No colonies in space - safeguard the Earth instead

While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?". If we were to have space colonies
politicians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
give a list here.

1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
produced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
amount of colonies would save us. The fact that the chance of success
was nanoscopic does not alter the breathtaking arrogance.

2) Smallpox - The Pentagon claims that stocks are needed to provide
vaccines. This is total nonsense, vaccines for smallpox are produced
from related organisms. Jenner in the 18th century used cowpox. In
fact the word "vaccination" is derived from the Latin "vacca" cow. In
fact the sole reason for keeping stocks is to wage aggressive war
..
3) Recombinant DNA - Whenever civilians want to conduct research they
have to go through goodness knows what in the shape of ethics
committees. If you are military and you specifically want to kill
people you can construct black projects and bypass all ethics
committees.

I think I said in a previous post that the only planet we should
consider colonizing was Venus. This would represent a commitment to
becoming a Type 1 civilization. Unless you have a commitment to Type
1, any colonies would simply constitute a bolt hole for generals and
politicians. If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike, or a VEI 8 eruption, the logical solution (far less expensive
than a colony on Mars) would be to stockpile 2 years supply of food in
either frozen (large cavities, particularly in the Arctic or
Antarctic, would be quite energy efficient) or tinned. Why isn't
Stephen Hawkins advocating that?


- Ian Parker

In article .com,
Ian Parker wrote:

While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?".

Why? That seems silly to me. What's so special about humanity ON EARTH
as opposed to humanity anywhere else?

If we were to have space colonies
politicians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
give a list here.

1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
produced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
amount of colonies would save us.

Read a lot of SF, do you?

I think I said in a previous post that the only planet we should
consider colonizing was Venus.

More silliness. In fact, colonizing planets in general is rather silly
(why would you purposely put yourself at the bottom of a deep gravity
well?), but Venus is one of the silliest. I'm no Mars fan, but even I
have to admit that settling Mars would be dramatically easier than
surviving for a week on Venus.

If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike, or a VEI 8 eruption, the logical solution (far less expensive
than a colony on Mars) would be to stockpile 2 years supply of food in
either frozen (large cavities, particularly in the Arctic or
Antarctic, would be quite energy efficient) or tinned. Why isn't
Stephen Hawkins advocating that?

Maybe he is, and some folks are doing things like that -- but there are
dangers to the population of Earth that such precautions don't cover.

Best,
- Joe

Ian Parker wrote:

:While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
:must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
:colonization.
:
:The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
:do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?". If we were to have space colonies
oliticians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
:military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
:give a list here.
:
:1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
roduced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
:amount of colonies would save us. The fact that the chance of success
:was nanoscopic does not alter the breathtaking arrogance.

Cite? Oh, it was SECRET. So how do you know about it?

The word 'poppycock' comes to mind.

:2) Smallpox - The Pentagon claims that stocks are needed to provide
:vaccines. This is total nonsense, vaccines for smallpox are produced
:from related organisms. Jenner in the 18th century used cowpox. In
:fact the word "vaccination" is derived from the Latin "vacca" cow. In
:fact the sole reason for keeping stocks is to wage aggressive war.

DoD is not the agency that is holding those stocks. Modern vaccines
were NOT made out of 'related organisms'.

:3) Recombinant DNA - Whenever civilians want to conduct research they
:have to go through goodness knows what in the shape of ethics
:committees. If you are military and you specifically want to kill
eople you can construct black projects and bypass all ethics
:committees.

Which has nothing at all to do with recombinant DNA. Is it your claim
there are DoD-sponsored projects looking at recombinant DNA weapons?

Cite?

Again, the word 'poppycock' seems to come to mind...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Ian Parker wrote:

While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I


(snip) If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike,

If we gain the ability to move asteroids, the chances of an asteroid
striking the earth goes _up_ rather than down, IMO. Humans aren't
completely sane.

Near term: space settlements will be completely dependent on earth.

Long term: self sustaining space settlements will come to pass. And our
eggs will no longer all be in the same basket.

If earthly life were in several baskets, a warlord would have less
disincentive to exterminate a planet. I believe that is a good point.
Regardless, I still hope for self sustaining space settlements.

Hop

On 27 Apr, 16:00, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
Ian Parker wrote:

While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?".

Why? That seems silly to me. What's so special about humanity ON EARTH
as opposed to humanity anywhere else?

If we were to have space colonies
politicians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
give a list here.

1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
produced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
amount of colonies would save us.

Read a lot of SF, do you?

There was in fact a black project. What they actually did is a
mystery. Perhaps the really big secret is that they were taken in by
somebody.

I think I said in a previous post that the only planet we should
consider colonizing was Venus.

More silliness. In fact, colonizing planets in general is rather silly
(why would you purposely put yourself at the bottom of a deep gravity
well?), but Venus is one of the silliest. I'm no Mars fan, but even I
have to admit that settling Mars would be dramatically easier than
surviving for a week on Venus.

You get me wrong here. I said Venus but ONLY because of the Type 1
committment. On Mars, or anywhere as easy as Mars colonies would be
for politicians and generals, not for humanity as a whole. I said
Venus because when we have proper technology with VN machines Venus
would be eminantly feasible to terraform. Until, however, that day
comes no colonies anywhere.

Venus is linked very much with the Type 1 milestone. I have no
objection to Type 1 aspirationalism. This is really what I am saying.

BTW - If I were a martian I would do what was done in 1776. Make it
crystal clear to "King George" that he was not welcome and any
spacecraft carrying him would be destroyed.

If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike, or a VEI 8 eruption, the logical solution (far less expensive
than a colony on Mars) would be to stockpile 2 years supply of food in
either frozen (large cavities, particularly in the Arctic or
Antarctic, would be quite energy efficient) or tinned. Why isn't
Stephen Hawkins advocating that?

Maybe he is, and some folks are doing things like that -- but there are
dangers to the population of Earth that such precautions don't cover.

Most of the dangers to Earth are of our own making. If there were to
be a catastophe that we could not avoid then perhaps we should go into
space. That is NOT the case.

Earth has survived for 4.5 billion years. There have been complex
multicelluar organisms for the last 600 million. It is unlikely to be
any NATURAL catastophe that would not be covered by a food dump.


- Ian Parker

On 27 Apr, 16:01, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
:must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
:colonization.
:
:The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
:do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?". If we were to have space colonies
oliticians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
:military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
:give a list here.
:
:1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
roduced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
:amount of colonies would save us. The fact that the chance of success
:was nanoscopic does not alter the breathtaking arrogance.

Cite? Oh, it was SECRET. So how do you know about it?

Various things leak out from time tio time. The real secret is that
people were taken in by the likes of Startrek
The word 'poppycock' comes to mind.

:2) Smallpox - The Pentagon claims that stocks are needed to provide
:vaccines. This is total nonsense, vaccines for smallpox are produced
:from related organisms. Jenner in the 18th century used cowpox. In
:fact the word "vaccination" is derived from the Latin "vacca" cow. In
:fact the sole reason for keeping stocks is to wage aggressive war.

DoD is not the agency that is holding those stocks. Modern vaccines
were NOT made out of 'related organisms'.

Oh - they have no influence then. I find that hard to believe. Could I
tell you how "modern" vaccines are made. recombinant DNA at some
point. The old vaccines against Smallpox are perfectly adaquate, the
only thing they do not protect against is a recombinant
strain.Jenner's vaccine was perfectly adaquate. The only thing us
moderns would need to do with it would be to make it of consistent
quality, and more attenuated.

The carrying out of recombinant research in any form on smallpox must
be fraught with perils. First question - What do you need a vaccine
for? Best way is to destroy the lot - then you won't need to vaccinate
with anything. The US and Russia currently hold stocks. If the US were
to propose destruction I am sure Russia would not stand in the way. No
the reason why you would need a vaccine is to combat a recombinant
strain - something that you yourself have created.

:3) Recombinant DNA - Whenever civilians want to conduct research they
:have to go through goodness knows what in the shape of ethics
:committees. If you are military and you specifically want to kill
eople you can construct black projects and bypass all ethics
:committees.

Which has nothing at all to do with recombinant DNA. Is it your claim
there are DoD-sponsored projects looking at recombinant DNA weapons?

How do you propose to have a "modern" smallpox vaccine - and what
would you need it for?

The Israelis have done research on the genetic differences between
themselves and the Arabs, with the thought of develping a selective
biological weapon. Mind the nations in the modern world are very mixed
genetically - they will have a job.

- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 27 Apr, 16:00, Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
Ian Parker wrote:

While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?".

Why? That seems silly to me. What's so special about humanity ON EARTH
as opposed to humanity anywhere else?

If we were to have space colonies
politicians and generals would take bigger risks. The arrogance of the
military and the risks they are taking are simply breathtaking. I will
give a list here.

1) Warp Drive - Secret funds were allocated for this. Any warp
produced has a high chance of leading to Inflation from which no
amount of colonies would save us.

Read a lot of SF, do you?

There was in fact a black project. What they actually did is a
mystery. Perhaps the really big secret is that they were taken in by
somebody.

boggles

Eh? Are you saying there has been a "black project" to build a warp drive?
How did you find out about it?

I think I said in a previous post that the only planet we should
consider colonizing was Venus.

More silliness. In fact, colonizing planets in general is rather silly
(why would you purposely put yourself at the bottom of a deep gravity
well?), but Venus is one of the silliest. I'm no Mars fan, but even I
have to admit that settling Mars would be dramatically easier than
surviving for a week on Venus.

You get me wrong here. I said Venus but ONLY because of the Type 1
committment. On Mars, or anywhere as easy as Mars colonies would be
for politicians and generals, not for humanity as a whole. I said
Venus because when we have proper technology with VN machines Venus
would be eminantly feasible to terraform. Until, however, that day
comes no colonies anywhere.

boggles^2

Wow.

Venus is linked very much with the Type 1 milestone. I have no
objection to Type 1 aspirationalism. This is really what I am saying.

BTW - If I were a martian I would do what was done in 1776. Make it
crystal clear to "King George" that he was not welcome and any
spacecraft carrying him would be destroyed.

If you really are worried about either an asteroid
strike, or a VEI 8 eruption, the logical solution (far less expensive
than a colony on Mars) would be to stockpile 2 years supply of food in
either frozen (large cavities, particularly in the Arctic or
Antarctic, would be quite energy efficient) or tinned. Why isn't
Stephen Hawkins advocating that?

Maybe he is, and some folks are doing things like that -- but there are
dangers to the population of Earth that such precautions don't cover.

Most of the dangers to Earth are of our own making. If there were to
be a catastophe that we could not avoid then perhaps we should go into
space. That is NOT the case.

Earth has survived for 4.5 billion years. There have been complex
multicelluar organisms for the last 600 million. It is unlikely to be
any NATURAL catastophe that would not be covered by a food dump.

Hmm. I am sure that it is unlikely that _any_ natural catastrophe will wipe
out *all* life on Earth. However, I got the impression this thread was
concerned about *Human* life on Earth, which is a different kettle of fish
all together. Two years supply of food (for how many people, BTW?) is not
very long. How would it be distributed? How would /you/ decide who gets to
eat it? (etc.)

Joe Strout wrote:

:In article .com,
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
: must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
: colonization.
:
: The objectives of our politicians should be, and be exclusively:- "How
: do we safeguard humanity ON EARTH?".
:
:Why? That seems silly to me. What's so special about humanity ON EARTH
:as opposed to humanity anywhere else?

Because once there are enough humans in space to matter they'll
probably have their own politicians to worry about them.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

On Apr 27, 6:59 am, Ian Parker wrote:
While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

- Ian Parker

"Stephen Hawkins" earns you +5, but I stopped reading there.
-- S

smallpond wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:59 am, Ian Parker wrote:
While applauding the courage and determination of Stephen Hawkins I
must disagree with him completely on the subject of space
colonization.

"Stephen Hawkins" earns you +5, but I stopped reading there.

No, my understanding is that he gets five free points, regardless.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html