Comments by "Brandon" (@gravoc857) on "Destiny"
channel.
-
99
-
33
-
@Gareth Evans As our universe observation technology continues to become sufficiently more advanced, we’re realizing how easy it is for super or hyper intelligent civilizations to find us. Humanity already has technology to see if there’s lights on a planet that’s billion(s) of miles away. Meaning if we think a planet has a possibility to host intelligent life, we have ways to look & test for it.
Every solar system has a natural telescope powerful enough to see images in stunning detail from unfathomanle distances away. This telescope is called the sun and it’s accomplished by something called Gravitational Lensing. A type 2 civilization would be capable of exploiting this advantage. Hell, humanity might have solar sail probes capable of reaching the suns gravitational focal point before we become a full type 1 civilization. It’s only 625 astronomical units away from Earth. Minimal distances when you consider humanity is already in the process of developing very fast drones to explore Proxima Centauri.
Now the real question is intelligent life there? Does it exist at the same time as us? Is it actively looking? Remember, humanity has been here for a blink. Our first radio waves haven’t even traversed 1/3rd of our galaxy yet.
Earth has 3 forms of higher natural intelligence. There’s social intelligence formed from mammals, mastered by us.
There’s hive intelligence, which is a relatively new concept to our planet, mastered by ants.
Then there’s solitary intelligences, mastered by Cephalopods such as octopus & cuddle fish.
So we know 3 classes of what’s considered higher sentient consciousness just here on Earth. We see lots of opportunity for life just in our solar system. We know of countless Extremophiles here just on our planet. We know the observable universe is incredibly vast, with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and planets. We know water is common throughout the universe. We know our star is common in the star family tree. We know Earth like planets around the habital zone is fairly common. Our technology continues to reveal more to us & its beginning to become odd that we aren’t finding life. It’s why we need to push harder for answers. There’s more reason to believe life not only exists, but thrives in the universe rather than is extremely rare. So where is all of it?
That’s where the Fermi Paradox comes in. If you’re interested, I strongly encourage you to research it. It provides several logical answers to why we’re not finding life. Whether we’re alone or not alone. Both answers are equally exciting and horrifying.
18
-
17
-
17
-
12
-
12
-
Your assumption is that an abundance of galaxies, stars, and planets guarantees abiogenesis elsewhere in the universe.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t. We don’t know how likely abiogenesis is. We can’t even figure it out here on Earth. To speculate on the odds of it occurring elsewhere in the universe, is to lean on ones conviction, rather than logic.
The logical counter argument to your statement about more stars in our galaxy, than grains of sand on Earth. If the chances of abiogenesis is say: 1 in an octillion. Then it’s statistically likely that we’re alone in the galaxy, as well as humans are a statistical impossibility. Earth would be unfathomably lucky to have abiogenesis occur.
Alternatively, if the chances for abiogenesis is say: 1 in a trillion. Than it’s likely that there could be a few civilizations existing, or who have existed within the Milky Way Galaxy.
If it’s 1 in a billion. Then it’s statistically likely that there’s life within 100 light years of us.
If it’s less than 1 in a billion. Than statistically speaking, our galaxy should be full of life.
Until we discover how abiogenesis happens, and how likely, or unlikely it is to occur. We cannot make biased assumptions based on our conviction with any sort of degree of confidence. It’s speculation in the absence of data. There’s nothing wrong with speculation. I just think it’s important to highly that for every argument that claims the universe has life elsewhere, has an equal argument in favor of the opposite. Vice Versa as well. Until more data is available, all options are equally as probable. Whether that be a desolate universe, or a universe full of life, or anything in-between.
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
@JoJo-xz2px yes. Humans already have adapted for hotter weather. It’s why we lost fur, are the sweatiest of mammals and have the only skin known that gets purposely darker with more sun exposure.
Modern day humans evolved from a very unique species of mammal. Homo Erectus engaged in a very unique hunting strategy called persistence hunting. To this day, homo erectus and modern day humans are the only species known to utilize persistence hunting.
Persistence hunting is a combination of tracking, sprinting, jogging & walking. It’s when a slower species runs down a faster species by exhausting or overheating its prey with relentless persuit. Persistence hunting means actively engaged in one pursuit and that pursuit could take days. It means to not give up when outpaced. No other hunting species is known to do this. Other species will give up on the pursuit & try again later. Not Homo Erectus. It goes until it chases its prey down.
For Homo Erectus to achieve this, it evolved several adaptations. Homo Erectus began losing hair. It’s ancestors were significantly hairier. It began developing a significant amount of sweat pores, far surpassing any other mammal in terms of total sweat pores. We are also the only known mammal with skin designed to be exposed to the sun and build resistance to the sun with added exposure by getting darker. This means our glands also have an unprecedented ability to develop melanin. This ability to generate large amounts of melanin is shared with for example: Octopi & Chameleons. Homo Erectus was also one of the only mammals, apart from modern humans, to be able to engage in intense physical activity for 4 hours strait. This means Homo Erectus was able to better store and regulate water usage in the body than other species.
Humans are quite the oddity and alien in our own right. We developed and evolved down a very unique evolutionary path. Even if you don’t consider our massive prioritization of the brain and frontal cortex, modern humans have evolved some seriously interesting traits. But going back to your original question. Yes, we evolved to be hot, and we’ll continue to evolve towards environmental fitness. Both on an evolutionary standpoint, but also on an intelligence standpoint. Humans have a unique advantage not granted to other species. Our superior intelligence grants us the ability to adapt much quicker than other species can. Humanity is already beginning to show signs of adapting to this hotter world. Stuff like Saudi Arabia’s Line City, or Operation Cool Singapore. Heck, scientific engineers are playing with the idea of developing “artificial ice” to replace our planets natural heat mirror. The polar caps melting means our dark oceans absorb more heat. The idea that we could prevent this compounding warming effect by installing artificial & biodegradable materials that are cheap and scalable to industrial levels is simple & incredibly effective. You have an entire science and industry designated to building economically viable carbon scrubbers. We’re basically there mate. Carbon scrubbing is already profitable in some cases & it’s something that entire industries are looking to adopt into their business structure. You have scientists working on artificially engineering bioplankton that can survive a hotter & more acidic ocean. You have an entirely new generation of farmers beginning to focus on sustainable farming. Can’t forget to mention the growing industry of vertical hydroponic farming. Which can be done in factories or underground. Water desalination is slowly but surely becoming more viable. The first commercial fusion reactor is set to be completed and operational by 2035. If this commercial reactor is able to prove concept, humanity gains access to enough energy to explore our entire solar system. This means we have access to 100 million times more resources than we have on Earth. This allows us to make colonies on several moons & Mar’s. This significantly increases the species chances of survival, as well as humanities chances of surviving on & restoring Earth. With fusion, sky hooks and space elevators. We would have enough technology and infrastructure to bring massive quantities of water to space & vice versa. Why would we want to bring water to space? If we bring water to space, we can let the near absolute zero temperatures of space freeze the water into ice. We then can take this ice back to Earth & cool the oceans and/or replenish the ice caps.
So as you can see, humanity has a lot of ways to adapt & evolve to survive this new world. It’s not guaranteed, but us humans are crazy smart. If you need further inspiration. You can look to those who live in the most hot parts of the world. See how they live and adapt to the heat.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@BadCompany3 Aquatic life would thrive in planets with stronger gravity. Gravity doesn’t really matter when the stuff you’re surrounded by is all the same density.
A super earth with lots of water could breed oceanic giants.
The challenge for life on stronger gravity planets is gravity will be unforgiving to ocean life once it tries to transition to land. It will require bigger bones, stronger muscles and a clever cardiovascular system. These are all very expensive evolutionary traits. But just because they are expensive doesn’t mean they are impossible. Take a look at humans and octopus for example. Both have very expensive brains that are big & slow to develop. When humans were prey, our brains were a disadvantage to us and got many of us eaten by predators. Whether it be a mother needing labor or giving labor. Or the process of keeping a helpless child alive longer than what is needed for other species with smaller brains or even our curiousity. Our brains allow us to be fascinated by the world, which in turn means some of us would have died out of curiousity of predators. Something smaller brained animals generally do not succumb from. Yet, octopus and us are still here.
A planet with stronger gravity will favor different evolutionary traits. For example, insects here have a biological version of hydraulics. A planet with stronger gravity might have life that favors biological hydraulics in larger species as a way to cope with increased gravity.
Stronger gravity isn’t all just cons though. Like I mentioned in my above comment. A planet will strong gravity will have a dense atmosphere at the surface. This makes flight much easier on these planets than it is on Earth. Meaning, you don’t need to achieve apex evolutionary traits that allows avian creatures on earth to fly. Flying creatures on these planets will have a much easier go at it, meaning many evolutionary paths will allow creatures flight, that aren’t specialized in it. Like how earth has mammals that specialize in gliding. These planets would have an abundance of creatures that come up with secondary mechanisms to achieve partial or full flight. Kinda funny but not farting might be a mechanism. At these densities, lighter gases will have a lot more desire to float up than they do here on Earth. A small creature might accidentally discover temporary flight after eating something gassy and finds itself floating. After thousands upon thousands of generations of trial and error. The species may master eating certain foods to generate internal gas, and then lower themselves from the air by releasing the gas.
Smaller gravity planets would favor massive frames but they would be light. These frames would benefit those attempting to reach up or across. Or those wanting to run faster in a lower gravity environment. Or those wishing to live in extreme environments such as mountain overhangs. Or those who want to jump higher and farther, or fly higher and faster.
So in short. Strong gravity worlds favor massive creatures as the sheer size is needed to cope with the gravity. The oceans would be capable of evolving giants. Those giants might eventually move to land.
Small gravity planets will allow more versatility and flexibility in frame evolution. There won’t be a strong demand for big bones, strong muscles or complex systems to cope with the excess gravity. Therefore these species will prioritize evolutionary advantages that assist them in surviving their environment, rather than surviving the forces around their environment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JCAH1 I’m not disagreeing with quite a lot of what you’re saying.
Obama proved to be an establishment shill in just about every aspect, climate change included. I used to be the biggest Obama enthusiast but he seems rather right leaning after I discovered true Progressive views.
I don’t think we’re at immediate threat of ocean levels rising. I think it’s a problem for our grand children. Unless something were to trigger a rapid cascade of change, which is entirely possible.
Look at Venus. Billions of years ago, Venus resembled Earth. Hell, it’s possible life used to exist on it. Back then, our sun burned 80% dimmer which put Venus in the habital zone. There’s a common misunderstanding today that Venus became a hellscape because the sun started burning brighter. That is incorrect. Venus experienced an era of hypercarbonization which turned its atmosphere into a pressurized inferno. The landscape became uninhabitable before the sun got brighter.
Same thing with Mars. Mars likely had liquid water once. Something happened that destroyed its atmosphere.
The point is irreversible things can happen in ecosystems that destroys them forever. That alone should make us want to be more cautious with our environment. It’s one thing if an external force destroys our planet. It’s another if we’re responsible. So why keep pushing Mother Nature to new extremes, just because Obama, Al Gore & the elite own some ocean front property?
I agree, renewables alone can’t power our grid. At least not right now. A civilization with sufficiently advanced solar harvesting and storing capabilities could do it. But not us. We don’t have Dyson swarms and hyper conductive storage devices.
Solar isn’t clean, either. The process of gathering energy is. But the process of building & transporting solar panels is dirty. So is the industry of battery power storage. Even if we went 100% solar, we wouldn’t reach net zero carbon. So we either need to radically rethink the dirty part of solar, find other sources, or both.
Wave power harnessing devices have hope.
I’m a fan of new generation portable small “box” nuclear reactors. They are practical, safer and significantly cheaper. I’m not a fan of old fashioned nuclear.
I’m a fan of fusion. Fusion will power us to a full type 2 civilization alone if and when we finally master the technology.
Renewables will become more viable once we have an industrial orbital infrastructure. Micro gravity opens up a world of mass-scale superconductor production. Which Earth’s energy grid desperately needs the ability to store and transport energy with significantly reduced energy loss.
Solar will be the ultimate energy source. A sufficiently advanced civilization will most likely have solar outpace the practicality of fusion, as that civilization gains access to multiple stellar masses.
Which routes back to what you’re saying about the utter unreliability of renewables. It’s not sufficiently advanced in its current form. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing.
Also, coal & fossil fuels hosts the largest global death toll. People all over the world are dying from chronic exposure to emissions-generated airborne carcinogens. Nuclear is one of the lowest global death tolls of any energy form.
In the long run, humanity needs to perfect renewables, fission & fusion. We need off of coal, natural gas and oil ASAP. We need to have a grid powered by a diverse source of energy.
Venezuala isn’t a good example. Yes they are in an energy crisis due to hosting one type of energy. But it isn’t the energy sources fault. Any energy source can fail. It was the countries fault for only having one energy source. Same way it’s Texas’s fault that their energy grid collapsed. Kleptocracy’s can’t be trusted to provide long term reliability and sustainability. America is a Kleptocracy now. It’s why our energy grid is destined to fail in the long run and it’s why I don’t trust old fashioned nuclear. I trust the tech. I don’t trust the Kleptocracy responsible for ensuring the tech doesn’t fail.
1