Archive for abril 23rd, 2016

Boa Informacao Cientifica Porem Fraca Argumentacao Racionalista.

sábado, abril 23rd, 2016

xxxxx

( E melhor assistir o video no TED onde tem transcript, legenda, etc. Copie e paste   http://www.ted.com/talks/kenneth_lacovara_hunting_for_dinosaurs_showed_me_our_place_in_the_universe?language=en

 

xxxx

Meu comentario postado no TED:

Louis Morelli

Posted 4/23/2016
Great job, but the final Mr. Lacovara’s conclusion is a non-sequitur from scientific data. The final message is not the best for humanity salvation from extinction. This history of only 100 millions years and lomited to forces of this solar system are not enough for pointing out our place in the Universe. ……………….. If at the time of 5 mass extinctions no species had the opportunity for choices, and as believed by Mr. Lacovara, only events by chance could coming from the beyond the solar system, the emerged property of free-will at any species would be strongly not probable. Which and how any event by chance could create from nothing a new property where it never existed during the time of 5 mass extinctions? The unique possibility would be ” not expressed potential forces inside the solar system”, like happens with genetics. But, then, Science nas been not able to grasp this potential force, so, Mr. Lacovara is basing its conclusion on a non scientific perspective. ……………… A world view materialistic where mutations at some points in space/time inside this universe are under events by chance, never will get humans suppressing their addictions inherited from animals that would be necessary for the best plan just now. …………… We need something mentally stronger that could re-hardwiring our brains. By another hand, a mystical religious world view that believes in forces or elements coming from outside the solar system is not good also, it is worstt, because people instead trying will not fight, waiting the external miracle. I think that the naturalistic world view suggested by MatrixLight/DNA theoretical models, formulas and conclusions could do the job. …………… Since this issue is such important due being a case of our extinction or salvation, I would appreciate a debate here. Thanks.

xxxxx

00:12 How do you find a dinosaur? Sounds impossible, doesn’t it? It’s not. And the answer relies on a formula that all paleontologists use. And I’m going to tell you the secret.

00:26 First, find rocks of the right age. Second, those rocks must be sedimentary rocks. And third, layers of those rocks must be naturally exposed. That’s it. Find those three things and get yourself on the ground, chances are good that you will find fossils.

00:47 Now let me break down this formula. Organisms exist only during certain geological intervals. So you have to find rocks of the right age, depending on what your interests are. If you want to find trilobites, you have to find the really, really old rocks of the Paleozoic — rocks between a half a billion and a quarter-billion years old. Now, if you want to find dinosaurs, don’t look in the Paleozoic, you won’t find them. They hadn’t evolved yet. You have to find the younger rocks of the Mesozoic, and in the case of dinosaurs, between 235 and 66 million years ago.

01:22 Now, it’s fairly easy to find rocks of the right age at this point, because the Earth is, to a coarse degree, geologically mapped. This is hard-won information. The annals of Earth history are written in rocks, one chapter upon the next, such that the oldest pages are on bottom and the youngest on top.

01:42 Now, were it quite that easy, geologists would rejoice. It’s not. The library of Earth is an old one. It has no librarian to impose order. Operating over vast swaths of time, myriad geological processes offer every possible insult to the rocks of ages. Most pages are destroyed soon after being written. Some pages are overwritten, creating difficult-to-decipher palimpsests of long-gone landscapes. Pages that do find sanctuary under the advancing sands of time are never truly safe. Unlike the Moon — our dead, rocky companion — the Earth is alive, pulsing with creative and destructive forces that power its geological metabolism. Lunar rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts all date back to about the age of the Solar System. Moon rocks are forever. Earth rocks, on the other hand, face the perils of a living lithosphere. All will suffer ruination, through some combination of mutilation, compression, folding, tearing, scorching and baking.

02:52 Thus, the volumes of Earth history are incomplete and disheveled. The library is vast and magnificent — but decrepit. And it was this tattered complexity in the rock record that obscured its meaning until relatively recently. Nature provided no card catalog for geologists — this would have to be invented. Five thousand years after the Sumerians learned to record their thoughts on clay tablets, the Earth’s volumes remained inscrutable to humans. We were geologically illiterate, unaware of the antiquity of our own planet and ignorant of our connection to deep time.

03:36 It wasn’t until the turn of the 19th century that our blinders were removed, first, with the publication of James Hutton’s “Theory of the Earth,” in which he told us that the Earth reveals no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end; and then, with the printing of William Smith’s map of Britain, the first country-scale geological map, giving us for the first time predictive insight into where certain types of rocks might occur. After that, you could say things like, “If we go over there, we should be in the Jurassic,” or, “If we go up over that hill, we should find the Cretaceous.”

04:14 So now, if you want to find trilobites, get yourself a good geological map and go to the rocks of the Paleozoic. If you want to find dinosaurs like I do, find the rocks of Mesozoic and go there. Now of course, you can only make a fossil in a sedimentary rock, a rock made by sand and mud. You can’t have a fossil in an igneous rock formed by magma, like a granite, or in a metamorphic rock that’s been heated and squeezed. And you have to get yourself in a desert. It’s not that dinosaurs particularly lived in deserts; they lived on every land mass and in every imaginable environment. It’s that you need to go to a place that’s a desert today, a place that doesn’t have too many plants covering up the rocks, and a place where erosion is always exposing new bones at the surface. So find those three things: rocks of the right age, that are sedimentary rocks, in a desert, and get yourself on the ground, and you literally walk until you see a bone sticking out of the rock.

05:15 Here’s a picture that I took in Southern Patagonia. Every pebble that you see on the ground there is a piece of dinosaur bone. So when you’re in that right situation, it’s not a question of whether you’ll find fossils or not; you’re going to find fossils. The question is: Will you find something that is scientifically significant? And to help with that, I’m going to add a fourth part to our formula, which is this: get as far away from other paleontologists as possible.

05:43 (Laughter)

05:45 It’s not that I don’t like other paleontologists. When you go to a place that’s relatively unexplored, you have a much better chance of not only finding fossils but of finding something that’s new to science. So that’s my formula for finding dinosaurs, and I’ve applied it all around the world.

06:00 In the austral summer of 2004, I went to the bottom of South America, to the bottom of Patagonia, Argentina, to prospect for dinosaurs: a place that had terrestrial sedimentary rocks of the right age, in a desert, a place that had been barely visited by paleontologists. And we found this. This is a femur, a thigh bone, of a giant, plant-eating dinosaur. That bone is 2.2 meters across. That’s over seven feet long.

06:30 Now, unfortunately, that bone was isolated. We dug and dug and dug, and there wasn’t another bone around. But it made us hungry to go back the next year for more. And on the first day of that next field season, I found this: another two-meter femur, only this time not isolated, this time associated with 145 other bones of a giant plant eater. And after three more hard, really brutal field seasons, the quarry came to look like this. And there you see the tail of that great beast wrapping around me. The giant that lay in this grave, the new species of dinosaur, we would eventually call “Dreadnoughtus schrani.” Dreadnoughtus was 85 feet from snout to tail. It stood two-and-a-half stories at the shoulder, and all fleshed out in life, it weighed 65 tons. People ask me sometimes, “Was Dreadnoughtus bigger than a T. rex?” That’s the mass of eight or nine T. rex.

07:29 Now, one of the really cool things about being a paleontologist is when you find a new species, you get to name it. And I’ve always thought it a shame that these giant, plant-eating dinosaurs are too often portrayed as passive, lumbering platters of meat on the landscape.

07:45 (Laughter)

07:46 They’re not. Big herbivores can be surly, and they can be territorial — you do not want to mess with a hippo or a rhino or a water buffalo. The bison in Yellowstone injure far more people than do the grizzly bears. So can you imagine a big bull, 65-ton Dreadnoughtus in the breeding season, defending a territory? That animal would have been incredibly dangerous, a menace to all around, and itself would have had nothing to fear. And thus the name, “Dreadnoughtus,” or, “fears nothing.”

08:23 Now, to grow so large, an animal like Dreadnoughtus would’ve had to have been a model of efficiency. That long neck and long tail help it radiate heat into the environment, passively controlling its temperature. And that long neck also serves as a super-efficient feeding mechanism. Dreadnoughtus could stand in one place and with that neck clear out a huge envelope of vegetation, taking in tens of thousands of calories while expending very few. And these animals evolved a bulldog-like wide-gait stance, giving them immense stability, because when you’re 65 tons, when you’re literally as big as a house, the penalty for falling over is death. Yeah, these animals are big and tough, but they won’t take a blow like that. Dreadnoughtus falls over, ribs break and pierce lungs. Organs burst. If you’re a big 65-ton Dreadnoughtus, you don’t get to fall down in life — even once.

09:16 Now, after this particular Dreadnoughtus carcass was buried and de-fleshed by a multitude of bacteria, worms and insects, its bones underwent a brief metamorphosis, exchanging molecules with the groundwater and becoming more and more like the entombing rock. As layer upon layer of sediment accumulated, pressure from all sides weighed in like a stony glove whose firm and enduring grip held each bone in a stabilizing embrace.

09:44 And then came the long … nothing. Epoch after epoch of sameness, nonevents without number. All the while, the skeleton lay everlasting and unchanging in perfect equilibrium within its rocky grave. Meanwhile, Earth history unfolded above. The dinosaurs would reign for another 12 million years before their hegemony was snuffed out in a fiery apocalypse. The continents drifted. The mammals rose. The Ice Age came.

10:17 And then, in East Africa, an unpromising species of ape evolved the odd trick of sentient thought. These brainy primates were not particularly fast or strong. But they excelled at covering ground, and in a remarkable diaspora surpassing even the dinosaurs’ record of territorial conquest, they dispersed across the planet, ravishing every ecosystem they encountered, along the way, inventing culture and metalworking and painting and dance and music and science and rocket ships that would eventually take 12 particularly excellent apes to the surface of the Moon.

10:59 With seven billion peripatetic Homo sapiens on the planet, it was perhaps inevitable that one of them would eventually trod on the grave of the magnificent titan buried beneath the badlands of Southern Patagonia. I was that ape. And standing there, alone in the desert, it was not lost on me that the chance of any one individual entering the fossil record is vanishingly small. But the Earth is very, very old. And over vast tracts of time, the improbable becomes the probable. That’s the magic of the geological record. Thus, multitudinous creatures living and dying on an old planet leave behind immense numbers of fossils, each one a small miracle, but collectively, inevitable.

11:47 Sixty-six million years ago, an asteroid hits the Earth and wipes out the dinosaurs. This easily might not have been. But we only get one history, and it’s the one that we have. But this particular reality was not inevitable. The tiniest perturbation of that asteroid far from Earth would have caused it to miss our planet by a wide margin. The pivotal, calamitous day during which the dinosaurs were wiped out, setting the stage for the modern world as we know it didn’t have to be. It could’ve just been another day — a Thursday, perhaps — among the 63 billion days already enjoyed by the dinosaurs. But over geological time, improbable, nearly impossible events do occur. Along the path from our wormy, Cambrian ancestors to primates dressed in suits, innumerable forks in the road led us to this very particular reality. The bones of Dreadnoughtus lay underground for 77 million years. Who could have imagined that a single species of shrew-like mammal living in the cracks of the dinosaur world would evolve into sentient beings capable of characterizing and understanding the very dinosaurs they must have dreaded?

13:03 I once stood at the head of the Missouri River and bestraddled it. There, it’s nothing more than a gurgle of water that issues forth from beneath a rock in a boulder in a pasture, high in the Bitterroot Mountains. The stream next to it runs a few hundred yards and ends in a small pond. Those two streams — they look identical. But one is an anonymous trickle of water, and the other is the Missouri River. Now go down to the mouth of the Missouri, near St. Louis, and it’s pretty obvious that that river is a big deal. But go up into the Bitterroots and look at the Missouri, and human prospection does not allow us to see it as anything special. Now go back to the Cretaceous Period and look at our tiny, fuzzball ancestors. You would never guess that they would amount to anything special, and they probably wouldn’t have, were it not for that pesky asteroid.

14:02 Now, make a thousand more worlds and a thousand more solar systems and let them run. You will never get the same result. No doubt, those worlds would be both amazing and amazingly improbable, but they would not be our world and they would not have our history. There are an infinite number of histories that we could’ve had. We only get one, and wow, did we ever get a good one. Dinosaurs like Dreadnoughtus were real. Sea monsters like the mosasaur were real. Dragonflies with the wingspan of an eagle and pill bugs the length of a car really existed.

14:38 Why study the ancient past? Because it gives us perspective and humility. The dinosaurs died in the world’s fifth mass extinction, snuffed out in a cosmic accident through no fault of their own.

Matrix: Os dinossauros não foram culpados pela sua extinção? Bem… primeiro temos que tentar definer o que era um dinossauro. E claro, nessa definicao vai ter confucao de opoinioes, pelo velho problema de que cada obsrervador tem um construida mentalidade diferente de todos osoutros. Na minha visao, como eu define um dinossauro? Em primeiro ligar, eu vejo um “objeto”. Mas nao e’ um objeto como um pedaco de rocha, uma pedra, ou um galho de arvore caido, seco, sem movimentos.

Estou vendo um objeto onde seus atomos estao organizados de uma maneira muito mais complexa do que numa pedra. Isto me sugere que naquele objeto tem uma vsriedade muito mior de particulas diferenciadas entre si, particulas que cahmo de ” unidades de informcao unica”. Portanto, a historia de eventos naturais, os quais sao movimentos naturais especificos com seus estados temporarios, seus “angular momentos”, naquele ponto de onde emergiu tal objeto, naquela regiao de ambiente do universe natural, foi diferente da historia de eventos que produziu a pedra ou o galho seco que vejo ao lado do objeto dinossauro.

E aqui ja surge um problema a resolver. Aqueles 3 objetos estao agora ali, ladoa lado. Mastodos surgiram daquele ponto, ou um ou alguns, vieram sendo trazidos por foras naturais de outros pontos, o que significaria uma hostoria de eventos passados diferenyte, ou sejaseriam 3 historias difrentes mo sentido que emergiram de 3 pontos diferentes? Ou todos os 3 objetos emergiram do mesmo ponto, porem, as frcas do ponto se separaram a medida que iam avancando no tempo e avcabaram poe se constituirem em objetos bastante diferenciados entre si? Mas existe uma Terceira alternative. E’ possivel qie na unica historia de eventos daquele ponto ambiental especifico, tenha vindo de for a daquele ponto, forcas ineditas, nunca existidas na historia daquele pont. Ao chegar naquele ponto especifico do qual estava emergindo um ou mais objetos, estas forcas se infiltram em um oi mais objetos e passaram a dirigir o desenvolvimento do seu objeto …?

Ora, posso me segurar numa resposta com confianca porque acredito piamente nela: o objeto dinossauro veio do objeto lagarto ou lagartixa, a qual veio do objeto cranguiejo, o qual veio do objeto anfibio, o qal veio de uma bacteria, a qual veio de um ponto que era uma sopa de lementos num determinado ponto maior. No espacode ponto maior tem o objeto pedra, que veio de uma rocha maior, a qual veio de um planeta rochocso, o qual veio de poeira no espaco. E o objeto galho seco, o qual e’ im pedaco extraido tornado inerte nesta extracao, de uma arvore, a qual veio de uma plantinha, a qual veio ce uma celula vegetal, a qual veio de um ponto da mesma sopa qie veio o objeto dinossauro. ntao para encontrar a resposta a questao de quails foram as historias de events naturais que produziram aqueles 3 objetos agora lado a lado, temos que descer ao estado da Natureza quando era uma mera nuvem de poeira flituando no espaco sidereal. Aquela nuvem de poeiratem sua historia especifica, unica a ela, mas uando vamos ve essa historia, descobrimos que dentro dela ela se dividiu em dterminados temos de seu desenvolvimento, em tres sub- historias diferentes

Mas como e porque uma nuvem de poeura flutuando no espaco sidereal e tendo forcas internas se movendo, e stas forca ‘e que fizeram sua historia geral depois do seu estado inicial, como e porquedesta sopa seca e quase gasosa, cosmica, oi este ponti especifico dentro do objeto maior que se chama ” matureza e universal”, a material seria dividida em 3, e em dado momento uma parte dse separaria das oitras devido maior concentracao nela de uns tipos de forcas ou elementos de massa, emesm cntinandoa existir ali no mesmo ponto, lado a lado cm outros duas parted de sua mesma substancia inicial, seguiu uma tendencia diferente das outras duas parts? E mais tarde no tempo, stas duas partsque continuaram unidas apos a primeira separacao de tendencias, tambem se bifurcaram, se tdividiram em das dferentes tendencias? De maneira que hoje, naquele ponto da nebulosa de poeira, temos as tres tendencias se constituind em 3 objetos bastante difertentes unm dos outros?!

Entao, tivemos que regredir aquela primordial porcao de nuvem de poeitra flituando no rspcao e descobrios que nela existiam forcas diferenciafas entre s, elementos diferenciados entre si, e havia nela varias tendencias diferenciadas entre si. E este quadro inicial produziu estes 3 objetos que vejo agora.

Mas… nao posso afirmar com certeza qur foi assim. Pois nao tenho como saber se, apos inciada ahistoria geral daquela nuvem sidereal, nao tenha vindo elementos ou forcas de for a da nuvem, num mesmo tempo ou divididos em tempos dgferentes, que promoveram aquelas divisoes de tendencias. Entao,eu consigo montar uma historia geral daquela nuvem, mas nao posso confiar nela. Seeu quero e preciso de uma histroia geral em que confiar, vou ter que alem daquela nuvem, alem no tempo remote remote re no espaco sidereal. Aquela nuvem formou uma galaxia, esta galaxia e’ im ponto dentro da natureza, rodeadopor outros pontos onde tem outras galaxias, entao pereciso ir ao conjunto destas galaxias, ou seja, ao que chamo de Universo.

Mas nao vou. nao preciso mais perder tempo neste raciocinio porque agora ja sei o quevou encntrar alu: oponto do Universo nao sera suficiente para eu pobter uma historia em que acredite, terei que ir alem deste ponto do universe, ver  que tem ao redor, para saber se de la nao veio algumas forcas e elementos que interferiram na minha historia geral do Universo.

E aqui consigo a definicao para outros tres objetos-fenomenos existentes e interessantes. os fenomenos do ateismo e do deismo. Ateismo ‘e a mente que acredita piamente na sua historia construida do niverso, e esta historia nao contem de maneira alguma forcas ou elementos vinds e for a do ponto do universe; deismo, e’ a mentalidade qie acredita piamente na historia que ela construiu ou elaborou ou pensa ter vistodo universe, e ainda acredita nesta historia que contem forcas e ou elementos vindos de for a deste ponto do Universo. E agnosticismo, e a mentalidade que acredita ela nao tem condicoes de elaborar uma historia confiavel do universe. Eu particularmente nao vejo racionalismo nas duas primeiras mentalidades, entao fico com a Terceira e acredito que sou agnostico.

Com isso podemos voltar a palestra. O orador diz que a terra e’ muito velha, 4,5 bilhoes de anos, que nela existeebulicao, caos de movimentos, jofgode forcas internas e influencias de forcas externas, e neste contexto, existiram dinossauros, os quais conseguiram por 100 milhoes de anos sobreviverem no meio deste caos, mas ate que um evento deste caos foi mais forte que eles todos e neste evento desapareceram como objetos-istemas vivos, e se tornaram ossos que ficaram no meio deste rebulico, intactos, por mais 60 mlhoes de anos. O orador construiu sua versao teorica da historia deste ponto dentro da natureza universal que denominamos ” o Ponto Sistema Solar”, uma versao que nao contem forcas e elementos vindos defora do Sistema solar interferindo nest historia, e ele acredita piamnete nesta historia. O limite usado por lele para construer esta historia e’ o sstema solar, do qual ele nao conhece todas as forcas e elementos que o constutite. Este limite esta estrutuado em outra historia teorica em que ee acredita, que e a historua do ponto dentro da natureza universal chamadode galaxia. Sua historia teorica do Sistema solar se baseou na sua historia teorica da galaxia

Mas ele foi alem, e construiu uma historia teorica do pjnto dentro da natureza universal onde estao as galaxias, uma hstiria de 13,7 bilhoes de anos, que contem big-bangs, e que fala de um ponto dentro da Natureza miss que universal, chamdo de ponto do universe. Ele nao citou nunca as suas hirstorias teoricads da galaxia, d universe, e sto indica com certeza para mim que ele acredita pimante que conhece o Sistema slar e sua historia e que neste conhecimento desta historia e ele tem certeza que nenhuma forca ou element veio das galaxias, ou do universe de galaxias, ou  do ponto maior onde esta o ponto-universo, que tenha interferido na hostria dentro do Sistema solar. Assim ele termina afirmando que existe dentro do calculo das probabilidades, a certza de que todas as probabilidades sao ossiveis de acontecer na Terra, porque a Terra, apesar de seu metabolism interno, existe por muitos bilhoes de anos, dentro entao de um ponto nde o tempo parece estar parado. E dentro destas probabilidades, existe a probabilidade que tem de se confirmer, de acontecer num dia deste infinito numerous de dias, o evento da 6 extincao em massa. Para afirmar isto, ele tem que ter certeza que entre o tempo que aconteceram outras 5 extincoes de massas e o tempo ou interval do tempo da quanta para a sexta xtinao, nada de for a do Sistema slar vai veir oi veio aqui para interferer e midar a histora de algum ponto menor dentro do ponto maior chamdo de Sistema solar.

Alem daafirmar e acreditar que havera uma sexta extincao m massa, que nesta extincao a forma humana nao se sealvara, ele acredita e aforma que dentro doponto Sistema slar existe um ponto chamdoserhumano que tem o libvre-arbitrio e aforca a forca para se salvar deste evento de sexta extincao.

Ate sua crenca de que havera com certeza um sexton eventode extincao em massa, eu concord, apesar de nao concordar com sas versao da hostoria geal e sua crenca numa versao de historia geral. Mas eu vejo despontar entre seu conhecimento veridico de uma sexta extincao e seua crenca de que a humahidade tem o poder de escolher se salvar sdsta extincao, uma confusao mental causando um racioncinio paradoxal que cntem uma controversia interna, que anula racionalmente sua conclusao final. Se nada de fora do Sistema estelar veio intererindo durante o longo tempo wue conteve os 5 eventos  de extincao em massa; se todsos os elementos existentes dentro deste ponto sob estes 5 eventos nuca tiveram a capadidade de escolher entre se salvar ou nao, como e’ o que o Sistema solar criou ultimante uma novidade nunca existida dentro dele que se chama libre-arbitrio, ou seja, a capacidade de um dos elementos dentro do Sistema slar escolher que se quer se salvar ou nao? Olhe que isto se constitue numa … eu nao diria numa nova forca natural pois esta teria que ter emergido do nadae popocado dentro do espaco ds Sistema solar – mas eu diria uma nova, indedita, nunca existindo antes dentro Sistema slar… propriedade ao ququqla denomino de tendencia de forca? isto imploca que uma forca que vem de 13,7 bilhoes de anos como sao as forcas naturaus, de repente e nas ultimas fracoes do tempo cosmico, se transmutou sozinha, alterou sua tendencia natural tradicional. E sinto muito, no psso concordar eacreditar nisso. Uma forca natural e’ o mesmo que uma lei natural, ou seja, ela e’uma das absolitas leis naturais que existem. Poso ate aceitar a possibilidade que o corpo que carregue uma lei possa se mudra no tempo, mas nao consigo digerir a ideia de que a lei que ele carrega, ou seja, a sua tendencia, possa ser mudada. Vamos imaginar por xemplo, midando a lei absoluta da forca gravitcional, u do rlrmrno forvca denominado ondas de luz. isto altersria toda a natureza imedatamente de maneira que a desintegraria imrdiatamente. Acho we isso nunca aconteceu, portanto, aqui nuca se aplicou a le das probabilidades, aqui nunca existiu tal tipo de efeitos como variacao, mudanca, os 13,7 bilhoes de anos estao fundamentados sobre uns piucos pilaes absolittistas. Se algo pode vir de for a destes 13,7 bilhoes de anos, ou seja, de for a do Universo, que mude, fragmente o Universo, nao sera algo com tamanho que possa penetrar o Sistema solar e passer a sobreviver dentro dele, alterando sua historia. Criando uma tendencia nova nunca existida dentro do Sistema solar. A tendencia de um objeto dentro do Sistema solar de sair for a do unico camilho possivela todos os outros objetos xistentes dentro do Sistema slar. A tendencia que produzria o fenmeo conhecido como ” o objeto humano pde atuar diferente de todos s outros objetos em tdas sas historias, e escolher um caminho movo, inedito, nunca trilhado antes por nada dentro do sistema slar. Das duas ma. Ou nos nao temos a capacidade, a forca, o poder de escolher e portnto nada impedira que perecemos na sexta extincao, ou alguma forca ou lemento veio de for a do Sistema solar e caiu diretamente em cima da nossa especie.e assim sim, nos adquirims a capacidade, o poder, de evitar nossa xtincao n sexto evento.  Nao vejo nenheuma possivel Terceira alternative aqui. Entao, algo esta errado no racionicio do orador.

xxxxx

objeto que auto se move, portanto nao ‘e igual ao galho caido, o qual ‘e inerte.

Uma imagem similar seria a de um robo, livre e solto na superficie da Terra,  sem inteligencia artificial, aoenas programado para repor sua energia e massa erodida, degradada, atraves de sensores que sentem a presenca externa do tipo de energia que precise, mais um programa de maquinas auto-reprodutivas divididas em duas unidades que se auto-complementam, portanto mais sensors para detector a unidade de complement. O que mais? Entao uma simples maquina tocada por m fluido corrente interno frio e transpostador de energia, uma maquina cujo unico sentido de existencia ‘e manter sua existencia, procurer e captar certo tipo de material, triturar esta material, fragmenta-la, que assim esta material fragmntda se insere automaticamente em seu corpo material, mantendo-o existindo.

Como a Natureza produziu tal fenmeno de dentro de si mesma? Se tem uma razao, mesmo inconsciente, apenas mero jogos de forcas naturais, para ter se saido com este fenomeno, devemos perguntar alem do como, porque tal maquina foi construida e qual o efeito desta maquina dentro dela propria, da Natureza?

Primeiro, na podemos esqucer do “que”, ou “quem” esta fazendo esta pergunta `a Natureza.  Sao os seres humanos. E o que ou quem sao so seres humanos? Apenas outro tipo de “sistema natural”

xxxxx

( cont. do transcript)

They didn’t see it coming, and they didn’t have a choice. We, on the other hand, do have a choice. And the nature of the fossil record tells us that our place on this planet is both precarious and potentially fleeting. Right now, our species is propagating an environmental disaster of geological proportions that is so broad and so severe, it can rightly be called the sixth extinction. Only unlike the dinosaurs, we can see it coming. And unlike the dinosaurs, we can do something about it. That choice is ours.

15:34 Thank you.

15:35 (Applause)