Why Colonize Space?

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?

Immortalista wrote:

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe
that there is no reason for humans to leave earth.

What they actually did was **** on the claims about colonisation of space from a great height.

Are all arguments for moving into space and onto
other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Yep.

In spades with the stupid claim that we cant survive on just one planet.

Rod Speed wrote:
Immortalista wrote:

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe
that there is no reason for humans to leave earth.

What they actually did was **** on the claims about colonisation of space from a great height.

Are all arguments for moving into space and onto
other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Yep.

In spades with the stupid claim that we cant survive on just one planet.

The "When Worlds Collide" scenario isn't impossible.

And given the mathematical expectation--once that scenario takes place,
Earth is gone--it would be worth hedging that bet.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L. wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe
that there is no reason for humans to leave earth.

What they actually did was **** on the claims about colonisation of space from a great height.

Are all arguments for moving into space and onto
other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Yep.

In spades with the stupid claim that we cant survive on just one planet.

The "When Worlds Collide" scenario isn't impossible.

So unlikely that it isnt worth spending that immense amount of money on.

And given the mathematical expectation--once that scenario takes place, Earth is gone--it would be worth hedging that
bet.

Nope, insane to spend that sort of money on something that unlikely.

And **** all would be stupid enough to want to be
colonists to avoid such an unlikely possibility anyway.

On Jul 20, 4:33*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Steven L. wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Immortalista wrote
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe
that there is no reason for humans to leave earth.
What they actually did was **** on the claims about colonisation of space from a great height.
Are all arguments for moving into space and onto
other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?
Yep.
In spades with the stupid claim that we cant survive on just one planet.

Immortalista wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steven L. wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe
that there is no reason for humans to leave earth.

What they actually did was **** on the claims
about colonisation of space from a great height.

Are all arguments for moving into space and onto
other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

Yep.

In spades with the stupid claim that we cant survive on just one planet.

The "When Worlds Collide" scenario isn't impossible.

So unlikely that it isnt worth spending that immense amount of money on.

What if it becomes likely that we can make some
products cheaper in space or on another planet,

Then we make them in space if that turns out of be economically viable given the total cost.

do we then decide for colonization?

Unlikely. Much more likely to be better to automate it instead.

What if colinization can pay for itself and turn a profit?

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Doesn't your philosophy demand that we follow profits like slaves to a master?

Nope. I have never been in favor of little kids in coal mines, even tho they
are a lot smaller than adults and so the access tunnels could be smaller etc.

Or are you just that earth-centric to the point that even
if technology made it reasonable to move out in space,
you would rather humans just stay here on earth?

I dont care what they do. I dont plan to pay the immense cost
of colonising the moon or mars, there are MUCH better things
to spend that sort of money on, like nukes for example.

And given the mathematical expectation--once that scenario
takes place, Earth is gone--it would be worth hedging that bet.

Nope, insane to spend that sort of money on something that unlikely.

And **** all would be stupid enough to want to be
colonists to avoid such an unlikely possibility anyway.

In sci.physics Immortalista wrote:

What if it becomes likely that we can make some products cheaper in
space or on another planet, do we then decide for colonization? What
if colinization can pay for itself and turn a profit?

Then the same thing will happen as happened when it became apparent that
there was profit to be had in the New World.

Doesn't your
philosophy demand that we follow profits like slaves to a master?

Philosophy doesn't, but the company accountant does.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven L. wrote:

The "When Worlds Collide" scenario isn't impossible.

Actually, the one shown in the film is... figure out the velocity that
Bellus would have to have to get from first detection to Earth impact as
fast as is shown in the film - to get to Zira, the Space Ark must match
the velocity of the Bellus-Zira system as it passes by, and that's way
outside of the abilities of the propulsion technology shown in the film.

Pat

On Jul 20, 1:47*pm, Immortalista wrote:
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?

Its not even going to happen. There is no important enough reason to
use such copious resources on such a thing. It won't even begin to
work.

Mitch Raemsch

On 20 jul, 23:02, BURT wrote:
On Jul 20, 1:47*pm, Immortalista wrote:

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?

Its not even going to happen. There is no important enough reason to
use such copious resources on such a thing. It won't even begin to
work.

Mitch Raemsch

at the rate of present growing population, we would had colonized the
entire universe.
In geological terms, just a mere 16,500 years, and keeping our present
rate of growth of 1% a year, we will be 10^80 people.
6,9(10^9)*(1,01)^16.500= 1,34 (10^81)

That means it will be one person per each cubic millimeter of space
in the Universe.
We would had captured almost all the protons, and neutrons, of the
Universe, all atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, of carbon, of calcium,
etc. in the Universe to make our babies.
It would be as much as one person per cubic millimeter of space in the
known Universe. It is computed assuming the the radius of the
universe is not bigger than 12,5 billion lightyears long.
If the universe were a little larger would need a few more years to
fill it totally.

leopoldo