Forums → WEPR → Humanity...

We all know that science don't believe in god but from where the colliding particles and elements came from ? The answer of this question is beyond of human thinking.

Why does it have to be a beginning?
We become, age and die but that doesn't mean that everything follows the same path.

Note: you might know that many invasive species, common examples being plants, are, as long as they stay in their original environment, the a) type, and as soon as the conditions change and their natural regulators vanish (usually due to transportation to a different environment), become the b) type, to the detriment of the local ecosystem.

Yes, and I'm sure you're well aware of who does the transporting.

And in your examples, we're using a different kind of intelligence; it's not a conscious decision, just a behaviour that seems intelligent, or not, to us.

Unless a truly stupendous advancement in the field of neuroscience has escaped my notice, that is a groundless assumption. You cannot know another being's thought processes by their actions alone.

Question: What is wrong, per se, with wanting to expand ones lifespan?

Plenty. As the life expectancy of a population increases, it becomes taken for granted that every individual deserves an extended life. People are not content to die of "old age" because the "cause of death" is recognized and deemed to be cureable with sufficient technology. There are people who dread the idea of letting anyone die for any reason whatsoever. This incentive is so strong that in many nations, choosing not to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient, or choosing not to stop someone's death (if capable of doing so) is legally comparable to murder.
Longevity is a significant contributer to overpopulation. More people living at the same time means more demand on resources. More longevity results in greater expectations of longevity. Clearly this is a problem.

Quantum Fluctuations.

The answer of this @HahiHa.
More...
It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space and it is generally caused by the energy/time uncertainty. But the question is from where the energy comes? what is the source of it?

Also, I do hope you didn't miss/ignore my points on page 2

Of course not.

We are the creation of essentially the big bang theory.

We are the creation of big bang theory this make no sense. No one knows what happens actually. One more question from where the energy comes which causes big bang?

Why does it have to be a beginning?

Its not the beginning, the human race is going to extinct. The human is destroying its planet.

We become, age and die but that doesn't mean that everything follows the same path.

I agree with this.

[quote]Why does it have to be a beginning?

Its not the beginning, the human race is going to extinct. The human is destroying its planet.[/quote]

What he means is that we have no good reason to assume that the universe had a "beginning" at all, in which case, asking where the energy "came from" is useless. The universe is generally understood by physicists to be a vast cistern of energy, which can spontaneously absorb and release particles. It doesn't need to obtain the energy from something else.

But the question is from where the energy comes? what is the source of it?

1) Multiverse theory comes into play here, I believe.

2) Let's just flat out say, we don't know. That doesn't mean "God did it" is an acceptable answer, then. Because saying so would be as sound as saying magical Dwarven-Elves did it.

We are the creation of big bang theory this make no sense. No one knows what happens actually. One more question from where the energy comes which causes big bang?

1) It makes sense, actually
2) We have a very good idea of what happened, but of course we can't say 100%.
3) Quantum fluctuations, as stated before.

Its not the beginning, the human race is going to extinct. The human is destroying the planet

Any conclusive evidence on this?

Multiverse theory comes into play here

I think you mean to say parallel universes ? well good point. So, how the parallel universes are formed ? I am not saying that it form by magic or something. As I said before science don't believe in magic. Science wants reasons.

We have a very good idea of what happened, but of course we can't say 100%.

I agree but the big bang theory can be over because we (humans) have discovered a new particle "Higgs Boson" or god particle which can tell us a new theory "How the universe was formed".

Any conclusive evidence on this?

Radiation.

Yes, and I'm sure you're well aware of who does the transporting.

True that most of the time, it was humans that did the transporting. but recall that NOT all it was the humans that did it and the right side to blame. Birds did it, Ocean currents can, insects can, and bats can without any human intervention. Let me give you an example;
1. A new island rises from the sea after a subsequent earthquake. then birds came by and, poop there and dispersed their food digestion remains . most of the time ( though not always ) they pooped out seeds and the seeds germinate there. over hundreds of year, this turned the island into a lush forest. Don't you think that the Birds act as "carriers" and the seeds act as "invasive species"?
2. When the dreaded Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 ( or Bird flu) spread on the South East Asian countries, the carrying host was poultry birds like chickens for example. Now, i know that the ones carrying the chicken first and spread it around the globe was humans, so maybe humans was also at fault. But isn't the chicken acting as a "Carrier" and the virus act as "invasive species"?

If no, then please tell me what do you mean by "Invasive species"

Its not the beginning, the human race is going to extinct. The human is destroying its planet.

1. Are you sure that we are heading to extinction? to me it seems the other way around.
2. what makes you think that If Earth is getting destroyed it would result in the human going extinct? we can just move to a different planet or moons, or live in space. That is clearly an option, even if it isn't so viable today.
3. what do you mean by radiation? we have been exposed to radiation in our daily lives since the first human walk the planet, even far beyond it. Visible light radiation and UV light radiation was extremely common in our daily lives and we aren't dying by the millions

Yes, and I'm sure you're well aware of who does the transporting.

Yes. Humans do a lot of such transporting, usually unconsciously. And that is one thing: how can you blame us for doing something we were long not aware? You can only blame us for not abolishing the entire transportation network now that we know.
Those I really do blame are the people buying exotic animals and letting them off into nature once they're tired of it; this has led to some catastrophic cases of one foreign species replacing several native species. But this has to do with lack of information and laziness, not because those single individuals are 'evil', nor do they represent humanity.

Also, in some instances no transportation is involved. A species becoming invasive is a natural process that is not exclusively triggered by us; it is sufficient for the ecosystem to change in one or more variables for a species to go rampant, if the conditions are right. And in such cases, to link this to the point below, you cannot call such a behaviour unintelligent, as it has nothing to do with intelligence.

Unless a truly stupendous advancement in the field of neuroscience has escaped my notice, that is a groundless assumption. You cannot know another being's thought processes by their actions alone.

What I meant is that being invasive or not is not a conscious decision, as I portrayed it depends on the environment. A population as a whole does not decide "I find it more intelligent to stay nice and easy".

Plenty. As the life expectancy of a population increases, it becomes taken for granted that every individual deserves an extended life. People are not content to die of "old age" because the "cause of death" is recognized and deemed to be cureable with sufficient technology. There are people who dread the idea of letting anyone die for any reason whatsoever. This incentive is so strong that in many nations, choosing not to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient, or choosing not to stop someone's death (if capable of doing so) is legally comparable to murder.
Longevity is a significant contributer to overpopulation. More people living at the same time means more demand on resources. More longevity results in greater expectations of longevity. Clearly this is a problem.

I have to agree with this. And I can tell you there's not too much to worry about; longevity in general has been rising a lot, but recently there have also been backward trends; and it is biologically impossible to live longer than ca. 125y.

The direction I would favour is not the mere increase in longevity, but the increase of health and life quality. Instead of having a lot of sick 100yo people, have a ton of fit 90yo's. They cost less and can potentially contribute more, or longer.

I think you mean to say parallel universes ? well good point. So, how the parallel universes are formed ? I am not saying that it form by magic or something. As I said before science don't believe in magic. Science wants reasons.

This is still assuming that a universe needs to be "formed".

I agree but the big bang theory can be over because we (humans) have discovered a new particle "Higgs Boson" or god particle which can tell us a new theory "How the universe was formed".

The Higgs Boson does not throw out the Big Bang model.

Radiation.

Even for single-word evidence, this is lacking. Please elaborate.

1. A new island rises from the sea after a subsequent earthquake. then birds came by and, poop there and dispersed their food digestion remains . most of the time ( though not always ) they pooped out seeds and the seeds germinate there. over hundreds of year, this turned the island into a lush forest. Don't you think that the Birds act as "carriers" and the seeds act as "invasive species"?

The preexisting aquatic ecosystem would not be likely to survive such an upheaval, so the colonization of the newly terrestrial area by plants would not be invasive.

2. When the dreaded Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 ( or Bird flu) spread on the South East Asian countries, the carrying host was poultry birds like chickens for example. Now, i know that the ones carrying the chicken first and spread it around the globe was humans, so maybe humans was also at fault. But isn't the chicken acting as a "Carrier" and the virus act as "invasive species"?

Viruses are host-dependent, so the only invasion they perform is into new hosts. For the record, I don't consider viruses to be particularly intelligent, either.

Yes. Humans do a lot of such transporting, usually unconsciously. And that is one thing: how can you blame us for doing something we were long not aware? You can only blame us for not abolishing the entire transportation network now that we know.[quote]

I am not suggesting that we should blame humans for things; just that for a species that holds its own intellect in such high esteem, we really should have known better. "Good" and "evil" are flawed concepts which I have no interest in discussing.

[quote]The direction I would favour is not the mere increase in longevity, but the increase of health and life quality. Instead of having a lot of sick 100yo people, have a ton of fit 90yo's. They cost less and can potentially contribute more, or longer.

Even 90 years is quite a long time to expect people to stay alive and well. From a purely biological standpoint, the ideal life span would be in the range of 50-60 years, while the body is still able to sustain itself. Of course this seems too short in this day and age, but that is only to be expected when we think we are entitled to live decades longer.

Something odd happened at the end there. Staring from HahiHa's opening paragraph:

Yes. Humans do a lot of such transporting, usually unconsciously. And that is one thing: how can you blame us for doing something we were long not aware? You can only blame us for not abolishing the entire transportation network now that we know.

I am not suggesting that we should blame humans for things; just that for a species that holds its own intellect in such high esteem, we really should have known better. "Good" and "evil" are flawed concepts which I have no interest in discussing.

The direction I would favour is not the mere increase in longevity, but the increase of health and life quality. Instead of having a lot of sick 100yo people, have a ton of fit 90yo's. They cost less and can potentially contribute more, or longer.

Even 90 years is quite a long time to expect people to stay alive and well. From a purely biological standpoint, the ideal life span would be in the range of 50-60 years, while the body is still able to sustain itself. Of course this seems too short in this day and age, but that is only to be expected when we think we are entitled to live decades longer.

I agree but the big bang theory can be over because we (humans) have discovered a new particle "Higgs Boson" or god particle which can tell us a new theory "How the universe was formed".

The Higgs Boson is a result of the Big Bang, as all other particles. The special thing about this particle is that it was postulated in order to explain gravity, and now apparently found.
(Fun trivia: the term "god particle" started with a book; the original title was supposed to be "The god-**** particle", which was considered not lurid enough by the publisher)

I am not suggesting that we should blame humans for things; just that for a species that holds its own intellect in such high esteem, we really should have known better. "Good" and "evil" are flawed concepts which I have no interest in discussing.

I totally agree with this.

Even 90 years is quite a long time to expect people to stay alive and well. From a purely biological standpoint, the ideal life span would be in the range of 50-60 years, while the body is still able to sustain itself. Of course this seems too short in this day and age, but that is only to be expected when we think we are entitled to live decades longer.

Actually biologically speaking, our social evolution favoured elder people living longer that could take care of the children. Otherwise why would women live on after the menopause, or even have a menopause at all?

The particle "Higgs Boson" can change the big bang theory because we still not 100% sure that our universe was formed by big bang.

This is still assuming that a universe needs to be "formed".

I agree with this.

Radiation.

I mean to say that the radioactive waste (nuclear waste), weapons, radiation damage which effect both living and no-living things. I know that the government is taking action to prevent this but it is still dangerous in many parts of the world. You might be seen a thread "world war 3", there many people have said that 'there will be nuclear war in world war 3'. "Radiation is present all around us" I agree with this but it is not present there in a harmful way.

what makes you think that If Earth is getting destroyed it would result in the human going extinct? we can just move to a different planet or moons, or live in space. That is clearly an option, even if it isn't so viable today.

We are not taking care of our mother planet so how we can be sure that we will take care of other planet? that's called humanity.

The particle "Higgs Boson" can change the big bang theory because we still not 100% sure that our universe was formed by big bang.

We don't need to be 100% sure. That isn't what science is about. Theories are constantly changing to fit our observations. "God", "magic", or anything suggesting the existence of either, are not among our observations.

We are not taking care of our mother planet so how we can be sure that we will take care of other planet? that's called humanity.

This is a good question, although I would rather you not call it "our" planet, because that implies ownership. I consider it extremely unlikely for any human civilization to get along without completely abusing its resources.

I consider it extremely unlikely for any human civilization to get along without completely abusing its resources.

My following statement might be a bit absurd in the context of planetary colonisation, but tribes world-wide, best examples being the rainforest hunter-gatherers, live in perfect sustainability. What makes bigger social entities like whole civilisations so unconsiderate?

What makes bigger social entities like whole civilisations so unconsiderate?

Because the larger social entities are dependent upon industries that consume resources and produce waste material to an extent that cannot be sustained. Logically, if these civilizations can develop a sustainable existence on other planets or even man-made ecosystems, they should be able do the same on Earth. This would even spare them the tremendous amount of time effort and resources needed to create a habitable environment for humans elsewhere. I doubt any rainforest tribes would be able to afford immigration to other planets, anyway.