- Nov 24, 2009
Lovely... They seem to forget the technology that we've gotten in return. Like the micro processor anyone? Although we hardly use this tech anymore... Oh wait.
We're hardly in the desert- we've got plenty of time. I don't want this done tomorrow, I just want it to happen. It's more accurate to say we're CEO of DesertCo, and we keep open a little division for experimental research, or whatever.BigTuk said:You do realize what you've said amounts to someone in the desert deciding to blow their water supply on what amounts to a a slip and slide?joshuaayt said:Absolutely, those are huge road blocks- But it's either find ways to deal with that, or die out the second earth stops being habitable. Or try to find ways to deal with it, fail, and die out any way. Still, at least we'd go down fightin'.
Also, I'll do you one better- we build a giant space ship around the inner four planets, use the sun as a power source/tanning salon, and go cruising off to Gliese 581c in style.
And the Inner 4 planets? Why? Have you forgotten what these planets are..
'Mercury' Hard rock that's already baked to a crisp.
'Venus' Otherwise moe accurately known as Hellworld. Surface temps hot enough to melt led, toxic atmospher , rains glass shards. Next to the sun I don't thing any other body in this solar system is so aggressively against the idea of 'Life'
'Mars' Dry windy rust ball.
Why would we want to take these planets with us?
The misanthropist in me wants to say "anything that sharply reduces the number of living human beings is alright in my book."SourMilk said:And apparently from your perspective, we're at a point where shipping people into space like it was WW1 seems like such a good idea. The technology isn't even there where it wouldn't cost a substantial amount of human lives.RJ Dalton said:
The only "positive" rationale is so that the most powerful people of the world can continue to live past the point at which life becomes unfeasible on earth. Spaceflight is a necessary prerequisite to planetary colonization.Rhykker said:What do you believe is the strongest rationale for human spaceflight?
Point of contention: no one of any education thought that. It is not true. The words you are posting are derived from A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_the_Life_and_Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus], which contains as much myth as fact, one of the most glaring of which is the author's inclusion of the flat earth myth. The work isn't entirely consistent, as it does point out the actual problem that Columbus had: he had miscalculated the size of the earth(in part by accidentally substituting the Italian mile for the longer Arabic mile).RJ 17 said:All the people that still believed that the world was flat and that he'd be sailing off to his doom? Indeed he did want to find a shortcut to India, but everyone thought he was nuts.shirkbot said:
He had to shop the plans for his voyage around to different nations just to find a backer because most monarchies thought it was a fool's errand.
It's a terrible truth that I've come to realize that when too much is at stake our instincts tend to outweigh our ability to think things through rationally. Granted there are some few exceptions.[footnote]One seeming exception seems to be the use of nuclear (post-atomic) weapons. Even though there have been plenty of opportunities for cataclysm with such weapons falling into the hands of fanatics (albeit ones in unilateral military hierarchies), none still have ever been used in hostility. Thanks to the terrifyingly immense stakes the cold war was conducted with meticulous, measured, rational negotiations. Perhaps we need for the proverbial gun to our heads to be clear and present in order for human society to rise to its highest grace.[/footnote]Grenge Di Origin said:And do we really need ONE STRONG rationale for manned spaceflight for the public to associate with? Is the public truly so basic? Is it so insufferable that something has multiple strong arguments going for it?
The public, on the whole, absolutely is that basic.Grenge Di Origin said:And do we really need ONE STRONG rationale for manned spaceflight for the public to associate with? Is the public truly so basic? Is it so insufferable that something has multiple strong arguments going for it?
There are 3 (group) ways to solve overpopulation.RJ Dalton said:
It is a good idea unless you prefer the alternatives.SourMilk said:And apparently from your perspective, we're at a point where shipping people into space like it was WW1 seems like such a good idea. The technology isn't even there where it wouldn't cost a substantial amount of human lives.RJ Dalton said:
I dont. your point?Rawbeard said:Why do you climb a mountain?
you mean like how Americas were not solving population problem by constantly shipping people from europe there.thaluikhain said:I don't see spaceflight as being a solution to overpopulation, you have to constantly send the increase into space to keep things balanced.
but then we would have an underpopulation problem.TheMadJack said:We could do it just so we can deport the idiots. All of them.
around 700 billion a year ever since the war started. you can do the math.Eve Charm said:I'd like to know how many billions or trillions is sunk into the US's military budget a year before they say there's no money to go in space.
first people that can sucesfully mine an asteroid will be the first trillionaires on the planet. if thats not profit margin motivation enough for you i dont know what is.shadowstriker86 said:very time someone has gone exploring, there was an underlying profit margiain under it.
Having a plan B for when we blow up or poison half of this planet.Rhykker said:What do you believe is the strongest rationale for human spaceflight?