/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2673340
>We'll have to decide: is it ethical/moral for us to try to freeze earth in the image we have of it

Morality is the crutch of the coward.

No one is saying we want to destroy the biosphere tomorrow, but when it becomes techologically and economically viable to replace the biosphere with human artifice which serves only our interests without pandering to the wasteful interests of other species then we will allow the biosphere to die.

We really shouldn't even bother to prevent global warming. Cheaper to just use up the hydrocarbons to provide energy to jump start our creation of nuclear fission plants. The nuclear fuel in turn will be used up to jumpstart our move into space. From their we will begin creating dyson swarms around suitable stellar objects. Of course whenever we find new hydrocarbons or fissionable material we will use that as well.

The bioshphere will not die for a thousand years or more. But in the fullness of time it will die. We are replacing it with an environment in which we alone are fit to survive.

>>2361136
>Needs motivations
>Has emotional attachments
>Doesn't want be efficient like a machine
My sensors detect pansy

I want to be a bionicist and spend my career turning people into pretty little machines. What kind of qualifications do I need?

Pic related I guess.

>>2149069
Since we have not been hit with an rvk yet, earth was not disessembled, and there are Bracewell probes in our solar system there are a few hypotheses I have regarding the state of intelligent life in the universe.
1. We are alone; there are no other communicative technological races. It could be that we are the first or they are all dead.
2. Others never developed technology. Essentially that would make them luddites, which means they will be good for target practice.
3. They aren't communicative and don't make rock'n weapons of slaughter on a galactic scale like we want to. So they are sissies and they will die by our hand. Even if they are a billion times as technologically advanced as we are, by the time that we meet them we will have disassembled the planetary bodies of several stellar systems and will outnumber them a trillion to one, effectively outnumbering them a thousand to one. Zerg Rush, Zerg Rush, Zerg Rush!

Death to the Alien! Who probably does not exist, but better safe than sorry.

>>2036733
Fossil fuels
Pro: cheap, two of them are fluids and easily transported in pipelines, 1:10 energy input to output ratio for finished products, infrastructure in place, 78 year supply of oil that can be made into gasoline that costs less then 4.000 2001USD, 250-300 year supply of coal, 125 year supply of natural gas(200 with shale gas).
At least according to the AAPG.

Cons: Burning increases particulate count, few spills, oh no a 2.9(0.9m) foot sea level rise by 2125, 1.9-2.9 F(1C) temperature increase.

We are going to be using this stuff for quite a while. Simply put the benefits of the energy source allow use to quickly advance mechanization, which is more important to our long term survival than the biosphere.