|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
Rod Speed wrote:
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? There's lots of theoretical, e.g. asteroid devastates the Earth, military, e.g. weapons platforms, emotional, e.g. we climbed the mountain, political, e.g. our flag is there, reasons for humans in space, there is just no economic reason for humans in space. And much better things to spend that sort of money on. Strange then, isn't it, that a lot of self-made wealthy people are spending lots of money on starting private manned space flight? The military will definitely have humans in space. Bet they wont, because we wont be stupid enough to pay for that. The Chinese already _are_. If the choice is live under Chinese rule later when they control the high ground or spend money now on something that from past experience we know will have all kinds of spin-off benefits, I'll get my checkbook out. As for anything else, it will depend on what value the nation or nations that put people in space put on non-economic reasons. The US put a huge value on the political value of beating the USSR to the Moon. And now the world has moved on, just like it always does, and the USSR is completely irrelevant, long gone. Only twenty years and of course its demise secured peace in our time. -- Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an exploding room. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
Dimensional Traveler wrote
Rod Speed wrote 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? There's lots of theoretical, e.g. asteroid devastates the Earth, military, e.g. weapons platforms, emotional, e.g. we climbed the mountain, political, e.g. our flag is there, reasons for humans in space, there is just no economic reason for humans in space. And much better things to spend that sort of money on. Strange then, isn't it, that a lot of self-made wealthy people are spending lots of money on starting private manned space flight? Thats a bare faced lie. Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like a lot. And thats got absolutely nothing to do with COLONISING 'space' anyway. The military will definitely have humans in space. Bet they wont, because we wont be stupid enough to pay for that. The Chinese already _are_. Not colonising they aint. If the choice is live under Chinese rule later when they control the high ground How odd that the russians never did manage to do that. or spend money now on something that from past experience we know will have all kinds of spin-off benefits, I'll get my checkbook out. You're always welcome to do whatever you like. As for anything else, it will depend on what value the nation or nations that put people in space put on non-economic reasons. The US put a huge value on the political value of beating the USSR to the Moon. And now the world has moved on, just like it always does, and the USSR is completely irrelevant, long gone. Only twenty years and of course its demise secured peace in our time. No one said a word about peace in our time, fool. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
"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? ===================== Weak and irrelevant only to those who don't mind at all being pinned to this Earth, held down, controlled, tyrannized and enslaved. There are the Frontier's People (inlcuding me who is simply a frontier colonialist....willing to help further any way to "Let the people go!") and then there are the Corral's Sheeple. GL ===================== |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
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 you venture outside the Earth's atmosphere you lose the equivalent of a full yard of solid lead radiation shielding (and no heavy element pair formation), 14.7 psi. Asstronaughts in Skulab, Mir, and ISS FUBAR ahve a 95% incidence of radiation cataracts. If you additionally venture outside the Earth's magnetosphere you get cooked alive by solar storms and cosmic radiation. Are there other arguments? -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
"Uncle Al" wrote in message ... 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 you venture outside the Earth's atmosphere you lose the equivalent of a full yard of solid lead radiation shielding (and no heavy element pair formation), 14.7 psi. Asstronaughts in Skulab, Mir, and ISS FUBAR ahve a 95% incidence of radiation cataracts. If you additionally venture outside the Earth's magnetosphere you get cooked alive by solar storms and cosmic radiation. Are there other arguments? I'm sure there are other sheilding methods than just great big lumps of lead. Surely one can generate something of a magnetic field around the spaceship (loads of free electricity after all). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
"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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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? If you venture outside the Earth's atmosphere you lose the equivalent of a full yard of solid lead radiation shielding (and no heavy element pair formation), 14.7 psi. *Asstronaughts in Skulab, Mir, and ISS FUBAR ahve a 95% incidence of radiation cataracts. If you additionally venture outside the Earth's magnetosphere you get cooked alive by solar storms and cosmic radiation. Sounds almost as bad as Texas. Bret Cahill |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why Colonize Space?
In sci.physics "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. Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking about doing. Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants. Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI. The only government colonies have all been penal colonies. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bill Stone is determined to colonize outer space | [email protected][_1_] | Policy | 4 | July 2nd 07 12:25 AM |
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes | G. L. Bradford | Policy | 33 | April 1st 06 07:02 PM |
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes | G. L. Bradford | Policy | 3 | March 31st 06 02:22 AM |
Let's Colonize the Universe | Rudolph_X | Astronomy Misc | 21 | March 23rd 04 08:04 PM |
Best asteroids to colonize? | Hop David | Technology | 3 | August 14th 03 07:12 PM |