[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.2017857 [View]

>>2017782
If you are refferring to nukes, then yes. A direct war between two nuclear powers might very well brake mankind's legs and leave him for dead in a radioactive wasteland. However, nukes might ironically be have been such a game changer that is is their very existence that has kept us from WWIII.

That isn't to say I like nukes existing. I would find it horribly depressing to resign humanity to keeping a gun against its own head for the sake of peace. I hope that we can one day be rid of WMD's and still maintain a stable world political system. Which then leads me to the depressingly common dislike of the notion of a world government... Damn, this thread brought me up but my train of thought has brought me down. :(

>> No.2017808 [View]

>>2017738
>>2017729
>>2017705
It only increases technological progress in select areas. A lot of development in one area is simply more obvious than a little development in many fields.

And keep in mind, war destroys a lot of infrastructure, which decreases long term production capacity. War is such a horribly wasteful period in human history. The only benefit is it motivates populations to stop bying superfluous crap to make their lives more enjoyable and makes them more productive, but even then all that added productivity simply goes to making tanks which are subsequently destroyed or left to rust after the war.

>> No.2017759 [View]
File: 478 KB, 472x471, cosmos_face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2017759

>>2015036
It is a common theory that technological progress is inherently exponential, I disagree... that is I disagree that it is INHERENTLY exponential.

Why would it be exponential? You bring up the idea that the more avenues of research we have the more quickly we advance, but having many things to study doesn't mean one has the ability to study them all simultaneously. The most obvious way to theoretically increase the rate of technological advancement is to increase either the number or researchers or the resources they have to carry out that research.

So, the actual reason rate technological development is increasing is because the world population is increasing, and along with it the number of researchers (scientists and engineers) generally increases. Current population size and the amount of resources we have are of course only possible due to our technological level, so it CAN be said that technology begets more technology, however that is only indirectly true. If, for example, humanity is forced to limit its population growth and the productivity is not increasing nor is the number of scientists and engineers then technological progress will become geometric rather than exponential.

tl;dr - Technological progress is not inherently exponential, but instead simply a function of the number or researchers and their funding.

>> No.2014237 [View]

>>2014145
>Today we are able to say that two atoms of the same elements are statistically indistinguishable, therefore we can assume that there is a real, empiric basis for numbers.

I disagree. The definition of numbers has absolutely nothing do observation because it makes no claim on reality. Therefore the idea that numbers having an empirical basis is absurd. It's like saying the rules of chess have an empirical basis. The definition of numbers and the rules of chess are what they are irrespective of universe we live in and what we know about it.

>> No.2014203 [View]

>>2014114
>>2014111
I have very little of anything for philosophers aside from my disdain, but I have thought about this enough to think I have a complete enough position on this matter:

We can't be sure of anything aside from "I think therefor I am". Beyond that we can receive input, which is where things get fuzzy and lend themselves doubt. For example, you can't be sure you are typing on a computer, you can't even be sure your fingers are feeling any sort of pressure which correlate with presses of keys. The only thing you can be sure of is that you are receiving data through what you assume is your nervous system.

However, there is the issue of practicality. In order to achieve goals one must not require absolute certainty of every shred information they have. That is why we have "Practical Truths". I'm not sure what I am typing on is what I would call a computer, but I'm going to call it a computer anyways with all the questionable implications that go along with that (for example, me calling it a computer implies the box next to me is actually a motherboard despite me not knowing its there) because it is practically useful to call it a computer. In short, all observations have inherent doubt, but that doesn't mean the observation is without use.

And aside from observation there is logic, which goes back to what we DEFINE to be true. If I define the number one by its role in the equation 1+1=2, then I can know with absolute certainty that 1+1=2, because I defined it to be true. The same is true of everything within mathematics save axioms. We define a few terms and then extrapolate the implications of those definitons. Truths derived strictly from definitions instead of observations are "Absolute Truths".

Before anyone occuses me of being a philosophy major, I'd like to say that I see this perspective of the world as a strictly scientific. In science ALL observations have inherent uncertainty.

>> No.2014095 [View]

>>2014067
Well then the OP sucks at communicating because he outright said
> everything we know could be wrong.

>> No.2014090 [View]

>>2014068
No offense, but I don't see your argument as worth enough of my time to argue against. Hopefully this is just a bad day for your communication skills.

>> No.2014066 [View]
File: 292 KB, 1680x1050, Apollo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2014066

>>2014051
The fuck was the purpose of that shop?

>> No.2014061 [View]

>everything we know could be wrong.
You proved that statement to be wrong in your own post. 1+1=2 cannot be wrong because we define numbers. We will never discover 1+1=3 because we know exactly what numbers mean... BECAUSE WE MADE THE DEFINITION!

>> No.2014058 [DELETED]  [View]

>everything we know could be wrong.
You proved that statement to be wrong in your own post. 1+1=2 cannot be wrong because we define numbers. We will never discover 1+1=2 because we know exactly what numbers mean... BECAUSE WE MADE THE DEFINITION!

>> No.2014296 [View]

>>2014279
I don't give a damn about what people used to think and I don't see how their opinions matter itt.

>> No.2014048 [View]

>>2014034
> linear path of using minerals
I think it's obvious that your post needs some elaboration.

>freeewrite
My bandwidth is too sucky to spend time googling that.

>> No.2014286 [View]

>>2014116
>>2014099
Temperature is just an approximation of the average kinetic energy of the particles within a sample. Individual particles within any sample however have a wide range of kinetic energies. Even if the average temperature of many particles is less than 100 C, the "temperature" (as it relates to kinetic energy) of an individual particle could be well above 100 C.

>> No.2014272 [View]

>Does the future of human civilisation really lie in space exploration? Why/why not?
If the chance of a nuclear war is 1 in a thousand every year, then you bet your ass human civilization requires space colinizaiton. Even the exchange of 100 nukes between India and Pakistan would reduce crop yields across the planet, killing a billion and starting up countless brushfire wars across the world. If thousands of nukes are exchanged then kiss our species collective ass goodbye.

>> No.2014020 [View]
File: 8 KB, 146x160, kimiko1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2014020

>>2014010
Well then I apologize. I understand the difficulties of a computer living in a society today. But may I suggest simply NOT using 'mfw'.

>> No.2014258 [View]

>>2014234
I read through my post and only found one error (I mean to say a motherboard within the box), which hardly warrants a grammar-nazi post such as yours.

>> No.2014008 [View]

>>2013955
1) I just focussed on the word capitalism in my original post to fish for posters. 60% of the time, rage threads draw posters 100% of the time.

2) What I was arguing in the Original Post was that humanity will save itself from extinction by colonizing space without effort on the part of anyone who actually gives a damn about the long term survival of humanity.

>> No.2013996 [View]
File: 10 KB, 215x120, kimiko9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2013996

>>2013945
MFW you said MFW but posted no face.

>> No.2013980 [View]

>>2013930
A) Like you said, the figure was probably bias. Plus 83% of figures are made up.

B) I'm sure a complete abandonment of every industrial process that involves oil would lead to the a HUGE drop in our ability to feed the world. However what we produce from oil can many times be produced through some other means albeit at a greater cost. The processes that can't due without oil will be abandoned by some other oil-independent process will likely takes its place; but again, at a greater cost.

Oil isn't going to disappear overnight. Cheaply accessible oil will diminish so people will start using oil shale. The cost of energy will go up so the market will fund alternative sources of energy.

And no one get me wrong, I actually encourage governments stepping in to some degree to help out in case of transition periods such as the upcoming loss of cheap oil. It is great to get the ball rolling BEFORE the bubble bursts.

You see, what I am arguing is that humanity doesn't need to have hundreds of millions of selfless people to provide obscene amounts of money in order to colonize space and save our species despite it not having any real current threat of extinction. Humanity would save itslef even if everyone on Earth was the most selfish prick imaginable. We don't have a choice in the matter. Nukes might kill us all, but it sure won't be greed.

>> No.2013933 [View]

>>2013884
Subsidies? I mean to imply no such thing. And don't use the word socialsm as it is used in American politics as if it contrasts capitalism. Capitlaism in its broadest sense is practissed in damn near every nation on Earth save perhaps The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

>> No.2013909 [View]

>>2013843
Just because intelligence may be evenly distributed doesn't mean the number of technically trained workers that comes out of different populations is evenly distributed, as you already pointed out in passing. The same rule that applies to loss in production still applies for loss of technological progress. There will be some loss of course, it would be absurd to think otherwise, but the loss would be far from disabling when it comes to humanities ability to mine near Earth objects.

>> No.2013875 [View]

>>2013782
Well sure people will die with the loss of oil. Every single drop in the global economy kills someone because each market hiccup means one less shipment out of countless shipments left port, which means food prices are going up a cent or two in some densely populated Indian city, which means at least some families won't feed their sick children as well as they should, which means at least one of those sick children will die. A major market decline would obviously kill many people.

My point however is that there will be no apocalypse. The wealthiest nations will buy up however much food they need, relatively no one would die of starvation on account of diminished agricultural production capacity, especially the United States which could sustain itself even if it's agricultural production was cut in half. The populations within nations that can't feed their populations won't up and die though. A large amount of agricultural land doesn't even use fertilizers or mechanization. The loss of fertilizer (which won't be complete even if oil dried up tomorrow) would no doubt affect the farms that do use it leading to many deaths, but keep in mind, human agricultural production is far from its limit today. If anything, we could produce a lot more if we only got the farms not using fertilizers and mechanization to start using it.

>> No.2013826 [View]
File: 6 KB, 540x540, Untitled.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2013826

>>2013758
>but will the new sources support populations of 7-12 billion souls
You seem to be implying that the global market will be strained by humanity's inability to provide for the poorest among us. But we both know that isn't the case. Millions die every year from malnutrition. If resources dwindle to the point of it being nearly impossible to support 10 billion people then 2 billion poor people will starve to death, but production capacity will remain relatively the same. Those 2 billion died instead of another 2 billion because they had the least ability to pay for food, which means they didn't have jobs, which means they deaths mean relatively little for global production capacity.

tl'dr - starvation affects those who produce the least

>> No.2013769 [View]

>>2013668
1) A good portion of humanity is already starving, and yet here we are working jobs to pay for a new playstation (for playing blu-rays of course).

2) A good portion of agriculture is carried out by hand still, completely indpeendent of of mineral deposits.

3) With the vas VAST majority of humanitieis wealth/production capacity centralized within a relatively small population within a few nations the sudden and apparently magical death of the poorest people on Earth will do little to reduce demand. On the contrary, with so little now going to increasing the quality of life of the billions of people living in poverty stricken nations more resources will be freed up for the richest of the rich to secure new supplies of vital resources in space.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]