Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 22, 9:22*am, David Johnston wrote:
But...it's there. *If "it's there" is enough to reason to settle, then
since Everest is obviously there, it should have been settled. *- Hide quoted text -

Actually, it has been. There are four or five base camps with
permanent structures, staffed year-round. The highest one is less
than a kilometer away from the summit. As far as I can tell, the only
purpose behind these camps is to facilitate tourism. I don't know if
that will change anyone's opinion, but I thought we should at least
clear up this minor point.

In sci.physics tadchem wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:47Â*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?

...only to weak and irrelevant people.

George Mallory (1886-1924), in answer to the question 'Why do you want
to climb Mt. Everest ?', answered "Because it is there."

Mallory didn't operate on taxpayer money and there are no colonies on
Mt. Everest.

The reasons for going to Everest were the same as the US going to the
Moon; political pride.

The development of humanity as a species is based largely on the
development of individuals. This development occurs because of people
who try to do things that haven't been done before.

Granted there are people who are too timid to try anything new. They
are usually adept at making excuses for their lack of temerity. I am
surrounded here in Richmond, VA by people who have never even traveled
more than 100 miles from their birthplace - people who still live in
the home their parents lived in when they were born.

I do not consider them my intellectual or cultural peers.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

So if one of those people decides to expand their horizons with a trip
to space, are you going to front them the $20-28 million?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

tadchem 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?

...only to weak and irrelevant people.

We'll see...

George Mallory (1886-1924), in answer to the question 'Why do
you want to climb Mt. Everest ?', answered "Because it is there."

You're welcome to **** off into space any time you like.

I wont be paying an immense amount of money for you to do that tho.

The development of humanity as a species is
based largely on the development of individuals.

Complete and utter mindlessly silly drivel.

This development occurs because of people who
try to do things that haven't been done before.

Quite a bit of the time it aint.

Granted there are people who are too timid to try anything new.

And plenty with enough of a clue to be able to grasp that there are plenty
of much better things to spend that immense amount of money on too.

They are usually adept at making excuses for their lack of temerity.

And plenty dont need any excuse to no **** that sort of money against the wall.

I am surrounded here in Richmond, VA by people who have never
even traveled more than 100 miles from their birthplace - people
who still live in the home their parents lived in when they were born.

Your problem.

I do not consider them my intellectual or cultural peers.

Your problem.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:12:12 -0700 (PDT), tadchem wrote:

On Jul 20, 5:47 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?

...only to weak and irrelevant people.

Only??!


George Mallory (1886-1924), in answer to the question 'Why do you want
to climb Mt. Everest ?', answered "Because it is there."

What a non-answer! And yet, famous. A deer-in-the-headlights moment
immortalized. Go figure.


The development of humanity as a species is based largely on the
development of individuals.

An individual is not going to fund his own trip to Mars. He is going
to need massive amounts of cash from the public - and a better sales
pitch than I have observed here to get it.


This development occurs because of people
who try to do things that haven't been done before.

Development occurs because people do *useful* things that haven't been
done before.

Motion is not progress.

What was useful about going to the moon?

"Oh, but there were spin-offs ..."

How much better would it be to focus a bazillion dollars of effort
directly into a problem that is known to need fixing?


Granted there are people who are too timid to try anything new.

New is not necessarily better. Version tag may only yield more
difficult ways to accomplish the same thing, with a dancing paperclip
thrown in for annoyance.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


They
are usually adept at making excuses for their lack of temerity. I am
surrounded here in Richmond, VA by people who have never even traveled
more than 100 miles from their birthplace - people who still live in
the home their parents lived in when they were born.

How far is far enough? For how long? Does showing up for a day of work
elsewhere really count as having *been* elsewhere? Is a used airline
ticket evidence of having experienced the culture in the area to which
one has "traveled"?

Wouldn't it be nice to enjoy where one finds themselves as much as
some of your neighbors apparently do? Should people in Hawaii travel
to Siberia just so they can say they have traveled far?

Jesus never traveled more than 200 miles from his birthplace. He
changed the world.

Richmond, VA may not be paradise to everyone. Maybe some stay because
they aren't adventurous.

Is it better to become acquainted with an adventurous terrorist who
has traveled far from his birthplace for the express purpose of
engaging in a new, heart-pounding, and one-off activity?

One man's adventure may be another's folly, or wickedness.

Everyone may not have the same measure of achievement.

Dialog from the TV series "Third Rock from the Sun":
Gym Teacher: Soloman, climb that rope!
Tommy: What's at the top of the rope?


I do not consider them my intellectual or cultural peers.

What does wanderlust have to do with intellect? Are nomads necessarily
brilliant?

Define "culture". Is it found only in rap music? Country? Classical?
Should someone in one camp point to another and say:
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/s...philippic.html
The man ain't got no culture?

Maybe rap music was a bad example.

I'm told it's poetry.

Maybe so.

I like Larry King's question about music: "Can you hum it?"

--
Adam

In article ,
tadchem said:

The development of humanity as a species is based largely on the
development of individuals. This development occurs because of
people who try to do things that haven't been done before.

Okay. Let's see someone individually colonize space.

-- wds

On Jul 21, 4:12*pm, tadchem wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:47*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?

...only to weak and irrelevant people.

George Mallory (1886-1924), in answer to the question 'Why do you want
to climb Mt. Everest ?', answered "Because it is there."

The development of humanity as a species is based largely on the
development of individuals. *This development occurs because of people
who try to do things that haven't been done before.

Granted there are people who are too timid to try anything new. They
are usually adept at making excuses for their lack of temerity. I am
surrounded here in Richmond, VA by people who have never even traveled
more than 100 miles from their birthplace - people who still live in
the home their parents lived in when they were born.

Well, they're also the people who have never travelled any further
than Jeffersonian Architecture also.
Which is also why the people with post 1776 engineering and
miiltary brains
even work on Cruise Missiles, Drones, Phalanx, UAVs, AAVs, Weather
Satellites,
GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Electronic Books, Laser Disk
Libraries, Data Fusion,
Atomic Clock Wris****ches, Light Sticks, Compact Flourescent
Lighting, Cell Phones,
Flat Screen Software Debuggers, C++, XML, USB, PGP, mp3, mpeg,
HDTV, Holograms,
Fiber Optics Comm Links, Home Broadband, Distributed Processsing
Software,
Microcomputers, Optcal Computers, Microwae :Ovens, Microwave
Cooling,
Thermo-Electric Cooling, Cyber Batteries, Gas Turbine Engines,
Hybrid-Electric Engines,
Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, On-Line
Banking, On-Line Shopping,
and On-Line Publishing, rather than anythng in the idiot Newport
News Shipyard anyway.







I do not consider them my intellectual or cultural peers.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Jul 21, 7:47*am, 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?

How weak and irrelevant? Which arguments are you talking about? I'm
personally in favour of colonising space, but without knowing what
arguments you're talking about, how can we judge their strength or
relevancy?

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?

I think it best (in my opinion) that humans fix Earth before going to
other planets. Everyone has a right to a safe and happy life. A right
to have dreams and have them fulfilled, to study and learn. The expense
involved with leaving Earth just isn't justified when so many people
live without hope and die of such stupid and simply fixed problems like
hunger. But I do understand the people who say that Humans should have a
bet both ways in case of an asteroid impact or similar extinction type
event.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkpmsSsACgkQvx9n7wWtmFFU5ACfUcdUDM0aiw P5X5MG7nu/g7qP
xJwAn2cTBByrxAXEInOsNCDetAMMESYj
=1UQ2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

stfuudork 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?

I think it best (in my opinion) that humans fix Earth before going to
other planets. Everyone has a right to a safe and happy life. A right
to have dreams and have them fulfilled, to study and learn. The expense
involved with leaving Earth just isn't justified when so many people
live without hope and die of such stupid and simply fixed problems like
hunger. But I do understand the people who say that Humans should have a
bet both ways in case of an asteroid impact or similar extinction type
event.

The "First we have to fix every problem on Earth" argument is a common
one. Its also a false choice. The amount spent on space exploration is
a tiny fraction of what is spent already on issues such as literacy,
famine relief, etc. It also ignores the fact that many of the advances
that help "fix Earth" are spin-offs _from_ space exploration. Not to
mention ignoring that most such problems are cultural and the solutions
are rejected by those suffering from them.

It is not a choice _between_ feed the hungry and explore space. We can
easily do both and each helps advance the other.

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

In sci.physics Dimensional Traveler wrote:
stfuudork 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?

I think it best (in my opinion) that humans fix Earth before going to
other planets. Everyone has a right to a safe and happy life. A right
to have dreams and have them fulfilled, to study and learn. The expense
involved with leaving Earth just isn't justified when so many people
live without hope and die of such stupid and simply fixed problems like
hunger. But I do understand the people who say that Humans should have a
bet both ways in case of an asteroid impact or similar extinction type
event.

The "First we have to fix every problem on Earth" argument is a common
one. Its also a false choice. The amount spent on space exploration is
a tiny fraction of what is spent already on issues such as literacy,
famine relief, etc. It also ignores the fact that many of the advances
that help "fix Earth" are spin-offs _from_ space exploration. Not to
mention ignoring that most such problems are cultural and the solutions
are rejected by those suffering from them.

It is not a choice _between_ feed the hungry and explore space. We can
easily do both and each helps advance the other.

The 2009 US budget show $1630 billion for direct social programs and
$17.6 billion for NASA; it appears the US is doing both.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.