Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

arkady · Dec 4, 2006

I fail to see why going to the Moon/Mars and fixing problems on Earth should be mutually exclusive. If anything I'd expect quite the opposite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "The choice is the Universe, or nothing ... " - H.G Wells </div>

frodo1008 · Dec 4, 2006

My thinking also!!

kauboi · Dec 5, 2006

I strongly suggest you be very careful about making thinly-veiled hate-filled vitriolic Ad Hominem comments. The comment was not directed at you personally, I think I made that clear. That is their country. What they do with their resources, how much they charge, or who they allow to remove those resources is their own business. As long as it does not directly effect the rest of the world, as in the burning of the rain forests, and as long as they are obeying the laws, I have no problem with it. True that it is a country's responsibility in large part. Of course it is not always so simple as that (Sticking to the Venezuela story, when the government changed and wanted to put regulations on that oil companies, there was a coup against Chavez, which failed, probably highly sponsored by some people benefiting from the unjust system. The US helped overthrow democratically elected governments in latinamerica also because of political interests, so it's not so simple). There are levels of measure for your actions, you can act following the law, you could act following an ethical code (which the law is sometimes equal to but not always). If the laws of a country allow a company to let people starve, I hope that an ethical conduct by the company would not take advantage of that. Ethics is not something personal, ethics is universal, to kill an innocent person or to let them starve when you could prevent it is bad here, in China, in Venezuela, everywhere. There's not such thing as a personal code of ethics.

kauboi · Dec 5, 2006

I fail to see why going to the Moon/Mars and fixing problems on Earth should be mutually exclusive. If anything I'd expect quite the opposite. That might as well be the case, hopefully.

frodo1008 · Dec 5, 2006

If you will look a my post whare I talk about the relative amount of money spend by NASA and the rest of the federal government, you can easily see that far, far more is being spent in the social directions than is being spent on space. It would not do to just dump very large amounts of money on NASA anyway, but a steady increase in the amount of NASA's budget is fully justified without having to cut anywhere else! So it isn't just a hopefully, it is an absolute!

kauboi · Dec 5, 2006

I wouldn't call it an absolute, humans tend to view every next breakthrough in technology as the thing that's going to save humanity. When the railroad and train were invented, everywhere people welcomed the new transport system as a means to unite boarders and break differences between cultures, the first thing railroads were used for was to transport military equipment though. So it's not the technology, is the use we make of it. Like I said, hopefully we would use space exploration for the right things. Now if you are talking about the possibility to expand while dealing with other problems in the meantime then I agree with you, that could and should be possible.

mental_avenger · Dec 5, 2006

kauboi claims: The comment was not directed at you personally, I think I made that clear. Right! I have seen this game before, it is a favorite of some of our less ethical members. Because I defended the right of companies to make money however they want as long as it is within the law, it is highly likely that you think I engaged in practices in my business which you consider “unethical”. You make the thinly-veiled comment now, so that if I, or anyone else here, were to admit to something that you consider unethical, you will have already gotten your Ad Hominem comment in without being charged for it. It is called a preemptive strike. Nice try though. kauboi claims: Ethics is not something personal, ethics is universal, to kill an innocent person or to let them starve when you could prevent it is bad here, in China, in Venezuela, everywhere. There's not such thing as a personal code of ethics. You could not be more wrong. A personal code of ethics is all there is. Every society, every country, every community has their own code of ethics. That is why you can be jailed in one community for doing something that is socially acceptable in another. As for letting people starve, I explained elsewhere how attempting to “prevent world hunger” by feeding the hungry is self-defeating and only exacerbates the problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

kauboi · Dec 5, 2006

Right! I have seen this game before, it is a favorite of some of our less ethical members. Because I defended the right of companies to make money however they want as long as it is within the law, it is highly likely that you think I engaged in practices in my business which you consider “unethical”. You make the thinly-veiled comment now, so that if I, or anyone else here, were to admit to something that you consider unethical, you will have already gotten your Ad Hominem comment in without being charged for it. It is called a preemptive strike. Nice try though. No, I never implied it was you I was talking about, nor did I come with a calculated paln to insult you like you somehow fantasize. I was saying what I think of companies that do that and I stand by my comment. You could not be more wrong. A personal code of ethics is all there is. Every society, every country, every community has their own code of ethics. That is why you can be jailed in one community for doing something that is socially acceptable in another. I told you law is not the same thing as ethics. Explain yourself here. Are you telling me it is alright to kill innocent people if the country's laws allows it. That's what I understand by your comment. There are somethings that any sane individual in any society knows are bad. That's what ethics is all about. The law or moral code could change but not ethics. Ethics are universal. As for letting people starve, I explained elsewhere how attempting to “prevent world hunger” by feeding the hungry is self-defeating and only exacerbates the problem. I explained to you how the solutions are not properly applied. There are right solutions to world hunger and it's not by addressing the hunger problems directly but by letting people produce and organize themselves within a fair system.

mrmorris · Dec 5, 2006

Mental Avenger drones: "Right! I have seen this game before blah blah blah blah blah..." You're the king. Undisputed. By an incredibly distant margin. I can't think of a single other poster on this board that will go to such incredible lengths looking for something that could be interpreted as an ad hominem given enough twisting. It's unfortunate that the search utility for this forum is fairly limited. It'd be interesting to see what percentage of your posts contain the text ad hominem... just so that we could verify your primacy beyond a shadow of a doubt and award you some sort of a medal.

mental_avenger · Dec 6, 2006

No twisting required, it was an unmistakable Ad Hominem by definition. It was clearly a derogatory comment directed at a group of people, not directed at an argument. Rather than berating me for pointing out Ad Hominems, why not do something more appropriate such as berating those who post them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

alokmohan · Dec 6, 2006

Can we settle around a black hole?Everything is pollution free there.

oscar1 · Dec 6, 2006

Says the spagetti woman to the spagetti man "how's it hanging?".

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

Hopefully you're reading the thread in flat mode (comments to several posts). I think that this "Spread-Or-Die" -argument is highly ideological thought. Yes, a massive hit to Earth could extinct the whole humankind, but really, does it help us (the "earthlings") to know that there are some (EDIT: chinese ;-) "lunatics" living after that, waiting the chance to repopulate the Earth? Lets assume that there are two organizations, both asking me for $500. The first one's mission is to send 5 people to live on Moon, and the second's mission is to prepare/protect Earth against catastrophes. What do you think, which organization I would select to give money? Which one would help me, my nearest and dearest and my children and their children more? So, I think that it is impossible to spread to the space with charity money - the only possibility is industry / business. As long as we can't evacuate the whole humankind to space, we're tied to this piece of rock and we really need to keep a good care of it - not some distant outpost somewhere in the space. I agree with "kauboi" - eventually we need to spread, but that's not the answer to all our problems. Eventually we need to leave Earth entirely (in about 5 billion years, or sooner), since the Sun eventually dies. Eventually we need to leave the whole Universe, since it's going to a thermodynamic balance, giving not any more us energy to live... But before going to colonize distant planets, should we first try to colonize e.g. deserts, Antarctica or seafloors? That would be little bit cheaper, little bit more safe, and would use much the same technology as colonizing another planet? JO5H: We must expand to survive, otherwise there won't be anyone to repopulate Earth when the Big One hits. ...And in another post... JO5H: I'm talking about creating a series of private destinations that also protect Li <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

christine16 · Dec 6, 2006

hi people, please keep on topic and peace to you all <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

halman: Mental_Avenger, Your statement regarding off-Earth industry and supply being used primarily off planet puzzles me. Most colonization has resulted in raw materials and products being exported from the colonies to the mother countries, if I recall my history lessons. As I see it, lifting / landing raw materials in large amounts from space to Earth is just far to expensive to be economical - that is, it's cheaper to use the Earth resources (oil, metals, etc) even if they are more difficult to reach than the resources nowadays. That's why the it is thought that space industry primarly targets to support space infrastructure. And that makes the colonization a slow process (i.e. in business sense, it takes a long time until the investments to space are returned). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

Mental_Avenger: There is no doubt that some specialty items that are extremely difficult or impossible to make on Earth might be economically feasible to import into the Earth market. Agreed, and as the nanotechnological industrial processes develop, I think that there's not much products that cannot be done on Earth with competitive prizes to space processes... Mental_Avenger: The most likely commodity to be imported to Earth from off-Earth colonies will be intellectual properties. ...And because the largest mass of brains is located on Earth for very long time, I doubt that most of the intellectual property goods are going to off-Earth, that is, the colonies have difficult times to pay back the investments... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

j05h · Dec 6, 2006

I think that this "Spread-Or-Die" -argument is highly ideological thought. You can stay home and watch some of us make history. I don't see why you insist on soiling your own nest. Will you try to stop the spread into space? Is it ideology to want to see Life thrive? We are the first species in the Universe that has the potential to make the sky glow with Life and you are shortsighted enough to claim this is ideology? I'm saying that there is a way to bring benefit to all people and life on Earth, by moving our industry and curiosity off Earth. We need to continue the indstrial revolution and do it someplace other than this garden. I want to build cities out of trees and ice: http://www.projectsanbao.com/worldtree.html >> JO5H: I'm talking about creating a series of private destinations that also protect Life (not just humanity) from a guaranteed distaster. No tax breaks or "defense budget" needed. /> Why should we have an ability to repopulate the Earth? Are we so precious pieces that we can't extinct? Maybe in that case it's better to give a change to something else? Allowing Earth's biota to be destroyed (by industry or calamity) would be a true crime. Space development is the simplest, most satisfying way to solve this. We should develop space industry and colonies both for spreading life and benefitting Earth. There is no one else to give a chance to do that. Raccoons need a couple million years before they can plumb rockets, dolphins don't have thumbs. It's up to humans to spread Life into the universe. > Is the spreading the only, cheapest or best solution for protecting life and humanity? How about building some kind of human/animal/plant gene bank (with "hatchery") 10 kilometers deep to rock for repopulating the Earth after extinction?

Or in LEO orbit, waiting the Big One and landing bac <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · Dec 6, 2006

> Agreed, and as the nanotechnological industrial processes develop, I think that there's not much products that cannot be done on Earth with competitive prizes to space processes... Little issue with that whole "gravity well" thing getting in the way. There are all sorts of things that can be made in freefall that can't be made in gravity. A lot of materials research has already benefitted from zero-g research (Boeing has a sintered-metals process for instance). Nothing can compare to what we could theoretically make in freefall, nanotech or not. Prices for space-created materials will not be competitive with Earth. You need to build a market up for those $10,000 bottles of HydroAres. The other route is of course to make products that can't be made on Earth, like foamed metals. > ...And because the largest mass of brains is located on Earth for very long time, I doubt that most of the intellectual property goods are going to off-Earth, that is, the colonies have difficult times to pay back the investments... You are assuming that a couple of people set off in a ship and that is the entire organization. Stop and think about it for even a minute. The groups that send people and establish colonies in space will have the vast majority of their operations on Earth for the forseeable future. This is not a severing from Earth's economy, but an extension of it. Everything is connected. Colonies will produce research and products that can't happen here. It's that simple. The largest leverage will be i if we find life elsewhere, but material processing and energy production will be huge, eventually. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Me: I think that this "Spread-Or-Die" -argument is highly ideological thought. JO5H: You can stay home and watch some of us make history. I don't see why you insist on soiling your own nest. <hr /></blockquote> Hey, I really didn't say that we should stay at home. I said that SOD -concept is IMO too ideological reason to go out, and could only be used for collecting money for Earth protection/preparation for massive catastrohpes. Going out for commercial reasons is IMO much more practical, but they doesn't necessrily serve the SOD-goals (they might, but they might not). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: Will you try to stop the spread into space? <hr /></blockquote> Definitely not. If I'd give a change to move to space, I'd take it without thinking twice, no matter if the offer would be originated by humans or aliens :-D I mean, that I would certainly rent myself as alien lab rat, if I'd have a chance to see miracles of Universe as compensation

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: We are the first species in the Universe that has the potential to make the sky glow with Life ... <hr /></blockquote> You cannot know that (that we're the first in the Universe). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: We should develop space industry and colonies both for spreading life and benefitting Earth. There is no one else to give a chance to do that. Raccoons need a couple million years before they can plumb rockets, dolphins don't have thumbs. It's up to humans to spread Life into the universe. <hr /></blockquote> I agree with that industrial development part, but I don't see much point for setting the goal to spreading around. We've done that already in the history, and the results have been ... interesting. Let's give those r <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Me: Agreed, and as the nanotechnological industrial processes develop, I think that there's not much products that cannot be done on Earth with competitive prizes to space processes... JO5H: Little issue with that whole "gravity well" thing getting in the way. There are all sorts of things that can be made in freefall that can't be made in gravity.<hr /></blockquote> Yes, I don't think either that gravity would be beneficial for industrial pocesses, vice versa. But when thinking about costs to make something in space and getting it down to Earth, I think that we can live with slightly worse materials and such. Nanoscale fabrication indeed gives also the earthlings ways to produce high-quality materials and such; if the difference in the quality is small enough and suits the applications of that material, then that material is not needed from space factories. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: A lot of materials research has already benefitted from zero-g research (Boeing has a sintered-metals process for instance). <hr /></blockquote> Zero-g research definitely helps developing processes to gravity wells, too, but it's a different story. Research will not take lots of people to space, because of limited research budgets. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: Nothing can compare to what we could theoretically make in freefall, nanotech or not. <hr /></blockquote> I think that in long run we can produce almost anything almost anywhere, no matter if we're doing it on Earth, in space or even in the atmosphere of Jupiter. We just adapt our processes to varying conditions. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: The other route is of course to make products that can't be made on Earth, like foamed metals.<hr /></blockquote> Yes, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

j05h · Dec 6, 2006

At what point do you stop calling it "tourism" and start calling it "settlement"? I'm talking about going, staying, and building new worlds so that the other life does have a chance, in space. One living world is not enough. If Mars already has life, we'll integrate that biota into our space-cities. I want to enable a future when there can be trillions of sentients, we can't do that just on Earth. For what it's worth, I want to go to make new Art. If you haven't read it, go find a copy of Crystal Express by Bruce Sterling and read the Shaper/Mechanist stories inside. Also "Schismatrix". I can't get the living asteroid belt in "Swarm", Crystal Express's first story, out of my head. If doesn't already exist, we can create it. A basic, growable, living architecture in space. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: At what point do you stop calling it "tourism" and start calling it "settlement"?<hr /></blockquote> An interesting question that I haven't thought for long time... I could put these kinds of "milestones" for the human existence in space: <ul type="square"><li> Breaking 1-year (has it happened already?), 2-years, 5-years and 10-years milestones for single human spent time in space. <li> First space funerals (for human died in space, for reason or another); when is the first time, that a dead body is not returned back to Earth for funerals? <li> First human born in space; just imagine the media interest to this kind of event - "Exlusive: The Space Child tells just about everything!" <li> First human, who cannot return to Earth anymore, because of too much time in zero-gravity. <li> First human dying in space to old-aging; when is the human existence in the space so permanent, (a) people get old in space, and (b) old people are not transported back to Earth to live their last years. <li> First human lived his/her entire life in space (born, live and died to oldness). </li></li></li></li></li></li></ul> Whenever we reach these milestones, we could check how the habitation looks in the space - how large is it (e.g. 10, 100, 1000 people?), is it growing, what infrastructural functions exists / is missing (e.g. surgeries, dentist, police force, local government / decision-making, ...) and so on. I can't put exact limits between space tourism and settlement, but IMO one mark for settlement is that one person can live his/her entire life there. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> JO5H: If you haven't read it, go find a copy of Crystal Express by Bruce Sterling and read the Shaper/Mechanist stories inside. <hr /></blockquote> I could try. It's a long time when I last time read stories (I'd rather write them by myself, but <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

ldyaidan · Dec 6, 2006

In reply to: Why should we have an ability to repopulate the Earth? Are we so precious pieces that we can't extinct? Maybe in that case it's better to give a change to something else? Well, being an inhabitant of planet earth, I'd have to say I'm definitely a fan of man. YES! I think we have every right and responsibility to try to save our species. Not trying to be hateful, but I think that falls under the "stupid question" category. Do you want to live or die? Aside from a few people with some serious personal issues, you will always get a resounding "I want to live!" response. I think the very fact that we do have the ability to preserve our species gives us every right to try to do so. The knowledge and technology that we have already developed because of our space program has already enhanced and saved lives that are not part of the space program...(the number one being plastic) Why would we think that it would be any different going forward? I'm glad to see the momentum finally building up in the private and international sectors for space exploration and colonization. Like it or not, it IS the future of humanity, and perhaps our best, if not only hope, for a future. Rae

mako71 · Dec 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Me: Why should we have an ability to repopulate the Earth? Are we so precious pieces that we can't extinct? Maybe in that case it's better to give a change to something else? Idyaidan: ... Not trying to be hateful, but I think that falls under the "stupid question" category. Do you want to live or die? Aside from a few people with some serious personal issues, you will always get a resounding "I want to live!" response. I think the very fact that we do have the ability to preserve our species gives us every right to try to do so. <hr /></blockquote> If I'm being wiped out by a comet, it's a cold comfort to me to know that there's someone on the Moon who survives and is going to come to live in my house after 100 years when the dust is settled...

That what I meant - if you're asking me to select between sending some people (not including me) to space to be able to repopulate the Earth, or to build asteroid destroyers, underground shelters with fusion power and other imaginary high-flying things for protecting / preparing the impact and possibly survive, which one you think I'll select? Or, if the comet is hitting to Earth next Monday and you ask if I'd like to move to Moon base, certainly I'd answer "yes." (if I get also my dearest with me, I really couldn't live with myself if I'd know they're all dead). But if you're asking me, if we should go to space or not, certainly I select going. If that process causes the "off-Earth back-up" of human genes as a side effect, it's just fine to me. But I'm not seeing it (off-Earth human gene back-up) as the ultimate goal or a reason for space programs. For us earthlings, I'd rather advocate the space programs as a research programs for asteroid destroyers (if we really need to couple the space research and the Big One)...

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Idyaidan:</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________ reaaliaika.net </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 6, 2006

Nice post MaKo71. Welcome to SDC! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

arkady

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

kauboi

Guest

kauboi

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

kauboi

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

kauboi

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

oscar1

Guest

mako71

Guest

christine16

Guest

mako71

Guest

mako71

Guest

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

mako71

Guest

mako71

Guest

j05h

Guest

mako71

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

mako71

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page