We live in very interesting times

[Mathnomalous]

The future scarcity of cheap oil is a very minor issue to me; we already have decent solutions in place, like wind and solar, and once cheap oil becomes very expensive, few people will object to those others types of electricity generation.

I am just disillusioned with the current state of the world; my generation lacks grand motivations, grand achievements; we got nothing to be proud of. The Founding Fathers decided that writing letters to kings was a waste of time and started a Revolution; in the 1940s your parents kicked the crap out of the Nazis; you and your cohorts put people on the moon and later on brought down the USSR via containment. Our greatest "achievement", so far? Facebook and World of Warcraft...

We need motivation; we also need a goal, a big objective. Maybe rebelling against the current system or sending someone to Mars; perhaps the discovery of a habitable planet will spark something in us. It is bound to happen, right?

 

[discrete*]

Looks like we may get an answer to the habitable planet question much earlier than we may have thought. Just speculation, but it seems like NASA has quite a statement to make. See this link: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html

 

[mheslep]

Based on data from the COW project I count 321 wars starting 1992-2001 (since 2001 is the most recent year with data). Modeling this as a Poisson process, I estimate the probability of having no wars over a given 60-year span at exp(-32.1 * 60) or about one in 3 x 10⁸³⁶.

All of which are very different from world wars.

 

[Andre]

Taking the bait too

1. Third World War

Very remote, Lisab tells exactly why, but in addition, there is no fuel to be waisted to such a luxury. Better stick to your local sport/tribe wars.

2. Second American Revolution

Rather likely, no place on Earth where two opposite groups polarize so quickly due to the herd instinct/groupthink.

3. First female President of the US

Pass, no idea, may the enlightment conquer Jesus land.

4. First person walks on Mars

Forget it, there is no 'Kennedy challenge and we have some economical issues to solve

5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet

Infinitisemally small. As I have shown on numerous occasions, Earth may be needing the moon for a stable rotation which is required for stable climates and conditions. This is not incorporated in the Drake equation, so even if you find 100 planets in the goldilox zone with all favorite conditions; if none has a sizable moon, they all may just look like Venus.

6. ET life discovered

See previous

7. Palin elected President of the US

yeah right.

8. World epidemic

Just slightly above unlikely as Earth population gets more dense.

 

[mheslep]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

post 20

No full fledged democracy has attacked another since Athens attacked Syracuse. Now there are some 160 democracies.

 

[mheslep]

Infinitisemally small. As I have shown on numerous occasions, Earth may be needing the moon for a stable rotation which is required for stable climates and conditions. This is not incorporated in the Drake equation, so even if you find 100 planets in the goldilox zone with all favorite conditions; if none has a sizable moon, they all may just look like Venus.

Exactly. The other great rarity as I understand stems from the apparent finding that a planet forming at the required life supporting distance from a star does not gather water (or its elements), and the Earth likely got lucky by picking up water from post formation collisions with outer solar system objects, which in turn were disrupted by another freak accident in the outer solar system. Then there's the detection technology issue. Seems to me direct spectrographic inspection of an Earth sized plant is required, for which the indirect methods of star wobble and star intensity dips on planet passes will not suffice, and has not even a remote possibility of success more than a few hundred LY out. But then, what do I know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The future scarcity of cheap oil is a very minor issue to me; we already have decent solutions in place, like wind and solar, and once cheap oil becomes very expensive, few people will object to those others types of electricity generation.

There are currently no viable options to replace our oil supply. There isn't enough wind to solve the problem [not by a long shot]. Solar is coming along, but until we see battery-powered trucks, trains, and aircraft [all but impossible right now], and solar cells that are dramatically cheaper than they are now, we don't have a solution. Electric cars aren't competitive yet and may never be completely.

I see this as one of the most important issues that we [the world] face. Imo, alternative fuels that can replace oil are hypercritical to our future. [I should say your future, not mine. I'm getting old. ]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Infinitisemally small. As I have shown on numerous occasions, Earth may be needing the moon for a stable rotation which is required for stable climates and conditions. This is not incorporated in the Drake equation, so even if you find 100 planets in the goldilox zone with all favorite conditions; if none has a sizable moon, they all may just look like Venus.

Why are the chances of a planet having a moon "infinitesimally small"? Every planet in our solar system has moons [less Mercury? I forget]. And we know that one out of eight had the conditions necessary for life to evolve.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Exactly. The other great rarity as I understand stems from the apparent finding that a planet forming at the required life supporting distance from a star does not gather water (or its elements), and the Earth likely got lucky by picking up water from post formation collisions with outer solar system objects, which in turn were disrupted by another freak accident in the outer solar system.[

And this is all highly unlikely in other systems? Why? What you call a freak accident, I call all but inevitable given enough time.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Ok, so the future is crap and the great things many people daydream about are not likely to happen. Can we at least get some big rock to swoop by Earth or something..? There has to be something "sexier" than running low on cheap oil out there!

I demand more carrots on sticks!

 

[BobG]

Ok, so the future is crap and the great things many people daydream about are not likely to happen. Can we at least get some big rock to swoop by Earth or something..? There has to be something "sexier" than running low on cheap oil out there!

I demand more carrots on sticks!

Some day, we'll have meat on a stick. That's when we'll know we have it made.

 

[Evo]

Ok, so the future is crap and the great things many people daydream about are not likely to happen. Can we at least get some big rock to swoop by Earth or something..? There has to be something "sexier" than running low on cheap oil out there!

I demand more carrots on sticks!

Gee, when I was little everything that could be discovered had been, man's dream of reaching the moon, been there, done that, man's dream of flying, same. Man's dream of transmitting sound and pictures around the world? Flameless light? Cooking food in a cold box?

Yeah, we should have all just dug our heads in the sand and given up, what else could there be to do that we hadn't already done?

 

[Andre]

Why are the chances of a planet having a moon "infinitesimally small"? Every planet in our solar system has moons [less Mercury? I forget]. And we know that one out of eight had the conditions necessary for life to evolve.

the keyword is "sizeable", the moon has to be big enough to have enough gravitational influence to cause the precession cycle to be much faster than the tilt cycle. If those cycles get into resonance eventually, the planet gets into the "chaotic zone" according to Laskar (same link).

Venus has no moons either. Furthermore the ratio of the moons masses versus planets masses is by far the biggest for the Earth/moon combination

 

[lisab]

Some day, we'll have meat on a stick. That's when we'll know we have it made.

Mmm...chicken satay...I could go for some Thai...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

the keyword is "sizeable", the moon has to be big enough to have enough gravitational influence to cause the precession cycle to be much faster than the tilt cycle. If those cycles get into resonance eventually, the planet gets into the "chaotic zone" according to Laskar (same link).

I don't think we have enough statistical data to properly gauge the rarity of a moon of the proper size and orbit... but it does seem to me that our own solar system tends to show that moons (in general) are a fairly common occurence.

Furthermore the ratio of the moons masses versus planets masses is by far the biggest for the Earth/moon combination

Not true, Pluto/Charon is a much larger ratio. Mass wise, Earth/Moon is about 81, where as Pluto/Charon is 8.6.

 

[Grep]

Not true, Pluto/Charon is a much larger ratio. Mass wise, Earth/Moon is about 81, where as Pluto/Charon is 8.6.

Note that he said planets.

*Runs for cover*

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Note that he said planets.

*Runs for cover*

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a claim of planet/moon mass ratios similar to Earth's being rare is unfounded. Furthermore, the presence of a "dwarf planet" with such a large planet/moon mass ratio (10x that of Earth/Luna) suggests proof to me that larger ratios are just as likely.

 

[mheslep]

And this is all highly unlikely in other systems? Why? What you call a freak accident, I call all but inevitable given enough time.

Can't be and have life. The event escapes me at the moment, but if the disruption in the outer solar system that caused all that orbital debris dislocation to the inner solar system were a common occurrence then the Earth (and like planets) would still be a bowling pin.

Meanwhile, I'm going with this reference:

Klaatu: There are only a handful of planets in the cosmos that are capable of supporting complex life...

 

[Andre]

Be that as it may, it seems to me that a claim of planet/moon mass ratios similar to Earth's being rare is unfounded.

So as a consequence, would a claim that planet/moon mass ratios similar to Earth's being common is founded? It is not that the hypotheses about the http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/2421/birth-moon sound very plain and common, do they?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So as a consequence, would a claim that planet/moon mass ratios similar to Earth's being common is founded?

Looking at just our solar system does not give enough of a statistical sample for proof in either case... but people can hypothesize all they like.

I would hypothesize that it is likely that moons (of all varied sizes) are a relatively common occurence. Given the vast number of stars (and therefore planets and moons) that exist in our galaxy, it seems conceivable that there are many other planets in our galaxy that have similar planet/moon mass ratios to that of earth...

I make no claims as to their (earth-like planets) relative liklihood, or the necessity of a specific planet/moon mass ratio for life to exist.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think Andre's point is that in addition to the considerations of the Drake equation, you also have planet/moon ratio as an additional constraint, and that adding more constraints only reduces the probability.

So a perfect earth/moon combination that's pluto-distance from their sun is going to be a bit cold for life.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I think Andre's point is that in addition to the considerations of the Drake equation, you also have planet/moon ratio as an additional constraint, and that adding more constraints only reduces the probability.

So a perfect earth/moon combination that's pluto-distance from their sun is going to be a bit cold for life.

I'm not convinced a planet HAS to have a planet/moon mass ratio close to Earth's in order for life to exist in the first place...

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm not convinced a planet HAS to have a planet/moon mass ratio close to Earth's in order for life to exist in the first place...

Well, I guess I'm not convinced that it must be so, but the arguments are reasonable: The moon provides stability in the Earth that allows for stability in the evolution process.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Gee, when I was little everything that could be discovered had been, man's dream of reaching the moon, been there, done that, man's dream of flying, same. Man's dream of transmitting sound and pictures around the world? Flameless light? Cooking food in a cold box?

Yeah, we should have all just dug our heads in the sand and given up, what else could there be to do that we hadn't already done?

What I meant to say is that those of us born after 1980 do not have a major challenges or objectives of "biblical proportions." From 1776 up to 1991, every generation had a major struggle and a major goal to accomplish: Wars of Independence, American Civil Rights Movement, defeating the Nazis, unifying Germany, discovering vaccine for polio, major scientific advancements, going to the Moon, etc. The characters that lived during these times were larger than life; they did things because they have to be done, no matter the price; they were not afraid to sacrifice anything, even their lives, to accomplish their assigned goals.

In contrast, my generation is wimpy, weak. We cry if we do not have a warm latte, a laptop, and a wireless connection available to waste time away on Facebook, Twitter, and World of Warcraft.

What major challenges do we have? What call have we answered? The latest call we have answered is Call of Duty: Black Ops... we need a major crisis that wakes us up yet I doubt we are capable of overcoming such a crisis.

These is what our forefathers did:

[PLAIN]http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/gw/art_gw/el_tut_img.jpg [PLAIN]http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/BB/mlk08.jpg

This is what my generation does:

[URL]http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/US-media-consumption-234915975_ffe3e4f6b7-o.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://gearcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/warcrack.jpg[/URL]

 

[Char. Limit]

Wrong, biased, and extremely offensive, Mathnomalous.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about my generation. We are extremely good at detecting BS, though.

 

[Char. Limit]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about EVERY generation by the generation preceding it.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about my generation. We are extremely good at detecting BS, though.

There is plenty to do in the world, and plenty that needs to be done. The fact that you are having trouble finding something to be inspired by is no one's fault but your own. Categorizing "your generation" as geeked-out electronics addicts is logical fallacy.

 

[Mathnomalous]

There is plenty to do in the world, and plenty that needs to be done. The fact that you are having trouble finding something to be inspired by is no one's fault but your own. Categorizing "your generation" as geeked-out electronics addicts is logical fallacy.

You are correct.

I simply feel anything we may accomplish will pale in comparison with what our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents accomplished.

 

[Grep]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about EVERY generation by the generation preceding it.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates

Touché!

 

[Mathnomalous]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about EVERY generation by the generation preceding it.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates

I have been defeated.I still dislike my cohorts, though.

 

[mheslep]

In contrast, my generation is wimpy, weak.

I don't think so, not for many of them.

http://movies.nationalgeographic.com/movies/restrepo

 

[Char. Limit]

I have been defeated.

By saying this, and being willing to admit defeat, my respect for you went up about 100fold.

I still dislike my cohorts, though.

Well so do I, but I'm not going to cast a shadow of blame on an entire generation.

 

[mheslep]

Nothing that has not been written, debated, expressed, or heard about EVERY generation by the generation preceding it.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates

That's a nice reference (though probably a bogus attribution to Socrates) but there are two ways to see it historically. The first is as you did - that every new generation looks worse to the prior, always. The second view is that history and society proceeds in epic cycles, not arithmetically for ever. The second view bestows upon Socrates a much more cautionary note.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Well so do I, but I'm not going to cast a shadow of blame on an entire generation.

But we still need to jam a high voltage cable up our collective derrières. Back in 2008 - 2009, when the feds were bailing out companies left and right, I thought "this is the moment! young people are going to revolt and demand a stop to all this!" Instead, the deafening roar of silence...

I feel the major challenge of our times is the unbearable financial inequality between the "haves" and the "have-nots." More and more debt is being charged on OUR credit card and we are not doing much about it. I honestly yearn the day when we young people will rise up and overthrow our elders, do the same thing the masses did to Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, not more of that "Rock the Vote" nonsense that does not work.

That is the only delusion I grant myself in my otherwise quiet and unremarkable life. Ok, I am also looking forward to sexy robots I can, um, engage in man-machinette relations; that ain't cheating, is it..?