Living on other planets

[alokmohan]

There is excessive green house gases.We seem to be unable to control.That way biosphere may collapse.Moreover population keeps on increasing.At somepoint earth simply cant hold so much men.Food?That is already a problem.Legislators are not expected to be so knowledgable.Whether they sanction the budget,difficult to say.

 

[nexium]

Even if the carbon dioxide doubles from the present 360 PPM to 720 ppm = parts per million, much of the biosphere will survive, even if the above sealevel area drops by 20%. At the rate increases in recent decades that will take more than 1000 years. Humans can adapt, if we keep our sanity and depend on science. Neil

 

[dannyd]

"Sanity" ? We probably killed a hundred million in the past century and I suspect that was just a warm up for what's coming at us. The very fact that superstition (religion) still flourishes makes me think our collective mentality is flawed. We need to get off the planet and not take cathederals, temples, and mosques to the moon, Mars, & beyond. d

 

[qso1]

Its the warlike mentality we would need to leave behind which is often justified in the name of religion. Can this actually happen? Doubt it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pioneer0333]

You make a good point! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rpmath]

<font color="yellow">"Sanity" ? We probably killed a hundred million in the past century and I suspect that was just a warm up for what's coming at us. </font><br />If earth population keeps growing faster than the resources they need to use there will be billions killed by the end of the century. May be there is no big war but some sort of continual guerilla, terrorism or some other way people getting less resources than they need will kill the people they think are spending those resources.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The very fact that superstition (religion) still flourishes makes me think our collective mentality is flawed. We need to get off the planet and not take cathederals, temples, and mosques to the moon, Mars, & beyond.</font><br />Mosques will be hard to build in Mars… they need to point to some place in Earth (Mecca) and Earth will be moving in the sky, but I think there will be cathedrals and temples. People will always need something to believe. To believe the first cause of Universe is just a mechanical principle with no purpose is a believe too, and cannot be proved. Atheism is just a religion whose god always follow his manual, if you know the manual you need no god.<br /><br />The question is what kind of people can support manned space exploration?<br />People do what they think is good.<br />For many people the most the money the better… and they don’t see return for their investment up there.<br />For other people is good to kill evil people that make their friends life miserable… and there is no much evil people up there.<br />For other people is good to feed the poor… and the resources needed to send somebody up there can be best spent down here.<br />For others science is good, we can learn a lot up there… but it is cheaper to send robots and do research down on Earth.<br />For others adventure is good, we need to explore, to go beyond… they can support a Mars expedition… but spent billions to see a few people living

 

[alokmohan]

Dont you thing going to other planets was a thought of Senior Bush?Please correct me if I am wrong.Even back in time,When Gagarin weny to space,USSR thought of going planet to planet.Now we know it is not that simple is another point.But there is plenty of case for mars.

 

[thalion]

In theory, I think offworld human colonies are a great idea. In practice though, I think the hurdles are immense, and maybe insurmountable with current technology. <br /><br />For me, the litmus test for any colony should be self-sufficiency; it is only self-sufficient colonies that will ensure human survival off-world. A colony that has to get resupplied every six months to a year won't cut it, IMO. <br /><br />Getting self-sufficient colonies going was hard enough on Earth, where the air, water, soil and timber were free. None of those options will be open to off-world colonists; getting necessities such as water and oxygen will take energy, and soil will either have to be imported or mulched in-place. <br /><br />Then, there are practical concerns, such as resource management and manufacturing, along with (current) unknowns like the radiation hazard, the long-term human response to Lunar or Martian gravity, time adjustment (the Martian days might wreak havoc on our circadian rhythm), and the pyschological realities of living in a bubble of one kind or another 24-7. Figuring all this out will be a very long term project, and will require an extraordinary degree of public and political dedication.<br /><br />Last but not least, there is the issue of cost. The financial burden itself worries me less than the difficulty of convincing the government and its taxpayers that investing in off-world colonization is worth the decades, if not centuries it would take to bring it to fruition, and for the good of the species rather than just for national prestige. <br /><br />Recent history has shown people to be remarkably short-sighted; promises of the permanent survival of humanity might ring hollow with those worried most about bread and butter issues (which is just about everyone). For instance, the increasingly stark possibility of civilization-destroying impacts has not been matched by a dramatic increase in NEO-finding programs or asteroid missions; I can't imagine peop

 

[alokmohan]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684835509/102-7007629-5452131?v=glance&n=283155.Robert Zurins book is eye opener.

 

[dannyd]

re:RPMath - I was being factious regarding mosques,etc. Regarding things metaphysical my personal stance is of an agnostic nature. Naming god and ascribing agendas for that invented deity is inferior to just living with the unfortunate truth that we are not privy to such metaphysical knowledge. It's okay not to know but pretending you know - bad news. d