How do you know. Maybe that's why we don't have flying cars.
Our thoughts on this highly impractical compromise between a real car and real plane might have been quite different if he had never seen a real car.
Human Spaceflight: No Single Rationale Justifies it, NRC Report
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
How do you know. Maybe that's why we don't have flying cars.
Our thoughts on this highly impractical compromise between a real car and real plane might have been quite different if he had never seen a real car.
Why? Are we expecting an imminent ELE asteroid collision or gamma-ray burst? Or just to get homesick once we arrive at our destination in space, whatever that may be.
"The grass is greener on the other side" but nothing beats the grass on Earth, I'd speculate.
Worse: There could be an alien civilization feeling that we haven't properly matured, yet, to colonize space and deny us interstellar travel.
I think we should first solve our problems here on Earth, not run away from those.
Bob
To again use a car analogy, if your car starts to run badly you have to get out to repair it. "Fixing our problems here" may be a tough job for us limited to what we can work with here. But if we expand into the solar system it gives us a change in scale and access to tools we wouldn't have otherwise. It might making "solving our problems here" child's play.
It's the ones you're not expecting that'll get ya if we're confined to one planet.
It's the ones you're not expecting that'll get ya if we're confined to one planet.
I understand that it's not wise to leave all your eggs in one basket, but the "ASAP" of the OP looked to me as if he knew of something happening soon, hence my question.
I had social problems and issues of wealth distribution in mind, not technical ones.
Admittedly technical evolution has contributed to enlightenment ever since the Gutenberg press and - recent example - to the "Arab Spring". We are now capable of transmitting instantly information to the farthest corners of our planet, but I fail to see what further contributions we could possibly expect or anticipate from space exploration.
Subspace radio would only be of practical use if we had already colonized a distant planet.
And a breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy creation in space would be of little use since we need this kind of technology here on Earth and not up in the sky.
Bob
Get your ass to Mahz.
(with a nice Mercedes waiting for you, Mr. Hauser)
I had social problems and issues of wealth distribution in mind, not technical ones.
Admittedly technical evolution has contributed to enlightenment ever since the Gutenberg press and - recent example - to the "Arab Spring". We are now capable of transmitting instantly information to the farthest corners of our planet, but I fail to see what further contributions we could possibly expect or anticipate from space exploration.
Subspace radio would only be of practical use if we had already colonized a distant planet.
And a breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy creation in space would be of little use since we need this kind of technology here on Earth and not up in the sky.
Bob
You're limiting your thinking. What about things we might learn while colonizing Mars related to agriculture? resource utilization? Even if for some strange reason your "fusion breakthrough" only worked in space, there's always beamed energy.
That's the thing about pushing boundaries. It may reveal answers to problems we didn't even know we had.
Seems to me the emotionalism lies with those who have romantic notions about human space travel.
If we wait until all of our social and economic problems are solved before we venture into deep space, we'll be waiting forever. Hell, I'd be willing to go into space right now.
(Of course, a lot of people who know me say I'm already in space.)
Where do I start? Okay first up, all the fish in the oceans will be eaten in about 20 years. No fish, dead oceans. Dead oceans, no carbon sink. We'll all suffocate and die.
Global warming? Even if we just stopped producing any carbon at all the temperature is going to rise to levels that will not sustain human life. All crops will die. We're not going to have anything to eat, mass starvation will be the global norm.
Maybe we will stop producing carbon because the oil is going to run out in our lifetimes. Get ready for the bloodiest resource wars the world has ever known, with the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. Nuclear Armageddon will look nice by comparison.
Comets? No, we don't need external forces to kill us all- we just need to keep doing what we're doing- which doesn't seem optional since it's clear we don't know how to stop.
The function of all life is to preserve itself and propogate. That's all life DOES. If humanity wants to survive, yes, it does need to fix problems at home, no question. But we should take baby steps, however minor, to getting humans elsewhere that they can survive. Just because such a place doesn't currently exist doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking for it and pushing towards it.
^ That's a good example of what global warming theory does to the human brain.
First off, fish don't produce oxygen or uptake carbon dioxide, they eat the organisms that do that.
Next, even the IPCC's predictions for the equilibrium climate sensitivity top out at around 4.7 degrees C, which would be about a 400 mile poleward shift of the climate zones. Canada would plant lots of corn.
And the oil isn't going to run out in our lifetimes. As just announced, the Bakken formation turns out to be sitting on top of an even bigger formation with half again as much oil as the Bakken, probably making it bigger than the reserves California hasn't even tapped yet.
First off, fish don't produce oxygen or uptake carbon dioxide, they eat the organisms that do that.
Next, even the IPCC's predictions for the equilibrium climate sensitivity top out at around 4.7 degrees C, which would be about a 400 mile poleward shift of the climate zones. Canada would plant lots of corn.
And the oil isn't going to run out in our lifetimes. As just announced, the Bakken formation turns out to be sitting on top of an even bigger formation with half again as much oil as the Bakken, probably making it bigger than the reserves California hasn't even tapped yet.
I don't buy all your suppositions, however, if it's possible to build enclosures on the moon (or elsewhere) with life support systems, could we also do so right on the surface of this world?
And given that such enclosures would not have be sent to the moon, they would be less expensive, easier to construct and could be constructed in larger numbers, thereby providing habitat for large numbers of people?
Not necessarily how I'd want to live.
These enclosures would protect not only against a collapse of the ecosystem, but would also protect against a large body striking the Earth, unless you were in the impact area (shitty luck that).
I can think of positive reasons to go to space, "escaping the Earth" likely would not be on the list.
Exploration, resources, adventure, natural expansion of the Human species, yes.
Not "running away."
Right now we're using the easy to get to, easy to pump liquid oil, as you pointed out there a lot of it, then there's the harder to obtain thick oil that mixed with sand, then there's the "solid oil" in shale. No, not running out any time soon.
There's a massive amount of oil off the coast of Brazil, still working out how to get at it.
How much oil is there under Antarctica?
Last edited:
You obviously haven't watched any of those science channel type shows where they simulate a large impact with the Earth.
"Running Away" is the only safe option if the right asteroid came along.
And if the same asteroid struck the Moon where the habitats were, or struck Mars where the habitats were?
The people on Earth would be safe. You know, not putting all your eggs in one basket.
But then multiple asteroids hit all the baskets. I did say there were good reasons to go into space, I just don't see this being one of them.
I don't think you understand how odds work.
Species survival is the best reason to go into space. Most other reasons can be achieved with probes.
Another reason to go into space is that Mercury probably has enough gold and platinum in its core to cover the surface of the entire Earth with a layer a foot deep. The Earth's core is thought to hold enough of such metals to cover its surface a foot and a half deep, but our core is irritatingly inaccessible because the mantle is molten. Smaller bodies might not have that problem.
Similar threads
