h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

HOOvooloo--Smart people without emotional growth invest in $ making schemes. Smart people with emotional growth would invest their time in doing the most good reguardless of the bigger profit margin, still a profit no doubt..Wake-up!! There have been smart people whom developed cheaper anti -biotics. BECAUSE they have no *emotional growth, they are NOT sold cheaper, they are more expensive. Anti-biotics were wrongly misused for many reasons. Now the human race is in danger because new ones needed to be developed. They DID develope them,the DO charge 3-4-5 times as much for them now! Companies are not in danger of people not requiring them,no losing profits there! Do not even mention the BS $ that is made within the drug companies.

Insects have done better,and without morals I presume,they will be here after the nuclear war.

We do jhave enough nuke to wipe the face off the planet if they were spread around correctly.

Perhaps, but that's only surface damage. There are plenty of types of bacteria that live kilometres underground, let alone under the sea-floor.

Thats true - could we just destroy the land or do we have enough firepower to smash the seas as well?
And yes, i'm sure life after some fasion will survive.
Oh, and The Sunday Times magazine this week has a feature on 10 possibilites for the end if the world before 2100.
They are:
1 - Experimental Disaster - a high energy physics experiment goes badly wrong.
2 - Self coscious machines taking over
3 - Nanobots turning everything into other nanobots
4 - Fantastically deadly and untreatable plauges.
5 - MASSIVE volcanic eruptions
6 - Earthquakes?
7 - Impacts from astronomical bodies
8 - Runaway greenhouse effect.
9 - Violent war - with nukes or even nore powerful weapons.
10 - Acts of God.

I love it when they say "the end of the world" when they just mean the end of us. It's as if there can be no concievable point to the universe without a bunch of noisy apes chucking crap around the place.

I would think that "fantastically deadly untreatable plagues," "massive volcanic eruptions," and "earthquakes" would be considered "Acts of God."

Doesnt seem to matter to most, either way

I thought so too.
And yes, Several of these just mean the end of humankind, but some are more serious - the physics experiment gone wrong could, theortically destroy the galaxy!

Yes indeedy; a high energy physics experiment could destabilise the current energy density of the vacuum leading to a runaway expansion of the universe.... oh my! You don't think... they couldn't have... could they?

Noggin

Are you serious?

If so, I'd be interested to learn more about any sort of experiment (or indeed any human activity) that could destroy more than the crust of this planet

~ links would be appreciated

Ummm, I'll see what I can find.
remember that our beleif in our ability to do serious damage to the rest of the universe is based on our own, current physics theory, which will have changed again in a couple of years.

The general idea is that if the energy density of the vacuum is not at its lowest possible level destabilising it could result in it "jumping down" to a lower level. Same amount of energy + lower energy density = expanding space.

Noggin

This of course all depends if you accept the *theory* of evolution. Amazing how many people treat it as if it were an immutable fact.

I think it would be folly to discount the enormous amount of supporting evidence that has been endorsed by so many obviously intelligent and open-minded people

If evolution is wrong, it will be proved thus by the very same people who are studying it (at least those whose sole agenda is increasing our understanding of the world we live in)

It seems to me that a lot of scientists often push their own agenda, trying to prove their existing beliefs on science rather than maintaining an open mind. I mean, just look at the struggles those who have dared to turn against the herd have faced in the past. Theories that are considered quite normal and acceptable today, such as the Big Bang or even continental shift, were mocked by scientists of yesterdecade.

There's plenty wrong with the theory of evolution - it just fits better than anything else thats come along.
And I'm guessing you didn't read the Blog.

What's the BLog?

Oh .. backlog .. no .. too many pages ...

<< It seems to me that a lot of scientists often push their own agenda, trying to prove their existing beliefs on science rather than maintaining an open mind. >>


As humans, it is impossible for most (if not all) of us to *not* push our own agendas

BUT a *real* scientist follows established protocols (such as the Scientific Method [see A881237 currently in PeerReview] and the submitting of their work to the the scrutiny of peers and other interested parties) in order to minimise this influence on their research methods and, therefore, findings

Alas, there are many pseudo-scientists who (either consciously or subconsciously) conveniently ignore these techniques

I have yet to read any credible work that indicates that the theory of evolution is misguided

~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

<< Oh .. backlog .. no .. too many pages ... >>

2 pages = too many

Shirley you jest TGWBHat