That "Earth-like" planet 490 light years away. SO WHAT?

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 1:43:03 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2014 11:52:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA

wrote:



Because it beats sitting around, playing video games or slouching in bars?



So does solving global warming. So does designing and operating more

Earth observation satellites. So does designing and operating more

spacecraft to explore the Solar System, to collect samples from comets

and asteroids. So does creating space telescopes to peer deeper into

space and time.


There is no shortage of academic pursuits that beat sitting around
playing video games and slouching in bars.

Indeed, looking as close as possible at our planet, its moon and of the extremely nearby planet Venus are all extremely worth our doing something positive/constructive with.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:20:53 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 04:31:18 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:46:53 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I am as far from being a socialist as anybody could be. There is
nothing about socialism that I remotely favor. It's a system that does
not work.

And yet you advocate for it... as in limiting salary differences, redistributing wealth, restricting freedom of speech and religion, etc.

These things are not socialism

Actually, they are socialism.

I do not advocate for redistribution of wealth, nor for restricting
freedom of speech or religion.

Your previous posts indicate that you do. So have you changed your mind, forgotten what you wrote or are you simply ignorant of what socialism is?

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:22:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 04:38:58 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

You have very little concept of what may be possible or practical in the relatively near future. You would have declared space travel to be impossible had you lived only in the nineteenth century.

I think my understanding of both the technology of spaceflight,

You would have declared space travel to be impossible had you lived only in the nineteenth century.

as
well as the social limitations of humans,

You know not of what you speak.

On Sun, 11 May 2014 08:36:53 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I do not advocate for redistribution of wealth, nor for restricting
freedom of speech or religion.

Your previous posts indicate that you do. So have you changed your mind, forgotten what you wrote or are you simply ignorant of what socialism is?

Your inability to understand what other people say is the problem
here. And your own profound ignorance about what socialism is
continues to be an issue, as well.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:17:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

wrote:

Well, such people would be well out of the reach of madmen and terrorists with nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Earth is a dangerous and crowded place.

I disagree. If our social nature is still so primitive that we have
madmen and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, it's quite
certain that those things will be taken with any space colonists.

Certain dysfunctional societies and cultures can have those problems, but those problems are by no means universal.

Earth is only crowded and dangerous because humans are barely able to
survive as technological beings. If we can't fix that, sending a few
people to other stars will serve no purpose.

Your viewpoint is more than a bit skewed and narrow. Humans can -choose- to go elsewhere, they don't necessarily have to be SENT for some PURPOSE.

Thus, if humans could travel from star system to star system, at least somewhere in the universe, there would be humans who would be free.

I don't know about "free". After all, freedom may not be the best way
for a species to survive.

You know nothing.

And after a short time, they wouldn't even
be human anymore. Once a species is geographically segregated, the
different groups diverge. Within a few thousands of years each
separate colony would constitute different species.

Irrelevant.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:47:46 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 08:36:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I do not advocate for redistribution of wealth, nor for restricting
freedom of speech or religion.

Your previous posts indicate that you do. So have you changed your mind, forgotten what you wrote or are you simply ignorant of what socialism is?

Your inability to understand what other people say is the problem
here.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. You need to answer the question I just posted in order for you to clarify your position on socialism.

That question: So have you changed your mind, forgotten what you wrote or are you simply ignorant of what socialism is?

So have you changed your mind, forgotten what you wrote or are you simply ignorant of what socialism is?

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Has it ever occurred to you that the colonists might gain insight into the Earth by studying ANOTHER planet?

You don't know who you are quoting anymore. Did you have a stroke or
something? Or were you just born this way.

What does your nonsense have to do with colonists studying another planet and gaining insight into the Earth?

One things for sure. This word "paraphrase". I don't think it means
what you think it means.

I know exactly what paraphrase means.

Your idiotic statement:

"What purpose would be served by colonizing another planet with some
sort of generation ship? We don't understand how our own planet works."

can be summed up (and paraphrased) this way:

"Hey, don't launch that rocket, we can't predict earthquakes or climate changes yet."

There is no need to postpone a spaceflight just because the Earth is still not fully understood. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

On Sun, 11 May 2014 08:49:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I disagree. If our social nature is still so primitive that we have
madmen and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, it's quite
certain that those things will be taken with any space colonists.

Certain dysfunctional societies and cultures can have those problems, but those problems are by no means universal.

History and simple observation of the world suggest otherwise.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Well, such people would be well out of the reach of madmen and
terrorists with nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic
missiles. Earth is a dangerous and crowded place.

I disagree. If our social nature is still so primitive that we have
madmen and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, it's quite
certain that those things will be taken with any space colonists.

Earth is only crowded and dangerous because humans are barely able to
survive as technological beings. If we can't fix that, sending a few
people to other stars will serve no purpose.


You've got that the wrong way round. Earth is only crowded (with humans)
because we have a successful technology.
Without technology it would be even more dangerous to individuals and there
would be many fewer of them.



Thus, if humans could travel from star system to star system, at least
somewhere in the universe, there would be humans who would be free.

I don't know about "free". After all, freedom may not be the best way
for a species to survive. And after a short time, they wouldn't even
be human anymore. Once a species is geographically segregated, the
different groups diverge. Within a few thousands of years each
separate colony would constitute different species.

In the time it takes for a generation ship to reach another star humans on
Earth may not be human any more. But the two branches would still be close
relatives.
Technology is about to take over from evolution. Practical methods of
engineering the human genome have now been demonstrated. But our species
will not have died out from catastrophe if we initiate colonisation of
extrasolar planets.
I hope we try!

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:17:43 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Well, such people would be well out of the reach of madmen and terrorists
with nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Earth is a
dangerous and crowded place.

I disagree. If our social nature is still so primitive that we have
madmen and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, it's quite
certain that those things will be taken with any space colonists.

Earth is only crowded and dangerous because humans are barely able to
survive as technological beings. If we can't fix that, sending a few
people to other stars will serve no purpose.

Individuals like Vladimir Putin, Li Peng, and Kim Jong-Un are *personally* responsible for their own actions. *I* am not to blame for the things _they_ choose to do simply because I am also a human being.

Thus, your argument that the "social nature" of humanity is somehow lacking, and therefore space colonization would achieve nothing, makes no sense to me. Space colonization enables some people to get away from a few evil individuals who threaten everyone.

Most people aren't evil monsters like Vladimir Putin, and presumably any expedition into outer space would be sent by one particular country, and so just as, say, the Czech Republic could get along very peacefully if it was the only country in the whole world, with no particular danger of being wracked by wars, the same likely would be true of any space colony.

What we are, for the most part, is peaceful human beings who work hard for the betterment of ourselves and our children and mind our own business. Because of an accident of history, on the Earth at the present time there are a few criminals who happen to be in control of nuclear arsenals, so the police can't round them up and lock them up the way it should be.

John Savard