whoopee, we'll have like a hundred people (if that) on the surface of mars and maybe the same on the moon
truly if the six billion on earth die, humanity will be saved by those people!
not to mention, they're as likely to bit hit by an asteroid as we are
You are talking about the short term.
The idea is to eventually have large, self sustaining populations throughout the solar system and then around other stars. Of course they we will be just as fucked if a cataclysm strikes when we are still in the beginning phases but that's why we need to get with the fucking program.
Also, yes they are just as likely to be struck with a catastrophe. The point is that losing any one planet will not result in our extinction.
whoopee, we'll have like a hundred people (if that) on the surface of mars and maybe the same on the moon
truly if the six billion on earth die, humanity will be saved by those people!
not to mention, they're as likely to bit hit by an asteroid as we are
You are talking about the short term.
The idea is to eventually have large, self sustaining populations throughout the solar system and then around other stars. Of course they we will be just as fucked if a cataclysm strikes when we are still in the beginning phases but that's why we need to get with the fucking program.
Also, yes they are just as likely to be struck with a catastrophe. The point is that losing any one planet will not result in our extinction.
how the hell do you propose we colonise any of the other planets in the solar system? and how the hell do you propose we make it to the nearest star, let alone any others
seriously guys you may as well wish for a magic lantern to make earth impervious to asteroids as much as hope to make a serious stab at living in space for any reasonable period with a good number of people in the next century
bongi on
0
ZephosClimbin in yo ski lifts, snatchin your people up.MichiganRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
i have one of those lanterns, i'll sell it to you for 40 dollars.
seriously guys you may as well wish for a magic lantern to make earth impervious to asteroids as much as hope to make a serious stab at living in space for any reasonable period with a good number of people in the next century
Man, I am pretty sure I said that that is long term. Obviously we are not going to have large self sustaining populations off world within 100 years. This shit is going to take time. I am talking centuries. Millennia. But it ain't gonna happen if we don't take action cause it's gotta start somewhere. Forgive me for not being a defeatist when it comes to staving off extinction.
seriously guys you may as well wish for a magic lantern to make earth impervious to asteroids as much as hope to make a serious stab at living in space for any reasonable period with a good number of people in the next century
Man I am pretty sure I said that that is long term. Obviously we are not going to have large self sustaining populations off world within 100 years. This shit is going to take time. I am talking centuries. Millennia. But it ain't gonna happen if we don't take action cause it's gotta start somewhere. Forgive me for not being a defeatist when it comes to staving off extinction.
i'm not a defeatist, i just think that unpreventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. asteroids) are less important than preventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. failure to protect the environment during global warming/preventing global warming) because we can actually realistically do something about them
i'm not disagreeing that we should go into space, i'm just saying i think your priorities are messed up if you think we should be rushing off to mars to get our boots dusty instead of concentrating on earth (which is better than mars anyway and if you disagree you're dumb)
bongi on
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
edited April 2007
You know what we need, guys.
Seriously.
If we're gunna get into space, like, all colonies type?
A prime directive that don't suck.
Man, fuck not messing with civilizations that haven't discovered interplanetary flight.
I say OUR Prime Directive is "Oh dudes we can totally fuck with their minds check this shit out"
and then we'll, like, beam down a super hot juggy blonde chick
i'm not a defeatist, i just think that unpreventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. asteroids) are less important than preventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. failure to protect the environment during global warming/preventing global warming) because we can actually realistically do something about them
i’m not disagreeing that we should go into space, i’m just saying I think your priorities are messed up if you think we should be rushing off to mars to get our boots dusty instead of concentrating on earth (which is better than mars anyway and if you disagree you're dumb)
Well your example may or may not be a good one. It seems that a balanced look at the evidence shows that global warming is real but we cannot yet tell if we are actually having an effect or if it is entirely natural. If it's the latter I doubt it is any more preventable than an asteroid impact. The Holocene extinction started long before we got here and for all we know it is linked to natural climate change. But I would still agree with you that it is something we should work on. I don't see how space development is any different.
And you're right, Mars does suck. I'm a proponent of building habitats out of asteroid materials and spinning them up for gravity. It's much more economical. My argument is that "concentrating on Earth" is fine and beneficial but if we don't also colonize we are fucked in the long term. Maybe we are anyway. But we definitely are without space travel.
i'm not a defeatist, i just think that unpreventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. asteroids) are less important than preventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. failure to protect the environment during global warming/preventing global warming) because we can actually realistically do something about them
i’m not disagreeing that we should go into space, i’m just saying I think your priorities are messed up if you think we should be rushing off to mars to get our boots dusty instead of concentrating on earth (which is better than mars anyway and if you disagree you're dumb)
Well your example may or may not be a good one. It seems that a balanced look at the evidence shows that global warming is real but we cannot yet tell if we are actually having an effect or if it is entirely natural. If it's the latter I doubt it is any more preventable than an asteroid impact. The Holocene extinction started long before we got here and for all we know it is linked to natural climate change. But I would still agree with you that it is something we should work on. I don't see how space development is any different.
And you're right, Mars does suck. I'm a proponent of building habitats out of asteroid materials and spinning them up for gravity. It's much more economical. My argument is that "concentrating on Earth" is fine and beneficial but if we don't also colonize we are fucked in the long term. Maybe we are anyway. But we definitely are without space travel.
sorry but to me this seems like a caveman saying "seriously dude we need to establish a global free market quickly or we are fucked in the long term"
Honestly, you think manipulating the global climate is an easier engineering problem? I submit that it is not.
so manipulating a global climate on a planet a really, really, really long ways away to make it habitable when it is already absolutely devoid of any remotely decent living conditions is easier to you somehow?
i'm saying that we should attempt to minimise any potential damage, or minimise our footprint if that turns out to be a contributing factor
not exactly the same
[edit]i don't even know why i said "if it turns out", because we are pretty sure it is a major contributor now
I agree, but I don't see how the problem is any less intractable than space colonization. Climate change is likely to be beyond our control and all the effort we put into minimizing our impact may well give us zero benefit. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Also I think part of this discord may be due to the mistaken belief that space development is somehow detracting from other areas we should be focusing on. This nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. It doesn't even make a dent.
so manipulating a global climate on a planet a really, really, really long ways away to make it habitable when it is already absolutely devoid of any remotely decent living conditions is easier to you somehow?
I didn't say it was easier. I am saying that if space colonization is not worth it because it is so hard it may be impossible, then trying to engineer the climate on Earth is pointless for the same reason.
Dienekes on
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
I didn't say it was easier. I am saying that if space colonization is not worth it because it is so hard it may be impossible, then trying to engineer the climate on Earth is pointless for the same reason.
and I'm saying abandoning fixing our own planet just so we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to find another one to fuck up seems sorta dumb, ya know?
I mean, even Calvin and Hobbes addressed this point.
I didn't say it was easier. I am saying that if space colonization is not worth it because it is so hard it may be impossible, then trying to engineer the climate on Earth is pointless for the same reason.
and I'm saying abandoning fixing our own planet just so we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to find another one to fuck up seems sorta dumb, ya know?
I mean, even Calvin and Hobbes addressed this point.
I have not been arguing that we abandon fixing our own planet. I have been arguing that space colonization is a worthwhile effort. The great difficulty and possible futility of it was used as an argument against it. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the argument by using the same argument against a cause my oppenent supported. I was trying to expose the absurdity of saying, "it's really hard so it's not worth it."
the fact that it's way beyond us is a secondary, less important point
Well, your example of cave men planning a free market suggested you think it so beyond us as to be completely futile, but perhaps I misinterperated that.
As I said, this nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. I can't understand how that cuts into our other priorities. What I'm saying is that we certainly should be planning for the very long term even as we take shorter term problems into account. The better we get at this the longer we will last, unless we do all get blown up tomorrow.
the fact that it's way beyond us is a secondary, less important point
Well, your example of cave men planning a free market suggested you think it so beyond us as to be completely futile, but perhaps I misinterperated that.
As I said, this nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. I can't understand how that cuts into our other priorities. What I'm saying is that we certainly should be planning for the very long term even as we take shorter term problems into account. The better we get at this the longer we will last, unless we do all get blown up tomorrow.
Imagine what you couldachieve if you spent the same on space as you did on defense.
Carnivore on
0
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
the fact that it's way beyond us is a secondary, less important point
Well, your example of cave men planning a free market suggested you think it so beyond us as to be completely futile, but perhaps I misinterperated that.
As I said, this nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. I can't understand how that cuts into our other priorities. What I'm saying is that we certainly should be planning for the very long term even as we take shorter term problems into account. The better we get at this the longer we will last, unless we do all get blown up tomorrow.
Imagine what you couldachieve if you spent the same on space as you did on offense.
FOR THE EMPIRE!
Metzger Meister on
0
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
seriously guys you may as well wish for a magic lantern to make earth impervious to asteroids as much as hope to make a serious stab at living in space for any reasonable period with a good number of people in the next century
Man I am pretty sure I said that that is long term. Obviously we are not going to have large self sustaining populations off world within 100 years. This shit is going to take time. I am talking centuries. Millennia. But it ain't gonna happen if we don't take action cause it's gotta start somewhere. Forgive me for not being a defeatist when it comes to staving off extinction.
i'm not a defeatist, i just think that unpreventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. asteroids) are less important than preventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. failure to protect the environment during global warming/preventing global warming) because we can actually realistically do something about them
i'm not disagreeing that we should go into space, i'm just saying i think your priorities are messed up if you think we should be rushing off to mars to get our boots dusty instead of concentrating on earth (which is better than mars anyway and if you disagree you're dumb)
Bongi I hope you bought those guitar hero games from a dying cancer patient so he can afford better treatment otherwise I'm telling all the bald kids with cancer that you don't care about them anymore.
Weaver on
0
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
Also Bongi you've fallen into the manner of thinking that humanity can't focus on more than one problem at a time.
Are you suggesting in some way that we should reeducate everyone to be either doctors or ecologists?
So I'm fliping though the channels and as I pass by Fox News I see Bill Nye. Of course I stop and see what he has to say. Now, it was Geraldo so not only did they get facts wrong (said it was 50 lightyears away, if thats true we might want to change the title) but they totally disrespected Nye, who I think we can all agree is the fucking man, by not letting him get two words out. I am even more outraged than normal at the shenanigans Fox News is pulling.
ZeroFillFeeling much better.A nice, green leaf.Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
strawman is such a popular word as of late
ok 2 fucked up things:
1: Nukes. We (the US) don't spend hardly a god damn thing on nuclear weapons compared to other expenditures because most of the R&D has been done. Not that it's not still going on, but there's not a massive push. Most of the money goes into maintaining current inventory, and coming up with new delivery methods, most of which are shared with conventional weapons. So yes nukes are evil blah blah but it's too late, everyone already has them and they're not going away.
2: People so against turning an eye towards this discovered planet are ridiculous. They're so rabidly against it as if it was coming down to a popular vote tomorrow, and it was going to take all the money away from social programs and medical research, and put it towards landing on and colonizing that rock.
Let it happen. It won't have that much funding anyway, to be honest. We don't make those decisions; ( not that we won't talk about it anyway.) We need to find a way to preserve this planet, and branch out beyond our borders. We'll never be content as a species to just go "Huh. So I guess that's just about far enough."
Posts
You are talking about the short term.
The idea is to eventually have large, self sustaining populations throughout the solar system and then around other stars. Of course they we will be just as fucked if a cataclysm strikes when we are still in the beginning phases but that's why we need to get with the fucking program.
Also, yes they are just as likely to be struck with a catastrophe. The point is that losing any one planet will not result in our extinction.
how the hell do you propose we colonise any of the other planets in the solar system? and how the hell do you propose we make it to the nearest star, let alone any others
seriously guys you may as well wish for a magic lantern to make earth impervious to asteroids as much as hope to make a serious stab at living in space for any reasonable period with a good number of people in the next century
just in case
Man, I am pretty sure I said that that is long term. Obviously we are not going to have large self sustaining populations off world within 100 years. This shit is going to take time. I am talking centuries. Millennia. But it ain't gonna happen if we don't take action cause it's gotta start somewhere. Forgive me for not being a defeatist when it comes to staving off extinction.
i'm not a defeatist, i just think that unpreventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. asteroids) are less important than preventable mass-extinction causes (e.g. failure to protect the environment during global warming/preventing global warming) because we can actually realistically do something about them
i'm not disagreeing that we should go into space, i'm just saying i think your priorities are messed up if you think we should be rushing off to mars to get our boots dusty instead of concentrating on earth (which is better than mars anyway and if you disagree you're dumb)
Seriously.
If we're gunna get into space, like, all colonies type?
A prime directive that don't suck.
Man, fuck not messing with civilizations that haven't discovered interplanetary flight.
I say OUR Prime Directive is "Oh dudes we can totally fuck with their minds check this shit out"
and then we'll, like, beam down a super hot juggy blonde chick
and then have crazy space sex with her
and be worshiped as gods
you don't understand
they will never have seen a super hot juggy blonde getting railed before
they will think that that is how we prove we are gods
Well your example may or may not be a good one. It seems that a balanced look at the evidence shows that global warming is real but we cannot yet tell if we are actually having an effect or if it is entirely natural. If it's the latter I doubt it is any more preventable than an asteroid impact. The Holocene extinction started long before we got here and for all we know it is linked to natural climate change. But I would still agree with you that it is something we should work on. I don't see how space development is any different.
And you're right, Mars does suck. I'm a proponent of building habitats out of asteroid materials and spinning them up for gravity. It's much more economical. My argument is that "concentrating on Earth" is fine and beneficial but if we don't also colonize we are fucked in the long term. Maybe we are anyway. But we definitely are without space travel.
but what if their gods pee on them while they procreate
what then
sorry but to me this seems like a caveman saying "seriously dude we need to establish a global free market quickly or we are fucked in the long term"
not exactly the same
[edit]i don't even know why i said "if it turns out", because we are pretty sure it is a major contributor now
so manipulating a global climate on a planet a really, really, really long ways away to make it habitable when it is already absolutely devoid of any remotely decent living conditions is easier to you somehow?
I agree, but I don't see how the problem is any less intractable than space colonization. Climate change is likely to be beyond our control and all the effort we put into minimizing our impact may well give us zero benefit. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Also I think part of this discord may be due to the mistaken belief that space development is somehow detracting from other areas we should be focusing on. This nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. It doesn't even make a dent.
It's very coconutty
I didn't say it was easier. I am saying that if space colonization is not worth it because it is so hard it may be impossible, then trying to engineer the climate on Earth is pointless for the same reason.
and I'm saying abandoning fixing our own planet just so we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to find another one to fuck up seems sorta dumb, ya know?
I mean, even Calvin and Hobbes addressed this point.
I have not been arguing that we abandon fixing our own planet. I have been arguing that space colonization is a worthwhile effort. The great difficulty and possible futility of it was used as an argument against it. I was merely pointing out the flaw in the argument by using the same argument against a cause my oppenent supported. I was trying to expose the absurdity of saying, "it's really hard so it's not worth it."
i'm saying there are more important priorities
the fact that it's way beyond us is a secondary, less important point
Well, your example of cave men planning a free market suggested you think it so beyond us as to be completely futile, but perhaps I misinterperated that.
As I said, this nation's space spending is less than 00.2% of the national budget. I can't understand how that cuts into our other priorities. What I'm saying is that we certainly should be planning for the very long term even as we take shorter term problems into account. The better we get at this the longer we will last, unless we do all get blown up tomorrow.
Imagine what you couldachieve if you spent the same on space as you did on defense.
FOR THE EMPIRE!
Bongi I hope you bought those guitar hero games from a dying cancer patient so he can afford better treatment otherwise I'm telling all the bald kids with cancer that you don't care about them anymore.
Are you suggesting in some way that we should reeducate everyone to be either doctors or ecologists?
lol strawman'd
i think we should devote our resources on building a tower of babel 2
hopefully this time god will curse us to all speak the same language?
weaver were you a manchurian candidate
shut up, it's right here in the bible
On top of said tower, a most strong marine killed a cyberdemon.
ok 2 fucked up things:
1: Nukes. We (the US) don't spend hardly a god damn thing on nuclear weapons compared to other expenditures because most of the R&D has been done. Not that it's not still going on, but there's not a massive push. Most of the money goes into maintaining current inventory, and coming up with new delivery methods, most of which are shared with conventional weapons. So yes nukes are evil blah blah but it's too late, everyone already has them and they're not going away.
2: People so against turning an eye towards this discovered planet are ridiculous. They're so rabidly against it as if it was coming down to a popular vote tomorrow, and it was going to take all the money away from social programs and medical research, and put it towards landing on and colonizing that rock.
Let it happen. It won't have that much funding anyway, to be honest. We don't make those decisions; ( not that we won't talk about it anyway.) We need to find a way to preserve this planet, and branch out beyond our borders. We'll never be content as a species to just go "Huh. So I guess that's just about far enough."
I want to see some dicks in that post.