Religions and Babies

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When you consider that we went from horse-and-buggy to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, among other very large advances in technology and engineering,

Look at the level of change in the last 60 years though in terms of travel compared to the previous 60.  Is the current automobile or train or plane even significantly different from 60 years ago, let alone of the level of difference between a horse and buggy and the cars of 40s and 50s?  Are the cars of today having the same sort of cultural change impact that occurred in the past?

Dramatic cultural changes seem to be happening more in the fields of communication at this time.  Other areas seem pretty stable to me (the greatest difference imo is likely accessibility to higher technology in terms of world population, such as use of cars and cell phones world wide now).

A person from 1960 America is going to feel less out of place in 2020 America than a person from 1900 would have felt in 1960, I bet.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Look at the level of change in the last 60 years though in terms of travel compared to the previous 60.  Is the current automobile or train or plane even significantly different from 60 years ago, let alone of the level of difference between a horse and buggy and the cars of 40s and 50s?  Are the cars of today having the same sort of cultural change impact that occurred in the past?

Dramatic cultural changes seem to be happening more in the fields of communication at this time.  Other areas seem pretty stable to me (the greatest difference imo is likely accessibility to higher technology in terms of world population, such as use of cars and cell phones world wide now).

A person from 1960 America is going to feel less out of place in 2020 America than a person from 1900 would have felt in 1960, I bet.

I'm watching a show called For All Mankind that you might want to check out. It postulates that if Russians had beaten American's to the moon we might have progressed further than we chose to back then after we "won", discovered the ice/water that is up there sooner than we did, like in 1969 instead of when we did in 2009, and found more of it maybe, enough to warrant setting up a base on the moon, and keep gong from there.

But all of that is small potatoes to what our Father in heaven can do.  I wonder how much longer it will be before we can do what he does.

[Stargazer]

53 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I would bet against Elon Musk any day, all day and every day.

I've run into a fair amount of anti-Elon sentiment. I find this puzzling. Why would you bet against him, exactly?

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Look at the level of change in the last 60 years though in terms of travel compared to the previous 60.  Is the current automobile or train or plane even significantly different from 60 years ago, let alone of the level of difference between a horse and buggy and the cars of 40s and 50s?  Are the cars of today having the same sort of cultural change impact that occurred in the past?

These are incremental changes. Not dramatic. Go back to my grandmother's youth for the dramatic, in connection with cars. As you say below, other areas are advancing at this time. Transportation may change dramatically again later.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dramatic cultural changes seem to be happening more in the fields of communication at this time.  Other areas seem pretty stable to me (the greatest difference imo is likely accessibility to higher technology in terms of world population, such as use of cars and cell phones world wide now).

If and when there's a breakthrough in energy production, say fusion power, you may see a dramatic cultural change at that time. These kinds of things are unpredictable. But we should look for them to occur.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

A person from 1960 America is going to feel less out of place in 2020 America than a person from 1900 would have felt in 1960, I bet.

Well, yes. But the person in 1900 would not have felt out of place in 1840, either. Except for trains and metal ships. And telegraph. 

Our ancestors rode horses, sailed wooden ships, and wrote on paper for hundreds of years. Then things changed.

 

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've run into a fair amount of anti-Elon sentiment. I find this puzzling. Why would you bet against him, exactly?

I love Tesla but I hate Musk's business practices. Then he opened his mouth and one day I looked at him and I saw Elizabeth Holmes.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

These are incremental changes. Not dramatic. Go back to my grandmother's youth for the dramatic, in connection with cars. As you say below, other areas are advancing at this time. Transportation may change dramatically again later.

If and when there's a breakthrough in energy production, say fusion power, you may see a dramatic cultural change at that time. These kinds of things are unpredictable. But we should look for them to occur.

Well, yes. But the person in 1900 would not have felt out of place in 1840, either. Except for trains and metal ships. And telegraph. 

Our ancestors rode horses, sailed wooden ships, and wrote on paper for hundreds of years. Then things changed.

 

And eventually they may come, but back in the 60's I remember seeing claims it would happen by 2000...yet here we are, still grounded.

So to point to the 20th century and claim because of the dramatic change between the beginning and the end of that century, we should expect dramatic changes in the 21st century ignores imo, that the most significant changes happened pretty early on.  We could go for a couple of hundred years or even more before having that lightning change that trains and then autos brought.

I think change will come.  It is putting change on a schedule when it is unpredictable that I see a problem with.  Thus I am debating your comment below of "even more dramatic steps inside the next 100 years".  Sure it could occur or life could go on pretty the same outside of communication as it has for the last 70 (plane transportation becoming commercial was the last massive change imo).

Quote

When you consider that we went from horse-and-buggy to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, among other very large advances in technology and engineering, I feel like we're selling ourselves short to think that we won't have made even more dramatic steps inside the next 100 years. 

Now if they manage to do cheap nanotechnology for medical issues that could rebuild organs or bones or provide cheap, clean, easily accessible energy (supposedly molten salt reactors currently being worked on may get us there in the not too distant future, but I have heard so many next big things in the past 40 years due to my husband hanging out with entrepreneurs, I am highly skeptical these days), I would expect a huge leap in quality of life with those.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

Ahab is the absolute perfect "troll" because he is not an intentional troll, we all know that it is impossible to reason with him, we all know nothing we say will change his mind, we all know that he will continue to push his outrageous ideas despite our replies, and again, we all know he is not an intentional "troll," yet we cannot help but respond. And here am I, responding.

Ahab, I bow before you. You own the internet.

ETA: and this applies to so many threads...

Edited December 7, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

What do you suppose they imagine being at the edges of the ring or circle?  I envision it going on forever in every direction, otherwise... what?  There would be an end to it.  An edge or boundary or some point you could go to but no further.

You are not thinking of the Universe correctly. A differently shaped universe means you can set off in any direction and never get to the end but the Universe would still not be infinite.

Do not try to think about this intuitively and refute it that way by saying it makes no sense. It does not make intuitive sense. Reality is just weird.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I would not be so pessimistic.  When you consider that we went from horse-and-buggy to landing on the moon in less than 100 years, among other very large advances in technology and engineering, I feel like we're selling ourselves short to think that we won't have made even more dramatic steps inside the next 100 years.  Maybe we are nowhere near it from the point of view of your lifetime, but keep in mind that my grandmother was born when horse and buggy ruled, and lived to see Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.  Much may take place in one human lifetime that you now regard as completely undoable.

Ever hear of Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman?  In 1945 he appeared before the Special Senate Committee on Atomic Energy and stated:

"The people who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking about a 3,000-mile, high-angle rocket, shot from one continent to another, carrying an atomic bomb, and so directed as to be a precise weapon, which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city. I say, technically I don't think anybody in the world knows how to do such a thing, and I feel confident it will not be done for a very long period of time to come. I wish the American public would leave that out of their thinking.“

12 years later, the Soviets put the first artificial satellite into orbit using a rocket that was designed to do exactly what Bush said was not going to be possible "for a very long period of time". Of course, he lived to see this, but I don't recall if anyone ever asked him to eat his words.

 In April 1946 the chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Jerome C. Hunsaker, echoed the same view in an address before the National Academy of Sciences:

"One is tempted to speculate about the possibilities of an improved rocket of this type [V-2]. An engineer cannot see much prospect for an improved propellant nor for much better materials of construction. It is unlikely that a ratio of starting weight to empty weight of much more than three can be obtained. It, therefore, appears that the range of 200 miles is near the maximum for the type."

A year later, Convair had designed and test-launched three rockets based on the V-2 that had design ranges of 8,000 miles. In the same year the Soviets built their first rocket based on the V-2, and it had a range of 500 miles.

Bush was a brilliant engineer, inventor and science administrator.  Hunsaker was an engineer and naval officer who witnessed one of the earliest flights of heavier-than-air aircraft, and was still active when a heavy bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Japan.  They both should have known better.  They are both poster children for Arthur C. Clarke's famous 1st Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Elon Musk (SpaceX) has stated that he wants to begin the colonization of Mars very soon now, and is currently designing and testing the craft that he plans to use to do it.  Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) has been less forthcoming about his future goals, but he is developing advanced space launch capability as well.  You want to bet against either one of these gentlemen?  

I would bet against Musk colonizing Mars beyond setting up an outpost. I am not sure I would call it a colony at first. It would be a station manned by specialists. Colonization would be a situation where you could send non-experts in survival. It would be more like a base in Antarctica than what we imagine as a colony. It would be a drain on earth’s economy until we could create a viable habitat and possibly even then still be a drain.

The difference between the problems we face now in colonization of the solar system are different from building an ICBM or a booster rocket. The issues with the latter were material science and fueling. If you had presented Bush with the question of “can it be done eventually” I would argue he would have said yes. The problems we face with solar system colonization are manifold. The most pressing is that there is nowhere else in the system humanity can survive unaided so we have to take all of it with us. Another is the question of duration which last I checked is 200-300 days for the trip and then you have the problem of low gravity and the increased vulnerability of anyone making the trip to radiation on the way and while they are there.

To go to another star I have only seen one semi-FTL idea that is even a theory and the energy demands for it are insane. Originally it would have needed roughly the output of the sun to power it. All of the sun’s energy through its entire lifetime. Last I heard they got it down to a gas giant. Only theory on how to power it is antimatter and we are nowhere near having a way to create some way of creating or harnessing such a power source Still all theory and it relies on other theoretical pieces that may not even exist. Our best bet for fast sublight travel is photonic drives. These could get probes to Alpha Centauri in roughly 60 years, give or take. This would let us supply Mars. It could get something physically from Earth to Mars in a matter of days. Not people though. It would kill anyone you put in it. This idea needs a lot of refinement and testing though.

I do give the current space craze including Elon Musk credit for at least reopening these questions and grappling with them. While we have collected a lot of information about the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe since the moon landings we have done very little in terms of interacting with it. I suspect I will live to see the first landing on Mars and maybe even manned missions to the more interesting moons in the outer solar system. It is even possible I could see the beginnnings of asteroid mining but I do not think I will see humanity leave the solar system or set up colonies that can support humans without being VERY dependent on Earth. I would be amazed if I live to see a human or even an interstellar probe or craft of any kind that makes it to another star in my lifetime.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I love Tesla but I hate Musk's business practices. Then he opened his mouth and one day I looked at him and I saw Elizabeth Holmes.

OK, fair enough, I guess.  I had to look her up, cuz I'd never heard of her before.  Don't see the link, actually.  Did they date or something?  Nevermind. I suppose Holmes and Musk have similar business practices, in your mind?

Except that the company that Holmes set up, Theranos, was an entire fraud.  Tesla and SpaceX are genuine industrial companies with actual products and services.  Successful products and services I might add.  

So, forget about Elon Musk, and just bask in the progress of space flight -- the Falcon Heavy boosters coming home after the successful launch of the Arabsat 6A satellite:

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are not thinking of the Universe correctly. A differently shaped universe means you can set off in any direction and never get to the end but the Universe would still not be infinite.

Do not try to think about this intuitively and refute it that way by saying it makes no sense. It does not make intuitive sense. Reality is just weird.

I guess this is as good a place as any to insert this PBS Space Time video:

 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would bet against Musk colonizing Mars beyond setting up an outpost. I am not sure I would call it a colony at first. It would be a station manned by specialists. Colonization would be a situation where you could send non-experts in survival. It would be more like a base in Antarctica than what we imagine as a colony. It would be a drain on earth’s economy until we could create a viable habitat and possibly even then still be a drain.

Of course, any initial manned exploration of Mars must begin with an outpost.  

I don't believe Musk is being unreasonable in his expectations. From what I have seen in his presentations, he expects it to be just what you say: a station manned by specialists, which eventually becomes more than that. 

He has spoken about his dream of making humans a multiplanet species.  It's a worthy goal, I think.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The difference between the problems we face now in colonization of the solar system are different from building an ICBM or a booster rocket. The issues with the latter were material science and fueling. If you had presented Bush with the question of “can it be done eventually” I would argue he would have said yes. 

Bush didn't say it wouldn't happen.  He said it would be "a very long time".  Unless one defines "a very long time" as 12 years (I wouldn't), then Bush was wrong.  The point I'm trying to make is that we are sometimes trapped in our imaginations, thinking that something can't be done, or is much more difficult than it eventually becomes.  One of the CEOs of IBM was of the opinion that there was, at most, a market for five computers in the entire world.  And today, billions of people carry around computers i(as smartphones) immensely more powerful than IBMs most capable tube-based computer of the time.  First there were transistors, and then integrated circuits, which he didn't anticipate.  

A number of years ago I had a very interesting discussion with a network engineer about the viability of telephones that transmitted and received video as well as sound.  He shot down the idea, saying that it might work for a limited number of devices, but there wasn't enough bandwidth in the entire world (implying that there would never be enough) to make it anything more than a toy.  And today, what do we have?  Every smartphone in the world has the capability, and such conversations are going on all the time. We still have a landline phone in the house, but my wife and I rarely use it.  The majority of our long-distance telephone calls are done using face-to-face chat over our Android phones.  I don't think we're alone in this regard.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problems we face with solar system colonization are manifold. The most pressing is that there is nowhere else in the system humanity can survive unaided so we have to take all of it with us. Another is the question of duration which last I checked is 200-300 days for the trip and then you have the problem of low gravity and the increased vulnerability of anyone making the trip to radiation on the way and while they are there.

I don't deny that there are engineering challenges that must be overcome. Large engineering challenges.  But I think that it is a mistake to assume that these cannot be overcome in a reasonable amount of time. Advances build upon advances, and what seems impossible or total blue sky thinking now can become reality in surprisingly short amounts of time.  In my humble opinion.

Science writer Jerry Pournelle published a book called "A Step Farther Out" back in 1981. The book discussed a lot of these issues as they were understood at that time.  I think that Pournelle intended to update it with more current scientific information, but he died before he could do it.  The book is still useful for ideas, however. Unfortunately it is available only as used hard and soft-cover format.  There was a Kindle version, but Amazon stopped selling it because there were problems with it (it was very sloppily converted to ebook form).  You can check it out HERE.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

To go to another star I have only seen one semi-FTL idea that is even a theory and the energy demands for it are insane. Originally it would have needed roughly the output of the sun to power it. All of the sun’s energy through its entire lifetime. Last I heard they got it down to a gas giant. Only theory on how to power it is antimatter and we are nowhere near having a way to create some way of creating or harnessing such a power source Still all theory and it relies on other theoretical pieces that may not even exist. Our best bet for fast sublight travel is photonic drives. These could get probes to Alpha Centauri in roughly 60 years, give or take. This would let us supply Mars. It could get something physically from Earth to Mars in a matter of days. Not people though. It would kill anyone you put in it. This idea needs a lot of refinement and testing though.

Yep, a step that far out is definitely outside our range of thinking at this time.  I concede that as much as a Mars colonization project seems doable (possibly in my lifetime -- and if I live to be 100 that gives me just 32 more years), an interstellar colonization effort is right out the window.

Unless new physics is discovered that lets us shorten such voyages to cruise ship durations, I'm afraid we're stuck in this solar system.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I do give the current space craze including Elon Musk credit for at least reopening these questions and grappling with them. While we have collected a lot of information about the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe since the moon landings we have done very little in terms of interacting with it. I suspect I will live to see the first landing on Mars and maybe even manned missions to the more interesting moons in the outer solar system. It is even possible I could see the beginnnings of asteroid mining but I do not think I will see humanity leave the solar system or set up colonies that can support humans without being VERY dependent on Earth. I would be amazed if I live to see a human or even an interstellar probe or craft of any kind that makes it to another star in my lifetime.

I can agree with you on this.

And all this is great fun, but I still think that we are more likely to hit the Millennium before we really get into settling the solar system in any kind of serious way.  This doesn't stop me from cheering on SpaceX and Blue Origin as they work towards that goal, however.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Reality is just weird.

My favorite "reality is weird" thing is the Double Slit Experiment, presented here by Dr. Quantum:

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Stargazer

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

You need to remove the impact of limited access to birth control (in terms of actual supply, but also cultural and educational limitations) and social programs for caring for the elderly (historically done by their children, there are even countries where it is a legal obligation) and the use of children as economic aids (labour help in more rural areas, income producing in places that have child labour) that are frequently factors in poorer communities on fertility rates.

I would like to see studies that control for the above and measure actual desire to have children simply to have children and not to have someone to help with the work, care for one when old, increase one's social status, etc.

Yes, I think the correlation between the decline of religion’s influence and improvements in material well-being is well-established (and a pretty constant theme in the Book of Mormon). Also, the economically disadvantaged seem more open to religious belief and practice (another Book of Mormon theme).

What is interesting to me is the suggestion that religious attitudes promote childbearing against the material disadvantages (or by extension despite material advantages), and that more materialistic attitudes discourage childbearing whether materially advantaged or not. I think this is why relatively few people are at once religious, materially advantaged, and bearing lots of children.

[2BizE]

What came first, religion or babies?

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, 2BizE said:

What came first, religion or babies?

Babies.

It's an interesting question to me, though. Why do you ask it?

[Ahab]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:43 PM, The Nehor said:

You are not thinking of the Universe correctly. A differently shaped universe means you can set off in any direction and never get to the end but the Universe would still not be infinite.

Do not try to think about this intuitively and refute it that way by saying it makes no sense. It does not make intuitive sense. Reality is just weird.

No, thinking the universe and reality doesn't and isn't supposed to make sense is what is weird.  In a universe that didn't end as long as you went in one or a few directions there would still be ends if you didn't go in those directions.  Edges are ends, so the only way to not have any end is for it to go on forever in every direction.  Try thinking that way instead of thinking I am not making any sense.

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, thinking the universe and reality doesn't and isn't supposed to make sense is what is weird.  In a universe that didn't end as long as you went in one or a few directions there would still be ends if you didn't go in those directions.  Edges are ends, so the only way to not have any end is for it to go on forever in every direction.  Try thinking that way instead of thinking I am not making any sense.

Modern physics, both quantum and Einsteinian, doesn't make intuitive sense. It is not common sense. It is rational in its sphere but you can't take common sense ideas and apply them. That's what you are trying to do here. For example, it doesn't make intuitive sense that objects experience time differently, based on speed and proximity to gravity, but it is still true. As Nehor said, reality is weird, when looked at from our intuitive point-of-view.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, thinking the universe and reality doesn't and isn't supposed to make sense is what is weird.  In a universe that didn't end as long as you went in one or a few directions there would still be ends if you didn't go in those directions.  Edges are ends, so the only way to not have any end is for it to go on forever in every direction.  Try thinking that way instead of thinking I am not making any sense.

It is weird to reach that understanding but it is also true. The math adds up. It just does not make any intuitive sense to humans because we never operate on the scales (both micro and macro) that would show that weirdness in our casual lives.

No, it does not end no matter what direction you go in. There can be no edge or end and still be finite. You are making a ton of intuitive sense but you are also dead wrong about the potential shapes of reality.

[MiserereNobis]

It's like black holes. It's not that they are sucking you in, which is what we think intuitively. It is that they have bent space to such a degree that every single path in every single direction leads inside. No matter where you go, you are heading towards the singularity. That makes no intuitive sense but it is true.

[Calm]

"Common sense" is not built on reality, but only our perception and interpretation of reality.  This limitation of seeing only a partial picture and possibly even a very small part of a picture that we have no idea of its size to know how much we even know about it can therefore lead to common sense being very wrong, such as in those who believe past and present 'common sense' proves the earth is flat or the heavens revolve around it.

Common sense simply means it is a belief shared by many and therefore assumed to be right, but has nothing inherent in the concept of  common sense that supports it being right imo.

There are also many common sense beliefs about human behaviour that are wrong, such as living together before marriage to see if they are compatible will make for a longer lasting marriage.  Many are less common sense and more cultural beliefs, such as attitudes about women and motherhood, men and religious interest/spirituality.

In my opinion as soon as someone appeals to common sense, they have lost the argument, undermined their point, etc.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

People who believe things that don't make sense while thinking their beliefs aren't supposed to make sense just crack me up.  If it doesn't make any sense I am just not going to believe it.

You can believe things that don't make sense if you want to, though.  Just realize that I think that is funny and doesn't make any sense, and that I am not the only person on this planet who thinks the way that I do.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's like black holes. It's not that they are sucking you in, which is what we think intuitively. It is that they have bent space to such a degree that every single path in every single direction leads inside. No matter where you go, you are heading towards the singularity. That makes no intuitive sense but it is true.

Give up any hope you have of being able to get me to believe that something isn't supposed to make sense.  You believe we are not supposed to be able to understand God, either.  Believing in things that don't make sense seems to be no problem for you.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Common sense" is not built on reality, but only our perception and interpretation of reality.  This limitation of seeing only a partial picture and possibly even a very small part of a picture that we have no idea of its size to know how much we even know about it can therefore lead to common sense being very wrong, such as in those who believe past and present 'common sense' proves the earth is flat or the heavens revolve around it.

Common sense simply means it is a belief shared by many and therefore assumed to be right, but has nothing inherent in the concept of  common sense that supports it being right imo.

There are also many common sense beliefs about human behaviour that are wrong, such as living together before marriage to see if they are compatible will make for a longer lasting marriage.  Many are less common sense and more cultural beliefs, such as attitudes about women and motherhood, men and religious interest/spirituality.

In my opinion as soon as someone appeals to common sense, they have lost the argument, undermined their point, etc.

We seem to have different ideas about what common sense is, and rather than debate about that I'll just say that I think our ideas should be "logical" and "reasonable" and we should all be able to sense what is logical and reasonable before we start to believe in something, whatever we choose to believe.  Throwing away logic and reason or simply not caring whether or not something is logical and reasonable before believing something just seems silly to me.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is weird to reach that understanding but it is also true. The math adds up. It just does not make any intuitive sense to humans because we never operate on the scales (both micro and macro) that would show that weirdness in our casual lives.

No, it does not end no matter what direction you go in. There can be no edge or end and still be finite. You are making a ton of intuitive sense but you are also dead wrong about the potential shapes of reality.

For example?  I'd love to hear just one example of something like that.