"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 6:52 pm, "John M" wrote:

So let's spend all our scientific resources to...run
from the problem, instead of fixing it?

No.

But we live on an Earth with *other people* on it. Some of whom we
can't control.

I beg to differ, the military dominance of the United States right now
is at an historic high. And we are moving ahead of the rest at an
even faster pace. All that star-wars research, started back in the
80's, are coming online.


There are countries like Russia


Militarily speaking, the Russians rank right up there with Poland
or Australia. But more to the point, the Russians are our friends
trading partners and ally. A few sore spots here and there, but
nothing of significance.


and China

Is entirely dependent upon economic trade with the US.
And their military is almost entirely defensive. But China
is the problem, the dictatorial empire of the Chinese
Communist Party spans a fifth of humanity. Do you see
any parallel with the former empire of the Soviet Union?

It's only a matter of time before China becomes a half dozen
brand new economic and military allies of the United States.

You still fail to grasp the simplicity of reality, democracy, just
like Nature, always wins in the end. It is the final probable
state of any sufficiently complex system.


with nuclear
weapons
that can't be counted upon to work together with the United
States for the good of everyone.
The major part of our resources should be spent on fixing the problem,
for the good of the largest portion of humanity.


Right, and how is building a colony for a /select few people/ helping
the bulk of humanity?


However, it's stupid to blindly believe that we're 100% guaranteed to
fix all the problems. Just one problem not fixed is enough to kill us
all.


What? Life is the most resilient thing in the entire known universe.
Look up the word fragile, life is the opposite of that.


Having space colonies within the solar system is not an impossibility.
And it can even be a way to help fix the problem on Earth.

About the most inefficient, expensive and slowest way of doing that.
I believe the optimistic timeline for putting four people on the Moon
for a few weeks was about twenty years. Forty years for a similarly
token presence on Mars.

I'm not that patient, no one is. You can't get funds for something
that won't be completed in the lifetime of the people...paying
for it. President Bush's space "Vision" didn't last six months
after he left office, and that was only because President Obama
was busy.


If the off-Earth population grows, then...
It can deflect asteroids that might hit Earth.

This isn't an episode of Star Trek.
Although, the military dominance of the United
States et al, as compared to the 'uncivilized' world
is becoming akin to comparing Star Fleet to the
wandering Berjoran tribes.

Before long, every place on Earth will be within
the range of US speed of light weaponry
available at the 'speed of need', in their words.


It can provide energy or other resources to Earth.

We should travel to the outer solar system for energy?
There's enough solar energy bathing the Earth to provide
a hundred times the energy we could ever conceivably use
in the next thousand years.


By showing that freedom will survive, even should some tyrant conquer
the whole Earth, it will help limit the ambitions of tyrants, by
showing that they can never win in their goal of exterminating human
freedom everywhere.


Why is it people seem to assume a space colony would automatically
be some shining example of society? Just the opposite is more
likely, a military-like outpost where democracy is some sort of
'alien' concept. Such a small isolated society is far more likely
to end up in a cult-like mass suicide than anything else.

Besides, unless you're planning on building a colony for six
BI:LLION people, what's the point? If you expect me to
pay through the nose so a few people can run away
and l e a v e u s b e h i n d to face calamity, will
screw that, and the horse it rode in on.


John Savard



Jonathan