seeni vasan

This conversation is closed.

The survival of humans in outer space is not possible without first studying nature.

We humans are now exploiting the world in a very rapid manner. Some countries are thinking that colonizing outer space is essential for the survival of human life in the universe.

Famous scientist Stephen Hawking says that if we continue developing our technologies in this way, we can achieve and learn to live in space within 200 years, but looking at the present scenario of the world economical and ecological problems, it is too difficult that the world cannot tolerate up to even 100 years?

We humans were born just 200 thousand years ago, but Nature itself is 4.5 billion years old. So the technology which we made is always less efficient. less durable compared to nature. So human life in outer space is only possible if we learn many things from these 4.5 billion years of geniuses (as noted by Janine Benyus).

Some research has already been made like "Life in Biosphere", but learning "how the these species evolved?" is now more important than "how do these species maintain their balance and their design principles implemented to sustain not only them but also the system?" We need to learn from nature so that we can prosper on other planets, too.

  • thumb
    Oct 26 2012: Didn't man just sent his first fish up to the station? Space Exploration should be our goal for the future without rushing towards it, our immediate goal should be A.G with clean field waste or recyclable excess field energy, I always push this idea as it is non political, doesn't involve a paradigm shift and has no ill affects on us or the planet.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/boaz_almog_levitates_a_superconductor.html

    If we can get this technology up and running we get closer to bridging the communications gap, it's the Holy Grail, transportation with minimum input.
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2012: Just for the record: Humans already survive in outer space quite successfully as we have what it takes to do so: Our sun and our planet...

    If we would stop damaging our 'space ship' and learn again to life WITH it, what do we need another space ship for?

    The remaining time we have until our sun is 'burning out' will be enough to figure out a solution for our species, as long as we also manage, not to eradicate ourselfs beforehand. And there we rely more on our 'human nature' and its studies as we may wish to ... :o)
    • thumb
      Oct 26 2012: Yes obviously friend.... I too wish to want to happen the same as you told, but the problem here is that we all learned these things almost spoiling half of the world"s forest and other nature..
      I don't say that the methods we followed for the development of human generation till now are wrong, but those methods and their effect only showed us the original value of the nature, they are essential...suppose to say they were essential!
      The problem here is that,it is not a very easy job to hold the 700 billion people of world population to stop suddenly doing their thing for their survival purpose, which unknowingly damaging the Earth-(space ship) in a single day or even practically some decades, and made them to do their things for their survival purpose, which simultaneously preventing damage and develop the space ship. To solve this more political,economical, many problems should be solved which turns it to whirlpool.
      So we are in a need to discuss it someway surely for the existence of the human and the nature after EARTH...
      • thumb
        Oct 26 2012: I wish I could share your optimism on this matter. As I see it, we, mankind, did not destroy half of the worlds forest to learn about what nature actually means to us. At our early stages, not our knowledge about - but our close connection to earth was essential and therefore humble in terms of our interaction with our environment. As our technological development grew and over time, we lost track of this deeper more intuitive understanding of the world and our place in it, to finally detach into artificially evolving 'societies'.

        In our latest history, even today, first world countries define remaining native tribes, close to nature, as 'underdeveloped' and 'backward' because ..., well ..., actually for what good reason?

        Our todays dominating culture, our world economy, created a mindset of its participants, in which the connection to our source of life almost vanished completely. Nature is just seen as a pretty framework, in which we may have our weekend cottages or sport activities in, or in which our seeds, fertilizer and pesticides for our gene-food gets 'installed'.

        Yet this current high point of our so called developed civilisation created nothing but a non-sustainable, destructive and contaminating basis of our very existence and it incorporated its own decline that deep within its foundation, that it is no more a matter if, but when the collaps takes place.

        Todays 7 billion people (not 700!) will have no choice other but to change their current habits. And they are not going to do it freely, they will be forced by our future circumstances.

        Also we are not 'unknowingly damaging the Earth-(space ship)' anymore, as science found out and informed about it. But just a view are listening and even less are acting upon it...

        Only time will show if we manage our transition with a minimum of global turmoil, agression and starvation and where this transition will finally lead us...

        Another, a new planet in outer space will not be part of our options!
  • Oct 25 2012: I think it is right or better necessary to be able to create our world twice, before thinking about living in space.
    The reason is simple, as far as we could look into space (and that is way more far than we could go yet and in future), there is no such planet like ours.

    That means, if we can not travel the needed distance (cause planets like ours might exist, but unfortunatley so far away that it is physically impossible to reach them during ones average lifespan), and within the distance we can travel is no place to live-we have to rebuild our world in space to live somewhere else.

    So i think it is very possible to do this within 200 years, even in shorter time. We just need a better working energy source, the rest is more or less "easy". When you can grow a plant in a greenhouse, you can do this anywhere, you just need a greenhouse that works in space. That is more a question of money, less of science.

    I think the possible scenario is to build artificial eathes in space, not only to live there, but to travel far distances. In one lifetime a human or any other being from earth could not explore space beyond what we can see with technology already now-we need to make the distance smaller. This takes a lot of time and generations, as our travel speed is physically limited. It is step by step, not beam me up...
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2012: Are we not studying nature ?
    What is the level at which technology can be called efficient enough (though it is always relative to the time ,place & need )
    Don't we have much less hunger in terms of percentage than say 100 years back ?
    Didn't technology supply increased food for the incremental population during last 100 years, while the planet lost cultivatable lands in many countries every year ?
    • thumb
      Oct 26 2012: Yes we are studying nature... we are mostly studying nature for some medicinal purpose or something like that only but the nature has many things to get us learned, technology too..
      We humans born only 200 thousand years ago, then after thousands of years of gradual development our first notable invention is the agriculture which is around only 10000 years ago i.e., around 8000 B.C., So as we calculate the duration now date,we humans have gone up to researching on God's particles level within 10000 years.. This may seem we are grown well but when look overall living condition of the humans around the world having poverty,hunger,war etc, Are we really grown or developed?
      I think really no...we still lag morally, technically below... Ok how to solve this?
      If we have any problem we usually refer to somewhere or to someone,whether they have encountered the same issue like us and how they responded and reacted to it? We get their suggestion and their technique as their feedback and we face the problem.
      Likewise this problem of Technical and moral lagging can be asked from an expert of 4.5 billion year old "NATURE",which can give multiple solutions which are highly efficient ,cost effective, Eco-friendly also no more complexity involve in it.
      The word "WE" noted on the first line "Are we not studying nature?"on your comment line by you Sir denotes the whole human population in the world but the real thing is that nature are actually viewed (in way to bring engineering and nature) by few developed countries only then what about the developing and under developed countries, who are striving even for their survival?
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2012: I think:

    We can not live in space without changing ourselves into a kind of animal completely different from ourselves today.
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2012: you make a good point ,we really should think what science brings us .

    i always think that the more we change the world the more damage we do to it ,take inderstry for example.
    since the inderstry revolution our invironment is getting worse and it also brings us many other social problem
    income inequality ,and food poison and triffic jam and so on

    what can we do to bring it back to normal .
    • thumb

      Lejan .

      • +1
      Oct 25 2012: One way we could choose to bring it 'back to normal' - whatever exactly this 'normal' may mean - could be, that we start to learn from nature again, what to do and how to integrate ourselfs in this ecosphere, that we become its part again, not its dominating and destructive ruler.

      Thinking in closed cycles, in which food and goods do not consume resources to dump them later, but to 'lend' and 'transform' resources and to integrate and use them again, once their limited purpose is over.

      If you look at nature, abundance and smart use and production of energy is almost everywhere! Nature does not know 'waste', as all it creates decomposes and will be re-used again.

      Yet nature is no 'happy' place. There is a constant battle going on for food (energy) and survival, so we better do not romanticize to much here.

      But we can learn from nature what we need to do to support ourselfs in a continuous and sustainable way, and our 'happyness' we have to create within... :o)
  • Oct 25 2012: Living in space? What about learning to live in the space we now have-earth.
    We have only just begun to learn what really makes nature "tick", and new insights are discovered every day in areas we "thought" we knew all about.
    I personality feel we will need more then 200 yrs. to achieve that goal, due in main part because we are in too much of a hurry on many levels. We have seen time & time again, where advancements have harmed the very earth we call home. We just don't research enough before we act.
    Living in space? Best learn to live here first!
  • Oct 25 2012: We have studied nature, and the question is "survive for how long?" I believe that it is a good idea to expand where the species lives; however, I agree with Isaac Asimov's arguement that space travel is probably very difficult.