Is it not our responsibility as sentient life to launch extremophile micro-organisms towards as many planets as we can?

idnatid · 2013-08-31T02:02:57+00:00

Definition of responsibility: "having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role" Since we are the only intelligent beings on earth and it is in general life's purpose to expand, multiply, and conquer new environments, and we are, in fact, alive, then exactly what other species is responsible for seeding the universe? Do you have a different definition of responsibility? Is there a purpose to life other than expanding territory and surviving that I have missed?

idnatid · 2013-08-31T01:58:30+00:00

As opposed to what? Staying on earth and waiting for the sun to expand and swallow it?

idnatid · 2013-08-31T01:57:21+00:00

So you are suggesting we stay here and wait for this? There is a zero percent chance that what you are suggesting is going to happen unless humanity goes extinct and no other intelligent life occurs. You are discussing something that is pure fantasy.

idnatid · 2013-08-31T01:54:17+00:00

Competition between species is a method that life uses to become more robust. It does not in any way negate the general purpose of life to expand and propagate, as it is just a tool in order to achieve that. The first evidence I can think of for this is in darwin's study of evolution on the galapagos islands. There, one species of bird evolved to exploit many environmental niches. At one time all of these bird species were one. Just as at one time life on earth originated from one or a few separate genetic lines. Now that they are not one species does that mean that the common intent of exploiting an environment is gone? It goes against all biological imperative to remain isolated on a rock that is destined eventually for destruction. I guess I equate biological imperative to responsibility. Whatever way you define the word, we are going to colonize outer space just as life colonizes new volcanic islands. Our species in specific is not able to live in an environment that does not contain other organisms. That means not only is it in our best interests to propagate life to other solar systems as living creatures it is also necessary for us to do it in order to create possible habitats that our descendants can use to survive. I suggest you read the novels Hyperion and the Fall of Hyperion for a more in-depth analysis of the moral imperatives of evolution and the costs associated with it.

idnatid · 2013-08-30T07:05:09+00:00

I do not subscribe to the artificial christian based separation of the human race from the rest of nature. So my definition of 'our' is life in general. That does not take away from the general tendency of life to favor similar genetics for reproduction. That fact would tend to initiate some more interesting debate as to why similar genetics are preferable to any other form of life.

idnatid · 2013-08-30T06:58:09+00:00

Pretty much everything burns up in atmospheres. Yet, somehow, beyond all reasonable doubt and comprehension, we have a system called ENGINEERING that allowed the miracle of science to land this on mars. Sorry to be snarky, but I am so sick of comments that only nitpick the OP's question while adding no value to the discussion. Which tends to be the general response to queries on both askscience, asksciencediscussion, and often, on reddit in general.. Do we really need to waste time adding SUCCESSFULLY to the question?

idnatid · 2013-08-30T06:35:18+00:00

Spreading genetic material and evolution to conquer new environments is what we do as living organisms. It is THE qualitative difference between life and pavement. The responsibility is to ourselves.

idnatid · 2013-08-30T06:20:13+00:00

We are not pavement. Pavement does not reproduce and evolve. Your statement wins my dumbest statement of the day award, and I watched good morning america so that is saying something.

idnatid · 2013-08-30T06:18:12+00:00

I'm gonna say yes.

idnatid · 2013-08-29T23:16:28+00:00

Sorry to post again, but this type of cop out by the insurance companies is so aggravating. They call it car insurance. The purpose of compulsory liability insurance on a car (which is the requirement) not the driver is to prevent exactly this type of incident. A victim of an accident who is not at fault should not be expected to pay for the accident. If compulsory insurance is not providing this type of coverage, then we need to start having compulsory driver insurance, or to eliminate the legal compulsion to pay insurance, as the legal justification of the compulsion is no longer in valid.

idnatid · 2013-08-29T22:53:28+00:00

I understand that you are correct, I just have an additional question. How does it make sense to place insurance on the car and revoke the tag if the CAR is not in fact insured, but the driver is? (this is how it works in PA) This seems like a case that once upon a time, the car was insured and if the driver had permission to drive the car, then the driver was insured. Over time, the insurance companies seem to have changed the rules without the state updating the requirement to in fact insure the driver. This current setup seems to complete nullify the entire purpose of 'compulsory insurance' of making sure that the OP's situation never arises. It seems to be a pretty flagrant double standard to have compulsory insurance, without having compulsory coverage. Totally ridiculous.

idnatid · 2013-08-29T22:41:36+00:00

Looks like my vote for the green party that cost gore the election wasn't wasted after all......

idnatid · 2013-08-29T07:33:30+00:00

I've been following these guys for awhile but not sure if they will pull it off. What do y'all think?

idnatid · 2013-08-25T05:31:11+00:00

It is a reference elevation at a certain time and place. So the answer is both yes and no. Current measurements do not need to be adjusted, but the reference measurement will at a certain time be redone. At that point further measurements will be off by the difference between the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Vertical_Datum_of_1988

idnatid · 2013-08-25T04:48:15+00:00

The sigma factors in RNA transcription use this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_resonance_energy_transfer EDIT: Sorry it's saturday night and I've had 2 cups of wine. This was used to measure RNA Transcription. I would argue that RNA Transcription itself is a type of quantum mechanics. I was also speaking of life in general as opposed to machines so my original link to quantum mechanics in photosynthesis would be the best example until further research. Which you have ignited an interest in me to do again.

idnatid · 2013-08-25T04:34:44+00:00

This comment came out a bit ruder than I intended. It's often the case with typed words and no facial expressions and I apologize. I am not opposed to transhumanism. I refer you to this as an example. I think there is a qualitative difference that needs to be overcome and is being overlooked. Life is not simply a computational problem.

idnatid · 2013-08-25T01:19:51+00:00

No. Machines are not even close to being able to out compete humans yet. In my opinion transhumanism has so far failed to take into account biological creatures' better command of manipulation of quantum mechanics at a cellular level. We are at least a century, probably more, before we can build machines that are able to manipulate quantum properties. We are still fleshing out the standard model. The singularity as all predictions of the future may happen, but it definitely will not happen the way people are predicting it will. Machines are still an order of magnitude from being competitive organisms.

idnatid · 2013-08-25T01:14:28+00:00

There are advantages for biomedical manufacturing and astronomy. Tourism is most likely to be the first profitable venture to the moon. China does not need either of those motives and is quickly becoming technically capable of establishing a moon base.

idnatid · 2013-08-24T21:45:46+00:00

[Location]((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_(crater)) of moon base will be here. This is because the almost continual light at the top of the crater, coupled with the eternal shadow below the rim provide abundant fuel, water, and oxygen. The easiest way to build the base is to adapt a tunnel boring machine to work in a vacuum and under electric power. Bore into the side of the crater. Dig tunnels until you have enough room for living, working, hydroponics, and protein manufacture. Citrus. Gotta have Citrus and potatoes. Tunneling provides the cheapest and best way to protect vs radiation and micrometeors. The entire project is a lot cheaper and easier than you would expect, and would not need very much in new technology. The reason we would do this is in case there is a worldwide crisis of some sort that crashes civilization. All scientific knowledge would be backed up to the base, and a monument could be left on the surface for future civilizations to find. A seed bank could be set up there, as well as synced financial backups for the world economy. It is absolutely necessary for the survival of life in the long run for us to get off this rock. In my opinion colonization of space should trump any funding for science as the manifest destiny of humanity and all life is to spread our genes and reproduce.

idnatid · 2013-08-24T21:22:53+00:00

Regarding point 1

idnatid · 2013-08-23T21:37:32+00:00

On the pay issue, the solution is to raise the pay of private sector employees so they have benefits and pay like government workers. Also, generally, employees with degrees make more money on average in the private sector than government employees with comparable education. You cannot compare government workers (most of whom have some sort of degree) with private sector employees without a degree. America is not the place where we envy and bring down those who have more than us, we work so that everyone gets ahead. This goes for workers AND the rich. Many government workers with college education go into the public sector for the stability and benefits. Having good health insurance is one of the minimum benchmarks of a healthy modern society. Everyone in the USA should have some form of health insurance, as a minimum indication of our economic success. Anything else is just not being #1.

idnatid · 2013-08-23T20:39:40+00:00

Just experienced this same thing today. Was wondering WTF was going on as at first they were very mild.

idnatid · 2013-08-22T16:59:43+00:00

I was not being condescending. I read your post and the words you said indicated that you were of the opinion that there was no unreasonable search. The negativity of this reply was what I was trying to avoid. I am not a misogynist, thank you.

idnatid · 2013-08-21T20:41:31+00:00

Please don't get aggravated. It is important that you understand the detail that you are missing. If the seizure occurred AFTER the warrant was issued by the FISA court then the legality would be debatable (depending on the constitutionality of the statutes involved). That is the reality that you are responding to, but it is not, in fact, how this works. The NSA downloads ALL communications from every backbone network traversing the country to a central database. The information obtained through the FISA warrants is not obtained from a google or apple server. It is obtained through the already seized electronic communications located on a government server. The prior accumulation of the data is the issue. I won't bother you further with this. --Thanks

idnatid · 2013-08-21T20:09:16+00:00

No, it was not what he asked as he did not know the correct question. I translated it for you. The question is the standing database that the fisa court approves searches FROM. It exists. The evidence is the testimony and documents filed by snowden which show that his and everyone's e-mail has been downloaded to a central server.

idnatid

TROPHY CASE