Gian

Agreed. I was interested to read in a kids' science book (my scientific level) that although there's no such number as √-1 but it's still possible to use it. They were able to deploy √-1 to prove faster-than-light travel would be impossible. Gobsmacked! Cheerz GIAN😀

So how do you propose to get human beings to the planets? 66y later they did; Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon🙂

Exactly so🙂 Lucky no one said that to the Wright brothers🙂

I believe it was in 1995 that Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Conjecture, that no integer greater than n=2 could possibly satisfy the equation an + bn = cn Not knowing anything about Maths beyond GCSE I hope I've got that right. Does Andrew Wiles' proof have any practical application? Eg does it allow space engineers or architects or anyone else to do something they could not do previously? Or is this purely knowledge for its own sake? Not that there's anything wrong with that of course! Either way it's still beautiful and fascinating cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Mars is just the beginning🙂

Exactly. Estimates vary, but one figure says that when the human population gets to 10 billion the Earth can no longer sustain the human family. Governments will be forced to look elsewhere. So the quicker we get to 10 billion people the better, so we can start living on Mars and become a spacefaring species Cheerz GIAN🙂xxx

So what's your solution to the Why Aren't We In Space problem?

I didn't say make giving birth compulsory lol. I just wish the human family was doing something a bit more interesting than PlayStation games Spelling: effect, not "affect." So do you think space exploration is something which should happen (I can't imagine anyone interested in science saying otherwise) and if so why isn't it happening and how do we make it happen? Cheerz GIAN🙂

Hope so

The worst thing about abortion and birth control -which are both consequences of secularism (NOT atheism) and commercialism is that they're sooo boring. Until about 150y ago, I guess birth control wasn't needed much (it was there, but not much) because in order to have 3 or 4 surviving children women had to conceive all their childbearing years. (In the 17thC, King James VII & II fathered 27 children. Only 8 grew up, and only 4 reached old age) If women did that now the Earth's population would be 150 billion in 20y, so a major population problem. In the 1970s it was said that by now 2024 people would be living on other planets. We're not, and for all our science & tech modern life is all sex and shopping (yawn.) No abortion or contraception, and we'd be having this conversation in a pub on Mars. Birth control stunts progress Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Other robots of course They bought it with their last few pennies. No more cash afterwards It would be. I guess they'd have to go through the industrial revolution again, with the same result, repeating cyclically. Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Exactly so. There'd be one small group of aristocrats who'd own all the factories, which would gradually dwindle to almost nothing as the only people the aristocracy could by from and sell to would be each other. The rest of the proletariat would try be self-sufficient farmers, operating in a cashless barter economy.

What would it look like in a totally free-market capitalist economy? (Not that there is such a thing of course) They could I guess if they used their last cash to buy it, and livestock and seed. Then being penniless they'd have to start subsistence farming. There's no other option

Thanks, well reskilling could involve going back to the land for some. But I was just wondering what would happen theoretically (in the style of how many angels fit on a pinhead) if there really were absolutely no paid jobs left whatsoever Cheerz GIAN🙂

Adoption of course. Maybe the legal adoption of unwanted children before they're born could be introduced. In a large hospital near where I live, girls go into the maternity unit for abortions. However, I don't know if it's on the same floor but certainly in the same building there's the Southwest Regional Fertility Clinic, which is for young couples who are having difficulty conceiving a child. Same building: Abortions... and Fertility treatments. A rather Orwellian irony? Wow! thanks for your story, that's encouraging🙂 That's not the issue I raised here. I just wanted to know if it was theoretically possible to transfer a child from one womb to another. Or maybe a child can be born as soon as a mother knows she's carrying him? I guess even if he's just a cluster of cells it's just a question of maintaining temperature, with blood oxygen and nutritional supply, so maybe that's a future possibility. Perhaps one day women may be able to have children without the aggro of a 9 month pregnancy. cheerz GIAN🙂

Hi kids I don't find it will happen literally. Eg some politicians may look a bit robotic but they're not made of metal and wires. But there is ever increasing automation of traditional jobs, especially manual jobs, eg someone's invented a machine which can lay bricks 3x faster than a man. On a theoretical basis, what would society look like if ALL paid employment became automated so there's no more jobs for human beings? I guess all money in the economy would eventually flow to the owners of the means of production, people who own all the robots and robot factories. Everyone else, the jobless, cash-less proletariat, would I guess have to go back to the land, to the state they were in before the industrial revolution, and then they'd eventually have to start the whole process of industrialisation again. Does this sound valid? Any other ideas? Cheerz GIAN🙂

Thanks. Well hopefully that will change GIAN🙂XXX

Most of the time that's true. An apartment in a skyscraper is usually one large concrete box, so it's best to lock yourself inside in the event of a fire. But it can't be guaranteed that will always be the case🔥

I gather that with surrogacy, an egg can be fertilised inside a woman then transferred to another who can give birth. Re abortion If a woman were to have an abortion at say 11 weeks gestation, would it in theory be possible to "transfer" the child to another womb rather than killing him? Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

It means the definition of religion in his God Delusion book really is a delusion, because that's not what religious people believe. The definition of God he puts there is just so many groundless assertions. It's a bit like if I wrote a book called The Science Delusion all about how stupid Dawky and other scientists are for believing the Earth is flat. But they don't believe the Earth is flat, so such a book would be a pointless imposture. That's why when I asked him about it, a clergyman friend of my mum and dad's said "We aren't particularly worried about Professor Dawkins." Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX

Dawkins is one of those atheists who needs God in order to have something not to believe in

Absolutely agree. Tbh to make these mega-skyscrapers safe would not I think be very expensive. You're right, the best way is to have as many different rapid evacuation mechanisms as possible. When building it, imagine an outer frame over the whole building - it would look like builders scaffolding - with a honeycomb of metal fire escape steps from top to bottom. Handholds on the outer skin for those brave souls who want to try climbing down (one poor sod was filmed trying to do so in the WTC on 9/11 but of course with nothing to hold onto he fell) 100 x 1300 ft ropes automatically let down from the roof, parachutes, anything. None of these is foolproof of course (if one were able to climb down the outside of the building it would probably take 2 hours to reach the ground) and were the WTC to happen again the loss life would still be v high but a few additional mechanisms would at least have helped to save some lives

The difference is that ethnicity is an unchangeable characteristic, whereas being a communist is a personal decision. I shouldn't think even Senator McCarthy would have had an issue with "communist" children.

The dislike of Jews was a dislike of their adherence to their religion, and their non-acceptance of Christianity. It's like some people dislike communists because of, well, their communism. I believe that in the 1950s in the US, people could lose their jobs and have all sorts of other penalties if there was the slightest hint of communist sympathy. Or it's like people who dislike Trump supporters, because of Trump supporters' support for Mr Trump and general mindset. Neither of those dislikes is racism, is it? Cheerz GIAN🙂XXX