Salvation Of Mankind Is Not Going To Be Found In Space

In article . com,
"Sound of Trumpet" wrote:

The simple fact is, we are never going to go to the stars, because we
are never going to invent the warp coil and break the speed of light.

That's not a fact; that's your opinion, and it's wrong. We will
eventually colonize the galaxy, even at sublight speeds. (Once a
species is thick in its home star's Oort cloud, it's not a big leap to
the next Oort cloud over.)

I would agree with the *opinion* that we will probably never reach other
galaxies, however -- intergalactic distances are too great to cross at
sublight speeds, even for very long-lived people.

We will probably colonize near-earth space. I could go for a stay on
one of those cool Ferris Wheel space stations. But only a visit.

Suit yourself. The meek will inherit the Earth, and you're free to be
among them.

Space colonization is not like the
colonization of the West. You don't scrape together a few hundred
dollars and put your sick wife and kids on a wagon train to the moon or
Mars. Only the elite get to go.

Nonsense. Colonization of the West was possible only because Europeans
had already colonized the East, and that required ships that could cross
vast oceans -- technology that essentially didn't exist 1000 years ago,
and required investment on a national-government scale 500 years ago.
That's the stage we're at with space now, but it won't always be so.
And in our case, the vast hard-to-cross ocean is just getting to orbit;
your "colonizing the West" analogy won't apply until we already have
lots of people living off Earth, and they're eyeing the next empty hunk
of real estate (e.g., lunar inhabitants eyeing NEAs).

A friend of mine argues that once we've conquered the problem of
building a space elevator, we'll be able to haul lots of stuff to space
and fling it toward Mars or the Moon.

True, if that pans out -- but it's not necessary. Even chemical rockets
can be dramatically cheaper (and safer) than they are now. Economies of
scale have not yet kicked in, but it looks like they may well do so
soon, thanks mainly to the tourism industry.

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

As I say, appeals to romance work best with me. Doing it "because it's
there" could bring out the best in us.

Could be. How's bringing life to an otherwise dead galaxy grab you?
That's one that stirs emotion in me. Not that emotion is necessary for
space colonization to make sense.

Doing it, as Hawking urged, in
order to save the species is sheer midsummer madness.

No, it's quite sensible. If you care about your eggs, you don't put
them all in one basket, which is exactly the situation we're in now.

But in either case, granting (which is granting a lot) that we will
colonize both Mars and the Moon, that's it.

Ah, a planetary chauvinist, I see. I don't know if we'll ever bother to
colonize Mars in any big way; there isn't very much point to it. But
most of the human population, 500 years from now, won't be living on ANY
planetary surface, but in space colonies.

I prefer to not visit the Planet of the Apes myself.

Try reading more science and less science fiction.

Reality is this: salvation is not going to be found in ET.

Not in ET beings, I agree. But ET resources, yes: that's exactly where
humanity's salvation lies. Without them, we will eventually implode in
one way or another.

Aliens, whether benevolent or malicious, now occupy
the imaginative niche once filled by angels and devils.

Agreed. People used to believe they had contact from angels or devils;
nowadays they believe they've been abducted by aliens. All interesting
from a psychological standpoint, but all rather irrelevant too. As far
as all real evidence indicates, there are no aliens (at least, not with
any interest in making their presence known), and no gods either.
Saving ourselves is entirely up to us.

My point is simply that Killjoy SF confronts us with the fact that
the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the
will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will
be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty
of the children of God.

Er... OK, whatever. Didn't you just admit above that angels and devils
are products of the imagination?

The deathless dream of the human race is that there is a way to make
this creation into heaven.

I'm not sure what that would mean, but we can definitely make the world
a better place -- in fact we've been doing so for thousands of years,
mostly through technology, and through gradually replacing superstition
with science. There is still a lot more we can do, especially for the
parts of the world that are impoverished. The energy and resources of
space are crucial to that continued progress.

[remaining religious drivel snipped]

Best,
- Joe

P.S. Do Usenet a favor: trim at least one newsgroup from the post list
on each reply, until we're down to the one that's actually on-topic!

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:53:59 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

"Howard Brazee" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:53:59 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

Still, we're looking
at an investment of time and energy that could better be spent turning
Antarctica into a temperate zone and founding New Seattle there.

More nonsense. Antarctica is a very limited amount of space; the
offworld space and resources are essentially infinite. To invest the
same amount of money/effort in the former rather than the latter is
foolish. (This even when we completely ignore the fact that you
probably couldn't turn Antarctica into a temperate zone without
seriously screwing up the rest of the planet.)

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

Bill M wrote:
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

???

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the Moon or
Antarctica, over the long run? (Your answer must take into account the
fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing Antarctica, and that we
made manned landings on Luna starting in 1969).

Frankly, the only reason I would see for neither being likely would be
the annhilation of the human race in just a few decades. If humanity
survives for centuries or millennia to come, I don't see what would
stop us from colonizing both places. Especially Antarctica, which is
after all just another part of our own planet.

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill M wrote:
"Howard Brazee" wrote in message

It really doesn't matter which happens first. Unless things change
drastically, it will become cost effective to colonize both.

Neither are likely!

???

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the Moon or
Antarctica, over the long run? (Your answer must take into account the
fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing Antarctica, and that we
made manned landings on Luna starting in 1969).

We haven't begun to "colonize" either place; no one has ever been on the
moon for more than a few days, and nothing like a dewlling was ever
established there. There are permanent research stations in Antarctica, but
no permanent residents, and AFAIK no children at all. In the long run, a
higher level of tech will make colonizing them a possibility, but the
specific tech for doing so won't be created unless there's a reason to go
there. That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

In article ,
"Mike Schilling" wrote:

That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

That should be: why *do* people want to go there? There are already
quite a lot of us, you know.

Best,
- Joe

Mike Schilling wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the Moon or
Antarctica, over the long run? (Your answer must take into account the
fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing Antarctica, and that we
made manned landings on Luna starting in 1969).

We haven't begun to "colonize" either place; ...

False, regarding Antarctica.

no one has ever been on the
moon for more than a few days, and nothing like a dewlling was ever
established there.

Quite true.

There are permanent research stations in Antarctica, but
no permanent residents, and AFAIK no children at all.

There is a treaty _forbidding_ colonization of Antarctica. Despite
this, the Argentinians are interested in doing so and have done
everything _short_ of publicly stating "We're colonizing Antarctica,
nyah nyah nyah!" This included staging the first known human
childbirth in Antarctica.

In the long run, a
higher level of tech will make colonizing them a possibility, but the
specific tech for doing so won't be created unless there's a reason to go
there.

First of all, there must _already_ be reasons for "going" there, since
men have "gone to" both Antarctica and Luna -- Antarctica since the
19th and Luna since the 20th century. Secondly, you're assuming that
"specific tech" must be created for this purpose, but often in reality
more general tech is adapted to such a purpose -- for instance the
dogsled-based technology that Amundsen used to reach (and return from)
the South Pole was an adaptation of technologies developed by the Lapps
and Eskimo for use in the _arctic_ regions, and the missile-based
technology that Armstrong used to reach Luna was an adaptation of
technologies developed by America and Russia for ICBM's.

That's the real issue, I think: why would people want to go there?

Because they are places, existent in the real world, open for
colonization. Hence, all the normal motives for colonizing any places
apply, with modifications for the particular resources, advantages and
disadvantages of their localities. The general term is "God, gold and
glory" which means "ideology, resources and prestige."

Looking at ideology: it is highly improbable that in the future _no_
Power or NGO will have both an expansionist ideology and the resources
to colonize either place, unless your concept of the human future is a
very short one. Once a place is colonized, it generally stays
colonized barring some unforseen disaster (such as the climate change
which wiped out the Viking colony in Greenland -- and notice that this
reglaciation did _not_ wipe out the Eskimo colonies in Greenland!)

Looking at resources: In the case of Antarctica, it is highly
improbable that this, alone of all the seven continents, has no
valuable mineral resources. In the case of Luna, there is known to be
tri-helium, and Luna is a useful launching-point for expeditions to
Mars and the Asteroids. Initial outposting leads to further
exploration, which tends to discover more resources. (We originally
valued Alaska for furs. We then found gold, and later oil).

Looking at prestige: America did, in fact, gain great prestige by
originally reaching Luna. One of the motivations behind the announced
Chinese ambition to set up a Moonbase is almost certainly prestige --
by doing so China would trump the American achievement and prove itself
a superpower. The reason why feats like this gain prestige is that
they show both capability and the actuality of expansion.

In general, unless the human future is a very short one (we wipe
ourselves out in a matter of decades) we will through some one or
combination of these motives colonize Luna and Antarctica.

Tell me, can you seriously imagine a world of, say AD 3000 in which
technological civilization has _not_ collapsed and yet Antarctica and
Luna are pristine owing to the costs of settlement? (I _could_ imagine
a world in which we decided to leave them pristine and expand
elsewhere, or one in which there was a rabidly anti-growth World State
which actively prevented expansion beyond Only Six Continents on One
Earth, but both are special, and improbable, cases).

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:

What do you see standing in the way of colonizing _either_ the
Moon or Antarctica, over the long run?

Better options always being available.

(Your answer must take
into account the fact that we have actually _begun_ colonizing
Antarctica, and that we made manned landings on Luna starting
in 1969).

Did the above qualify?

Jim Davis