Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

Earthfirst · 2004-02-13 10:55:45

Europa has oceans of water it might be possible to there protected from space by it thick ice sheet. In Europa ocean we could live in domes and travel around in submarines, like in that show sea quest but on another world. No Terriforming would be needed just the building of under water habitats. also maybe a space port on top of the ice the has a tunnel all the way down to the ocean. It would make getting in and out of the ocean easy. We could also add fish, claims, and shrimp.
If there are termal vints like on earth life could thrive there, and be use to make power. It would be like living in the earths liqued outer core or upper mantal. Also I think that ganamedie has a ocean too. It has more gravity and less radiation from jupitor to deal with.
What do you think of living in the oceans of moons mantals?

dickbill · 2004-02-13 12:12:39

I lived in Europe most of my life, I never noticed all that water.
But anyway, of course we should colonize Europe. France first, then Germany then Maroc etc.
Evrything should be terraformed like in New York, big buildings, yellow cabs and cream cheese bagels for everybody. And no slow drivers.

Algol · 2004-02-13 14:07:41

lol! :laugh:

Earthfirst · 2004-02-13 17:27:04

No thats not what I ment and you know that, Europa is a moon around jupitor. Europe is a backwards place on earth filled with liberals do gooders that think that americans are dump and self important.
We are and france can surrender to cannada. Theres all ready french people there.
No every can get there mind away from mars, there are lots of other places to live in the solar system. Maybe humans that have been genetical engered can live in water, and breath with gills, or people on mars that drink liqued O2 instead of breathing it. Why terrifrom a planet when you can bioform a person to live there.
Europa the moon is one of many great places to live, think out side of the earth like sceem of life..

dickbill · 2004-02-13 19:00:35

Maybe humans that have been genetical engered can live in water, and breath with gills, or people on mars that drink liqued O2 instead of breathing it.

People genetically engineered to live and drink water, that's a scarry idea.
I wouldn't like to be genetically enginered that way, would you ? well, that's probably not likely anyway, there is not enough water to drink for the great people of Arizona or it tastes strange and so, they prefer not to abuse it. That' a point they have in common with the french. But Here in New York, we have plenty of water believe me.
But the gills are a good idea. If I remember well my embryogenesis, we had gills already when we were floating in the amniotic fluid, at the pharyngula stage, though we didn't use them much. Maybe we could instruct the genetic program to keep these gills all along the embryogenesis until birth.

But no gills for martians, no way, thanks.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-14 10:55:16

There not a lot of water here were I live but people seem intent on making golf crouses. Every time there is a new housing development there pops up a 18 hole golf crouse. At 800$ a around I wont be golf at the TPC any time soon, just the cave creek landfill crouse at 10 a round. Of crouse you know that I just enjoyed a around and it feb. 14. You folks in New York wont be enoying any outdoors stuff antile may, by then I will be enjoying the 100 F temp of the year. In phoenix their is a contest that if you quess the first day it hits 100 F you win a trip to alaska for the summer.
I think that gills would suit New Yorkers well since it seems that so many of you end up in the east river with cement shoes.
By liqued O2 I ment Liqued Oxygen not Oxygen dissolved in water, although saw in a movie once were they had people using their lungs to breath a special mix of blue water that had lots of oxygen in it. Deep blue sea, or the abussese.
We had gills because we share a common anestery with fish, later I think that gills become the inner ear which is more usful on land, with miner remove of are genes that makes ears and replaced fish genes that just makes gills, then you would have deaf people with gills where their ears were.
In realty fish gene would make the human ear just fine, and the human gene would give gills to fish. Beacuase their are lots of genes that control the final body plan.
I hread that fruit flys that lack eyes because they lost the gene for eyes, were given the gene for mouse eyes, when the flys were born they had compound eyes not the eye of mice.
It is nice to know how closely all life on earth is related to each other, maybe any form that are ansecterys had is still there lock away in introns in are DNA, as far as DNA is concerned as long as it exists it still is alive, it does not need to be expressed. Also a lot of those introns come from viruse inserting their dna into ares, So every time you get e cold you are genetical engeired a little bit. Life is strange!
:;):

dickbill · 2004-02-15 11:27:52

yes you're right, gills come from embryonic branchial archs, that transform into ancestral jaw, ear bones or pharyngeal cartilages. Keeping these branchial archs fonctional as gills might not necessarily make you death however. We could imagine "duplicating" an embryonic branchial arch, one that doesn't transform in the above mentionated structures, so that it would keep differentiating into a gills without removing the ear or pharyngal functionalities.
So you could breath the O2 dissolved in the ocean of Ganamedie. But on Mars, and Arizona, doesn't help much.
In New York, as you mention, that could be useful for breathing in the East river or for a new fashion that would invade the world. Like top models with gills and fish brains.
But that's science fiction, what is not science fiction is what you said about the introns :
I was looking for a good antivirus software recently and I found McAffe Antivirus pro. (I actually bought the Norton for its data recovery functionalities) but look :
Mc Affe provides a new function called "sensitive data shreding" . In addition to spy and hacker monitoring, this function just does what it says, it shreds sensitive data, such as credit card numbers, password etc, into small packets spread on the HD. I think it's a different process and purpose that the fragmentation of files in the HD.
But isn't it the definition of exons for the DNA ?
I've heard that theory before that the DNA exon structure is actually a defense startegy against early transposons or other integrative foreign DNA that could otherwise hidjack a full gene functionality if they integrated in front of a full gene or promoter. By shreding the genes, retro-transposons/virus have less chance to inactivate the gene or hidjacking its functionality.
So, 3.8 billions years later, computer softwares re-invent that old stategy of shreding "sensitive data". amazing.

McAfee should follow and call its strategy the "Mcaffe Intron data security" : the exon/intron computer data structure that best fights worms, virus and other bad hidjackers.
(the word Intron sounds better than Exon for sale purpose, I think)

Rxke · 2004-02-15 13:09:12

Mc Affee got the idea from the free 'Spybot Search & Destroy', that does the same shredding... http://www.safer-networking.org/

Ok, wildly off-topic. Kill me.

atitarev · 2004-02-15 15:34:03

If we go to the Jovian moons I would start with Callisto, then Ganymede. Europa has much higher and dangerous levels of radiation for colonization.

DonPanic · 2004-02-15 15:44:37

LO
Too bad new : [http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994664]Sulfuric acid Europa
Plus, Europa ice crust coulb be 30 km thick, no radar can see trought that depth

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-15 17:57:52

Dickbill:-

... for a new fashion that would invade the world. Like top models with gills and fish brains.

Ha-ha-haaa!! :laugh:
Until I met you, Dickbill, I never knew a Frenchman could have such a delicious sense of humour. Your politics are, of course, incomprehensible (what can one expect of the French?) but at the same time your wit and intelligence are undeniable!
Thank you for brightening my day.

dickbill · 2004-02-15 22:50:37

Your politics are, of course, incomprehensible (what can one expect of the French?) but at the same time your wit and intelligence are undeniable!

why's that, my politic is not clear ? probably because I don't obey the conventional political clivages, so I can be right wing on an issue, very liberal on another and french overall.

With Earthfirst you have a clear cut political program, it's Like : "Throw all the bacward countries of Europea that are not coll, like the frecnh, in the Atlnanic Oean that belongs to the USA, but not the brits who are coll and oby our orders "

Mad Grad Student · 2004-02-15 23:19:24

Until I met you, Dickbill, I never knew a Frenchman could have such a delicious sense of humour. Your politics are, of course, incomprehensible (what can one expect of the French?) but at the same time your wit and intelligence are undeniable!

Wait a minute, Dickbill's French? I'm confused, first people start making weird random comments about Quebec (French-speaking Canadian provence), Arizona, New York, and France, and now it turns out that Dickbill's French and I think that Earthfirst is from Arizona. Or I might be totally wrong. In any case I'm also from Phoenix, AZ, am taking French, and would like to say that I have no desire to breathe water through pharynginal gills, I'll leave that to my chordate anscestors and lancelets. However, being born to genetically-modified parents wouldn't give you much of a choice, and on Europa I don't think anyone born there would cringe at the thought of breathing water. I don't qutie see how it applies to getting water in the desert, though, isn't that what SRP is for?

I don't know if anyone else here is familiar with it, but there's an interesting mini-series the Animal Planet aired on the subject of future evolution called [http://www.thefutureiswild.com]The Future is Wild (Click me). In it they take on odd stance in saying that octopi, squids, and fish (once more) develop lungs and invade the land after mammals die out (Boooo!). It seems to me that it would also be plausible to reverse the direction, vertibrates reverting to pharynginal gills to breathe water as well as air, perhaps allowing prey to escape preditors by diving underwater, why not? Anyway, if natural selection dosen't do it, artifical selection might, if for some reason we had to breathe what we drink.

Come to think of it, why are we colonizing Europa in the first place? ???

dickbill · 2004-02-16 12:29:51

Until I met you, Dickbill, I never knew a Frenchman could have such a delicious sense of humour. Your politics are, of course, incomprehensible (what can one expect of the French?) but at the same time your wit and intelligence are undeniable!
Wait a minute, Dickbill's French? I'm confused, first people start making weird random comments about Quebec (French-speaking Canadian provence), Arizona, New York, and France, and now it turns out that Dickbill's French and I think that Earthfirst is from Arizona. Or I might be totally wrong. In any case I'm also from Phoenix, AZ, am taking French, and would like to say that I have no desire to breathe water through pharynginal gills, I'll leave that to my chordate anscestors and lancelets.

yes, I'm french from France. But I lived several years in Montreal before I came in New York. Montreal is a great place by the way, very liberal. Everybody's bilingual, I wish the 'anglo' would be closer to the 'french canadean' (the Canadea is the official name of Canada according to Jean Chretien, former PM who also used to strangulate his oponent) and that they don't see the Quebec separatism as a threat, but this is a minor problem.
(Out of topic: For young guys, with lots of hormones etc, i give you my opinion, I visited England, Germany, France, the US now, I think the quebecoises and montrealaises are the most gorgeous girls I've ever seen. And of course the beer there is the best. Well, to be fair, I remember a young french guy in Montreal who visited a Colorado university, he came back in shock: "wow wow, there are all top models there ").

back to the thread, gills are an idea of Eartfirst, not mine. But here is my opinion : in general, homo sapiens population evoluted and differentiated towards less specialization, not more. Our specie won't be successulf in water with gills, but with dive suits.
That was the mistake that KSR made in his trilogy. Because Mars is cold, he sees Nirgal, one of the main character of the story, with a special metabolism adapted to the cold.
If you think like that, you might as well imagine the martians covered with fur and going back to a neanderthal phenotype !
And by the way, if you believe in darwinism as the only evolutionary engine, you should expect to see these mutants NOW in the population. I believe that Lamarck's theory should be revisited and that now, we, homo sapiens, follow a lamarckian trend of evolution. You guys are biology educated obviously, so you know what said Lamarck right ?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-02-16 14:08:18

I believe that Lamarck's theory should be revisited and that now, we, homo sapiens, follow a lamarckian trend of evolution. You guys are biology educated obviously, so you know what said Lamarck right ?

Huh? I just googled Lamarck and from what I've learned in the last five minutes it dosen't seem like he really knew what was going on. Well, he knew enough for back then, before anyone understood how evolution worked, but it turns out that you can't pass down "aquired" traits. Trust me, we've done enough research to know that Darwinain evolution is the only form that really has an impact in the long run. We can prove it by looking at DNA and how hereditary traits are passed down through alelles and chromisones. Naturally, you have to go a step further with humans, what with our ability to modify things genetically, but that's a different story alltogether.

I thinnk it's actually pretty doubtful that people are going to modify themselves very much in the future. Sure, there will be the radicals that want to go down totally new evolutionary paths, but for the most part humans will keep ourselves as is. Of course, we'll still explore the universe and do increadible things, but we'll do it by building much more impressive ways to protect ourselves from the elements. If you look back at human evolution it seems to be what we're best at, building things to protect ourselves. In a very real sense we are the ultimate builders, turning any environment into one suitable for us.

DonPanic · 2004-02-16 14:16:32

LO
I'm a brand new froggy leaping here
Didn't James Blish suggested that men should planetform themselves
instead of terraforming planets ?

dickbill · 2004-02-16 15:48:45

I believe that Lamarck's theory should be revisited and that now, we, homo sapiens, follow a lamarckian trend of evolution. You guys are biology educated obviously, so you know what said Lamarck right ?
Huh? I just googled Lamarck and from what I've learned in the last five minutes it dosen't seem like he really knew what was going on. Well, he knew enough for back then, before anyone understood how evolution worked, but it turns out that you can't pass down "aquired" traits. Trust me, we've done enough research to know that Darwinain evolution is the only form that really has an impact in the long run. We can prove it by looking at DNA and how hereditary traits are passed down through alelles and chromisones. Naturally, you have to go a step further with humans, what with our ability to modify things genetically, but that's a different story alltogether.

Yes, if you take Lamarck word for word, he is wrong and you are right.
Lamarck said that acquired or improved traits through repetitive use, such as fast speed for predators that run all the time and become faster run after run, or long necks for giraffes that feed on higher and higher trees, are transmitted to the descendance. And so generation after generations, the usefull characters are improved a little bit, and so you can understand how guepard are so fast and giraffes have a so long necks. Some facts also 'seemed' to fit with that theory, like the baby camels have callosity on their knees at birth, 'as if' their parents have transmitted the character through the repetitive habbit to seat on their knees.
Now I agree 100% that this is false, these acquired characters are not transmitted through genes.
But what about behavior. This is a trait particularly important in mamalian species.
I've seen several documentaries about tigers displaced in Africa. Not only they learn to hunt, not only they improved their skills at hunting but they also transmit these acquired skills to their offspring. Same for lions that can learn how to hunt new preys like elephants and teach it to their youngs.
Survival of the fitest is the base of the darwinian theory, but these animals do not become the fittest 'by chance' like a darwin model would assume, they become the fittest because their parents have learn, improved and transmitted new skills to them.
For the youngs, these transmitted skills are probably as much important for their survival than the small genetic variations inherited by chance. So in another thread I suggested than in reallity, evolution proceeds through darwinian AND lamarckian mode. And that the 'dumber' the animal, or primitive if you want, the more Darwinian the evolutionary mode is, the smarter the animal, the more lamarckian component there is.
And I took the analogy of the chemical liason, that can be purely ionic like in salts, or purely covalent like in some molecule like H2, but rarely. Most molecules are linked by both forces, ionic and covalent and not by a single pure force.
In the case of the biological evolution of our species Homo sapiens, I think that the 'lamarckian component' is much more important than the 'darwinian component' and that at the opposite, a bacteria just follows a darwinian law of evolution.
Now it would be nice to mesure quantitatively these components to test this theory, but I am not working in the field of evolution. This is just my guess.
The neo-darwinian theory would certainly be stronger if it integrated quantitatively this Lamarckian behavior.

Also, the reason why anglosaxons reject Lamarck in the theory of evolution, beside that he was french, is that this acquired skills theory put more responsability on what happens to the animals that follow Lamarck, rather than Darwin. In social biology, Darwin is conveniently used to explain why we live in the best world possible. Everybody is at his place by reason of random chances or by bad luck, that some call 'bad genes' and you can do nothing about it. With Lamarck, you really fight to create your own evolutionary path. You can litteraly fight against your genes if they are bad. You fight for your genetic freedom and you get more responsability for what you or your offspring are. So their is a political side here, the establishment /conservative don't like Lamarck.
Don't be too tough with Lamarck, he didn't know about genes.
But did Darwin knew more about genes ? no, no more than Lamarck.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck. (They forgot the 'de' in the link):
[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html

Shaun Barrett · 2004-02-16 19:26:40

I wasn't being serious about your politics, Dickbill. Just a bit of good-natured teasing. (I can be quite 'mixed up' politically myself, and I'm not even French!! )

You make interesting points about De Lamarck. I'm sure there were originally political reasons as well as scientific ones behind the rejection of his hypotheses, though his 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' has long since been comprehensively repudiated on firm factual grounds.

DonPanic · 2004-02-17 07:11:01

I wasn't being serious about your politics, Dickbill. Just a bit of good-natured teasing. (I can be quite 'mixed up' politically myself, and I'm not even French!! )

Noone's perfect
now this turned to "innate and acquired" debates

Earthfirst · 2004-02-17 14:23:01

I have just learned about Lamarck, and it seems that he is right a little bite. Now that humans are toying with their genes in a non drawin sense. Also unlike natural selection human evolutiI have just learned about Lamarck, and it seems that he is right a little bite. Now those humans are toying with their genes in a non Darwin sense. Also unlike natural selection human evolution can become goal directed, ext. humans with gills, wings, and tails. For the first time life can decide what it wants to do. Humans have been toying with this with plants and animals, not look at all the different kinds of dogs their are.
SRP does provide water but it could run out if this drought continues, Roosevelt Lake might dry up this summer, San Carlos, horse shoe. If we don?t get good spring rains then California might have to stop taking Arizonans share of the Colorado water. I just hope are governor has enough sense to fight for it other wise she could be recalled. It almost happens when she renamed squaw peak to piestwua or what ever they call it. Being ambushed does not make you a hero.
As for my politics I am for pikeing that is putting people on long poles along the border, no water stations, they should not be wondering around in the desert in June that?s just crazy! That desert is the best fence for a border it does not cry when its heat or cold consumes you. Illegal aliens die then that what they get for breaking the law. They are destroying the desert, increase the crime rate, and bring in strange disease, UN educated. If you ever been down on Van Breuin you know what I am taking about, it would take the army to clean out that mess. The nest solution is to have snipers along the border with wondering tigers, or mountain lions. That would stop those dirty Mexicans from invading, they are not welcome here!
Back to Europe, the worst country is absurdum Netherlands, the moral corruption outdoes Rome, benign to liberal has weakling their country to the point were even I would rather visit France. Were at least they got fast trains.
Europe on the other hand is a pure place untouched by man.
The stuff about the border I think mad grad student might get, for others I am taking about the us southern border with Mexico, shared by Arizona that has the sonoran desert. The organ pipe national monument, and the berry m Goldwater air force range. Illegal aliens are over running the place harming the desert, and dieing in the hot summer. If you ever there visit quotbaquoto springs, it a cool and shaddy place.
What you think about lamark in todays world.

dickbill · 2004-02-17 15:31:38

Back to Europe, the worst country is absurdum Netherlands, the moral corruption outdoes Rome,

you don't have to speak latin, Earthfirst, here we are not so litterate to be able to understand it.
But what's wrong with the absurdum Netherlandanum and Rome ? they cannot invade your border, by the time they reach Arizona, they gonna have to pass through the great New York and have their asss kicked if they behave badly.

Beside that, I am happy to see that you are a supporter of Lamarck, if you've read his biography in the link I have posted before, you see that the french 'establishment' gave him a hard time. He deserves to be known at least.
Also, you don't have to go high tech to do genetic :
what about positive or affimative action in the US, is it more Darwinian or Lamarckist ?
What about the fertility clinic where you can choose your egg donor on a catalog, is it Darwinian or Lamarckist ?

Since Darwinism implies selection of the fittest, I would say the first example is lamarckian while the second is darwinian.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-20 18:17:42

They can invade with their ideas, of preverted liberalism. All ready in San Fransico they homosexuals are getting hict, and now in new meaxico so judge is trying to pull the same deal.
Athough I think that its the end of western civilation, gay marriges will be a boom to lawyers, can you imange the first gay marrige divorce. There would be so much sissy fights, slaping that even the girls on Dinasee could not macth.
How would Lamarck expation of how homosexuality evolved differ from Drawin. Gay people dont leave off spring, so I think a Lamarck apporced could explian it.

Algol · 2004-02-24 14:00:07

[=http://www.spacedaily.com/news/jupiter-europa-04a.html]Is Europa Corrosive?

Might prove a problem........

HeloTeacher · 2004-02-27 08:17:11

Finally, someone's back on topic.

Realistically, building underwater habitats, even at a highly reduced gravity, will be exceedingly difficult under hundreds of meters of ice and water, let alone kilometers.

If it lacks life, though, i see a beautiful place to seed with our own terrestrial undersea vent species. Give them a new place to thrive.

Earthfirst · 2004-02-27 10:35:33

I think that it's possible, because the gravity on europa is less than are own moon. With those condictions pressure won't be such a problem as it is on earth. We dont realy know how deep the ice crust is, or how deep the ocean is. We might learn more because I think that they are sending a special prob to europa that will melt all the way down thought the ice and then release a submarin. Also a orbitor will use radar to scan the ice crust to see how deep it is. I think the mission is called crobot. I saw it on the jpl site. :band:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-13 10:55:45

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#2 2004-02-13 12:12:39

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#3 2004-02-13 14:07:41

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#4 2004-02-13 17:27:04

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#5 2004-02-13 19:00:35

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#6 2004-02-14 10:55:16

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#7 2004-02-15 11:27:52

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#8 2004-02-15 13:09:12

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#9 2004-02-15 15:34:03

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#10 2004-02-15 15:44:37

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#11 2004-02-15 17:57:52

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#12 2004-02-15 22:50:37

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#13 2004-02-15 23:19:24

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#14 2004-02-16 12:29:51

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#15 2004-02-16 14:08:18

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#16 2004-02-16 14:16:32

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#17 2004-02-16 15:48:45

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#18 2004-02-16 19:26:40

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#19 2004-02-17 07:11:01

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#20 2004-02-17 14:23:01

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#21 2004-02-17 15:31:38

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#22 2004-02-20 18:17:42

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#23 2004-02-24 14:00:07

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#24 2004-02-27 08:17:11

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

#25 2004-02-27 10:35:33

Re: Should we colonize Europa and Ganamedie! - Nice place to live

Board footer