Salvation Of Mankind Is Not Going To Be Found In Space

In article . com,
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:

The simple fact is, we are never going to go to the stars, because we
are never going to invent the warp coil and break the speed of light.

That's not a fact; that's your opinion, and it's wrong. We will
eventually colonize the galaxy, even at sublight speeds. (Once a
species is thick in its home star's Oort cloud, it's not a big leap to
the next Oort cloud over.)

I would agree with the *opinion* that we will probably never reach other
galaxies, however -- intergalactic distances are too great to cross at
sublight speeds, even for very long-lived people.

We will probably colonize near-earth space. I could go for a stay on
one of those cool Ferris Wheel space stations. But only a visit.

Suit yourself. The meek will inherit the Earth, and you're free to be
among them.

Space colonization is not like the
colonization of the West. You don't scrape together a few hundred
dollars and put your sick wife and kids on a wagon train to the moon or
Mars. Only the elite get to go.

Nonsense. Colonization of the West was possible only because Europeans
had already colonized the East, and that required ships that could cross
vast oceans -- technology that essentially didn't exist 1000 years ago,
and required investment on a national-government scale 500 years ago.
That's the stage we're at with space now, but it won't always be so.
And in our case, the vast hard-to-cross ocean is just getting to orbit;
your "colonizing the West" analogy won't apply until we already have
lots of people living off Earth, and they're eyeing the next empty hunk
of real estate (e.g., lunar inhabitants eyeing NEAs).

A friend of mine argues that once we've conquered the problem of
building a space elevator, we'll be able to haul lots of stuff to space
and fling it toward Mars or the Moon.

True, if that pans out -- but it's not necessary. Even chemical rockets
can be dramatically cheaper (and safer) than they are now. Economies of
scale have not yet kicked in, but it looks like they may well do so
soon, thanks mainly to the tourism industry.

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

As I say, appeals to romance work best with me. Doing it "because it's
there" could bring out the best in us.

Could be. How's bringing life to an otherwise dead galaxy grab you?
That's one that stirs emotion in me. Not that emotion is necessary for
space colonization to make sense.

Doing it, as Hawking urged, in
order to save the species is sheer midsummer madness.

No, it's quite sensible. If you care about your eggs, you don't put
them all in one basket, which is exactly the situation we're in now.

But in either case, granting (which is granting a lot) that we will
colonize both Mars and the Moon, that's it.

Ah, a planetary chauvinist, I see. I don't know if we'll ever bother to
colonize Mars in any big way; there isn't very much point to it. But
most of the human population, 500 years from now, won't be living on ANY
planetary surface, but in space colonies.

I prefer to not visit the Planet of the Apes myself.

Try reading more science and less science fiction.

Reality is this: salvation is not going to be found in ET.

Not in ET beings, I agree. But ET resources, yes: that's exactly where
humanity's salvation lies. Without them, we will eventually implode in
one way or another.

Aliens, whether benevolent or malicious, now occupy
the imaginative niche once filled by angels and devils.

Agreed. People used to believe they had contact from angels or devils;
nowadays they believe they've been abducted by aliens. All interesting
from a psychological standpoint, but all rather irrelevant too. As far
as all real evidence indicates, there are no aliens (at least, not with
any interest in making their presence known), and no gods either.
Saving ourselves is entirely up to us.

My point is simply that Killjoy SF confronts us with the fact that
the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the
will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will
be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty
of the children of God.

Er... OK, whatever. Didn't you just admit above that angels and devils
are products of the imagination?

The deathless dream of the human race is that there is a way to make
this creation into heaven.

I'm not sure what that would mean, but we can definitely make the world
a better place -- in fact we've been doing so for thousands of years,
mostly through technology, and through gradually replacing superstition
with science. There is still a lot more we can do, especially for the
parts of the world that are impoverished. The energy and resources of
space are crucial to that continued progress.

[remaining religious drivel snipped]

Best,
- Joe

P.S. Do Usenet a favor: trim at least one newsgroup from the post list
on each reply, until we're down to the one that's actually on-topic!

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:53:59 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:53:59 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

Bill M wrote:
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

???

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the Moon or
Antarctica, over the long run? (Your answer must take into account the
fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing Antarctica, and that we
made manned landings on Luna starting in 1969).

Frankly, the only reason I would see for neither being likely would be
the annhilation of the human race in just a few decades. If humanity
survives for centuries or millennia to come, I don't see what would
stop us from colonizing both places. Especially Antarctica, which is
after all just another part of our own planet.

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill M wrote:
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

???

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the Moon or
Antarctica, over the long run? (Your answer must take into account the
fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing Antarctica, and that we
made manned landings on Luna starting in 1969).

We haven't begun to "colonize" either place; no one has ever been on the
moon for more than a few days, and nothing like a dewlling was ever
established there. There are permanent research stations in Antarctica, but
no permanent residents, and AFAIK no children at all. In the long run, a
higher level of tech will make colonizing them a possibility, but the
specific tech for doing so won't be created unless there's a reason to go
there. That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

Jordan wrote:

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the
Moon or Antarctica, over the long run?

Better options always being available.

(Your answer must take
into account the fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing
Antarctica, and that we made manned landings on Luna starting
in 1969).

Did the above qualify?

Jim Davis

In article ,
"Mike Schilling" wrote:

That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

That should be: why *do* people want to go there? There are already
quite a lot of us, you know.

Best,
- Joe

:: why would people want to go there?

: Joe Strout
: That should be: why *do* people want to go there? There are already
: quite a lot of us, you know.

Is "quite a lot" same as "more than enough so they don't require
people who don't care to subsidize their efforts"? So far, that hasn't
been the case, naict, and I don't see particular reason why it would
be so in the foreseeable future. One could argue that over time, the
energy and resources expendable per capita rise, so eventually even
a small group would have the resources to do it, but I think that's
arguably beyond the "foreseeable" horizon.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Schilling" wrote:

That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

That should be: why *do* people want to go there? There are already
quite a lot of us, you know.

"Want to" as in think it would be pretty cool, or "want to" as in will risk
everything, pull up stakes, brave hardships, and go. No one has ever had
the opportunity to demonstrate membership in category 2, so how would I know
how big it is?

In article ,
"Mike Schilling" wrote:

That should be: why *do* people want to go there? There are already
quite a lot of us, you know.

"Want to" as in think it would be pretty cool, or "want to" as in will risk
everything, pull up stakes, brave hardships, and go.

Sure.

No one has ever had the opportunity to demonstrate membership in
category 2, so how would I know how big it is?

Well, I didn't say you could know how big it is. But I can know that
it's at least nonzero -- and I believe, based on things I've heard
others say, that it's a lot bigger than that.

Best,
- Joe