Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Humans To Inevitably Destroy Themselves

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

Destruction, or no destruction. It's a 50/50 chance, I'll take them odds.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:28:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Antimatter, as far as I can see, would destroy the printer as soon as it started to form. The 'floating ball of antimatter' presented by Dan Brown is actually completely unfeasible. I personally think that civilizations tend to collapse back into an animalistic state once they run out of whatever energy source powers them. There's also the fact that we're listening for radio waves, but other more advanced civilizations may have already moved past what is, to them, a primitive form of communication. And it's pretty hubristic to think that they'd be interested in earth; if they had adapted to a different ecosystem, one which would be toxic to us, then earth would be a toxic wasteland to them. Finally, there's the scenario presented in the video game Endless Space: the ultimate civilization appears to have vanished into thin air, but the species which built it had actually converted their minds into digital form in order to obtain immortality. Sort of a self-inflicted matrix.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There may be advanced alien civilizations, but they're probably rare enough and sufficiently spaced apart that they don't come into contact with each other a lot.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.

The production of anti-matter is a process of generating extreme heat. And by extreme, I mean extreme. The CERN particle accelerator produces anti-matter, but based on current figures, it costs approximately a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce one billionth of a gram. Once we gain the ability to harness greater energy sources, it will be much much cheaper.

To put it shortly, it took us 3 billion dollars to first sequence human DNA. Now it costs a thousand bucks a pop. Its all about garnering more efficient technology.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 5:53:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.

No, I mean a ball of all-negative antimatter of a size practical for weaponry could not be held together, suspended in a vacuum by a magnetic field. It isn't physically possible. It would touch the sides of the vessel and annihilate instantly.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 8:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe."

Interesting, Just who conducted the research to come to the "statistical conclusion" that there are "many alien species" let alone being able to identify a single alien species? This should be one good academic rationalizing read.

Source if there is one.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 9:15:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I sort of agree with this assessment. Although considering how large and spread out the human population is, it would be very difficult to cause a human extinction. I can see a situation in which billions are killed. But the entire human race?

Also, when technological advancements increase, so will the spread of human civilization. So if we're in a situation in which u can destroy the world easily, people would've colonized mars by then.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:04:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

That's incredibly stupid. Why suppose that societies of intelligent life on other worlds would be something humans would even recognize as civilization? Why suppose that alien behave on macro scales the same way we do, and form similar political systems or wage wars?

Being able to create anti-matter is not a world-ending prospect, unless you can create billions of tons of it easily. Besides, it would probably be kept secret like nuclear enrichment is today if it ever got that dangerous. I suspect that the reason we haven't met aliens is because intelligent organisms that group together and form complex societies with a sense of technological and social progress are an anomaly. That doesn't mean that life or even intelligent life isn't common in the universe, but I cannot begin to understand why people assume that intelligence would result in civilization. Hell, if they couldn't even create tribal groups and use tools, how would they understand the concept of progress at all?

My only real major concern for the human race is the Doomsday argument.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2013 11:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:49:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.

The production of anti-matter is a process of generating extreme heat. And by extreme, I mean extreme. The CERN particle accelerator produces anti-matter, but based on current figures, it costs approximately a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce one billionth of a gram. Once we gain the ability to harness greater energy sources, it will be much much cheaper.

To put it shortly, it took us 3 billion dollars to first sequence human DNA. Now it costs a thousand bucks a pop. Its all about garnering more efficient technology.

I don't logically follow that... Genetics is a field that is surpassed by very few others in its rate of growth, because of the incredible computer technology surge we are in. Energy production is a wholly different thing than genetics and computers.

I can't imagine particle accelerators being shrunk in size and I don't see nuclear energy having much promise at small scales either. When you have lots of energy in one area, you necessarily have lots of heat and a higher risk of accidental discharge. I don't envision, for example, that we're going to develop directed-energy weapons that can blast holes through walls and be the size and convenience of a cell-phone. People aren't going to increase their energy-usage in the future; in fact it will be quite the opposite.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:38:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 11:52:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:49:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.

The production of anti-matter is a process of generating extreme heat. And by extreme, I mean extreme. The CERN particle accelerator produces anti-matter, but based on current figures, it costs approximately a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce one billionth of a gram. Once we gain the ability to harness greater energy sources, it will be much much cheaper.

To put it shortly, it took us 3 billion dollars to first sequence human DNA. Now it costs a thousand bucks a pop. Its all about garnering more efficient technology.

I don't logically follow that... Genetics is a field that is surpassed by very few others in its rate of growth, because of the incredible computer technology surge we are in. Energy production is a wholly different thing than genetics and computers.

I wasn't trying to say it wasn't. I was simply trying to produce my point in a short sentence. That being that technological processes become more efficient. And as a result, the price drops.


I can't imagine particle accelerators being shrunk in size and I don't see nuclear energy having much promise at small scales either.

Nuclear energy isn't necessary for power generation......

In the future, particle accelerators might be powered by devices that harness Gravity, or maybe even Dark Energy, or maybe even energies we haven't discovered yet.

When you have lots of energy in one area, you necessarily have lots of heat and a higher risk of accidental discharge.

Yes, and in the future, containment of said heat could be easier then containing the heat from a oven. Or it could be just as hard at it is today, but relative to the heat levels. Or it could simply be impossible.

I don't envision, for example, that we're going to develop directed-energy weapons that can blast holes through walls and be the size and convenience of a cell-phone.

Why not? We currently have lasers not much bigger then a cell phone that could generate enough heat to light a match. And we have flashlights about the size of your forearm that can cook an egg. The only issue is energy containment.

People aren't going to increase their energy-usage in the future; in fact it will be quite the opposite.

Of course energy use is going to be more efficient, I never said different. In fact, I believe I implied exactly that.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:08:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:33:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We already make anti-matter. So it's apparently feasible. It's just a matter of when the technology becomes cheap enough. Which technology has a strong tendency to do.

We already make nuclear explosion too, apparently it is not that easily widespread. I agreed with you that human race might one day end up destroyed one another like in the day of cold war but it will not come from one single individual but rather some form of organistional conflict, a war between a state, confederation, faction etc. Not individual.

I think our human is naturally strive for power, and for that end they will always attempt to prevent any factor that will potentially threaten it. Let's say if cheap, mass-produced anti matter become available, the state or whosoever in that position of power will seek to monopolise it. In the end it will be just another cold war scenario.

We survived but extinction is still a possibility.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 2:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.

I meant to say 'once' as in 'we only ever used them in one war'. Did you have anything to say that has more than a tangential relationship to my underlying point?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 2:55:25 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.

I meant to say 'once' as in 'we only ever used them in one war'. Did you have anything to say that has more than a tangential relationship to my underlying point?

Yes. You're wrong. We don't have restraint, we have a will to survive. If someone who wants to destroy the world, their own life be damned, manages to get a hold of nuclear arms we are screwed.

And you don't to get to say that by "we only used one", you meant we used two. That just doesn't work, and is clearly a load of bullsh!t.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 3:05:39 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 2:55:25 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.

I meant to say 'once' as in 'we only ever used them in one war'. Did you have anything to say that has more than a tangential relationship to my underlying point?


Yes. You're wrong. We don't have restraint, we have a will to survive. If someone who wants to destroy the world, their own life be damned, manages to get a hold of nuclear arms we are screwed.

And you don't to get to say that by "we only used one", you meant we used two. That just doesn't work, and is clearly a load of bullsh!t.

And are you saying that out of the 7 billion other people on this planet, that nobody would be able to stop them? And that no technological innovation would help combat the effects of the nuclear weapon? These are where that 'will to survive' you mentioned comes into play.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:42:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 3:31:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 3:05:39 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 2:55:25 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.

I meant to say 'once' as in 'we only ever used them in one war'. Did you have anything to say that has more than a tangential relationship to my underlying point?


Yes. You're wrong. We don't have restraint, we have a will to survive. If someone who wants to destroy the world, their own life be damned, manages to get a hold of nuclear arms we are screwed.

And you don't to get to say that by "we only used one", you meant we used two. That just doesn't work, and is clearly a load of bullsh!t.

And are you saying that out of the 7 billion other people on this planet, that nobody would be able to stop them? And that no technological innovation would help combat the effects of the nuclear weapon? These are where that 'will to survive' you mentioned comes into play.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:03:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 3:42:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 3:31:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 3:05:39 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 2:55:25 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:16:58 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:45:02 AM, drhead wrote:
If it's inevitable, then how is that a reason to stop technological progress? Get it over with, don't just stall in hopes of delaying it.

Look, lots of people thought nukes would end the world. But we ended up only using one in an act of aggression. We have some restraint.

Where the hell do you get your information? There was two nuclear bombs dropped on japan alone.

I meant to say 'once' as in 'we only ever used them in one war'. Did you have anything to say that has more than a tangential relationship to my underlying point?


Yes. You're wrong. We don't have restraint, we have a will to survive. If someone who wants to destroy the world, their own life be damned, manages to get a hold of nuclear arms we are screwed.

And you don't to get to say that by "we only used one", you meant we used two. That just doesn't work, and is clearly a load of bullsh!t.

And are you saying that out of the 7 billion other people on this planet, that nobody would be able to stop them? And that no technological innovation would help combat the effects of the nuclear weapon? These are where that 'will to survive' you mentioned comes into play.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that.

You're implying it by saying that "we're screwed". Obviously, if we're screwed, no person or thing would stop them, otherwise we wouldn't be screwed.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

What statistics are these? I'm pretty sure statistically, we are more likely to NEVER run into an extraterrestrial
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:54:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:44:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

What statistics are these? I'm pretty sure statistically, we are more likely to NEVER run into an extraterrestrial

I second the request for evidence, but it is likely that we'll run into extraterrestrial intelligence sooner or later. Over a timeframe as long as our possible existence, most things are possible. Considering the amount of stars in our galaxy and the amount of those that have planets whose surface temperature would be at the point where water would be in liquid form, it's incredibly likely that there is other life. That doesn't mean that they are activating their FTL drive and heading here right this second, but they are most likely out there.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:59:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.

I strongly disagree with this.

You also have to take into account that our perception of time only applies in our piss-ant solar system. What may be considered a 'technologically advanced species' may rise and fall in one single rotation of Earth on it's axis.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:54:27 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:44:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

What statistics are these? I'm pretty sure statistically, we are more likely to NEVER run into an extraterrestrial

I second the request for evidence, but it is likely that we'll run into extraterrestrial intelligence sooner or later. Over a timeframe as long as our possible existence, most things are possible. Considering the amount of stars in our galaxy and the amount of those that have planets whose surface temperature would be at the point where water would be in liquid form, it's incredibly likely that there is other life. That doesn't mean that they are activating their FTL drive and heading here right this second, but they are most likely out there.

Actually you are thirding it. I asked way at the beginning of the thred
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 6:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

I think it's likely that intelligent life exists and the reason we haven't encountered it yet is more likely the problems of traveling the distances necessary to show up.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

3D printing is an additive manufacturing process, it doesn't digitally create the materials it uses, so antimatter isn't a factor. Anybody that figures out how to make antimatter is going to go away themselves as soon as they make enough, so that problem will be self correcting.

Now, if you mean what happens when technology like nuclear weapons becomes easy enough that some insane country without intelligent life, like North Korea can build it, well, yeah, that's a problem, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens...maybe waiting a week should do it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 9:42:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/7/2013 9:15:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I sort of agree with this assessment. Although considering how large and spread out the human population is, it would be very difficult to cause a human extinction. I can see a situation in which billions are killed. But the entire human race?

Also, when technological advancements increase, so will the spread of human civilization. So if we're in a situation in which u can destroy the world easily, people would've colonized mars by then.

I'd rather colonise Venus.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 9:45:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting.

I say we don't know why we haven't found alien life.

You're right in suggesting that single people would be able to easily get a significant amount of power into their hands. Because of this, we need to come up with several fail-safes.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:45:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 9:42:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:15:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I sort of agree with this assessment. Although considering how large and spread out the human population is, it would be very difficult to cause a human extinction. I can see a situation in which billions are killed. But the entire human race?

Also, when technological advancements increase, so will the spread of human civilization. So if we're in a situation in which u can destroy the world easily, people would've colonized mars by then.

I'd rather colonise Venus.

If you don't mind a surface temperature of 900"F from an atmosphere of 96.5% carbon dioxide as well as clouds of sulfuric acid (meaning the atmosphere is corrosive) and an air pressure 90 times that of earth (that's an extra 1300 pounds of force on every square inch of your body), then sure, go ahead. Better bring a good terraforming device.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 6:43:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/7/2013 5:18:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Statistics suggest that many alien species exist in the universe.
However, they also suggest that we would have run into them by now.
The current popular hypothesis to explain this discrepancy is that advanced civilizations have a tendency of destroying themselves.

I think it's likely that intelligent life exists and the reason we haven't encountered it yet is more likely the problems of traveling the distances necessary to show up.

We already came within an inch of destroying ourselves during the Cold War.
Now we face climate change.

However, neither of these are the scenario I'd like to play around with here.
It comes in an unlikely form that I began to ponder the other day. 3-D printers.

We are already using 3-D printers to make guns.
What happens when technology inevitably becomes advanced and cheap enough for every human to create anti-matter or some similar mechanism in it's potential for mass-destruction?
What happens when everyone can destroy everything?

3D printing is an additive manufacturing process, it doesn't digitally create the materials it uses, so antimatter isn't a factor. Anybody that figures out how to make antimatter is going to go away themselves as soon as they make enough, so that problem will be self correcting.

No one needs to figure out how to make anti-matter anymore, we currently make it regularly, as has been stated earlier in the thread, at the LHC in Geneva, Switzerland.

And containing large amounts of anti-matter is theoretically possible. Its simply a matter, pun intended, of developing the technology to do so. As of yet we have had no good reason to do so.


Now, if you mean what happens when technology like nuclear weapons becomes easy enough that some insane country without intelligent life, like North Korea can build it, well, yeah, that's a problem, and we'll just have to wait and see what happens...maybe waiting a week should do it.

North Korea currently owns a stockpile of Nuclear arms, which they manufactured themselves.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 10:45:51 AM, drhead wrote:
At 4/10/2013 9:42:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/7/2013 9:15:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I sort of agree with this assessment. Although considering how large and spread out the human population is, it would be very difficult to cause a human extinction. I can see a situation in which billions are killed. But the entire human race?

Also, when technological advancements increase, so will the spread of human civilization. So if we're in a situation in which u can destroy the world easily, people would've colonized mars by then.

I'd rather colonise Venus.

If you don't mind a surface temperature of 900"F from an atmosphere of 96.5% carbon dioxide as well as clouds of sulfuric acid (meaning the atmosphere is corrosive) and an air pressure 90 times that of earth (that's an extra 1300 pounds of force on every square inch of your body), then sure, go ahead. Better bring a good terraforming device.

Or some good Biodomes.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.