Topic: What would happen if.... (Read 4827 times)

rogue_77 · « **on:** December 28, 2006, 07:46:11 PM »

What do you all think would happen if humanity found out that some crucial part of our existence(example; computers) caused cancer?

I realize this has already happened times over with other things like lead paint and such stuff, but I was just thinking and that thought popped into my head because EVERYONE uses computers which means like 90% of the world population would die from it.

There would be fallout.

I guess the question I might be really wanting to ask is.. 2 parter.. Could humanity go back to the way it was before computers? Then, were we better off without computers in the first place?

I see the internet as brining us more together as a world because I've talked with people from all over the place and they were mostly pretty cool(when will that word get outdated?) but I feel its making the world move to fast. I don't have a high tech job but still I feel the buzz, people rushing.

I dunno where I'm going... Just thought I'd post a thought or 5.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2006, 07:49:33 PM »

Lots of people still smoke and that gives you cancer. I still drink and eat all that crap that people say will kill me someday. Screw Green Tea, that stuff tastes like distilled urine (don't ask). I don't care if it's the same urine that a Buddhist monk would drink, it's still gross!

I don't frankly care if any of these things will kill me, on a long enough timeline EVERYONE's life expectancy drops to zero. If the Internet was found to cause cancer I would likely keep using it anyway. Life's too short as it is to try and stretch it out through self-denial.

Dark Shade · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2006, 04:59:33 AM »

I'm in agreement, actually. Somebody could point a finger at you and say that anything will 'kill you'. Everything in moderation, for the most part. I'm not about to swear off red meat or stop drinking simply because it's going to 'kill me'. So will half the organic vegetables people are growing these days, if eaten to excess. I try and make sure I don't overindulge, but at the same time not write off half of the food and drink I enjoy.

It's not that I want to 'die sooner', I'm just not about to go out of my way to adopt a strategy like that. Again, anyone can point the finger at anybody else, saying whatever they're eating is bound to 'kill them someday'. Virtually everything we see on the market will ultimately harm you in some fashion, so why fight it?

I'm not against anybody who chooses to eat differently, power to you for making that choice. I'm just not going to make that drastic of a change is all.

</two cents>

pbsaurus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 29, 2006, 02:01:03 PM »

Moderation in moderation kills.

Evonus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:08:46 PM »

Actually, believe it or not, it's actually the air we breathe that ends up killing us. Radioactive carbon is in every breath we take, in every bite we eat, and radioactive hydrocarbons are in every ounce of water we drink. As we consume this carbon we break it down and incorporate it into our bodies. It is ultimately this that causes our DNA to splinter and fragments, which eventually causes us to die. So breathing is really what kills us in the long run.

I happen to find computers would be the same way. We could either not use them, and slow medical science, mass communication, and scientific discover, or we could continue to use them, and die of cancer. If we gave them up, we'd honestly probably die sooner. Have you ever looked at the life expectancy preindustrial revolution compared to now. It's astoundingly different.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:15:14 PM »

True radioactive materials can cause DNA damage, but ultimately they may or may not be the underlying cause. It has to be a case by case basis. If someone is run down by a speeding, fully loaded tractor trailer, it isn't really the DNA destruction which is the cause of death is it?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:30:38 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on December 29, 2006, 09:08:46 PM

Actually, believe it or not, it's actually the air we breathe that ends up killing us. Radioactive carbon is in every breath we take, in every bite we eat, and radioactive hydrocarbons are in every ounce of water we drink. As we consume this carbon we break it down and incorporate it into our bodies. It is ultimately this that causes our DNA to splinter and fragments, which eventually causes us to die. So breathing is really what kills us in the long run.

WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT

Actually, that's incorrect. The average human being attenuates far more gamma radiation from cosmic rays and other ambient sources than from carbon-14 decay. It's true, C-14 is in all of us and we take that in via the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat... but the amount is negligable compared to the radiation we receive from space itself and from our friendly neighborhood star. Not to mention, the gammas emitted by C-14 decay are pretty low energy ones compared to other unstable isotopes (like Cobalt-60, for example. That one's pretty nasty).

And when I say "negligable" I mean by an order of magnitude comparing grains of sand to basketballs.

One must also point out that cosmic background radiation ("CBR") is arguably not only the culprit for some DNA damage that leads to things like cancers, but also beneficial mutations.

A number of things can happen when a gamma ray strikes a living cell.

1. The cell is damaged in a way that causes it to simply die.
2. The cell is damaged, but it lives, but the DNA is destroyed so the cell never replicates and is not reproduced once it dies.
3. The cell is damaged, but it lives, but the DNA survives completely intact, and cell replication can occur unhindered.
4. The cell is damaged, but it lives, but the DNA is damaged in some way that alters how it functions.
5. The cell is undamaged.

In the case of #1, most of the time it really isn't an issue unless it happens to a lot of cells at once. If it does, an organism so affected typically experiences something we call "radiation sickness". This is in fact survivable depending on the exposure, but if enough vital cells are killed in this manner, it can be fatal.

In the case of #2, it's much like #1 in that it normally doesn't cause problems unless it happens to enough cells at the same time.

In the case of #3, no harm, no foul.

In the case of #4, that's where we run into some interesting possibilities. One of these possibilities is abnormal reproduction in a detrimental manner, which we typically refer to as "cancer". Other things can cause this (not just radiation), but radiation is typically a really good catalyst for this type of genetic damage, so cancer is a typical side effect of large radiation doses or continual bombardment by smaller doses over time.

However, one of the other results is the potential for mutations. These don't typically happen in the comic book sense -- you won't see babies born with three heads or mutant powers as a result of gamma bombardment, and you won't see a human being turning into some gigantic green creature of pure anger and unstoppable strength. It's usually a lot more subtle than that, and really only noticable over many, many generations.

Without environmental factors that can cause some occasional "deck shuffling" in genetic recombination, we wouldn't have nearly the diversity of life or the frenetic pace of evolution as we see it on this planet. For that we can blame our sun and cosmic rays, predominately.

/long post

Demosthenes · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:38:57 PM »

Disclaimer: Nuclear Science, being the only formal education that I possess, is the only subject upon which I consider myself a bona-fide "expert". On any other subject about which I spew my opinions, your mileage may vary as to its accuracy and/or semblance to reality.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:53:46 PM »

The cumulative effects of radiation may kill a person if exposed long enough. But it is only a cause if the death is attributable to said exposure. Many will die before said cumulative effects, and thus have another cause of death. As Demo pointed out, the above are the possible outcomes on a cellular level due to radiation exposure. Ultimately there are probably numerous causes for said effect (death), and if we were able to measure and properly weight all of the potential causes and their effects, perhaps we could come up with a death algorithm. But my point is, really the difficulty in assigning one cause of death, because there probably isn't just one. Smoke cigarettes and there will probably be detrimental effects to numerous cells, but is this the cause of death if the participant succumbs to lung cancer? A cause sure, but what about the participant's failure to ingest enough antioxidants, or some other preventive measure which may have prevented the tumor? I say it's all multivariate. And probably multivariate to the point of a mind-boggling amount of variables.

So what do we take from this?

A. You're probably going to die
B. There's probably nothing you can do to prevent it long term
3. BizB doesn't always use numbered lists and I don't always use lettered ones.
IV. The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, and is nothing.
E. So be excellent to each other and party on dudes!

rogue_77 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 30, 2006, 12:11:56 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on December 29, 2006, 09:30:38 PM

WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT

blah blah blah...

I disagree.

Scheherazade · « **Reply #10 on:** December 30, 2006, 12:37:22 PM »

Quote from: rogue_77 on December 30, 2006, 12:11:56 PM

I disagree.

How informative.

I think that we could adapt to a world without computers, but only to an extent. Some people wouldn't be able to revert, like me and most of you. But not as many people have computers as you think. Maybe 90% of Americans own computers, but other places like Africa and most of Asia aren't as lucky. They wouldn't be affected at all. So I think that by destroying all computers, the third world countries would elevate themselves and we would fall.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #11 on:** December 30, 2006, 09:42:38 PM »

Quote from: ihatecliches on December 30, 2006, 12:37:22 PM

How informative.

I think that we could adapt to a world without computers, but only to an extent. Some people wouldn't be able to revert, like me and most of you. But not as many people have computers as you think. Maybe 90% of Americans own computers, but other places like Africa and most of Asia aren't as lucky. They wouldn't be affected at all. So I think that by destroying all computers, the third world countries would elevate themselves and we would fall.

I'm pretty sure that most of my computer was made in Asia.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2006, 10:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on December 30, 2006, 09:42:38 PM

I'm pretty sure that most of my computer was made in Asia.

Yes, but your computer wasn't made by most of Asia.

Scheherazade · « **Reply #13 on:** December 30, 2006, 11:03:38 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on December 30, 2006, 09:42:38 PM

I'm pretty sure that most of my computer was made in Asia.

Most of my clothes were made in Indonesia. That doesn't mean all the Indonesians have clothes.

Evonus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2006, 01:31:51 PM »

Well demo has certainly learned me good.

rogue_77 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2006, 01:56:17 PM »

Quote from: ihatecliches on December 30, 2006, 12:37:22 PM

How informative.

I think that we could adapt to a world without computers, but only to an extent. Some people wouldn't be able to revert, like me and most of you. But not as many people have computers as you think. Maybe 90% of Americans own computers, but other places like Africa and most of Asia aren't as lucky. They wouldn't be affected at all. So I think that by destroying all computers, the third world countries would elevate themselves and we would fall.

I kind of wonder sometimes if its possible to find places around the globe that still work like it were the middle ages. I know its possible, but to find somewhere thats slightly advanced like have the modern luxuries like modern medicine, cars, movies, yet live and work like you were "back in the day" without the feel for reliance on computers.

I'm in search of that lifestyle. I would honestly probably rather live in the "real" world then be on here, but I feel I'm driven here because I lack things to actually do and I use this computer more of a time wasting device than an object to "get things done." Me personally, I think I'd rather be living back in the 40's-70's.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #16 on:** December 31, 2006, 04:36:09 PM »

So...how would that be anything like the middle ages?

Evonus · « **Reply #17 on:** December 31, 2006, 05:46:12 PM »

Quote from: rogue_77 on December 31, 2006, 01:56:17 PM

I kind of wonder sometimes if its possible to find places around the globe that still work like it were the middle ages. I know its possible, but to find somewhere thats slightly advanced like have the modern luxuries like modern medicine, cars, movies, yet live and work like you were "back in the day" without the feel for reliance on computers.

I'm in search of that lifestyle. I would honestly probably rather live in the "real" world then be on here, but I feel I'm driven here because I lack things to actually do and I use this computer more of a time wasting device than an object to "get things done." Me personally, I think I'd rather be living back in the 40's-70's.

Become Amish, or a metaknight, or all those other people that shun technology and pray all the time.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: What would happen if.... (Read 4827 times)