From The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/node/18897425)
QuoteHOW big is the Earth? Any encyclopedia will give you an answer: its equatorial diameter is 12,756km, or, for those who prefer to think that way, 7,926 miles. Ah, but then there is the atmosphere. Should that count? Perhaps the planet's true diameter is actually nearer 13,000km, including all its air. But even that may no longer be an adequate measure. For the Earth now reaches farther still. The vacuum surrounding it buzzes with artificial satellites, forming a sort of technosphere beyond the atmosphere. Most of these satellites circle only a few hundred kilometres above the planet's solid surface. Many, though, form a ring like Saturn's at a distance of 36,000km, the place at which an object takes 24 hours to orbit the Earth and thus hovers continuously over the same point of the planet.
Viewed this way, the Earth is quite a lot larger than the traditional textbook answer. And viewed this way, the Space Age has been a roaring success. Telecommunications, weather forecasting, agriculture, forestry and even the search for minerals have all been revolutionised. So has warfare. No power can any longer mobilise its armed forces in secret. The exact location of every building on the planet can be known. And satellite-based global-positioning systems will guide a smart bomb to that location on demand.
Yet none of this was the Space Age as envisaged by the enthusiastic "space cadets" who got the whole thing going. Though engineers like Wernher von Braun, who built the rockets for both Germany's second-world-war V2 project and America's cold-war Apollo project, sold their souls to the military establishment in order to pursue their dreams of space travel by the only means then available, most of them had their eyes on a higher prize. "First Men to a Geostationary Orbit" does not have quite the same ring as "First Men to the Moon", a book von Braun wrote in 1958. The vision being sold in the 1950s and 1960s, when the early space rockets were flying, was of adventure and exploration. The facts of the American space project and its Soviet counterpart elided seamlessly into the fantasy of "Star Trek" and "2001: A Space Odyssey". Other planets may or may not have been inhabited by aliens, but they, and even other stars, were there for the taking. That the taking would begin in the lifetimes of people then alive was widely assumed to be true.
No longer. It is quite conceivable that 36,000km will prove the limit of human ambition. It is equally conceivable that the fantasy-made-reality of human space flight will return to fantasy. It is likely that the Space Age is over.
Bye-bye, sci-fi
Today's space cadets will, no doubt, oppose that claim vigorously. They will, in particular, point to the private ventures of people like Elon Musk in America and Sir Richard Branson in Britain, who hope to make human space flight commercially viable. Indeed, the enterprise of such people might do just that. But the market seems small and vulnerable. One part, space tourism, is a luxury service that is, in any case, unlikely to go beyond low-Earth orbit at best (the cost of getting even as far as the moon would reduce the number of potential clients to a handful). The other source of revenue is ferrying astronauts to the benighted International Space Station (ISS), surely the biggest waste of money, at $100 billion and counting, that has ever been built in the name of science.
The reason for that second objective is also the reason for thinking 2011 might, in the history books of the future, be seen as the year when the space cadets' dream finally died. It marks the end of America's space-shuttle programme, whose last mission is planned to launch on July 8th (see article, article). The shuttle was supposed to be a reusable truck that would make the business of putting people into orbit quotidian. Instead, it has been nothing but trouble. Twice, it has killed its crew. If it had been seen as the experimental vehicle it actually is, that would not have been a particular cause for concern; test pilots are killed all the time. But the pretence was maintained that the shuttle was a workaday craft. The technical term used by NASA, "Space Transportation System", says it all.
But the shuttle is now over. The ISS is due to be de-orbited, in the inelegant jargon of the field, in 2020. Once that happens, the game will be up. There is no appetite to return to the moon, let alone push on to Mars, El Dorado of space exploration. The technology could be there, but the passion has gone—at least in the traditional spacefaring powers, America and Russia.
The space cadets' other hope, China, might pick up the baton. Certainly it claims it wishes, like President John Kennedy 50 years ago, to send people to the surface of the moon and return them safely to Earth. But the date for doing so seems elastic. There is none of Kennedy's "by the end of the decade" bravura about the announcements from Beijing. Moreover, even if China succeeds in matching America's distant triumph, it still faces the question, "what next?" The chances are that the Chinese government, like Richard Nixon's in 1972, will say "job done" and pull the plug on the whole shebang.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers
With luck, robotic exploration of the solar system will continue. But even there, the risk is of diminishing returns. Every planet has now been visited, and every planet with a solid surface bar Mercury has been landed on. Asteroids, moons and comets have all been added to the stamp album. Unless life turns up on Mars, or somewhere even more unexpected, public interest in the whole thing is likely to wane. And it is the public that pays for it all.
The future, then, looks bounded by that new outer limit of planet Earth, the geostationary orbit. Within it, the buzz of activity will continue to grow and fill the vacuum. This part of space will be tamed by humanity, as the species has tamed so many wildernesses in the past. Outside it, though, the vacuum will remain empty. There may be occasional forays, just as men sometimes leave their huddled research bases in Antarctica to scuttle briefly across the ice cap before returning, for warmth, food and company, to base. But humanity's dreams of a future beyond that final frontier have, largely, faded.
Seems really short sighted. Exploding population+exploding consumption of natural resources=The Road by the end of the century unless we start moving some stuff off planet.
Fuck Tim and his ilk. Food for the poor, kill NASA!
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
No we won't.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
We are a long, long ways away from that.
Give it time.
As robotics technology advances and mineral prices on earth increases folk will start looking into asteroid mining within a century.
It has to make money to be done however.
And the asteroid mining will be a far cry from the stuff of science fiction which idiotically looked at history to predict the future, we won't be getting frontier cities and masses of settlers following a gold rush in the asteroids...it'll be Viking's great grandson out on a 2 year stretch. Just on the 0.0001% chance something goes wrong that the robots can't recover from.
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2011, 07:05:11 PM
Give it time.
Yup. In the course of human history, this is simply a plateau. There will be a future for humanity in outer space. Just not in our immediate future.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2011, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2011, 07:05:11 PM
Give it time.
Yup. In the course of human history, this is simply a plateau. There will be a future for humanity in outer space. Just not in our immediate future.
Agreed. The pessimistic, whiny tone of people who flail their arms about the shuttle program ending drives me up the wall. They're the ones that are too short-sighted to realize that, well, sometimes you need to wait.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2011, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
No we won't.
Yuh-huh.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2011, 07:00:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
We are a long, long ways away from that.
O noes.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:17:01 PM
The pessimistic, whiny tone of people who flail their arms about the shuttle program ending drives me up the wall. They're the ones that are too short-sighted to realize that, well, sometimes you need to wait.
They're the Veruca Salts of the space program: the technological paradigm will eventually shift, but they just want to see it
now, not four or six generations from now.
Even if we colonize the distant planets, the human race is still ultimately doomed.
Still, attempting pointless feats of magnificent grandeur for the short time we're here is what being human is all about. To the stars! :homestar:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 30, 2011, 07:48:57 PM
Even if we colonize the distant planets, the human race is still ultimately doomed.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:54:27 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 30, 2011, 07:48:57 PM
Even if we colonize the distant planets, the human race is still ultimately doomed.
:rolleyes:
:contract:
Yes, I suppose the universe will eventually die out, so we're doomed that way.
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:54:27 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 30, 2011, 07:48:57 PM
Even if we colonize the distant planets, the human race is still ultimately doomed.
:rolleyes:
unless we totally stop evolving, then PP is technically right.
The fact is that the robotic exploration program has been a huge success, sufficient to render humans obsolete, certainly for any mission beyond the earth's orbit.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2011, 06:52:02 PM
Exploding population+exploding consumption of natural resources=The Road by the end of the century unless we start moving some stuff off planet.
Which planet are you referring to?
On earth, population growth rates are in decline. China is on the cusp of a demographic bust and Japan and Europe all already well into one. Even in India, the rate of growth has began to moderate for the first time since the 1920s.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2011, 06:52:02 PM
From The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/node/18897425)Unless life turns up on Mars, or somewhere even more unexpected, public interest in the whole thing is likely to wane. And it is the public that pays for it all.
More unexpected? The probability of there being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
Asteroid mining will be a Trillion dollar industry by the end of the century.
This man is a fool.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2011, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 30, 2011, 07:05:11 PM
Give it time.
Yup. In the course of human history, this is simply a plateau. There will be a future for humanity in outer space. Just not in our immediate future.
Unfortunately, it won't be Westerners going into space.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
Asteroid mining will be Trillion dollar industry by the end of the century.
:contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
There's plenty of fucking gold in the asteroid belt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 30, 2011, 06:52:02 PM
From The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/node/18897425)Unless life turns up on Mars, or somewhere even more unexpected, public interest in the whole thing is likely to wane. And it is the public that pays for it all.
More unexpected? The probability of their being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
Asteroid mining will be Trillion dollar industry by the end of the century.
This man is a fool.
... I fear for koreas future
Hey, one out of those three sentences was error-free!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2011, 08:14:15 PM
The fact is that the robotic exploration program has been a huge success, sufficient to render humans obsolete, certainly for any mission beyond the earth's orbit.
This.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
Ungodly amounts of free energy, either in the form of direct insolation or hydrogen and helium-3.
Quote
On earth, population growth rates are in decline. China is on the cusp of a demographic bust and Japan and Europe all already well into one. Even in India, the rate of growth has began to moderate for the first time since the 1920s.
As Africa explodes, and India's moderate is still far more than it will be able to handle if there are substantial changes in river flows as a result of climate change in the next century.
I think resource consumption is more of an issue. What will happen when the average Chinese woman consumes as much as the average Bulgarian, let alone the average Spaniard?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
More unexpected? The probability of their being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
No, it's not. That's asinine.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 08:06:39 PM
Yes, I suppose the universe will eventually die out, so we're doomed that way.
Yes. In our universe, I'm afraid it's not just women over 30 who are affected by entropy. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 08:38:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
Ungodly amounts of free energy, either in the form of direct insolation or hydrogen and helium-3.
The energy is not free. You have to go up there and get it. Something that is really fucking hard. Helium-3 would require intensive mining, something that would be rather difficult.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 08:38:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
Ungodly amounts of free energy, either in the form of direct insolation or hydrogen and helium-3.
You could also beam down solar power from satellites.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:46:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
More unexpected? The probability of their being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
No, it's not. That's asinine.
Where there is water there is life.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
The problem with space is there's not much up there. If we could bring back space-gold or space-spices or space-slaves, that would be one thing. As it is, there's no incentive to go into space.
Nothing worth the cost, no.
I guess I'm okay with some small-scale unmanned exploration, but only with a close eye on cost and some tangible benefits.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 09:10:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:46:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
More unexpected? The probability of their being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
No, it's not. That's asinine.
Where there is water there is life.
you're the reason people mistrust science
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 09:10:36 PM
Whe're their is wator they're is life.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2011, 07:21:03 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:17:01 PM
The pessimistic, whiny tone of people who flail their arms about the shuttle program ending drives me up the wall. They're the ones that are too short-sighted to realize that, well, sometimes you need to wait.
They're the Veruca Salts of the space program: the technological paradigm will eventually shift, but they just want to see it now, not four or six generations from now.
Can't fight the seether! :punk:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 09:10:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 08:46:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
More unexpected? The probability of their being life on Europa is nearly 100%.
No, it's not. That's asinine.
Where there is water there is life.
And you base this on what? The vast number of planets discovered by science that have both water and life? It's not even know how or why life developed on Earth. It's not entirely clear as to even when. Life has never been observed spontaneously occurring. For all we know, it could have been a one time event, and something occurs very rarely. And since it's likely that oceans predate life, there is clear evidence that you can have water without life.
Well, we have decent hypotheses as to how, and we do know it was not at all long after the Late Heavy Bombardment. Archaea and bacteria are extremely old, and evidently did not need much time (geologically speaking) to develop. The abbreviated period between the formation and cooling of the Earth and the appearance of life suggests that unicellular organism are unlikely to be extremely rare. Probably not "wherever there is liquid water" (Europa has its own problems, although it could have an ecosystem based on extremophiles as primary producers), but I find it very difficult to believe that Earth or its solar system are special.
Multicellular life is evidently more difficult to arrive at, but if it's common, I wouldn't be sure intelligent life would be that rare. Hell, there are a half dozen species on Earth that approach human intelligence. And intelligence is an obvious adaptation.
My theory is that Europa is populated by mermaids.
It's space, it's there and that's enough to guarantee that people will go.
as it is the space age is only about as old as the time between henry the navigator and the discovery of the americas. It's only just begun.
The Space Age (v1.0) as it was envisioned in the 50s ended when Apollo was scrapped and focus shifted from grand exploration to orbit taxis. FWIW my impression is that if we don't suffer major civilizational setbacks we will see humans going into the solar system to do stuff instead of just planting the flag (a Space Age 2.0), but it won't happen soon.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2011, 09:04:31 PMHelium-3 would require intensive mining, something that would be rather difficult.
God, everything's a sequel nowadays isn't it?
Helium 2 - Faster Than The Speed Of Sound was quite decent.
Helium-4: Electric Bugaloo was shallow and pedantic.
As someone said it already: once it becomes a business opportunity, it will flourish. You can't expect governments to pay billions on helping scientists form more theories, when you could spend that money on buying votes.
However, when it will come to help their campaign financing pals nail some insanely plentiful resources bases in the solar system, there will be an upswing if we ever saw one.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Well, we have decent hypotheses as to how, and we do know it was not at all long after the Late Heavy Bombardment. Archaea and bacteria are extremely old, and evidently did not need much time (geologically speaking) to develop.
I don't really agree. A hundred million years is a fair span, even geologically. By the time life came around (at least in a manner that we can find evidence of today), there had been oceans for something like 600 million years. Even the LHB isn't as much of an impediment to development as one might think, as it was a process spread out over 300 million years.
QuoteMulticellular life is evidently more difficult to arrive at, but if it's common, I wouldn't be sure intelligent life would be that rare. Hell, there are a half dozen species on Earth that approach human intelligence. And intelligence is an obvious adaptation.
I don't think intelligence is all that obvious, at least not high intelligence. After all, it's only really been achieved once in the 300 million years of high-order multicellular life. In fact, the enormous energy requirements of intelligence, coupled with vulnerability to predation, make it a difficult road to travel.
Quote from: Neil on July 01, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
I don't think intelligence is all that obvious, at least not high intelligence. After all, it's only really been achieved once in the 300 million years of high-order multicellular life. In fact, the enormous energy requirements of intelligence, coupled with vulnerability to predation, make it a difficult road to travel.
Intelligence seems to have been selected for as long as there have been animals. Amphibians are smarter than fish, reptiles are smarter than amphibians, dinosaurs/birds are smarter than reptiles, mammals are smarter than birds. Each new Class of vertebrates has been smarter on the whole than the last.
That is an odd way of looking at it. Especially considering mammals didn't evolve from birds. Some birds are quite intelligent (probably more intelligent then some mammals).
Its not intelligence which is the issue, there's loads of smart animals, its intelligence+tool use+language+versatility, etc....
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Once people finally get serious about exploiting the actual resources of space instead of shooting Gagarins and Voyagers into it to do things that are actually direct profitable, we'll see a new, more permanent Space Age.
Not gonna happen.
It is cheaper to build weapons and take the resources from others by force.
Its a very simple mathematical equation.
Wasting money in space give no immediate returns, while building up a powerful military protects your country, give you diplomatic cloud, and places a card in your hand that can be played offensibly if push comes to shove and resources become so scarce that it comes down to a choice between war and starvation.
Shortsighted? Absolutely.
A safer bet than space exploration? Definitively. At least in the minds of the policymakers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
Asteroid mining will be a Trillion dollar industry by the end of century
Depends on your 90 year inflation forecast.
Asteroid mining doesn't seem like that lucrative an idea. I mean, we have Iron and Nickel right here on Earth.
Quote from: Neil on July 01, 2011, 08:09:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 30, 2011, 11:55:21 PM
Well, we have decent hypotheses as to how, and we do know it was not at all long after the Late Heavy Bombardment. Archaea and bacteria are extremely old, and evidently did not need much time (geologically speaking) to develop.
I don't really agree. A hundred million years is a fair span, even geologically. By the time life came around (at least in a manner that we can find evidence of today), there had been oceans for something like 600 million years. Even the LHB isn't as much of an impediment to development as one might think, as it was a process spread out over 300 million years.
True, although biosphere-devastating events were still relatively frequent. I was under the impression that the earliest biochemical evidence of life (admittedly, inconclusive evidence) was right at the end of the bombardment. Although there was liquid water, getting blasted every few millennia by large rocks can't be helpful, and I suspect it would also tend to erase evidence of life.
Also, here's a funny Wikipedia malapropism from the page on the Hadean Eon, which I was using to check dates:
Quote from: Wiki...rather than a hot, molten surface and atmosphere full of carbon dioxide, the Earth's surface would be very much like it is today.
Ha. Sure, if you're not a big fan of breathing oxygen.
QuoteI don't think intelligence is all that obvious, at least not high intelligence. After all, it's only really been achieved once in the 300 million years of high-order multicellular life. In fact, the enormous energy requirements of intelligence, coupled with vulnerability to predation, make it a difficult road to travel.
Human vulnerability to predation isn't that acute. We're a very large animal, and have always traveled in packs. I'd say bipedalism is far more of a fitness valley than the energy requirements for a humanlike CNS and that's only because it fucks up our reproduction.
There's major fitness costs imposed by intelligence (and, more specifically, humanlike social behavior and technological capability), I agree. But those are such
good adaptations that they're almost impossible to kill. So I'll amend what I said above to saying that human-level intelligence is less likely to be rare than any other adaptation because it is so robust.
We are, after all, one of the most successful vertebrates to have ever existed, either by biomass or by pure numbers.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2011, 10:33:10 AM
That is an odd way of looking at it. Especially considering mammals didn't evolve from birds. Some birds are quite intelligent (probably more intelligent then some mammals).
Indeed. Corvids and parrots are rather bright.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 01, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
True, although biosphere-devastating events were still relatively frequent. I was under the impression that the earliest biochemical evidence of life (admittedly, inconclusive evidence) was right at the end of the bombardment. Although there was liquid water, getting blasted every few millennia by large rocks can't be helpful, and I suspect it would also tend to erase evidence of life.
See, I think that a few millenia is overstating matters a bit. As many impacts as there must have been, and how damaging their impacts must have been, we're probably looking at millions and millions of years between major impacts.
QuoteHuman vulnerability to predation isn't that acute. We're a very large animal, and have always traveled in packs. I'd say bipedalism is far more of a fitness valley than the energy requirements for a humanlike CNS and that's only because it fucks up our reproduction.
There's major fitness costs imposed by intelligence (and, more specifically, humanlike social behavior and technological capability), I agree. But those are such good adaptations that they're almost impossible to kill. So I'll amend what I said above to saying that human-level intelligence is less likely to be rare than any other adaptation because it is so robust.
We are, after all, one of the most successful vertebrates to have ever existed, either by biomass or by pure numbers.
Once you get there, human-level intelligence is great. Still, if you think about it, it's very difficult to develop pre-human intelligence. An animal has to be large, but not too large. The climate can't be too warm, the atmosphere has to be oxygen-rich, the biosphere needs to be very productive, and because they'll be putting most of their energy into developing and maintaining an advanced brain, they're pretty much required to be social in order to survive. And intelligence also favours omnivores over carnivores, and both enormously over herbivores. Really, if you think about it, there aren't a lot of times and places that advanced intelligence would be able to evolve on the Earth.
Quote from: Neil on July 01, 2011, 10:14:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 01, 2011, 08:49:05 PM
True, although biosphere-devastating events were still relatively frequent. I was under the impression that the earliest biochemical evidence of life (admittedly, inconclusive evidence) was right at the end of the bombardment. Although there was liquid water, getting blasted every few millennia by large rocks can't be helpful, and I suspect it would also tend to erase evidence of life.
See, I think that a few millenia is overstating matters a bit. As many impacts as there must have been, and how damaging their impacts must have been, we're probably looking at millions and millions of years between major impacts.
I guess it depends on what you mean by major. Extrapolating from the example of the moon, Earth would have had 22,000 impacts sufficient to develop a 20km crater. Assuming the LHB was 4.2-3.9Gya, that's once about every 14,000 years. And there were much larger impacts as well. (According to this NASA chick Cohen, anyway.)
QuoteQuoteHuman vulnerability to predation isn't that acute. We're a very large animal, and have always traveled in packs. I'd say bipedalism is far more of a fitness valley than the energy requirements for a humanlike CNS and that's only because it fucks up our reproduction.
There's major fitness costs imposed by intelligence (and, more specifically, humanlike social behavior and technological capability), I agree. But those are such good adaptations that they're almost impossible to kill. So I'll amend what I said above to saying that human-level intelligence is less likely to be rare than any other adaptation because it is so robust.
We are, after all, one of the most successful vertebrates to have ever existed, either by biomass or by pure numbers.
Once you get there, human-level intelligence is great. Still, if you think about it, it's very difficult to develop pre-human intelligence. An animal has to be large, but not too large. The climate can't be too warm, the atmosphere has to be oxygen-rich, the biosphere needs to be very productive, and because they'll be putting most of their energy into developing and maintaining an advanced brain, they're pretty much required to be social in order to survive. And intelligence also favours omnivores over carnivores, and both enormously over herbivores. Really, if you think about it, there aren't a lot of times and places that advanced intelligence would be able to evolve on the Earth.
I do think there are requirements, but don't think you're right on all of them.
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
QuoteRegarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.larryniven.net%2Fmedia%2Felewarrior_wall_800x600.jpg&hash=e1db74e6b74e60646a27a00802d1a604e1f28e85)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2011, 07:23:27 PM
Asteroid mining doesn't seem like that lucrative an idea. I mean, we have Iron and Nickel right here on Earth.
There are other materials out there. There's one asteroid which is believed to be pretty much solid gold.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2011, 07:21:03 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:17:01 PM
The pessimistic, whiny tone of people who flail their arms about the shuttle program ending drives me up the wall. They're the ones that are too short-sighted to realize that, well, sometimes you need to wait.
They're the Veruca Salts of the space program: the technological paradigm will eventually shift, but they just want to see it now, not four or six generations from now.
I think it is a safe assumption that most of them will not see it six generations from now. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2011, 07:24:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 30, 2011, 07:21:03 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 30, 2011, 07:17:01 PM
The pessimistic, whiny tone of people who flail their arms about the shuttle program ending drives me up the wall. They're the ones that are too short-sighted to realize that, well, sometimes you need to wait.
They're the Veruca Salts of the space program: the technological paradigm will eventually shift, but they just want to see it now, not four or six generations from now.
I think it is a safe assumption that most of them will not see it six generations from now. ;)
Not without cryogenic hologramming!
Quote from: Tyr on July 02, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
There are other materials out there. There's one asteroid which is believed to be pretty much solid gold.
Believed, sure, but you'd have to survey it before investing the resources for a mining operation, and depending on the status of orbit, you may find you've got a narrow opportunity to get in and get out. Mining asteroids wouldn't be as simple as "hey, we think Material X is on this asteroid- send some diggers."
Not to mention logistics of getting the materials back to Earth. I'd bet on a "tugboat" kind of vessel, controlled explosions to break off chunks of the asteroid and send them toward Earth, where they get decelerated in or near Earth orbit; a space elevator would be a tremendous help there for sending chunks for terrestrial refining without burning off precious metals during entry into the atmosphere.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 02, 2011, 07:51:50 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 02, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
There are other materials out there. There's one asteroid which is believed to be pretty much solid gold.
Believed, sure, but you'd have to survey it before investing the resources for a mining operation, and depending on the status of orbit, you may find you've got a narrow opportunity to get in and get out. Mining asteroids wouldn't be as simple as "hey, we think Material X is on this asteroid- send some diggers."
Who said it would be? Of course they'd survey first.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
Dolphins are smarter than Elephants.
Which percentage of humanity is dumber than the smartest animals? Rough guesstimate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
Dolphins are smarter than Elephants.
Elephants are more serious. Dolphins are like the potheads of the mammalian species.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 02, 2011, 07:53:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
Dolphins are smarter than Elephants.
Elephants are more serious. Dolphins are like the potheads of the mammalian species.
Orcas are as smart as Elephants, are they not serious?
How exactly do you compare the intelligence of a whale to an elephant?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 08:17:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 02, 2011, 07:53:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
Dolphins are smarter than Elephants.
Elephants are more serious. Dolphins are like the potheads of the mammalian species.
Orcas are as smart as Elephants, are they not serious?
How many African villages get stamped out by a rampaging Orca?
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 02, 2011, 08:37:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 02, 2011, 08:17:32 PM
Orcas are as smart as Elephants, are they not serious?
How many African villages get stamped out by a rampaging Orca?
Point.
Gotta admit though; that'd be one motherfucker of an orca.
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2011, 10:21:55 AM
Which percentage of humanity is dumber than the smartest animals? Rough guesstimate.
Generally or as evidenced here ? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
How exactly do you compare the intelligence of a whale to an elephant?
All those krill questions on the IQ tests are biased against Dumbo.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2011, 10:13:11 PM
All those krill questions on the IQ tests are biased against Dumbo.
OK, that was a stupid fucking gag. You get the shovel for that one.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.banterist.com%2Farchivefiles%2Fimages%2Fcombat_shovel.gif&hash=223e01b82d2dcc2f1fd8ff38b1149b9275e683fd)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 02, 2011, 08:37:34 PM
How exactly do you compare the intelligence of a whale to an elephant?
Figure how much smarter than Timmay each of them is, and compare the 2 figures.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by major. Extrapolating from the example of the moon, Earth would have had 22,000 impacts sufficient to develop a 20km crater. Assuming the LHB was 4.2-3.9Gya, that's once about every 14,000 years. And there were much larger impacts as well. (According to this NASA chick Cohen, anyway.)
It's the much large impacts we're interested in here, as the proto-life would have been somewhat hardy.
QuoteI do think there are requirements, but don't think you're right on all of them.
Regarding size and climate, elephants are probably the second smartest animal on the planet, very close to human level, capable of some abstract thought and possibly even capable of moral reasoning. They are also the largest terrestrial mammal and live in hot climates. I'm not saying this isn't kind of counterintuitive, given the waste heat generated by a busy brain, but there they are. (Suggestively, elephants are also one of the few non-primates situated to manipulate their environment in a more-or-less-finely-tuned manner. If humans had never evolved, or stopped existing right now, I think it'd be really interesting to see what happened with elephants in ten million years.)
But as for sociality, that's definitely necessary. I occasionally wonder if the major stumbling block to intelligence is the development of very high-investment reproductive strategies such as employed by primates, elephants, and cetaceans to a high degree, and just about all mammals to some degree.
The issue with size is food requirements and energy usage, especially for herbivores. Obviously it doesn't hurt having a very large skull and brain, but at the same time the elephant has an extremely elaborate cooling system for their heads to help overcome the heat. They still need to add significant complexity to their brains in order to increase their intelligence, and they're going to have a lot of trouble with that without reducing their size. And as the temperature increases, those problems are going to be exacerbated.
I can see omnivores as being superior to carnivores, but why carnivores would be superior to herbivores, from the point of view of evolving?
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
I can see omnivores as being superior to carnivores, but why carnivores would be superior to herbivores, from the point of view of evolving?
Meat eaters probably eat less by volume and don't need to eat as often. Just a guess.
Quote from: sbr on July 04, 2011, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
I can see omnivores as being superior to carnivores, but why carnivores would be superior to herbivores, from the point of view of evolving?
Meat eaters probably eat less by volume and don't need to eat as often. Just a guess.
Yep. Meat contains more energy per given volume, so they don't have to spend all their time eating just to keep their body working.
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
I can see omnivores as being superior to carnivores, but why carnivores would be superior to herbivores, from the point of view of evolving?
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
Mind you, some of the pack hunters have very high kill rates. I'm thinking the wild dogs of Africa, for example.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
Mind you, some of the pack hunters have very high kill rates. I'm thinking the wild dogs of Africa, for example.
African wild dogs have an insane kill rate, but they're methd of hunting is different then most. they just keep chasing the animal at low speed so until it's too tired. Other cananines, like wolves, still have low success rates. most predators are at best ambush hunters. trying to catch weak prey off guard, but after an unsuccessful attempt kind of lay down and go "ahhh fuck it" :lol:
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2011, 02:08:55 PM
I can see omnivores as being superior to carnivores, but why carnivores would be superior to herbivores, from the point of view of evolving?
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
They can also
be smarter because they eat meat. Big brains require lots of energy.
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
Mind you, some of the pack hunters have very high kill rates. I'm thinking the wild dogs of Africa, for example.
African wild dogs have an insane kill rate, but they're methd of hunting is different then most. they just keep chasing the animal at low speed so until it's too tired. Other cananines, like wolves, still have low success rates. most predators are at best ambush hunters. trying to catch weak prey off guard, but after an unsuccessful attempt kind of lay down and go "ahhh fuck it" :lol:
Yeah. Ambush predation is a risky business. As our primitive ancestors could tell you (if they had language skills), persistance brings victory.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2011, 03:11:28 PM
They can also be smarter because they eat meat. Big brains require lots of energy.
Yeah. If you're a herbivore, you're probably better off putting your excess energy into becoming larger rather than a big brain and the support structures that such a brain requires.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 04:11:39 PM
Yeah. Ambush predation is a risky business. As our primitive ancestors could tell you (if they had language skills), persistance brings victory.
Some Bushmen still hunt that way. Takes like six hours or something. I bet Aboriginal Australians (who lacked bows) hunted that way as well till the British got there.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 04:13:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2011, 03:11:28 PM
They can also be smarter because they eat meat. Big brains require lots of energy.
Yeah. If you're a herbivore, you're probably better off putting your excess energy into becoming larger rather than a big brain and the support structures that such a brain requires.
Why? A big brain could certainly assist a herbivore as well - both in finding / gatehring food, as well as avoiding predators.
Not all herbivores are ruminants, which may be what you are thinking of when you think of herbivores. A lot of rodents are fairly intelligent. The beaver, for example.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2011, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 04:11:39 PM
Yeah. Ambush predation is a risky business. As our primitive ancestors could tell you (if they had language skills), persistance brings victory.
Some Bushmen still hunt that way. Takes like six hours or something. I bet Aboriginal Australians (who lacked bows) hunted that way as well till the British got there.
Yes, ambushing the British probably took much less time.
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2011, 02:16:52 PM
Better is a bit disingenuous (fail rates for predators hunting are still very high), but it's assumed they're smarter than prey. Theory goes that predators are smarter since the need a strategy of some sort. prey just need to know how to run and hide.
Mind you, some of the pack hunters have very high kill rates. I'm thinking the wild dogs of Africa, for example.
African wild dogs have an insane kill rate, but they're methd of hunting is different then most. they just keep chasing the animal at low speed so until it's too tired.
That used to be one of the main human strategies before we invented projectile weapons.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2011, 12:21:59 PM
The issue with size is food requirements and energy usage, especially for herbivores. Obviously it doesn't hurt having a very large skull and brain, but at the same time the elephant has an extremely elaborate cooling system for their heads to help overcome the heat. They still need to add significant complexity to their brains in order to increase their intelligence, and they're going to have a lot of trouble with that without reducing their size. And as the temperature increases, those problems are going to be exacerbated.
Assuming a world without humans, they could migrate north (or other elphantid branches that did live north might have lost their hair). Of course, without humans, there'd be less (or none, or negative) rise in temperatures.
Of course, I have to assume a world without humans, because we arrived first, and are too well adapted to really share our habitat, which is virtually everywhere, with other megafauna.
By the way, Tyr, I liked that painting. Something to do with Larry Niven?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
By the way, Tyr, I liked that painting. Something to do with Larry Niven?
You've never read Footfall! :o
It's one of the greatest alien invasion novels ever written, go to your library at once!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 07:03:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
By the way, Tyr, I liked that painting. Something to do with Larry Niven?
You've never read Footfall! :o
It's one of the greatest alien invasion novels ever written, go to your library at once!
I don't read books that don't have pictures in them. It's inefficient.
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics. It would be like instead of dropping the bomb, just landing the Enola Gay on Uchibori Street, running up to the palace, and challenging Hirohito to a swordfight instead.
Ah, so you are becoming Marty type lawyer.
It's not a bad book. The aliens do throw big rocks at the earth, but seriously hampered by the fact they are all very, very stupid.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics.
I dunno. Presumably they want to take the planet in fairly stable condition and any civilization with interstellar travel can probably also dig several miles underground.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics.
I dunno. Presumably they want to take the planet in fairly stable condition and any civilization with interstellar travel can probably also dig several miles underground.
Any civilization that took decades to get to Earth could probably a wait a few more decades while the atmosphere returns to normal. Hell wiping everything out has the benefit of making it easier to grow your own crops on the new planet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics.
I dunno. Presumably they want to take the planet in fairly stable condition and any civilization with interstellar travel can probably also dig several miles underground.
I've always reckoned the easiest method, with the least collateral damage, would be to use biological warfare on an alien species. Now there are obvious practical reasons to avoid biological warfare between populations of humans, but none of them apply to a war between two different species. Dusting the planet with airborne ebolAIDS isn't going to bother the Phantom of Krankor.
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
Or looking stuff up on wikipedia. :homestar:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
An almost impossible task for aliens who have developed the ability to travel to other habitable planets.
What if the aliens are the size of mice? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
An almost impossible task for aliens who have developed the ability to travel to other habitable planets.
Yeah, but you have to go down and get them. Which means people might shoot at you.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:36:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
An almost impossible task for aliens who have developed the ability to travel to other habitable planets.
Yeah, but you have to go down and get them. Which means people might shoot at you.
Yeah, if they land in Detroit. But presumably the aliens are smarter than that. I hear wheatfields are good places for picking up humans with the added benefit of leaving a work of art.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
You come in peace, claim you can make humans immortal with somatic gene therapy (it doesn't matter if you can, although you likely need to have genetic engineering capabilities plausible enough to withstand scrutiny), have the information given to you with enthusiasm, then you build several viruses with 99.9% fatality rates and a semi-lengthy incubation times for maximum contagion, and finally you disperse it on crops, in water supply, or simply by dusting major population centers.
In ten years, humanity is reduced to a few Texan survivalists and Japanese nerds who lack any significant capacity to make war. You put them in zoos. Perhaps force them to breed.
99.9% fatality rate leaves 6 million people, presumably some of them will have access to US/Russian/PRC/Euro armories. The alien invasion force is likely to be much smaller than that, though having superior firepower. So there's still potential for some good ground battles.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
What makes you think they haven't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
An almost impossible task for aliens who have developed the ability to travel to other habitable planets.
Exactly. They would be so civilized that their rules of engagement will not allow them to kidnap humans unless the human inquestion have kidnapped one of them first.
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 12:49:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
What makes you think they haven't.
Cause nobody has seen them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
99.9% fatality rate leaves 6 million people, presumably some of them will have access to US/Russian/PRC/Euro armories. The alien invasion force is likely to be much smaller than that, though having superior firepower. So there's still potential for some good ground battles.
Ha. Right.
There are 6 billion humans, of those, about 60 millions have ever used a weapon outside a video game.
Of those, about 6 million would have actual combat training in these times of peace.
Of those, about 600 000 would have actual combat tested combat skills that could be used against aliens.
Now, in case of an alien invasion, all us soldier boys in active service will be dead during the first week, and only the few civilians that survived would be left to find your weapons and fight.
Lets just say that the learning curve will have a high attrition rate.
And in the end, every alien invasion movie is nothing more than an analogy of western invasion of 3rd world countries.
The aliens are likely to be mainly civilians as well. But you're right that they'd win out.
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2011, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2011, 12:30:31 PM
It would require some knowledge of Human anatomy to do that. Which means they would need to capture humans.
An almost impossible task for aliens who have developed the ability to travel to other habitable planets.
Exactly. They would be so civilized that their rules of engagement will not allow them to kidnap humans unless the human inquestion have kidnapped one of them first.
if they've come this far they want something. if they only want to study us they'd send probes or something. why send a fleet if they just want to say hello. if an alien fleet ever comes kiss your ass goodbye
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 01:08:33 PM
The aliens are likely to be mainly civilians as well. But you're right that they'd win out.
I agree. It will probably be some deep space exploration ship.
Or maybe a trade ship looking for exotic goods. Maybe art pieces.
Worst would be a ship belonging to a mining company.
If there are rare valuable minerals at our planets' core that we don't know about, we are fucked.
A mining company would have no use for us. Some form of extermination will be in store for us.
Maybe asteroids, if that is the cheapest way.
If nukes are cheap for them, they just need to show one little ship in orbit and start nuking our cities.
By the 3rd city, our society would collapse, panic would ensue, and we would starve ourselves.
Society would collapse into anarchy all the way down to the warlord level.
We would fight each other for scraps of food.
I've fought worse for less.
The alien(s) will be solar system sized clouds of sentient gas. They will just envelop the entire solar system and transmute all the life and materials and resources therein into energy that it will then consume.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 12:48:00 PM
99.9% fatality rate leaves 6 million people, presumably some of them will have access to US/Russian/PRC/Euro armories. The alien invasion force is likely to be much smaller than that, though having superior firepower. So there's still potential for some good ground battles.
That's why I said a
couple of viruses with 99.9% fatality rates.
Quote from: PRCThe alien(s) will be solar system sized clouds of sentient gas. They will just envelop the entire solar system and transmute all the life and materials and resources therein into energy that it will then consume.
Not on Ferro Lad's watch.
Wait a minute - they would make us breed?
I for one welcome our new alien overlords who can take over our planet with no need of a ground war.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
I don't read books that don't have pictures in them. It's inefficient.
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics. It would be like instead of dropping the bomb, just landing the Enola Gay on Uchibori Street, running up to the palace, and challenging Hirohito to a swordfight instead.
You should read it, if you like SF. It is dated, but one of the better Niven-Pournelle books, and they made a pretty good team.
Unlike you, the authors don't start with the assumption that they will create a society which will win an encounter with humans with trivial ease. They instead create a society with social norms and expectations, and play with the idea of how those would impact the success of their invasion. Your hypothetical "America" wouldn't need to deign to engage in ground combat in Iraq; it would just nuke the country and kill everyone. Your "America" is boring, though, so your book would suck.
Footfall isn't brilliant (it was nominated for several awards, but didn't win) but is well above average for a SF book.
Thinking of books that touch on the subject material in this thread, anybody read the Cobra Trilogy by Timothy Zahn?
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 03:33:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
I don't read books that don't have pictures in them. It's inefficient.
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics. It would be like instead of dropping the bomb, just landing the Enola Gay on Uchibori Street, running up to the palace, and challenging Hirohito to a swordfight instead.
You should read it, if you like SF. It is dated, but one of the better Niven-Pournelle books, and they made a pretty good team.
Unlike you, the authors don't start with the assumption that they will create a society which will win an encounter with humans with trivial ease. They instead create a society with social norms and expectations, and play with the idea of how those would impact the success of their invasion. Your hypothetical "America" wouldn't need to deign to engage in ground combat in Iraq; it would just nuke the country and kill everyone. Your "America" is boring, though, so your book would suck.
I wouldn't necessarily suck, but it would probably be pretty depressing.
QuoteFootfall isn't brilliant (it was nominated for several awards, but didn't win) but is well above average for a SF book.
Ah, well, I may check it out some time then.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 11:39:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 07:03:15 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 06:59:21 AM
By the way, Tyr, I liked that painting. Something to do with Larry Niven?
You've never read Footfall! :o
It's one of the greatest alien invasion novels ever written, go to your library at once!
I don't read books that don't have pictures in them. It's inefficient.
Anyway, I really doubt any book that features ground combat can possibly be one of the "greatest alien invasion novels ever written," since aliens would never need to deign to resort to infantry tactics. It would be like instead of dropping the bomb, just landing the Enola Gay on Uchibori Street, running up to the palace, and challenging Hirohito to a swordfight instead.
They spam Rods From God everyway and drop an 5km asteroid on the planet. What more do you want?