An American Colony on Mars!

G. L. Bradford wrote:

In space colonies, the space of the solar system from end to end
can be rabbit holed (man made from the titanic amount of matter
masses)....with all manner of mobile corridors (ships)
connecting the whole in a potential infinity of possible lanes.

But despite this you've decided you would rather live on Earth. Why
is that, Brad?

Jim Davis

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:34:21 -0400, Adam wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:09:01 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Look, the fundamental problem facing humanity is that while our
technology is growing at a rapid pace, our wisdom is in decline. More
and more governments, even individuals, are learning how to inflict a
gigadeath event upon humanity. It is just a matter of time before
someone does.

So the drive to colonize space is driven by a fear of the planet being
fouled after all.

Humm. I'll pass on the semantic game of what constitutes "fouled". I am
not of the persuasion that believes that human life is a blight on the
world that "fouls" the planet.

If we are all in one "basket", it will be game over for sure. Einstein
saw this problem and was a founder of Pugwash. Several other scientist
also see the problem, like the late Carl Sagan. I disagree with
Pugwash's approach, which is to lobotomize scientist. I think the
solution is a wiser, better educated humanity.

It's either get the best eggs off this planet, or humanity will soon
become extinct.

Maybe not liberal, but this sounds elitest. They are to leave the rest
of us to die in a mess that "the best eggs" might have found a way to
forestall? Aren't these wonderful examples of humanity?

The human species is dragged forward, kicking and screaming, into a
technological future that most of the species cannot handle. Giving
genetic bio-weapon technology to peoples who are stuck in 7th Century
Islamic culture is an act of foolishness at best and more likely to
result in genocide.

It is sort of like putting apples into two barrels. You can't get rid of
the rotten apples, but if you divide the rotten apples into both barrels,
all you get is two barrels of rotten apples and the whole exercise is for
naught.

So we send those who are both the most capable and the most selfish to
seed a new world? What would a world be like where it is all chiefs and
no indians? Is this the makings of a harmonious second Eden?

So, anyone who is capable is selfish? Interesting. Totally wrong, but
interesting.

There was some good philosophy in Star Trek.

No there wasn't. Not ever. It was mind candy. It seems sweet but it rots
your brain and leaves big cavities.

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:03:41 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote:


Neither of you are very good at vision. Most of life on Earth, such as
most bugs and trees, are soft on the inside and have a hard covering on
the outside against the elements. We will be the same except

I see... we're like bugs and trees except exactly the opposite. And
because you've made that observation, you can make the non-sequitor that
"neither of you are very good at vision."

Jim Davis wrote:

G. L. Bradford wrote:

In space colonies, the space of the solar system from end to end
can be rabbit holed (man made from the titanic amount of matter
masses)....with all manner of mobile corridors (ships)
connecting the whole in a potential infinity of possible lanes.

But despite this you've decided you would rather live on Earth. Why
is that, Brad?

I can only assume that is because his country of origin has either
decided not to, or has been grossly deficient in, developing rational
commercial space flight infrastructure these last few decades or so.

Jim Davis

On Jul 18, 7:21*am, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Buzz Aldrin tells it like it is: the moon is a "dead end"!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...z-Aldrin-calls...
an-American-colony-on-Mars

Buzz Aldrin calls for "an American colony" on Mars
by Magnifico
Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Buzz Aldrin calls for "an American
colony" on MarsTweet this submit to reddit Share This
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:49:51 PM PDT

Buzz Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon, writes in an opinion
piece at the Washington Post that "it is time we were bold again in
space."

Aldrin's vision, "Time to Boldly Go Once More", advocates creating an
American colony on Mars in 20 years. He believes if the United States
space program "avoided the pitfall of aiming solely for the moon, we
could be on Mars by the 60th anniversary year of our Apollo 11 flight."

Aldrin thinks NASA plans to re-explore the moon is a "dead end". Instead,
Aldrin says we should commit our nation to establishing "an American
colony" on Mars.

If we could make that a one-way penal colony for the likes of our
incompetent politicians, corrupt lawyers and all those of our kosher
SEC and their approved Ponzi Madoff's, as well as their private
Federal Reserve that makes for funding such public funded corruption
possible, and don't forget to leave room for those of our FEMA and a
few of our many other overlapping agencies that can't seem to get out
of their own way, you got yourself a deal.

~ BG

On Jul 19, 12:56*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:34:21 -0400, Adam wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:09:01 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Look, the fundamental problem facing humanity is that while our
technology is growing at a rapid pace, our wisdom is in decline. More
and more governments, even individuals, are learning how to inflict a
gigadeath event upon humanity. It is just a matter of time before
someone does.

So the drive to colonize space is driven by a fear of the planet being
fouled after all.

Humm. I'll pass on the semantic game of what constitutes "fouled". I am
not of the persuasion that believes that human life is a blight on the
world that "fouls" the planet.

If we are all in one "basket", it will be game over for sure. Einstein
saw this problem and was a founder of Pugwash. Several other scientist
also see the problem, like the late Carl Sagan. *I disagree with
Pugwash's approach, which is to lobotomize scientist. I think the
solution is a wiser, better educated humanity.

It's either get the best eggs off this planet, or humanity will soon
become extinct.

Maybe not liberal, but this sounds elitest. They are to leave the rest
of us to die in a mess that "the best eggs" might have found a way to
forestall? Aren't these wonderful examples of humanity?

The human species is dragged forward, kicking and screaming, into a
technological future that most of the species cannot handle. Giving
genetic bio-weapon technology to peoples who are stuck in 7th Century
Islamic culture is an act of foolishness at best and more likely to
result in genocide.

It is sort of like putting apples into two barrels. You can't get rid of
the rotten apples, but if you divide the rotten apples into both barrels,
all you get is two barrels of rotten apples and the whole exercise is for
naught.

So we send those who are both the most capable and the most selfish to
seed a new world? What would a world be like where it is all chiefs and
no indians? Is this the makings of a harmonious second Eden?

So, anyone who is capable is selfish? Interesting. Totally wrong, but
interesting.

99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups are totally wrong to begin with.


There was some good philosophy in Star Trek.

No there wasn't. Not ever. It was mind candy. It seems sweet but it rots
your brain and leaves big cavities.

Brain rot via TV, video games and movies is exactly what it is, and as
far as anyone knows, there's no viable fix or any faith-based solution
that doesn't include false-flagged or bogus wars, loads of collateral
damage and bloodshed of the mostly innocent. At least that's exactly
what our modern history proves to us.

~ BG

kT wrote:

I can only assume that is because his country of origin has
either decided not to, or has been grossly deficient in,
developing rational commercial space flight infrastructure these
last few decades or so.

Of course. It's always someone else's fault. If it wasn't we would
have to blame ourselves. And who wants to do that?

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
kT wrote:

I can only assume that is because his country of origin has
either decided not to, or has been grossly deficient in,
developing rational commercial space flight infrastructure these
last few decades or so.

Of course. It's always someone else's fault. If it wasn't we would
have to blame ourselves. And who wants to do that?

Well, assuming America is our country of origin, it's America's fault,
and being an American myself, I alway accept responsibility for my
failures. Clearly I have failed in that Ares I has existed as a national
goal for almost four years now, and I have been unable to stomp it out
despite my nearly continuous effort to do so from September 2, 2005
onwards, and my publication of clear remedial alternatives to it.

In the meantime an actual advance in rocketry has occurred with Falcon,
besides previous advances in rocketry of the EELVs and Orbital Science.

So all is not lost. Obama needs to kill Ares I tomorrow in a speech.

Jim Davis

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:56:37 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:34:21 -0400, Adam wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:09:01 -0500, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Look, the fundamental problem facing humanity is that while our
technology is growing at a rapid pace, our wisdom is in decline. More
and more governments, even individuals, are learning how to inflict a
gigadeath event upon humanity. It is just a matter of time before
someone does.

So the drive to colonize space is driven by a fear of the planet being
fouled after all.

Humm. I'll pass on the semantic game of what constitutes "fouled". I am
not of the persuasion that believes that human life is a blight on the
world that "fouls" the planet.

That which "fouls" the planet makes it uninhabitable. Take your pick:
toxic waste, excessive population, mushroom clouds, etc.

The mentality I am addressing is: humankind is necessarily going to
render uninhabitable the only place we have known how to live.
Therefore, we need another place to make a mess.

Those who don't take ownership are more likely to break what is in
their path and move on. Why will those who relocate to a new world
take a mentality that differs from those who remain behind? Because
they have learned from the past? How have they demonstrated this
learning? Have they made their corner of this planet self-sustaining?

When considering the notion whether we are destined to make this world
uninhabitable, consider:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...ord122817.html
If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing,
you're right.
Henry Ford


If we are all in one "basket", it will be game over for sure. Einstein
saw this problem and was a founder of Pugwash. Several other scientist
also see the problem, like the late Carl Sagan. I disagree with
Pugwash's approach, which is to lobotomize scientist. I think the
solution is a wiser, better educated humanity.

It's either get the best eggs off this planet, or humanity will soon
become extinct.

Maybe not liberal, but this sounds elitest. They are to leave the rest
of us to die in a mess that "the best eggs" might have found a way to
forestall? Aren't these wonderful examples of humanity?

The human species is dragged forward, kicking and screaming, into a
technological future that most of the species cannot handle. Giving
genetic bio-weapon technology to peoples who are stuck in 7th Century
Islamic culture is an act of foolishness at best and more likely to
result in genocide.

Who is doing the dragging?

A technological future needs power. Lots of it. Trying to "get the
best eggs off this planet" doesn't generate that power.

"Oh, but there will be spin-offs ..." How about focused attention on
the problem instead of a hope that some spin-off will be a good fit?
There would be spin-offs from focused attention on the problem of
generating lots of power, too.


It is sort of like putting apples into two barrels. You can't get rid of
the rotten apples, but if you divide the rotten apples into both barrels,
all you get is two barrels of rotten apples and the whole exercise is for
naught.

I notice no mention of "good apples" in the above.


So we send those who are both the most capable and the most selfish to
seed a new world? What would a world be like where it is all chiefs and
no indians? Is this the makings of a harmonious second Eden?

So, anyone who is capable is selfish? Interesting. Totally wrong, but
interesting.

Are the ships to elsewhere funded by everyone? Do only the "good
apples" escape? That seems selfish to me. And it is decietful if sold
with the notion that we must explore space because it is our nature to
explore.

How is it that a "good apple" came to be "good"? Do they contain no
envy, malice, etc., with which to taint the new world?


There was some good philosophy in Star Trek.

No there wasn't. Not ever. It was mind candy. It seems sweet but it rots
your brain and leaves big cavities.

Actually, the original series touched on some interesting topics. One
topic they touched on was eugenics: improving the species by conscious
selection. Sound familiar? Did it work, even in fiction? Kahn had
plentiful malice in the Star Trek movie which followed that episode.
Perhaps the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Just out of curiosity, would you (or your offspring) be one of the
"good apples" aboard the ships leaving to doom the "rotten apples" to
their inevitable end?

Is the motivation for the community-funded colonization of space a
little more personal than the altruistic-sounding notion that we must
preserve the species by getting " the best eggs off this planet"?

--
Adam

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:48:53 -0400, Adam wrote:


The mentality I am addressing is: humankind is necessarily going to
render uninhabitable the only place we have known how to live.
Therefore, we need another place to make a mess.

No one is making you go to Mars. By all means, stay here and take part in
a giga-person scale Darwin award. Someone with such a hateful view of
humanity should be glad to be exterminated.

The only real issue you seem to have is that you don't want anyone
surviving. I suggest you go for an early Darwin award, since then it
won't matter to you.