Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 24, 12:59*am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

* Invest in your junk. The civilized world has fewer children today than it
had yesterday, and uncontrollably will have fewer tomorrow than today (which
is now worrying the hell out many governments). [YOU] are going to have much
to fear from ever growing uncertainties, ever growing instabilities in
economy and society, and increasingly maddened mindless mobs. That is, on
the small chance you yourself aren't already among the mindless.

Uh-huh. In other words, "We rich white folk need to run away from the
scary colored people". I think you let a little bit too much of the
real you shine through.

The nice thing about True Believers is that sooner or later, they
can't help revealing their actual agenda. In this case, all the
nonsense about humanity's survival is just obfuscation for the desire
to have the world's most high-tech gated community.

* Those who don't know history, including those who are deliberately blind
to its lessons -- thinking as always that they no longer apply, are doomed
to repeat it.

Uh-huh. And when you find your colony needs people to pick the crops,
sweep the floors and raise the children, I'm sure you'll be happy to
repeat apartheid South Africa.


Eric Tolle

On Jul 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
In sci.physics ericthetolle wrote:



On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in ...

In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially
give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet!

I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed
on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially."

-- wds

: ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just waiting
for us, shame to just settle for just one planet.

You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet!

COME! *COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! *COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! *THE
RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! *POTENTIALLY WE CAN
MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND!

Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe
your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. *But if
you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the
Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****.

Eric Tolle

Gumption has nothing to do with it, it is return on investment that
determines whether or not private entities do anything.

"Gumption" in this case is obviously a highly theoretical and
adaptable substance that allows a would-be colonist to substitute it
for all the other things that a colony would require.

In any case, I can find a lot better justifications for colonizing the
mid-Atlantic ridge than Giga has for colonizing space. Not that I'm
saying they are good or profitable reasons, just better than his
babbling.


Eric Tolle

On Jul 23, 6:17*pm, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote:
"ericthetolle" wrote in message

...

On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in
...

In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially
give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet!

I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed
on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially."

-- wds

: ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just
waiting
for us, shame to just settle for just one planet.

You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet!

COME! *COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! *COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! *THE
RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! *POTENTIALLY WE CAN
MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND!

Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe
your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. *But if
you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the
Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****.

What about the Falklands? Anyway I don't really understand this requirement.

On Jul 26, 8:19*am, David Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:42:02 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"



just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:

"David Johnston" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:30:26 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
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.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the
future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good
life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.

That won't change if humans colonise space.

It might, with robotics and essentially unlimited resources?

If your robotics are that good you don't need people. *

Obviously you need people to pilot your giant mecha. ;')

I mean seriously, these guys have been watching too much Mobile Suit
Gundam. It's rotted their brains.


Eric Tolle

On Jul 28, 2:04*am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
* When it comes to manmade islands in space, eventually there would be
billions, and more, more than one. For one anology, Von Nuemann long ago
said future computers would so large and singular, city block size, that no
one would be able to afford one except the largest nations and corporations.

They also predicted flying cars, atomic powered cars, slidewalks and
commuting to work using jetpacks. None of which have come about.

Hell, I can't even commute to work in a fuel-cell powered hovercraft.
So just because one technology evolves unexpectedly quickly, there is
no reason to believe anything else will magically surmount the
difficulties involved in bringing it to production.


Eric Tolle

On Jul 23, 10:22*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
::: underwater,

:: Even you should have noticed that we dont bother to colonise there.

: darwinist
: No but we could.

And we *could* colonize space, I'm fairly sure.
But could neither equals would, nor should.

At least nobody claims we "should" colonize underwater because
it'd shield from some disasters that could overtake the surface-dwellers.
Nor, for that matter, to mine the extensive manganese deposits, etc.

Nah, I did that a hundred or so posts back. In fact, I flat out
stated that anybody who supported space colonization without first
supporting the far easier ocean colonization was just talking out of
their ass.

Now some cynical people may conclude I was being sarcastic. But the
colonization fans were simply baffled.


Eric Tolle

Walter Bushell wrote:

Recycle. But then why do you need all that water?


Radiation shielding, of course. ;-)
This is the classic space colonization paradox in miniatu
"We must mine the Moon."
"Why?"
"To get the materials to build the L-point space colonies."
"Why do we need to build the L-point space colonies?"
"So that we have some place to process the lunar materials at, of course."

Pat

ericthetolle wrote:
The projects I listed above are colonization projects that would be
far cheaper and easier than colonizing Mars, and have a better chance
of finding justifications for them (Not good justifications, just
better). If you can't see how obviously necessary they are, if you
aren't willing to colonize something easy, then obviously you're not
serious about colonization, and are just spewing nonsense for the hell
of it.


The view out the window of the undersea city on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
is going to be boring until the giant squid shows up.
Seen one giant red tube worm and you've seen them all.
Although you never see it on television anymore, they did make a movie
about building a underwater city back in 1962, titled "The Underwater
City": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056637/
Unfortunately they build it on a fault line, with inevatable results.

Pat

Giga wrote:
"David DeLaney" wrote in message
Giga wrote:
AFAIK there is nothing stopping something without mass from
travelling at any speed, given a bit of a push.

Well, actually ... there is: items that are massless MUST travel at
exactly lightspeed. (Because for them, E=pc.)

But what if this massless thing had an engine accelerating it? Would it not
go faster than c?

Nope. Instead, increasing its momentum would increase its energy
proportionally, and it would still be traveling at c.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Jul 25, 6:30*pm, wrote:
Again, when people talk about "colonies", they are usually talking
about the first definition with migrant families, not a bunch of
scientists doing research.

Yes. Yes, that's understood. That was understood days ago, when I
mentioned Mt. Everest and the ISS in the first place. And that's why
I replied like I did the first time somebody raised this objection...

Oh, you know what? Never mind. At least you're not spouting
obscenities because you "wouldn't even bother to research" your own
claims. Thank you, Mr. Pennino.