longer.

the only problem with that idea is....we need to regulate the cell growth also...becuase unregulated cell growth is known as cancer.

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]Why not both? Explore everything.

Honestly, cost would have little to do with it if world governments would get their priorities straight. The money has always been there...it's been flushed down the toilet by militarism, financial swindling and corporate welfare.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand the costs when you say something like this. Infrastructure is needed that protects humans from radiation on planets with no earthlike atmosphere/magnetic field, protection from longterm exposure to microgravity, system for breathable air, etc. All of this has to be deployed en masse for a sizable colonization to even call it colonization. None of this is even on the table for nasa. What is on the table for nasa over the next couple of decades is finding a more cost efficient fuel system.
Even then, if we can find an efficient fuel system to transport the raw materials, we have to develop robots to construct in situ.
[QUOTE]There aren't things in our oceans coming up trying to kill us on a massive scale...meanwhile we have asteroids blowing up over our heads with absolutely no way to protect the only planet we have. That should chill every human being on Earth to the bone.

We have plenty of plausible plans on paper to deflect these things - with zero funding.[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with space colonization?
[QUOTE]I'm not even talking about colonization yet...I do agree some of the technologies required aren't there yet to do that overnight but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to colonize another planet (or the moon as a trial run) in the next 50 years. Now is the time to continue to do the groundwork required to prepare for colonization and long-range space exploration for future generations.[/QUOTE]
No, we're not even close. Where are you getting the idea that we will be able to employ a fully sustainable population and a protective infrastructure as well? The timescale for the next 50 years for nasa is developing more efficient fuel systems to bring the cost per pound down. We are nowhere near the cost efficiency to even consider it.
Resources aren't a reason we should consider space colonization. There are massive sources of untapped resources still on earth. Investing in space colonization now because something will be a problem a couple hundred thousand years from now is not a good idea. Especially when the timescale is several orders of magnitude higher than our existence as a species.
A generous estimate would be 1000 years from now and what I mean by that is a fully sustainable population.

Reading this thread is a trip. Worse than intro biology SI sessions.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]Kind of understand, but if medicine and technology count as part of our evolution then wouldn't DNA modification count as well?[/QUOTE]

Certainly. But what I'm saying is when it comes time to adapt to a new environment we won'tbe nearly as adept at figuring out what changes need to be made as just plain ol evolution would be.

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]
I'm not even talking about colonization yet...I do agree some of the technologies required aren't there yet to do that overnight but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to colonize another planet (or the moon as a trial run) in the next 50 years. Now is the time to continue to do the groundwork required to prepare for colonization and long-range space exploration for future generations.[/QUOTE]

Plus, it also requires research to even be capable of colonization some day. Research comes before technology, ALWAYS. You don't just magically end up with advanced enough technology to colonize elsewhere without lots of research first (maybe centuries' worth of research) and compiling data/information. That is also where sh!ver's thinking is flawed and absolutely not plausible. You don't just go from 'no space research/spending because it's too complex and expensive' to all of a sudden a warp drive.

BTW - a more reasonable estimate for actual colonization.. we are looking at at least ~200 more years within our own solar system. Research continues until we reach a point that we humans can push through to another nearby planet, moon, wherever. We already have the capability and technology to create a very massive platform like ISS, but it costs a lot. Still, it would be absolutely idiotic to think you put research all aside simply because we are not there yet. Takes time.

someone asked me an interesting (and relevant) space travel question the other day-

pretend you won a contest or something, and one of these new privately operated space corporations like [URL="http://www.spacex.com/"]SpaceX[/URL] offered you the chance to be the first human to set foot on mars. you would leave next month. heres the catch:

it takes ~1 year to travel each way, and you will be spending a few months at mars when you get there, so the whole trip will take 2 years absolute minimum.

also, during the trip to mars, you will probably have a ~60% chance of dying. a lot of the technology that will be used is basically unproven, you will only have one month of training/planning, not to mention all of the other dangers of space..... more likely than not, something will go wrong at some point.

i would have to turn the offer down because i dont want to leave my family. however back in the days before i had earthly responsibilities, i probably would have accepted. someday in the not so distant future there will be a first human to set foot on mars, i hope i am still around to see it happen.

[QUOTE=Nanners]someone asked me an interesting (and relevant) space travel question the other day-

pretend you won a contest or something, and one of these new privately operated space corporations like [URL="http://www.spacex.com/"]SpaceX[/URL] offered you the chance to be the first human to set foot on mars. you would leave next month. heres the catch:

it takes ~1 year to travel each way, and you will be spending a few months at mars when you get there, so the whole trip will take 2 years absolute minimum.

also, during the trip to mars, you will probably have a ~60% chance of dying. a lot of the technology that will be used is basically unproven, you will only have one month of training/planning, not to mention all of the other dangers of space..... more likely than not, something will go wrong at some point.

i would have to turn the offer down because i dont want to leave my family. however back in the days before i had earthly responsibilities, i probably would have accepted. someday in the not so distant future there will be a first human to set foot on mars, i hope i am still around to see it happen.[/QUOTE]

I am sure you will see it in your lifetime. The advancements in space is astronomical. We already have bases on the moon, we are developing technologies that will use a tether and act like an elevator to take us from the earth to space bypassing the the atmosphere, and geniuses like Elon Musk are already setting out guidelines on the colonization of Mars.

Space colonization is an undeniable evolution in human kind; it's going to happen sooner than you think.

[QUOTE=bladefd]Plus, it also requires research to even be capable of colonization some day. Research comes before technology, ALWAYS. You don't just magically end up with advanced enough technology to colonize elsewhere without lots of research first (maybe centuries' worth of research) and compiling data/information. That is also where sh!ver's thinking is flawed and absolutely not plausible. You don't just go from 'no space research/spending because it's too complex and expensive' to all of a sudden a warp drive.

BTW - a more reasonable estimate for actual colonization.. we are looking at at least ~200 more years within our own solar system. Research continues until we reach a point that we humans can push through to another nearby planet, moon, wherever. We already have the capability and technology to create a very massive platform like ISS, but it costs a lot. Still, it would be absolutely idiotic to think you put research all aside simply because we are not there yet. Takes time.[/QUOTE]
Good job distorting my position. I never said anything about no funding of space research. Reading comprehension is key here. The goal of NASA over the next 50 years is developing a more efficient fuel and propulsion system.

[QUOTE=shlver]Good job distorting my position. I never said anything about no funding of space research. Reading comprehension is key here. The goal of NASA over the next 50 years is developing a more efficient fuel and propulsion system.[/QUOTE]

You said in numerous posts that it would be pointless to focus on colonizing space because it is 'impossible' and 'too expensive'.

[QUOTE=shlver]Why would we focus efforts on something that might be literally impossible? I'm not sure you understand how much energy, resources, and jumps in technology we would need to colonize space.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=shlver]No, we should be more focused on the ocean or other uninhabited areas on earth for colonization, not space. The costs are too prohibitive and our technology too primitive to even consider it.[/QUOTE]

It's a process that builds over time. Why not start on it right now as we have been for a while now? Nobody is saying to spend hundreds of billions every year to colonize space right now.. The entire NASA budget is $17.6 billion yearly. A tiny chunk of that is spent yearly on research specifically for space colonization. NASA runs hundreds of different projects every year on many other things.

While NASA's goal may be a more efficient fuel-system, it doesn't mean they will put everything else aside and focus entirely on building a better fuel-system/propulsion system. They just focus more on it, but other projects also continue at same time. There are a lot of other short-term goals that can eventually help lead to space colonization and simply more exploration of space ( [url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626738main_HEOMD2012Goals.pdf[/url] )

[QUOTE=bladefd]You said in numerous posts that it would be pointless to focus on colonizing space because it is 'impossible' and 'too expensive'.





It's a process that builds over time. Why not start on it right now as we have been for a while now? Nobody is saying to spend hundreds of billions every year to colonize space right now.. The entire NASA budget is $17.6 billion yearly. A tiny chunk of that is spent yearly on research specifically for space colonization. NASA runs hundreds of different projects every year on many other things.

While NASA's goal may be a more efficient fuel-system, it doesn't mean they will put everything else aside and focus entirely on building a better fuel-system/propulsion system. They just focus more on it, but other projects also continue at same time. There are a lot of other short-term goals that can eventually help lead to space colonization and simply more exploration of space ( [url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626738main_HEOMD2012Goals.pdf[/url] )[/QUOTE]
Yes it is pointless to invest because it IS too expensive right now. That's why the focus is on fuel systems, not space colonization. It is also something we do NOT need, so why invest in it?
What are the reasons for space colonization? If you think those reasons are good enough, understand the requirements of actual implementation of a sizable colonization and then put that into economic and biological contexts and compare it to colonization of uninhabited places on earth. It is nonsense to even give space colonization a consideration and transitions into pure stupidity to invest in space colonization over terrestrial options.

[QUOTE=shlver]Yes it is pointless to invest because it IS too expensive right now. That's why the focus is on fuel systems, not space colonization. It is also something we do NOT need, so why invest in it?
What are the reasons for space colonization? If you think those reasons are good enough, understand the requirements of actual implementation of a sizable colonization and then put that into economic and biological contexts and compare it to colonization of uninhabited places on earth. It is nonsense to even give space colonization a consideration and transitions into pure stupidity to invest in space colonization over terrestrial options.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, nobody (not NASA or any other Scientific organization) is investing very much into it. You're making it seem like there are programs being implemented currently with present plans for human space colonization. We are talking about miniscule amounts (almost all for research that I completely support) with no current plans for going through with it.

There is a lot more money being invested for robotic space colonization though. I think robotic colonization is something that we ought to go through with on a fairly small scale. Much cheaper, plausible, and beneficial than actual human colonization.

[QUOTE=bladefd]Like I said, nobody (not NASA or any other Scientific organization) is investing very much into it. You're making it seem like there are programs being implemented currently with present plans for human space colonization. We are talking about miniscule amounts (almost all for research that I completely support) with no current plans for going through with it.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not I believe it should be funded and if I do, how much it should be funded are both completely irrelevant to my point.
[QUOTE]
There is a lot more money being invested for robotic space colonization though. I think robotic colonization is something that we ought to go through with on a fairly small scale. Much cheaper, plausible, and beneficial than actual human colonization.[/QUOTE]
Yes unmanned missions are much more economical and we should invest in those for exploration and they may pay a return in harvested resources, but manned missions(i'm using this generally) are a colossal sink in resources until we get sufficient technology to make it cost effective. And I'm not even mentioning the other risk factors concerning human health.

[QUOTE=shlver]Whether or not I believe it should be funded and if I do, how much it should be funded are both completely irrelevant to my point.

[/QUOTE]

So what is so great about the ocean and why don't you think we should commit fully to space when it can solve so many humanitarian problems we have today.

Do you know why our economy sucks right. We want to conquer the world for resources (oil); you know why so many people hate us right: we are killing them for resources (oil); do you know why more of us (americans) are going to die because we will engage in more wars right. Again, answer, resources.