J'Dona

I wonder... I'm not sure if this is related to the first question but it does to the last post. If one person was travelling at, say, 0.9c in one direction, and the other in 0.9c in the opposite direction, and they pass each other, then what would the two see of the other? (bearing in mind that light always appears to travel at c, and the rate at which the other would technically be approaching the other would be 1.8c) I could probably find an example of this in my version of "The Elegant Universe" and I know it can be explained somehow, but I'm at college now... EDIT: Heh, it's my birthday, I finished a 29300 word novella today, and I've got a Numerical Methods class in fifteen minutes, so overall I'm a little happy.

That's interesting... so some lifeforms on Earth even use silicon like that? I wonder how they transport it in the body. That's quite helpful as it brings in evolution, thanks NavajoEverclear. Hopefully I'll have more answers tomorrow... I typed up the important notes from this thread (took an hour to edit) for the biology teacher at my college, and she's goign to look through it and get back to me tomorrow. She might be able to help me out on the biochemical side of things... I'll just have to wait and see. Thanks for all the feedback so far guys!

Wow, thanks. Hopefully this worked then: Notice how the line on the right splits into pixels... not exactly sure what's happening here. It almost looks like the second curve has asymptotes at about e/2

I know this topic hasn't bee touched for a couple weeks, but there's something interesting that I found. I'm sure you guys have drawn a graph and noticed this, but just in case... I drew the graph in a trail version I downloaded of a program called Autograph (we use it at my college). If you put the graph of y^x = x^y into it, you get a graph with the line y = x (not including the origin, I would assume) but it has a second curve on it. The curve crosses the points (2, 4) and (4, 2), and interestingly, it crossed the line y = x at (e, e). You probably all know this so I'm not contributing anything (I read this thread before and didn't see any mention but I may have missed it), but that suggests something about the equation of the second curve, if there is a separate equation for it. I'm only even making a bother over this because this was an equation I saw ages ago (from this thread, actually!) and I'm just curious. It's the first thread I really read on these forums. I'd post a link to a picture of it, but I can't find any good web picture hosts. :/

Well, I haven't voted yet, but I think they did make a Human-Chimp hybrid once (or tried). I heard that in some lab in China, they impregnated a female chimp with human sperm or something, and she was three months pregnant before people found out, and broke into the lab in a riot, killing her. :/ I guess that gives you some answers for your poll right there... However, I'm sure it's possible. The difference between the DNA of Humans and Chimps is about the same as the difference between horses and donkeys, which can breed. As for what rights a hybrid would have, I'm not even going to guess. :/

Erf... I hope I didn't scare you guys off. You don't have to leave feedback or anything, of course; I'm really just putting this down for my own record. I promise that my posts will never be this big again (not for a while, anyway).

Thanks for the idea Skye. Well, I've thought about that, and then some... and this is going to be a long post. I think I've thought of a solution that solves both problems (oh the pain!). I'm probably taking this from far too much of a chemist's perspective, so if any/all of this does not work or is even just difficult, please let me know and I'll try to fix it somehow. I repeat again: I DO NOT know very much about biology, and it matters now that this species will use carbon. I think it's acceptable to allow some fuzziness over certain areas, since some areas are simply not know to people now, and can be assumed to be sorted out later, but not anything glaring. Anyway, for those who really want to read it, here we go: Imagine the species really does incorporate both silicon and carbon... but the emphasis is on the carbon. That is, they're pretty much carbon-based on the inside, except for their extrenal scales, which are composed of small, lubricated (somehow, probably carbon oils) silicon-based crystals, like SiO2 or, if possible, SiC (that would just be so cool ). Food sources: Their main food sources would probably be a few particular types of complex molecules, containing mostly carbon but some silicon (as their source of silicon), chlorine to assist in the breakdown of SiO2, oxygen, and the water that carbon-based life needs. Their mouth has a windpipe of sorts and a mostly sealed throat. It can hold some of this mixture at the back and filter the needed chemicals through a layer of mucus, similar to that in the Human stomach (which can resist HCl - which these aliens would have in their 'throat' due to the presence of water and chlorine - thus protecting carbon-based tissue below). Complex carbon molecules: The complex molecules would have been formed by the action of a sort of carbon-silicon transitional bacteria in caves underground (carbon-based bacteria, but silicon tolerant), where they are more protected from the chlorine filled atmosphere due to geothermal vents, which flush out any chlorine. These molecules would be similar to protiens on Earth, as they are carbon-based, but would have to incorporate a very small amount of silicon in some way (the silicon would remain in the alien's body permanently once in the form of crystals, unlike organic carbon which needs replacement, so the amount needed is lower). I don't actually know what sort of chemicals these need to be, as I know nothing of boilogy, but they must be similar to those on Earth and therefore feasible. The chlorine would mainly be in the form of clouds high in the atmosphere, and in any surface water. Surface water: Surface water itself would be scarce, however. as this planet is close to its sun and average temperatures are around the 90 degrees Celsius (or 363 Kelvin) mark. Since any ponds or rivers that might form would be erratic at best, the aliens have to (or had to, before they developed advanced technology over millenia) keep moving to keep up with the water, and have to rely on other species to guide them to the next acid rainfall. This brings in the altruism I mentioned before, but whether it's evolutionarily sound I've still got to sort out. I hope it is. The mouth: Anyway, back to the alien's mouth. At the back, they can suck oxygen and Cl2 through another layer of mucus, but this is more of a membrane, and can draw the oxygen and chlorine into their lungs for use (since this is suited for hydrous conditions, the alien is, incidentally, capable of breathing underwater... though I'm not sure if the pressure difference is quite safe). However, they will not always have enough chlorine gas to live off of (since the clouds will be high up), so they need to be able to use HCl as a substitute for at least short periods if they need to, even if it is, in terms of energy used, an expensive procedure. The solution they're 'drinking' at the back will be filled with HCl acid, and the alien is able to secrete a strong organic oxidising agent of some sort (I would imagine this difficult to product... maybe safe within the body but only oxidises in the presence of a catalyst in the mouth?), to liberate Cl2 gas from the HCl. Any gas which does not immmediately dissolve in the surrounding water will bubble out of it and be taken in through the wind pipe, and any H2 gas produce by the oxidation would, I assume, form water with the oxidising agent. The original complex molecules would need to be soluble, but since the mucus itself would prevent H20 from passing through (as in the Human stomach, I'm sure), I'm not sure how they'd get into the stomach. Ummm... perhaps the oxidation reactions, where the HCl concentration would be lowest, simultaneously thin the mucus at the point where the chemials enter the throat, allowing water and these chemicals in, but a minimum of acid. Maybe the whole process could be simplified if someone could explain to me how chemicals like these are separated in humans, like in the intestines or something. I'm totally just making this up right now. Finally, the paragraph ends. I mean... finally, the chemicals reach the stomach, or stomachs, or 'reactors' if you wish. *Sigh*... the squeaking of my mouse is really starting to annoy me (computer mouse, that is). Round two... First stomach: The first stomach is large, and deals with the main digestion. Since this is mostly similar to humans, I won't explain anything here, except that the stomach, instead of containing acid to dissolve the molecules, instead contains a small amount of base to neutralise what's left of the acid from the throat. There's no need for acids to break down the large pieces of food, because they're all in the form of unconnected molecules already. Thus, this stomach is also quite small. The rate at which chemicals come in is slow, and matches the rate out, so the needed storage capacity is very little. At least this means they'll never get obese. Their mouth can hold a lot though (for their size, about as much as their stomachs) so they have some backup. Second stomach: But, this is where the silicon comes in again. During the digestion in the stomach above, SiO2 will be produced, and now it settles at the bottom. The larger stomach is funnel shaped, and the heat and pressure in it forces the solid grit slowly into the much smaller stomach below. I forgot to mention that these aliens are quite small themselves (about a metre tall, though slightly hunched forward and, regrettably, bipedal so as not to disrupt chemical digestoin while walking), so it's only about 5 cm (2 in) across in our terms. Anyway, once the SiO2 filters in, the chlorine that the alien breathed in all those five seconds ago is put in, and viola: SiCl4 is formed! Since a very small amount of water will have gotten in, and water reacts quite vigorously with SiCl4 (hence all the trouble), the stomach itself will be quite hot as the odd reactions occur, but acceptably so (only 450K or so?). Otherwise, conditions in here are anhydrous, and hot. The reaction between any water and SiCl4 wil produce Si(OH)4 and HCl, which after a time are flushed out when the stomach is not digesting and empties (there will be large, mucus-lined arteries to carry the small amounts of solid Si(OH)4 and HCl - which would otherwise be impractical - to come out somewhere down the side of the legs). Si(OH)4 will build up very slowly over time in the stomach, however, and eventually lead to digestive failure and death, this being the leading cause of death before the invention of... surgery. Ok, what else? Hmm... oh yes, excretion. Dang... Excretion: Waste from the 'hot' stomach is sorted, but what about that from the SiCl4, waste respiration (CO2... they do produce this, don't forget!), or solid/liquid waste? Well, they won't be producing any solid waste (it's all in the form of soluble chemicals, and they're quite hot as well). Liquid waste from the larger stomach is easy to remove... perhaps it can be funneled down the same channel or a parallel one to the other stomach's. Waste gases... they could be removed through gills on the neck or shoulders (this alien will have arms), since it's easy to expel without letting any liquids/acids in. In fact this might solve the pressure problem when breathing underwater; if the alien does 'circular breathing', like some people can, then the pressure will remain constant, so a balance can be found that lets the most air in without sucking too hard. You know what... I think I'm done. Or at least, that's all I'm doing for now. I just spent about three whole hours on this. I'll bet it's all wrong. If anyone's read the entire thing... then wow, I'm impressed. I'm not even doing that after typing it! Given that this jargonic leviathan purports to be scientific, maybe I should have done it in formal style, but then it would have been death to write (and read). Flip. Why do I need to write a book now? I just wrote one! EDIT: This post takes over two screens. I have no life. At least I'm only a college student; I'm not expected to have one. EDIT2: I've just realised that I haven't even looked at what happens to the SiCl4 after... grrr, I don't want to get back into this again after all that. Can anyone think of how the SiCl4 could be used to produce the silicon compundbones or scales, and then the chlorine removed? The SiO2 would likely collect right under the scales, where they are slowly removed as the layer of oil sort of 'bleeds' out. Thus, if they don't get enough of their food the oil flow will stop, and the SiCl4 in the blood will eventually deposit more and more SiO2 under the scales, which is very painful when the crystals get larger. Also, if there was suddenly a wound or tear in the scales, the SiO2 would crystallise around it, 'clotting' it, but then it would take months to fully heal and be fall out.

Hmm... well, 'artistic license' is a bit of a euphmism for wishful thinking (or laziness, in some cases), which is understandable, but I'm not going to have silicon-based life if it's impossible. You make a good point... but I can't help but wonder, exactly how are the reactions of silicon and carbon different, and what conditions might be needed for silicon to form, say, an animo acid? (if it's even possible, which I doubt, and even assuming that other life would need amino acids as such) Maybe they could be carbon-based, but incorporate silicon as well, for skeletal structure or even just to produce energy? I certainly don't believe though that I can only resort to carbon-based life... they've found sulphur-based life on Earth, deep underground. EDIT: Ah, I've just looked it up online. I should have realised, really, that silicon's got a lower electronegativity. I'm not exactly sure how that makes the bonds weaker, but it certainly makes them more polar, so that's why SiO2 is a solid and CO2 is a gas... and the closest silicon equivalent to an amino acid would probably be a crystal. :/

Heh, thanks NavajoEverclear, but I wont part with it for any less than a couple trillion dollars, at least. I'm Canadian though. That might be worth something! (another half trillion I'd say?) Yeah, that's a major concern of mine -Demosthenes-. I know life would be much, much different on another planet, and its the single greatest concern I have about creating any alien species. I mean, take Star Trek for example. It's a great series for morals, but you've got hundreds of intelligent species... and every single one either looks like a human, or a human with makeup (Species 8472 excused), and even if this weren't the case... they all THINK like humans. I mean, if humans really discovered aliens there would be some serious communication difficulties, simply because our psychologies would be so fundamentally different (evolving and living on different planets with different histories), that I think calling a Klingon a plausible alien would be an affront to nature. Klingons are humans who uphold honor and war, basically, and you get races like that on Earth even. The formula for species in Star Trek is as follows: Human + useless spot on forehead above nose + outstanding social quirk = Alien! So again, making realistic aliens is a priority for me. The only problem is that humans really couldn't comprehend real aliens at first glance, let alone invent them. I'm more concerned about he biology at the moment, and yes, I am thinking of it in terms of carbon-based life. This is mostly because I haven't any experience with real silicon-based life (nobody does) and I'm trying to set up a new biology from there. I'm trying to imagine how this species would evolve, or even survive, but it's difficult because I know so little about biology (but then, since all biology is carbon-based on Earth, perhaps this is a plus. I do know something about chemistry, at least). I know this sounds naff, and probably evolutionarily unsound, but this species was supposed to have developed in a way that they are naturally altruistic. As in, due to scarcity of resources and the different environments they are in, only a coordinated effort could help them survive (some chemicals are underground, so only certain ground species can reach them and bring them out, and certain chemicals are in the atmosphere or are very erratic and difficult to locate, so airborne species would search for them and alert the other animals). How a species could even evolve this way is unclear... perhaps resources became scarcer gradually and the instincts developed. This isn't really an issue of biochemistry though, and more of psychology. Gah, I'm rambling again, sorry. Anyway, since I want the science in this to be totally accurate, I have to give it some more thought. I asked about any other fluid reaction products between SiO2 and something else, and she says that SiCl4 is the only one. I could work with this... but I've still no idea how anything resembling proteins (assuming they do have anything resembling proteins) could form, and if not, what else?

Thanks for the reply. Maybe more people will post... please guys, if my ideas are pure bolognium, let me know, I don't want to build story history over science that doesn't work. I'm not sure what else this species could use other than water though... I'm looking at this from a chemistry perspective (I know nothing about biology) but I would imagine that if this species were to remain flexible in terms of movement, it would need a large amount of liquid in the body, just like humans are something like 90% water, and H20 seems like one of the only liquids likely to be plentiful enough at this temperature range. I can imagine a species with two circulatory systems (water and SiCl4), but it would be pretty dangerous for them. Those scales I was talking about before would reduce the number of cuts and therefore possible reactions between them, but whether those scales are even possible is something else entirely. Oh, another thing I realised... if this planet really did have chlorine clouds, it would have no ozone layer whatsoever (since Cl2 reacts with O3), so radiation would be higher, thus affecting the entire evolutionary history. Maybe Sayonara can give some suggestions here, since he knows something about evolution.

Maybe it sounds ridiculous, but once Hubble's mission is over, instead of attaching a rocket to send it into the atmosphere, why not use the rocket to launch it into space, out of the solar system (or at least a polar orbit outside the planes of orbits of the planets)? That way, some time centuries from now, people could retreive it if they wanted to and put it in a museum or something. I mean, Hubble is a part of history now, and after it's mission is over it'll be an artifact. It just seems rather corporate to just destroy it after it stops being useful, despite all its done. :/ (In my view, 'corporate' is an offensive verb)

Right, we agree then. Based on everything that's been said, if maths isn't science as such, then I'd agree with the original quote. Except how it seems to say that stamp collecting anoraks are scientists. Joking, of course...

Sorry AntiMagicMan... I get confused when threads get too long because I forget what happened at the start. :/ I'm not even sure which question I was asking, which is probably why it may have changed. I understand what you're saying now... I do realise that physics can't be derived from mathematics. Maths doesn't tell about the properties of molecules or why certain forces exist, to name a few things. Certainly, maths is useful for understanding physics, but it just seems virtually impossible to explain it without. Physics could be reduced to forces and physical properties, and the specific relationships would be unknown, even though they would still be there and observable (and even if general things like "Electrostatic field strength decreases with increasing distance" were intact). Just like, say, biology; if we knew nothing about chemistry we would still know how certain species would interact and that certain molecules. But we couldn't say why this vital vitamin is, exactly, so vital, and what part it plays in body chemistry, or why animals are attracted to one another because we wouldn't know about pheromones. Of course it's rather pedantic of me to classify anything that involves the concept of change as maths (like increases and equalities). But those concepts come up in any set of physical laws. Maybe I'm just classifying mathematics too broadly. I'm still willing to bet though that some parts of physics cannot be explained without any higher math at all. How would one explain those parts of quantum physics involving complex numbers without maths? I'm not an expert on it so you don't have to answer, of course... if you tried I'd cede the point immediately. You know what, ignore this whole post. I think I might have just changed the question again, though I don't know how. I should just keep quiet about these things in the future, or maybe just make shorter posts so that I don't lose the point. :/

"Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. When white light passes through a prism it seperates into its seperate component colours." Well, "opposite" and "equal" are mathematical terms. To say that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, is saying that every force has an another force of equal value, and an opposite sign. This does involve maths, since even the concept of equality or proportionality is mathematical. You can say that white light separates into its different colours in a prism without maths, that's true. But you can't explain why it does in the way it does without looking at the angles and using trigonometry. You can use a lot of different prisms and look at the way light comes out to get a good idea of the distribution for any prism you choose, but that will only be an approximation, not a law (the laws of refraction and reflection, which are based on angles and mathematics). "Mathematics laws are universal? Like parallel lines don't ever intersect. Oh, wait, that's true in Cartesian space, but not e.g. on a sphere. Science is inductive. Math is deductive. Science explains nature. Math explains itself." Parallel tangents on a sphere might never intersect, unless they did in the third dimension, but then they aren't parallel. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. :/ But, you're right about mathematics being deductive. I forgot that normally the scientific method is associated with finding evidence to back up a hypothesis, which, if sufficient evidence is found, might be labelled a theory. And science is inductive, and maths is a deductive, I agree. That last line is quite powerful. All I could say to argue is that science cannot explain nature without maths, or so I believe. One could made the argument that maths comes from philosophy or some such, which stems from psychology, which comes from biology, from chemistry, from physics... and therefore must be scienctific, but that doesn't change the whole fact that maths doesn't use evidence, which I hadn't thought of before. Anyway, I've got to go now (maths class). I'm going to have to think about that swansont. P.S. I'm not sure how to get quotes to work...

I know I said that I'd reply later, but I saw this just breifly this morning and I'll try posting quickly now. You're right BrainMan... humans invented maths. Maybe it's philosophy then... I don't see how mathematics could not be considered science. The whole system of maths is basically of hypotheses eventually backed up by mathematical proof, universal laws etc., which is the best example of the scientific method that exists, as far as I know. Mathematics is the least subjective of all subjects because there is no way to argue against a mathematical proof, unless it's faulty. Dang, out of time, have to go now... While I'm gone, if someone could explain any aspect of physics without maths (as opposed to every, as you say), I'd concede the point.

AH, I see what you're saying. Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the actual laws that governed them, sorry. However, not all of physics can be devoid of maths, just as not all of chemistry can be devoid of physics. Without maths, the laws of physics would still work, of course, but I'm not sure how anybody could explain it in a scientifically verifiable way, although perhaps how could, just as if we knew nothing of the paws of physics, chemists could still describe how chemicals reacted, but would not be able to explain why. Some parts of physics do not need maths to explain it (just look at any Stephen Hawking book for a sample of physics minus the maths). It's all very well to give a non-mathematical explanation, for example to say that the electrostatic force reduces as distance increases, as the distance between and the distance travelled by force carrier particles increases, and that the interaction in chemistry are determined by these and so on, but without actual mathematical formulae and statistics, this cannot be proven. Even the concept of changing distances or of an increase in something is mathematical; one cannot even produce relative physical laws to explain physics based on these, because it's all based on mathematical formulae and relationships. (e.g. to even say that a larger mass has more gravity suggests proportionality between them, which is a mathematical relationship) Perhaps unrelated, but here's a problem with the quote that thought up just as I was getting into bed... I got out to type this, maybe I shouldn't :/ Given that: "All science is physics and stamp collection," and also given that mathematics does not draw from any other fields like physics, and is certainly not stamp-collecting, this quote is basically saying that maths is not science. Since physics draws at least something from maths (in terms of explanation only), which is apparently non-scientific, it cannot satisfactorily explain the laws of physics from a scientific viewpoint, and thus all other branches of science are non-scientific, and all that remains of the quote is: "All science is stamp collection." Okay, I'm reaching and I know it's just a quote. Maybe I'm just too tired to set up a proper argument (though I'm apparently not tired enough to forget throwing in a disclaimer like this to save my skin, as I will surely need to). I've got to sleep now, so if someone responds I won't see it for about 16 hours... provided I'm not banned by then for posting such drivel that I even believe to be true.

But physics is based on those... the methods used in mathematics cannot be reduced to rely on other fields. Physics has to draw from mathematics to explain certain phenomenon, like the change in gravitational field strength with distance, or any mechanics... these things can't be explained without mathematical formulae, even if they are a result of natural forces, just as you can't explain a chemical reaction without going into the physics between the interacting reactants even though the forces would make it happen anyway.

However, nothing explains mathematics, and mathematics explains physics. It goes on the other way too. Biology explains psychology, which explains philosophy, which explains law... and then you're getting into the humanities instead of science.

I was going to post this on the thread below this one in the Biochemistry section, but I thought I'd make a new thread for it, since it's (I believe) a different approach. I'm planning on writing something big, a science fiction novel based in the future where a few alien races have been discovered (the storyline doesn't matter). One of the races is supposed to be silicon-based. Since I know this is a problem - some scientists go so far as to say silicon-based life itself is impossible - I have to fully consider the biology making them possible. Since this is fiction, I can invent whatever conditions I want, so long as they could possibly exist. Anyway, here's what I've thought of so far, and I was hoping some of you guys could take a look and make some suggestions or tear it apart as appropriate. Silicon-based life has the problem that, in biology, it'll tend to form Si02. How, I'm not sure, as I don't know much about biology or the necessary conditions. I thought that one way around the problem of SiO2 crystals in the bloodstream for this species might be for - in the particular biologies on this planet - the life-forms to breathe in and use Cl2, to react with the SiO2 as so: SiO2 + 2Cl2 ---> SiCl4 Since SiCl4 is a liquid at the temperatures in the human body (although possibly a gas in the greater temperatures needed for reactions in silicon-based life), it could be transported easily. However, this introduces more problems, such as that this species could not ingest water without exploding, due to the violent reaction between H20 and SiCl4, and thus the need for a second, independant circulatory system, assuming that internally the two could be separated (since this species will probably be in contact with or use water). Also, this planet on which they form would necessarily be covered in chlorine clouds, which would react with any surface or gaseous water, forming things like HCl (perhaps the species could convert HCl with O2 in the body to form the needed Cl2, of which the amount that does not immediately react with water in the body may be used?) Or perhaps there is a way to isolate SiCl4 in water and prevent it from reacting, or another more inert fluid reaction product between SiO2 and another reactant all together? Another thing I was wondering (probably just wishful thinking, but it would be quite cool) was if this species could incorporate silicon carbide somehow. Such as for bones, or scales (provided the joints are highly lubricated, of course). It would certainly be an evolutionary advantage, but whether the species could ever accompany carbon as well, since carbon would have the habit of reacting on its own, is a major problem here. It would be interesting if they could, but obviously realism is more important than cool factor, despite what Hollywood films might portray. Bear in mind that conditions are pretty flexible... it may not be likely to form, but artistic license allows anything that's at least possible. The star type, mineral composition of the planet, atmosphere, gravity, history, etc., are all changeable. By the way, does anyone know of any protien or amino acid type molecules based on silicon? I can see that the intermolecular forces would be higher, but how else would they be different to organic molecules? If anyone can offer some suggestions, they would be much appreciated. There is still the pressing problem of rigidity (it's necessary for this species to be reasonably flexible in my story), and whereas reactions to remove SiO2, if possible, would help, it's still only a part of the way there. If nobody here has a degree in Chemistry (I sure don't, I've only done A-Level Chemistry in the UK), I could ask my professor, but I'm not sure which questions to ask without sounding like a complete newbie.

Actually, the Andromeda galaxy is in blue shift at the moment, as I recall, so it's moving towards our galaxy. In about 3 billion years they'll collide. Which proves that not everything is in red shift... as all your arguements seem to rely upon :/

It depends on whose prosperity we're talking about Science has certainly helped the northern hemisphere to prosper, in general, but when the Spanish walked onto South America with shiny guns, the Incas didn't prosper very much from it... Whether humans prosper from science or not basically falls down to how the new knowledge is used. The world is made up of many nations, all of which would prefer that only their own prospered (and maybe their allies). Most science is shared amongst them, like medical technology and electronics, which help to improve living conditions, lifespans, etc. and make the human race as a whole more prosperous. But a lot of scienctific research isn't shared because of its, um, 'alternative' applications ie. nukes, which tend to be designed explicitly to make another nation rather less prosperous. Science has also brought about new methods of, for example, argiculture, which have massively increased today's food production, but will eventually cause severe soil erosion to the point of almost non-production. The methods exist to manage the land effectively without ecological damage, but to make it really as effective at feeding the people as it is now, a lot more research would be needed, but that research is currently going into synthesising new artificial fertilisers So as for whether or not we owe our prosperity to science... that depends on which nation you live in...