I'm tempted to try that collision in Universe Sandbox.
Last edited:
Underestimated? I think he said it was infinite.What - ya think Einstein might have underestimated the amount of Human stupidity in the Universe (vs. Hydrogen)?
It depends on what stellar civilizations would conquer for. Unless species continue to have unchecked population growth, they're resource needs probably taper down after awhile. If anything, humanity's problem may one be negative population growth, for instance. There's always the idea of a war to acquire technology or goods, but trade is easier, and unilke the whole Borg thing.. if a civilization truly has something of tactical value that you don't, it's probably not a great idea to attack them. There are wars for religious conversion, but mostly in history those have been thin veneers as land and resource grabs. Slave raiding? Again possible but unless there is some kind of FTL travel to make such a thing even worthwhile, the next question becomes what can a captured sentient being do that a machine can't, by the time you have the technology to travel.Why humans might be among the first civilisations to develop - grabby aliens:
I think we have to be among the first in this universe as, in a multiverse, developing too late gets you exterminated to make way for expansionist species. Whether we choose to exterminate other, less developed species to allow us to expand remains to be seen. A parallel has happened during colonisation on Earth - for example, the Tasmanians were exterminated by European settlers. One would like to think that aliens will be more enlightened but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Some people just want to accumulate as much as they can so they can wallow in their opulence, believing that they are like gods. I could imagine some aliens might be the same.
There's no reason to believe that evolved aliens would be more virtuous than us.
Exactly! For all we humans know they could be worse than us. Maybe Capitalists even x1000,000
one thing about the origin of life that i find interesting is the RNA world hypothesis. the question is if there was RNA life why is there none left? there are still examples of life that must be pretty close to the first DNA based life, chemosynthetic archea and bacteria.
Did the success of the new kind of life do so well that the conditions of life just were not possible? or possibly it could not survive Purple Earth or Snowball Earth (especially the latter). its interesting to ponder whether there is still some sign of rna life out there, lurking in a puddle underground or just viroids
but an entire clade of life (or proto life) is something else though, i think. it would be like bacteria not surviving. RNA life, if it even existed, didn't work exactly like what we call life now, but did it compete for the same nutrients? i suppose that would make sense.Well, there's competition. Just like Marsupial mammals and Placental mammals are pretty much exclusive or Lemurs and Simians or simply the fact that our branch of hominids have eliminated all the others that existed (it is estimated that there have been between fifty and a hundred of them). Yes, all the other hominids died because one way or the other our ancestors made them. Competiton for survival explains why certain types of life no longer exist, IMO.
but an entire clade of life (or proto life) is something else though, i think. it would be like bacteria not surviving. RNA life, if it even existed, didn't work exactly like what we call life now, but did it compete for the same nutrients? i suppose that would make sense.
no. as I understand it a retrovirus is encoded in DNA, whereas it is theorized RNA life would have been loop strands of RNA. About the closest equivalent would be a viroidIsn't a retrovirus a simple example of RNA life?
no. as I understand it a retrovirus is encoded in DNA, whereas it is theorized RNA life would have been loop strands of RNA. About the closest equivalent would be a viroid
Some say yes; others say no. Life is hard to define - like so many other things we don't understand as well as we might like.
I beg to differ, life is usually quite easy to define. Viruses happen to be borderline. The question is at what point does "ordinary" or "regular" matter become "living" matter? It's the same thing about life and death of an individual. In 99 percent of the cases, there's no contest, even a layman can say this person is alive and that person is dead. However, there are always cases that are in the "maybe" zone and that require the opinion of experts who sometimes will not even agree with each other. It's the cases of "when do we pull the plug?"Some say yes; others say no. Life is hard to define - like so many other things we don't understand as well as we might like.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.