What if we find a new Earth?

The rates of many diseases are up. We have to hope that trend doesn't
continue. If it does, that may provide some incentive to get off the
planet.

Leaving the planet will only help avoid *communicable* diseases. When our
descendants leave the planet, they will carry the diabetes, cholesterol and AD
genes with them, unfortunately.

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message .. .
In a decade or so, we may be able to detect Earth-like planets using
spacecraft currently being developed. We may even be able to detect evidence
for life on such planets (detection of methane through spectroscopy) and
even chlorophyll (?).

What could the discovery of such a planet lead to? An interstellar mission
using solar-sails? Plans for colonization? Focussing of SETI on such
star-systems?

I think SETI would be interested, but I can't see that anything else
would change. Even if it was Alpha C., we'd still never get a probe
there in any reasonable amount of time.

If Mars or Venus were Earthlike, that would be different.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...
"Henry Spencer" wrote:
In article ,
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
Hell, look at all the other advances we've made, they're
simply astounding.

The comment that I like to use (not original, but I can't remember just
where I saw the original) is that there are still a few people alive who
can remember a time when man could not fly, radio did not exist, and
"antibiotic" was not an English word.

It's all the little stuff too. Just go to the store and
buy a bunch of things. Then look at all the stuff you
will just throwaway and ask yourself how valuable all
that "garbage" would be in 1900. A lot of products these
days come in containers which are durable enough and
reusable enough to have been worth serious money a century
ago. And you can buy microchips for a dollar or less which
are more powerful than any computing system available a
century ago. Just compare a modern $1 quartz watch to a
pocket watch of 1900, and ask yourself how much the pocket
watch would cost a fraction of an average worker's pay
back then. Or, compare all the diseases which are
currently considered merely chronic, treatable diseases
today but which in 1900 were terminal illnesses.
Including, for example, certain types of diabetes.

Thing is, all those advances you list come from two things - the
discovery of electromagnetism and our refinment of its potential, and
modern mass-manufacturing techniques. We've about run out the
potential of both. Not much room to grow there.



Judging by that level of progress, 2100 should be
astounding. Even judging by the progress we are making
today in certain direction (genetic engineering,
electronics, MEMS, etc.) 2100 should be inconceivably
different than today. I fully expect a cure for all
causes of death except accidental injury and homocide in
the next century, and I have a damned decent bit of
science to back up that assumption as well. Next to that,
who can say what will or won't be possible (within the
reasonable bounds of physics, of course)?

There's still a lot of room to grow in biology, but that won't get us
to another system.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rhino" wrote in
:

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...

Or, compare all the diseases which are
currently considered merely chronic, treatable diseases
today but which in 1900 were terminal illnesses.
Including, for example, certain types of diabetes.

Judging by that level of progress, 2100 should be
astounding.

The rates of many diseases are up. We have to hope that trend doesn't
continue.

Which diseases are you referring to?

The rate of diabetes is up. I believe that the rate of childhood diabetes
is up. In California, the rate of autism increased by a factor of 4 in a
few years.

Diseases like cancer, Alzheimers, and Parkinsons are more prevalent, but
those primarily strike the elderly. They're more common because more
people are living long enough to get them.

Communicable diseases like tuberculosis are more common, but that's
because
many Third World nations have larger populations while still lacking
adequate sanitation or vaccination rates. But that's happening because we
lack the political will to fix the problem, not because we don't know how.

The two bothersome trends are the development of resistent strains of
diseases due to overuse of antibiotics, and the transmission of animal
diseases previously unknown in humans, like monkeypox, due to increasing
human expansion into animal habitats. HIV might have gotten started this
way as well.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote


Judging by that level of progress, 2100 should be
astounding. Even judging by the progress we are making
today in certain direction (genetic engineering,
electronics, MEMS, etc.) 2100 should be inconceivably
different than today.

Very true. Even conservative extrapolation of trends in place
today indicate that 2100 is going to be a whole lot different.
I'm optimistic about what "different" means, but there are
serious possibilities for the down side too. And we know from
several centuries' worth of experience that big surprises show
up every decade or three.

I fully expect a cure for all
causes of death except accidental injury and homocide in
the next century, and I have a damned decent bit of
science to back up that assumption as well.

There does not now appear to be any reason in principle
that we can't take full control of biology. The sooner the
better, IMO.

Next to that, who can say what will or won't be possible
(within the reasonable bounds of physics, of course)?

Note that the past decade has shown that there are vast, steaming
heaps of physics that we're clueless about -- but which it appears
we have a decent chance of understanding in the coming years and
decades. The recent topical issue of Science magazine called "The
Dark Side" is worth reading.

"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
It's all the little stuff too. Just go to the store and
buy a bunch of things. Then look at all the stuff you
will just throwaway and ask yourself how valuable all
that "garbage" would be in 1900. A lot of products these
days come in containers which are durable enough and
reusable enough to have been worth serious money a century
ago. And you can buy microchips for a dollar or less which
are more powerful than any computing system available a
century ago. Just compare a modern $1 quartz watch to a
pocket watch of 1900, and ask yourself how much the pocket
watch would cost a fraction of an average worker's pay
back then. Or, compare all the diseases which are
currently considered merely chronic, treatable diseases
today but which in 1900 were terminal illnesses.
Including, for example, certain types of diabetes.

Thing is, all those advances you list come from two things - the
discovery of electromagnetism and our refinment of its potential, and
modern mass-manufacturing techniques. We've about run out the
potential of both. Not much room to grow there.

Oh really? What's your proof of that. Oh, I know, same
as always. You have no proof.

Here're a few "provable" bits. Rapid Single Flux Quantum
Logic gates can operate at a speed of several hundred
gigahertz, which gives a quite comfortable ceiling for
the ability of speed growth in computers. As for the cost
of computing, the incremental costs per chip are very low,
with the continuing expansion of the market for advanced
electronics (as more of the world becomes developed and
as usage increases in the developed world) that can mean
only greater degrees of amortization of fixed costs.

And here's an odd little item about the pace of modern
progress, due to the increasingly falling *real* costs of
producing the majority of consumer goods (everything from
VCRs to snickers bars) deflation has become a serious
concern, requiring appropriate monetary policy to fight it
as much as possible.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 14:17:02 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Christopher M. Jones" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In California, the rate of autism increased by a
factor of 4 in a few years.

I strongly suspect that's due to misdiagnosis (either underdiagnosis then,
or overdiagnosis now, or some combination of both). I suspect the same for
the rate of ADD/ADHD.

Kids diagnosed with autism get more money spent on
their education in the public school system and get
quite an easier time graduating from grade to grade
as well. I have little doubt that many parents
with normal but below average intellect and/or hard
to discipline children are "gaming the system" to
gain an advantage.

Yes, though there's also a not-entirely-implausible theory that the
California increase in autism (which seems to be largely a Silicon
Valley phenomenon) is due to more intermarriage among borderline
autistics who would otherwise have been unlikely to meet, via the boom
in dot coms that needed lots of geeks in the nineties...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Ultimate Buu wrote:

In a decade or so, we may be able to detect Earth-like planets using
spacecraft currently being developed. We may even be able to detect evidence
for life on such planets (detection of methane through spectroscopy) and
even chlorophyll (?).

What could the discovery of such a planet lead to? An interstellar mission
using solar-sails? Plans for colonization? Focussing of SETI on such
star-systems?

And now, interestingly, the cover story of the current (August 2003)
issue of Discover magazine is on this very subject....

True. But the increase is not due to classical juvenile (type 1) diabetes
- it's children getting adult (type 2) diabetes due to unhealthy diets and
little to no exercise. We know how to prevent that, we just don't.

Actually, we don't know how to prevent people from overeating in a
situation where food is wildly availible in unlimited quantities.
We're not evolved for that situation - we're evolved to pack away as
many calories as possible while food is availible to guard against the
times when it isn't - times which in developed nations never come.
We're also not evolved to exert more effort than is required to get
said food.

The failure rate on people trying to lose weight is close to 100%
after five years. We know what people need to do to lose weight and
keep it off - the problem is, we're not mentally or biologically
programmed to actually do it.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...
"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
It's all the little stuff too. Just go to the store and
buy a bunch of things. Then look at all the stuff you
will just throwaway and ask yourself how valuable all
that "garbage" would be in 1900. A lot of products these
days come in containers which are durable enough and
reusable enough to have been worth serious money a century
ago. And you can buy microchips for a dollar or less which
are more powerful than any computing system available a
century ago. Just compare a modern $1 quartz watch to a
pocket watch of 1900, and ask yourself how much the pocket
watch would cost a fraction of an average worker's pay
back then. Or, compare all the diseases which are
currently considered merely chronic, treatable diseases
today but which in 1900 were terminal illnesses.
Including, for example, certain types of diabetes.

Thing is, all those advances you list come from two things - the
discovery of electromagnetism and our refinment of its potential, and
modern mass-manufacturing techniques. We've about run out the
potential of both. Not much room to grow there.

Oh really? What's your proof of that. Oh, I know, same
as always. You have no proof.

Here're a few "provable" bits. Rapid Single Flux Quantum
Logic gates can operate at a speed of several hundred
gigahertz, which gives a quite comfortable ceiling for
the ability of speed growth in computers. As for the cost
of computing, the incremental costs per chip are very low,
with the continuing expansion of the market for advanced
electronics (as more of the world becomes developed and
as usage increases in the developed world) that can mean
only greater degrees of amortization of fixed costs.

Still more on electromagnetism. No impact on transportation.


And here's an odd little item about the pace of modern
progress, due to the increasingly falling *real* costs of
producing the majority of consumer goods (everything from
VCRs to snickers bars) deflation has become a serious
concern, requiring appropriate monetary policy to fight it
as much as possible.

Again, still more on electromagnetism and manufaturing. Nothing on
transportation. VCRs are cheap, btw, because they are going out of
style, as they are being replaced by DVD players.