Forgot your password?

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Displaying poll results.
Deep under the Earth's surface
  1238 votes / 4%
The oceans
  4226 votes / 14%
The surface and top layers of the Earth
  599 votes / 2%
Earth's atmosphere
  417 votes / 1%
The solar system
  6315 votes / 21%
Outer space
  8264 votes / 27%
The human mind
  6100 votes / 20%
How to get through L.A. in rush hour.
  2365 votes / 8%
29524 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Comments Filter:
  • by CityZen (464761) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:26PM (#42236943) Homepage

    Then I think the first thing we need to do is fix stupidity (thus I chose "the human mind").
    That ought to keep us going until we find a better rock to cling to (and a way to get there).

  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @07:07PM (#42237223)
    It is imperative the human race generates settlements OFF this planet...everything else pales in comparison. Now as to whether or not the hairless monkeys are worthy of continued survival...that's a discussion for another forum.
  • Missing option (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @08:09PM (#42237629)

    Subatomic Particles!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2012 @08:10PM (#42237639)

    The genes you destroy aren't necessarily the ones which would impact survival, and the genes you allow would not necessarily allow for survival. Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:00PM (#42237945)

    Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

    There likely isn't an "intelligence gene" but the number one predictor of individual accomplishment in life is parental achievement. There have been interesting twin studies where the twins, raised in different environments, ended up with quite similar lives. So the evidence points to some level of intelligence being hereditary. Sure, there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene, but evidence shows a hereditary link.

    Do you actually believe that intelligence isn't hereditary, or are you just arguing for the fun of it?

  • by Cenan (1892902) on Monday December 10, 2012 @02:57AM (#42239817)

    Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10, 2012 @04:16AM (#42240081)

    Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid.

    So true. It bothers me when I hear people parrot "we're living in a more complex world now". No, we're not. Every basic need is addressed with trivial ease now that we have shifted the burden of work to corporate-structured entities like businesses and governments.

    Want to eat? Give 99 cents to Walmart for a can of beans trucked into town from a cannery in another state. Don't have 99 cents? Get food stamps. Done.

    Embarking on a long journey? Step into car, apply right foot as needed. Done.

    Want to have a conversation with someone from across the world? Internet. Done.

    We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

  • by RR (64484) on Monday December 10, 2012 @04:45AM (#42240187)

    At its essence, L.A. rush hour is a product of industry, run on fossil fuels.

    If we can change our lifestyle so people travel smaller distances every day, and use fewer cramped ground vehicles to get there, then we can go a fair way toward solving the climate change problem. And we'd have less traffic at rush hour.

  • by fridaynightsmoke (1589903) on Monday December 10, 2012 @05:38AM (#42240337) Homepage

    Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

    Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

    Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Electricity Likes Me (1098643) on Monday December 10, 2012 @05:59AM (#42240387)

    It is imperative the human race generates settlements OFF this planet...everything else pales in comparison.

    Stephen J. Gould once said somewhere that a species lasts on average 10 million years before going extinct. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasons if they were mentioned.

    We are, what, 200,000 years old?

    Aside from catastrophic celestial events or some doomsday weapon, what could knock us out? And why would colonizing another planet solve that?

    War is something we can control (which means maybe we should concentrate on the Mind) and as far as something out there doing us in,well, there's not much we can do. And if there is something coming for us, our resources would be much better spent mitigating that threat than sending a handful of people god knows how many light years away. Colonization is just too impractical for it to be a viable option.

    But tell us,what is so special about us that the Universe needs to have us around?

    We should concentrate on research that makes our lives better; which includes exploring space. How else can we completely understand Earth without understanding other planets?

    "Aside from catastrophic celestial events or some doomsday weapon, what could knock us out?"

    So, aside from the most likely known scenario (and the second most likely one right along with it), what could knock us out? Catastrophic non-celestial events, such as a Yellowstone Caldera eruption, would hit us pretty freaking hard, and might just be enough to trigger some end-times focused religious zealots to trigger biological or nuclear weapons against their imagined enemies in 'retribution'. Getting self-sustaining colonies going somewhere other than this particular chunk of rock significantly reduces the chance that one such incident will off the entire species. It definitely has to be self-sustaining, though.

    Actually it's just that human civilization would be set back A LONG way by a certain level of catastrophic disaster. Recovering from something like that would be a lot easier if we didn't lose our recovery mechanisms and resources - which can be averted by ensuring our base of supplies is large enough that it can't be wiped out by a local or regional disaster's consequences.

    It's why I'm pretty enthusiastic about the asteroid miners - a few decades of what (and the staggering wealth out there) and it's possible we could broaden our resource base so far that even a global climate event wouldn't do enough damage that we couldn't recover from it.

  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Monday December 10, 2012 @11:20AM (#42242403)

    I'm troubled when intelligent people regard our planet as disposable.

    Due to speed-of-light limitations, huge fuel requirements, and the medical effects of microgravity and radiation exposure, I am not convinced an interstellar voyage will ever be survivable by humans, even as a multi-generational undertaking.

    We can live on this rock just fine as long as we keep this environment survivable. Stabilize population size and advance technology to the point where we can live comfortably on renewable and recycled resources, and we're good until the sun becomes unstable. I count that as "long term."

  • by darkonc (47285) <stephen_samuel@nosPam.bcgreen.com> on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:00AM (#42257801) Homepage Journal
    That's mostly the work of lawyers and insurance adjusters. The laws are (mostly) OK, but when you've got the threat of someone suing you for $3M if they slip and break their head, and your insurance company only agreeing to indemnify you if you force everybody to use walkers, you're stuck between a rock an a hard place.

    Lack of health care is part of the problem. If the only way to pay your hospital bill is to sue the people who's sidewalk you fell on, then only the lawyers go away winners.

    I live in Canada where basic health insurance is a given. If I get hurt, I go to the hospital.period. No questions ask. I never really considered what it's like for Americans until a friend of mine, visiting from the states fell and smacked his head. All of us Canadians were going "Dude, we should take you to the hospital to get checked out for a possible concussion."

    He Freaked out.

    "Dude, we're only going to the hospital to get your head checked out."

    "The last time I did that, I ended up with a $20,000 second mortgage that I'm still paying off!"

    "woah... well' we're in Canada now. Health care isn't that expensive here -- even for foreigners."

  • by jlehtira (655619) on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @07:47AM (#42259053) Journal

    If you define intelligence as the ability to function in a society, then there's no wonder (and no merit) in finding that this correlates with success in functioning in a society!

    I recall intelligence being defined as the capability of functioning in a meaningful way in new situations, such that it doesn't depend on stuff you learned before. This still incorporates a wide variety of traits (and genetic effects), but at least clearly rules out "knowledge".

    I like to think Intelligence is measured in IQ (certainly many people assume that in their work), and thus intelligence is what the tests measure. That's the most exact definition you can get ;-). And the tests deliberately try to not measure knowledge.

    If I recall correctly, the most successful tend to have an IQ like 120. Higher than that, and the "success" starts to drop. But then, there's also problems (and very serious ones) in the ways we measure success!

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

 



Forgot your password?
Working...