I was reading about single cell animals and how they can sustain life under almost any condition. Extreme heat, cold, etc etc. some of them having been around from the beginning of time.

The article went on to say that as they evolve into more complex animals they were no longer capable of sustaining life in the extreme conditions.

This got me to thinking about us and advancements we have made and our dependency on things like computers, satellite, rapid communications etc.

Do you think the more advance we become the more likely we are not to survive if something catastrophic happened?

I know, I know….I should probably stick with stuff like Small, Medium or Large.

_______________________________________________________

People will forget what you say and do, but they will never forget how you treated them.

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  10:22:29      

Absolutely!

www.bobbythompsonbanjo.com

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  10:37:29        

Yes. I just read a book called "One Second After" (fiction) that looks at a sort of worst case scenario.

Jonathan O'bug

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:04:39          

Imagine - a scientist peers at the latest scans from the Hubble telescope and finds an asteroid that she later determines is on a collision course with Earth - ETA 2015.

The world's nations pool their scientific and financial resources in an effort to find a way to move the asteroid off its path. After countless hours of work and trillions of dollars spent they launch a spacecraft (captained by Bruce Willis of course) and they actually succeed in averting a collision that would have resulted in total planetary devastation.

Since such a scenario is at least theoretically possible with our existing technology (besides the Bruce Willis bit) I'd say that no, it's not entirely true that our technology makes us more vulnerable to catastrophe. Certainly - in face of some catastrophies - we're better off having our technology than not.

If we were all Amish - we wouldn't have the wherewithal or the technology to change the orbit of the asteroid - and since we wouldn't even have the Hubble - we probably wouldn't even have known the asteroid was coming to smash us to smithereens in the first place.

OTOH - if such a catastrophe were to happen and our technology were to fall apart - we'd be better off if we were Amish.

Clearly - the higher you climb the further you can fall.



"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum

Edited by - BConk on 11/02/2009 11:05:36

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:05:56    

Not to mention that in our quest for cleanliness we have rendered our immune systems incapable of fighting off infection. Used to be we simply coexisted with the bacteria. Now we "clean" everything to the point that when one of the little rascals does sneak through we are defenseless and get terribly ill. Either that, or e-coli is a brand new life form? Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects. We have evolved ourselves right into harms way.


Beware of the urgent crowding out the important - C.E. Hummel

Paddy

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:16:52    

I don't think we're more vulnerable. I think you'll see life expectancies to be well into the 100's in the near future.

Regards,
wkb28791



"If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it-----Now quiet! they're about to announce the lottery numbers!"

Homer Simpson

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:19:28          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pandjlocke

Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects.

Paddy

---

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:32:04    

quote:

---

Originally posted by BConk

quote:

---

Originally posted by pandjlocke

Example: when we go to Mexico, we are warned to not drink the water lest we suffer "Montezuma's Revenge". Seems to me that Mexicans drink the same water every day with no ill effects.

Paddy

---

I seem to recall reading that diarrhea due to water borne pathogens is a leading cause of childhood mortality in many of the countries where we Americans are advised not to drink the water.

So I think it's not entirely true that they drink it with no ill effect.



"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum

---

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:47:50          

But diarrhea due to waterborne pathogens remains a leading cause of death in children in Mexico. The numbers are declining due in part to better access to clean water - and due to better treatment of children who didn't get the clean water to begin with.

I disagree with the notion that the water in Mexico does them no harm - it does. Maybe the adults Mexicans that have survived the childhood diarrhea caused by their water are relatively immune to it - but that doesn't mean it hasn't done them harm. It's still killing and sickening their children.




"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum

Edited by - BConk on 11/02/2009 11:51:48

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  11:56:39          

Also the life expectancy in Mexico in 2001 was 68.73 male, 74.93 female Mexico

Compare that to 74.37 male, 80.05 female in the US.

Though I don't think anyone can quantify the total effect - I'd wager at least part of the difference is in the water.



"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  12:33:53    

Are we talking about survival as a species, or survival as an individual within a population? Simple organisms survive as a species by sheer overwhelming numbers. Their evolutionary selection criteria are based on ability to survive as a species by reproduction in vast numbers, not by longevity of individuals. Man on the other hand has evolved with the ability to destroy his own species, while extending individual longevity.

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  12:37:18  

BConk writes: "I'd wager at least part of the difference is in the water.

I agree. The Artesians that make Oly have been trying to tell us this for years.



Ray

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history." --G. Santayana

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  13:37:12      

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Are we talking about survival as a species, or survival as an individual within a population? Simple organisms survive as a species by sheer overwhelming numbers. Their evolutionary selection criteria are based on ability to survive as a species by reproduction in vast numbers, not by longevity of individuals. Man on the other hand has evolved with the ability to destroy his own species, while extending individual longevity.

---

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  13:50:14    

Humans have been around for such an incredibly short time in comparison, It impossible to make the prediction. Being bipedal and wasting a ton of energy on a brain doesn't bode well for survival. I don't think lots of memory makes for survival in the grand scheme of things. But what do I know...

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  15:36:00        

Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.

Austin

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  16:01:30      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaminbanjo

Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.

Austin

---

Edited by - backtothefuture on 11/02/2009 16:03:24

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  16:06:12    

One word.... Terminator

Scott
“You Can Hang a Sign on a Pig Saying It's a Horse...But It’s Still Just a Pig.”

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  17:47:23        

quote:

---

Originally posted by backtothefuture

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaminbanjo

Okay, look....everything has been around for the same amount of time. Enough of this million year evolution garbage.

Austin

---

Enough of this million year evolution garbage?

What evolution garbage are you referring to?

.

Dennis

---

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  18:04:24  

In theory, specialization leaves us vulnerable to changes in our environment. The countering factors that have made us so dominant in this ecosystem is adapability. We are highly adaptable. So, it is one of those "Yes and No" answers....

YMMV, but hopefully you get good mileage, and don't get caught under the evolutionary bus!!!

noli illegitimi carborundum (stolen from DAT)

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  18:04:54    

Often people toss the word "theory" around, in this context, without knowing what they're talking about. In science, theory is a bit different than what it means to most lay people. Theories in science are pretty certain barring evidence that can be backed up by a credible scientist or credible evidence. It is not a guess, it is not a wish, it is not. . . that other thing. A theory is as certain as we can be. It is backed up by hard evidence and good research. There are no credible scientists disputing evolution. Nor is there any credible evidence suggesting anything different has happened over millions of years. There is, in fact, literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. Yes, I know there are a small number of scientists suggesting other ideas. But frankly, they are not credible. What they are espousing has little or nothing to do with their choice of career and more to do with belief systems. They are not presenting at credible scientific gatherings or being published in credible scientific journals. Bare in mind, I'm talking about science here. If you want to talk about that other thing, we don't talk about that here. Let's stick to science , so. . .

Back to the original post, I think BConk has the best idea so far. Technology does not necessarily help or hinder us. It can do both. . . and neither. But if and when it fails, our survival will depend on our ability to get along without it.

-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.

Edited by - MarkRough on 11/02/2009 18:06:08

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  18:07:47    

And for the record. . . medium. . . and yes, I've trapped a mole.

-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  18:25:48      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkRough

And for the record. . . medium. . . and yes, I've trapped a mole.

-----------------
Some days you're the dog. . . other days you're the hydrant.

---

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  18:51:59        

I think that in an information age as we live in now, we are much more reliant on seeking information and less on know-how. Basic fundemantal skills are lost to many younger people as compared to back in the day (and I will ackowledge this being one of them) they learn to rely on resources to get their knowledge- which is good as long as there is a laptop/Blackberry around. This has been my experience seeing up-and comers into graduate studies, etc. -Or else they have very specilized knowledge in one area that leaves them vulnerable to areas that once would have been common sense to the layperson. Not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome. The perfect example has been mentioned- research to develop antibacteria handwashes, which in fact hamper the bodies natural ability to ward off bacteria/viruses- too smart for our own good.

As far as scientific theories go- a theory is not proven. It is not a fact. That is why it is a theory. Science cannot prove anything- it can only disprove, and by that process of elimination comes closer to determine that a theory might be a fact, but until all the potential variables in the unviverse are put to trial on a certain subject (e.g. theory of relativity, gravity, etc.), nothing can be stated as a scientific fact- and so they remain theories. All these theories have not been tested in every potential scenario to conclude they are fact, and probably never will be.

Interesting topic.

Steven

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  19:33:05          

I have never trapped a mole.
I scratched a mole, I recall having pinched a very interesting zit, and had a toenail surgically removed.

And, in between all that activity, I managed to learn more than a dozen 3-chord songs.

Maybe we could get a Roy Clark kind of show going on TV,
but using banjo music to educate the public about health and science.

Instead of "HEE-Haw!", we could call it
"EEEE- Coli!!"

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  19:55:00

On the truth value of scientific theories:
While the scientific method isn't equipped to disprove a theory, we do tend to think that a theory which both predicts our observations correctly and explains them in a satisfying way is "true", at least in some sense. No one believes that gravitation is "just a theory". Newton's theory of gravitation (that the tendency of objects to move towards each other in a certain way is due to a force exerted on each by the other which conforms to a particular mathematical formula) both matches the data (if you watch how two large objects in space move, you see it conforms to the theory) in terms of prediction and explains it in a satisfying way (in terms of forces and some simple math), so we're inclined to say that the theory is correct, or true. Note that Newton's is not the only account of gravitation. Einstein's account of general relativity explains gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime (so one object moves toward another like a marble toward the centre of a depression in a sheet of rubber) rather than in terms of forces. We're inclined to say Einstein's whole account of general relativity is also true, in that it is fairly elegant (though the math sometimes gets difficult) and conforms to our observations of the world. But Einstein's account is incompatible with Newton's. Today we say that Einstein's account is more true, because it conforms more closely to observation (for situations involving very large masses or very high velocities, the two theories predict slightly different outcomes). And one of the biggest problems facing theoretical physicists today is reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are largely considered true or correct by our criteria of predictive power and elegance.

On biological evolution and creationism:
Note first that the theory of evolution is only one about the history of living organisms; things like the Big Bang and the age of the universe are not directly related. Now, nearly all people who are informed about the facts of our observations are inclined to say that the theory of evolution is true. It correctly predicts how organisms change in response to their environment (see the ongoing study by biologist Richard Lenski called the E. coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment for an excellent example) and the theory itself is fairly elegant and simple. Creationism, where I'll take it to mean the theory that all species were created relatively recently, simultaneously, and are more or less the same now as they were then, is similarly simple and elegant. However, it has little to no predictive power at all; indeed much of our observation of the world flies in the face of this idea. Furthermore, it leads to a lot more questions than it answers: What is the nature of the creating force? Why were things created this way rather than some other way? These questions are difficult to answer without recourse to entirely non-scientific claims, typically about an unobservable god or some group of technologically advanced aliens or some such "intellectual rubbish". I call these ideas "intellectual rubbish" because they're beyond the scope of the scientific method. I.e. they rely on unfalsifiable (untestable) claims that need to be taken on faith. Sometimes questions about things like this are interesting from a philosophical point of view, but they aren't valid foundations for scientific knowledge. Thus we see that the rational and informed are inclined to say that at least the basic claims of made by the theory of biological evolution is true and that the position of creationism is an untenable one.

Background: I'm a mathematics student also pursuing a minor in philosophy, who is interested in the philosophy of science and in epistemology in general. I play the banjo, too.

Posted - 11/02/2009 :  20:58:28

To address the original poster's question, I think that to some extent our tools become part of us. In some ways they limit us in that we eventually take their presence for granted, but on the whole they extend our power as a species rather than reduce it. It's hard to produce a definitive answer when dealing with such vague notions, though.