You are not logged in.
I must say that the Gaia effect doesn't take full effect untill the rocks absorb all the oxygen which then makes the oxygen accumulate in the atmosphere. At that time, life went through the oxygen haulicaust. Around that time, microbes then figured out how to use oxygen. This was around two billion years of earth's history, so yes, the microbes may not have had enough time to take hold of the planet's atmosphere.
What about microbes forming in short time periods? Well, I do know of Stuart Kauffman's complexity theory which say's that when the number of molecular species equal's half the feedback loops of a chemical network, they spontaineously assemble into a lifeform. The issue here is that the planet needs to stay in a state of energy flux for the diversity of molecules to develop. Would the amount of time mar's is overflowing with water be enough time for molecular diversity to accumulate? I'm tempted to say yes, but with all the energetic violence and not enough time to adapt to it all, most microbes that develop would then be destroyed. Mar's surface is very reactive, meaning it is very simple chemistry.
I would also like to point out that the evidences of life suggest life arose in underwater heat vents first. These heat vent's can combine metal's in the diversity of molecules necessary for life to form; mar's ocean's never lasted so long.
Maybe someday when we develop sophisticated molecular nanotechnology, we can do a molecular scale exploration of mars and find one lone fossil microbe that survived the billion's of years of violence.
I'm going for europa to reveal the first microbes.
The scientific way would be to get to mars and do some exploring, but in the meantime . . . .
The smooth side of mars could be due to the fact that the oceans of water produced by asteriod impacts was located where the smooth areas are and flowed through the carved out areas. The reason for that I don't know.
Anyway's, the idea that the carved out regions of mars due to asteroid impact's causing massive water works with James Lovelocks theory that once life takes hold, it maintains the conditions for life. This clearly has not happened on mars. This reason is why I like this latest idea.
I'm surprised nobody thought of doing this analyses before; researchers recently noticed a periodicity in mars impacts(I wonder how much of this periodicity matches the periodicity on earth which would be in agreement with the Nemesis theoy that a companion star disturnes the comet clouds every 26 million years which is responsible for the periodic mass extinctions here on earth). Anyway's, when they looked into the consequences for mars, they've discovered how to account for mars' canals without mars ever having long enough warm period for life to develop much at all. Seems mars was alway's to cold for life to develop.
I loved it when I recently read about some politician complaining about how the foresight institute people act like they won't get regulated by the government.
Which government? If we don't like your current policies, we'll move to another country! Or off this planet!
Nanotech is ah coming . . . .
Sorry, Just have to say it again; i don't know what to make of it. I remember all the 2K computer hooplah; i didn't believe in that, but I do believe drexlerian nanotech is going to happen and more and more, i believe it is coming sooner than a lot of people are going to want.
I remember a year or two ago; i read somebody say molecular nanotech could happen within a year or two; i felt future shock, I really did. I think the world is going to feel it. I came to see it as a false alarm, but now I'm starting to think based on my reading's as I keep up with the latest developments that it is indeed coming quickly long before I'm able technically to be part of it; i could be sent back to the military because they are off to fight some battle.
People are freaking out over this stuff already; most of them don't know about the latest developments(whatever little snippets researchers let out). Every government the world over is practically putting their economic development money into nanotechnology. Anti-knowledge/technology groups of all kinds are trying to get it banned for development; who to take sides with?
I think molecular nanotechnology happens before they make space elevators; in other words, we will not have established ourselves out in space before molecular nanotechnology starts and hence, we're all stuck down here on this earth when the fight over molecular nanotechnology ensues(it is an observation of Alvin Tofflers that wars are waged between the new civilizations over the old; agriculturalists had to hold back hunter gathers, or barbarians, for ages; industrialists fought the agriculturalists[the civil wars of the late 1800's, from the U.S. to the Russian, and Japanese civil wars]; surelly, the informational will fight a war over the industrial?
Drexlerian Nanotech is coming and a lot of people are going to get blindsighted; others will get swooped out of the way. War is bound to be waged, but this one is going to be fought over cyberspace; the normal battle lines are none existent in the coming nanotech world. No single country will have it; all will have it, but that is not all; the transnational corporations will have it to. I really hope space development happens soon after the first primitive assember is developed; that way, the earthling's won't destroy themselves knowing how futile it is to fight over this piece of rock.
Lot's of issues, my mind rambled, but nanotech is coming; i have to get busy now.
Really, I should have seen this one, but my mom put it in a different way. I remember coming home from a park in san diego on the trolley. The trolley goes through probably the worst part(financially; and usually that means social problems area as well) of san diego. I remember saying to myself, "there's no astronomy in there!" Do politicians go down into those areas and promote themselves? No! Do these people even vote? That would be interesting to know . . . .
My mom mentioned something that put this into even better perspective. I was talking about how Hillary Clinton was supposed to be at this university to support nanotech development; this was from a nanotech news website. I come in with my mom watching Hillary Clinton at this university; they are not talking about anything nanotech; it was all about a bunch of politicking. I mentioned that my website said she was there to talk about nanotech. I can only guess that she went there and delivered a speech to nanotech researchers and maybe fundraisers and then later talked to a bunch of people about politics. Seems to me, nobody there had any idea what she had really been there for. It's like she later went to talk to all the common folk after dealing with the behind the scenes stuff.
Latelly, behind the scenes, nanotech has become the biggest issue, meanwhile the policiticians come on and sell themselves on other commoner issues. As my mom went on to say, the politicians can't go and talk to the public about space and nanotech, that stuff doesn't touch their lives. The politicians are like marketers, they let people hear what they want to hear.
The only problem here is how do we communicate the importance of space development if our leaders don't try to communicate the issues with the public?
This Jeremy Rifkin has disturbed me before; even Eric Drexler rips on him in his Engines of Creation. I wonder why this guy is still around; i'd like to know what J. Rifkin know's and say's about nanotechnolgy please.
I should note that I have not gotten a reply at all since sending this letter.
I started threads about Rare Earth and so on becuase I see holes in Zubrin's idea's about nanotechnology. He seems to want to count this one out. I would like to argue about stable non-equilibrium structures and autopoiesis because I don't agree with his ideas about nanotechnology disobeying the laws of life, but really, It isn't important. To argue that nanotechnology isn't going to happen is folly. I think he does so because it undermines his mars direct ideas which are brilliant in a non-nanotech world, but the fact is that molecular nanotechnology is inevitable, and it is going to happen long before mars direct makes a permanent mars colony.
Sorry, I must have gotten involved in other things.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: David Oker
To: David Oker
Cc:
Subject: Bill Gates should establish a space program
Sent: 11/12/02 11:32 AM
Importance: Normal
I've noticed recently that Bill Gates is funding education through a variety of means. I recently heard about him spending five hundred million to India, and I also recently heard about his "Anytime Anywhere Learning Program."
Number one, I'm a space colonization enthusiast and am very concerned that humanity will miss their chance to establish themselves out in space. Space offers the solution to all our material needs and even some spiritual needs. By colonizing space, we drastically increase our chances for survival.
Number two, as Arthur C. Clark likes to point out many times, space satellites which he gave the first technical paper on have opened up humanity to each other for the most part for the good. Mr. Gates "Anytime Anywhere Learning Program" and in fact all the benefits of computers and internet are dependent on our satellite and rocket launcher ability. Yet, our space program is more dependent on the whim's of our government's on whether they want to do it or not. Clearly, they don't see our current electronic age as fragile because they don't realize how dependent it is on our space technology. Something tell's me Bill Gates doesn't see space technology as something to support either. Right now, because we are making all our space hardware and launching from the earth's gravity well, our space program is grinding to a halt. Not untill we have established ourselves out in space to the point where we are making all our space hardware and launching from outside the earth's gravity, will space development be established and practical. The video of the Lunar lander taking off compared to the Apollo Rocket should give you some idea of the magnitude difference in energy required to do thing's out there. A view of the full moon lighting up the ground should give you an idea of 1) the amount of untapped material resources that can be tapped(namelly: the moon as just a starter), and 2) the untapped energy that can be a boon to humanity reflecting off the surface of the mooon.
Bill Gates want's to spread education; he want's to inspire people in science and technology? Yet, he doesn't see how dependent his business is on the fragile space capability of humanity right now? Either I don't know about his support of the space program, or he doesn't see the big picture. One thing a space colony will do is inspire all of humanity about science; it will also make more pressure on humanity to learn science, yet our leaders(Bill Gates seems to be one) don't see all this.
Another thing about establishing ourselves out in space is the ability to overcome an asteroid hit. Untill we have a mature space faring humanity established out in space, we will have such a weak ability to deal with asteroids. It would cost so much less to deal with asteroids if we launch from the moon or even an orbital space station built from the moon instead of the earth.
Zubrin in his "Case for Mar's" has pointed out that we have the ability right now to colonize mars within a decade of somebody saying "Go". The australians have built a scramjet that drastically reduce the cost of reaching orbit from earth for a few million dollars, beating the U.S. which failed and spent far more money. These two cases shows that we can accomplish establishing a space colonization if we are just smart about thing's and work efficiently
I brought this article to this boards attention because 1) it argued about asteroids that I thought interesting, only for me to reread some of Zubrin's books and find the article's point's there not quite right, and 2) because the recent rethinking of the space program by nasa is to use the langragian points, so I thought this group's arguement's have obviously been influential and not Zubrin's mars direct program which had suppossedly been adopted by nasa. I guess not.
I see that just about everybody has said there own interests yea or nea about this article which show's that we are all in this for different reason's - interesting.
did you want to see my e-mail to Gates?
Very interesting that somebody else should mention Bill Gates because I also thought so, and e-mailed him or his people about it.
Needless to say, they never have replied. It has been a week or two now.
Zubrin points out much of that propulsion decline; however, there has been the development of ion engines, soon to be solar sails. Admittedly, those are for in between planet's and not rocketing off a planetary surface, but check this out . . .
http://www.space.com/busines....20.html
Not only that, but scramjet's are on the way; these can make for pretty effective two stage surface to space propulsion systems.
All in all, we'll be o.k.
I just reread some of what Zubrin say's about asteroids. E. Drexler talks about how mining asteroids can provide all the carbonates that the moon lacks in sufficient quantities to be usefull as Zubrin say's. However, Zubrin point's out in his "Entering Space" book that the only carbonatious asteroids lie in the main asteroid belt. Any asteroids that are still carbonatious around earth's orbit would be viewed as comet's which are rare earth asteroids. In other words, the only arguement from Drexler that made me post this here falls under further scrutiny. Mar's is still the place to go.
more nanotech funding news
In rereading Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent of Man", I came to think about how throughout human progress, some people move on and others stay behind; so that, while the more advanced civilization is moving forward there are people in the harsher areas of the planet(currently) still going through the old motions.
As Max Planck said, revolutions of thought don't occur by convincing the old generation, but by the old generation dying off.
Bye, that's all I need to say; i see this conversation will go nowhere.
Saying intelligent life can take on any form leads us straight back to thinking intelligent life can be on the moon, venus, mars, jupiter, and of all places the sun, but we've clearly found otherwise. Clearly, the rest of the universe is at least as harsh or more than all those places listed above, so it is instructive to look at the human species as a test case and understand its environment and history as a minimum case. If you'd look at the various sciences involved in the understanding of life recently, you'd find there's plenty of insight about the nature and hence definition of life and intelligence. I'd suggest reading thing's about Ilya Prigogine's stable non-equilibrium structures, Maturina's autopoiesis, Manfred Eigen's hypercycles, chaos theory, Lynn Margulus's symbiosis theory.
You people just don't want to take into account the finding's of Isaac Asimov in his "Extraterrestrial Civilization's", and "Rare Earth".
I am also not amused by the editing of my post. I do not use smilies, and I did not say anything about Seti being worthwhile. I will say it is worthwhile as an experiment in parallel processing though.
http://computerworld.com/managem....00.html
Article mentions many other countries are matching the U.S. government spending step for step no matter how much money we put in. Also, it seems to indicate that the government leaders only think of nanotechnology as a computer technology and don't seem to know about assemblers.
this thread does not propose that private companies cannot develop drexlerian nanotechnology, just that they cannot untill a few more years down the road
I see your point about Zyvex funding nanotech assemblers before this timeline say's they should be.
In fact, Zyvex used to have video of various micro-machines, now they don't . . . ? ? ? ! ! !