dennislmay

Forget the Stars - Planets Everywhere

Recommended Posts

Dennis wrote:

I never liked TNG's love of central planners and socialism.

end quote

Imagine Luke, how Data would explain it and you will regain “The Force.” Suspend thy disbelief, Hu-man!

That was a hard sell for a lot of us. The machines called “Replicaters” must be accepted as a defining moment in our evolutionary, and social future. Without a need to buy products, a non - commercial society would only have ideas, art, or to put it in a risqué mode, a personal relationship, to buy.

Cooperation and *idealism* would be needed to man (and woman) a starship. The sense of camaraderie, faith, and service that the crew of “The USS Enterprise” feels in their bones and think in their heads is the best outcome for: we few, we proud, we Americans, we citizens of Earth.

I think “StarTrek, The Next Generation” is the height of television programming. Some scenes in some of the movies also reach those heights. I see J.J. Abrams is back in the news.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote. “Without a need to buy products, a non - commercial society would only have ideas, art, or to put it in a risqué mode, a personal relationship, to buy.”

So what would be “the coin of the realm?” What would you pay with - art, ideas, or you own captivating personality? Could “Personality School” be far behind? Too many of us smart guys are like the nerds on The Big Bang Theory, so personality and “Love” would become even more important after the creation of replicaters.

No offense to Dennis, Sheldon, or Leonard. : - ) Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolutionary debate continues. The author and the magazine where it was printed, Scientific American, invite you to email this to a friend but I could not get it to work, so I will simply cut and paste the article. There was also a section at the end urging the reader to:

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs.

Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.

© 2013 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.

Universality of Preadaptation for the Human Condition

By Cadell Last | Scientific American – 23 hrs

I have often wondered about whether key human adaptations (e.g., bipedalism, large brain size, opposable thumbs) represented universal traits for the development of high intelligence and technological complexity. In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) by evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, he posits that they are. Wilson argues that highly intelligent, technologically complex species have been so rare in the history of life because there are specific universal preadaptations required to produce the human condition. He contends that without these preadaptations, a species intelligent enough to "build a microscope, deduce the oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn" is an impossibility (Wilson, 2012: 45).

From Wilson himself:

"Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. The reason is simply the extreme improbability of the preadaptations necessary for it to occur at all. Each of these evolutionary steps has been a full-blown adaptation in its own right. Each has required a particular sequence of one or more preadaptations that occurred previously. Homo sapiens is the only species of large mammal - thus large enough to evolve a human-sized brain - to have made every one of the required lucky turns in the evolutionary maze." (Wilson, 2012: 45)

So what are these "lucky turns"? And are they as universal as Wilson supposes? First I think it is appropriate to explain what is meant be an "evolutionary maze." An evolutionary maze is a metaphor to understand the probability of an organism acquiring a certain trait (i.e. large size, flight, echolocation, intelligence, etc.). By using this metaphor we can say with certainty that descendants of contemporary pigs could become aquatic, but will never be able to fly. This is because their ancestors acquired adaptations that "closed the door" to flight as a future adaptation through the evolutionary maze. In essence, Wilson uses this metaphor to illustrate how many, and what type, of preadaptations it took for evolution to produce a highly intelligent, technologically complex species. So that brings us back to "lucky turns". What were they for us? And can we deduce that these preadaptations represent a universal process for biological evolution? Is the human condition a singularity? According to Wilson there were four major turns, and these turns can be seen as prerequisites for biological evolution to produce another species with our abilities:

1. Land

The first of Wilson's lucky turns is an adaptation to a terrestrial environment. This is the first key preadaptation because Wilson argues that technological evolution past simple stone tools requires fire. This means that in the evolutionary maze aquatic species could develop technology, but could never develop technologies with evolutionary trajectories of their own. Therefore, no descendant of the octopus or dolphin could deduce oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn, without first adapting to land.

2. Large body size

Wilson's next preadaptation is large body size. The reason for this adaptation is fairly self-explanatory: in order for a species to develop human-level intelligence, they must have a body that can support the evolution of a human-sized brain. Wilson draws on his experience studying the highly complex societies of ants, bees, and termites to support the inclusion of this preadaptation: "[body size is the] one reason why leafcutter ants, although the most complex of any species other than humans, and even though they practice agriculture in air-conditioned cities of their own instinctual devising, have made no significant further advance during the twenty million years of their existence." (Wilson, 2012: 46). In contrast, we acquired this adaptation gradually over time within the order primates.

3. Grasping hands

The third preadaptation is grasping hands. For Wilson, a species that has not acquired this ability will never be able to manipulate the environment in the way necessary to produce complex technologies. Of course, this is a preadaptation that our lineage acquired within the order primates. Grasping hands distinguishes primates from all other mammals.

4. Meat/Control of Fire

The fourth preadaptations are the consumption of meat and control of fire. Meat is a necessary adaptation for Wilson because it yields higher energy per gram eaten, and because of the cooperation between individuals required to acquire meat. In our lineage, meat was first consumed regularly within the genus Homo. Before this the australopithecines subsisted off of vegetation, although they were potential scavengers as well. Regular consumption of meat was followed shortly by the control of fire. For humans, control of fire allowed us to catch larger game, and created a central common cooking space, which facilitated the development of an even more complex social environment dependent on altruistic sharing of resources.

The Evolutionary Maze

The metaphor of the evolutionary maze is a useful one. It can help us conceptualize biological evolution. However, Wilson depicts the human journey through the maze to be the only possible way for biological evolution to produce both high intelligence and technologically complex species. Of course, I agree that the maze towards these evolutionary developments is narrower than the maze towards less complex adaptations. I also agree that a great number of preadaptations are necessary for a species to achieve high intelligence and technological complexity. However, the human condition may not be a singularity. Unfortunately, we know of only one species that has developed high intelligence and technology with an evolutionary trajectory of its own. Therefore, our sample size is too small to be definitively sure that our path through the maze was the only one.

As a consequence, I believe questions about the universality of the human condition must be relegated to a grey borderland between philosophy and empirical science. Are there universal preadaptations? I think it is possible, but we can't scientifically determine that yet. Take for example Wilson's first preadaptation: adaptation to land. Is it impossible for a lineage adapted to an aquatic setting to develop high intelligence and technological complexity? I am just not sure how we can scientifically rule that out. Just because it hasn't happened on Earth, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future, or on some other planet similar to our own.

As Wilson point out in the book, alien scientists studying our planet three million years ago would likely think nothing special of the australopithecines. However, they were part of the maze that ended up producing us. Could our species be making a similar mistake as Wilson's hypothetical alien scientists if we conclude that the evolutionary maze to high intelligence and technological complexity is shut to the descendants of octopuses and dolphins? Furthermore, we can't conclude that consumption of meat and control of fire are necessary preadaptations, even though they were for us. Although meat yields higher energy per gram eaten when compared to vegetation on Earth, it may not be the case on other planets. I would argue the same with the preadaptation for control of fire. It was important for our lineage, but could technology develop without control of it in an aquatic setting? We don't have the data to rule it out.

On the other hand, I believe the preadaptations Wilson explored do give us important insight. For example, I would think it to be highly unlikely for a species with a small body size to develop human-level intelligence. As he mentioned, the lack of advance among the social insects is likely attributable to this variable. Also, I am in general agreement with Wilson that a species like us would require some type of grasping preadaptation. Of course, grasping hands could be supplemented for the evolution of some other type of appendage (e.g., fin, tentacle, etc.) that could be used to manipulate the external environment.

This means all intelligent science fiction aliens should be equipped with some type of grasping appendage, in order to be scientifically appropriate. Jokes aside, this type of question is worth exploring. However, I think we should be cautious and hesitant to make any broad conclusions. A scientific consensus will not likely be reached until we have more data, and that requires understanding life off of our island of life: Earth.

References:

Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W.W. Norton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The evolutionary debate continues. The author and the magazine where it was printed, Scientific American, invite you to email this to a friend but I could not get it to work, so I will simply cut and paste the article. There was also a section at the end urging the reader to:

Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs.

Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.

© 2013 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.

Universality of Preadaptation for the Human Condition

By Cadell Last | Scientific American – 23 hrs

I have often wondered about whether key human adaptations (e.g., bipedalism, large brain size, opposable thumbs) represented universal traits for the development of high intelligence and technological complexity. In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) by evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, he posits that they are. Wilson argues that highly intelligent, technologically complex species have been so rare in the history of life because there are specific universal preadaptations required to produce the human condition. He contends that without these preadaptations, a species intelligent enough to "build a microscope, deduce the oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn" is an impossibility (Wilson, 2012: 45).

From Wilson himself:

"Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. The reason is simply the extreme improbability of the preadaptations necessary for it to occur at all. Each of these evolutionary steps has been a full-blown adaptation in its own right. Each has required a particular sequence of one or more preadaptations that occurred previously. Homo sapiens is the only species of large mammal - thus large enough to evolve a human-sized brain - to have made every one of the required lucky turns in the evolutionary maze." (Wilson, 2012: 45)

So what are these "lucky turns"? And are they as universal as Wilson supposes? First I think it is appropriate to explain what is meant be an "evolutionary maze." An evolutionary maze is a metaphor to understand the probability of an organism acquiring a certain trait (i.e. large size, flight, echolocation, intelligence, etc.). By using this metaphor we can say with certainty that descendants of contemporary pigs could become aquatic, but will never be able to fly. This is because their ancestors acquired adaptations that "closed the door" to flight as a future adaptation through the evolutionary maze. In essence, Wilson uses this metaphor to illustrate how many, and what type, of preadaptations it took for evolution to produce a highly intelligent, technologically complex species. So that brings us back to "lucky turns". What were they for us? And can we deduce that these preadaptations represent a universal process for biological evolution? Is the human condition a singularity? According to Wilson there were four major turns, and these turns can be seen as prerequisites for biological evolution to produce another species with our abilities:

1. Land

The first of Wilson's lucky turns is an adaptation to a terrestrial environment. This is the first key preadaptation because Wilson argues that technological evolution past simple stone tools requires fire. This means that in the evolutionary maze aquatic species could develop technology, but could never develop technologies with evolutionary trajectories of their own. Therefore, no descendant of the octopus or dolphin could deduce oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn, without first adapting to land.

2. Large body size

Wilson's next preadaptation is large body size. The reason for this adaptation is fairly self-explanatory: in order for a species to develop human-level intelligence, they must have a body that can support the evolution of a human-sized brain. Wilson draws on his experience studying the highly complex societies of ants, bees, and termites to support the inclusion of this preadaptation: "[body size is the] one reason why leafcutter ants, although the most complex of any species other than humans, and even though they practice agriculture in air-conditioned cities of their own instinctual devising, have made no significant further advance during the twenty million years of their existence." (Wilson, 2012: 46). In contrast, we acquired this adaptation gradually over time within the order primates.

3. Grasping hands

The third preadaptation is grasping hands. For Wilson, a species that has not acquired this ability will never be able to manipulate the environment in the way necessary to produce complex technologies. Of course, this is a preadaptation that our lineage acquired within the order primates. Grasping hands distinguishes primates from all other mammals.

4. Meat/Control of Fire

The fourth preadaptations are the consumption of meat and control of fire. Meat is a necessary adaptation for Wilson because it yields higher energy per gram eaten, and because of the cooperation between individuals required to acquire meat. In our lineage, meat was first consumed regularly within the genus Homo. Before this the australopithecines subsisted off of vegetation, although they were potential scavengers as well. Regular consumption of meat was followed shortly by the control of fire. For humans, control of fire allowed us to catch larger game, and created a central common cooking space, which facilitated the development of an even more complex social environment dependent on altruistic sharing of resources.

The Evolutionary Maze

The metaphor of the evolutionary maze is a useful one. It can help us conceptualize biological evolution. However, Wilson depicts the human journey through the maze to be the only possible way for biological evolution to produce both high intelligence and technologically complex species. Of course, I agree that the maze towards these evolutionary developments is narrower than the maze towards less complex adaptations. I also agree that a great number of preadaptations are necessary for a species to achieve high intelligence and technological complexity. However, the human condition may not be a singularity. Unfortunately, we know of only one species that has developed high intelligence and technology with an evolutionary trajectory of its own. Therefore, our sample size is too small to be definitively sure that our path through the maze was the only one.

As a consequence, I believe questions about the universality of the human condition must be relegated to a grey borderland between philosophy and empirical science. Are there universal preadaptations? I think it is possible, but we can't scientifically determine that yet. Take for example Wilson's first preadaptation: adaptation to land. Is it impossible for a lineage adapted to an aquatic setting to develop high intelligence and technological complexity? I am just not sure how we can scientifically rule that out. Just because it hasn't happened on Earth, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future, or on some other planet similar to our own.

As Wilson point out in the book, alien scientists studying our planet three million years ago would likely think nothing special of the australopithecines. However, they were part of the maze that ended up producing us. Could our species be making a similar mistake as Wilson's hypothetical alien scientists if we conclude that the evolutionary maze to high intelligence and technological complexity is shut to the descendants of octopuses and dolphins? Furthermore, we can't conclude that consumption of meat and control of fire are necessary preadaptations, even though they were for us. Although meat yields higher energy per gram eaten when compared to vegetation on Earth, it may not be the case on other planets. I would argue the same with the preadaptation for control of fire. It was important for our lineage, but could technology develop without control of it in an aquatic setting? We don't have the data to rule it out.

On the other hand, I believe the preadaptations Wilson explored do give us important insight. For example, I would think it to be highly unlikely for a species with a small body size to develop human-level intelligence. As he mentioned, the lack of advance among the social insects is likely attributable to this variable. Also, I am in general agreement with Wilson that a species like us would require some type of grasping preadaptation. Of course, grasping hands could be supplemented for the evolution of some other type of appendage (e.g., fin, tentacle, etc.) that could be used to manipulate the external environment.

This means all intelligent science fiction aliens should be equipped with some type of grasping appendage, in order to be scientifically appropriate. Jokes aside, this type of question is worth exploring. However, I think we should be cautious and hesitant to make any broad conclusions. A scientific consensus will not likely be reached until we have more data, and that requires understanding life off of our island of life: Earth.

References:

Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W.W. Norton.

Don't forget there were at least 5 human cousin species existing all at the same time very recently and all had the basic tools to develop further but only homo-sapien-sapien survived - but with some percentage DNA of at least 3 of the other species as well. Go back further and I'm sure there are dozens of cousins who were on the path that didn't make it either.

If humans suddenly perished of some plague the remaining apes and/or other species with some of the tools to advance would fill in the human niche over a period of tens of millions of years. They might be decended of apes or any of hundreds of species that are a long ways in the right direction. Time and opportunity allows the prepared to evolve into more and more niches.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote. “Without a need to buy products, a non - commercial society would only have ideas, art, or to put it in a risqué mode, a personal relationship, to buy.”

So what would be “the coin of the realm?” What would you pay with - art, ideas, or you own captivating personality? Could “Personality School” be far behind? Too many of us smart guys are like the nerds on The Big Bang Theory, so personality and “Love” would become even more important after the creation of replicaters.

No offense to Dennis, Sheldon, or Leonard. : - ) Peter

Many things were scarce even in the Star Trek world. There always seemed to be one crisis or another so nothing really changed in the Star Trek universe. Some advanced societies had good access to the necessities - just like today, people competed for position just like today, a great deal of information was readily available - just like in the last decade, Who serviced the replicators - that involves time, who serviced the scare hollowdecks - that involves time, who designed and maintained the high technology needed to keep everyone in necessities? All of these things involve payment with reward or a currency of some kind. Some of the early TNG episodes were embarrassing in their promotion of socialism disconnected from even the realities of the Star Trek universe.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Some advanced societies had good access to the necessities - just like today, people competed for position just like today, a great deal of information was readily available - just like in the last decade, Who serviced the replicators - that involves time, who serviced the scare hollodecks - that involves time, who designed and maintained the high technology needed to keep everyone in necessities? All of these things involve payment with reward or a currency of some kind. Some of the early TNG episodes were embarrassing in their promotion of socialism disconnected from even the realities of the Star Trek universe.

end quote

Thanks for not taking offense at my attempt to lump you with the nerdy PhD’s on TV. I don’t totally disagree with you, Dennis. Contrasting the nasty, materialistic Ferengi with noble Capitalists was a cheap shot. At first I also thought it was a socialist theory, but over the years, my understanding evolved. I saw no ravages from socialism in 24th century StarTrek society.

After that psychological and artistic evaluation, I thought of the society of StarTrek as if people were idealistically serving in the military or NASA. Yet their society does not become militaristic.

I have also wondered how legitimate the “my job is my obsessive hobby” proposition was too. With the basics of food and shelter available for no effort, would humans behave like the activists on a Green Peace ship? And like you I wondered what “the currency of the realm” would be to keep human’s productive and working. Don’t most of our society’s “rich kids” become wastrels? “I just want to party all the time!” in Rio and on the Riviera seems to be their slogan. I have always liked the sentiment that you want to leave your kids and grandkids with enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing.

So, I am back to a *idealism* combined with *obsessive hobby* theory of StarTrek society. Contrast them to the rich men in 18th century England who founded the Royal (Astronomy, Scientific, Exploratory, even bird and animal watchers and taxidermists Societies, etc.) Charles Darwin’s name comes to mind. They were obsessive. They were honorable. They were idealistic. Royal Society wanabe’s were worse than social climbers. They HAD TO be in that elite group. Likewise 24th century people wanted to be a part of Star Fleet, and the crowning glory of that idealism, research, and exploration, was serving on the USS Enterprise. Dennis, and everyone, did you ever want to be an explorer?

The following is interesting. Replicated matter or holomatter? Is there a difference?

Peter

From Wikipedia:

Matter created on the holodeck ("holomatter") requires the holoemitters to remain stable and will quickly disintegrate if it is removed from the holodeck without a mobile emitter to sustain it, although this principle has been overlooked in some episodes. Writer Phil Farrand has often pointed out how in many episodes matter from the holodeck that gets on a real person still exists when the real person exits the holodeck. In "Encounter at Farpoint", Wesley Crusher falls into a holodeck stream, but is still wet after exiting the holodeck. In "The Big Goodbye", Picard has lipstick on his cheek after encountering a holodeck simulation of a 20th-century woman. In "Elementary, Dear Data", Data and Geordi La Forge exit the holodeck with a piece of paper that originated in the holodeck.[1] This could be explained using replicated rather than holographic matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dennis wrote:

Some advanced societies had good access to the necessities - just like today, people competed for position just like today, a great deal of information was readily available - just like in the last decade, Who serviced the replicators - that involves time, who serviced the scare hollodecks - that involves time, who designed and maintained the high technology needed to keep everyone in necessities? All of these things involve payment with reward or a currency of some kind. Some of the early TNG episodes were embarrassing in their promotion of socialism disconnected from even the realities of the Star Trek universe.

end quote

Thanks for not taking offense at my attempt to lump you with the nerdy PhD’s on TV. I don’t totally disagree with you, Dennis. Contrasting the nasty, materialistic Ferengi with noble Capitalists was a cheap shot. At first I also thought it was a socialist theory, but over the years, my understanding evolved. I saw no ravages from socialism in 24th century StarTrek society.

After that psychological and artistic evaluation, I thought of the society of StarTrek as if people were idealistically serving in the military or NASA. Yet their society does not become militaristic.

I have also wondered how legitimate the “my job is my obsessive hobby” proposition was too. With the basics of food and shelter available for no effort, would humans behave like the activists on a Green Peace ship? And like you I wondered what “the currency of the realm” would be to keep human’s productive and working. Don’t most of our society’s “rich kids” become wastrels? “I just want to party all the time!” in Rio and on the Riviera seems to be their slogan. I have always liked the sentiment that you want to leave your kids and grandkids with enough to do something, but not enough to do nothing.

So, I am back to a *idealism* combined with *obsessive hobby* theory of StarTrek society. Contrast them to the rich men in 18th century England who founded the Royal (Astronomy, Scientific, Exploratory, even bird and animal watchers and taxidermists Societies, etc.) Charles Darwin’s name comes to mind. They were obsessive. They were honorable. They were idealistic. Royal Society wanabe’s were worse than social climbers. They HAD TO be in that elite group. Likewise 24th century people wanted to be a part of Star Fleet, and the crowning glory of that idealism, research, and exploration, was serving on the USS Enterprise. Dennis, and everyone, did you ever want to be an explorer?

The following is interesting. Replicated matter or holomatter? Is there a difference?

Peter

From Wikipedia:

Matter created on the holodeck ("holomatter") requires the holoemitters to remain stable and will quickly disintegrate if it is removed from the holodeck without a mobile emitter to sustain it, although this principle has been overlooked in some episodes. Writer Phil Farrand has often pointed out how in many episodes matter from the holodeck that gets on a real person still exists when the real person exits the holodeck. In "Encounter at Farpoint", Wesley Crusher falls into a holodeck stream, but is still wet after exiting the holodeck. In "The Big Goodbye", Picard has lipstick on his cheek after encountering a holodeck simulation of a 20th-century woman. In "Elementary, Dear Data", Data and Geordi La Forge exit the holodeck with a piece of paper that originated in the holodeck.[1] This could be explained using replicated rather than holographic matter.

Besides requiring an unusual kind of person to be the average inhabitant of the Federation you will note the total absence of the many of peoples and cultures that make up the majority of the Earth today. Talk about central planning :-)

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Besides requiring an unusual kind of person to be the average inhabitant of the Federation you will note the total absence of the many of peoples and cultures that make up the majority of the Earth today. Talk about central planning :-)

end quote

I had not thought of that. Spear chucking cultures and races have been absorbed in the 24th century. Modernity is everywhere. Stupid religious observance is non-existent. This could be due to the prevalence of the internet, news, entertainment, instant communication devices, and pervasive modern teaching. If the truth is out there and at a child’s fingertips how are you going to teach them lies? How ya gonna keep them down on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree? Well, I have seen exceptions like with the Amish and other sects. They are still on the farm.

And as a former educator I am fascinated by the fact that negroid American children are so mainstreamed and so much like their American peers of other races. They watch the same Disney and Nick. They speak “proper” English at a child’s level. However, around puberty all that changes. They begin to speak a much poorer dialect of English and I don’t mean just their accents. The information they can convey via Ebonics is inferior as many studies have shown. They begin to listen to “black music.” They mostly watch “black entertainment.” They become extremely racist by choice. If that can be changed by I - phones or whatever I am all for it.

From AP:

Meteorologists long have known that cities are warmer than rural areas, with the heat of buildings and cars, along with asphalt and roofs that absorb heat. That's called the urban heat island effect and it's long been thought that the heat stayed close to the cities . . . . But the study, based on a computer model and the Northern Hemisphere, now suggests the heat does something else, albeit indirectly. It travels about half a mile up into the air and then its energy changes the high-altitude currents in the atmosphere that dictate prevailing weather . . . . The computer model showed that parts of Siberia and northwestern Canada may get, on average, an extra 1.4 degrees to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 to 1 degree Celsius) during the winter, which "may not be a bad thing," Zhang said. The effect isn't quite as much in northern North Dakota and Minnesota, where temperatures might be about half a degree warmer (0.3 degrees Celsius), and even less along the East Coast.

end quote

Normal global warming is a good thing, as rational scientists know. Arable zones increase. A readily available proof of this is found in ancient Rome. Grapes could be grown farther up mountain slopes. Species thrive.

Global cooling is what locks up more of the earth’s water and shrinks the zones where crops can be raised. When ice once again covers Canada and extends into the United States it will be more difficult to feed the world’s population. More prevalent wars for resources is a possibility. North Americans will be streaming into Mexico, and Central America either legally or from conquest.

If cities coincidentally warm areas near them and further away, from the heat island affect, then there is hope that we can lessen global cooling with other solutions.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only ethnics no included in the Star Trek world were Jews. Not a single Jew on the Starship Enterprise (with the possible exception of Spock, whose mother Amanda was Jewish).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only ethnics no included in the Star Trek world were Jews. Not a single Jew on the Starship Enterprise (with the possible exception of Spock, whose mother Amanda was Jewish).

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Ferengi?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a single Jew on the Starship Enterprise

Now wait a minute, I thought for sure Adam Sandler did his research before unleashing his signature song on the world:

Wikipedia says Shatner was raised Jewish. Now, did they portray different religions on the show? I can't think of any Jesus talk, nothing like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...