Re: Bicyclist decapitated

On 4/29/2024 11:46 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/29/2024 10:41 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 4/28/2024 11:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:29:37 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:49:45 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

My comment was in reply to your, "They will probably try to
sell us things that are eventually found to be a scam." We
have a lot of those here!

>
Yep.  Whenever I go somewhere on vacation, that's what the locals do
to the tourists.
>

Food is the least likely 'catastrophic' problem. World grain
production rises every year on less land with less labor.
Human innovation rocks.
>
Regarding overpopulation, the Cassandras haven't been so
great on that either. All advanced countries suffer
declining birth rates, many including USA below replacement.
Regarding extreme solutions to 'impending doom', look at the
results of Mao's One Child policy which has turned out very
badly.

>
Rather write a long rant on the topic, I think you'll find this video
more digestible.
"The World Population Crisis NO ONE Sees Coming"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk5KoWUwz6Q>  (21:52)
The part on the changing demographics is rather interesting.  Note
that the author of the video made no attempt to predict the future or
even propose a short term trend.  When there were benefits to having
many children, birth rate and fertility increase.  When the benefits
are less valuable or useful, as is currently the situation, birth rate
and fertility decrease.  What happens when the aliens arrive is
unknown.  If they are hostile, increasing the birth rate is what
traditionally is used to build a large army to fight the aliens.  If
they are friendly and help solve our problems, people might think that
it's a wonderful world and a great time to have kids. Or, they might
decide to have a good time and not want to deal with difficulties of
raising kids.  Toss a coin on that one.
>
Chairman Mao's one child policy was a resounding success, but not in
the manner initially intended.  What it actually did was produce a
radical change in China's economic policies and opened China to trade,
commerce and a restricted form of private enterprise. It didn't
change China's political system in the slightest.  The result was a
spectacular increase in the standard of living.  The birth rate is now
decreasing because the population have found better things to do than
raise large families.  It took a while longer than Mao would have
predicted, but I think if he were alive today, he would be proud of
what he indirectly accomplished.

>

Thanks to you I was thinking of extraterrestrials on a long
drive here early today.

>
Guilty as charged and thank you for the credit.
>

IMHO it's more likely than not that there is other life
beyond Earth. But, given the immense distances, highly
unlikely that any two civilizations capable of leaving their
own planet would ever encounter one another.

>
True.  However, there are plenty of other things in our environment
and in the cosmos that have very low probabilities.  For example, the
numerical values of the physical constants control so many things that
are responsible for making our universe and ourselves that suggest
intelligent design rather than random chance is what sets their
values:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant>
Change any of these even slightly and our universe will fall apart.

>
AKA the "fine Tuning" argument - generally used as a justification for
"Intelligent Design" arguments
>
<snip>
>

And a further thought- One of my pet peeves is the comment
in NASA press releases about exoplanets which 'could support
life'. pfffft, how parochial and narrow minded.  There's no
reason to limit a 'life form' to compatibility with human
respiration of our atmosphere, our operating temperature
range or more importantly our chemistry. It's not
unreasonable to posit an utterly different basis for life
outside of carbon chemistry.

>
I beg to partially differ.  If we assume that all the known elements
are present in roughly the same distributions throughout the universe,
there's a good chance that self-replicating life processes will be
built using the same elements as on planet Earth.  "Carbon atoms are
unique because they can bond together to form very long, durable
chains that can have branches or rings of various sizes and often
contain thousands of carbon atoms."
<https://www.nature.com/articles/139290a0.pdf>
The emergence of life is possible with comparatively inferior elements
but the main building block will mostly likely be a stable atom that
will build the strongest and move versatile bonds to other atoms.

>
That's from our extremely biased perspective. To limit the possibility
to life as we know it simply due t the fact that that's what we know
is - as Andrew notes - myopic at best.
>

>

All random thoughts above are fact-free, non disprovable and
one man's opinion.

>
Today's science is no long built on truths, facts and certainty.  It's
built on probability.  There have been many major discoveries that
were built on guesses, hunches, low probabilities, thought
experiments, casual observation, wishful thinking, etc. It's no
longer possible to judge something as being right or wrong.  There is
a huge gray area between right and wrong that is currently the source
material for what we call science.  Throw relativity into the puzzle
and everything becomes a probability.  There's no need to apologize.

>
"In an infinite universe, infinite things are possible" - Carl Sagan
>
vs
>
"I suppose the probability exists that the apples could rise back up
to the tress tomorrow, but the possibility doesn't warrant much
discussion time in the science class" - Stephen Jay Gould
>

>

>

 
Mixing metaphors the Deity (or Head Bookie) may indeed be playing dice
with the universe as well as rigging the game.

>
"I refuse to believe God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
>
vs
>
"who are you to say what god does and does not do with the universe?" -
Niels Bohr