PDA

View Full Version : Human race after 50000 years.



Arutha2321
March 9th, 2008, 01:23 AM
It was such a pity that John couldn't get to an Earth. I wonder what the human race would look like after 50000 years of development (as a matter of fact, if it still existed).

Gate-builder
March 9th, 2008, 01:52 AM
If the human race still existed it would have been almost unrecognisable to the human race of today. The stargate programe would have probably gone public for starters.

YutheGreat
March 9th, 2008, 03:03 AM
I say we end up like the Asgards. The entire Pegasus campaign was a mistake. At least the Asgards didn't leave humans totally at the mercy of the Goauld. They had a protected planets treaty. They could deal with the Goauld cause they had to contend with replicators.

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 03:56 AM
Psh no. We would've already died from our own causes
1)GLOBAL WARMING
2)NUCLEAR WARs

only reason the asgard, ancients survived that long is because they're actualy SMART in inventing something that doesn't freakin mess up our environment

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 05:02 AM
The human race is 200,000 years old, 50k isnt much time relatively speaking. The previous form of man, homo erectus died out what... 1 million years ago give or take. And their first fossils show up 3 million years ago.

Civilization wise Sheppard travelled a long way, species wise he covered only a drop in the ocean, a fraction of our species likely history.

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 05:09 AM
The human race is 200,000 years old, 50k isnt much time relatively speaking. The previous form of man, homo erectus died out what... 1 million years ago give or take. And their first fossils show up 3 million years ago.

Civilization wise Sheppard travelled a long way, species wise he covered only a drop in the ocean, a fraction of our species likely history.

Yeah because the human race before weren't "smart" enough to invent burning of fossil fuels to induce carbon monoxide, chlorofluorocarbons and other harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, kill our o-zone layer, and don't have a clue how to reverse it. 50,000 years isn't much if we had nuclear fusion

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 05:20 AM
Yeah because the human race before weren't "smart" enough to invent burning of fossil fuels to induce carbon monoxide, chlorofluorocarbons and other harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, kill our o-zone layer, and don't have a clue how to reverse it. 50,000 years isn't much if we had nuclear fusion

I love the notion that hippies try to force on everyone that we are all going to die because of our technology.

Antartica used to have rainforests on it at its present polar location for gods sake. This planet can get a heck of alot hotter than it is. So what if our fossil fuels speed it up or add 2-3 degrees over a hundred years. People need to stop looking for a cause to make themselves feel important and focus on their own lives.

Seriously, we are all going to die eventually anyways. The natural progression of the planet is going to make the atmosphere unbreathable to us eventually. The sun is going to get bigger and hotter and kill us all. The ocean life are going to change and ruin the global food chain. We. are. all. gonna. die. Being snooty and pretending that youre better than people driving suv's because u bought a hybrid car is absurd. Any effect these hippies are having on the enviroment is negligable to the entire history of the earth.

And frankly i run 2 airconditoners, drive a gas guzzler and throw my mcdonalds wrappers out the car window to spite the tree huggers. No one makes a difference on a scale this big in history, thinking any of us matters is naieve.

ykickamoocow
March 9th, 2008, 05:26 AM
Id be very surprised if Humans were living on earth in 50,000 years. There are just so many ways that every human could be killed. The earths current rate of growth is unsustainable. Every country needs to cull 25% of its population :)

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 05:30 AM
I love the notion that hippies try to force on everyone that we are all going to die because of our technology.

we're not going to die because of technology, we're going to die because of depleting resources.
and other species are certainly already dying because of our technology.

Celleye
March 9th, 2008, 05:45 AM
I really wanted to see the human race. Or sheppard arriving in atlantis when it was still controlled by humans in the future.

kirmit
March 9th, 2008, 06:22 AM
I don't think humans of the stargate universe would of died off, unless they were wiped out by a plague or an enemy. If Earth died what difference would it make in the stargate universe? There are thousands of other habitable worlds out there humans can relocate to. We wouldn't die because of lack of resources, since we'd likely have something close to if not surpassing ZPM's 50,000 years in the future. I think Earth would be a thriving civilisations, spread across a few galaxies, having a huge empire and basically being the police of the universe. I think the reason Atlantis was abandoned is well after progression from meeting various other races in the universe, advancing on our own, using asgard and ancient tech, Atlantis simply became obsolete, they didn't need it anymore.

I personally think the episode would've been 100 times better if they showed the future humans or future earth instead of skipping on it to get sheppard home quickly.

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 06:33 AM
I love the notion that hippies try to force on everyone that we are all going to die because of our technology.

Antartica used to have rainforests on it at its present polar location for gods sake. This planet can get a heck of alot hotter than it is. So what if our fossil fuels speed it up or add 2-3 degrees over a hundred years. People need to stop looking for a cause to make themselves feel important and focus on their own lives.

Seriously, we are all going to die eventually anyways. The natural progression of the planet is going to make the atmosphere unbreathable to us eventually. The sun is going to get bigger and hotter and kill us all. The ocean life are going to change and ruin the global food chain. We. are. all. gonna. die. Being snooty and pretending that youre better than people driving suv's because u bought a hybrid car is absurd. Any effect these hippies are having on the enviroment is negligable to the entire history of the earth.

And frankly i run 2 airconditoners, drive a gas guzzler and throw my mcdonalds wrappers out the car window to spite the tree huggers. No one makes a difference on a scale this big in history, thinking any of us matters is naieve.

Actually, the Earths temperature increases 1-2 degrees per year. Antarctica had rain forrests before because it was a part of Pangaea, the super continent, which means all the land pieces were connected together, and it was near the equator. When Pangaea started to break off, The continents began to move away from the Equator, which means it started to cool off, therefore, the rain forrests died, and Antarctica started to cool. Yes, we are all going to die sometime in the next 5 billion years because our Sun will turn into a red giant, therefore burn us to death, but atleast that's better than dying because of our own faults.
You're naive to think that what you do does nothing to harm the environment. Think of it this way, there is 7 billion people in the world, say the 30% of the world throw their wrappers outside because they're just too damn bored, and want to be a retard. 30% would mean 2 bilion people throwing their wrappers outside, 2 billion wrappers in the streets, I think that's noticable. It just saddens me to think that there are still people like you around.

su27k
March 9th, 2008, 07:47 AM
Or we could go the way of ancients, spread to this galaxy and beyond, ascend to a higher plane of existence, left over tons of dangerous technology allover for another evolution of humans to find, the cycle continues...

In any case, it would be very hard to kill off human race as they're portrait by the end of SGA4 (unlike in the real world), they got all the advanced technology, a lot of planets to go to, basically unlimited resources. Global warming or the threat of global war is nothing once you get unlimited clean energy.

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 09:06 AM
Global warming or the threat of global war is nothing once you get unlimited clean energy.
on the contrary, unlimited energy would collapse the economy and lead to war.

and what about all the other resources?
did you know before this century is over we're going to run out of metals like indium platinum tantalum gallium zinc and more
these things are used in all our technologies: computer chips, electronics, lcd screens, lasers, catalysts, fertilizers and many more.

when these things start to run out, you can bet there'll be wars :(

The_Carpenter
March 9th, 2008, 09:08 AM
on the contrary, unlimited energy would collapse the economy and lead to war.

and what about all the other resources?
did you know before this century is over we're going to run out of metals like indium platinum tantalum gallium zinc and more
these things are used in all our technologies: computer chips, electronics, lcd screens, lasers, catalysts, fertilizers and many more.

when these things start to run out, you can bet there'll be wars :(
There will always be war its Human nature unfortunatly.

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 09:16 AM
Actually, the Earths temperature increases 1-2 degrees per year. Antarctica had rain forrests before because it was a part of Pangaea, the super continent, which means all the land pieces were connected together, and it was near the equator. When Pangaea started to break off, The continents began to move away from the Equator, which means it started to cool off, therefore, the rain forrests died, and Antarctica started to cool. Yes, we are all going to die sometime in the next 5 billion years because our Sun will turn into a red giant, therefore burn us to death, but atleast that's better than dying because of our own faults.
You're naive to think that what you do does nothing to harm the environment. Think of it this way, there is 7 billion people in the world, say the 30% of the world throw their wrappers outside because they're just too damn bored, and want to be a retard. 30% would mean 2 bilion people throwing their wrappers outside, 2 billion wrappers in the streets, I think that's noticable. It just saddens me to think that there are still people like you around.

Antartica had rainforest 40 thousand years ago, it wasnt a part of pangea then, and humans were around. We are coming out of a glacial period, compared to the bulk of the history of life on this planet we are living in an ice cube. Antarticas freezing has nothing to do with its location, it was caused by the overall cooling of the enviroment.

The retard calling isnt appreciated. But where do you think the material making up those candy wrappers came from, outer space? It came from here, in a petroleum and wood form. How is the equal amount of petroleum it came from any better than the environment than a wrapper on the ground? The world is a complete system and everything in it was here already, changing its form dosent matter. Were not subtracting or adding anything. Where do you think the carbon coming out of our exhaust system came from, mars? Its a part of the world and would be released anyways. Theres no moral component to using it as a resource and changing its form early.

We will find other resources when these run out, its a matter of infrastructure. It would cost to much to change the existing oil and gas support infrastructure until there is no other choice, then it becomes cost/benefit.

We are a part of the enviroment and are therefore incapable of doing anything unnatural. Instead of helping the world by contributing to progress people with this mindset are holding us back. Maybe fatally so as a species. Frankly its insulting an hypocritical that people denigrate progress while using it a benefitting from it. Youre using gas and oil right now arent you? Whats youre computer made out of? Whats youre food subjected too? If there were any honesty to the opposing opinion to mine they would all be living in amish towns and eating only plants.



Bart simpson said it best, we are all doomed when the sun explodes anyways, youre just ensuring that we spend our final days using inferior products.

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 09:24 AM
we're not going to die because of technology, we're going to die because of depleting resources.
and other species are certainly already dying because of our technology.

See above post about resources, we will find more and cannibalize what weve already made and used for its precious materials when we need to.

As for other species dying, what like 98% of every living thing that has ever evolved on this planet has gone extinct. Thats how it works. Things grow and adapt to fit a niche then die and are replaced by organisms newly specialized for the new environment. What about the beings that will exist in the future? In our carbon rich defoliated future there will be life. Even if we junk all our tech and live like huntergatherers again that environment will inevitably arise as will the organisms that populate it.

One person cant change the future, neither can 7 billion. Look farther into the future than the next 20 years.

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 09:47 AM
The world is a complete system and everything in it was here already, changing its form dosent matter.

of course it does, you can't just recycle everything.
for most of our resources you need a concentrated source for it to be viable
can you recycle oil after you've used it? no
can you recycle the catalysts used to make that wrapper you tossed? no


Were not subtracting or adding anything. Where do you think the carbon coming out of our exhaust system came from, mars? Its a part of the world and would be released anyways. Theres no moral component to using it as a resource and changing its form early.

not to the upper atmosphere where it breaks ozone molecules it's not

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Antartica had rainforest 40 thousand years ago, it wasnt a part of pangea then, and humans were around. We are coming out of a glacial period, compared to the bulk of the history of life on this planet we are living in an ice cube. Antarticas freezing has nothing to do with its location, it was caused by the overall cooling of the enviroment.

The retard calling isnt appreciated. But where do you think the material making up those candy wrappers came from, outer space? It came from here, in a petroleum and wood form. How is the equal amount of petroleum it came from any better than the environment than a wrapper on the ground? The world is a complete system and everything in it was here already, changing its form dosent matter. Were not subtracting or adding anything. Where do you think the carbon coming out of our exhaust system came from, mars? Its a part of the world and would be released anyways. Theres no moral component to using it as a resource and changing its form early.

We will find other resources when these run out, its a matter of infrastructure. It would cost to much to change the existing oil and gas support infrastructure until there is no other choice, then it becomes cost/benefit.

We are a part of the enviroment and are therefore incapable of doing anything unnatural. Instead of helping the world by contributing to progress people with this mindset are holding us back. Maybe fatally so as a species. Frankly its insulting an hypocritical that people denigrate progress while using it a benefitting from it. Youre using gas and oil right now arent you? Whats youre computer made out of? Whats youre food subjected too? If there were any honesty to the opposing opinion to mine they would all be living in amish towns and eating only plants.



Bart simpson said it best, we are all doomed when the sun explodes anyways, youre just ensuring that we spend our final days using inferior products.

40,000 years ago, Antarctica was in the place right now, because of continental drift, therefore, the temperature was the same as todays. Rainforests can't exist in the cold and dry climate in antarctica, they'll just die out.
I never said that I NEVER use non-reusable resources, but I did say it's better to be respectful of our environment by throwing it in a recycle bin than not to.
More trees are being cut down each year because of the growing population, and the habit of people not recycling. If they actually recycled, it would reduce it, and it's true.
And to respond, our world isn't perfect. Because of these unfortunes, doing our part is better than to ignore the situation. and heaven is right, the ozone depleting things were never there if humans never invented it.
Also our sun cant explode. lol

nx01a
March 9th, 2008, 10:31 AM
Open enough wormholes in its core and it can. :P

I figure we have three options for humans in 50,000 years.

1) We get wiped out.
2)We become like unascended Ancients with all the funky abilities and tech, and enjoy that state for a while, at which point...
3)We ascend.

zodden
March 9th, 2008, 10:57 AM
In cosmic terms 50,000 years is not at all that long a time span. In the life of humans as a species its also not all that long if you look back at our evolution. Its another question what outside forces do to us or what we might to to ourselves in that period.

In the time line of the show it does not look good. For no other reason then the fact that Atlantis with all its technology and wonders was abandoned. For that to happen and for Rodney's avatar to not mention to John if there had been visits to the city from humans is a telling sign. Surely in 50,000 years they would have millions of people on Atlantis if humanity was still functional.

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 11:06 AM
40,000 years ago, Antarctica was in the place right now, because of continental drift, therefore, the temperature was the same as todays. Rainforests can't exist in the cold and dry climate in antarctica, they'll just die out.
I never said that I NEVER use non-reusable resources, but I did say it's better to be respectful of our environment by throwing it in a recycle bin than not to.
More trees are being cut down each year because of the growing population, and the habit of people not recycling. If they actually recycled, it would reduce it, and it's true.
And to respond, our world isn't perfect. Because of these unfortunes, doing our part is better than to ignore the situation. and heaven is right, the ozone depleting things were never there if humans never invented it.
Also our sun cant explode. lol


Lol, did you just support ure argument by basically saying antartica is at the south pole 40k so it was cold so there was no rain forests? That makes no sense and isnt a proof. Antartica was more or less in the same place 40k years ago, there were rainforests as evidenced by the dating of the ice cores and the dating of the biological remains in the top strata. If there were rainforest plants the 40k and the continent was in the same place 40k then it was obviously a warm place. And if its warm there its warm everywhere, cold spots dont randomly appear. UcWutIdidThar?


Resources are assests to be spent, thats how it it. When theyre spent u come up with new ones or stop doing whatever it was the old assets were used for.

Screw respecting the environment. Its been doing its best to kill us our entire existance. Wanna save small pox? Maybe we should respect AIDS too? After all its nature and has rights. Worse case senario we all end up living in a giant underground city like in the matrix movies. Im ok with that, screw nature. We have machines that can make oxygen.

Never heard of a supernova huh? Our sun may not have enough mass to complete blow but it will blast off most off its mass before collapsing, if thats not an explosion what is?

kymeric
March 9th, 2008, 11:12 AM
of course it does, you can't just recycle everything.
for most of our resources you need a concentrated source for it to be viable
can you recycle oil after you've used it? no
can you recycle the catalysts used to make that wrapper you tossed? no

not to the upper atmosphere where it breaks ozone molecules it's not

So then its used up and we find some other source of power. Big deal. We can make plastics out of corn, so wut exactly would we be loosing by using up all the oil? The intrinisic value of large unused oil deposits? U know theyre just sitting there right?

Except the ozone hole shrinks and expands, but these horrible gasses we emit are growing at an increased rate. Maybe its not the gasses and is self correcting. If not its ok, Ozone can be manafactured. It becomes too bad then we can replace it. Wouldnt be cheap but there u go.

Professor D.H.D. Puddlejumper
March 9th, 2008, 11:12 AM
Antartica had rainforest 40 thousand years ago,

That simply, is not correct. 40 million maybe, not 40 thousand. What is your source for this figure?

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 11:25 AM
So then its used up and we find some other source of power. Big deal. We can make plastics out of corn, so wut exactly would we be loosing by using up all the oil? The intrinisic value of large unused oil deposits? U know theyre just sitting there right?

the oil? nothing, it's just that we don't have an alternative
but there are many other resources that are irreplaceable, the same resources used to make that computer you're typing on
and no, you can't recycle them


Except the ozone hole shrinks and expands, but these horrible gasses we emit are growing at an increased rate. Maybe its not the gasses and is self correcting. If not its ok, Ozone can be manafactured. It becomes too bad then we can replace it. Wouldnt be cheap but there u go.
LOL. really? and how are you gonna get it up there?

RepliVeggie
March 9th, 2008, 11:30 AM
I don't think humans of the stargate universe would of died off, unless they were wiped out by a plague or an enemy. If Earth died what difference would it make in the stargate universe? There are thousands of other habitable worlds out there humans can relocate to. We wouldn't die because of lack of resources, since we'd likely have something close to if not surpassing ZPM's 50,000 years in the future. I think Earth would be a thriving civilisations, spread across a few galaxies, having a huge empire and basically being the police of the universe. I think the reason Atlantis was abandoned is well after progression from meeting various other races in the universe, advancing on our own, using asgard and ancient tech, Atlantis simply became obsolete, they didn't need it anymore.

I personally think the episode would've been 100 times better if they showed the future humans or future earth instead of skipping on it to get sheppard home quickly.

People give Earth way too much credit. The Ancients developed there technology over millions of years. In 50,000 years our brains still wouldn't be near what an Ancients was capable of. We would be definitely very advanced but Atlantis being obsolete? No. Politics made us leave Atlantis and we likely returned to Atlantis at one time and realize it was not salvagable an went back to Earth. Or as it may. We may not exist in the future. It seemed to me that when Rodney went back to Atlantis that Earth was at war with someone.

tennisboygr
March 9th, 2008, 12:32 PM
Just think how much oil is going to cost then. Gasoline prices will be through the roof!!!

ziga1980
March 9th, 2008, 12:33 PM
So then its used up and we find some other source of power. Big deal. We can make plastics out of corn, so wut exactly would we be loosing by using up all the oil? The intrinisic value of large unused oil deposits? U know theyre just sitting there right?

Except the ozone hole shrinks and expands, but these horrible gasses we emit are growing at an increased rate. Maybe its not the gasses and is self correcting. If not its ok, Ozone can be manafactured. It becomes too bad then we can replace it. Wouldnt be cheap but there u go.



Yeah because the human race before weren't "smart" enough to invent burning of fossil fuels to induce carbon monoxide, chlorofluorocarbons and other harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, kill our o-zone layer, and don't have a clue how to reverse it. 50,000 years isn't much if we had nuclear fusion

there are some interesting points of view in this thread. so after i read through it i must add a few things.
for starters, we actually have a very good idea of how to reverse global warming. we can make o-zone and release it in the atmosphere. it's easy but it just costs too much so politicians decided to go with an air conditioner instead. we also posses technologies that would effectively replace fossil fuels but we won't use it. why? because there's far too much money to be made in oil trade, car industries, etc. G.W.Bush just invaded iraq for it's oil reserves. do you want to see all that hard work destroyed.

of course i must reply to kymerics posts. while i agree with your point of view i'm a little surprised that people didn't get at you more. you've got some radical views and people usually disagree with them. but i must add a few things. usually people think that SUVs and heavy traffic in general is bad. hidden from common knowledge is the fact that after 9/11 attacks when the government grounded all air traffic the skies cleared up. most will say thats a good thing. wrong. that's bad. very bad. in a few days time the temperature in California rose for 5 degrees celsius. and the weather didn't change. it's all the dust and air pollution that we made over the last 50 years that made a layer in our atmosphere that reflects much of the sunlight therefore shielding us from high temperatures.

furthermore someone mentioned the depletion of raw materials and wars after that. 1st and 2nd world war were nothing compared to the next real war that we have coming. when the time comes war like we can't imagine is going to strike us. this time casualties won't be in tens of millions but in billions. i just hope that i and everyone i'll ever know won't be around then. if you just take a look at the state of international politics and economy you can see that war is inevitable. perhaps not in 50 years but certainly in this century. why? because if some breakthrough in science is going to happen the world won't take it. it'll be too much for all those religious bigots (who by the way interfere with our lives all the time) to take. also profits in oil trade, industries etc...

hope i didn't complicate it too much.

Zamboni
March 9th, 2008, 12:39 PM
If Shepard had gone back, he would find that Earth is populated by hot blonde chicks who are hunted by underground humanoid monsters.

Then he will enlist the help of a hologram and defeat the evil monsters, and discover a steam-powered time machine which he can use to travel back in time to Atlantis.

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 12:48 PM
we actually have a very good idea of how to reverse global warming. we can make o-zone and release it in the atmosphere.

LOL good luck with that plan
even if we could produce the continent worth of ozone required, we have no way to get it up there

ziga1980
March 9th, 2008, 01:15 PM
LOL good luck with that plan
even if we could produce the continent worth of ozone required, we have no way to get it up there

oh, it'll get up there. it'll just take 20-30 years. that's not a lot of time given that it took us 50 years to deplete the ozone layer. unless you prefer that we live in a desert...

i say if we wanted to reverse everything we've done we could have. but we won't cuz' it costs a fortune.

Arutha2321
March 9th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Hm. I see that my thread turned into a globalist talk. Well, never mind...

Hobbes
March 9th, 2008, 01:39 PM
Atlantis is still intact in the future, which means Michael never attacked it (like Woolsey said), which means he was probably defeated eventually anyway. The city might've been abandoned for any number of reasons. Maybe Earth started building their own flying cities and didn't need Atlantis any more, or perhaps everyone ascended.

And 40000 years ago was the middle of an ice age. Antarctica was even colder and more desolate than it is now.

Heaven
March 9th, 2008, 02:03 PM
oh, it'll get up there. it'll just take 20-30 years. that's not a lot of time given that it took us 50 years to deplete the ozone layer. unless you prefer that we live in a desert...

no, it won't.
first of all, on the surface ozone is a pollutant, releasing it on the surface will hurt humans, animal and plant life.
secondly, it's a highly unstable molecule that reacts easily. it won't get anywhere near the ozone layer in the stratosphere where it's needed

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 02:14 PM
Lol, did you just support ure argument by basically saying antartica is at the south pole 40k so it was cold so there was no rain forests? That makes no sense and isnt a proof. Antartica was more or less in the same place 40k years ago, there were rainforests as evidenced by the dating of the ice cores and the dating of the biological remains in the top strata. If there were rainforest plants the 40k and the continent was in the same place 40k then it was obviously a warm place. And if its warm there its warm everywhere, cold spots dont randomly appear. UcWutIdidThar?


Resources are assests to be spent, thats how it it. When theyre spent u come up with new ones or stop doing whatever it was the old assets were used for.

Screw respecting the environment. Its been doing its best to kill us our entire existance. Wanna save small pox? Maybe we should respect AIDS too? After all its nature and has rights. Worse case senario we all end up living in a giant underground city like in the matrix movies. Im ok with that, screw nature. We have machines that can make oxygen.

Never heard of a supernova huh? Our sun may not have enough mass to complete blow but it will blast off most off its mass before collapsing, if thats not an explosion what is?

What i'm talking about is that antarctica was in the position it is now, and right now, its -30 degrees there. It could've never have tropical rainforests at that spot because its distance from the equator. The hotter it gets when you're near the equator, antarctica is at the bottom of the earth, far away from the equator, it doesn't make sense that antarctica had rainforests 40,000 years ago because of the equator rule. Sunlight will always hit the equator with full force, while hitting other countries, like Canada, with 50% of that, which is why it's so damn cold here. Your theory completely falls apart because if its so far from the equator, how could it recieve enough sunlight to heat up and have rain forests?

Normally, i'd agree with what you say, assets are to be spent. But you've never thought about the non-reusable resources. When they're spent, THEY DONT COME BACK. once we deplete our fossil fuels, where do we get oil? the economy will fall apart because everyone has a car and can't afford a solar panel car, or an electric car. Everyone on earth relies on the fossil fuels, and i'm not saying that thats a bad thing, but if we never inveneted the burning of fossil fuels then we would never have this problem, and the solar car was invented a few years after that, and they realised if they introduce that car, the economy won't accept it.

Small pox, HIV and all those other things aren't actually the environment. HIV was actually mutated from the original HIV virus, but thats not the point. the point is we're not protecting the BAD things nature offers, but the GOOD things. why the hell would anyone protect the bad things? o.o

and supernovas only happens with blue giants, our sun is the smallest one, and it cant "explode", it will just get bigger and bigger, burn up earth, and then shrink to a white dwarf.
INSERT QUOTE" The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in 5–6 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up" I did a whole project on the suns for grade 11 astronomy and got a 97 on it AND MARKS DON'T LIE THARE
also we can't CREATE ozone molecules because they are extremely harmful down on earth and we have no way of getting it up atmosphere. the planes will crash once it reaches a certain height.

GATEGOD
March 9th, 2008, 02:46 PM
The human race was probably so advanced they had cities 10 times better then Atlantis and that is why they abandoned it ;)

2ndgenerationalteran
March 9th, 2008, 03:39 PM
for rodney to make such a bold declaration like that we must have been in some interstellar war, other than that humanity probably survived in one form or another. After seeing what cloning did to the asgard i dont think it is reasonable to assume we copied them.

An-Alteran
March 9th, 2008, 03:42 PM
The human race is 200,000 years old, 50k isnt much time relatively speaking. The previous form of man, homo erectus died out what... 1 million years ago give or take. And their first fossils show up 3 million years ago.
Actually erectus overlaps Neandertalis by about another few hundred thousand years.


Yeah because the human race before weren't "smart" enough to invent burning of fossil fuels to induce carbon monoxide, chlorofluorocarbons and other harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, kill our o-zone layer, and don't have a clue how to reverse it.
Actually both erectus and neandertalis were within modern human dimensions and brain size. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate they were any less intelligent than you or I.

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 03:55 PM
Actually erectus overlaps Neandertalis by about another few hundred thousand years.


Actually both erectus and neandertalis were within modern human dimensions and brain size. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate they were any less intelligent than you or I.


I emphasis the smart part, note the sarcasm of how i said smart.
I mean how the people before didn't invent the burning of fossil fuels.

andy tyler
March 9th, 2008, 04:39 PM
Naquadah Generators don't produce anything to harm the environment: im sure humans would've used those within 50,000 years.

So enough with the environmentalist destroying earth crap. HELLO? there are OTHER PLANETS out there! if earth was screwd, we could've just picked up and MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE?

Some people fail to grasp the obvious.

PG15
March 9th, 2008, 04:59 PM
Uh...we have yet to find another habitable planet besides Earth...in the real world, anyway. Are you talking about that, or the Stargate universe?

Dr.Mckay
March 9th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Uh...we have yet to find another habitable planet besides Earth...in the real world, anyway. Are you talking about that, or the Stargate universe?

Real world. lol

ziga1980
March 10th, 2008, 01:11 PM
no, it won't.
first of all, on the surface ozone is a pollutant, releasing it on the surface will hurt humans, animal and plant life.
secondly, it's a highly unstable molecule that reacts easily. it won't get anywhere near the ozone layer in the stratosphere where it's needed

are you certain about that? i read somewhere that such a plan was proposed but was later turned down due to the high cost.

and i don't know about how bad ozone is. clearly i'm no chemist. but i guess it is not as bad as CO or CO2 or other similar gases.

jenks
March 10th, 2008, 01:16 PM
The gap in the O-zone layer has actually started to close, but it won't be good enough.

kymeric
March 10th, 2008, 02:27 PM
Haha ok you got me, forgot a few decimal points on my warm antartica. But i still wonder why Kircher found an egyptian map showing antartica free of ice in a way they couldnt have known.

Still.... i. will. not. save. the. rainforest.

XD

Dr.Mckay
March 10th, 2008, 02:31 PM
Well let`s just all hope we use up all our oil, economy dies, and slowly we convert to electric cars.

kymeric
March 10th, 2008, 02:44 PM
If we had to we could use the same technology being designed to terraform mars on the earth. Mine resources from the seabeds and top 20 miles of the crust and produce oxygen and exhaust it into the atmosphere.

There are always options. Realistically we could do without nature if we had to. Pave the world i says! Through technology and science weve earned the right to hold nature down and have our way with it.

MartianManhunter
March 10th, 2008, 02:58 PM
If we had to we could use the same technology being designed to terraform mars on the earth. Mine resources from the seabeds and top 20 miles of the crust and produce oxygen and exhaust it into the atmosphere.

There are always options. Realistically we could do without nature if we had to. Pave the world i says! Through technology and science weve earned the right to hold nature down and have our way with it.

Why would we do that?

That would involve the death of Millions of creatures that have existed on this planet, in one form or another, for millions of years, which would just be wrong.

On top of that you cant forget the wealth of knowledge that exist in the depths of the rainforest that we have yet to discover. Their could be a cure for cancer in their, for cryin out loud! How would you feel knowing that you'd destroyed that?

kymeric
March 10th, 2008, 03:29 PM
Why would we do that?

That would involve the death of Millions of creatures that have existed on this planet, in one form or another, for millions of years, which would just be wrong.

On top of that you cant forget the wealth of knowledge that exist in the depths of the rainforest that we have yet to discover. Their could be a cure for cancer in their, for cryin out loud! How would you feel knowing that you'd destroyed that?

Id be ok with it. Did you know there are There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer? Im just defending myself. And children! Im a hero :-p

Remember cybertron? Thats how earth should look in a thousand years.

1138
March 10th, 2008, 04:39 PM
We will find other resources when these run out, its a matter of infrastructure. It would cost to much to change the existing oil and gas support infrastructure until there is no other choice, then it becomes cost/benefit.


You have no idea just how dependent our way of life is on oil, do you? And just how hard it is to replace. And how little time we have to do it.

This is a dangerous way to think. It indicates an ignorance of the scale of the problem. It is people like you who are the most dangerous for the survival of the species - you make conclusions without even understanding the facts.

Read the Hirsch report. It's not written by an alarmist; it's a very objective analysis of the situation.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Unless a dramatic move away from fossil fuels is done 20 years before peak oil production occurs, severe economic repercussions cannot be avoided. By the way, peak oil might have occurred in 2005 already and I see no preparations being done to move away from fossil fuels.

It's not as simple as moving to alternatives when we run out. It takes energy to build up a new infrastructure - energy which will not be available by the time we run out of oil. Let's enumerate all the alternatives we have:

1) Biofuels. Doesn't work unless you want to starve the population to feed your cars. It's already driven food prices up dramatically.
2) Electric vehicles. It takes years to replace the existing car fleet. The electrical infrastructure is taxed as it is, and while we could come up with a system that charges cars during off-peak hours, we won't sustain it very long without major upgrades to the grid. Such upgrades take energy which won't be available when oil runs out. This doesn't even mention how many resources it takes to build the new cars.
3) Hydrogen. It still doesn't solve the matter of how do you generate the hydrogen in the first place, which takes massive amounts of energy.
4) Nuclear fusion. Years away still. It's a fool who pins all his hopes on a breakthrough that may or may not happen.

Have a look at the following websites:

http://www.theoildrum.com/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

The first for news; the second for a fairly pessimistic take on the energy crisis. While I don't subscribe to the conclusions of the second site, the basic dilemma is presented quite well. But you can't really ignore the news that's been aggregated on the first site.

As an intelligent species, we should be concerned about resource depletion now while we still have the resources to transition to a more sustainable life style. We know they will run out eventually and it's only rational to move away from them while it's still easy. Even if the resources don't run out completely, it's like buying insurance for your house. You don't expect it to burn down but you pay anyway in case it does. This isn't a position arrived at through hippy-liberal-ecofreak thinking; it's actually a very reasonable position to take if one is an intelligent, rational and informed person.

Dr.Mckay
March 10th, 2008, 06:00 PM
If we had to we could use the same technology being designed to terraform mars on the earth. Mine resources from the seabeds and top 20 miles of the crust and produce oxygen and exhaust it into the atmosphere.

There are always options. Realistically we could do without nature if we had to. Pave the world i says! Through technology and science weve earned the right to hold nature down and have our way with it.

Actually... we have no technology that can terraform mars, our basic plan to get mars habitable is
1) Melt the polar ice caps
2) Plant a few green trees and grass there, so that they can produce oxygen, there by creating a habitable atmosphere

And we're still at the stage where we have to find a way to get to mars, yes i know there are space shuttles etc, but 2 years on a space ship, most ppl would go insane, im here bored to insanity right now for 1 week because i have spring break...

Also paving the whole earth=no trees, there by even adding a greater affect on our environment. and where do the animals go? in cages being displayed at zoos?

Dr.Mckay
March 10th, 2008, 06:01 PM
You have no idea just how dependent our way of life is on oil, do you? And just how hard it is to replace. And how little time we have to do it.

This is a dangerous way to think. It indicates an ignorance of the scale of the problem. It is people like you who are the most dangerous for the survival of the species - you make conclusions without even understanding the facts.

Read the Hirsch report. It's not written by an alarmist; it's a very objective analysis of the situation.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf

Unless a dramatic move away from fossil fuels is done 20 years before peak oil production occurs, severe economic repercussions cannot be avoided. By the way, peak oil might have occurred in 2005 already and I see no preparations being done to move away from fossil fuels.

It's not as simple as moving to alternatives when we run out. It takes energy to build up a new infrastructure - energy which will not be available by the time we run out of oil. Let's enumerate all the alternatives we have:

1) Biofuels. Doesn't work unless you want to starve the population to feed your cars. It's already driven food prices up dramatically.
2) Electric vehicles. It takes years to replace the existing car fleet. The electrical infrastructure is taxed as it is, and while we could come up with a system that charges cars during off-peak hours, we won't sustain it very long without major upgrades to the grid. Such upgrades take energy which won't be available when oil runs out. This doesn't even mention how many resources it takes to build the new cars.
3) Hydrogen. It still doesn't solve the matter of how do you generate the hydrogen in the first place, which takes massive amounts of energy.
4) Nuclear fusion. Years away still. It's a fool who pins all his hopes on a breakthrough that may or may not happen.

Have a look at the following websites:

http://www.theoildrum.com/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

The first for news; the second for a fairly pessimistic take on the energy crisis. While I don't subscribe to the conclusions of the second site, the basic dilemma is presented quite well. But you can't really ignore the news that's been aggregated on the first site.

As an intelligent species, we should be concerned about resource depletion now while we still have the resources to transition to a more sustainable life style. We know they will run out eventually and it's only rational to move away from them while it's still easy. Even if the resources don't run out completely, it's like buying insurance for your house. You don't expect it to burn down but you pay anyway in case it does. This isn't a position arrived at through hippy-liberal-ecofreak thinking; it's actually a very reasonable position to take if one is an intelligent, rational and informed person.

Indeed.

BubblingOverWithIdeas
March 10th, 2008, 08:51 PM
This is all so Earth-centric. With so many planets seeded with human life in the Stargate universe, it's incredibly unlikely that Sheppard was the last living human in 'The Last Man'.

YutheGreat
March 11th, 2008, 05:47 AM
This is all so Earth-centric. With so many planets seeded with human life in the Stargate universe, it's incredibly unlikely that Sheppard was the last living human in 'The Last Man'.

Unless the human race in the Milky way was wiped out by Michael's hybrids. Surely he wanted to expand his territory and deal with the human threat. Earth is the only human threat to the hybrids.

rarocks24
March 11th, 2008, 09:29 AM
we're not going to die because of technology, we're going to die because of depleting resources.
and other species are certainly already dying because of our technology.

And other species are benefiting from our technology. ;)

Cory Holmes
March 11th, 2008, 09:46 AM
And other species are benefiting from our technology. ;)

Which would in turn make us the Ancients, leaving our little goodies around for our descendants to find. Living in our cities, poking and prodding at our blowey-upey toys, cleaning up after us and our insane ways...

andy tyler
March 11th, 2008, 01:23 PM
If the human race can't last 50k years, then we are seriously pathetic. The ancients lasted millions of years.

wizz_kid_sid
March 11th, 2008, 01:38 PM
I think... the humans would've ended up like them things in H.G. Wells - The Time Machine ... morlock or something like that.

MartianManhunter
March 11th, 2008, 03:01 PM
This is all so Earth-centric. With so many planets seeded with human life in the Stargate universe, it's incredibly unlikely that Sheppard was the last living human in 'The Last Man'.

Unless Michael got his hands on a Dakara like device. Their has been speculation on whether or not theres one in the PG, and if he found it he could wipe out the entire galaxy easily.

But again it was just a thought.

wizz_kid_sid
March 14th, 2008, 10:21 AM
Unless Michael got his hands on a Dakara like device. Their has been speculation on whether or not theres one in the PG, and if he found it he could wipe out the entire galaxy easily.

But again it was just a thought.

Actually thats a good point.. wonder if there is a device like that in Pegasus. Could make a pretty good ep. out of that.

jbw
March 15th, 2008, 10:37 AM
I love the notion that hippies try to force on everyone that we are all going to die because of our technology.

Antartica used to have rainforests on it at its present polar location for gods sake. This planet can get a heck of alot hotter than it is. So what if our fossil fuels speed it up or add 2-3 degrees over a hundred years. People need to stop looking for a cause to make themselves feel important and focus on their own lives.

Seriously, we are all going to die eventually anyways. The natural progression of the planet is going to make the atmosphere unbreathable to us eventually. The sun is going to get bigger and hotter and kill us all. The ocean life are going to change and ruin the global food chain. We. are. all. gonna. die. Being snooty and pretending that youre better than people driving suv's because u bought a hybrid car is absurd. Any effect these hippies are having on the enviroment is negligable to the entire history of the earth.

And frankly i run 2 airconditoners, drive a gas guzzler and throw my mcdonalds wrappers out the car window to spite the tree huggers. No one makes a difference on a scale this big in history, thinking any of us matters is naieve.

Its more of the fact that when the ice melts, that water is going to have to go somewhere. Most likely, flooding the coastal areas, and killing millions, if not billions.

Demerzel
March 15th, 2008, 11:05 AM
The human race is 200,000 years old, 50k isnt much time relatively speaking. The previous form of man, homo erectus died out what... 1 million years ago give or take. And their first fossils show up 3 million years ago.

Civilization wise Sheppard travelled a long way, species wise he covered only a drop in the ocean, a fraction of our species likely history.

Crazy unproven theories aside, the first trace of human civilization are around 10,000 BCE if you are not very religious. If you are, then the bible points out that Adam was the first human and was created around 4600 BCE.

I don't believe in evolution at all, so yeah. Fifty thousand years would be quite a change, we probably couldn't even imagine how it is.

ACharmedAsgard
March 16th, 2008, 05:33 AM
Its more of the fact that when the ice melts, that water is going to have to go somewhere. Most likely, flooding the coastal areas, and killing millions, if not billions.

Not necessarily - it's not a case of the ice melting so quickly that massive typoons hit the coast and we are so unexpecting we die.

These things take years to happen ad I'm very sure we will notice the tides rising enough to move away from the coasts. We aren't just gunna stay where we are.

KindlyKeller
March 16th, 2008, 06:33 AM
Crazy unproven theories aside, the first trace of human civilization are around 10,000 BCE if you are not very religious. If you are, then the bible points out that Adam was the first human and was created around 4600 BCE.

I don't believe in evolution at all, so yeah. Fifty thousand years would be quite a change, we probably couldn't even imagine how it is.

With respect, how is one's notion of the history of the human race being informed by one's religious beliefs any less "unproven" than evolution? I don't want to get into a debate here (I consider evolution fact essentially), but it's more than a little bit hyperbolic to call it "crazy," in the same way it would be hyperbolic for me to talk about the Afterlife and refer to the Christian Heaven as "a crazy unproven theory."

JSPuddlejumper
March 21st, 2008, 05:01 AM
<snip....state your opinion, just state it without calling others names or disrespecting their opinions>

Human race have been evolving more close to 200,000 years.

As for 50,000 years, if it is natural evolution, we would have not evovled much at all.

However, tech can change the pace of evolution.

As for the universe, planets=grains of sands, there could be actually be trillions of intelligent species out there, if not way more.

jds1982
March 24th, 2008, 06:53 PM
1) Biofuels. Doesn't work unless you want to starve the population to feed your cars. It's already driven food prices up dramatically.


There's actually companies working on making biodiesel out of algae, and of cousre you can make it out of leftover grease from fast food joints, so unless you're into eating sludge those wouldn't affect food prices. People are also working on ways to break down cellulose so that they can make things like wood chips and corn stalks into ethanol, which again should cut down on any food price increases. While things do suck now, I have hope that within the next ten years they'll start to turn around. I think we may be surprised at how quickly market demand changes our situation. Green is becoming big business.

wraith_ownage
March 27th, 2008, 03:27 PM
on the contrary, unlimited energy would collapse the economy and lead to war.

and what about all the other resources?
did you know before this century is over we're going to run out of metals like indium platinum tantalum gallium zinc and more
these things are used in all our technologies: computer chips, electronics, lcd screens, lasers, catalysts, fertilizers and many more.

when these things start to run out, you can bet there'll be wars :(dude the human race in the stargate universe had all these resources and when not plus advanced tech from asgard and ancients plus having hyper space capable ships and the stargate if we were to runout humans would simple colonize other planets like the alpha site remember plus if we needed metals we could just mine resources from other planets duh

1138
March 27th, 2008, 05:59 PM
There's actually companies working on making biodiesel out of algae, and of cousre you can make it out of leftover grease from fast food joints, so unless you're into eating sludge those wouldn't affect food prices. People are also working on ways to break down cellulose so that they can make things like wood chips and corn stalks into ethanol, which again should cut down on any food price increases. While things do suck now, I have hope that within the next ten years they'll start to turn around. I think we may be surprised at how quickly market demand changes our situation. Green is becoming big business.

Two issues:

1) It's a matter of scalability. Algal biodiesel hasn't been proven to work in the scales required to completely replace oil. It needs much more work. The only biofuels that have been commercialized on a large scale in the US so far are those which affect the food supply. You can only evaluate possible futures based on technology that you know exist, not things that don't exist.

2) Which leads us to the problem of putting all of our hopes on scientific breakthroughs that may or may not happen. There is a finite amount of time until oil supply cannot keep up with demand and if the alternatives aren't ready to make a meaningful contribution by then, we'll have big problems.

The way it's going to play out, assuming nothing goes wrong is this:

1) Everyone must cut back dramatically on their use of fossil fuels and energy in general as peak oil hits. Conservation will be key. This isn't about protecting the environment; it's about survival. When peak oil hits, supply will not be able to meet demand and the only way to ensure that we maintain some semblance of society is to minimize our dependence on oil. That will leave at least some oil for the farmers, for maintaining infrastructure and keeping basic order.
2) After this, ALL energy alternatives will need to be brought online. This includes nuclear, wind, solar, biomass / biofuels and yes, coal (which will last a bit longer than oil). But they won't be nearly enough to stop economic problems or allow us to continue business as usual since they won't be brought online until after peak oil which leaves us with no spare energy at all. But just hopefully, they'll be enough to prevent societal collapse.
3) Eventually, we build enough nuclear plants and change enough of our infrastructure over to rely on electricity rather than fossil fuels. At that stage, wind and solar will be a healthy mix of the energy solution and fusion is finally ready to be used.

1) will occur in the 2015 to 2025 time frame. The less oil we use now, the more time we have until this happens, which will give time to hopefully flesh out viable alternatives before we get the rug pulled from right under us.
2) 2025 to 2050.
3) 2050 and onwards.

The sad thing is that if we had prepared to switch away from oil in the 70s, we'd avoid all the problems we're going to face. And the whole reason that we didn't do this in the 70s was because people didn't think far ahead enough and only acted on their stupid impulses.

jds1982
March 28th, 2008, 05:08 AM
The sad thing is that if we had prepared to switch away from oil in the 70s, we'd avoid all the problems we're going to face. And the whole reason that we didn't do this in the 70s was because people didn't think far ahead enough and only acted on their stupid impulses.

I'll agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some massive government action taken to get us off of fossil fuels. On the other hand I think market forces are powerful engines of change, and clean fuels will win out, because oil will become so expensive that consumers will demand change (which to a certain extent I think is starting to happen), but mostly because companies will realise that they can sell them indefinitely. I really hope that algal biodiesel works out. I read that it could produce 100,000 gallons of oil from a single acre, and it's not like it's hard to grow. That being said car exhaust is hardly the biggest problem, pollution from industry and power generation are the big problems.

1138
March 28th, 2008, 10:52 PM
I'll agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some massive government action taken to get us off of fossil fuels. On the other hand I think market forces are powerful engines of change, and clean fuels will win out, because oil will become so expensive that consumers will demand change (which to a certain extent I think is starting to happen), but mostly because companies will realise that they can sell them indefinitely. I really hope that algal biodiesel works out. I read that it could produce 100,000 gallons of oil from a single acre, and it's not like it's hard to grow. That being said car exhaust is hardly the biggest problem, pollution from industry and power generation are the big problems.

This is why I say that high oil prices are actually a good thing if it'll kick people into looking at alternatives and conservation. The worst thing that can happen from a long term societal viewpoint is for oil prices to collapse in the near future. Back in the 70s, oil consumption dropped dramatically as a result of the oil shocks and people were much more efficient. But as the oil price collapsed, that efficiency was lost, which is why we find ourselves still dependent on oil. I just hope that we can move fast enough before we run into resource constraints.

For the record, I'm not nay-saying algal biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol. I just think that they're not guaranteed slam dunks, which is why a mindset of conservation is what I advocate. If it turns out biofuels work, then great but we need to prepare for the situation where they don't work out. In other words, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

jds1982
March 31st, 2008, 06:02 AM
In other words, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

Always a good idea.