Comments on: Earth’s Final Sunset And Three Step Solution To Avoid It.

By: zolla

zolla — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:32:39 +0000

nice in all but way way to long cya

By: moody

moody — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:22:34 +0000

Eriku,
Feel free to comment on any article regardless of age.
Not really sure if we’re going to be dead in 200 years, but you raise interesting concept of being replaced with simpler organisms. It’s very hard to exterminate or replace species. Especially ours. Even if we wanted to do intentionally.
To steal Michael Crichton’s line from Jurassic Park: “Life will find a way”.
I talk little bit about futurism and transhumanism in my article Digital God.
http://www.crankypot.com/2008/03/06/digital-god/

By: eriku

eriku — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:03 +0000

sorry to dig up an old article (dunno what constitutes old for you but here’s to hedging), but I just had to comment on the idea of mankind making it to year 100,000

I’m VERY nervous about how earth would look in 200 years, had I had a chance to be there to experience it. We’ll be dead by our own devices and simpler organisms will be taking over, I think

By: Fyodor

Fyodor — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:47:51 +0000

Fascinating article, but like xwillix I kept wondering, is this really possible? But it is very entertaining to think about.

By: moody

moody — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:38:51 +0000

xcwillix: You’re right. This was meant to be purely fictional entertainment story. However, it is based on some scientific facts and technology we currently have today, and even though it seems far fetched, to think what our scientific advancement will be in 100,000 is beyond anyones comprehension, so truth will probably be even more unlikely then this article. For example I was talking about propelling the earth with anti-matter or solar sail. Well, we already have that technology today, it;s just not practical. Considering the non-linear advancement of science, it is safe to think that in 100,000 time anti-matter will be compared to a bow and arrow technology of today, or will at least cost as much as coffee or tea.

By: xcwillix

xcwillix — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:50:10 +0000

I found the post entertaining, even interesting… However I never considered taking it seriously- I read the artilce with a fictional perspective. Ill have to read this again with out the fictional perspective - before ill be able to comment any further….

By: moody

moody — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:07:22 +0000

“Moving the whole planet is interesting but I think youâ€™d have to take the moon with us, because unless im mistaken the moon gives us our interesting tilt that makes 4 seasons and tides, which are all important to life here.”

That will be unnecessary since we won’t have a need for tilt. Remember: there will be no sun and we would be in control of all seasons. I think we can manage without tides. The only problem without moon I see is that pregnant women will not go into labor as often.

I will concede at your first point though

By: El Gribbo

El Gribbo — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:01:43 +0000

Kind of a optimistic view of humanity to think we’d make it that long to even enact a solution. We’ll probably nuke ourselves off the planet long before then over one person insulting another persons mother by then or something. Hopefully we’ll at least have some people living off world by then to carry on the wars there, too. =)

Moving the whole planet is interesting but I think you’d have to take the moon with us, because unless im mistaken the moon gives us our interesting tilt that makes 4 seasons and tides, which are all important to life here. I vote colonize other worlds. We’ll have to anyway for more living space and resources and garbage dumps lol.