New definition of

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2006 20:56
VIEWED: 3731
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

SOUPCATCHER

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:51 AM

Another sci-fi book on human modification is Man Plus by Frederik Pohl, which I found to be a fun read. Speaking of Simak, I really enjoyed Way Station so I guess I should put City on my used book store list.

And I seem to recall a debate on the ethics of terraforming taking place in the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars).

See, all we really need to do to plan for the future is read Nebula and Hugo award winners .

JOSSISAGOD

Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:07 AM

Wait, I'm confused. Do they mean, just in our System, or in our entire Galaxy all together? If they're talking just in the system, WEIRD!

Completely out of the loop JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

FIREFAIRY

Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:14 AM

Quote:
SoupCatcher wrote:
Another sci-fi book on human modification is Man Plus by Frederik Pohl, which I found to be a fun read. Speaking of Simak, I really enjoyed Way Station so I guess I should put City on my used book store list.

And I seem to recall a debate on the ethics of terraforming taking place in the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars).

See, all we really need to do to plan for the future is read Nebula and Hugo award winners .

Those actually look pretty interesting. I'll have to look those up.

but my personal favorite take on this whole subject is the way The Little Prince did it.

------------------------------------------

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not at all, Citizen

Marsaforming an individual human is easier than terraforming Mars, even if you have to do it a million times. And adaptability would not restrict them from returning to earth necessarily. Arctic squirrels are perfectly capable of living in our environment. Clifford D. Simak tackles this issue in "City". I don't think it's a serious problem.

The trouble with terraforming is how about you going to move a trillion tons of compressed gas? If the planet is close to habitable, would you be exterminating all native life? (it wouldn't be designed for multiple planets like our mod humans.)

You get to say "Not at All Citizen" when you've actually countered all my points

.

Mar's isn't the home of an arctic squirrel. WE can live in the same environment as an arctic squirrel, albiet with minor technology (like a coat). We, nor a Squirrel arctic or otherwise can survive on the surface of Mars, or Venus or any other Planet in our solar system without the aid of cutting edge life support technology. We're a fish out of water, and out of curiosity have you ever seen what happens to a Fish out of water, or for that matter a Human IN water? That's right they drown because there's a limit to adaptability.

So no, adaptability doesn't let someone 'designed' to live on Mars as it is now live on Earth. They'd need the same level of technology to survive on Earths surface as we do to survive on the surface of Mars, if that wasn't the case we'd be mucking around in space minus the space suits because we'd just 'adapt'.

You know what would be even easier the modifying all those people? Building enclosures that use bleeding edge life support technology.

But magic adaptability doesn't answer the questions of independent off world colonies. Mod humans can walk around on the surface of Mars, great, what do they eat? Rocks? To be an independent colony they have to grow their own food, with modded humans you'd have to design an entire modded eco-system for each planet to pull that off.

Or you can use transplanted Earth eco-systems in bio domes (which still won't make the colony stand alone for any sizable population) or you terraform. The whole point of Terraforming is creating independent off world colonies, which no modding Humans DOESN'T do.

And why is transporting trillions of tons of compressed gas the problem? Transporting gas is the most 'far out there' method, most terraforming methods use planetary resources, in fact the best ones use natural processes, not compressed gas.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CREVANREAVER

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:40 PM

By the way, another thing to consider with the habitable zone issue. If many of the planets in the Verse are small enough then they could possibly all fit into the habitable zone. Most could be the size of Charon or smaller. As mentioned before, they could be so small that in 2002 they would have simply been considered spherical asteroids.

If this is the case, then main issue is of getting them to have Earth-like gravity.

CITIZEN

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
By the way, another thing to consider with the habitable zone issue.

Now you're talking

.

Quote:
If this is the case, then main issue is of getting them to have Earth-like gravity.

Of course we know they have Artificial Gravity and that this technology is cheap (every ship has it, and you don't need to be a billionaire to buy a ship).

We also know that the technology takes very little power to run (otherwise it would have shut down in OoG).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RABBIT2

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:35 PM

Quote:
Wait, I'm confused. Do they mean, just in our System, or in our entire Galaxy all together? If they're talking just in the system, WEIRD!

They mean just in the Solar System.
They are though, beginning to find planet sized bodies orbiting other stars. I think the current number is round about Eighty. They are huge compared with anything in the Solar System.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

KANEMAN

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:04 PM

Terraforming is not the answer never will be. We would have to live in bio domes. Once you get a certain distance from a star. It's just to damn cold to go outside, grow food, herd cattle, etc. So humans will be in controlled atmospheric domes. So, get a clue you dorks.

RWE'ers eatsshitisall

CREVANREAVER

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:56 PM

And here is the final definition:

A "planet" (1) is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

A "dwarf planet" (2) is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

All other objects (3) orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of Trans-Neptunian objects.

1. The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2. An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
3. These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2