The Big Picture: Once Upon a Time in The Future
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
It's meant to be the EU who reach Mars first. There is a program and what not.
I think it'll probably end up being a UN effort though which starts colonisation and that won't be for years, not until there is more peace.
I think it'll probably end up being a UN effort though which starts colonisation and that won't be for years, not until there is more peace.
A corporations intentions would be to make money. So if the Panacea was discovered by a corporation, its costs for space travel would be defrayed at sizeable markup. So youd die trying to afford that simple pill that would cure you because it costs a mere $2 million dollars. This is assuming the corporation didnt gouge at all (see Dichloroacetic Acid).coakroach said:
Humanity doesnt show kindness. Humanity accounts for at least 25% of the death toll of its own species. It pollutes, it creates conditions detrimental to its own health. Humanity is positively sadistic. Individual humans are cruel malign self serving creatures who without exception barring physiological malformation & dysfunction cannot perform an altruistic act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327201.200-10-mysteries-of-you-altruism.html). Game theory states humanities cruelty mathematically for gods sake. Rational choices will always favour the chooser.
You clearly lack a broad world view and the experience to understand it sir.
I think there's several things that led to the falling out between America and the space program. One of the crucial root factors is that NASA seemed to be using these well-earned tax dollars to test hypothesis with no direct goal. It's only recently that the "Let's go to Mars" stuff started.
Between the gap of moon landings and the prospect of probes on Mars, we had stuff like Deep Impact (not the movie). For those who don't remember, or didn't care, Deep Impact was a project in 1995 to send part of a spacecraft hurtling into a comet. Why? For the hell of it apparently, because the main thing I was able to find regarding Deep Impact (disregarding the movie sites) was that it resulted in some sweet images of a comet exploding.
This works towards no established, distinct goal. NASA simply wants to know stuff about space. But, unfortunately for NASA, space is infinite. So, if you want to convince people to spend money on you, you need direct goals that people can envision, not a broad over-arching conceptual theology. Or, at the very least, things that directly relate to some bigger goal (however intangible). The Mars probes, which can be considered a first step in eventually going to Mars, were just too little, too late.
Especially when one crashes because they forgot to convert metric to English units of measure (true story).
Between the gap of moon landings and the prospect of probes on Mars, we had stuff like Deep Impact (not the movie). For those who don't remember, or didn't care, Deep Impact was a project in 1995 to send part of a spacecraft hurtling into a comet. Why? For the hell of it apparently, because the main thing I was able to find regarding Deep Impact (disregarding the movie sites) was that it resulted in some sweet images of a comet exploding.
This works towards no established, distinct goal. NASA simply wants to know stuff about space. But, unfortunately for NASA, space is infinite. So, if you want to convince people to spend money on you, you need direct goals that people can envision, not a broad over-arching conceptual theology. Or, at the very least, things that directly relate to some bigger goal (however intangible). The Mars probes, which can be considered a first step in eventually going to Mars, were just too little, too late.
Especially when one crashes because they forgot to convert metric to English units of measure (true story).
You're failing to understand the role of private firms - just as the video did (though the alien meeting assumption is too far in the future to make calls about, but its portrayal of NASA's using private firms in the near future is).LondonBeer said:
These firms are not running spaceflight on their own; they're contractees, providing NASA and other space agencies with everything from parts to working spacecraft while the agency in question provide pilots and funding and the like. In other words, by current structure, the companies would have no claim to money in your panacea example because they already got paid for providing the vessel that made the discovery.
Now, if we're talking some new situation wherein corporations wholly manage space missions, then your example is viable, but right now that isn't so much not viable as impossible, because space missions have to go through governments, and the private firms like SpaceX and Reaction Engines are merely providing the tools for the job.
Quite frankly I think what we should be asking about right now is why they're planning on burning up the International Space Station rather than moving it into a graveyard orbit as a piece of space-faring history.
Well that's a self-fulfilling philosophy. It's also bullshit, but you're entitled to your delusions.LondonBeer said:
Aww bless. Wikipedia lied to you. Ask someone with a PhD at the least.teknoarcanist said:
Pro-tip :- Professor is pretty much a neccesity. Although readerers and mere tenure professorships like the yanks have can be regarded as 'cantdoteaches'.
Culture defines civilization my little poppet. Technology is irrelevant. Greek civilization today would be as valid a civilzation as it was pre AD. Also see Jewish history 200BC to 2000AD. Culture defines civilzation, not mobile phones.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malignProfessor Murder said:
Me, Oxford English, Websters, Random house, Collins English & every other user of the word seem to thinks its an adjective.
The phrase your looking for is prophecy, a self-fulfilling philosophy would be 'I think, therefore I am'.Professor Murder said:
Thats OK we all make mistakes. Of course most of those mistakes can be avoided by checking what we are about to type long before its typed.Professor Murder said:
World view?LondonBeer said:
I've lived in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and China
I've seen Laos, Holland, Spain, Thailand, India, Vietnam, Switzerland, Singapore and Indonesia
Rich police states, modern socialist democracies, poverty ridden former cold war proxy states...
Please tell me, whats qualifies you as a judge on who has a broad enough world view?
Corporations are greedy not stupid, if they want a broader (and therefore more stable and profitable) market and they'll lower the cost and increase production.
Thats why you pay a pittance on chocolate, salt, sugar and anything else that used to be staggeringly expensive in previous centuries.
Also your views on humanity match up with a certain historical figure that appears on the 100 denomination note in my curent country of residence. Take a wild guess.
This is easily the best video series on the Escapist, I enjoy these even more than I have the recent Zero Punctuations. I won't read 11 pages of comments and get too involved here, but the fact that there are 11 pages of comments worth of discussion here is undeniably a good thing.
I will say this though: as long as there are human beings, there will be war, poverty, and disease. New reasons for those problems will emerge even as we begin to solve the old ones. It's quite possible that space exploration could hold the key to solving some of those problems, and the scientific advancements that occurred as a direct result of our attempts thus far are proof of that.
We're certainly much closer to understanding and possibly solving the energy crisis thanks to space exploration. Maybe when the fear mongering and political posturing dies down a tad we can go back to living in a world where 'intellectual' isn't considered an insult.
I will say this though: as long as there are human beings, there will be war, poverty, and disease. New reasons for those problems will emerge even as we begin to solve the old ones. It's quite possible that space exploration could hold the key to solving some of those problems, and the scientific advancements that occurred as a direct result of our attempts thus far are proof of that.
We're certainly much closer to understanding and possibly solving the energy crisis thanks to space exploration. Maybe when the fear mongering and political posturing dies down a tad we can go back to living in a world where 'intellectual' isn't considered an insult.
First up, its called the moon. Yes i understand that luna is another name for it, but luna sounds like a night club. Also, i like to think of it this way, the more people up there, the less people down here. I am a fan of sending people into space, but i think people get very carried away with themselves. By colonisation of the moon, it doesnt mean grand cities in the sky, it means an experiment over the course of 10-15 years in a little huddle of basic housing. People seem to think that we will instantly have huge planet spanning cities like in ME, which is ridiculous (not immpossible, not by any stretch, but certainly not achieveable straight away).sunburst313 said:
The reason being is that we've not actually got a clue what living on a different planet or moon will actually entail. For all we know it might be impossible anyway, thus making the expenditure redundant. On the other hand, it may not be any different to living on earth. We simply don't know how it will effect us as human being mentally, physically, technologically... all sorts of questions are raised when you say "colonisation".
And we may not like to think about it, but those opposed DO have two crippling arguments; whats the point and couldnt the money be used to help other people, or do something better here on earth? The first question is almost unanswerable, because we say "to further the survival of the species" and most (including myself) would turn around and say "i wasnt aware we were on the brink of extinction". The point is, the correct answer is for material wealth. Mining prospects and the chance of a better substitute for our ever dwindling supply of non-renewable sources. Hell, there may even be the chance of finding some sort of super fuel, with twice or more energy per litre of petrol or per kilo of various fossil fuels. And not to mention a possible chance of the advancement of science, with possible NEW metals and elements.
The second question however, is a bit of a finisher. The cost of these sorts of expeditions would be (excuse the pun) astronomical. And when faced with the choice of man on mars or better health care/education/economic stability, most people would opt for the latter choices. Realistically, it makes more sense, after all, we can always come back to it when we are in a better position to do so. Now for the cynic in me, im going to say that not much of the money that would be saved would make its way to the poor and needy. But it might go towards bettering the lives of at least the less fortunate or the mildly skint.
Last and not least, the idea that technology here has only been used to "make the ipod smaller". This is pure fallacy. If you actually look at the amount of things that technology has brought forward for us today, you would feel a bit embarrased for saying the only recent breakthrough is in ipod size. Fot instance, breakthroughs in medical technology and robotics have created machines that can sew up veins and arteries with ease, that the human hands would find a struggle. CAT and MRI scans can now show us the full potential of the human brain, and highlight many problems with humans before they BECOME problems. Genetic research has shown us that (although controversial) we can CREATE new organs for those in need, and indeed new HUMANS entirely. Chemical engineering has shown us we can create new material form the synthesis of two uselss ones, and that usefull metals can be extracted from nearly nothing. Not to mention various advances in renewable energy sources. The two im most excited about are the prostetic limb with THE SAME amount of movement as a human arm, with small receptors for feeling, and PLANit valley city. The city that will consume 85% of its natural waste, that will work like the human body, with brains and eyes (not literally, but brains as in receptors in every building that link to a central control that regulates that particular buildings use of water and electricity etc) with oxygen farms on every roof top.
That ladies and gentlemen, THAT is the future to me. As much as i would love to see the colonisation of mars a reality (i really do!), theres just so much to do here, and so much more usefull, but equally futuristic, endeavors that could be engaged here. PLANit valley city, to me is the way forward. From their we could use the designs for these cities and establish them on mars or the moon.
I supose that THATS my main argument: hell yes, do it... but not yet. leave it until we're better prepared or have a more stable economy to support it.
This is basically the first time I've done the spelling/grammar N*zi thing, but the time frames represented by 'about to type' and 'long before its typed' do not match up.LondonBeer said:
Also: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail89.html. Scalawag.