The next step in human evolution: Homo Cosmicus?

[kgun]

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia had an idea that man will survive and evolute better in space than on the earth.

Related thread:
http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post355194

[cw1865]

Well, all of that energy that we devote to beating gravity could be devoted to brain power I suppose, but the human body would have to become more resistant to radiation. I have actually seen this theory on the Discovery Channel, a body with essentially all arms (no real need for legs per se).

Unfortunately I fear the next probable step in human evolution will likely be man inspired revolution in the form of genetic manipulation. There are definitely genes that you could alter that wouldn't inspire much condemnation (ie. if tthey found a way to eliminate the gene for male pattern baldness), but where do you draw the line? Talk about an ethical can of worms!

[jabo]

Aren't people doing that right now? Manipulating genes? Wow, I see how technology has improved our lives yet it comes to destroy our habitat as well. Maybe soon this planet will be dead and we will all be in outer space, i can't imagine life out there.

[kgun]

Here

Home: California Academy of Sciences

is a project that can be taken to space.

Related thread:

http://www.webproworld.com/breakroom...tml#post347360

[cw1865]

I see the Japanese-American futurist on TV, he's very interesting (his name is on the tip of my tongue and I can kind've say it in my head, but can't spell it (Akio ____?)

In any event, he's often brought onto these futuristic shows and shows involving the universe and I thin khe explains things very well.

Another program highlighted the difficulty of even going to Mars. First, the astronauts are going to be stuck in zero gravity, then they are going to be exposed to potentially lethal radiation, then they're going to be gone for so long they will go stir-crazy, and the spacecraft will be travelling so fast that even if it hits a micro-meteorite, that could cause problems.

To get to solar systems, they're going to be needing technology that obviously isn't invented yet. They simply can't produce enough energy to go fast enough, they don't have 'inertial dampeners' like they have on star trek. And even if let's say they can go 1/2 speed of light or better, they're still going to need to see in front of them a full 186,000 + miles to make sure nothing is in the way, and if there is, they will need to avoid it......Since 1900 human technology has made definite advances, but nothing has surpassed the jet/rocket technology that was developed in the 1940s

[kgun]

Since 1900 human technology has made definite advances, but nothing has surpassed the jet/rocket technology that was developed in the 1940s

We see everything from a human horizon (about 80 years). In addition, the technological development the last 300 years have been exeptional.



I think it will not be so very difficult to

1. Settle on the moon where the California Academy of Science aquarium / rain forest project can be a valuable model.
2. Expand from the moon.

I agree with Professor Stephen W. Hawking and other scientists that say that we even have to populate space. I think a religious (often fatalistic) view on this, the earth as the center of the universe, will only have a (negative) effect, slow down and hamper, but not stop the expansion.

[cw1865]

Well, they could definitely get to the moon, but you have to actually need something from the moon. Apparently, the thing that we would need from the moon would be tritium which could theoretically power fusion. At present, it just doesn't exist in sufficient quantity on earth to make fusion viable.

Obviously you don't live on the moon JUST to live on the moon. At that point you may as well colonize the Sahara and the Atacama deserts!

I think we know we're not at the center of the universe! Problem is that you actually need a destination that has something attractive for humans.

When the European explorers 'discovered' the Americas, they found silver, tobacco, sugar, and things that: 1. had value in Europe; and 2. were actually transportable to Europe.