👨‍🔬📖 The science forum 🔬👩‍🎓

What is scary about global warming is that frozen ice in the poles might liberate dangerous bacterias, microbes and micro-organisms that were frozen for an extremely long time, and that might cause very important damages to humanity if we don’t act on it. May Allah protect us all.

The existence of viruses and bacteria in the permafrost regions is nothing new. And it's not scary either. Thousands of viruses are being discovered, but so far about 83% are bacteriophages. They infect bacteria and not humans.
What should really scare you is this: Humans, although they know better, are acting completely against stopping climate change. They are really doing everything they can to let climate change progress rapidly. In my eyes, that is suicide. That really worries me.

To come back to the actual question:
I can certainly imagine that a virus that can destroy large parts of humanity is possible. I can well imagine zoonoses. When viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. come between animals and humans, I think it can lead to dangerous situations.
And this is another area where climate change plays a role. Because this also changes habitats for viruses etc...

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

In my opinion, it's unlikely that a virus or a bacteria just kill everyone. This is evolutionary not viable as the goal of a pathogens is to spread itself. You will notice that, over time, virus become less severe and increase their infectiosity instead. For instance, the Spanish flu killed millions of people, but the new versions of the virus are fortunately not as deadly.

Another unlikely reason for not going extinct because of a single pathogen is that we are billions. It's not as easy to kill 7 billions individuals with genetic variability as it is to kill a small isolated population. I think, in this regard, that prions would be a better candidate... And yet, the only reason I think so is because of the existence of chronic wasting disease, which decimate populationsof deers in north America and Europe. Typically, in Norway, the population of reindeers with individuals infected had to be all killed and the area has to be maintained deer free because of the risk it pose

Thank you everybody who gave reactions!! It is a SCARY topic i think!! 🙄🙄😬 I did not know about bacteria in the ice of the Northpole because i thought it was too cold for them to survive and they would be frozen and so dead i thought. And @mabah is right I think about climate change and that we need to repair that as much as possible. 🙏 It is comfortable what @Lianshen writes that it will not make people extinct. But still it can be dangerous.

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

Actually there is nothing like "good or bad" viruses but pathogenic or nonpathogenic viruses. The pathogenic viruses to human, might be "bad" for humanity but not for rest of the Earth. We have a certain tendency for "human-centric" existance and focus on the pathogenic ones. That's far from the law of "equilibrium" in the Earth.

You can have a look in the entire article if you are curious: The Article

Thank you very much @diogenes_cask!! I will look at the article because i had NO idea about that. And some words that you say i still dont know but i can maybe find it in the article i hope!! 🙂 But I have to read it tomorrow because i still have some homework for tomorrow i have to make 🙁

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @psysarah15 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

Speaking of the movie Frankenstein, I want to talk about the original novel by Mary Shelley.

I really consider that novel one of my favorite novels because it is not just an ordinary horror story, but rather carries deep human meanings and philosophical ideas about life and ambition.

The novel tells the story of ambitious scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates a creature using parts of dead bodies. But he abandons him because of his terrifying appearance, causing the creature to suffer loneliness, rejection, and search for revenge.

What distinguishes the novel is that it raises important questions:

Does science have limits?

How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

It also sheds light on feelings of loneliness and abandonment, and makes us sympathize with the “monster” despite his appearance. I love this novel because it combines horror and philosophy, and presents a story full of human feelings and conflicts.

It makes us think about the consequences of our actions and the meaning of humanity.

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @psysarah15 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

1- Does science have limits? I assume that we are talking about "ethical limits." This question is basically a non-sequitar. First of all, we need to define "the science" accurately. In simpliest manner, science is a tool fixing the current knowledge. Logically we can't expect a tool dressed by ethics or morals. Ethics or morals are the concerns for philosophy in general, science's unique concern is nothing but methodology. On the other hand science is the cummilative knowledge confirmed by pragmatic decisions made according to "social ethos." That's why we have no sympathy for experimental Nazi doctors in the past. Science tells us what is "real", it doesn't tell us what is "true". Then we need a safe lock on this giant box. A discipline telling us what is "true." That discipline is called Epistemology.

Now, let's engage with the "Frankenstein" case in a nutshell: "The creature is the product of reason, but becomes a monster in the moral sense because it is abandoned by an "irresponsible science" that neglects the consequences of its labor." From the vantage of Rousseauean Romanticism, the monster can be seen as a specimen of natural man originally uncorrupted by the conventions of civilization. Victor, by contrast, embodies the essential corruption of highly civilized man, who uses his mind and knowledge to manipulate nature and abuses rationality in order to justify his transgressions against nature and humanity. According to scientific methodology result is "real", according to social ethos result is "unacceptable", according to epistemologic approach, result is "not true." That is why question is a non-sequitar.

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @Sarahsalah27 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @Sarahsalah27 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

Thank you soo much 🥰🥰❤❤ @Yue_ I want to answer both questions.

For the first question-

does science have limits?

Yes, science has limits, which are moral and human limits that prevent us from crossing what might cause harm or disaster.

In Frankenstein, Victor crosses those boundaries when he creates a creature without thinking about responsibility for it or the consequences of his action.

The result has been great tragedies, demonstrating that ignoring the limits of science can lead to devastating results

The second question:

Can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

Irresponsible decisions lead to disasters when their consequences are not thought through.

In Frankenstein, Victor creates a creature without taking responsibility for it, making the creature feel rejected and alone, driving him to seek revenge and cause tragedies.

The novel shows how the pursuit of knowledge or achievements without moral awareness leads to destructive results.

New questions for the Science Forum

1️⃣ If you can choose one scientific invention for yourself in the future: what would you choose? Like for example a robot that does your homework or a bed with AI and it knows how warm or cold it must be that is the best for you?

2️⃣ Ok now we live in 2050: what scientific inventions will change everything? Like now it is for example AI and earlier internet or telephones or cars. What will it be in 2050? Maybe flying cars and bikes? Or maybe a 3D food printer? 🙂

Haha ok! 🙂 And do you mean a time machine that you can for example fly in time so you dont have to make an exam or that you travel to for example the middle ages if you wanted it? 😛

You stand in a mashine and give in the exact time and date in it and then the mashine goes to that time in your exact location OR you also give in the location!

Where would you go to first mulany @Mulanyyy?? 🙂

To see Atatürk then Hitler, then einstein then eagypt then all Prophets and then caeser, nero, augustus

But you mean some that you want to meet because you like them like good persons you mentioned or to kill them what you said about hitler if you would meet him right? I would think: if somebody would REALLY talk to dictators like hitler and stalin and you can tell them from the future how wrong they were, maybe you could convince them about stopping everything they did. So you dont have to kill them but you can convince them about the future and they were wrong.

New questions for the Science Forum

1️⃣ If you build a tower with ipads or laptops: how many do you think you need to be as high as the Eiffel Tower in Paris? 😛

2️⃣ What do you think will be the most important energy in 2050? Oil? Gas? Sun? Windmills? Nuclear fusion that @Lianshen mentioned in his interview? Or something else? 🙄🙄

New questions for the Science Forum

1️⃣ If you build a tower with ipads or laptops: how many do you think you need to be as high as the Eiffel Tower in Paris? 😛

I can already answer this question. So the full Eiffel Tower is 330 m and an ipad is average 5.2 mm thick. So 1 meter = 1000 mm. And 192.3 ipads fit in a tower of 1 meter. So you need 192.3 x 330 = 63,459 ipads!! 😛 😛

But if the tower collapses and ipads break you need more to replace the broken ones. 🙄🤭 🙂

2️⃣ What do you think will be the most important energy in 2050? Oil? Gas? Sun? Windmills? Nuclear fusion that @Lianshen mentioned in his interview? Or something else? 🙄🙄

Fossil energy is taking a good 85% of the the energy mix worldwide as of now. I doubt this will change despite all the beautiful discourses and considering how fossil energy is also used to make solar panels and wind turbines. The thing is that we already reached the peak of oil production and many small economical inconveniences like economical and social crises are partly due to them.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy has been boycotted in the past and there has seen nearly 0 improvement since the 70's. That's mainly due because of propaganda, lobbying, political pressures... For instance, one of the major concern about nuclear fission is pretty much like plane: It's safer and kill less than coal (or car), but the incidents are very sensational and newspapers will sure not miss the chance to make big titles about it.

Moreover, you need a lot of money to build a plant or develop the technology, and a lot of time. As you may have seen it already, most of our politicians are shortsighted and will almost never invest in long term projects. For them, as long as nuclear energy is cheap as it is now, then there is no reason to invest in developing new technoogy to optimize it. It first needs to become expensive so that they eventually start to cogitate about making a move to suggest the idea of... well, you understood the nightmare it can be. The lack of move has considerably slowed down the evolution of nuclear energy (fission, not fusion here) for many reasons; among which I find lobbying in favour of a very new unreliable "renewable" energy and against nuclear (instead of developping both) was unacceptable and pretty much a reason for money laundering and greenwashing.

Now, mentionning nuclear fusion, this is still a very experimental technology from my understanding. It has faced many challenges as well, including scientific and technical challenges. As it is, more or less, "creating a mini Sun" in your garage, the difficulty to handle very high temperatures is very hard, not even talking about the energy consumption you need first.
Similarly to nuclear fission, it also needs time and quite a few dolaritos of investments. Almost nothing, just like decades and dozens of billions dolars, for something some people also believe to be as dangerous as fission.

Fossil energy is taking a good 85% of the the energy mix worldwide as of now. I doubt this will change despite all the beautiful discourses and considering how fossil energy is also used to make solar panels and wind turbines. The thing is that we already reached the peak of oil production and many small economical inconveniences like economical and social crises are partly due to them.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy has been boycotted in the past and there has seen nearly 0 improvement since the 70's. That's mainly due because of propaganda, lobbying, political pressures... For instance, one of the major concern about nuclear fission is pretty much like plane: It's safer and kill less than coal (or car), but the incidents are very sensational and newspapers will sure not miss the chance to make big titles about it.

Moreover, you need a lot of money to build a plant or develop the technology, and a lot of time. As you may have seen it already, most of our politicians are shortsighted and will almost never invest in long term projects. For them, as long as nuclear energy is cheap as it is now, then there is no reason to invest in developing new technoogy to optimize it. It first needs to become expensive so that they eventually start to cogitate about making a move to suggest the idea of... well, you understood the nightmare it can be. The lack of move has considerably slowed down the evolution of nuclear energy (fission, not fusion here) for many reasons; among which I find lobbying in favour of a very new unreliable "renewable" energy and against nuclear (instead of developping both) was unacceptable and pretty much a reason for money laundering and greenwashing.

Now, mentionning nuclear fusion, this is still a very experimental technology from my understanding. It has faced many challenges as well, including scientific and technical challenges. As it is, more or less, "creating a mini Sun" in your garage, the difficulty to handle very high temperatures is very hard, not even talking about the energy consumption you need first.
Similarly to nuclear fission, it also needs time and quite a few dolaritos of investments. Almost nothing, just like decades and dozens of billions dolars, for something some people also believe to be as dangerous as fission.

That is a lot information and is MUCHHH more than what we hear in school bc we always here that you need a lot of energy like with sun panels and windmachines (so it is clean energy). BUTTT in my country you can get a lot of energy with that only it is not possible now to put it on the electric system because it is FULL!! I have no idea if i say that correctly in English but it means that new energy cant go on the electric system and if you want for example a shop or a house or a factory you first need to know if you can be on the system or you have NOOO energy. So in our country that is maybe more important than where you get energy bc if you cant put it on that system you cant use it. Sorry if i make a mess in translating this in English but i have no idea how to translate it differently.

And i have a question: if you have nuclear energy it can maybe also be super dangerous because ONE mistake and a lot of people can die right? And our country is not super big so maybe a LOTTT of people can be victim if there is a mistake or a terror attack. Or is that not true anymore? 🙄🙄 Thank you very much if you can tell about that because that would be for me a super worry if in my country which is super small there are MORE nuclear factories.