Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Actually that's not true, bacteria only has a limited amount of space for genes. And the more gene's they have the more ways there are to kill them. There will always be a way to destroy a type of virus.

Try telling that to XDR Tubercolosis or MRSA.

[Micro102]

I will after I get my masters degree in biology.... 8 more years to go

[Andir]

You said that once we could live forever, we would no longer be victims to the natural world, physical world, or material world.

That's not what I said at all.  In reply to:

We are all bound by natural law.  So no, I'm pretty sure everything we do is precisely as nature intended.

Who's the bitch now? 

You said:

Every living thing but us.

And I disagree.  Every living thing, including us, is precisely as nature's bitch (bound to the laws of nature.)  We can attempt to break those laws, but we are entirely bound by one specific rule.  Everything dies.

If we were able to find a way to make ourselves live forever, and were able to bring our bodies back from the dead state indefinitely... then we can call Nature our "bitch," but until that time, we are still bound by Natural law.

[Realmfighter]

But your talking like "Everything dies" is the only natural law.

The others that your missing include being in the natural world, physical world, or material world.

[Makbeth]

^Um, what are you talking about?

It looks like you're saying that "being in the natural world, physical world, or material world" are other laws that he didn't mention.  It doesn't make any sense.

"Everything dies", or better yet "Everything eventually stops working" is actually pretty close to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a pretty big one as far as laws go and, in combination with the first, goes a long, long way in defining our existence.  It's not the only one though.

[Realmfighter]

He's saying (or at least what I'm understanding him saying) that nature would be our bitch when we live forever, like thats the only rule that nature has.

[Sergius]

He's saying (or at least what I'm understanding him saying) that nature would be our bitch when we live forever, like thats the only rule that nature has.

Well, making a perpetual motion machine would be another one. How long until we achieve that?

Or making a generator that produces more energy than the one used to make it work (including matter).

[Micro102]

Well perpetual motion is impossible because things like gravity and such change over time.

As for generators that change energy into more energy? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And I personally all matter was made up of energy at some point. So maybe in the far future we will tear solar systems apart to make an all mighty kingdom

[Makbeth]

He's saying (or at least what I'm understanding him saying) that nature would be our bitch when we live forever, like thats the only rule that nature has.

I understood what he said, I was confused by what you said.

[Sergius]

Well perpetual motion is impossible because things like gravity and such change over time.

As for generators that change energy into more energy? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And I personally all matter was made up of energy at some point. So maybe in the far future we will tear solar systems apart to make an all mighty kingdom

Hey, thanks for the info, Sherlock

Those are laws of nature, so the point is, living forever is only one law we could violate to make nature our bitch. Those would be other ones. I'm sure there's plenty of more things that are impossible to do, which would make nature our bitch.

[Makbeth]

Well perpetual motion is impossible because things like gravity and such change over time.

As for generators that change energy into more energy? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And I personally all matter was made up of energy at some point. So maybe in the far future we will tear solar systems apart to make an all mighty kingdom

1st law of thermodynamics:  Energy can't be created or destroyed.

2nd law of thermodynamics:  There is no such thing as 100% efficiency.  Any time energy does work in any system, some of that energy goes into secondary things like sound or very slight heating of the system's components.  This energy is too dispersed to be recoverable and indeed any recovery mechanism would also lose some of the energy it used.  The only way to maintain the system is to keep supplying it with more energy.  If the supply is cut off, the system eventually breaks down, no matter how efficient it is. 

This applies to living organisms, machines, ecosystems, stars, and the universe as a whole.  Once the top of the universal "energy chain" runs out (that would be those elements suitable for fuel in stellar fusion reactions), everything down the chain that depends on those will start to shut down.  The first and second law say that what's really eventually going to kill us if nothing else does first is that the universe just plain runs out of gas.  Only solution is to find a way to leave this universe and find another one.  Good luck with that.  But, we won't have to worry about that until long after the sun itself has gone out, assuming we find a way to escape the solar system before the sun incinerates the planet in its death throes.

[FuzzyZergling]

The point at which we break the laws of nature is the point where we will be able to change the way physics works, like changing gravitational constants or the value of pi.

[Urist McOverlord]

More-than-four-dimensional-universe-with-all-manner-of-physics-bending-possibilities-we-have-not-entirely-ruled-out-what?

Seriously. The universe is far wierder and more awesome than we can really comprehend with our current levels of science. Maybe beyond our comprehension or observation entirely. But it's still a pretty incredible idea. Maybe the unbendable, unchanging laws we know of aren't as constant as we'd like to believe. Of course, then there's probably laws above those laws that need a good thrashing if we are to truly tell physics to get bent.

[Derekristow]

Note that the second law doesn't say we must die, it simply says we will die if not given energy.  I guess it does say that we will die, simply because at some point the universe will have no energy to give, but it doesn't say we have to die of old age.

[Starver]

Actually that's not true, bacteria only has a limited amount of space for genes. And the more gene's they have the more ways there are to kill them. There will always be a way to destroy a type of virus.

Quick note...  Bacteria != Virus.

Viruses actually have less genes in them than a bacteria (not sure if there are any complex viruses with more than the simplest bacteria, without going back to some old books or wiki, but in general this should still be the case), because they make use of the genetic material of the cells they typically infect to do most of the complex stuff like setting up the replication pathways, so they need not so much of it themselves).  This is also means that viruses are very capable of soaking up mutations, because, unlike "full blown" cellular life, they aren't (as) susceptible to mutations happening to the reproductive mechanisms (something else is doing it for them!) and, like-as-not, stopping there from being a next generation.

As long as a virus is actually tricking the cell to put its genetic code copying machinary into play, encapsulating it in a suitable membrane and then get those encapsulations spread (e.g. by getting the cell to kill itself and disperse its contents), viruses don't really care what new coating they will have.  If it doesn't latch onto other cells, then obviously it fails, but as long as it isn't destroyed by environment or a primed immune-system it can probably sit around until it does find itself latching onto something that its protein coat likes.  Unlike a proper cell, it doesn't have to sustain itself in the same way.  (And even 'proper' forms of life can be universally hardy, look at tardigrades, etc as creatures that aren't just extremeophiles but able to survive handle a wide range of environments, albeit in something akin to a form of chemical 'stasis'.)

Anyway, the point is that there's less genes to aim at (by the quoted logic, less ways to kill them, although I'm not sure that it's quite as proportional) plus the genes (or at least genetic sequences) are really quite malleable and moving targets are harder to hit.