We can direct this question to astrophysics scientists, theologians, philosophers, scientists thought and civilizations! why?
Astronomy shows that the universe is very wide and the distances between the planets are very far away, especially those distances between solar groups or between galaxies. So, for now, humans can not get out of the earth and settle outside.
Nor have we found references in religious beliefs about the possibility of humans coming out of the earth.
As well as philosophy scholars did not deviate from the geographical framework of the Earth!
Nasser,
I disagree.
We have a world that offers a number of 'easy steps' by which we can 'escape the cradle'.
1) We have a transparent atmosphere, with modest cloud cover.
A Venusian civilization, by contrast, would have to evolve to remarkable levels before it could even see the stars.
2) Our world is quite small, but rich in rocket fuel (water, hydrocarbons, fissile material). Had we evolved on Mars, it would take a huge effort to synthesize a tonne of kerosene.
3) We have a large and rather close moon.
An obvious target to aim for.
4) We have a pleasingly stable solar system - one star, no debris clouds from sundered planets to contend with. Life is quiet.
We have dreamed of spaceflight for centuries - and in the last 60 years have made great progress. A prison? Hardly. It took humanity tens of thousand years to figure out how to add another edge to a stone hand-axe.
Who can say where our species will be in just one thousand years?
The Earth is a prison for humans in the sense that very few humans will ever leave it, and all those who do will merely explore other places in our Solar System (and probably not very many of them). However, there is no reason to believe that it is a prison in the sense that we were put here as some kind of punishment. Aside from paleontological work that shows that humans evolved from pre-hominids right here on Earth, there is no possibility that aliens put us here, because interstellar travel, although a neat idea for science fiction movies and novels, is almost impossible, and so impractical that I feel absolutely certain that no human will ever go to another star system, and that no alien has ever gone from their own star system to another one. Robotic probes can be sent to other stars (sometime in the next century or ten, depending on how sophisticated you want them to be), but sending even a few humans to another star system would cost the equivalent of billions of trillions of dollars, and accomplish absolutely nothing that would be of any use to the people who had to pay for the trip; so I'm sure that any technological civilization with any sanity would never send any of their 'people' to another star, either.
Dear all
It's good to see scientists (physics, mathematics, and ...) speak the language of humanities scholars, this indicates that humanity still has a lot of good.
I have two replies:
1- Dear James Garry,
There is no doubt that we are constantly evolving in various sciences, but, so far, we have not found any planet that humanity can colonize
Even if we can reach the planets of our solar system, can we creates an atmosphere, can we withstand the temperatures? Can we transfer all that we need to continue?
This human created for this earth only
Our continuation on the earth is dependent on its climate (General aerobic session, atmospheric pressure centers, currents, virtual movement of the sun), Moon is a rhythm officer for the climate on the earth, "there is no moon has no life on earth." Life on earth is very complicated.
The rise of the temperature "only three degrees" over the annual rates in Europe this year led to many deaths and material losses and disruption of daily life and fire, even the roads melted.
A small climatic disorder Led to floods in Iran, India and the desert of Qatar, Thousands of innocents were killed, Hundreds of thousands have been displaced, Entire cities were flooded,
Do you think that the present form of human will remain as it is?
No
Some slight difference in latitude It resulted in black and white, so how, if changed elements of nature?
When we can preserve our planet, then we can think of other
2- Dear all
I would assume that we could colonize another planet
Will we destroy the original population if they are found?
Who are the most likely to live in it?
which religion or law will apply?
Will it be divided between Eastern and Western?
Will we transfer nuclear weapons?
Will there be rich and poor?
The scientific logic based on reading the history and development of civilizations says:
Evolution has made humanity worse, if we go back to history 4000 years, we will see masters and slaves, kingdoms fighting, hunger and disease, ...
Dear James Garry, what has changed now? Nothing! Only the means are changed, Evolution led us to "the biggest bomb, the strongest aircraft, the fastest rocket and the smartest destroy, the empires still fight, but the names differ only, It's the geopolitics.
Look at Africa, South Asia, Yemen ... still as it was 4,000 years ago (hunger, enslavement, killing, fear, poverty ...)
So why look for another planet? For whom? And for what?
We need peace, security, health, return to the Humanity nature that talked about it most religions.
Regards.
Nasser Farhat
In my opinion, Earth is an extension of heaven with the potential for approaching a paradise on Earth. I believe that God made Man in His image, which means that Man's traits were intended to be an extension of God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence in the universe. Regarding science, I subscribe to the astrophysics world view expressed in relevant titles of publications by V.A. Katov, whose hundreds of publications Research Gate lists.
Ptolemy was superseded by Copernicus; nevertheless, I agree with Ptolemy, if not scientifically, certainly theologically. Furthermore, the universe is constantly in flux. It is plausible that Earth, as God has envisioned it, may one day emerge as the center of a new system.
Scientifically speaking, the Earth may be contacted by the Sun but no one knows for sure. The universe of stars is expanding, but nobody knows where the center is located. Is Earth located in the center?
Theoretically, in my humble opinion, violence, whether domestic or international terrorism is a manifestation of a psychological state of mind such as described in your question. The notion that Earth is a prison is a state of mind that gives rise to the suicidal practices that bring injury and harm to the self-appointed prisoner of Earth. A person who thinks this way is really the prisoner of that thought itself, and not of Earth.
At the other end of the spectrum are those high-minded anti-materialists who have peace of mind and who know how to philosophically accept the limitations of physical existence in a concrete material world and then to appreciate their God-given gift of consciousness, including mind, emotions, reason, and so on. Even the political position of atheistic deistic existentialists exemplifies an intellectual and moral awareness of Man's God-given innate potential to be strong and to accept life for what it is and to recognize that moral and spiritual strength is the pathway to happiness. But, above all, faith in God and Man is needed.
I support scientific research and exploration, which have accomplished miraculous things. Right now, I favor Solar System research, yet I know that Voyager 1 is in interstellar space for billions of years. Man has succeeded in replicating, on a much smaller scale, God's creation of Earth, where rocks are billions of years old. Symbolically, then, Voyager 1 is proof of God's greatest, yet most difficult, gift (Gift in German means "burden") to Man: freedom.
Sincerely,
Nancy Ann Watanabe
Our time on Earth is what you make of it so it can be a prison for some or it can be paradise for others. It depends on you. If you lead a negative life with bad characteristics then Earth would be a prison that you constantly want to escape from. On the other hand, if you lead a positive enlightened life with good intentions then Earth is a paradise and you would not want to escape paradise ... you would revel in it. Even when positive people are faced with negativity... they are strong enough to repel it and continue to enjoy their beautiful lives.
yes, you are right, we are prison of universe as well. Not really, the situation of earth made us, so we are belong to earth, to go somewhere else, we might have more problem. best to all
I support the view of my colleagues Nancy Ann Watanabe and Navitha Singh Sewpersadh on the level of the individual.
But I do not live alone on Earth
There are billions of people, so how do I not care who are killed? Or are displaced, or hungry, Or homeless....
The Voyager and Pioneer missions have already shown that we can launch probes that can travel beyond the heliopause into interstellar space, this has been done. Earth is not a prison, but that doesn't mean there is any place better for us to go.
Maybe my first comment some didn't like it
All in the matter, some leaders are risking the fate of the whole world.
Therefore, we must alert them that we have no choice to keep humanity alive but this Earth.
We are not prisoners but part of the community of life that we should find our purpose and grow from there.
Dear Orana Rose
The meaning of The question is: that our realist inability to leave the Earth at the moment has made us more like prisoners.
This perception helps explain to the politicians that we have no alternative to the earth, so shall them maintain her, rather than drag it into the abyss.
We built for this precious place, if we get out of this spacious place, then we are prisoned.
It is certainly a prison for other species and those humans that cannot afford to design and build a rocket. However, Apollo 11 demonstrated that humans are able to reach the Moon, the Earth's unusually large and nearby satellite. Gravitational confinement is not a major hurdle for a technological civilisation but it is a useful means of confinement nevertheless. Indeed, this appear to be deliberate and consistent with the evidence of purpose in nature. It very much appears that we inhabit a universe organised in such a way as to efficiently sustain aquatic life over the long term via the heat released when neutrinos mutually annihilate deep with iron-cored planets. Worlds such as this are used to cultivate intelligent life capable of being entrusted with colonisation following the decay of dark energy to neutrinos. Gravitational confinement is an important mechanism for restricting primitive lifeforms to their own planets. Galaxy mergers within galaxy clusters, where aquatic life will ultimately thrive, are an important mechanism for sifting between colonising civilisations, to ensure high standards.
Before wondering what safeguards might be in place to handle wayward civilisations such as ours, you might want to catch up on what the academic community does not want you to know (proof available on request), namely that the first genuinely scientific resolution of the Fermi Paradox was recently published:
Article A cosmological hypothesis potentially resolving the mystery ...
Dear Robin
Is it related to only those who have a rocket?
as when you found this solution
Tell me: What would humanity do in the event of a nuclear war between the ten countries?
What will mankind do in the event of a massive climate change leading to the flooding of land?
What would mankind do if any of the millions of natural elements changed?
Answer: Humanity will ride on the rocket and go up to the moon and?!....
Dear Nasser,
Things work well until you have lifeforms capable of leaving their host planet but incapable of colonising space to the required standards. In such cases, something more than gravity is needed to prevent the spread of primitive, irresponsible lifeforms. If you're asking how did it occur to me to check whether neutrinos have the propensity to internally heat planets, I was led to suspect this might be so by reflecting upon the many examples of cosmological fine-tuning that have no credible anthropic explanation - strongly insinuating that the universe has been carefully configured to support life. The way in which life is currently sustained on Earth by solar radiation is extremely inefficient, and temporary, as you might expect if evolution by natural selection is supposed to lead to something better. Is there a far more efficient mechanism for supporting life after the stars die out, I asked myself, and sure enough... there is. The fact that this species abhors the notion of a universe tailored for life tells you a great deal about its survival prospects. In addition, it so happens that this is a galaxy that already hosts far more advanced lifeforms, and they are aware of our many shortcomings.
Dear Nasser, sorry but I'm still not used to this folding of answers on RG, which hides much of what people have typed. I see you were asking some additional questions which I am able to answer, even if I am unable to fully explain how I know the answers at present. Following an experiment intended to assess the innate aptitude of the species with regard to the ethical colonisation of space, an ultimatum was issued in 2016 - along with a deadline (year 2100) for compliance. This is encoded by the megalithic sites dotted around the world, none of which were designed by humans. If you analyse their locations you will find some patterns that are also present at the entrance of every parliamentary building across the world today, assuring us that those responsible for the megaliths are still around and, it seems, capable of surreptitiously manipulating our actions. The probability that this is untrue has been shown to be statistically smaller than one in 10 to the power 3000, so anyone who attempts to deny or censor this is deviating spectacularly from the scientific method.
The properties of the elements of the periodic table are immutable. The dropping of atomic bombs on innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not looked upon favourably, and has been compared to a giant attacking a baby. If atomic bombs are used in anger again it will be the end of the species.
As for climate change, our presence is destabilising the Earth's biosphere. However, due to the imposed deadline (year 2100), it is unlikely that we will be able to cause irreperable damage before then. If we attempt to do so, expect swift and decisive intervention. We already know that the country causing the most harm to the planet is the USA, which goes a little way towards explaining why it has been singled out for special treatment following the outcome of the aforementioned experiment (e.g. the election of a foolish and dangerous man as president along with extra constraints that the USA must observe).
excuse from you, but I doubt your words
Your country is identical to the bone with the state and president you mentioned
Excuse me but I do not own any country and I do not align myself with any political ideology on this planet. Whilst I agree that the USA has a racist clown for a president and the UK has another for prime minister, the UK government was not involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, it played no role in the 9/11 attacks and it did not assist Russia when Putin set about destabilising the USA by helping to install a cretin as its leader. What really counts is not your opinion or mine but the conclusions of those about to determine humanity's fate. They regard the entire species as fascist and insouciant. They have already made it clear that they see no future role in this galaxy, nor any other, for a civilisation that cannot overcome internal racism and hatred - nor even summon the will to attempt to do so. Humanity has until 2100 to address these and other issues.
Read the paper I wrote on the Fermi Paradox, it should be clear what is expected of us. Independent confirmation that this is so is on the way, subject to the usual mindless mechanisms of censorship. Curiosity may be dangerous for cats but lack of curiosity could be terminal for humanity.
- Badges
- Science topic