#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
This article
http://www.econotimes.com/NASA-Mars-...-A-Must-584243 contained very good news. I'm glad to see ambitious space goals being set. However, it contained one line that made me laugh. It said that both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to be able to go to another planet in order to survive the calamities climate change will bring about. I'm sure Democrats know that putting a colony on Mars, while it might ensure the survival of humans as a race, isn't the same thing as being able to save an appreciable fraction of the individuals who live in the United States from any calamity. And I'm sure that Republicans don't agree that climate change will cause any catastrophe, or they would be willing to consider doing things to prevent it! John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Friday, 10 March 2017 23:54:17 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
This article http://www.econotimes.com/NASA-Mars-...-A-Must-584243 contained very good news. I'm glad to see ambitious space goals being set. However, it contained one line that made me laugh. It said that both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to be able to go to another planet in order to survive the calamities climate change will bring about. I'm sure Democrats know that putting a colony on Mars, while it might ensure the survival of humans as a race, isn't the same thing as being able to save an appreciable fraction of the individuals who live in the United States from any calamity. And I'm sure that Republicans don't agree that climate change will cause any catastrophe, or they would be willing to consider doing things to prevent it! John Savard Stop the rat-like breeding in countries that can't afford or are able to feed their populations and that would go a lot further toward saving humanity than tilting at global warming windmills. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Saturday, 11 March 2017 07:17:45 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 10 March 2017 23:54:17 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: And I'm sure that Republicans don't agree that climate change will cause any catastrophe, or they would be willing to consider doing things to prevent it! John Savard Stop the rat-like breeding in countries that can't afford or are able to feed their populations and that would go a lot further toward saving humanity than tilting at global warming windmills. Ah, but over-breeding is the survival mechanism of the human race and a "nice little earner" for some. Note how the devil's disciples in the torture & pedophile church, use their powers to ensure plenty of income, to constantly expand their property and business portfolios through time. If they used all their money-laundering profits and melted down all their gold, the pedophile ring could send their demented leader along with his evil cronies, on a round trip to Mars on a monthly basis. Their demand for a stretched, solid gold, jewel-encrusted space ship, to match their elite status would be cough child's play cough with their vast wealth. I'm sure the Martians are equally desperate for his sermons on morality as are his deliberately child-endangering followers. God knows, they'd volunteer their own offspring to go along as bed warmers for the decrepit old perverts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
Quadibloc:
This article http://www.econotimes.com/NASA-Mars-...ss-Colonizatio n-By-2033-A-Must-584243 contained very good news. I'm glad to see ambitious space goals being set. So long as they only set the goals and don't attempt to waste $trillions to meet them, I'm happy, too. Home is where the oxygen is; home is where the water is. There will be no colonization of Mars. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
Quadibloc wrote:
This article http://www.econotimes.com/NASA-Mars-...-A-Must-584243 contained very good news. I'm glad to see ambitious space goals being set. However, it contained one line that made me laugh. It said that both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to be able to go to another planet in order to survive the calamities climate change will bring about. I'm sure Democrats know that putting a colony on Mars, while it might ensure the survival of humans as a race, isn't the same thing as being able to save an appreciable fraction of the individuals who live in the United States from any calamity. And I'm sure that Republicans don't agree that climate change will cause any catastrophe, or they would be willing to consider doing things to prevent it! John Savard Yes this is the sad state of affairs and permanently set it would seem. For certain, the political division would continue even countless millions of miles removed from its origin. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 08:30:20 -0500, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc: This article http://www.econotimes.com/NASA-Mars-...ss-Colonizatio n-By-2033-A-Must-584243 contained very good news. I'm glad to see ambitious space goals being set. So long as they only set the goals and don't attempt to waste $trillions to meet them, I'm happy, too. Home is where the oxygen is; home is where the water is. There will be no colonization of Mars. Of course, there is bound to be quite a lot of valuable technology created in such a venture. The problem is, this is largely a zero-sum game. A manned mission to Mars is itself useless, and whatever value is generated by the resources directed towards it will almost certainly be tiny in comparison to the value lost by canceling or failing to create new robotic exploration missions and more Earth monitoring systems. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Saturday, 11 March 2017 01:42:18 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 11 March 2017 07:17:45 UTC+1, RichA wrote: On Friday, 10 March 2017 23:54:17 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: And I'm sure that Republicans don't agree that climate change will cause any catastrophe, or they would be willing to consider doing things to prevent it! John Savard Stop the rat-like breeding in countries that can't afford or are able to feed their populations and that would go a lot further toward saving humanity than tilting at global warming windmills. Ah, but over-breeding is the survival mechanism of the human race and a "nice little earner" for some. Note how the devil's disciples in the torture & pedophile church, use their powers to ensure plenty of income, to constantly expand their property and business portfolios through time. If they used all their money-laundering profits and melted down all their gold, the pedophile ring could send their demented leader along with his evil cronies, on a round trip to Mars on a monthly basis. Their demand for a stretched, solid gold, jewel-encrusted space ship, to match their elite status would be cough child's play cough with their vast wealth. I'm sure the Martians are equally desperate for his sermons on morality as are his deliberately child-endangering followers. God knows, they'd volunteer their own offspring to go along as bed warmers for the decrepit old perverts. Difference between Catholics and Third Worlders is Catholics are educated and don't have 10 kids per family anymore just because the Church tells them to. The Third Worlders have kids all the time to the tune of 12-14/1000 which is highly detrimental to the planet. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:13:34 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
The Third Worlders have kids all the time to the tune of 12-14/1000 which is highly detrimental to the planet. One of *our* kids uses far more in resources, and is far more of a burden on the planetary ecosystem, than a dozen of theirs. The reason that they should have fewer children, rather than we, lies not in their impact on the environment, but in the fact that their parents cannot provide a decent life for them with the resources they themselves own. Impact on the environment, on the other hand, is a reason why we, rather than they, should have fewer children. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mars in 2033
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 06:14:08 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 5:13:34 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote: The Third Worlders have kids all the time to the tune of 12-14/1000 which is highly detrimental to the planet. One of *our* kids uses far more in resources, and is far more of a burden on the planetary ecosystem, than a dozen of theirs. The reason that they should have fewer children, rather than we, lies not in their impact on the environment, but in the fact that their parents cannot provide a decent life for them with the resources they themselves own. Impact on the environment, on the other hand, is a reason why we, rather than they, should have fewer children. John Savard What we said. In third world countries there is no social security nor free on demand health service. So breeding is the default means of survival for those who outlive the normal breeding age. Nor have the people of many lands adopted true respect for women's rights. Some European and Scandinavian country's put the US to shame on _all_ of the above. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Geomagnetic K-index of 5 -- Issue Time: 2013 Oct 08 2033 UTC | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | October 9th 13 04:49 AM |
Buried craters and underground ice -- Mars Express uncovers depthsof Mars (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | December 1st 05 06:20 AM |
Mars Express radar reveals complex structure in ionosphere of Mars(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 30th 05 07:36 PM |
Buried craters and underground ice -- Mars Express uncovers depthsof Mars (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 30th 05 06:51 PM |
Finally, southern hemisphere clouds on Mars![ Polarized clouds on Mars, further evidence for liquid water in Solis Lacus, Mars?] | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 16th 05 04:45 PM |