Options

Are we too dependent on technology?

1235»

Posts

  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    way to generalise from networked communication tools to anything that involves not using our bare hands to eke out an existence there champ

    Pretty much nailed it on the second post.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    These general extinction rates are a tripping point of mine because they are extrapolated by calculating the rate of species discovery, applying it to the planet, and then subtracting area used by humans. They aren't based in actual, known extinctions. Textbook excercise in the deployment of statistics to produce an alarm number.

    I don't like to see a single species disappear. One less to kill and eat in case of massive EMP discharge.


    I thought this had changed recently, as our satellitte technology and computing science have now evolved to the point where we can catalogue pretty much everything alive on Earth. I believe they are building a worldwide database to this effect, with different nations holding the DB's for specific species.

    I'm sure there are insects and whathaveyou we haven't found yet, but I think we have a pretty good grip on the numbers for anything larger than a football. (Not saying I agree with 30k, just saying there is some pretty reliable info out there now which surpasses mere guesstimation)

    If we have that technology, I haven't heard of it. The latest studies I could find on it over the last few hours all gave a range between 3 and 8 million species. It would take INCREDIBLE sat technology to be able to tell say, species of hummingbirds or fish apart, but if we have it I'd love to read more about it.

    It was a recent read, and for animals larger than a football (so I suppose small birds, insects, fish and deepwater life wouldn't show). I think the example cited that we track every caribou alive, and that we do a significant number of species in this way.

    Here are two lists I found (sadly, unrelated to the sat tech which I am still searching for), btw - would you view these as credible, or flawed by the process you mentioned?

    cites
    Red List

    Sarcastro on
  • Options
    SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Areg, no editses - but I beleive this site has the links to certain projects held in the finding. I see they still use a combination of collared techs coupled with visual count pics. This is not nearly as cool as simply infra-tracking each one on it's own. That would be total nature pwnage.

    Sarcastro on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    I'm not even worried about that. I'm more concerned with nanotechnology that can manipulate matter at the molecular level. All they would need is an order to keep multiplyng and there literally wouldn't be anything left.
    Not going to happen. Ever.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    I'm not even worried about that. I'm more concerned with nanotechnology that can manipulate matter at the molecular level. All they would need is an order to keep multiplyng and there literally wouldn't be anything left.
    Not going to happen. Ever.

    That's the spirit. Be positive.

    Glyph on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    I'm not even worried about that. I'm more concerned with nanotechnology that can manipulate matter at the molecular level. All they would need is an order to keep multiplyng and there literally wouldn't be anything left.
    Not going to happen. Ever.

    That's the spirit. Be positive.
    If you actually want me to go into further detail about why it won't happen I can, but I'm going to settle for now my assuring you it's not a serious possibility.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    I'm not even worried about that. I'm more concerned with nanotechnology that can manipulate matter at the molecular level. All they would need is an order to keep multiplyng and there literally wouldn't be anything left.
    Not going to happen. Ever.

    That's the spirit. Be positive.
    If you actually want me to go into further detail about why it won't happen I can, but I'm going to settle for now my assuring you it's not a serious possibility.

    No. Barring a universe of limitless possibilities where nothing is necessarily impossible, I seriously don't believe it'll be any more of a reality than time travel, clinical immortality or Calabi-Yau manifolds.

    Glyph on
Sign In or Register to comment.