Here's an equation to consider: Hippies + Pro-life + Anti-War + Total Unrestricted Freedom = Overload of human population in a already crippling world. The consequence is the total exhaustion of natural recourses, fresh water, and mass extinction of animals and plants, increased pollution release into the atmosphere, severely damaged ozon layer, increased heat tempatures, total melting of ice caps, ocean levels rise, crops fail, drought, starvation of hippies....
War and plague are natures way of keeping the global species population in check, without that supervision the population will boom and the earth we call home and it's it's beauty will be destroyed. War and plague are the only known methods of population control. The only other temporary long term solution is to withdrawl our rights as humans to breed as is done in China. Familes are limited to one child unless otherwise specified by the government.
Hippie represents peace, love, freedom: but these ideals like anarchy are simply irrational and destined to fail in human society. Especially when we are already having serious issues with population and exhausted supplies.
Hippies are quick to demote war yet they offer no alternative solution to population control and I doubt they would support the notion of limiting who can have a child. They are useless. People are useless.
Last I knew hippies were always about anti-war and anti anything that involved killing of people.
As for our planet, there seems to be three groups:
Group 1: Claims that our planet is in grave danger.
Group 2: Denies everything claimed by group 1.
Group 3: Dosent seem to give a dam either way.
We can spend all day looking on Wikipedia for all the answers to our questions and debates, but I think that no one can say with 100% certainly that our world "is or is not in danger". How many of us are up there studying the ice caps? How many of us are digging up core samples and comparing the results? How many of us are keeping tabs on the animal species? How many of us are actually studying the plant life? I'd like to bet not one of us is doing any of the above mentioned so therefore our thoughts and opinions are just that - opinions based off some else's research or someone else's opinion.
And are we going to deny the issue with the bees to? We going to deny the general tempature increase in the last 20 years? We going to deny that laying waste to all those forests is having a serious but negative impact on wildlife and trees? What else are we going to deny? Let's deny that we had anything to do with it! Because as someone mentioned earlier in this thread: we never take responsibility for our actions and instead we deny everything. Are we really any better than the government that rules us?
And to the one threanting to lock this thread: Is being alittle childish aginst the rules? Is anyone being singled out? Threanted? Harassed? Any racist slangs being used? Or are you just tired of reading our debate? Watch a government debate on TV sometime..... You might call that childish as well. Or perhaps you enjoy dictating your power over free speaking people
So eccentric billionaires are going to fund Nasa`s deep space exploration and eventual colonisation right ?
Because theres heaps of monentary return in that investment.
Who the hell is going to seriously fund that ? And why would they, do we even know what planets should be colonised ?
"And again, our population is not a problem, nor are resources actually scarce, aside from some precious metals."
What planet are you living on ? Earth calling space cadet, Earth calling, ring ring ! There are millions of people in so much poverty its shamefull, thousands of people starving to death as we type this, what do you mean resources are scarce ? food, medicine, shelter and power are a rare commodity for many people in devloping countries.
As for not overpopulating, have you heard of this little country called China ? They had to implement a one child per family law, where fines are paid if you exceed the excess of more then one child. Because their population is saturated and out of control.
As for limited resources, this may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but jobs, as in employment, that which you need to afford to live, is limited luxury for people, more people, less jobs, even worse in developing countries.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
"Yes, there is, resources that are scare and precious on earth exist in what may as well be unlimited quantities out in space, ffs there is a planet sized diamond floating around, everything that exists on earth is created in stars, and thus there is more of it "out there" than there could ever be on this one tiny rock."
Right and the expendture of money used in traveling first to other planets and then colonising, lets assume some mining takes place, harvesting of these resources, will somehow have a short term return on the investment ? We`re talking years and years that it would take for a two way trip, taking into account how long it would take to get the operation off the ground, so to speak, how long it would take to spend that much more time to set up facilities on another planet as well.
How long would it take to travel to another planet, secondly mine the resources and return them to Earth ? How much resources exactly would be required ?
Its not a very good business venture, no revenue, or return on the investment is guaranteed. in this economic decline, businessmen take even less risks, particularly of something to this scale. It has potential, but theres no safe guarantees.
as for the diamond planet/star, how would they actually know it was diamond, if they`ve never been to said planet/star. much less had a deep space probe get to it ? Theories do not equate to cold hard facts.
The news you speak off strikes me as most likely forum posts on the David Ike forums and just as credible.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
Constructing space colonies with our current capabilities would only support afew 1000 per colony, not "millions of people per colony" as I previously stated. There's just no way in bloody hell that we could design and execute a project large scale enough to provide living for millions in space. My apologies. Nevertheless I stand by my belief that we could make this happen a lot sooner than say moving to another planet.
"Is offset by it being a one way trip to colonize, when you do not have to take fuel for the return along you suddenly have a much more affordable idea.
Seriously, you guys should keep up with the science.
I am done repeating what is going to be done.
And it is going to be done."
Riiiight and theres bound to be people who want a one way trip to a planet they`ve never been to before, where they know next to nothing about it and have no chance of returning home. Things like what seems to be a habitual planet based on theories by looking through a powerfull, long range telescope, or space probe does not entail that said planet is habitual once people get there. Pretty hard to tell what the atmosphere is like if no ones been there to take tests. They need to make the planet liveable and they need to be able to sustain themselves, can they grow crops, can they feed animals ? Can they keep order amongst the small colony of people without the laws and goverments from Earth. Can they recieve aid if serious problems arise concerning resources ?
Its going to be done as you state it, on what grounds to you place the proof, theories do not equate to absloute truths.
In the state of the world economy, it makes this highly risky venture even more financially taxing, they have to be able to sustain the project with consistent funding.
Further more, you presume people would actually want to live on Mars. Whatsthe incentive, what is on Mars that would have people wanting to build a life there ? We don`t know what types of diseases are on that planet, or any planet, no one has been there to run detailed tests, we`re dealing with theories and what people know from looking through telescopes, or watching footage from deep space probes. Far too many what ifs when dealing with people`s lives. Seriously, how many people would really want to sign up to go to another planet, a one way trip where very little is guaranteed, and any aid required if not in haste ?
What would be the appeal of moving to Mars ?
And destroying the planet quickly if a quite possible to do so in a very quick period of time, not through over population, nor through enviromental damage, but through some of the weapons mankind has at its disposal.
Overpopulation is a serious problem, a people that cannot sustain itself with the event of growing limitation on resources and paid employment will lead to a colapse of respective societies, it will crumble. At the rate humans are populating we face that threat in growing increase of said threat. At its most basic level, past the initial requirement of food and shelter, clean water and medical facilities, power etc, is the requirement that people need jobs, paid employment to survive, without it, a society, a country cannot sustain itself economicly, it will fail and it will crumble. The more people you have, the more dire the situation becomes with readily provided employment, employment becomes a limited comodity. Overpopulation is a serious problem.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
Life_Lost: One thing you fail to understand about all of these future possibilities, is that they are all ......... "HYPOTHETICAL"! The scientists and scholars who publish these proposals all state that they are only hypothetical, and most of them seem to agree that in any event it's not something out children will live to see (in other words its in the distant future). As for the supposed ice caps on mars, last I knew no one was 100% certain if any water is still enclosed beanth those caps, even of it was, we cannot assume its fresh "Poland spring water". Likely it has some form of element which may be unsafe for human consumption.
Recently NASA and other agencies cancelled the long proposed plan of sending men to mars, instead they decided to send them back to the moon, and I believe that is still scheduled to take place in the next 10 years... When the top dog experts cancel plans for maned exploration of mars than that should really tell you something.
Even when we make it to mars, if everyone agrees on it, then again it will still take a very long time to stabilize the enviotment on mars. A more earth like atmosphere will have to be created and scientist will have to figure out how to prevent the new atomosphere from being blown out into space. Radiation levels there are high, the carbon dioxide levels are higher I believe and the soil is not stable for crops. And I doubt that those caps would have enough water to sustain "Earth 2".
"Seriously, you should go read about the things you are arguing about"
As much fun as it would be reading hypothetical theories from blind sided space exploration enthusiasts are, I need cold hard facts before I commit an opinion savoury to what they seek to propose.
"There is no lack of resources, just greedy people. "
Say that to people living in developing countries where the majority of their medicinal supplies and food comes from humanitarian aid. Those countrys cannot support the populance and there is not enough food from say crops and lifestock, poultry, fish etc to sustain the people. Ie. limited resources in its purest base value. Even shelter, clean water and power is a limited commodity, quality of schooling, if there even is education is beyond what we would call poor, no jobs, no economy booming to help run said country, no businesses, no export, no source of revenue to turn the wheels to keep that country going.
There simply is not enough food, clean water, facilities for power, housing and clean water and medicine to support the world`s population. Clearly there is not. Some countrys cannot sustain themselves without humanitarian aid from developed countrys. More importantly, there simply is not enough MONEY to sustain the world`s population. Without an economy, a goverment cannot implement the means in which to sustain a populance. There is not enough resources to support the people in developing countrys.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
Realist attitude. I`m not in the habit of whimsical thinking. Pipe dreams are good on paper and in discussions with chums, like the stars you most likely look up to every night, day dreaming with a warm sensation of euphoria, but its money that makes the world go around and in this particular case, extremely expensive budgets for space travel and full scale colonisation needs cold, hard cash, huge swathes of it and a consistent stream of money.
I`ve already outlined why its not a fruitfull venture for one of these eccentric billionaires you`ve yet to name, to invest money into a great big and very risky gamble, therefore I`m not in the opinion that its a lucrative enough venture with guaranteed return on the investment, revenue is the proposed incentive for a businessman to invest that ammount of money needed to make this project come to fruition. There is no money in Mars, at least not proven. We have yet to know with certainty exactly what minerals we could potentially harvest from Mars.
"And water, there is more than enough ice on mars to make this happen."
The question to be brought and placed upon the collective table is, has this ice and subsequently water been extensively tested ? If not, then its the case of no actual proof that it can function in the way you see it, as far as sustaining colonists with the resources needed to make it a liveable enviroment. What about diseases that no one knows about that could be ripe on Mars, airborne even ? How are they going to feed and supply themselves ? Repeated stop off visits from Earth, costing even more money ?
"And again, it will be happening, Mars definitely within the next twenty or so years, there will be people there."
Potentially perhaps, its in the realms of possibility, but as for a full bodied, self sustained, productive colony, we`ll have to see. Many things in the realm of science were once thought impossible, but later came to be, but you forget how many advances in science that were available in theory and fiction alone, never, ever came to be as well.
Yet another hurdle in the way in the realms of expendture of money is that in order to ship these supposed valuable minerals back to Earth, the colony will need the facilities to build, or at least restock and refuel these ships capable of inner planetary travel. this is not the undertaking of a simple visit to our orbiting moon, the scale of this venture is enormous, are you sure you are aware of just how much money would be required to make this colonisation of another planet possible. Thats a lot of disposable income required, more then is probably avialable in the current world economy. Private sector or not, I`m not sure you`ve taken into account just how rediculously large that sum of money required to fun such an expidition will require.
I`m also of the personal opinion that Earth is where we should be focusing our time and efforts upon as far as monentary spending, money would be better spent on research and development, hard labour and the initial discovery of new ways in which we can solve the many problems in the world today. We need to better spend the money we have collectively, in furthering the increase in the value of life for less privlidged people in troubled parts of the world and on our own doorstep. Not blowing ludicrous ammounts of disposable income, pooling it together to take risky ventures that are not guaranteed to better man kind, rather then simply waste resources, manpower and time to satisfy the ambitions and egos of certain men. Instead of trying to advance mankind on a technological level, we should be seeking to cure the problems of today, fixing what messes we already have.
Its a matter of sensible use of finances where it is required.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
Actually, a realist would point out that there's not a government on Earth currently willing to spend the many billions needed to hit your 20 year timescale.
The private sector has shareholders who'd need convincing that they want to invest in an extremely high-risk project. That's even more far-fetched than relying on governments.
Let me highlight the problem with assuming that private business will be putting men on Mars in 20 years.
They need to get people to Mars. That will need a launch vehicle far more powerful than the Saturn V which put men on the moon, because it will need to carry people, years (not days) of food supplies. They'll need powerplants capable of running for years and terraforming mechanisms because you're telling us it'll be a one-way mission. If it's not a one-way mission they'll need a return vessel capable of blasting free of Martian gravity (so it'll need to be waaaay bigger and more powerful than any of the Moon-landing lunar modules, and need much, much more fuel).
So you're looking at many, many billions of dollars. It dwarfs the spend on the Apollo moon landings.
And you're telling us it's a one-way mission. How will the private businesses get their money back?
This has been your Friday afternoon reality check.
The free market won't invest a dime in space travel unless there's a potential dividend. It's a neat idea to go to Mars, but one has to consider where the realization of profit comes in.
an absolute moron, Dennis Something-or-other of Rockford, a.k.a Agent X.
As others mentioned earlier we have enough problems here in earth right now, putting them aside and going to mars will only burden us with many more problems and drag us deeper into global ruin. Keep in mind that the global economy is still far from full recovery. The European Union is still struggling and it's future is questionable - if the EU fails then Id like to think it will be a financial domino effect for the rest of the globe! We are to far in debt and the value of currency is not to good right now. If our governments can't even find a solution to the financial crisis now then how the hell will they send us to Mars in 20 years? I've read some statistical reports and some of the results imply that it may take another 10+ years to fully stabilize the global economy! 10 bloody years!
Not meaning to be an antagonistic prick that singles people out personally, but it is worth mentioning, that you can sum up a lot of the fellow`s links as just as credible.
Maybe if he checked the credibility of the links he gives us from his google searches, things would fair better for his arguments.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
