• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is there knowledge that humanity shouldn't know?

X

Xenus

Member
Airola said:
Also the knowledge of how to control electricity.
That opened the floodgates to super mass production of everything.

We are slaves to electricity now. We feel like we are controlling electricity but it is controlling us. It brought us laziness and overindulgence of things.

Science was a mistake.
And now as things are too easy for us, we think that losing the convenience of science and electricity will make our lives boring and worthless.



Case in point below:
Click to expand...

Wow really? Electricity is one of the greatest advances in humankind and you'd do without just cause you think it makes life too easy?

I'd say it's easier to make the argument that we've advanced too slowly thus climate change due to us not getting off of fossil fuels earlier. Imagine a world where Nuclear Fusion reactors became a thing in the 50's or 60's and batteries became advanced enough for long range cars/trucks in the 70's or 80's. We'd be far better of off in air quality and climate then we are today.

Hell just advance our understanding of ecosystems 200 years and we'd probably have 10's of Millions of Bison being farmed in the US instead of Cattle.
 
D

DarkKyo

Member
Username1198 said:
Exactly. I'd be pisssd if I found out this a computer simulation.
Click to expand...

I think the simulation theory gets a bad rap simply because it implies there is some callous overlord... which could be true, but either way we exist in some form, so what's the difference? Also, think of the possible positives, it would not only prove the existence of a higher power(well, only really a good thing if they are benevolent or care at all about the sentient minds it is indirectly or directly responsible for spawning), but it also implies that you are a form of data on a higher substrate.. meaning the potential of your existence may not be as confined to temporary flesh moving through spacetime as you think it is.
 
S

SomTervo

Member
Airola said:
That's also a big window for at least some civilization building stuff that would make their existence know to us. I mean, think about how much humans have advanced in the last hundred years. If there have been billions of years of civilization building before earth was even formed I'd imagine at least one civilization would not have extreme distances as obstacles to find us. They should've made so big technolocigal advances that they can detect our small planet and they can visit us.

As there is not a single piece of evidence of them being here I'd say that
1) They are not intelligent at all. They might not even have built anything that can fly into space. They might be stupid as hell.
2) We are the first and could be the last too.
Click to expand...

The idea is that we'll be destroying ourselves in the next 100-300 years and that (it's likely) every other potentially star faring race has done the same before us. Like: there's an infinitesimal chance life is created, and an infinitesimal chance WITHIN THAT that we aren't killed by a disaster, and an infinitesimal chance WITHIN THAT that life doesn't kill itself before reaching the stars.


Username1198 said:
Exactly. I'd be pisssd if I found out this a computer simulation. Or happy if I could use cheat codes. Can you imagine waking up as the Hulk and hurling buildings at the moon?
Click to expand...

As DarkKyo said, there's nothing inherently evil about the computer simulation idea as long as it's not suddenly and arbitrarily unplugged one day and we're given nowhere to go.
 
T

The Albatross

Member
Mahonay said:
Hmm, yeah, the bombs forced the Japanese to come to the table and surrender, but we also didn't tell them that they could keep their emperor until after we had dropped the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Would they have agreed to surrender in that scenario? Maybe not. But we also didn't present it as an option.

Not discrediting the work of Oppenheimer, just questioning the way the Allies ultimately went about it.
Click to expand...

We've had threads about this before, and it's probably better for another thread because there's a lot of conjecture, it's a huge topic, and honest historians/theorists legitimately disagree.

My comment (the bolded) on the end of that last post was more to say, he was discredited and slandered as being a Communist by the very people that likely would have agreed that he did more to bring about the end of WWII than any other American. Whether the Bomb did or didn't end WWII any sooner is open to conjecture, but Oppenheimer's role in the development of the Bomb (and subsequent opposition to further nuclear development) is indisputable.
 
D

Dead Guy

Member
Nah. To me life is about the pursuit of knowledge so to completely bar what we are allowed to learn about could be disastrous at worst and just stupid at best.

Knowledge itself isn't good or bad. All about what you do with it.
 
M

Mahonay

Banned
The Albatross said:
We've had threads about this before, and it's probably better for another thread because there's a lot of conjecture, it's a huge topic, and honest historians/theorists legitimately disagree.

My comment (the bolded) on the end of that last post was more to say, he was discredited and slandered as being a Communist by the very people that likely would have agreed that he did more to bring about the end of WWII than any other American. Whether the Bomb did or didn't end WWII any sooner is open to conjecture, but Oppenheimer's role in the development of the Bomb (and subsequent opposition to further nuclear development) is indisputable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
sono

sono

Gold Member
Yes like the ship in the movie Event Horizon, it went to a place you are not supposed to go and brought something back...
 
K

kinoki

Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
The real value of human life.
 
D

Dead Guy

Member
daviyoung said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because your original comment is kind of ridiculous considering all the things you mentioned are directly responsible for all the benefits we currently have in modern society. I mean I'm guessing you're going for the overpopulation and destroying the environment angle but I think the positives definitely outweigh the negatives in this situation.
 
P

Phrozenflame500

Member
As a species? I'd go with no, at least not yet. I'd argue nearly every technology we have developed has improved our lives one way or another. But I could see if, say, we developed a portable nuclear weapon that's easily manufactured in a garage we'd be better off not knowing.

Mind you, nukes and weapons technology in general come the closest.
 
Airola

Airola

Member
Mahonay said:
Billions of years is a long time. I think the most likely thing is that there have been other more advanced civilizations that are no longer around.
Click to expand...


SwiftDeath said:
Humanity has only been truly looking for signs of alien life for the better part of what 300, 500 years?

We've always star-gazed but without written history that we can make sense of (scientific theory etc.) and without tools like telescopes, it's unlikely any time before that would we as a species even notice aliens unless they visited us.

What happens if aliens all died out or moved to the opposite end of the universe or any number of possibilities? Billions of years goes both ways as there no guarantee that advanced races will survive indefinitely or won't all just go VR Waifu route and stop moving about so much
Click to expand...


But you'd think that in those BILLIONS of years some civilizations would've been able to build stuff that have made space travel fast and easy. And with such skills and resources to build stuff like that, I'd think they can also use their technology to prevent extinction. Especially if they could move to the opposite end to the universe, they would probably have no problems to move somewhere else when they want to.

We have been able to advance with science very very fast in the last hundred years that we are now fantasizing about transhumanism and eventually making people able to potentially live forever. A few hundred years from now our technology will probably be amazing. We might not be able to live forever but the next two hundred years will have us advance huge leaps from what we know and can do now.

We even have fantasies about colonizing space. I think it's safe to say that in the next five hundred years there are people living in Mars.

So imagine there being some lifeform that began its existence 10 billion years ago. The should be at least one civilization that has already been at this point and they have probably been there loooong loooong time ago. So if we can imagine colonizing space at least in a small scale in the next few hundred years, there should be alien lifeforms that have done the colonization already. In fact there should be wide spread life around the space by now. Surely not all of them have gone extinct. Even with our relatively primitive advancements we have already almost guaranteed that our knowledge of things stay preserved even if some catastrophy happens. For us all scientific and technological advances only happen faster and faster. What took us 100 years before takes us less than a year now. Maybe less than a month.

So if any alien civilization has been at this point even, say, 10000 years ago, they should've been able to advance science and technology is so fast rate that there should be no worries of them going extinct, and they should've spread far already. And they should have the technology to detect us by now (just think how far in space we can now look at with only a few hundred years of trying).


So first of all, "there must be others in space and us not seeing them could be because they have died" is just ridiculous.
Secondly, I think it's safe to say that IF there is another civilization that has advanced beyond our advancements, we should've been able to detect them already or they should've contacted us already. Our skills and technology + 10000 years should be enough for the other civilizations to create stuff that makes it impossible for us to not detect them even with our primitive technology compared to them.

That said I still think there are only two options:
1) We are alone.
2) We are the most advanced sentient species there is.
 
D

daviyoung

Banned
Dead Guy said:
Because your original comment is kind of ridiculous considering all the things you mentioned are directly responsible for all the benefits we currently have in modern society. I mean I'm guessing you're going for the overpopulation and destroying the environment angle but I think the positives definitely outweigh the negatives in this situation.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm talking about the effect we have had on our environment. They definitely outweigh the negatives. For us.
 
LordOfChaos

LordOfChaos

Member
I don't think it would be beneficial for humanity to find out we're in a computer simulation we have no control over, for instance.
 
M

Malreyn

Member
The Human Genome.

Knowing what genes to alter and manipulate in a person is just begging for abuse and discrimination against other people with or without certain genes.
 
G

gaugebozo

Member
DarkKyo said:
I think the simulation theory gets a bad rap simply because it implies there is some callous overlord... which could be true, but either way we exist in some form, so what's the difference? Also, think of the possible positives, it would not only prove the existence of a higher power(well, only really a good thing if they are benevolent or care at all about the sentient minds it is indirectly or directly responsible for spawning), but it also implies that you are a form of data on a higher substrate.. meaning the potential of your existence may not be as confined to temporary flesh moving through spacetime as you think it is.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as our colossal overlord has decided the calculation has reached he proper uncertainty level to finish his overlord thesis, we are FUCKED.
 
Mihos

Mihos

Gold Member
Airola said:
But you'd think that in those BILLIONS of years some civilizations would've been able to build stuff that have made space travel fast and easy. And with such skills and resources to build stuff like that, I'd think they can also use their technology to prevent extinction. Especially if they could move to the opposite end to the universe, they would probably have no problems to move somewhere else when they want to.

We have been able to advance with science very very fast in the last hundred years that we are now fantasizing about transhumanism and eventually making people able to potentially live forever. A few hundred years from now our technology will probably be amazing. We might not be able to live forever but the next two hundred years will have us advance huge leaps from what we know and can do now.

We even have fantasies about colonizing space. I think it's safe to say that in the next five hundred years there are people living in Mars.

So imagine there being some lifeform that began its existence 10 billion years ago. The should be at least one civilization that has already been at this point and they have probably been there loooong loooong time ago. So if we can imagine colonizing space at least in a small scale in the next few hundred years, there should be alien lifeforms that have done the colonization already. In fact there should be wide spread life around the space by now. Surely not all of them have gone extinct. Even with our relatively primitive advancements we have already almost guaranteed that our knowledge of things stay preserved even if some catastrophy happens. For us all scientific and technological advances only happen faster and faster. What took us 100 years before takes us less than a year now. Maybe less than a month.

So if any alien civilization has been at this point even, say, 10000 years ago, they should've been able to advance science and technology is so fast rate that there should be no worries of them going extinct, and they should've spread far already. And they should have the technology to detect us by now (just think how far in space we can now look at with only a few hundred years of trying).


So first of all, "there must be others in space and us not seeing them could be because they have died" is just ridiculous.
Secondly, I think it's safe to say that IF there is another civilization that has advanced beyond our advancements, we should've been able to detect them already or they should've contacted us already. Our skills and technology + 10000 years should be enough for the other civilizations to create stuff that makes it impossible for us to not detect them even with our primitive technology compared to them.

That said I still think there are only two options:
1) We are alone.
2) We are the most advanced sentient species there is.
Click to expand...

10000 years at light speed is a depressingly small distance. It is barely out of our own arm of our own galaxy.

If you think there is a faster than light communication, well, maybe they are using that. Why aren't we? Because we don't have it yet. Maybe they used radio for 250, 300 years until it was end of life, but that was 9750 years ago, so you just missed them. Maybe they are close and some vintage collector of radio on their planet just now is hearing our radio signals from 100 years ago, and they are one of the handful of stars inside of 100 light years away, and they have already responded and the signal we can listen too, but too bad it will take another 100 years to get here. I also doubt that any advanced civ would just be radiating radio all over the place like we do now, because it is horribly inefficient since anything that isn't straight point to point is just wasted energy. In fact, we radiate less and less into space now because of that very reason and are ourselves become harder to detect via radio.

The depressing thing is this. Faster than light communication is possible, or faster than light communication is impossible. (or secret bonus possibility that faster than light communication is possible, but only between the devices that establish it).
Most likely scenario for communication between us, is there is a tech we haven't invented yet, and when we do, we will find others are already there.

There is also temporal differences in that time is perceived and processed at different releative rates, 2 generations of us could have died in the time it takes them to form a sentence, or vice versa

And if there is some sentient speicies who is both advanced enough, and yet stupid enough to transmit a signal we can detect non stop from, say Andromeda, that's close right? Well they would have had to have started 2.5 million years ago for us to catch them today(actually, a little longer, because Andromeda was further away 2.5 million years ago) and in that, would have to be receive it in the past 100 years we would be listening... so yeah, we had a .004% chance of catching that message if we even knew what to listen for.
 
D

Dead Guy

Member
daviyoung said:
more like I want human beings to co-exist
Click to expand...

Sure I don't think anyone is gonna argue with you about that. A ton of work still needs to be done for us to coexist with everything else on this planet. But saying you wish that human society never evolved past like the 16th century is still pretty ridiculous.

The most basic instinct in any living creature is to survive and so naturally any organism that has the capacity to make things better for themselves are gonna want to take those opportunities.

It's unfortunate that we had to harm the environment to advance as a society but I see it as a necessary evil, one that we will hopefully begin to reverse over the next several decades.
 
D

daviyoung

Banned
Dead Guy said:
Sure I don't think anyone is gonna argue with you about that. A ton of work still needs to be done for us to coexist with everything else on this planet. But saying you wish that human society never evolved past like the 16th century is still pretty ridiculous.

The most basic instinct in any living creature is to survive and so naturally any organism that has the capacity to make things better for themselves are gonna want to take those opportunities.

It's unfortunate that we had to harm the environment to advance as a society but I see it as a necessary evil, one that we will hopefully begin to reverse over the next several decades.
Click to expand...

What humans have done is far beyond the Darwinian concept of evolved. We no longer adapt to our environment, it adapts to us. Your selfish attitude to it is absolutely standard, you're in good company. Fuck you, got mine right? We are not coexisting anymore and we never will, especially when you think it's all a necessary evil because well, we've got it pretty great and that's all that matters.
 
D

Dead Guy

Member
daviyoung said:
What humans have done is far beyond the Darwinian concept of evolved. We no longer adapt to our environment, it adapts to us. Your selfish attitude to it is absolutely standard, you're in good company. Fuck you, got mine right? We are not coexisting anymore and we never will, especially when you think it's all a necessary evil because well, we've got it pretty great and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

I'm making the point that if humans had never done it, someone else would have. We just happened to be the lucky species on earth that won the genetic lottery and were able to evolve to what we are now.

Like I said before, it's in the nature of living things to want to make things better for themselves. That's what humans have done and what I believe any other species would have done if given the same situation.

I never made the argument that humans or our society is perfect. I do believe that overpopulation and environmental damage are real problems we need to work on, but to say the solution is just to halt all human progress all together is absolutely absurd.

I also think you need to remember that you can argue about stuff like this due to the advances we've made in the last 200 years. If you were to somehow go back in time and experience life as a filthy disease ridden peasant you probably wouldn't be making the argument that human advancement is bad.
 
X

Xenus

Member
daviyoung said:
What humans have done is far beyond the Darwinian concept of evolved. We no longer adapt to our environment, it adapts to us. Your selfish attitude to it is absolutely standard, you're in good company. Fuck you, got mine right? We are not coexisting anymore and we never will, especially when you think it's all a necessary evil because well, we've got it pretty great and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

If that's your idea might as well stop using the internet then. Would it be great if our knowledge of ecosystems that now exists existed 300 or more years ago? Yes we probably wouldn't have had things like the mass murder of Bison in an attempt to starve the Native Americans. However to essentially advocate we go back in time you might as well become Amish at that point and don't expect the majority of the population to agree with you.
 
T

tonysidaway

Member
zeemumu said:
Instilling manufactured things with sentience.
Click to expand...

Haven't we been seeking to do just that for a while without significant controversy?

But I think I can see some ethical dilemmas. For instance, in the Black Mirror episode White Christmas we develop in some nearby future the capacity to create a "cookie" from an existing human brain. This is a simulation that has sentience and can this be manipulated, threatened and tortured.

But that's not a hard boundary, as was suggested. Examples of beneficial uses of such a technology are to enable a sentient mind (or a reasonably faithful facsimile thereof) to survive the death of the body.

I would also suggest Surface Detail, one of Iain Banks' greatest novels, as a fairly good exploration of the pros and cons of that kind of machine intelligence. In particular, his discussion of what the narrator calls "The Simming Problem" is quite inclusive in its definition of machine intelligence.
 
Y

yanipheonu

Member
daviyoung said:
What humans have done is far beyond the Darwinian concept of evolved. We no longer adapt to our environment, it adapts to us. Your selfish attitude to it is absolutely standard, you're in good company. Fuck you, got mine right? We are not coexisting anymore and we never will, especially when you think it's all a necessary evil because well, we've got it pretty great and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this assumes a seperation between humans and the environment that may not exist. There's no reason to think humans aren't any less a part of the environment than rocks and trees.

Which leads to some odd paradoxes. Are we a piece of the Earth damaging itself? Are skyscrapers an affront to nature or another manifestation of Earth's rocks and minerals via a biological agent? Is the callousness of some humans towards nature, in fact, a part of nature?

Which doesn't let humans off the hook from protecting the environment of course, we are a part of it so we can be ended by it. We eat the same food, drink the same water and share the same sunlight, we aren't as seperated as some people fool themselves into thinking.

It isn't as easy as humans being jerks though.
 
P

Poppy

Member
tonysidaway said:
Haven't we been seeking to do just that for a while without significant controversy?
Click to expand...
we have been trying to instill ai with the capacity to learn and be more functional than it is to the extent that it is nearly indistinguishable from humanity, but that seems more focused on functionality and making us comfortable and making technology better

imbuing something artificial with actual sentience though, seems like the most morally reprehensible thing i have ever heard of in my life
 
Airola

Airola

Member
Mihos said:
10000 years at light speed is a depressingly small distance. It is barely out of our own arm of our own galaxy.

If you think there is a faster than light communication, well, maybe they are using that. Why aren't we? Because we don't have it yet. Maybe they used radio for 250, 300 years until it was end of life, but that was 9750 years ago, so you just missed them. Maybe they are close and some vintage collector of radio on their planet just now is hearing our radio signals from 100 years ago, and they are one of the handful of stars inside of 100 light years away, and they have already responded and the signal we can listen too, but too bad it will take another 100 years to get here. I also doubt that any advanced civ would just be radiating radio all over the place like we do now, because it is horribly inefficient since anything that isn't straight point to point is just wasted energy. In fact, we radiate less and less into space now because of that very reason and are ourselves become harder to detect via radio.

The depressing thing is this. Faster than light communication is possible, or faster than light communication is impossible. (or secret bonus possibility that faster than light communication is possible, but only between the devices that establish it).
Most likely scenario for communication between us, is there is a tech we haven't invented yet, and when we do, we will find others are already there.

There is also temporal differences in that time is perceived and processed at different releative rates, 2 generations of us could have died in the time it takes them to form a sentence, or vice versa

And if there is some sentient speicies who is both advanced enough, and yet stupid enough to transmit a signal we can detect non stop from, say Andromeda, that's close right? Well they would have had to have started 2.5 million years ago for us to catch them today(actually, a little longer, because Andromeda was further away 2.5 million years ago) and in that, would have to be receive it in the past 100 years we would be listening... so yeah, we had a .004% chance of catching that message if we even knew what to listen for.
Click to expand...

This all reads to me as excuses to explain their nonexistence (nonexistence from our perspective).

I mean, it seems like all scenarios depend on these super old civilizations to always from some reason or another to never really advance past what we can understand now and if they get past us they die. They always seem to be conveniently hindered.

It's as if their means of communication should stay within our skills to receive it. Let's say humans will live for at least 1000 years from now. Do you think our technology after 1000 years of advance would be something that requires some sort of a listening machine in the other end?

If we can imagine us making some science wonders in the next couple of thousands of years, why wouldn't the aliens have done it already? Oh, they just all got killed before they were able to do it.

So do I understand correctly that we haven't seen aliens because 1) they for some reason can't go far past beyond our means to travel and communicate so they just can't make themselves known to us or 2) the ones that could do it have all died for some reason before they were able to do it.

Aliens seem to conveniently have their technological advancements behind our advancements or just far enough to not still go past the barriers and obstacles our technology still have, or they have all conveniently died before no-one knew about them even though having possibly billions of years more time than us to evolve :D

I mean, If no alien civilization ever in these billions of years of time were never able to reach us here, why should we even entertain any kind of thought of us being ever able to contact any alien life either? If we could imagine us some day being able to do that, then it should be extremely likely that some other alien civilization should've been able to do that already.

Again, we are either alone here or the most advanced species in the whole universe. Simply too much time has passed for there to not be aliens who would be able to contact us regardless of what we think the obstacles for communication are. "Well, they could be dead by now" is just going through the hoops to avoid the reality that we are either alone or the most advanced species there is. Besides, even if they were way more advanced but have for some reason died, it would mean we are probably the most advanced ones right now because, lol, they are dead.

If we aren't the most advanced species, there should be at least one civilization that has the skills and means and technology to reach us given the time passed since the universe began to exist. If we are the most advanced species, then it's very understandable why we haven't seen aliens yet. And even better explanation for that would be that we are alone.

I just can't find any logical reason for one of those options to be correct.

Well, maybe some other civilization has began to form around the time we began to form and they have made their advancement around the same pace we have. Then they could be more advanced than us but still unable to find and reach and contact us. But I think that scenario also seems too conveniently hindered.

And of course there are the conspiracy explanations. That they have been visiting here for a long time but people in power don't let us know it. And of course the "humanity sucks so they don't want to let themselves be known" theories are a thing too. But those also go a bit too far to the deep end to even entertain their possibility compared to the two options that we either are the most advanced or we are alone.
 
Airola

Airola

Member
Xenus said:
Wow really? Electricity is one of the greatest advances in humankind and you'd do without just cause you think it makes life too easy?
Click to expand...

Oh hell no. I said we are slaves to electricity. We. That includes myself. I bow down to my master. I'm too far into it to want to get rid of the convenience.

But that doesn't mean I'm doing the right thing.

I'd say it's easier to make the argument that we've advanced too slowly thus climate change due to us not getting off of fossil fuels earlier. Imagine a world where Nuclear Fusion reactors became a thing in the 50's or 60's and batteries became advanced enough for long range cars/trucks in the 70's or 80's. We'd be far better of off in air quality and climate then we are today.
Click to expand...

That world doesn't exist. It's pointless to even think about it. What's done is done.

Maybe what we have now weren't ever even possible to create without first creating destructive things.

The reality just happens to be that the catastrophic environmental situation in the world was partly created because of controlled electricity. You can say that maybe in the future things turn better because of that electricity but the situation now is directly connected to science and electricity. There's no way around it. And we all love it. You love it. I love it. We all love it.

Hell just advance our understanding of ecosystems 200 years and we'd probably have 10's of Millions of Bison being farmed in the US instead of Cattle.
Click to expand...

Well, there's the hope that we will be able to fix the problems. (well, here the word 'we' doesn't really mean 'we' because I for one won't be able to fix shit. But some other perhaps could.)

But then again maybe something happens to electricity and makes us unable to control it anymore. It will be hugely rude awakening for all of us the day we lose the ability to control electricity. That's the conspiracy-apocalypse-scifi-dystopia loving person in me talking though, so take it the way you like :D


SomTervo said:
The idea is that we'll be destroying ourselves in the next 100-300 years and that (it's likely) every other potentially star faring race has done the same before us. Like: there's an infinitesimal chance life is created, and an infinitesimal chance WITHIN THAT that we aren't killed by a disaster, and an infinitesimal chance WITHIN THAT that life doesn't kill itself before reaching the stars.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the conclusion for that then be that if all other advanced species have destroyed themselves, we should also stop advancing because that would let us more likely to keep on going?

Or if we think we should try to advance because we might be able to go further, then we should believe some other civilizations have been able to do that too. I mean, we can't be the only ones who will be able to go past that. Too many billions of years have passed for just us of all other civilizations in history suddenly being able to avoid that fate.
 
X

Xenus

Member
Airola said:
Well, there's the hope that we will be able to fix the problems. (well, here the word 'we' doesn't really mean 'we' because I for one won't be able to fix shit. But some other perhaps could.)

But then again maybe something happens to electricity and makes us unable to control it anymore. It will be hugely rude awakening for all of us the day we lose the ability to control electricity. That's the conspiracy-apocalypse-scifi-dystopia loving person in me talking though, so take it the way you like :D
Click to expand...


I could see a temporary thing like a massive solar storm wiping t out temporarily but not fully. Though say a massive solar storm hits tomorrow we are going to be in a world of hurt for the next few years and there will probably be mass panic. Doesn't mean we can't rebuild but Billions of people with the lights suddenly going out and no global communication is going to rock the world pretty bad.

And ya as far as ecology goes as long as things don't go extinct or if they do we have their DNA there is a chance of us fixing it. Problem being there are lord knows how many species we don't know about yet going extinct as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Is it common for developers to address negative Steam reviews directly? What do you think about the practice?
18
1K
Drizzlehell replied
  • Poll
(Somewhat) How Not To Retrospective: The Nintendo 64 Chronicles (Sakhura Baguette)
Opinion Analysis Retro
23
1K
Katajx replied
[Jez Corden] OPINION: This week's big Xbox drama showcases how little people trust Nadella's Microsoft — a legacy forged in the death of Windows Phone
2 3 4
164
12K
Rosoboy19 replied
Fallout - Series Reviews
11 12 13 14 15
748
35K
engstra replied
In defense of Phil Spencer - he is not the problem with Xbox
Opinion Business Cringe 2 3 4 5
227
16K
ShadyAcshuns replied
Top Bottom