Humanity does not destroy nature. Greta is not looking at the right time scale. Humanity is nature's way to increase atmospheric carbon, eventually turning biologically inert carbon deposits into beautiful sugars.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Greta doesn't know what to look at or not; and if she did, could she?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AzorInfo
I think that she knows what to look at, but perhaps she has not looked long enough yet. Or it is me who looked too long. And you know what they say about staring into the abyss.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
The catharsis of public speaking is not commensurate with the survival of species...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Plinz
Try for? If Thunberg ends up with Cullis-Suzuki's life, she will be among the most lucky people on Earth...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Panspurmia seems unlikely to me. Earth formed 4.5 Billion years ago. It was a hot molten mess until after the hadean eon ended 4 Billion years ago. First life was shortly after that: 3.7 Billion. That doesn't leave much of a window for chance collisions with life. [1/2]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You may argue an advanced civilization sent crafts to seed building blocks on suitable planets. I'd argue they would probably have sent something more guaranteed to form intelligence. Still, there may be merit in running many simple trials to find a winning solution. [2/2]
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Cells might be the most robust form of self organizing computronium. For panspermia, the question is if an encounter with a (possibly targeted) von Neumann probe is less likely than spontaneous abiogenesis, over a few hundred Mrd years
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.