There Is No God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewbacca

Even if the odds of another planet like ours is 1 in 10 million there would still be thousands or more other lifeforms out there. And that's assuming there isn't life on planets not like ours, which is doubtful.

---

Way to hilariously sell short the number of planets in the universe.

There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=31
At the one in 10 million rate you gave, even if each star only had one planet that puts 10,000 such planets in our galaxy alone.

Then there is this mess. http://www.universetoday.com/85781/l...on-than-stars/. So maybe double that number.

And multiply the whole mess by 100 to 500 billion for the number of galaxies in the observable universe. http://www.universetoday.com/30305/h...-the-universe/

And we're at 1,000,000,000,000,000 to 5,000,000,000,000,000 special planets with life if you use the arbitrary fraction of 1 in ten million planets being special and life-y.

Again, if 1 in 10 million planets are "special", there are 1000 to 5000 trillion "special" planets. In the observable universe.

We know the universe is larger than the observable universe. On the far end some theories put it where if the universe is the size of the Earth, the observable universe is the size of a coaster on bar table which would explain why the universe seems isotropic and we can't see the curve. These guys say the universe is 250 times larger than the observable universe and actually is flat. Point is we don't know for now, but those "special" planets are certainly in greater number than 5000 trillion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kedawa

We're still nothing but dust compared to what's out there. Life as we know it is just a thin film on a wet rock in space. The majority of the universe is completely inhospitable to life. Maybe if we could create a life form that could survive the frigid radioactive void that occupies most of space, we would have a chance of making some impact on the universe. As it stands, we're nothing but a curious radio source in a backwater solar system.

---

We don't need to create them, tardigrades can already do all that. SOMEONE BEAT US TO IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Buddah can hang out anywhere, from a blade of grass to the electrons of the iPhone porn you looked up yesterday at 3:14 pm.

---

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/ga...5793043477.jpg

Come at me brah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kedawa

We're still nothing but dust compared to what's out there. Life as we know it is just a thin film on a wet rock in space. The majority of the universe is completely inhospitable to life. Maybe if we could create a life form that could survive the frigid radioactive void that occupies most of space, we would have a chance of making some impact on the universe. As it stands, we're nothing but a curious radio source in a backwater solar system.
Immortality is pointless as far as advancing the species. If anything, it would be an impediment. Out with the old, in with the new and improved.
I think what we do have going for us is that we're the first species around these parts to start consciously manipulating the building blocks of life, and we have the potential to propagate life in places where it currently doesn't exist.

---

Good post.

Immortality may be a impediment like you said (if it's even possible), but it doesn't mean that humans won't pursue it. I suppose the science could even alter people as it advanced, causing genetic development in a single being over a long period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nash

That kid in the hospital with terminal cancer says to stop trolling.

---

I worded that in a present tense sort of way when I didn't mean to. I meant to say that human beings should be able to escape death with the advancement of science given the current state of research.

Immortality will be a bitch to achieve, and true immortality is impossible simply due to the odds of eventually getting a brick through the skull, wiping out the bit that makes you "you". But it's definitely possible to stop the aging process. Maybe even reverse it if we can sort out stem-cell and other research properly. The only argument against it I've heard yet boils down to "because we haven't before". That's a pretty bad argument.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

Immortality will be a bitch to achieve, and true immortality is impossible simply due to the odds of eventually getting a brick through the skull, wiping out the bit that makes you "you". But it's definitely possible to stop the aging process. Maybe even reverse it if we can sort out stem-cell and other research properly. The only argument against it I've heard yet boils down to "because we haven't before". That's a pretty bad argument.

James

---

I think it could cause a dangerous replication of the species unless reproduction is outlawed and/or regulated. I personally do not like the ultimate aims of stem cell usage because it could have serious consequences in the planets ecology. The usage for it now is sound enough, but it has to be carefully watched and proceed slowly as it gets into more advanced applications.

Fuck that. Fuck you too.

Both of you jerks should read up on the Singularity a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

Immortality will be a bitch to achieve, and true immortality is impossible simply due to the odds of eventually getting a brick through the skull, wiping out the bit that makes you "you". But it's definitely possible to stop the aging process. Maybe even reverse it if we can sort out stem-cell and other research properly. The only argument against it I've heard yet boils down to "because we haven't before". That's a pretty bad argument.

---

Actually the best argument against it would be the fact that every time your cells divide you lose a little bit of DNA and getting that to stop is going to be a bitch.