# Optimism in the Human Race



## Polednice

[Light-hearted but morbid]

Where do you see us in a few centuries' time? In a state of unprecedented harmony and civilisation? Or utterly self-annihilated?

I fluctuate quite considerably every day between: "Isn't humanity just so awe-inspiring and creative?" and "Isn't humanity just the most repugnant thing imaginable?" and have no idea which will prevail in the coming decades.

All I can hope for is that, if we do self-destruct, I'm dead by the time it happens, but I'm not sure that'll be the case. I often wake up thankful for not finding myself in the middle of a nuclear war.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Polednice said:


> [Light-hearted but morbid]
> 
> Where do you see us in a few centuries' time? In a state of unprecedented harmony and civilisation? Or utterly self-annihilated?


Neither

People will just keep adapting and adapting until Earth is inhospitable or aliens go "ugh, what the hell are these things" and kill us.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Worry not, dear friends, for I _will_ shamelessly violate the first law of thermodynamics one day. And as a result, humanity will flourish and master intergalactic travel.


----------



## kv466

As I was growing up and learned about these magnificent creatures, I would never have thought I'd live to see them be endangered. The answer is utter self-annihilation. It is what we chose.


----------



## jhar26

We will self-destruct. Not a few centuries from now. At the rate we're going I'd be very surprised if we'd make it to the end of 2100.


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ And surprised you will be on Jan/1/2101, when I come back to this thread and post "Haha! I made it, suckers!" with my bony geezer hands. Just wait for it.


----------



## Ukko

If we can survive Newt Gingrich, we'll probably be OK.


----------



## hawk

Hilltroll72 said:


> If we can survive Newt Gingrich, we'll probably be OK.


Where's that Mayan Cloak????....


----------



## Sid James

I was listening to the audiobook of Bill Bryson's history of almost everything & he said that sooner or later the earth & our solar system will be destroyed. Swallowed by a black hole or we will fall into the sun, etc. Different theories. Anyway it's not very optimistic, but it just says nothing is permanent. Nothing. Just imagine, everything we talk about here, it will be destroyed, swallowed by the black hole or whatever.

AS for what I think, I am basically an optimist. Eg. the Cold War, with constant fear of nuclear war, is over. Of course there's still issues, eg. with nuclear powers like India & Pakistan, etc. Stuff like that, instability. But on the whole I think we can kind of get over this period of extremes. There are good things being done now, it's just that the media often broadcasts all the doom and gloom. Look around in your local community, and there's sure to be good things happening on the small micro level. These people can be inspiring and positive. So I try to hang onto this rather than the news of stuff that gets me down. 

One reason I like musicians is that they do do good things for the big picture. Eg. Daniel Barenboim with Israel-Palestine relations, also ANdre Rieu who set up a charity to prevent desertification, or slow it down in the Sahel region of West Africa, to even rock musicians like Sting with his work in the Amazon rainforests, supporting the native people there to hang onto the nature from being destroyed. These people with their positivity give me hope and they can be very inspiring...


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> ^ And surprised you will be on Jan/1/2101, when I come back to this thread and post "Haha! I made it, suckers!" with my bony geezer hands. Just wait for it.


that could actually happen


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Polednice said:


> [Light-hear
> Where do you see us in a few centuries' time? In a state of unprecedented harmony and civilisation? Or utterly self-annihilated?


I think the real dangers are natural disasters and or disease as far as killing human beings in one incident. The latter is a real danger daily. Zoonosis is a constant risk as long as there are both humans and animals on this planet, and especially as we feed off other animals for food or for other products.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Honey, would you please pick up some milk, bread, and eggs on your way home? Honey?...Honey?"


----------



## violadude

We're going to inhabit Kepler-22b

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...2b-nasa-discovers-most-earth-planet-yet-video


----------



## pollux

Manhood is the only creature referring to which the individual is more important than the race (Kirkegaard).


----------



## CountessAdele

I'm an idealist...so everything's gonna be just fine!


----------



## jhar26

violadude said:


> *We're going to inhabit Kepler-22b*
> 
> http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...2b-nasa-discovers-most-earth-planet-yet-video


Yep - destroying just one planet is not enough for the human race.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*A Word from Chicago's "People's Poet Laureate"*

*The people yes*

The people yes
The people will live on.
The learning and blundering people will live on.
They will be tricked and sold and again sold
And go back to the nourishing earth for rootholds,
The people so peculiar in renewal and comeback,
You can't laugh off their capacity to take it.
The mammoth rests between his cyclonic dramas. Carl Sandburg


----------



## Kopachris

Vaneyes said:


> "Honey, would you please pick up some milk, bread, and eggs on your way home? Honey?...Honey?"


_The sun is in the east,
Even though the day is done
Two suns in the sunset
Could be the human race is run_


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> _The sun is in the east,
> Even though the day is done
> Two suns in the sunset
> Could be the human race is run_


The Cold War nightmare was always semi-buried in the back of people's minds, especially in the late 50s and 60s. Sometime in the 60s it sank in for most people that the family bomb shelter was simply a way to stretch out the dieing for a little while.

Whee!


----------



## Kopachris

Hilltroll72 said:


> The Cold War nightmare was always semi-buried in the back of people's minds, especially in the late 50s and 60s. Sometime in the 60s it sank in for most people that the family bomb shelter was simply a way to stretch out the dieing for a little while.
> 
> Whee!


_The Final Cut_ is still my favorite Pink Floyd album.


----------



## Dster

Homo sapiens will follow the path of the dinosaurs. Ever since they discovered brain power they have become more and more greedy. They destroyed other species that compete with them for living space. They paid scant regard to the environment even doom is staring straight into their face. There is no future for this planet if homo sapiens do not change their way of life. The alternative is to migrate to Kapton 7, 5 billion light years away.


----------



## Igneous01

Dster said:


> Homo sapiens will follow the path of the dinosaurs. Ever since they discovered brain power they have become more and more greedy. They destroyed other species that compete with them for living space. They paid scant regard to the environment even doom is staring straight into their face. There is no future for this planet if homo sapiens do not change their way of life. The alternative is to migrate to Kapton 7, 5 billion light years away.


or take a wormhole into another dimension and live on planet earth in that dimension


----------



## clavichorder

I don't pay attention to current events much, nor have I studied a tremendous amount of history, so my opinion holds little weight, but I have to say that my first reaction to predictions of doom and gloom is to be something close to angry, a small notch above annoyance. I just don't know. I did read that the population increase is going to decrease in its rate of increase sometime in the next 2-5 decades though. Isn't that good news? 

What's the good in being pessimistic? I read a discover magazine article once that made a list of heaping undertakings that we'd need to achieve in order to avert a global crisis in the next 50 years. They were large undertakings, but they didn't seem impossible. 

I don't want you guys to be right, but you might be...you don't enjoy being right about this do you? 

A little divulgence of my personal motivations: I just want to live a life that has nothing to do with the world's economy, politics, and weird technological advances. I have more important things to think about. Grand things, like enriching my mind and "soul", and experiencing my own life in a way that pleases me.


----------



## science

My guess is, life will get better and better until we destroy ourselves. I don't think we'll destroy ourselves over resources or shortages of anything: soon we will have much more efficient energy technologies, and from then on there will be enough of everything. 

What I worry about more is that democracy may be doomed. The kind of surveillance required to prevent nuclear terrorism from happening will also prevent the organization of any significant challenges to oligarchical power. The press is fairly easy to tame; most of the people are easy to keep distracted; most of the rest are easy enough to divide and rule with a facade of democracy (with about half of them eager to serve any sufficiently nationalistic regime); the few remaining discontents are either crackpots or easy enough to portray as crackpots.

Essentially, I think, we've been trading the freedom to rule ourselves for the freedom to consume. Now we will let other people rule us as long as we have good entertainment options. And the entertainment is getting ever more powerful. Once sufficiently realistic robotic sex-dolls and 3D video games hit the market, there will be less interest in politics than ever. We'll all have fascinating virtual farms, exciting alter egos as urban warriors in post-apocalypic video games (edit: and gigantic collections of classical music). Medical technology will extend our working lives by perhaps another decade; our social lives will be computerized illusions, far more satisfying than real life could ever be. 

But the next major war is very likely to be the end of us. It's probably a few decades off, barring a successful major terrorist incident followed by an overreaction by states. (I.e.: thousands die in an explosion in Mumbai; India blames Pakistan; nukes fly; world markets collapse; unemployment and protests everywhere; Iran and Russia and China and the US get involved in South Asia; maybe some people in the Southern Hemisphere survive - it's easy to imagine similar scenarios in Israel or New York or Taiwan or Korea.) But even if we succeed in avoiding all that, eventually China will decide it's ready to push the US away from the seas near its coasts, back into the Pacific a bit....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Folks, hang on to your prized classical music that's for sure! With all these pessimistic outlook, you will need musical bliss in the comfort of your own home while the world around is falling apart!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I reckon that what is happening right now (ie. worrying about what humans are doing to the Earth) will just continue until we all die out. We try to fix things, but things just get worse and worse.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

...And worse...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

And then we die. Without fixing anything of course. Humans (unlike myself, it has been proven that I am of the same alien race as Stockhausen) are known to procrastinate whenever they don't like the look of some situation.


----------



## clavichorder

science said:


> My guess is, life will get better and better until we destroy ourselves. I don't think we'll destroy ourselves over resources or shortages of anything: soon we will have much more efficient energy technologies, and from then on there will be enough of everything.
> 
> What I worry about more is that democracy may be doomed. The kind of surveillance required to prevent nuclear terrorism from happening will also prevent the organization of any significant challenges to oligarchical power. The press is fairly easy to tame; most of the people are easy to keep distracted; most of the rest are easy enough to divide and rule with a facade of democracy (with about half of them eager to serve any sufficiently nationalistic regime); the few remaining discontents are either crackpots or easy enough to portray as crackpots.
> 
> Essentially, I think, we've been trading the freedom to rule ourselves for the freedom to consume. Now we will let other people rule us as long as we have good entertainment options. And the entertainment is getting ever more powerful. Once sufficiently realistic robotic sex-dolls and 3D video games hit the market, there will be less interest in politics than ever. We'll all have fascinating virtual farms, exciting alter egos as urban warriors in post-apocalypic video games (edit: and gigantic collections of classical music). Medical technology will extend our working lives by perhaps another decade; our social lives will be computerized illusions, far more satisfying than real life could ever be.
> 
> But the next major war is very likely to be the end of us. It's probably a few decades off, barring a successful major terrorist incident followed by an overreaction by states. (I.e.: thousands die in an explosion in Mumbai; India blames Pakistan; nukes fly; world markets collapse; unemployment and protests everywhere; Iran and Russia and China and the US get involved in South Asia; maybe some people in the Southern Hemisphere survive - it's easy to imagine similar scenarios in Israel or New York or Taiwan or Korea.) But even if we succeed in avoiding all that, eventually China will decide it's ready to push the US away from the seas near its coasts, back into the Pacific a bit....


I can definitely fathom a war happening where a substantial amount of the world's population is killed, but I can't fathom "the end of humanity" as being so inevitable. Not saying it isn't possible, and I'm not saying war isn't inevitable, but the end of our thriving species in the next century? The confident inevitability of some assertions seem ridiculous to me. We'll go on somehow no matter what happens.


----------



## science

clavichorder said:


> I can definitely fathom a war happening where a substantial amount of the world's population is killed, but I can't fathom "the end of humanity" as being so inevitable. Not saying it isn't possible, and I'm not saying war isn't inevitable, but the end of our thriving species in the next century? The confident inevitability of some assertions seem ridiculous to me. We'll go on somehow no matter what happens.


Sorry man, I meant to make it clear that I was guessing. I have little confidence in my predictions!

But nuclear war would be pretty bad news. If (say) India and Pakistan go at it, the whole world will suffer.


----------



## clavichorder

science said:


> Sorry man, I meant to make it clear that I was guessing. I have little confidence in my predictions!


Miscommunication! Poor wording choice on my part. Thank you for not stooping to what may have been read as haughty in my post.

But still, do you think people will utterly "die out" in the face of such events? It seems unlikely to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Fear not, kind sir. It matters not one whit!

(I've always wanted to say that)


----------



## science

clavichorder said:


> Miscommunication! Poor wording choice on my part. Thank you for not stooping to what may have been read as haughty in my post.
> 
> But still, do you think people will utterly "die out" in the face of such events? It seems unlikely to me.


I really don't know. I think it's possible - and in the long run, of course, probably inevitable that we die out somehow.

What would be the results of a really large scale nuclear war? I can't say whether there would be a nuclear winter or how long it would last, but it could be bad enough to do us in.

Anyway, one of my favorite doomsday scenarios is the Grey Goo.


----------



## Scarpia

Bring's to mind Einstein's quote, "I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.


----------



## Polednice

clavichorder said:


> What's the good in being pessimistic? I read a discover magazine article once that made a list of heaping undertakings that we'd need to achieve in order to avert a global crisis in the next 50 years. They were large undertakings, but they didn't seem impossible.


I don't think this is simply a case of being pessimistic, it's about trying to be _realistic_, and if it's the case that humanity is in a dire state of affairs (arguable), then that is something we need to be interested in, need to get angry about, and need to act on. No, it's not in the least bit fun to think that we're right to assume we're doomed - there is nothing more that I want for our species than to be the kind of advanced, harmonious, technologically supreme race we so often imagine alien species to be in our sci-fi writing - but if instead it may well be the case that, _in my own lifetime_, we will experience a kind of unprecedented mass self-extermination, or even just a severe drop in quality of life due to economic crashes for whatever reasons, then it's something I can't simply ignore by being optimistic. Pessimism may be unpleasant, but optimism is burying your head in the sand.



clavichorder said:


> A little divulgence of my personal motivations: I just want to live a life that has nothing to do with the world's economy, politics, and weird technological advances. I have more important things to think about. Grand things, like enriching my mind and "soul", and experiencing my own life in a way that pleases me.


I agree partially with this, but whether you want it or not, your life _is_ affected by the economy, politics, and technology. For starters, you have an interest in the success of technology because of the computer you're using and your ability to communicate with people with more ease than ever before. This is something more generally (not you) that annoys me immensely. For example, just yesterday evening, my parents saw on the TV a piece about that new earth-like planet that has been discovered at a distance too far away for us to ever hope to travel to, and the public interviewed on the news channel as well as my Mum said: "What's the point of spending all this money on finding out pointless things like that when we struggle to get jobs?" And yet it is only because of the relentless curiosity and passion of scientists that these people have the TVs that they love so dearly. Plus, in a society like ours, where we are forced from birth to accept that we must work for a living, an entirely unnatural concept (and most of us doing things not out of love or interest but purely for the money so that we can eat and survive), I think we can do with _more_ inspiring science to help us see beyond our own petty horizons.

Besides, as much as I want to enrich myself and experience the best that I can on this planet, if I may well die in a few decades' time because of human conflict or greed, then that's something I need to think about now.



clavichorder said:


> I can definitely fathom a war happening where a substantial amount of the world's population is killed, but I can't fathom "the end of humanity" as being so inevitable. Not saying it isn't possible, and I'm not saying war isn't inevitable, but the end of our thriving species in the next century? The confident inevitability of some assertions seem ridiculous to me. We'll go on somehow no matter what happens.


Is it not also strangely confident to assert that we will definitely go on no matter what happens? As science (the member) points out, we _will_ go extinct at some point, we might just be lucky enough for it not to be this century.

Our greatest problem, as it always has been, is that power attracts the wrong people. Those who would be best in control of our governments don't want the job, while sleaze-bags with crap ideologies are the ones who run for office. And it leads to a situation as astronaut Ron Garan recently summarised: "We have the resources and technology to overcome almost all of the challenges we face... We are only limited by the size of our imagination and our will to act."

With all this in mind, my only consolation is in the knowledge that human life is insignificant. In her uncaring grandeur, nature will always thrive in a billion forms beyond our imagination.

Uplifting video time!


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> [Light-hearted but morbid]
> 
> Where do you see us in a few centuries' time? In a state of unprecedented harmony and civilisation? Or utterly self-annihilated?
> 
> I fluctuate quite considerably every day between: "Isn't humanity just so awe-inspiring and creative?" and "Isn't humanity just the most repugnant thing imaginable?" and have no idea which will prevail in the coming decades.
> 
> All I can hope for is that, if we do self-destruct, I'm dead by the time it happens, but I'm not sure that'll be the case. I often wake up thankful for not finding myself in the middle of a nuclear war.


Your new avatar is epic. Is that a gingerbread Bach?


----------



## graaf

Polednice, I might have something that could boost some optimism in human race:
Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.
Interview is here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/qa-with-steven-pinker/
His TED lecture is here:


----------



## AlainB

How do I think the human race will end up in the future? Well, I guess I'll stay optimistic.

However, looking at the current generation of humans, I think the future will look quite dire. In fact, it worries me to know that the teenagers of nowadays get to rule their own country in the future. If these people can't take care of themselves, we'll never get out of this continuous mess. The historical leaders were the ones who were quite competent, to say at the most - let alone this generation. What will happen? The answer's simple: more civilian wars! It'll only be a matter of time until the western countries will revolt in the very same way; and not for the better either.

This isn't the only matter at hand, though. I firmly believe that, as aforementioned by some others, this world will have its fair share of emptiness as time passes by. Surely it's long after we're gone, but humanity will have to find a new home eventually. Keppler 22 is obviously a no-go right now, but who knows how our technological advancement will be like? Could be excellent, but also horrible. Right now, we can't reach c=1 and it'll most likely be a long time until we can, let alone put it to use for our spacecraft.

So, do I believe humanity will end up destroyed in the future? For now, I'll say no - human will not, but it won't continue to exist without (probably inevitable) disasters of scale X.

Also, might be an interesting thing, about G. Eward Griffin's opinion regarding collectivism, and how it steadily and stealthily integrates within the very governments of nowadays. 80 minutes documentary, but a very interesting one.


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> Your new avatar is epic. Is that a gingerbread Bach?


It's actually a gingerbread Scrooge.  I stole it from a poster for A Christmas Carol!


----------



## Polednice

graaf said:


> Polednice, I might have something that could boost some optimism in human race:
> Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.


Yes, I've seen that talk before and also went to see Steven Pinker talk about it in more detail when he was over here. It's a fascinating talk, and I'm certainly convinced by it.

My concern is that our downward trend in large-scale violence does not account for the potential of one lunatic to do irreparable harm to the world. We have the technology for an individual or a small group of individuals to hold the world ransom, and, even if we'll never see a world war again, a few bad decisions by a few bad leaders behind closed doors could lead to extremely bad things...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

People call me Scrooge because of my thoughts on Christmas.


----------



## pollux

I hope this Pinker/Leibnitz finds soon his Voltaire!


----------



## mmsbls

graaf said:


> Polednice, I might have something that could boost some optimism in human race:
> Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.


There was a similar discussion about this concept in this thread. Ralfy suggested others who disagreed with Pinker's numbers (i.e. the 20th century had the most deaths due to wars). I think it's rather difficult to gather the data without significant error, and some of the data was given in actual deaths rather than percentage of deaths.

What certainly seems to be true is that the most technologically advanced countries go to war with each other much less than at prior times.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> [...]
> What certainly seems to be true is that the most technologically advanced countries go to war with each other much less than at prior times.


If Ambrose Bierce were still around, he might reply that the "most technologically advanced countries" have closely related interests, because of an "unholy alliance" of people engaged in, ah, business. Any war they'd be in favor of would need to be _mutually_ profitable.


----------



## Klavierspieler

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> People call me Scrooge because of my thoughts on Christmas.


People often call me Fred for mine....


----------



## Chris

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> People call me Scrooge because of my thoughts on Christmas.


I hope you don't regret that story's happy ending.


----------



## misterjones

Polednice said:


> Where do you see us in a few centuries' time? In a state of unprecedented harmony and civilisation? Or utterly self-annihilated?


As for myself, dead is my guess.


----------



## Billy

Though I don't like the word "optimism" because it suggests something less fierce than "hope," "hope" might be the best word to subsitute for it, simply. I am a fierce hoper, and definately not revolutionary, which to me always is a forceful absolute act. Pretty much hope is all we need, "tikvah" in our needed Hebrew. We cannot live well without hope, so that is what I suggest we do by learning how and why to think about what matters most only.


----------



## Lukecash12

Billy said:


> Though I don't like the word "optimism" because it suggests something less fierce than "hope," "hope" might be the best word to subsitute for it, simply. I am a fierce hoper, and definately not revolutionary, which to me always is a forceful absolute act. Pretty much hope is all we need, "tikvah" in our needed Hebrew. We cannot live well without hope, so that is what I suggest we do by learning how and why to think about what matters most only.


I can see what you're saying, but I still have a hard time following you and am guessing you sound more eloquent in Hebrew. Chazak, friend!


----------



## Billy

I was just saying that hope is more important to seek than knowledge, that we should give up our mad quests for truth, that hope is all we really need. Once we throw out the window the arguments that get us into trouble like whether something is real or not, and that it should matter to know it is or not, then we will be better citizens of the world to each other, perhaps world peace will finally come for other generations after us. Forget our own earthly paradises, and make them possible for our children instead. Yet, without learning selfishly how to augment your own self, what good will you be for the community? I want to be a better person. In our country, Blacks, Women, Gays, and the Elderly are treated better than they had been, as a whole, than 50 years ago thanks to individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. and Woodrow Wilson and many Judges of the Supreme Court. The progress we have been making isn't because we are better philosophers, but is possible because we are more inclusive to other's and their othernesses.


----------



## Ukko

/\ Woodrow Wilson? You got some signals crossed, guy.


----------



## Billy

Woodrow Wilson was good. Trust me on that.


----------



## Ukko

You maybe ought not to rely on your high school history book.


----------



## starthrower

According to the leading climate scientists, if the oil companies are successful in getting the Keystone Pipeline built, it'll be "game over for the planet". There's something like 238 billion tons of carbon to be unleashed if the Canadian tar sands are tapped into heavily. We'll be burning up by 2100.


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> You maybe ought not to rely on your high school history book.


Yeah! It's common knowledge beyond high school history that Woodrow Wilson was a bigot. Hope alone doesn't accomplish anything. Knowledge of course is a double edged sword, but what are the alternatives?


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> *Hope* alone doesn't accomplish anything. *Knowledge* of course is a double edged sword, but what are the alternatives?


I don't know, and I don't expect to find out.


----------



## Ukko

There is something that is at least an accessory to knowledge - good luck. Relying on it as an alternative is, ah, chancy.


----------



## Polednice

Billy said:


> I was just saying that hope is more important to seek than knowledge, that we should give up our mad quests for truth, that hope is all we really need. Once we throw out the window the arguments that get us into trouble like whether something is real or not, and that it should matter to know it is or not, then we will be better citizens of the world to each other, perhaps world peace will finally come for other generations after us. Forget our own earthly paradises, and make them possible for our children instead. Yet, without learning selfishly how to augment your own self, what good will you be for the community? I want to be a better person. In our country, Blacks, Women, Gays, and the Elderly are treated better than they had been, as a whole, than 50 years ago thanks to individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. and Woodrow Wilson and many Judges of the Supreme Court. The progress we have been making isn't because we are better philosophers, but is possible because we are more inclusive to other's and their othernesses.


Tl;dr ignorance is bliss?

There's a lot in the above reply, certainly about tolerance and diversity, that has nothing to do with hope and knowledge. Besides, it seems a bit fanciful and vapid to me to say that hope is all we need, let alone suggesting that we should cease our search for truth.


----------



## pollux

The problem with you friends is that you always keep asking yourselves: can I know? can I do? can I hope? can I love? What a pity! For that's the perfect way of not knowing, not doing, not hoping and not loving.


----------



## science

I'm digging up old threads because I was looking at this one. Here is one more tiny reason for optimism, at least in the short-term:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111215141617.htm



> Discovery of a 'Dark State' Could Mean a Brighter Future for Solar Energy
> 
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2011) - The efficiency of conventional solar cells could be significantly increased, according to new research on the mechanisms of solar energy conversion led by chemist Xiaoyang Zhu at The University of Texas at Austin.
> 
> Zhu and his team have discovered that it's possible to double the number of electrons harvested from one photon of sunlight using an organic plastic semiconductor material.
> 
> "Plastic semiconductor solar cell production has great advantages, one of which is low cost," said Zhu, a professor of chemistry. "Combined with the vast capabilities for molecular design and synthesis, our discovery opens the door to an exciting new approach for solar energy conversion, leading to much higher efficiencies."
> 
> Zhu and his team published their groundbreaking discovery Dec. 16 in Science.
> 
> The maximum theoretical efficiency of the silicon solar cell in use today is approximately 31 percent, because much of the sun's energy hitting the cell is too high to be turned into usable electricity. That energy, in the form of "hot electrons," is instead lost as heat. Capturing hot electrons could potentially increase the efficiency of solar-to-electric power conversion to as high as 66 percent.
> 
> Zhu and his team previously demonstrated that those hot electrons could be captured using semiconductor nanocrystals. They published that research in Science in 2010, but Zhu says the actual implementation of a viable technology based on that research is very challenging.
> 
> "For one thing," said Zhu, "that 66 percent efficiency can only be achieved when highly focused sunlight is used, not just the raw sunlight that typically hits a solar panel. This creates problems when considering engineering a new material or device."
> 
> To circumvent that problem, Zhu and his team have found an alternative. They discovered that a photon produces a dark quantum "shadow state" from which two electrons can then be efficiently captured to generate more energy in the semiconductor pentacene.
> 
> Zhu said that exploiting that mechanism could increase solar cell efficiency to 44 percent without the need for focusing a solar beam, which would encourage more widespread use of solar technology.
> 
> The research team was spearheaded by Wai-lun Chan, a postdoctoral fellow in Zhu's group, with the help of postdoctoral fellows Manuel Ligges, Askat Jailaubekov, Loren Kaake and Luis Miaja-Avila. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.
> 
> Science Behind the Discovery:
> - Absorption of a photon in a pentacene semiconductor creates an excited electron-hole pair called an exciton.
> 
> - The exciton is coupled quantum mechanically to a dark "shadow state" called a multiexciton.
> 
> - This dark shadow state can be the most efficient source of two electrons via transfer to an electron acceptor material, such as fullerene, which was used in the study.
> 
> - Exploiting the dark shadow state to produce double the electrons could increase solar cell efficiency to 44 percent.


----------



## Guest

Billy said:


> Woodrow Wilson was good. Trust me on that.


Not really. He had political opponents locked up during WWI and shut down newspapers that questioned his administration. He was a known racist, and had "Birth of a Nation" privately screened in the White House. He was also a large proponent of eugenics.

Lyndon Johnson, maybe? Even Eisenhower enacted some Civil Rights legislation. But Wilson? That really is a HUGE stretch. That requires some justification on your part, not just asking us to trust you. That would be fine if we all knew one another, but since we don't, we do tend to require evidence to back up claims.


----------



## science

Polednice, here's a book that might interest you and some others on whether we could be optimistic about the future: _The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People_ by Jonathan Schell.

I haven't read it, but I think I will. I do not anticipate being persuaded, but hopefully he will at least give me more reasons for political hope.

Of course that's up against the latest example of the puppets of an elite doing what they think they must to retain their power and privilege over the people:






I don't know man. I hope Schell is right.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> Polednice, here's a book that might interest you and some others on whether we could be optimistic about the future: _The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People_ by Jonathan Schell.
> 
> I haven't read it, but I think I will. I do not anticipate being persuaded, but hopefully he will at least give me more reasons for political hope.
> 
> Of course that's up against the latest example of the puppets of an elite doing what they think they must to retain their power and privilege over the people:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know man. I hope Schell is right.


Thanks for the suggestion - I could do with some optimism after watching that video. The thing that concerns me most about our species is that so many of us are so easily manipulated, and we can so easily slip into modes of tribalism, forgetting that the people we are in conflict with are humans too. We lap up demonisation and propaganda. We live on prejudice and judgements of people outside our immediate social circles. All it takes is one tyrannical grip on a submissive people for a nation to be ruined. You'd think that the sympathetic outrage at that video would be promising, and yet some people suggest a massacre of the brutal police, making us no better.


----------



## Guest

The human population has already doubled once in my lifetime. If it doubles again in my lifetime I think it's pretty clear we're in for a major cull. Already the human footprint has grown so large that we are in the midst of a major extinction event with most large mammals the most obvious (and painful) casualties.

I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point, short of triggering World War III. What will be will be. But it will be awful at least in some ways.


----------



## TresPicos

jhar26 said:


> We will self-destruct. Not a few centuries from now. At the rate we're going I'd be very surprised if we'd make it to the end of 2100.


You're being a bit pessimistic here. I think the human race could be gone already by 2050. 

Go, dolphins, go!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The human race _will_ be gone by 2050. I am counting on it.


----------



## Polednice

BPS said:


> The human population has already doubled once in my lifetime. If it doubles again in my lifetime I think it's pretty clear we're in for a major cull. Already the human footprint has grown so large that we are in the midst of a major extinction event with most large mammals the most obvious (and painful) casualties.
> 
> I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point, short of triggering World War III. What will be will be. But it will be awful at least in some ways.


Although it's easy to feel overcrowded, and though we certainly destroy a lot of the natural world, I have seen convincing arguments that the population _number_ isn't a problem, it's just how we spend our time and use resources.


----------



## Ukko

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The human race _will_ be gone by 2050. I am counting on it.


If you are here when Armageddon happens, please take notes. When you get to the _Other Side_ you can fill me in. (I don't expect to be around for it).


----------



## Scarpia

Polednice said:


> Although it's easy to feel overcrowded, and though we certainly destroy a lot of the natural world, I have seen convincing arguments that the population _number_ isn't a problem, it's just how we spend our time and use resources.


For all the supposed ennobling effects of technology, in my cynical moments I wonder if we really need seven billion paunchy tubs of lard, burning dinosaur remains so they can plop themselves in front of the wide screen TV and watch video, with potato chip crumbs running down their shirts.


----------



## Polednice

Scarpia said:


> For all the supposed ennobling effects of technology, in my cynical moments I wonder if we really need seven billion paunchy tubs of lard, burning dinosaur remains so they can plop themselves in front of the wide screen TV and watch video, with potato chip crumbs running down their shirts.


I find it particularly upsetting because that practically describes my family.  Although I have no evidence either way, I would guess that technology doesn't make us any more stupid and lazy, it just allows us to see just how many of us are stupid and lazy more than ever before. So those of us who have the ability to see through the stupidness and the laziness just need to carry on the search for culture and civilisation, as pompous and stuck-up as that sounds of me!


----------



## Clementine

Joy, bright spark of divinity, Daughter of Elysium, Fire-inspired we tread Thy sanctuary. Thy magic power re-unites All that custom has divided, All men become brothers, Under the sway of thy gentle wings.


----------



## rojo

I can agree on Joy and men becoming brothers, Clementine. 

When I feel down, I sometimes listen to this:


----------



## Billy

Dr Mike,

True, racism is not good, but Woodrow Wilson was, trust me on that.


----------



## Guest

Okay, I am not exactly foreign to history. I won't "trust" you on that, when I have read evidence to the contrary. Either provide the evidence for your position, or drop it. 

Thanks to the Espionage act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918, newspapers that opposed the war were not allowed to be sent through the mail, effectively banning them. People who were critical of the administration were imprisoned. Robert Goldstein, a Jewish immigrant from Germany, was imprisoned for producing a film that was unflattering to our allies, the British. Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party leader was imprisoned. Recent immigrants who opposed the war were deported to places like Soviet Russia. Go read up about the Palmer raids, where 10,000 anarchists and labor organizers were rounded up and arrested.

He supported the segregation of federal agencies. As president of Princeton University, he discouraged blacks from even applying so that it wouldn't upset the white status quo at the university. His administration added segregation in federal agencies that hadn't existed since before the Civil War. Black federal employees were hounded from federal positions by his administration, thanks to the large number of Southern Democrats he brought in, to shore up their support for him. When confronted by a group of black leaders over his policy of segregating the military and not letting blacks serve in combat, he said the following, "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." 

And that doesn't even get into the farce that was his idea of a League of Nations. He established the Committee on Public Information, a propaganda office that was heavily involved in censorship. It also spread false stories to the media, and was responsible for highly racist depictions of Germans as bloodthirsty, inhuman "huns." The depictions bear an eery resemblance to later Nazi propaganda against the Jews, which sought to dehumanize them.


----------

