[Video] Experiencing Pandora on Earth

[DarkPontiac]

I'd thought i'd share this video I found on youtube. (sorry if it has been posted before) It's pretty good and actually makes sense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uut40zE5XG8

[AuroraGlacialis]

I didnt know it yet :) - Its nice - and true. Its what some of us here have been saying for a while - THIS planet here is OUR Pandora. WE, who love the earth and its ecology and the animals, but also the plants and rivers and rocks - WE are this planets NA'Vi, we are the indigenous population of this planet and if we have succumbed to the lure of this planets "Unobtainium" - oil, gas, copper, bauxite, useless high tech gadgets that cause deforestation and mining in distant countries - we need to get aware of this, shed it and remember who we are! Do whatever you can and whatever it takes. Maybe we cant fly an Ikran in a helicopter to save what we love, but act in the same spirit. Be angry at what is beeing done to this planet, dont be too angry towards yourself to be a part of it - you have been born into it, but you have the choice to SEE where you are and you can take a stand.

If you look at it, the biodiversity of Pandora is enevitably way lower than on Earth, as each creature had to be invented and shaped by humans - this planet, Earth, is teaming in abundance with life. We live in a geological era of unprecedented biodiversity - at no time in history have there been as many families of life as in the past few million years, but in the past few hundred years the biggest and fastest mass extinction ever is taking place, killing 200 species a day. Take a stand against that! And please dont stop after changing lightbulbs and switching to recycling. Think further. Act with wisdom, feel this world and its pain and its glory and beauty!

Greetings
Aurora

[CyanRachel]

Great video -- thanks for posting it here!

[Wanderlust]

Hey, i agree we need to be better steward for the planet in terms of preservation. However we cannot drop all the knowledge we have gained and go primitive again. The trick is to become technological(advanced) as well as benevolent to the source of the species. There are many ways to have technology as well as a happy biosphere. We have taken a route that is more destructive, but that can be changed with greater discovery and awareness.

The biosphere needs us, one of the greatest drivers of life is the utter desire to survive. The Earth itself has an expiration date, yes its far down the line, but its there. I am not talking about random intermediate disaster that could happen, but the continued evolution of the sun. The sun increases luminosity by 10% every billion years, the habitability zone will continue to move outwards and Earth is eventually destined to be like Venus in 1 billion years time.

I believe one of the chief purposed of a technological civilization is to expand and preserve the biosphere. The Earth's Civilization is still developing. There is nothing stopping it from failing, not only ending the civilization, but doing serious damage to the biosphere. Lets hope for the best.

[DarkPontiac]

The way I see it is we do need to preserve our biosphere. The problem is most people think that this earth can take anything and still survive... that's not true. I myself have started taking steps to better my life and the earth. I want to preserve what we have here so it can live on until the expiration date... and not die early...

Technology is our key to helping the earth. Technology can be used to teach people at such a fast pace and it will get to more people quicker. Everyone has to remember what we can from, they have to remember that back then many years ago we didn't have computers, money, homes, roads, cars, etc. but just this earth and the life it contained... as humans became more intelligent... it was forgotten.. We need to bring some of these roots back.. because ultimately it is for the better of our world.. not only for us, but for our children's, and children's children, and so forth.

I have made one of my goals in life is to protect and preserve this earth as much as I can... and this is a goal I plan to not fail.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Hey, i agree we need to be better steward for the planet in terms of preservation. However we cannot drop all the knowledge we have gained and go primitive again. The trick is to become technological(advanced) as well as benevolent to the source of the species. There are many ways to have technology as well as a happy biosphere. We have taken a route that is more destructive, but that can be changed with greater discovery and awareness.
you think so? You think, this culture, this civilization will voluntarily change to be less destructive and less invasive? You think that developing more technology with even more potential to change the planet will actually incite such change? I seriously doubt it - why do we need more technology for that? What blockade would it overcome to develop more technology? Or to put it simply - with all the massive technology we already have - why dont we change NOW? What do you think it would require to change the behaviour of the people and the need for resources?

And what about the idea that we have to be "better steward" - doesnt stewardship require control and rulership (or domination)? The whole problem with the current situation is, that civilized humans see themselves as rulers of the earth and from that on, they can choose to destroy or save, to be exploiters or stewards. What about not trying to rule the earth in the first place - the earth "knows" what is working best and does not need a stewardship - all we have really to control is ourselves really - humans have to take stewardship over their own activities.


The biosphere needs us, one of the greatest drivers of life is the utter desire to survive. The Earth itself has an expiration date, yes its far down the line, but its there.[...]The sun increases luminosity by 10% every billion years
No, the biosphere can do very well without us. All we have to do is to leave it alone and not destroy it. And seriously - the end of the world by solar heating? That is so far along the line, multicelled life on this planet existed for only a fraction of its lifetime and there is quite a time left until it expires. And even if humanity is the species that is destined to "save life itself" from that end, the sheer timescale does not require at all the haste, this civilization is showing - and this haste is part of the major destruction. Just look at transportation - using a slow ship is much more efficient than using an airplane - it is just about time and haste. Due to hastefulness humanity uses a lot more resources than otherwise.


The Earth's Civilization is still developing. There is nothing stopping it from failing, not only ending the civilization, but doing serious damage to the biosphere. Lets hope for the best.
I am confused - you say that it failing is basically destined?
Hope - it is the last resort - if we can only hope for the best, it means we acknowledge a lack of power to actually do something :( - it means that we just sit there and see what happens. I can hope for miracles, hope for not dying soon, hope for ecological recovery - but that means that I say I have no control over the things unfolding. Is that the situation? Has civilized humanity lost control over the technologcical behemoth? I think so, too - but I refuse to give up my power to that beast - if people have lost control over the thing they created, over technology and that is not reversed (or the thing destroyed), the future will not be determined by humans anymore, but by the thing that actually has taken power - a technological "beeing" that has no reason to protect the environment or humans in the long run.


I want to preserve what we have here so it can live on until the expiration date... and not die early...
YES - That is so true. I see no sense in risking the future hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet with all its developmental possibilities by pushing the limits now for a dream to go to the stars. There is no sense in destroying the life on this planet for that remote possiblity. Not the way this civilization does it.


Technology is our key to helping the earth. Technology can be used to teach people at such a fast pace and it will get to more people quicker. Everyone has to remember what we can from, they have to remember that back then many years ago we didn't have computers, money, homes, roads, cars, etc. but just this earth and the life it contained... as humans became more intelligent... it was forgotten.. We need to bring some of these roots back.. because ultimately it is for the better of our world.. not only for us, but for our children's, and children's children, and so forth.
Indeed - We have to rediscover that what was lost to us. It was not lost because humans got "more intelligent" though - it was lost deliberatly by a culture that has its foundation in that loss. If people remember how life was at "the roots", they may question the basic assumptions of this culture and thereby that culture would risk crumbling. I dont know if there is a way to bring these together - technology and remembering the roots, living by the law of life - I doubt it somehow, as technology is linked so tightly to the very effects we see now. It simply requires a distancing from nature, a certain love for the artificial and most of all the exploitation of (limited) resources. Personally I have really trouble bringing the two together. How can anyone really loving the earth and its life and its biodiversity and its WILD nature justify diminishing this even to a certain extent? Where would you draw the line?
And seriously - I dont count remnant small nature reserves and artificial gardening landscapes as wild nature. Sure, a highly technoligical society could set up a number of nature reserves for recreation (dont leave the paths, dont get in touch with nature, it will die if you do so) and they could green the roofs and set up parks, but that is not really the complex, interwoven web of life that makes this planet. It would merely be a number of open air zoos and recreational areas for humans. such an idea is deeply connected to the assumption that nature is there to serve humans in some way.

[Wanderlust]

you think so? You think, this culture, this civilization will voluntarily change to be less destructive and less invasive?

It could evolve that way over time, yes.


And what about the idea that we have to be "better steward" - doesnt stewardship require control and rulership (or domination)?What I meant there is for better care/respect for it. The definition i got for stewardship was for conservation. Yes, i want to conserve large tracts of wild space for the wild space to continue to do its thing.

Heres all the synonyms for Stewardship
attention (http://thesaurus.com/browse/attention), care (http://thesaurus.com/browse/care), cherishing, conservancy, conserving, control (http://thesaurus.com/browse/control), custody, directing, economy (http://thesaurus.com/browse/economy), governing, guardianship, guarding, keeping (http://thesaurus.com/browse/keeping), maintenance (http://thesaurus.com/browse/maintenance), management (http://thesaurus.com/browse/management), managing (http://thesaurus.com/browse/managing), preserval, preserving, protecting, protection (http://thesaurus.com/browse/protection), safeguarding, safekeeping, salvation (http://thesaurus.com/browse/salvation), saving (http://thesaurus.com/browse/saving), stewardship , storage (http://thesaurus.com/browse/storage), supervising, supervision (http://thesaurus.com/browse/supervision), sustentation, upkeep

Now governing , control, directing is there. There are other words there. What I desire is guarding, preserving, salvation and conserving. There can be several degrees of this, simi wild and completely untamed wild as well as others such as Human needs which can be separate from the completely wild parts.



the earth "knows" what is working best and does not need a stewardship - all we have really to control is ourselves really The Earth does not "know" anything, it is not a conscious . What supposedly works well now works because of a long and painful process of random events. Random items that work continue on, what does not stops or disappears. Yes, we have control over ourselves AND our surroundings, that is what makes us different from everything else. We need to be smart with that power.


No, the biosphere can do very well without us. All we have to do is to leave it alone and not destroy it. And it will still have a time limit. With an evolved and intelligent "stewardship" it can last indefinitely. Was not Eywa in Avatar a steward?


And seriously - the end of the world by solar heating? That is so far along the line, multicelled life on this planet existed for only a fraction of its lifetime and there is quite a time left until it expires.1.5 Billion years. I look down the line.


And even if humanity is the species that is destined to "save life itself" from that end, the sheer timescale does not require at all the haste, this civilization is showing - and this haste is part of the major destruction.I suppose, I (personally) just have the itch to get out there and explore the universe. The dead and alive parts.


Just look at transportation - using a slow ship is much more efficient than using an airplane - it is just about time and haste. Due to hastefulness humanity uses a lot more resources than otherwise.Slow ships and trains are for cargo, fast planes are for people. I see what you mean for efficiency though. Perhaps further developments will allow for more efficient flight.



I am confused - you say that it failing is basically destined?No, I am admitting it is possible for our continued evolution to fail.


Hope - it is the last resort - if we can only hope for the best, it means we acknowledge a lack of power to actually do something :( - it means that we just sit there and see what happens.I can hope I make the right choice of clothing a week from now. To actually make it happen I need to plan out my wardrobe. So I hope I plan my wardrobe so i get the right choice. You can hope for a good result and plan for one at the same time.


I can hope for miracles, hope for not dying soon, hope for ecological recovery - but that means that I say I have no control over the things unfolding.No it does not, it means you wish for things to turn for the best. You can hope for it and work for it.


Is that the situation? Has civilized humanity lost control over the technologcical behemoth?No. We have not lost control, we still can affect technological evolution. If we were to really loose control we would not be around for long afterward.


I think so, too - but I refuse to give up my power to that beast - if people have lost control over the thing they created, over technology and that is not reversed (or the thing destroyed), the future will not be determined by humans anymore, but by the thing that actually has taken power - a technological "beeing" that has no reason to protect the environment or humans in the long run. See my last paragraph for the technological beeing.



YES - That is so true. I see no sense in risking the future hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet with all its developmental possibilities by pushing the limits now for a dream to go to the stars. There is no sense in destroying the life on this planet for that remote possiblity. Not the way this civilization does it.The possiblity is far from remote. A fully sustainable population could get off the Earth within the next 50 years. There are some massive developments in terms of space travel coming up in this decade and the next. Once a fully independent population gets off the Earth then it could evolve to the stars without effecting the Earth.



Indeed - We have to rediscover that what was lost to us. It was not lost because humans got "more intelligent" though - it was lost deliberatly by a culture that has its foundation in that loss. If people remember how life was at "the roots", they may question the basic assumptions of this culture and thereby that culture would risk crumbling.From what i've heard, life at "the roots" was not that pleasurable.


I dont know if there is a way to bring these together - technology and remembering the roots, living by the law of life - I doubt it somehow, as technology is linked so tightly to the very effects we see now.I'm quite confidant there are many ways to do technology, not just the way we did it. There is nothing stopping us from evolving better more harmonious technology. Why we are not is the issue.

What makes you think there is a "law of life"? From observing the past evolution of life there is no "law" of life. The closest thing to an actual law is natural selection. What works lives on and what does not vanishes.


It simply requires a distancing from nature, a certain love for the artificial and most of all the exploitation of (limited) resources. Personally I have really trouble bringing the two together. How can anyone really loving the earth and its life and its biodiversity and its WILD nature justify diminishing this even to a certain extent? Where would you draw the line? We could solve this by moving most of the population out and away(orbit is fine, pretty views!) from the earth and keep the earth as a nature preserve. (Note: this solution is far down the time line and requires certain social changes -evolutions- to occur.)



And seriously - I dont count remnant small nature reserves and artificial gardening landscapes as wild nature.It isn't, that is why there should be large tracts of wild left.


(dont get in touch with nature, it will die if you do so) This implies that nature has some sort of spirit and it is (alienlike) different from us. This is not the case. We are interwoven into this planet, technology or not, and are a apart of its continued evolution. I have touched nature plenty of times, it was fine afterwards.



and they could green the roofs and set up parks, but that is not really the complex, interwoven web of life that makes this planet.Even the archaic preserve free Earth of Avatar features a complex interwoven web of life. Technical life can still be considered life. Suppose you were traveling through space and you came upon a world that behaved very much like our own, but was composed of metal and machines. It developed on its own that way through several possibilities, including transferring from biological compound. Would you declare it an abomination and obliterate it?


I am not attacking wild biodiversity here. I would like to preserve that, ie. allow it to continue to exist unhindered in large areas. I am attacking your apparent hostility to things that are not this "wild nature" you so desire.

[Aeoleth]

Agree 100% with ExplorerAtHeart. Technology has benefited mankind and well as hurt us. But so has Earth, and each other. We can only do worse by turning back from technology and going through periods of Salem Witch Trials, and medieval Church oriented society, where hundreds of people have all the power and the other millions are pretty much slaves without hope. You think turning away from what we've learned will suddenly make everything okay again? What happens when some major catastrophe occurs that causes people to question? What will they do when they do not have answers? They look to people who do, and those people profit from it. It has happened millions of times throughout history on different scales. There are thousands of us humans who would not be living without technology.

[Wanderlust]

Agree 100% with ExplorerAtHeart. Technology has benefited mankind and well as hurt us. But so has Earth, and each other. We can only do worse by turning back from technology and going through periods of Salem Witch Trials, and medieval Church oriented society, where hundreds of people have all the power and the other millions are pretty much slaves without hope. You think turning away from what we've learned will suddenly make everything okay again? What happens when some major catastrophe occurs that causes people to question? What will they do when they do not have answers? They look to people who do, and those people profit from it. It has happened millions of times throughout history on different scales. There are thousands of us humans who would not be living without technology.

We need good education (and change) for every Human for responsible, smart growth of Humanity's technosphere.


What happens when some major catastrophe occurs that causes people to question?

If some major catastrophe happens, the primitive people may not be around long after.

[AuroraGlacialis]

Hello, Spacefarer.
You fragmented my last post, I cannot reply that way or this will get hopeless cluttered, so I'll try to mend some of the fragments


[Civilization can evolve to the better] [Stewardship definition] Heres all the synonyms for Stewardship [...]Now governing , control, directing is there. There are other words there. What I desire is guarding, preserving, salvation and conserving. [...]Was not Eywa in Avatar a steward?
Well as they are synonyms I would dare say, that they cannot be seperated that easily. To preserve, you need to be in control over it, to guard it means you have to take ownership and so on. The mindset behind this is what strikes me - People think, they own the earth and the land and the air and have to protect that property and conserve it. That is the basic meme behind this culture, that huamns are superior and have the right to own everything (even the stars if we go there).
Eywa - yes, that was a steward, but one that looked out for the balance of life - unlike civilized humans do.
A Civilization may evolve, but true evolution is a cruel thing - it means trial and error and the way this culture behaves, it feels more like an error. Maybe a new culture has to suceed this one in a new trial. Or maybe some part of this culture mutates and takes over later - but tha main body of this culture is not really working out for Earth or the Universe.


The Earth does not "know" anything, it is not a conscious .
Hence the "" in my OP - "knowing" was a metaphor for a complex system of self regulatory mechanisms that are able to bring back a balanced state.

Yes, we have control over ourselves AND our surroundings, that is what makes us different from everything else. We need to be smart with that power.[...]No. We have not lost control, we still can affect technological evolution. If we were to really loose control we would not be around for long afterward.
Yet "we" behave not smart - not as if "we" as individuals, as humans have control. Tell me we have not lost control and think about what would happen if technology stops working, if all plastics disappeared. Tell me if I stand robbed of choosing to be without technology. Even at the most profound level, people in factories work to the speed of machines, something like climate change cannot be controlled. Civilization and its inhabitants rely on their technology, they depend on it and if you depend on something for your very beeing, how can you have total control over it?


1.5 Billion years. I look down the line.
LOL - see - that is like 3 times as much time as multicelled life existed yet. For all we know, Eywa and Pandora could happen right here given enough time. The possibilities are endless, yet the current civilization is about to seriously damage the life of the planet and its future. Of course - any catastrophe is a new beginning, every asteroid that wiped out 50% of the species fostered a new age of evolution, but is that what "we" want to be? A horrible devastation that leaves the Earth so diminished that new life has to develop (given "we" let that happen or are not around then)?


I suppose, I (personally) just have the itch to get out there and explore the universe. The dead and alive parts.[...]
Slow ships and trains are for cargo, fast planes are for people. I see what you mean for efficiency though. Perhaps further developments will allow for more efficient flight.
Well - personal aspiration is a powerful force, but with all respect - you will not go to space and explore the galaxy. For that you would have to be among the chosen few, FTL travel would have to be possible and discovered within 20 years or so and so on. But that force that drives people so fast can be so devastating. Even if we look out for efficiency, the most efficient was is generally to not haste things. The transport example was just that - an example. The principle is true for many other things like development of Cellphones and other technologies.


The possiblity is far from remote. A fully sustainable population could get off the Earth within the next 50 years. There are some massive developments in terms of space travel coming up in this decade and the next. Once a fully independent population gets off the Earth then it could evolve to the stars without effecting the Earth.
Well I would like to know what you refer to and where you got the knowledge from. A friend of mine is a physicist and he tells me, that space travel is a nice playground but not even close to becoming a reality beyond some hopping around the Solar system.
And even if that is as you say - I dont think, what will be left behind (Earth, its biosphere, its billions of people) deserve to suffer the aftershock of such a development and live on a diminished planet.


From what i've heard, life at "the roots" was not that pleasurable.
Well - from "what I've heard" it was. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, what I am saying is, that todays people can learn a lot from the ones at "the roots"


I'm quite confidant there are many ways to do technology, not just the way we did it. There is nothing stopping us from evolving better more harmonious technology. Why we are not is the issue.

Ok, so enlighten me - Why not? Human nature?
I'd say it is our culture and it is not merely some aspect of it, it is its foundations. This culture is based at its very roots in memes that lead to the way "we" behave now and it is damn hard to change that way - even impossible if one does not even want to look down at the foundations.


What makes you think there is a "law of life"? From observing the past evolution of life there is no "law" of life. The closest thing to an actual law is natural selection. What works lives on and what does not vanishes.
Well, I admit there is a bit earth system science involved, but to make it short, not only species evolve but ecosystems evolve and even at a greater level the complex web of life evolves. How else would it be, that there are symbiotic organisms, that animals do not eradicate other species for their own benefit beyond direct competition. A tiger will not kill all wolves and humans and lions because they also eat antilopes. The law of life is basically to compete for what you need and not go beyond that. Humans are the only ones who kill "weeds" and "pests" in order to erect manufactured landscapes that only serves them. The law of life is balance. Human civilization is out of balance.


We could solve this by moving most of the population out and away(orbit is fine, pretty views!) from the earth and keep the earth as a nature preserve.
Ah come one, this is ludicrous. Move 8 billion or 13 billion people into orbit? For keeping Earth as a nature preserve? That is far from human nature.
The concept of nature as something to watch - like in a museum is horrible - Humans want to be and need to be part of Nature, but by removing humans from nature, you cut them off from that.


Suppose you were traveling through space and you came upon a world that behaved very much like our own, but was composed of metal and machines. [...] Would you declare it an abomination and obliterate it?
If it expands and transforms other planets (including their own biosphere) to become as they are, I certainly would consider.


I am not attacking wild biodiversity here. I would like to preserve that, ie. allow it to continue to exist unhindered in large areas. I am attacking your apparent hostility to things that are not this "wild nature" you so desire.
I am hostile only in defense. I would not mind if people continue to live in a highly technological world and do space travel as long as they dont go on diminishing what diversity is there. If technological society would be possible that way - like in the SciFi fantasy you mentioned, it would be fine with me. But I dont see that happen at all. The devlopment trends and human nature just does not align with these visions.

[AuroraGlacialis]

We can only do worse by turning back from technology and going through periods of Salem Witch Trials, and medieval Church oriented society, where hundreds of people have all the power and the other millions are pretty much slaves without hope. You think turning away from what we've learned will suddenly make everything okay again?[...]There are thousands of us humans who would not be living without technology.
Well, what makes it so good to have thousands of humans more than would be here without technology? Seriously - what is the benefit from that in the big picture? If that is the thinking, then we should turn this planet into a big industrial farm, stop eating meat and then we can have 15 or 20 or 30 billion people on the planet. But to what ends? Is not the individuals experience the stick you want to measure to see if something is good? Would that individual not prefer living in a nice house with a garden and a forest in the back than in a skyscraper?
And I dont say humanity should purge all knowledge and become witch hunters again. That is a bleak and catastophic view of things. That is what would happen if this civilization reaches its point of uncontrolled collapse due to overstraining the resources of the planet among other things. This is what I would expect to happen if things go on unchanged. The realization of that very consequence of present actions is in fact, that we dont want to have this and that we should think of alternative ways of living without these horrible things in the future. A controlled degrowth over decades or longer is much less straineaous and traumatic than a near instant collapse, is it not? And probably during that time, "green" technology would be very much important - you cant take away the drug from an addict in an instant or he will go violent. It has to be phased out. And if during that way, technologies come up that can be kept and are truely sustainable (meaning they can be used forever without damaging the planet or demanding nonrenewable resources), then that is fine. The only technology I oppose in some way is the one that damages the planet, its ecology or its people - and that includes not only physical damage but also opression and exploitation. Currently, this describes the vast majority of technology...

[DarkPontiac]

I'm going to have to agree with AuroraGlacialis with everything he has said so far. To add to it, from my stand point we would not be ready for space travel or exploring new worlds until we can first take care of our own. We don't want to cause harm to other world's that are not even our own.

Being with nature is key. Planting trees, gardens, etc. go a long way. Nature has, AuroraGlacialis puts it, is not a museum, it far from that. It's entirely more than that. If it wasn't for plants and trees we probably wouldn't be here.

Another video I watched from start to finish yesterday talks about our world and what can happen if we don't change the ways we have now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

[Wanderlust]

Hello, Spacefarer.
You fragmented my last post, I cannot reply that way or this will get hopeless cluttered, so I'll try to mend some of the fragments


[quote]Well as they are synonyms I would dare say, that they cannot be seperated that easily. To preserve, you need to be in control over it, to guard it means you have to take ownership and so on. The mindset behind this is what strikes me - People think, they own the earth and the land and the air and have to protect that property and conserve it. That is the basic meme behind this culture, that huamns are superior and have the right to own everything (even the stars if we go there).Well, then we could develop the mindset that we are separate and must tread lightly?


Eywa - yes, that was a steward, but one that looked out for the balance of life - unlike civilized humans do.
A Civilization may evolve, but true evolution is a cruel thing - it means trial and error and the way this culture behaves, it feels more like an error. Maybe a new culture has to suceed this one in a new trial. Or maybe some part of this culture mutates and takes over later - but tha main body of this culture is not really working out for Earth or the Universe.So the culture will change over time, or it will have a radical change. We need to be a the forefront of this change to make it the way we want it to go :)



Hence the "" in my OP - "knowing" was a metaphor for a complex system of self regulatory mechanisms that are able to bring back a balanced state. K, but it evolved that way because it works well.


Civilization and its inhabitants rely on their technology, they depend on it and if you depend on something for your very beeing, how can you have total control over it?We use it as a tool to better our chances of survival. Hey don't forget the bow and arrow Neyrti used is a technology!



LOL - see - that is like 3 times as much time as multicelled life existed yet. For all we know, Eywa and Pandora could happen right here given enough time. The possibilities are endless, yet the current civilization is about to seriously damage the life of the planet and its future. Of course - any catastrophe is a new beginning, every asteroid that wiped out 50% of the species fostered a new age of evolution, but is that what "we" want to be? A horrible devastation that leaves the Earth so diminished that new life has to develop (given "we" let that happen or are not around then)?No we don't want to be the new extinction. That is why change is needed. We are arguring about which way is best to achieve it =D



Well - personal aspiration is a powerful force, but with all respect - you will not go to space and explore the galaxy. I know that. Im expressing my desire to do so.


For that you would have to be among the chosen few, FTL travel would have to be possible and discovered within 20 years or so and so on.I very much doubt FTL is possible. There may be a workaround like wormholes which are possible. Otherwise well have to stick to below light speed like RDA had to do in Avatar. It took 6 years to go 4 ly.


But that force that drives people so fast can be so devastating. Even if we look out for efficiency, the most efficient was is generally to not haste things. The transport example was just that - an example. The principle is true for many other things like development of Cellphones and other technologies.Okay. Slow and through. Don't leave out the possibility that things can move fast and turn out ok in the end, but i can see how we need to be careful.



Well I would like to know what you refer to and where you got the knowledge from. A friend of mine is a physicist and he tells me, that space travel is a nice playground but not even close to becoming a reality beyond some hopping around the Solar system.I am taking about hopping around the solar system. It will take much longer to go further. The solar system is a heck of a place(biiiggg) with may places to go. Ill make a thread later about up and coming space technologies. Private space ventures is what is going to make hopping around the sol system en mass a reality. Ie ill make a thread aobut private space in the Sciences forum later.


And even if that is as you say - I dont think, what will be left behind (Earth, its biosphere, its billions of people) deserve to suffer the aftershock of such a development and live on a diminished planet.What would be so shocking about independent populations throughout the sol sys?



Well - from "what I've heard" it was. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, what I am saying is, that todays people can learn a lot from the ones at "the roots"Short life span, limited knowledge(i like my information), constant danger to the individual and a broken leg can kill you. It was pleasuable on Pandora, but not on earth. Though the populations before civilization tolerated it because it was the only thing they knew.




Ok, so enlighten me - Why not? Human nature?
I'd say it is our culture and it is not merely some aspect of it, it is its foundations. This culture is based at its very roots in memes that lead to the way "we" behave now and it is damn hard to change that way - even impossible if one does not even want to look down at the foundations.Our society's culture. Yes!




Well, I admit there is a bit earth system science involved, but to make it short, not only species evolve but ecosystems evolve and even at a greater level the complex web of life evolves. How else would it be, that there are symbiotic organisms, that animals do not eradicate other species for their own benefit beyond direct competition. A tiger will not kill all wolves and humans and lions because they also eat antilopes. The law of life is basically to compete for what you need and not go beyond that. Humans are the only ones who kill "weeds" and "pests" in order to erect manufactured landscapes that only serves them. The law of life is balance. Human civilization is out of balance.You could also say human civilization is autonomous(if not now its certainly possible) if the nature. I mean, if we are capable, why not?



Ah come one, this is ludicrous. Move 8 billion or 13 billion people into orbit? For keeping Earth as a nature preserve? That is far from human nature.
The concept of nature as something to watch - like in a museum is horrible - Humans want to be and need to be part of Nature, but by removing humans from nature, you cut them off from that.Its not like there'd be any real interaction.. We would not interfear with it.

If it expands and transforms other planets (including their own biosphere) to become as they are, I certainly would consider.



I am hostile only in defense. I would not mind if people continue to live in a highly technological world and do space travel as long as they dont go on diminishing what diversity is there. If technological society would be possible that way - like in the SciFi fantasy you mentioned, it would be fine with me. But I dont see that happen at all. The devlopment trends and human nature just does not align with these visions.Okay. "Human Nature" is not a staple law on the ground. Heck, its meaning changes for the sake of the argument, so its debatable if there even is a "Human Nature". ie Nature vs Nurture. The "Human Nature" is fully capable of being evolved(over time).

Okay, well keep it from being diminished by having large separate areas that have no human interaction whatsoever.

Human Society is the way it is today because it evolved that way. Its possible to effect its evolution for the future.


Next post


I'm going to have to agree with AuroraGlacialis with everything he has said so far. To add to it, from my stand point we would not be ready for space travel or exploring new worlds until we can first take care of our own. We don't want to cause harm to other world's that are not even our own.

I agree. Evolve understanding.


Being with nature is key. Planting trees, gardens, etc. go a long way. Nature has, AuroraGlacialis puts it, is not a museum, it far from that. It's entirely more than that. If it wasn't for plants and trees we probably wouldn't be here.If it wasn't for plants and trees we would definitely not be here. We are a part of nature and are a changing force in it, diversity or no diversity.