(OT) Possible extra-solar planet

[Jürgen Hubert]

As for genetic manipulation, you aren't going to find answers to withstanding cosmic radiation or breathing methane there. What radiation does to living things is it actually smashes into them at high speed. Where it hits DNA, it cuts and scatters it, which is why radiation causes cellular mutations (cancer). If DNA were capable of withstanding even the amount of radiation Mars is exposed to, there would probably be some very simple life there.

Actually, I believe that human cells already have mechanisms that can deal with radiation damage - if we'd all develop cancer every time some cosmic radiation hit us, we'd all be dead before we hit the age of 1...

Some poisons, as well as old age, weaken these repair mechanisms - thus old people and chain smokers are more likely to develop cancer. But humans do have some resistance to this.

And given that, it should be able to strenghten this resistance with the aid of genetic engineering. After all, different life forms have different resistances to radiation...

 

[Number47]

Actually, I believe that human cells already have mechanisms that can deal with radiation damage - if we'd all develop cancer every time some cosmic radiation hit us, we'd all be dead before we hit the age of 1...

Some poisons, as well as old age, weaken these repair mechanisms - thus old people and chain smokers are more likely to develop cancer. But humans do have some resistance to this.

And given that, it should be able to strenghten this resistance with the aid of genetic engineering. After all, different life forms have different resistances to radiation...

I agree that our resistance to radiation can be increased, but not to an amount that would survive, say, Mars or the vicinity of Jupiter. What protects us on Earth is the atmosphere. Cosmic rays do not make it down to ground level, they burst into showers of particles upon slamming into atmospheric particles. Also, on the note about old age and smokers with cancer, it is not so much that old age or smoking compromises are ability to deal with rogue cells, it is that cellular mutations have accumulated over a lifetime and start to combine, eventually leading to cancer. In smokers, this is accelerated, of course. In fact, I think that it's safe to say that you will eventually get cancer from your accumulated cellular mutations if there was no other time limit on your lifespan.

EDIT: oh, and what protects us from a lot of solar radiation is the magnetosphere, which Mars and the moon are lacking as well.

 

[s/LaSH]

OK, so it seems rad resistance can be enhanced genetically simply through metabolic devices. What about great big lead plates on your skin? Human bones are partially made of calcium, which is a metal. It won't be impossible to engineer people to have metal armour either.

And it is, in fact, possible to modify organisms after gestation. Several instances of gene therapy using viron vectors have occured over the past few years, mostly correcting defects in the organs of young children. And they've been largely successful. This isn't germline modification, but somatic modification; it doesn't affect all the tissue in the organism. Isn't that interesting? You could program your left hand to grow fur and your right to grow feathers with this technology.

And on another note...

Two hundred years ago, it was thought that travelling faster than thirty miles an hour would kill you. One hundred years ago, it was thought that one particle couldn't be in two places at once. Today, we think that we can't travel faster than light. A hundred years from now, how many laws of physics will we be able to break? Serious question. The prospects of merged-spin particle meshing have had me excited for years now; that's what most teleporting machines currently use. I say 'currently' because people have been teleporting particles for years now; it's only a matter of time before someone builds a macroscopic wormhole generator. Now THAT would revolutionise... everything. (It's theoretically limited by the speed of light due to synchronisation problems, but hey, for the person going through it's no problem.)

The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine. (That's a quote from someone, I forget who... Hoyle?) While there may be limits, humans have a good track record of finding ways around them. I don't think it's a good idea to say that we CAN'T do something, rather that we can't do something YET.

So I'd guess that, yes, we or our descendants will travel to see other Earth-like worlds eventually. We just need to get back that old can-do attitude. America went to the moon, not because it made sense, but because they could. And three cheers for everyone who still looks to the sky and thinks, 'Soon!.

 

[Kilmore]

Anyone visit www.space.com? There's people saying we're going to NEED to build big solar satellites made of moon rock to beam down all the power we're sucking up. Sounds like incentive to me.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_power_021031.html

 

[Zappo]

Actually, I believe that human cells already have mechanisms that can deal with radiation damage - if we'd all develop cancer every time some cosmic radiation hit us, we'd all be dead before we hit the age of 1...

I read on a local science magazine that it is estimated that an average person gets around 300 tumors during his life, but (hopefully) all of them heal naturally before displaying symptoms. So yeah, there's some pretty good defense going on.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Briefly addressing the population issue, I suspect that the world population should stabilize at 10 billion and decline based on current U.N. projections.

The reason why I hold to a more substantial projection for the population of the Earth is because these U.N. figures do not include the potential for science to expand the limits of this niche.

Assuming that no scientific advances occur between now and 10 billion people, I'd agree that equilibrium would probably occur.

However, it is far more likely that humans will genetically engineer plants that can grow on the polar ice caps or on the ocean floor. It is more likely that humans will develop holodecks and limited teleportation and other far-reaching advances. The limits of the niche, be they psychological, resource-driven, government-driven, or what have you, will continue to break down to the juggernaut of science.

That, afterall, is the whole point of science. Tools allow a species to transcend, evolve and expand.

Whether it wants to or not...



.
.
.
First world countries slowing down on birthrate? Therefore all countries must slow down on birthrate as they become more civilized?

I don't necessarily agree with this. It assumes a couple of things.


1) It assumes that immigration is not a viable form of population expansion. (A low birth rate in localized areas does not necessarily mean that the species as a whole is reaching equilibrium.)

2) It assumes that all countries will eventually be equally civilized. (Never in the history of mankind have the Haves had the same as the Havenots.)

3) It assumes that civilized countires will have a low birth rate indefinitely. (This is not necessarily the case. We have had less than one century of the phenomenon. I am yet hesitant to gamble on it for the rest of human history.)
.
.
.
Genetics: Will happen. And I'm of the opinion that it can be a good thing. Hopefully it won't happen as drastically in my lifetime as I can conceive (or as I can't conceive).

The ability to manipulate evolution itself is the ultimate form of evolution. That is a scary thought.


Robotic mining: Good points. Maybe it will happen sooner than I think. I just don't see how it is as cost effective as recycling, but then again, I'm not a businessman nor would I enjoy space travel.

s/LaSH-----
We just need to get back that old can-do attitude. America went to the moon, not because it made sense, but because they could. And three cheers for everyone who still looks to the sky and thinks, 'Soon!.

Sorry, but when I read the above, two words popped into my head:
















Manifest Destiny

 

[Lizard]

that's actually really cool news, considering most (99%??) of stars have no planets

Erm...where did you hear that from?

Prior to about 1995, no one knew anything about how frequent other planets were -- we had no way to detect them.

Since 1995, we've discovered over 100 extrasolar planets, and the more we refine our techniques, the more we find. It looks like it's a rare star which DOESN'T have planets.