Shower thoughts

[Ryaja]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:51 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

Part of the issue with anthropogenic climate change is that it's happening much faster than "natural" causes, and evolution and migration in many cases can't keep up.

*Unless it's a meteor or other large catastrophe.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Ryaja

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, GluttonyReaper said:

Oh sure, mass extinction events could act as a "genetic reroll", giving a chance for creatures to evolve that never would otherwise... but there's no guarantee that they'll be better (or worse) in terms of, intelligence for example, than their predecessors. As always, it's difficult to gauge whether it ends up being a net positive versus letting life evolve through the slow route, because our sample size for development of intelligent life is still just 1 (for a particular definition of intelligence)

Yes, but there is no guarantee it will be worse either. People opposed to my stance are acting like “we don’t know if life will be less advanced than now” means “life will not be more advanced than now”.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not really all that concerned with life in general. I'm not even particularly concerned with Human life.

I'm concerned about ME. I'm pretty sure if we wipe out all life on Earth and it gets a nice reset it will affect ME for the worse.

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I'm not really all that concerned with life in general. I'm not even particularly concerned with Human life.

I'm concerned about ME. I'm pretty sure if we wipe out all life on Earth and it gets a nice reset it will affect ME for the worse.

This is kind of like saying “I don’t care about laws, I care about how they affect me.” That means you care about laws.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I'm not really all that concerned with life in general. I'm not even particularly concerned with Human life.

I'm concerned about ME.

Solipsism rulez.

[SunlitZelkova]

@Vanamonde @Gargamel

Today gave me good appreciation for the mods. As much as I try to calm myself and avoid replying to off topic posts, sometimes I can't help but do so. I would have if a thread in the S&S section hadn't been locked. Thanks for all your hard work!

[kerbiloid]

A few words about the philosophical direction, known as Russian Cosmism  (e.g. Tsiolkovsky and others).

The English wiki article is absolutely tiny, so the Russian one.
https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Кузнецов,_Побиск_Георгиевич?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Quote

Pobisk Georgievich Kuznetsov (May 18, 1924, Krasnoyarsk  - December 4, 2000) - Soviet and Russian thinker and scientist- encyclopedist ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} , a specialist in target management and planning systems [5] ^[6 ] ] .

 

His ideas are based on the works of major philosophers, mathematicians and physicists, including: Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Marx, Engels, Fedorov, Podolinsky, Umov, Vernadsky, Lobachevsky, Boyai, Klein, Veblen, Krohn, Lebesgue, Kolmogorov, Lagrange , Maxwell, Einstein, Bartini , Bauer and many others ^[50] .

According to Yu. V. Gromyko : “If you look at the leading philosophical schools that were formed in Soviet philosophy, then first of all it is necessary to highlight Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov, as well as Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev, who is in creative opposition with him, and the group of G. P. Shchedrovitsky. The philosophy of P. G. Kuznetsov, in my opinion, was formed due to their elaboration, interpretation and development of the works of E. V. Ilyenkov" ^[39] . Gromyko also noted about “oppositional relations” between “Ilyenkov’s group, which included Pobisk Kuznetsov and Spartak Petrovich Nikanorov , on the one hand, and, on the other hand, with the group of Zinoviev, Shchedrovitsky and Mamardashvili” ^[51] .

Pobisk Kuznetsov is known as one of the founders of Lyndon LaRouche ’s alternative monetarist physical approach to economic systems (physical economics) , with whom he was personally acquainted ^[52] .

The name of P. G. Kuznetsov is associated with the idea of energy currencies ^[46] :37 . Boris Slavin also listed him as a systems philosopher and an enthusiast of “ecological economics” ^[53] . He made a significant contribution to noospherology ^[54] . He was a systems economist, according to Leonid Medvedko ^[55] .

 

The biography of P. G. Kuznetsov was briefly described in his book “The Third Project - 3” by Maxim Kalashnikov . Andrei Fursov in 2023 spoke about P. G. Kuznetsov that he is still little known, “but I think that someday Russia will account for the second half of the twentieth century in the name of this man” ^[72] .

The photo.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

Additional info about the mentioned persons.

Spoiler

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Ильенков,_Эвальд_Васильевич?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Никаноров,_Спартак_Петрович?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[kerbiloid]

Baseball bat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_bat

Spoiler

Egyptian khopesh.

 

 

Baseball ball

Spoiler

 

Egyptian ball.

 

Conclusions:

Spoiler

1. The Ancient Egyptians were playing baseball. They've invented it.

2. The so-called "khopesh" is actually a baseball bat.

3. The Ancient Egyptians were fond of scarabs, because they are bringing the baseball balls.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

When people say they want to save humanity by creating a colony on Mars, they are implying people on Earth don’t count as humans/part of humanity.

[Hotel26]

On 1/5/2024 at 4:01 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

don’t count as humans

Nope.  But it is more like a "gated community"...

Edited January 7 by Hotel26

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

When people say they want to save humanity by creating a colony on Mars, they are implying people on Earth don’t count as humans/part of humanity.

Not exactly.

If an asteroid hits Earth today and wipes out all life, Humanity will be gone.

After we colonize Mars, a single asteroid can't wipe out Humanity. It would take 2, working together. And they can't do that. Yet.

It has nothing to do with who's more important, just spreading out the people so those crafty asteroids can't get us in one hit.

Of course, if the Sun goes nova we're (literally) toast, so we need to expand to other Star systems to be sure we'll survive that.

And galaxies are tricky things. They could... I don't know blow up or dark energy something probably. Better expand to a couple of nearby ones just in case.

And I heard something about Heat Death of the Universe... someone should get on finding other Universes to expand to.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

After we colonize Mars, a single asteroid can't wipe out Humanity. It would take 2

Got it. They want for two.

Spoiler

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Literal shower thought: my wife flipped a towel over the shower door and broke the plastic cover on the light there. So now I'm thinking about replacing the light...

[SunlitZelkova]

22 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Nope.  But it is more like a "gated community". 

22 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Not exactly.

If an asteroid hits Earth today and wipes out all life, Humanity will be gone.

After we colonize Mars, a single asteroid can't wipe out Humanity. It would take 2, working together. And they can't do that. Yet.

It has nothing to do with who's more important, just spreading out the people so those crafty asteroids can't get us in one hit.

Of course, if the Sun goes nova we're (literally) toast, so we need to expand to other Star systems to be sure we'll survive that.

And galaxies are tricky things. They could... I don't know blow up or dark energy something probably. Better expand to a couple of nearby ones just in case.

And I heard something about Heat Death of the Universe... someone should get on finding other Universes to expand to.

If I tell you, "the lifeboats on this ship will save the passengers" wouldn't you think I meant all of the passengers, not 1% of them?

The only way a ship with 100 people and a lifeboat holding a single dude "saves the passengers" is if 99 of the people are not classified as passengers. Same for a Mars colony "saving humanity"- only 1% or whatever number of the human species counts as "humanity".

Now if you say "A Mars colony will save the human species" you are correct. But a Mars colony will not save humanity. To be more specific, it won't save all of humanity, only some of humanity. The distinction is important.

[Hotel26]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:05 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

it won't save all of humanity, only some of humanity.

Humanity is an emergent concept.  It exists from people, separately from people.  (And, no, I do not mean one can exist without (some of) the other.)

Abstracted  from "people", if you struggle with the "separately".

The real question is why you should want to save it -- and that we should is is a total assumption that we generally consider completely granted.

I also have reservations about our space-faring ability.  In our current form, we are very unlikely to be able to go personally to any other solar system. 

Spoiler

(Hint: I can also give a second, unrelated argument for that, using just two keys in the top-left of my keyboard.)

Edited January 12 by Hotel26

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If I tell you, "the lifeboats on this ship will save the passengers" wouldn't you think I meant all of the passengers, not 1% of them?

 

If one parent tells another, "We should take separate planes so if one crashes, our kids will still have at least one parent" will one think the other wants them to die because they're on the other plane?

Edited January 6 by Superfluous J

[kerbiloid]

They should take the kids separately as well, or make backup kids.

P.S.
Unless it's Jodelle Ferland or Shree Crooks heroines.

Then they should better worry about thmselves.

[kerbiloid]

Actually, it's important to save enough humans to open the cat food bags, to say the humanity is saved.

Because it's its purpose.

[SunlitZelkova]

17 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

Humanity is an emergent concept.  It exists from people, separately from people.  (And, no, I do not mean one can exist without (some of) the other.)

Abstracted  from "people", if you struggle with the "separately".

The real question is why you should want to save it -- and that we should is is a total assumption that we generally consider completely granted.

I also have reservations about our space-faring ability.  In our current form, we are very unlikely to be able to go personally to any other solar system. 

  Reveal hidden contents

(Hint: I can also give a second, unrelated argument for that, using just two keys in the top-left of my keyboard.)

-

Merriam-Webster states the definition of humanity is “the totality of human beings”.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity

I don’t think there is any need for a logical justification for saving humanity. Survival is a natural behavior, and humans should have enough cognitive capability to understand that survival means saving all or a good portion of the species. Contrast this with dinosaurs. I would imagine T Rex’s turned to cannibalism on many occasions after the asteroid.

I wouldn’t rule out interstellar travel, but it is really out of our ability to know right now. It’s certainly a possibility it’s impossible. Interstellar space has barely been explored. Once we attempt something like Daedalus or Project Longshot (a probe) I think we will have a better idea. Kinda like how although it isn’t spoken of, crewed Mars mission design was almost certainly influenced by what probes found out about interplanetary space.

16 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

 

If one parent tells another, "We should take separate planes so if one crashes, our kids will still have at least one parent" will one think the other wants them to die because they're on the other plane?

I’m not suggesting people who want a Mars colony want the people on Earth to die, I’m just saying there is a flaw in the language they use.

That only goes for the “colony as a backup” people though. I get the feeling the “colony as a new home because climate change has destroyed the Earth” people don’t really care about anyone who would be left behind.

The reason I had this thought is because there was this guy on r/ForAllMankindTV saying a Mars colony should be built because Earth is already doomed. If someone supports a Mars colony as a “just in case” I think there is nothing wrong with that, but trying to abandon 99% of the species population by assuming that nothing can be done for Earth (“the disaster has already happened”) is just sick, to be frank.

To be clear, I don’t think the majority of colony supporters are like that. It’s just this one dude I encountered that bugged me and caused the shower thought.

[kerbiloid]

58 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

this guy on r/ForAllMankindTV saying a Mars colony should be built because Earth is already doomed

A typical counter-human propaganda of last decades.

"Humans are guilty", "the Earth is doomed".

A gnostical propaganda and mental programming of the material world destruction. Make everyone think it's normal, to make it happen.

[kerbiloid]

Interesting fact: on the "pipe club" google request, instead of rusty pipes with a bulky fitting on top, you get photos of nerdish people, who are sitting at the table and smoking.

Do they hide the rusty clubs under coats?

[Hotel26]

With the following caveat:

Spoiler

stieenking summer has arrived here and I'm taking 60-second cold showers mutiple times a day (or an equivalent plunge in the spa), so not a lot of thought has gone into the material for this post.   

It's 11p here and 29C (84F) in my computer room still...  not great.

I thought I'd get serious and start 'balancing' lifters with respect to thrust, fuel load and max payload mass specification.

1. start with an engine
2. add tanks and fuel until the lift-off TWR will be some nominal minimum (e.g. 1.2).  KER at least reports this
3. fly a test to 75 km orbit^[1]
4. note the amount of fuel remaining.  Its mass is your maximum payload.
5. reduce tankage/fuel capacity by this amount of fuel you now don't need
6. the maximum payload possible might go up slightly, but it will be close enough so keep the estimate from 5 as reserve since some payloads will be attract more drag.  YMMV.

I haven't flown a real test on this algorithm because a) I've only just convinced myself this should work, and b) I'm taking too many showers to have time for the hot and sweaty business of flying.   

[1] what about multi-stage lifters?  I'm thinking that raising PE to some suborbital 'altitude' describes the situation where the upper vehicle will need time for a circularization burn that is largely determined by the vehicle and the separation PE.  The PE has to be higher enough that the circularization burn is short enough that Mission Control can return to the earlier stage for Ride & Recovery.  The engine and TWR of the second-stage of the lifter will largely determine the required circularization time.

[2] I've many times used parasitical lifters that draw fuel from the payload.  This seems like a very flexible arrangement.  But I think it's obsolete if one has a range of lifters spanning the payload mass spectrum.  If your payload is too heavy with fuel for a lifter you want to use, and you know you want to refuel it in orbit before interplanetary departure, you have the option to unload as much fuel from it as will get it under the max weight for your desired lifter.  You'll just have to leave enough for maneuver and rendez-vous for that refueling.

[3] I guess some people like the fun of designing every lifter for every individual payload!?  They might feel bad about using a range of payload-spanning lifters in a "modular" style?  I think every launch to orbit should carry full fuel (even with a lighter payload).  The excess fuel should be stored in orbital depots.  Then the lifter de-orbited or otherwise re-used.  (I send one species to Eve for use there as de-orbital boosters!)

[4] time to cool off!

Edited January 13 by Hotel26

[kerbiloid]

"Canned green olives stuffed with shrimps"

Spoiler

Now I'm aware that some shrimps are living on trees and eating olives.

Otherwise I would think that they gather wormy green olives from the trees and throw them into the barrel of brine, to sell later as "spicy green olives stuffed with shrimps", and let the normal ones grow to sell them as black unstuffed olives.

[TheSaint]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:19 AM, kerbiloid said:

Now I'm aware that some shrimps are living on trees and eating olives.

[kerbiloid]

Now I'm aware, that there are coconuts, stuffed with crabs.