wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a
lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument
obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should
recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking
about doing.

Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people
think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants.


i.e, the voters and tax payers who are going to pay for it?

Yeah, through the elected representatives funding things like NASA.

Yep. I noticed Obama was talking pretty positively, during campaigning at
least, about his support for the space programme. I'm sure this is because
most of his employers feel the same way.


Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI.

Potential and hoped for ROI at least.

What's your point?

There is little in life that is a sure thing, but if your business plan
doesn't show a good ROI, the bean counters won't fund you.

I just meant that businiess is often involving quite high risk especially if
the potential is large.


The only government colonies have all been penal colonies.


America wasn't a penal colony.

I didn't say it was.

It was a British colony. So was India, Malaysia, Burma (now Myanmar),
Australia (partly a penal colony for some time), Hong Kong, Singapore,
America (as you say yourself not a penal colony), Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa etc etc etc.


The colonies in North America were not government colonies either. They
were funded by private enterprise.

They were funded by the crown initially, but I suppose you could say that
was not a government in the modern sense (I suggest you jump on this face
saving lifeline).


It is estimated that 50,000 convicts were sent to North America by Britain
to serve as slaves or endentured labor.

So what was America a penal colony or not, you seem to be contradicting
yourself in this struggle to warp history.


Australia had many government colonies, all penal colonies.

While there were some "free settlements" in Australia, the population
was predomanitly convicts and their decendants until the gold rushes
of the 1850's.

So this one example means all government colnies....I can't even be
bothered.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.