Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 20, 9:03*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[snip]
What if colinization can pay for itself and turn a profit?

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you. You can simply not participate,
and then when the benefits start to roll in, you will be
forcefully prevented from enjoying any of them.

The program will go faster without you anyway.

Oh, by the way. Space is already making huge stacks
of money for those participating. Space has been a
net profit for some considerable time now. There are
these things called weather satts, telecom satts, GPS,
and others. They are already producing more revenue
than is spent on space, by a lot. So you can just go
turn in your GPS, your cell phone, your internet
connection, your weather reports, etc. etc
Socks

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:56:00 +0100, "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.

What worries me 'most' is that the human race is basically
anachronistic, 'we' are still in the medieval ages, culturally.
Honesty is not as strong as hubris. 'We' are still the fantasy
folk. Those fantasies don't work out of 'our' supportive
context.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), 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?

If one day ground to orbit gets really, really cheap...

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:56:00 +0100, "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.

Pragmatism is also a philosophy.

Puppet_Sock wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you.

Nope, its just your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy.

You can simply not participate,

Taxation doesnt work like that, stupid.

and then when the benefits start to roll in, you will
be forcefully prevented from enjoying any of them.

Doesnt work like that, stupid.

The program will go faster without you anyway.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy.

Oh, by the way. Space is already making
huge stacks of money for those participating.

Yes, and I use quite a bit of that, but thats not space
colonisation and I did in fact get ALL the benefits from
the NON MANNED space efforts, not the manned ones.

Space has been a net profit for some considerable time now.

And even just the few odd trips to the moon never did.

There are these things called weather satts, telecom satts, GPS, and others.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wits ?

They are already producing more revenue than is spent on space, by a lot.

Pity they are ALL the unmanned ones, ****wit.

So you can just go turn in your GPS, your cell phone,
your internet connection, your weather reports, etc. etc

No point, I have never objected to paying for any of those.

They even employed me at one time.

Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like
the SPACE COLONISATION being discussed tho.

In sci.physics Puppet_Sock wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:03Â*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[snip]
What if colinization can pay for itself and turn a profit?

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you. You can simply not participate,
and then when the benefits start to roll in, you will be
forcefully prevented from enjoying any of them.

The program will go faster without you anyway.

Oh, by the way. Space is already making huge stacks
of money for those participating. Space has been a
net profit for some considerable time now. There are
these things called weather satts, telecom satts, GPS,
and others. They are already producing more revenue
than is spent on space, by a lot. So you can just go
turn in your GPS, your cell phone, your internet
connection, your weather reports, etc. etc
Socks

None of those require people in space.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Giga" "Giga wrote
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?

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.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

This means that if it was a lot cheaper then it would be justified,

Not necessarily, most obviously if no one is interested in being colonists etc.

and that means there must be some reason for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that.

Utterly mangled all over again.

So if it just a question of allocation of resources,

It isnt.

rather than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised as a financial discussion, not really
a philosophical one.

No one ever said it was a philosophical one.

Rod Speed wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you.

Nope, its just your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy.

*plonk*

--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.

On Jul 21, 1:43*am, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you.

Nope, its just your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy.

*plonk*

Thats the best thing to do with ugly trolls. Some trolls are
entraining but this aint one of them.

plonked x2

--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.

Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

None, zero, nada, ziltch.

Here's a deal for you.

Nope, its just your pathetic little drug crazed fantasy.

*plonk*

Fat lot of good that will ever do you, ****wit child.