Do you believe that humanity is an abomination?

[sserafim]

.

 

[Homo erectus]

Humanity has not future. I don't know why it was created in the first place. Life can be based on silicon instead of carbon. DNA can use arsenic instead of phosphorus. Presumably the rules of biology have thought about all the possible scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry For some reasons, they created this sentient human form filled with suffering, even when there are many alternatives that can physically do all human jobs.

 

[sserafim]

Humanity has not future. I don't know why it was created in the first place. Life can be based on silicon instead of carbon. DNA can use arsenic instead of phosphorus. Presumably the rules of biology have thought about all the possible scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry For some reasons, they created this sentient human form filled with suffering, even when there are many alternatives that can physically do all human jobs.

I don't know why humanity was created either. Perhaps it arose spontaneously, by chance. Do you think that humanity was created? If you do, why do you think so? And by who? I can't think of anyone else but the demiurge and the archons, or maybe a mad scientist in a sick experiment/game. I was looking at that the other day. Silicon is used in tech right? Maybe other kinds of life would be both technologically and biologically based. It's interesting that DNA could use arsenic. Isn't arsenic poisonous?

 

[Pluto]

 

[Malaria]

To quote Bill Hicks:

I'm tired of this back-slappin' "isn't humanity neat" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes.

 

[Homo erectus]

I was looking at that the other day. Silicon is used in tech right? Maybe other kinds of life would be both technologically and biologically based. It's interesting that DNA could use arsenic. Isn't arsenic poisonous?

There seems to have been a sudden rise in the supply and use of silicon. Maybe a previous silicon-based world was destroyed (there are some youtube videos on this). Then some aliens were cleaning up the aftermath. Human was their slaves. Silicon was a side effect of the alien cleaning or mining operation. People then use the leftover in daily life. Some say the mosaic window panes in churches were added later. People also use sand to make beaches and sell them as luxury, and glassy high-rise buildings, silicon IC chips to make computer and AI possible, etc. This is a very silicon-based age.

I don't know why humanity was created either. Perhaps it arose spontaneously, by chance. Do you think that humanity was created? If you do, why do you think so? And by who? I can't think of anyone else but the demiurge and the archons, or maybe a mad scientist in a sick experiment/game. I was looking at that the other day. Silicon is used in tech right? Maybe other kinds of life would be both technologically and biologically based. It's interesting that DNA could use arsenic. Isn't arsenic poisonous?

Yes, I think arsenic is poisonous for human and most other lives on Earth. But in a very different environment, it might be life sustaining, if it had to. If aliens could manipulate electromagnetic force, maybe they also could manipulate chemistry and do alchemy. Some people actually claimed they had found arsenic based DNA in bacteria, but it was later disproved.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think- if we were deliberately given sentience, then whoever did that has very strange ideas and a very odd moral compass. Why give something biological, that will inevitably break down, the knowledge and sensation of that happening? Seems kind of perverse. But then, I don't know. Parents seem to ignore that bit when they procreate. I guess they're just both blinded by the excitement of creating something maybe.

Within human nature though, we have both- people who act abonimally and those who are kind. Overall though, I wouldn't say we were the greatest thing to have happened to this planet.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I don't know about other humans, but I certainly am one.

 

[TheSpookyNameGuy]

Absolutely, to me there is simply no reason to let this bipolar experiment continue, let it be burned away.

Off topic but can i ask how old you are? just a curious thought process i'm working out.

 

[sserafim]

Absolutely, to me there is simply no reason to let this bipolar experiment continue, let it be burned away.

Off topic but can i ask how old you are? just a curious thought process i'm working out.

Who do you think started the experiment and why do you think they did? I'm 23. Why do you ask? Lol does it matter

I think- if we were deliberately given sentience, then whoever did that has very strange ideas and a very odd moral compass. Why give something biological, that will inevitably break down, the knowledge and sensation of that happening? Seems kind of perverse. But then, I don't know. Parents seem to ignore that bit when they procreate. I guess they're just both blinded by the excitement of creating something maybe.

Within human nature though, we have both- people who act abonimally and those who are kind. Overall though, I wouldn't say we were the greatest thing to have happened to this planet.

If we were deliberately given sentience, who do you think gave it to us and why? What could their motivations be? A mad scientist running a sick experiment?

 

[TheSpookyNameGuy]

Who do you think started the experiment and why do you think they did? I'm 23. Why do you ask? Lol does it matter

I have no idea, unfortunately. To my point of view i have only ever controlled a human being.

The greater mysteries if such a thing exists are unknown to me.

I only ask as i have been curious about many of the questions you post, you create a lot of them that i myself don't have the energy to make.

Hence the age part

 

[DarkRange55]

Humanity has not future. I don't know why it was created in the first place. Life can be based on silicon instead of carbon. DNA can use arsenic instead of phosphorus. Presumably the rules of biology have thought about all the possible scenarios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry For some reasons, they created this sentient human form filled with suffering, even when there are many alternatives that can physically do all human jobs.

The idea of arsenic-based DNA gained attention after a controversial study in 2010 suggested that certain bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their DNA in place of phosphorus. However, subsequent research cast doubt on these findings, with many scientists critiquing the experimental methods and conclusions of the original study. As of now, there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of arsenic-based DNA in any known life forms. Carbon and phosphorus remain essential elements for the structure and function of DNA in all known life on Earth.

A notable difference between carbon biochemistry and silicon biochemistry is that silicon binds to fewer elements than carbon does. Carbon is unparalleled in its ability to form long chains and complex structures, making it the cornerstone of organic chemistry and the basis for life as we know it. Silicon, while not as versatile as carbon, shares some similar chemical properties and can also form large and complex molecules, albeit with some limitations compared to carbon.

Silicon-based life, while intriguing in theory, presents several challenges and limitations compared to carbon-based life:

1. Stability: Silicon compounds tend to be less stable than their carbon counterparts. This instability could hinder the formation of complex and long-lasting molecular structures necessary for life.

2. Solubility: Silicon compounds are generally less soluble in water than carbon compounds. Water is a universal solvent essential for life as we know it, so limited solubility could pose challenges for biological processes.

3. Reactivity: Silicon-based compounds may react differently with other elements and molecules compared to carbon-based compounds. This could affect the metabolic processes and biochemical reactions necessary for life.

4. Availability: While silicon is abundant in the Earth's crust, it's not as prevalent in the biosphere as carbon. This could limit the potential habitats for silicon-based life.

5. Evolutionary history: Life on Earth evolved based on carbon, with organisms adapted to utilize carbon compounds in various biological processes. Transitioning to a silicon-based biochemistry would require significant evolutionary changes, which may be unlikely given the success of carbon-based life.

Overall, while silicon-based life is an intriguing concept, the challenges and limitations suggest that carbon remains the preferred building block for life as we know it.

There seems to have been a sudden rise in the supply and use of silicon. Maybe a previous silicon-based world was destroyed (there are some youtube videos on this). Then some aliens were cleaning up the aftermath. Human was their slaves. Silicon was a side effect of the alien cleaning or mining operation. People then use the leftover in daily life. Some say the mosaic window panes in churches were added later. People also use sand to make beaches and sell them as luxury, and glassy high-rise buildings, silicon IC chips to make computer and AI possible, etc. This is a very silicon-based age.

Yes, I think arsenic is poisonous for human and most other lives on Earth. But in a very different environment, it might be life sustaining, if it had to. If aliens could manipulate electromagnetic force, maybe they also could manipulate chemistry and do alchemy. Some people actually claimed they had found arsenic based DNA in bacteria, but it was later disproved.

Sand (and glass) is primarily composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is commonly known as silica. While silicon is an element, sand itself is not made of pure silicon but rather silicon bonded with oxygen atoms to form silicon dioxide molecules. Sand and glass can also contain other minerals and materials, depending on its source and composition.

 

[KafkaF]

I think humanity is capable of great and terrible things.

We figured out how the stars work, how the world around us consists of things that constantly pop in and out of existence on a level so small we can't see it. We can see billions of years into the past. We can heal diseases and even paralysis nowadays. Because of brilliant people.

We have created incredible novels and prose and poetry that can bring others to tears. Photos and paintings so beautiful you could stare at then forever. Things that give life meaning to experience.

We also murder each other. Destroy each other. Hurt each other carelessly. The current world runs on the emiseration of billions of people and the deaths of millions. Individual people are often selfish, short-sighted, ignorant and cowardly. Apathetic and selective in their empathy.

Humanity is all of it. Ours are the hands that built incredible statues and the hands that smash them to bits in the name of our religion. Our hands are the hands that allow the paralysed to walk and the hands that fire the gun that shatters someone's spine. Our hands are the hands that write beautiful poetry that helps others get through the day and the hands that write the hateful messages people get that make them want to kill themselves.

Humanity, we are devils and angels both.

 

[sserafim]

I think humanity is capable of great and terrible things.

We figured out how the stars work, how the world around us consists of things that constantly pop in and out of existence on a level so small we can't see it. We can see billions of years into the past. We can heal diseases and even paralysis nowadays. Because of brilliant people.

We have created incredible novels and prose and poetry that can bring others to tears. Photos and paintings so beautiful you could stare at then forever. Things that give life meaning to experience.

We also murder each other. Destroy each other. Hurt each other carelessly. The current world runs on the emiseration of billions of people and the deaths of millions. Individual people are often selfish, short-sighted, ignorant and cowardly. Apathetic and selective in their empathy.

Humanity is all of it. Ours are the hands that built incredible statues and the hands that smash them to bits in the name of our religion. Our hands are the hands that allow the paralysed to walk and the hands that fire the gun that shatters someone's spine. Our hands are the hands that write beautiful poetry that helps others get through the day and the hands that write the hateful messages people get that make them want to kill themselves.

Humanity, we are devils and angels both.

"The wand chooses the wizard, remember … I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter …After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great."

 

[Homo erectus]

The idea of arsenic-based DNA gained attention after a controversial study in 2010 suggested that certain bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their DNA in place of phosphorus. However, subsequent research cast doubt on these findings, with many scientists critiquing the experimental methods and conclusions of the original study. As of now, there is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of arsenic-based DNA in any known life forms. Carbon and phosphorus remain essential elements for the structure and function of DNA in all known life on Earth.

A notable difference between carbon biochemistry and silicon biochemistry is that silicon binds to fewer elements than carbon does. Carbon is unparalleled in its ability to form long chains and complex structures, making it the cornerstone of organic chemistry and the basis for life as we know it. Silicon, while not as versatile as carbon, shares some similar chemical properties and can also form large and complex molecules, albeit with some limitations compared to carbon.

Silicon-based life, while intriguing in theory, presents several challenges and limitations compared to carbon-based life:

1. Stability: Silicon compounds tend to be less stable than their carbon counterparts. This instability could hinder the formation of complex and long-lasting molecular structures necessary for life.

2. Solubility: Silicon compounds are generally less soluble in water than carbon compounds. Water is a universal solvent essential for life as we know it, so limited solubility could pose challenges for biological processes.

3. Reactivity: Silicon-based compounds may react differently with other elements and molecules compared to carbon-based compounds. This could affect the metabolic processes and biochemical reactions necessary for life.

4. Availability: While silicon is abundant in the Earth's crust, it's not as prevalent in the biosphere as carbon. This could limit the potential habitats for silicon-based life.

5. Evolutionary history: Life on Earth evolved based on carbon, with organisms adapted to utilize carbon compounds in various biological processes. Transitioning to a silicon-based biochemistry would require significant evolutionary changes, which may be unlikely given the success of carbon-based life.

Overall, while silicon-based life is an intriguing concept, the challenges and limitations suggest that carbon remains the preferred building block for life as we know it.

Sand (and glass) is primarily composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is commonly known as silica. While silicon is an element, sand itself is not made of pure silicon but rather silicon bonded with oxygen atoms to form silicon dioxide molecules. Sand and glass can also contain other minerals and materials, depending on its source and composition.

If there were a silicon-based world, there must have been good reasons for it. Possibly it's not sentient, and would eliminate all human sufferings (say, some carbon-based tubes in the brain were windows of consciousness). The fusion of human and machine, AI, robots, or whatever, could be heading that direction of making sophisticated silicon-based androids/ humanoids/ lifeforms. Silicon bonds are less stable. It's world would be more fragile. This is basically true for every good thing. Advanced societies require commonsense, mutual respects and assumptions (ethics) to function. It's as fragile as glass. If an adversary wanted to "use democracy to destroy democracy", it's very possible, but also stupid, because people in the past laid down their arms to form societies for mutual benefits. Destroying it would just restart the loop again. Nevertheless, some mad dictators, without checks and balances, could have pressed the MAD nuclear button. Everything were shattered and became dust and sand. The survivors had to rebuild the world from carbon again.

 

[DarkRange55]

If there were a silicon-based world, there must have been good reasons for it. Possibly it's not sentient, and would eliminate all human sufferings (say, some carbon-based tubes in the brain were windows of consciousness). The fusion of human and machine, AI, robots, or whatever, could be heading that direction of making sophisticated silicon-based androids/ humanoids/ lifeforms. Silicon bonds are less stable. It's world would be more fragile. This is basically true for every good thing. Advanced societies require commonsense, mutual respects and assumptions (ethics) to function. It's as fragile as glass. If an adversary wanted to "use democracy to destroy democracy", it's very possible, but also stupid, because people in the past laid down their arms to form societies for mutual benefits. Destroying it would just restart the loop again. Nevertheless, some mad dictators, without checks and balances, could have pressed the MAD nuclear button. Everything were shattered and became dust and sand. The survivors had to rebuild the world from carbon again.

Sand isn't silicone. It's silicone dioxide.

"Silicone" and "silicon dioxide" are two distinct substances:

1. Silicone: Silicone is a synthetic polymer made up of silicon, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen atoms. It is known for its flexibility, heat resistance, and water repellent properties. Silicone is commonly used in various applications such as sealants, adhesives, lubricants, and kitchenware.

2. Silicon Dioxide: Silicon dioxide (SiO2) is a chemical compound consisting of silicon and oxygen atoms. It is one of the most abundant compounds in the Earth's crust and occurs naturally in various forms, including quartz, sand, and glass. Silicon dioxide is used in a wide range of industrial and commercial applications, including as a filler in construction materials, a component in electronics, and as an abrasive in products like toothpaste and cosmetics.

Silicon and carbon are both elements in Group 14 of the periodic table, and they share some chemical similarities. However, there are fundamental differences between them that contribute to the weaker stability of silicone compared to carbon:

1. Bond Strength: Carbon-carbon bonds are generally stronger and more stable than silicon-silicon bonds. This is partly due to the smaller size of carbon atoms, which allows for stronger overlap of atomic orbitals and tighter bonding.

2. Reactivity: Carbon forms stable double and triple bonds with itself and other elements, allowing for the formation of diverse and complex organic molecules. In contrast, silicon tends to form weaker single bonds and has limited ability to form multiple bonds, which can restrict the diversity and stability of silicon-based compounds.

3. Hybridization: Carbon atoms readily hybridize their orbitals to form strong and stable sp3, sp2, and sp hybridized bonds, enabling the formation of diverse molecular structures. Silicon atoms have limited ability to hybridize their orbitals, leading to weaker and less stable bonds compared to carbon.

4. Polymerization: While both carbon and silicon can form polymers, carbon-based polymers (such as plastics and synthetic fibers) tend to be more stable and have a wider range of applications compared to silicone-based polymers. This is due to the stronger and more versatile bonding capabilities of carbon.

Overall, while silicone shares some chemical properties with carbon, the differences in bond strength, reactivity, hybridization, and polymerization contribute to the weaker stability of silicone-based molecules compared to carbon-based ones.


Yes, there have been plenty of early civilizations and cultures, but I think we know about all of them.

Were there sites now under water? Yes but with climate change the oceans are rising so we'll lost that valuable information.

Was there an Atlantis? Sort of, off the coast of Greece. I think that Atlantis existed, but that the accounts of it are off by a scale factor of 10 in the size, so the surface area was 1% as large as the myth. That lets it fit into the Mediterranean, where volcanic events could easily account for the story as passed down through the ages. This is not a hypothesis that I came up with, but one that I read about thats from many, many years ago...

We are very good at detecting traces, so a global civilization such as ours would not remain hidden.
There are other possibilities – for example, a civilization that went off into space could have erased its footprint on earth.
Or local civilizations less advanced than ours could have remained undetected if they had stayed in the coastal areas that got drowned at the end of the Ice Age.

Also, some of the civilizations that we do know of were more advanced than we give them credit for – the antikythera mechanism is my favorite example, with some of the incredible stonework in the Andes Mountains also impressive.
At our scale of civilization, there would be a strange layer in the sediment that would show traces of plastics, metals, concrete, or isotope variations. Amber is roughly as durable with many plastics, and many millions of pieces of amber have been discovered without finding any fossilized plastics. No gold coins in sediment layers, no deposits of stainless steel artifacts…
However, a civilization on the scale of the Roman Empire could have been hidden by the passage of time.

I think humanity is capable of great and terrible things.

We figured out how the stars work, how the world around us consists of things that constantly pop in and out of existence on a level so small we can't see it. We can see billions of years into the past. We can heal diseases and even paralysis nowadays. Because of brilliant people.

We have created incredible novels and prose and poetry that can bring others to tears. Photos and paintings so beautiful you could stare at then forever. Things that give life meaning to experience.

We also murder each other. Destroy each other. Hurt each other carelessly. The current world runs on the emiseration of billions of people and the deaths of millions. Individual people are often selfish, short-sighted, ignorant and cowardly. Apathetic and selective in their empathy.

Humanity is all of it. Ours are the hands that built incredible statues and the hands that smash them to bits in the name of our religion. Our hands are the hands that allow the paralysed to walk and the hands that fire the gun that shatters someone's spine. Our hands are the hands that write beautiful poetry that helps others get through the day and the hands that write the hateful messages people get that make them want to kill themselves.

Humanity, we are devils and angels both.

"We are now gods, but for the wisdom."
- Eric Weinstein

 

[Homo erectus]

Sand isn't silicone. It's silicone dioxide.

"Silicone" and "silicon dioxide" are two distinct substances:

1. Silicone: Silicone is a synthetic polymer made up of silicon, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen atoms. It is known for its flexibility, heat resistance, and water repellent properties. Silicone is commonly used in various applications such as sealants, adhesives, lubricants, and kitchenware.

2. Silicon Dioxide: Silicon dioxide (SiO2) is a chemical compound consisting of silicon and oxygen atoms. It is one of the most abundant compounds in the Earth's crust and occurs naturally in various forms, including quartz, sand, and glass. Silicon dioxide is used in a wide range of industrial and commercial applications, including as a filler in construction materials, a component in electronics, and as an abrasive in products like toothpaste and cosmetics.

Silicon and carbon are both elements in Group 14 of the periodic table, and they share some chemical similarities. However, there are fundamental differences between them that contribute to the weaker stability of silicone compared to carbon:

1. Bond Strength: Carbon-carbon bonds are generally stronger and more stable than silicon-silicon bonds. This is partly due to the smaller size of carbon atoms, which allows for stronger overlap of atomic orbitals and tighter bonding.

2. Reactivity: Carbon forms stable double and triple bonds with itself and other elements, allowing for the formation of diverse and complex organic molecules. In contrast, silicon tends to form weaker single bonds and has limited ability to form multiple bonds, which can restrict the diversity and stability of silicon-based compounds.

3. Hybridization: Carbon atoms readily hybridize their orbitals to form strong and stable sp3, sp2, and sp hybridized bonds, enabling the formation of diverse molecular structures. Silicon atoms have limited ability to hybridize their orbitals, leading to weaker and less stable bonds compared to carbon.

4. Polymerization: While both carbon and silicon can form polymers, carbon-based polymers (such as plastics and synthetic fibers) tend to be more stable and have a wider range of applications compared to silicone-based polymers. This is due to the stronger and more versatile bonding capabilities of carbon.

Overall, while silicone shares some chemical properties with carbon, the differences in bond strength, reactivity, hybridization, and polymerization contribute to the weaker stability of silicone-based molecules compared to carbon-based ones.


Yes, there have been plenty of early civilizations and cultures, but I think we know about all of them.

Were there sites now under water? Yes but with climate change the oceans are rising so we'll lost that valuable information.

Was there an Atlantis? Sort of, off the coast of Greece. I think that Atlantis existed, but that the accounts of it are off by a scale factor of 10 in the size, so the surface area was 1% as large as the myth. That lets it fit into the Mediterranean, where volcanic events could easily account for the story as passed down through the ages. This is not a hypothesis that I came up with, but one that I read about thats from many, many years ago...

We are very good at detecting traces, so a global civilization such as ours would not remain hidden.
There are other possibilities – for example, a civilization that went off into space could have erased its footprint on earth.
Or local civilizations less advanced than ours could have remained undetected if they had stayed in the coastal areas that got drowned at the end of the Ice Age.

Also, some of the civilizations that we do know of were more advanced than we give them credit for – the antikythera mechanism is my favorite example, with some of the incredible stonework in the Andes Mountains also impressive.
At our scale of civilization, there would be a strange layer in the sediment that would show traces of plastics, metals, concrete, or isotope variations. Amber is roughly as durable with many plastics, and many millions of pieces of amber have been discovered without finding any fossilized plastics. No gold coins in sediment layers, no deposits of stainless steel artifacts…
However, a civilization on the scale of the Roman Empire could have been hidden by the passage of time.

"We are now gods, but for the wisdom."
- Eric Weinstein

If there were a huge population of silicon chips walking on Earth, and there was a huge explosion, anything could happen. Things could break and then things could oxidize. The Younger Dryas event could have been a cover for a major clash of civilizations. Some suggest that it was a comet, causing an unusual layer of quartz and glass in North America and Europe. I trust you on the facts and science. I also try to explore skepticism and alternative theories. History and archeology are major sources of lie. "Who Controls the Past Controls the Future", said Forrest Gump.

Atlantis is too far away. There have been many wars in the past 2 centuries, especially the 2nd half of 19th C. Nowhere in the world seemed to be unaffected. People died and moved around. Nationalism was high. Stories and wishful thinking might well have emerged in that environment. The rulers certainly want people to believe this is the best of times, hence the sudden rapid progress in technology not seen in thousands of years.

 

[DarkRange55]

If there were a huge population of silicon chips walking on Earth, and there was a huge explosion, anything could happen. Things could break and then things could oxidize. The Younger Dryas event could have been a cover for a major clash of civilizations. Some suggest that it was a comet, causing an unusual layer of quartz and glass in North America and Europe. I trust you on the facts and science. I also try to explore skepticism and alternative theories. History and archeology are major sources of lie. "Who Controls the Past Controls the Future", said Forrest Gump.

Atlantis is too far away. There have been many wars in the past 2 centuries, especially the 2nd half of 19th C. Nowhere in the world seemed to be unaffected. People died and moved around. Nationalism was high. Stories and wishful thinking might well have emerged in that environment. The rulers certainly want people to believe this is the best of times, hence the sudden rapid progress in technology not seen in thousands of years.

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
- George Orwell, 1984

Yes, history is written by the victor.

 

[sserafim]

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
- George Orwell, 1984

Yes, history is written by the victor.

So true. Btw, you're being hailed on another thread

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...ink-life-is-worth-living.156164/#post-2406242

 

[DarkRange55]

So true. Btw, you're being hailed on another thread

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...ink-life-is-worth-living.156164/#post-2406242

 

[sserafim]

"With great power comes great responsibility."

 

[DarkRange55]

If there were a huge population of silicon chips walking on Earth, and there was a huge explosion, anything could happen. Things could break and then things could oxidize. The Younger Dryas event could have been a cover for a major clash of civilizations. Some suggest that it was a comet, causing an unusual layer of quartz and glass in North America and Europe. I trust you on the facts and science. I also try to explore skepticism and alternative theories. History and archeology are major sources of lie. "Who Controls the Past Controls the Future", said Forrest Gump.

Atlantis is too far away. There have been many wars in the past 2 centuries, especially the 2nd half of 19th C. Nowhere in the world seemed to be unaffected. People died and moved around. Nationalism was high. Stories and wishful thinking might well have emerged in that environment. The rulers certainly want people to believe this is the best of times, hence the sudden rapid progress in technology not seen in thousands of years.

I believe you are referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis

The Earth's crust is moving all the time, we have these great tectonic upheavals that happen occasionally so is it geologically possible for the Earth to transform itself in such a way that an entire past civilization was completely wiped out without a trace.

 

[DarkRange55]

If there were a huge population of silicon chips walking on Earth, and there was a huge explosion, anything could happen. Things could break and then things could oxidize. The Younger Dryas event could have been a cover for a major clash of civilizations. Some suggest that it was a comet, causing an unusual layer of quartz and glass in North America and Europe. I trust you on the facts and science. I also try to explore skepticism and alternative theories. History and archeology are major sources of lie. "Who Controls the Past Controls the Future", said Forrest Gump.

Atlantis is too far away. There have been many wars in the past 2 centuries, especially the 2nd half of 19th C. Nowhere in the world seemed to be unaffected. People died and moved around. Nationalism was high. Stories and wishful thinking might well have emerged in that environment. The rulers certainly want people to believe this is the best of times, hence the sudden rapid progress in technology not seen in thousands of years.

Pax is a state of peace that occurs when one power holds an overwhelming military force. Examples of Pax are the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) or Pax Britannica (1815–1914 AD). When one global military exists, it is easy for people to conduct trade safely, and for people to go about their business as normal. For a good portion of the world, there is no need for the people to worry about protection from foreign invasion or from injury from violent internal conflict. Yes, there are areas in which violence occurs, but nothing compared to what would happen if people were invading left and right. The world is in a state as close to perfect as it is going to get. We are currently in a state of Pax Americana. We aren't seeing another world war for a while.

There is something called, "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" which was based on the observation that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" and Friedman's point is that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. There have been a few minor counter examples since this theory was proposed, but I think the underlying justification and logic still holds.

If there were a silicon-based world, there must have been good reasons for it. Possibly it's not sentient, and would eliminate all human sufferings (say, some carbon-based tubes in the brain were windows of consciousness). The fusion of human and machine, AI, robots, or whatever, could be heading that direction of making sophisticated silicon-based androids/ humanoids/ lifeforms. Silicon bonds are less stable. It's world would be more fragile. This is basically true for every good thing. Advanced societies require commonsense, mutual respects and assumptions (ethics) to function. It's as fragile as glass. If an adversary wanted to "use democracy to destroy democracy", it's very possible, but also stupid, because people in the past laid down their arms to form societies for mutual benefits. Destroying it would just restart the loop again. Nevertheless, some mad dictators, without checks and balances, could have pressed the MAD nuclear button. Everything were shattered and became dust and sand. The survivors had to rebuild the world from carbon again.

The survivors had to rebuild the world from carbon again.
our biochemistry is based on carbon.
The fusion of human and machine, AI, robots, or whatever, could be heading that direction of making sophisticated silicon-based androids/ humanoids/ lifeforms.
As I have stated several times: I personally favor the merger scenario – our primate brain did not get rid of our mammalian brain, which didn't get rid of our reptilian brain, which in turn did not get rid of our chordate reflexes, which in turn did not get rid of our genetic intelligence in the individual cells, so why would we expect our electronic intelligence to get rid of our current intelligence rather than becoming another layer?
Nevertheless, some mad dictators, without checks and balances, could have pressed the MAD nuclear button.
It should be noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost did turn into a war. And there were aspects of the the American government that believed, rightfully so, in my opinion, at the time we would have won the war with what they would describe as an acceptable risk of casualties which would have been in the 10's of millions likely.
If the US were to have a nuclear exchange with Russia today, for example: We may "win" this nuclear exchange. It wont matter though because our lives will be ruined. Maybe we'll kill 80% of the Russian population and they'll only kill, I don't know, 20% of the US population. Maybe they'll only get a chance to destroy 25% of the major metropolitan areas, maybe they'll only destroy half of the ports and shipping capacity.
I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the stuff that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's stuff certainly the naval and air assets. But I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot.
But complete nuclear exchange would not cause the extinction of the human species.
The Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas was likely caused by a combination of factors, including changes in ocean circulation due to the influx of freshwater from melting glaciers, changes in solar radiation, and possibly a comet or asteroid impact. These factors disrupted the climate system, leading to a rapid cooling period around 12,900 to 11,700 years ago.

Youngest Toba eruption - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that the eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia, around 74,000 years ago, caused a volcanic winter and possibly a prolonged cooling period. This eruption is thought to have been one of the largest in the last two million years, leading to significant environmental effects and potentially affecting human populations and biodiversity. However, there is ongoing debate among scientists about the extent of its impact on global climate and human populations.
Humanity's global population dropped down to only a few thousand individuals.
The earth has undergone 5 mass extinction events.

What causes mass extinctions?

evolution.berkeley.edu

If there were a huge population of silicon chips walking on Earth, and there was a huge explosion, anything could happen. Things could break and then things could oxidize. The Younger Dryas event could have been a cover for a major clash of civilizations. Some suggest that it was a comet, causing an unusual layer of quartz and glass in North America and Europe. I trust you on the facts and science. I also try to explore skepticism and alternative theories. History and archeology are major sources of lie. "Who Controls the Past Controls the Future", said Forrest Gump.

Atlantis is too far away. There have been many wars in the past 2 centuries, especially the 2nd half of 19th C. Nowhere in the world seemed to be unaffected. People died and moved around. Nationalism was high. Stories and wishful thinking might well have emerged in that environment. The rulers certainly want people to believe this is the best of times, hence the sudden rapid progress in technology not seen in thousands of years.

Things could break and then things could oxidize.
Silicone itself does not oxidize into silicon dioxide (SiO2). Silicone is a synthetic polymer made up of silicon, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen atoms, whereas silicon dioxide is a compound composed of silicon and oxygen atoms bonded together in a specific crystalline structure. However, silicone products may degrade over time due to exposure to oxygen, heat, or other environmental factors, but this degradation does not result in the formation of silicon dioxide in the same way that silicon metal would oxidize to form silicon dioxide.

1. Glass: Glass is typically composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2) molecules, just like quartz, but the arrangement of these molecules in glass is amorphous, meaning they lack a long-range, ordered structure. In glass, the SiO2 molecules are randomly arranged, giving glass its characteristic non-crystalline nature.

2. Quartz: Quartz is also composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2) molecules, but unlike glass, it has a well-defined crystalline structure. In quartz, the SiO2 molecules are arranged in a repeating pattern, forming a crystal lattice. This ordered arrangement of molecules gives quartz its crystalline structure and specific properties such as hardness, clarity, and piezoelectricity.

Why didn't we fine trinitite or nuclear waste?

Trinitite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The half-life of nuclear waste can vary widely depending on the specific isotopes present in the waste. Nuclear waste typically contains various radioactive isotopes produced during nuclear reactions, such as uranium, plutonium, and various fission products. Also these are just half-lives.
The half-life of a radioactive substance does not mean that it will fully decay within that time frame. Rather, the half-life represents the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms in a sample to decay into a stable or less radioactive form.
For example, if a substance has a half-life of 10 years, after 10 years, half of the radioactive atoms will have decayed, leaving half still remaining. After another 10 years (20 years total), half of the remaining radioactive atoms will decay, leaving a quarter of the original amount, and so on.
While radioactive decay continues over time, it never fully eliminates the radioactive substance, as some atoms will always remain. However, over many half-lives, the amount of radioactive material becomes increasingly negligible.

For example:
- Uranium-235 (^235U) has a half-life of approximately 703.8 million years.
- Plutonium-239 (^239Pu) has a half-life of approximately 24,100 years.
- Cesium-137 (^137Cs) has a half-life of approximately 30.17 years.
- Strontium-90 (^90Sr) has a half-life of approximately 28.79 years.

These are just a few examples, and there are many other isotopes present in nuclear waste with different half-lives. The long half-lives of some isotopes mean that they remain radioactive for thousands or even millions of years, posing challenges for the safe disposal and management of nuclear waste.

Maybe this is what you are referring to?

Tartarian Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Homo erectus]

I believe you are referring to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis

The Earth's crust is moving all the time, we have these great tectonic upheavals that happen occasionally so is it geologically possible for the Earth to transform itself in such a way that an entire past civilization was completely wiped out without a trace.

Lost civilizations can be in many forms. Do people really know every place on Earth? Maybe you do. There are places where people like Clinton, Hawking, Trump have visited, but had been unknown the the public until they decided to tell the story themselves. Some other great powers other than the U.S. and Russia might well be hidden and operating on Earth. Only special government units have contact with them.

There isn't much solid information about Atlantis, Mu continent, etc. Socrates (Plato) said a few lines about Atlantis. Did Socrates or Plato really exist anyway? History in its most honest form has been rewritten over and over again. The scribes added and subtracted things every time a script was copied. Are the pyramids high quality and precise. There are actually many gaps between the bricks. It might look like a dumping site for construction waste, if people were told that way.

Modern engineers have demonstrated they have the leisure and ability to build (sorry, move) large ancient Egyptian temples when they built the Aswan Dam. By contrast, the Sphinx looks like a toy.

 

[DarkRange55]

Lost civilizations can be in many forms. Do people really know every place on Earth? Maybe you do. There are places where people like Clinton, Hawking, Trump have visited, but had been unknown the the public until they decided to tell the story themselves. Some other great powers other than the U.S. and Russia might well be hidden and operating on Earth. Only special government units have contact with them.

There isn't much solid information about Atlantis, Mu continent, etc. Socrates (Plato) said a few lines about Atlantis. Did Socrates or Plato really exist anyway? History in its most honest form has been rewritten over and over again. The scribes added and subtracted things every time a script was copied. Are the pyramids high quality and precise. There are actually many gaps between the bricks. It might look like a dumping site for construction waste, if people were told that way.

Modern engineers have demonstrated they have the leisure and ability to build (sorry, move) large ancient Egyptian temples when they built the Aswan Dam. By contrast, the Sphinx looks like a toy.

Archeologists and geologists might disagree. Yes, thats why we examine geological record, anthropology, philology, ect. Not just scripts and texts.

My cousin has a bachelors and PhD in architecture and a masters in industrial design from a top school. He can explain the pyramids better than I can. But long story short, it wasn't aliens or whatever. But I can give it a shot, if you'd like.

Its hard to hide construction projects of the magnitude of Mt. Yamantau or Cheyenne Mountain. Plus the resources needed. I do, however, find things interesting like Soong Dong cave discovered in 1990. I'm sure the government has secret bases in remote areas. But today it's hard to hide anything from satellites. The NRO's job is to track enemy nuclear submarines, for example. They have ~100 satellites more powerful than the Hubble scanning earth all the time. (I can link to this).

Was there an Atlantis? Sort of, off the coast of Greece.

Both Plato and Socrates are historical figures widely accepted to have existed. However, like many figures from ancient history, there are occasional fringe theories or skeptical viewpoints regarding their existence. These viewpoints are not widely supported by mainstream scholarship, which overwhelmingly affirms the existence of both Plato and Socrates based on historical texts, archaeological evidence, and their significant influence on subsequent philosophical thought.

Cemetery Wind is an example, NRO is an example, Delta Force is an example. I'm sure there's other units. Maybe not entire branches of the military, per se. But after 9/11, PBS discovered that over 1,500 agencies were created, over 2,000 companies were contracted and over 1.5 times as many people who live in DC were granted Top Secret clearance. The government didn't acknowledge the NRO and Delta's existence until the '90's. The CO is kept secret. The budgets are classified, same with the CIA's. The Pentagon has a separate black budget.
All black projects (super secret) are funded beyond the "experimental" budget items, by including funds in other projects, so these projects provide "shelter" from direct oversite funding. They really did not pay $400 for a hammer. Projects like the the F-35 could actually be an intelligence community money laundering scheme for slush funds. Or it could be a hybrid (being delayed so they can put money in continuously while siphoning most of it off for other uses, but still progressing to an eventual conclusion). Or it could be just a colossal boondoggle kept alive to keep jobs alive in various key congressional districts.

They didn't keep nuclear secrets very long. One of the key scientists working on it was a Russian spy.

I personally like to deal in the world of facts and empirical data.

 

[Homo erectus]

Pax is a state of peace that occurs when one power holds an overwhelming military force. Examples of Pax are the Pax Romana (27 BC to 180 AD) or Pax Britannica (1815–1914 AD). When one global military exists, it is easy for people to conduct trade safely, and for people to go about their business as normal. For a good portion of the world, there is no need for the people to worry about protection from foreign invasion or from injury from violent internal conflict. Yes, there are areas in which violence occurs, but nothing compared to what would happen if people were invading left and right. The world is in a state as close to perfect as it is going to get. We are currently in a state of Pax Americana. We aren't seeing another world war for a while.

There is something called, "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" which was based on the observation that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's" and Friedman's point is that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. There have been a few minor counter examples since this theory was proposed, but I think the underlying justification and logic still holds.

The survivors had to rebuild the world from carbon again.
our biochemistry is based on carbon.
The fusion of human and machine, AI, robots, or whatever, could be heading that direction of making sophisticated silicon-based androids/ humanoids/ lifeforms.
As I have stated several times: I personally favor the merger scenario – our primate brain did not get rid of our mammalian brain, which didn't get rid of our reptilian brain, which in turn did not get rid of our chordate reflexes, which in turn did not get rid of our genetic intelligence in the individual cells, so why would we expect our electronic intelligence to get rid of our current intelligence rather than becoming another layer?
Nevertheless, some mad dictators, without checks and balances, could have pressed the MAD nuclear button.
It should be noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost did turn into a war. And there were aspects of the the American government that believed, rightfully so, in my opinion, at the time we would have won the war with what they would describe as an acceptable risk of casualties which would have been in the 10's of millions likely.
If the US were to have a nuclear exchange with Russia today, for example: We may "win" this nuclear exchange. It wont matter though because our lives will be ruined. Maybe we'll kill 80% of the Russian population and they'll only kill, I don't know, 20% of the US population. Maybe they'll only get a chance to destroy 25% of the major metropolitan areas, maybe they'll only destroy half of the ports and shipping capacity.
I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the stuff that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's stuff certainly the naval and air assets. But I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot.
But complete nuclear exchange would not cause the extinction of the human species.
The Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas was likely caused by a combination of factors, including changes in ocean circulation due to the influx of freshwater from melting glaciers, changes in solar radiation, and possibly a comet or asteroid impact. These factors disrupted the climate system, leading to a rapid cooling period around 12,900 to 11,700 years ago.

Youngest Toba eruption - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that the eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia, around 74,000 years ago, caused a volcanic winter and possibly a prolonged cooling period. This eruption is thought to have been one of the largest in the last two million years, leading to significant environmental effects and potentially affecting human populations and biodiversity. However, there is ongoing debate among scientists about the extent of its impact on global climate and human populations.
Humanity's global population dropped down to only a few thousand individuals.
The earth has undergone 5 mass extinction events.

What causes mass extinctions?

evolution.berkeley.edu

Things could break and then things could oxidize.
Silicone itself does not oxidize into silicon dioxide (SiO2). Silicone is a synthetic polymer made up of silicon, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen atoms, whereas silicon dioxide is a compound composed of silicon and oxygen atoms bonded together in a specific crystalline structure. However, silicone products may degrade over time due to exposure to oxygen, heat, or other environmental factors, but this degradation does not result in the formation of silicon dioxide in the same way that silicon metal would oxidize to form silicon dioxide.

1. Glass: Glass is typically composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2) molecules, just like quartz, but the arrangement of these molecules in glass is amorphous, meaning they lack a long-range, ordered structure. In glass, the SiO2 molecules are randomly arranged, giving glass its characteristic non-crystalline nature.

2. Quartz: Quartz is also composed of silicon dioxide (SiO2) molecules, but unlike glass, it has a well-defined crystalline structure. In quartz, the SiO2 molecules are arranged in a repeating pattern, forming a crystal lattice. This ordered arrangement of molecules gives quartz its crystalline structure and specific properties such as hardness, clarity, and piezoelectricity.

Why didn't we fine trinitite or nuclear waste?

Trinitite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The half-life of nuclear waste can vary widely depending on the specific isotopes present in the waste. Nuclear waste typically contains various radioactive isotopes produced during nuclear reactions, such as uranium, plutonium, and various fission products. Also these are just half-lives.
The half-life of a radioactive substance does not mean that it will fully decay within that time frame. Rather, the half-life represents the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms in a sample to decay into a stable or less radioactive form.
For example, if a substance has a half-life of 10 years, after 10 years, half of the radioactive atoms will have decayed, leaving half still remaining. After another 10 years (20 years total), half of the remaining radioactive atoms will decay, leaving a quarter of the original amount, and so on.
While radioactive decay continues over time, it never fully eliminates the radioactive substance, as some atoms will always remain. However, over many half-lives, the amount of radioactive material becomes increasingly negligible.

For example:
- Uranium-235 (^235U) has a half-life of approximately 703.8 million years.
- Plutonium-239 (^239Pu) has a half-life of approximately 24,100 years.
- Cesium-137 (^137Cs) has a half-life of approximately 30.17 years.
- Strontium-90 (^90Sr) has a half-life of approximately 28.79 years.

These are just a few examples, and there are many other isotopes present in nuclear waste with different half-lives. The long half-lives of some isotopes mean that they remain radioactive for thousands or even millions of years, posing challenges for the safe disposal and management of nuclear waste.

Maybe this is what you are referring to?

Tartarian Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no need to dwell on the chemistry. I was talking about a hyperthetical situation of some ancient or hidden civilizations. Who knows what was happening behind the scene? If in some prior conflict, a large army of robots were killed, data centres and other infrastructure destroyed, incinated, the waste were then dumped on Earth, it might have triggered people to start using silicon and related compounds as semiconductors, and for solar panals, buildings, beaches, deserts, etc.

 

[DarkRange55]

There is no need to dwell on the chemistry. I was talking about a hyperthetical situation of some ancient or hidden civilizations. Who knows what was happening behind the scene? If in some prior conflict, a large army of robots were killed, data centres and other infrastructure destroyed, incinated, the waste were then dumped on Earth, it might have triggered people to start using silicon and related compounds as semiconductors, and for solar panals, buildings, beaches, deserts, etc.

But you see, that's the thing I know a lot of chemical engineers - so for example, this hypothetical situation about silicone: Silicone itself is created through a chemical process called siloxane polymerization, which involves extracting silicon from silica and combining it with oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen.

 

[Homo erectus]

Archeologists and geologists might disagree. Yes, thats why we examine geological record, anthropology, philology, ect. Not just scripts and texts.

My cousin has a bachelors and PhD in architecture and a masters in industrial design from a top school. He can explain the pyramids better than I can. But long story short, it wasn't aliens or whatever. But I can give it a shot, if you'd like.

Its hard to hide construction projects of the magnitude of Mt. Yamantau or Cheyenne Mountain. Plus the resources needed. I do, however, find things interesting like Soong Dong cave discovered in 1990. I'm sure the government has secret bases in remote areas. But today it's hard to hide anything from satellites. The NRO's job is to track enemy nuclear submarines, for example. They have ~100 satellites more powerful than the Hubble scanning earth all the time. (I can link to this).

Was there an Atlantis? Sort of, off the coast of Greece.

Both Plato and Socrates are historical figures widely accepted to have existed. However, like many figures from ancient history, there are occasional fringe theories or skeptical viewpoints regarding their existence. These viewpoints are not widely supported by mainstream scholarship, which overwhelmingly affirms the existence of both Plato and Socrates based on historical texts, archaeological evidence, and their significant influence on subsequent philosophical thought.

Cemetery Wind is an example, NRO is an example, Delta Force is an example. I'm sure there's other units. Maybe not entire branches of the military, per se. But after 9/11, PBS discovered that over 1,500 agencies were created, over 2,000 companies were contracted and over 1.5 times as many people who live in DC were granted Top Secret clearance. The government didn't acknowledge the NRO and Delta's existence until the '90's. The CO is kept secret. The budgets are classified, same with the CIA's. The Pentagon has a separate black budget.
All black projects (super secret) are funded beyond the "experimental" budget items, by including funds in other projects, so these projects provide "shelter" from direct oversite funding. They really did not pay $400 for a hammer. Projects like the the F-35 could actually be an intelligence community money laundering scheme for slush funds. Or it could be a hybrid (being delayed so they can put money in continuously while siphoning most of it off for other uses, but still progressing to an eventual conclusion). Or it could be just a colossal boondoggle kept alive to keep jobs alive in various key congressional districts.

They didn't keep nuclear secrets very long. One of the key scientists working on it was a Russian spy.

I personally like to deal in the world of facts and empirical data.

I also see the world in facts and empirical data. But I am cautious and skeptical. I don't blindly repeat what other people or authorities say as truth, as if there is no doubts in "widely accepted" claims.

 

[DarkRange55]

There is no need to dwell on the chemistry. I was talking about a hyperthetical situation of some ancient or hidden civilizations. Who knows what was happening behind the scene? If in some prior conflict, a large army of robots were killed, data centres and other infrastructure destroyed, incinated, the waste were then dumped on Earth, it might have triggered people to start using silicon and related compounds as semiconductors, and for solar panals, buildings, beaches, deserts, etc.

I think it's fine to speculate, but if we're going to do that, it should probably be within the realm of what's reasonably plausible or reasonably feasible. There's really no reason to postulate something like that. I also just think in someways, some of these ideas derivate the human achievement.
I just personally do not make giant leaves and assumptions about the nature of reality. I personally only believe in that which can be verified through empirical evidence, or at least strongly suggested by empirical evidence, or at the very least what's plausible based on what we understand about the natural world.

I also see the world in facts and empirical data. But I am cautious and skeptical. I don't blindly repeat what other people or authorities say as truth, as if there is no doubts in "widely accepted" claims.

Well, take evolution, for example. there's more evidence to support evolution than there is gravity. I don't think we really need any competing series with something like that. I don't think the theory of heredity or the gene theory or germ theory really need any competing ideas.

So whenever I do speculate about something say theoretical physics, which is much more open for room to speculate - I also think that the way people form a valid opinion is by listening to the facts and opinions put forward by experts. I think it's always important to be skeptical, but within reason. I have no reason to doubt an aerospace engineer, telling me the fluid dynamics of how a plane flies through the sky.

I think it's fine to speculate, but if we're going to do that, it should probably be within the realm of what's reasonably plausible or reasonably feasible. There's really no reason to postulate something like that. I also just think in someways, some of these ideas derivate the human achievement.
I just personally do not make giant leaves and assumptions about the nature of reality. I personally only believe in that which can be verified through empirical evidence, or at least strongly suggested by empirical evidence, or at the very least what's plausible based on what we understand about the natural world.

Well, take evolution, for example. there's more evidence to support evolution than there is gravity. I don't think we really need any competing series with something like that. I don't think the theory of heredity or the gene theory or germ theory really need any competing ideas.

So whenever I do speculate about something say theoretical physics, which is much more open for room to speculate - I also think that the way people form a valid opinion is by listening to the facts and opinions put forward by experts. I think it's always important to be skeptical, but within reason. I have no reason to doubt an aerospace engineer, telling me the fluid dynamics of how a plane flies through the sky.

I guess my other issue is just if you're going to propose a hypothesis that is competing that you need to put forward an alternative explanation with evidence. so for example, these people that doubt the cosmological model of the big bang, OK fine, but what is the alternative explanation to cosmic microwave background radiation?

 

[Homo erectus]

I think it's fine to speculate, but if we're going to do that, it should probably be within the realm of what's reasonably plausible or reasonably feasible. There's really no reason to postulate something like that. I also just think in someways, some of these ideas derivate the human achievement.
I just personally do not make giant leaves and assumptions about the nature of reality. I personally only believe in that which can be verified through empirical evidence, or at least strongly suggested by empirical evidence, or at the very least what's plausible based on what we understand about the natural world.

Well, take evolution, for example. there's more evidence to support evolution than there is gravity. I don't think we really need any competing series with something like that. I don't think the theory of heredity or the gene theory or germ theory really need any competing ideas.

So whenever I do speculate about something say theoretical physics, which is much more open for room to speculate - I also think that the way people form a valid opinion is by listening to the facts and opinions put forward by experts. I think it's always important to be skeptical, but within reason. I have no reason to doubt an aerospace engineer, telling me the fluid dynamics of how a plane flies through the sky.

I guess my other issue is just if you're going to propose a hypothesis that is competing that you need to put forward an alternative explanation with evidence. so for example, these people that doubt the cosmological model of the big bang, OK fine, but what is the alternative explanation to cosmic microwave background radiation?

Yes, knowledge can be a hindrance to creativity and imagination. For every small step, a knowledgeable person checks the deviation against his knowledge base and abandon the whole curiosity upon any slight disagreement.