How long till our race crosses the stars?

[ShinMaruku]

Some might say, "Loooong way to go"
But man is far more advanced than most know.

[DarthRuin]

Not in our life time. Unless an advanced race contacts us first, and gives us the technology as a sign of goodwill. We won't leave this rock until we absolutely have to. Which could be sooner than a hundred years considering our current issue with climate change.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DarthRuin on 2007-11-29 08:55 ]</font>

[ShinMaruku]

Well there was some reference to "chariots of fire" taking off so who knows, some say we already did. >_>
I say we could, quite soon but man is content on crap right now.
Some interesting Star Trek like ideas are being postulated in theory,s but we don't have the energy to do it. Anti-matter annihilations do the trick, yeah. But if we fear Nuclear Energy we won't see that soon.

[Palle]

I'm skeptical that our species will survive long enough to colonize our closest neighbor in our own star system, much less make it to another star all together. Human ingenuity and our ability to adapt have always outpaced our maturity, and inspite of the things we have accomplished as a people, we are still little more than super-chimpanzees, to quote Louis Mackey.

Perhaps, given enough time and the "better angels of our nature", as well as a little luck, we can outgrow or outmode our collective dependence on the Rhombencephalon during times of trial, and instead rise to the challenge of survival. We are still capable of success as a species.

Of course, if that time does come, then we will cease to be Human, but will have become whatever is next.

[ShinMaruku]

You leave interstellar to post-humanity?
Man is mature, just too few of them. We still have too much idiots on Earth and that's the issue. A few more conflicts can fixed that by killing many. Das gift.

[Blitzkommando]

So, because we have computers that are nothing more than glorified calculators and rockets that require thousands of times the weight of the payload in fuel, we're close to visiting a star that would take hundreds upon hundreds of years at our fastest speeds to reach? We are in the stone-age of computers, aeronautics, and pretty much every science and technology in general. I'll be happy when we reach Mars, which alone will take a crew several months to get there, just to spend a week or two on the surface. Hell, we still haven't been everywhere on earth yet and it took billions of dollars and millions of man hours just to reach our closest neighbor, the moon, at a mere 250,000 miles away.

No, we aren't going to be 'crossing the stars' for at least another couple generations. That's not to say I doubt we can, and eventually will, do it but simply that it is still well beyond our grasp. Saying we are close, or are even beginning to be able to comprehend the amount of work and research required for such a trip, is nothing more than ignorance and arrogance. We are just beginning to unlock the capabilities that computers can bring. And until people grow the balls to further nuclear research, and research it in a big way, we won't be going very far on our rather expensive and inefficient chemical fuels.

[ShinMaruku]

Make fuels run out, you'll see all this "new"stuff.
Technology advances the fastest when the need is there.I don't think it's not fear that holds it back but the oil lobby.

[ABDUR101]

Wait for hydrogen cells to corner the market, that'll push the oil prices way down or even out entirely if there's a significant change over(expecially if laws are passed to cut fuels from the everyday americans life as much as possible). I think since things are going to shit in the middle-east, the 'powers that be' are quite willing(and all are very much looking) to garner a new fuel source, and I imagine hydro-fuel cells will fit the bill quite easily and readily. The thing is, there's been a very much increasing boon in 'Going Green', and I think any President that takes that bull by the horns and helps turn America as 'Green' as possible will have a very strong backing, since we won't be going to needless wars and 'supporting allies' in the middle-east when all we really want are good relations for their fuel reserves. No country ever wants another country to hold that over their head for a bargaining chip. (You'll play nice or we'll cut your country off, etc)

As for the space-race, no, we are very much a good 200+ years from really even being a viable candidate as a species for even remote space travel. I don't see humanity doing much in space(nor the need to) until as a species we can even handle ourselves on our own homeworld. We can barely live with each other on the same continent and from one continent to the next, I don't think we'd be able to put much effort into space travel while we're still fighting each other on the ground. Besides, would you even want to travel the solar system knowing that hostilities could happen at any given moment depending on what happens on earth? It's self-defeating.

Aswell, if I were an advanced race passing by and tuned into earth communications, saw divided nations and a splintered humanity who could'nt take care of their own homeworld, and then saw them buzzing around space and disrupting worlds with their nationalistic pursuits, I'd be inclined to send the lot of us back acouple centuries to stem the tide of stupidity.

"A house divided cannot stand" should'nt only be applied to a single government, it fits everything. If humanity itself can't put aside petty differences, which for all intents and purposes I see as nothing more than "traditional' in-fighting as a species, then I don't think we're going to last as a race. I don't so much mind the wars and fighting, because humanity for the most part is very laxed and too secure in their "I'm going to have a career, have a family, grow old and die" mentallity. Too many people, having too many people, who all live too long without really doing anything for the greater whole. I see humanity as abit of a tarnish, considering we're supposed to be the 'apex' of evolution on the planet. I find that having a vast knowledge base and a society based on the precedent of a select few individuals throughout history does not make us an apex, it just means humanity itself has had very well developed people in our history and they've set the precedent for the rest of the swarm to follow and learn from.

For every Einstein, there have been millions of blundering idiots who's very existance has caused more harm to our species than good. I don't exclude myself from one of those millions. The reality is, humanity, in all it's 'wisdom' still only looks out for number one, we've split the atom and we can see what we do to our own ecosystems on a daily basis, and yet like a herd of wildebeast attempting to turn into a new direction, it's a lumbering lurch with alot of trampling of everything around us.

[ShinMaruku]

Thus I will always say all these crisses we go through are a good thing as they weed out the stupid and inferior (Not weak but stupid)
I blame all our issues on the stupid:
Now there is a huge issue in our world today and hell from the goddamned beginning this whole pointless separation upon differences.

Some say religion,some say race,some say nationality,some say sex, some say sects,some say class all the same damn thing labels that indicate difference now that is hardly negative difference is good for the most part but when people create this arbitrary separation they cause all this trouble because let's face it people are emotional and exploitive and will create this whole debacle that we find ourselves in. It's about time figure that out.

Now look on the aspect of the war in Iraq or in the middle east, you know the cause of it? WWI. How? You heard of a thing called the Ottoman Empire right? Guess who was a part of it? The entire middle east and back then with something holding them together these petty feuds would never arise.

During that war the allies committed a huge error in when taking the Ottoman Empire apart they had these three groups, the Sunni's the Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq today, they knew of the difference and that under these situations there would be conflict and what they did? Made in Iraq with all three of them mother fuckers in there, foolish move and after that they put in something that benefited them but had no continuity to the peoples (A western form of government. And now you got this shit. I think war is God's way of dealing with excess idiots.
_________________

[Saner]

I'm optimistic, but also a realist at times. the nations in this world will blow each other up before they produce the technology to do some real space exploration. it's more likely a meteor will destroy the planet before then too.

and then there's also the almost non-existent chances of finding another planet humans can inhabit and survive without needing to return to Earth for more resources.

it still wouldn't matter really, none of this space stuff will really advance quick enough for us to participate in it.

[ShinMaruku]

Man won't blow himself up mostly put his ass back.
If there is reason we will cross stars, mans will to live is immense.
The Milkly way is huge, we can find a few planets. 20% of the stars are like Sol, we have a chance. Regardless Sol is gonna eat the Earth too. :E

[Blitzkommando]

Do you even know what fuels rockets use? They don't use gasoline, diesel, or any sort of petrolium product. They use oxygen and hydrogen, two of the most efficient chemical fuels anywhere. But they're still too damned inefficient to use as fuel for long distances. Rockets haven't ever used petrolium. Ever. But that's beside the point. We have too many people that piss their pants whever the words 'atomic' or 'nuclear' are used and simply refuse to advance fission or fusion as sources for energy. Until we can get people and governments to stop pissing over those as sources of energy, and yet insist on using relatively ancient, inefficient, and dirty fuels (petrolium, coal, natural gas, and even wood) we won't be going anywhere. Our energy needs are soaring around the world, and the country that needs nuclear fuels the most is the one that is pissing over itself at the prospect of building more nuclear reactors because of an incident half-way around the world when a group of morons was in charge of a nuclear energy station in 1986 in a country that no longer exists.

Our sun is about middle age. It still has at least a few billion years of fuel left in it before it starts to show the signs of running out. Somehow, if we're still around at that time, I think we'll have left this planet long ago to avoid that issue altogether.

And World War I was hardly the catalyst for the instability of the Middle East. The Middle East is the reason for its own instability. It has always, since the beginning of time, had political, social, racial, religious, and economic strife. Period. If you want a more 'recent' reason for a lot of the strife, look to the cruisades. Europe went all willy-nilly over there and started a bunch of shit to try and take back the Holy Land. And they did, then they lost it, then they gained it, and lost it, and it repeated through the Colonial Era wherein most of Europe owned at least one piece of the pie that made up the Middle East. The Middle East (and much of the world) is made up of people refusing to allow their 'traditional' enemy any slack or any advantage. Are we able to go above that? Sure, look at England, France, and Spain. They used to beat the shit out of each other for over one thousand years. And while they certainly are still rivals, they work together. Countries that don't do that? Well, those are more numerous. India and Pakistan are a prime example. The Koreas, Japan, and China are another example that while don't go in armed combat, there is still incredible tension between them. All it would take is North Korea or China to start flexing their muscles and we'd have another world conflict. And, let's not even get into South-East Asia, South America, or bloody hell Africa.

Humans are greedy, selfish, arrogant bastards. Some of us freely admit it, but most of us as a species are too damned arrogant to admit we have faults. It will take something big, and I mean really fucking big to get us to team up for any extended period of time. Until then, it's going to be a handful of loosely allied people teaming up to do the major advances in the world, including space travel. How successful do you really think we can be if we end up killing each other over fucking football (soccer) games?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Norvekh on 2007-11-29 13:49 ]</font>

[Weeaboolits]

Stars are too damn far apart, it will take forever.

[ShinMaruku]

On 2007-11-29 13:40, Norvekh wrote:
We have too many people that piss their pants whenver the words 'atomic' or 'nuclear' are used and simply refuse to advance fission or fusion as sources for energy. Until we can get people and governments to stop pissing over those as sources of energy, and yet insist on using relatively ancient, inefficient, and dirty fuels (petrolium, coal, natural gas, and even wood) we won't be going anywhere. Our energy needs are soaring around the world, and the country that needs nuclear fuels the most is the one that is pissing over itself at the prospect of building more nuclear reactors because of an incident half-way around the world when a group of morons was in charge of a nuclear energy station in 1986 in a country that no longer exists.

Our sun is about middle age. It still has at least a few billion years of fuel left in it before it starts to show the signs of running out. Somehow, if we're still around at that time, I think we'll have left this planet long ago to avoid that issue altogether. 5 billions years is the beginning of the death, it's still millions of years to go until white dwarf stage (Which is a dead star mind you, not black dwarf, they don't exist yet, universe is too young believe it or not) But the core of the Earth will solidify within 3-4 billion years as the half-life will at the stage where it won't be hot enough yet and the atmosphere will be flayed by solar wind killing all life.


And World War I was hardly the catalyst for the instability of the Middle East. The Middle East is the reason for its own instability. It has always, since the beginning of time, had political, social, racial, religious, and economic strife. Period. If you want a more 'recent' reason for a lot of the strife, look to the cruisades. Europe went all willy-nilly over there and started a bunch of shit to try and take back the Holy Land. And they did, then they lost it, then they gained it, and lost it, and it repeated through the Colonial Era wherein most of Europe owned at least one piece of the pie that made up the Middle East. The Middle East (and much of the world) is made up of people refusing to allow their 'traditional' enemy any slack or any advantage. Are we able to go above that? Sure, look at England, France, and Spain. They used to beat the shit out of each other for over one thousand years. And while they certainly are still rivals, they work together. Countries that don't do that? Well, those are more numerous. India and Pakistan are a prime example. The Koreas, Japan, and China are another example that while don't go in armed combat, there is still incredible tension between them. All it would take is North Korea or China to start flexing their muscles and we'd have another world conflict. And, let's not even get into South-East Asia, South America, or bloody hell Africa. Why I put WWI as a root cause it's the root of the current cause, yes that damn region has always had it's head up it's ass and probably might need to be atomized, needless to say before the war the Ottoman Empire had a top on things containing that crap, when they dissolved it they put warring groups with a history of conflict as you said, that creates this current situation with arising nationalism (Bullshit).


Humans are greedy, selfish, arrogant bastards. Some of us freely admit it, but most of us as a species are too damned arrogant to admit we have faults. It will take something big, and I mean really fucking big to get us to team up for any extended period of time. Until then, it's going to be a handful of loosely allied people teaming up to do the major advances in the world, including space travel. How successful do you really think we can be if we end up killing each other over fucking football (soccer) games?
Why you think I said we need several more massive conflicts killing millions before people change?
It's this stupidity makes me kind of agree with some people being controlled and monitored.
Massive Wars for all the positive effect when people see the dumb shit they do.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ShinMaruku on 2007-11-29 14:31 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

Crossing the stars is easy. We have the technology today to do that. Surviving the trip, that's the trick.

[Solstis]

The Ottoman Empire was known for oppressing the locals. Empires tend to do that. I'd blame the Ottoman Empire and the English/French before I blamed any arabs for the Middle East.

Er, and massive conflicts don't have positive effects. People like to pretend that there are some, though. You said yourself that WWI destabilized the Ottoman Empire, and that whole WWII thing seems to point out that WWI didn't make the world a better place by even one degree.

Also, who made you judge and jury? What makes those people stupid? When you start blaming the previously oppressed, the colonized, you basically forgive the sins of the colonizer.

But, yeah, I do agree that nationalism is a pretty big crock of shit, and people need to realize that patriotism and nationalism are not necessarily the same thing.

[Hyper_Rappy]

The simple answer is- Once we got fusion power

[Randomness]

First, WWII was mostly CAUSED by WWI.

Second, we already have the technology to initiate controlled fusion reactions, we lack the technology to harness the energy output.

Personally, I forsee cryogenics being the key technology to stellar travel.

[kizu]

Inter-star travel will not be seen for at least another 100 years. We are using the most advanced fuel we've got right now to get our rockets or shuttles into orbit but that's all we've achevied at the moment. Our old moon equipment is pretty much obsolete so the space agencies will need to spend billlions in creating a working lunar lander model and returning a crew to the moon before even thinking about inter-star travel. Also, with all the wars going on and poor leadership at the moment, the chances of the world working together and pooling it's resources to create a fuel strong enough to get to Mars and beyond, a working craft that can sustain the impacts of the micrometorites and the radiation/heat of space, a way to keep the crew alive, and a way to provide enough food, oxygen, and water for the crew is... 0%. If the world stops fighting and begins to work togther, maybe after 10 or so years of research, we'll be able to make something happen. Then they'll have to overcome the public and saftey regultions. Fat chance there. In other words, unless a scientific dictator takes over the world, we're not going very far into space.

[Sinue_v2]

We could go to Mars today if we wanted. It's just not economica or particularly safe to do so. Still, according to the Mars Society, we're closer right now to landing a man on Mars and returning him safely to Earth - than we were going to the Moon in '61 when Kennedy gave his speech.

[Darkly]

playing mass effect has made me think about space travel alot too. Shame it probably won't be in our lifetime though.

[Thalui89]

Man should focus on solving the problems of this planet before fucking up somewhere else.

[DarthRuin]

On 2007-11-30 06:06, Thalui89 wrote:
Man should focus on solving the problems of this planet before fucking up somewhere else.



Why solve problems when there's a universe full of planets to fuck over?

[Tomeeboy]

On April 13th, 2029, an asteroid called 99942 Apophis is going to pass so close to Earth that scientists originally thought that there was a chance of an impact. They later determined that there was not going to be any impact. However, the orbit of the asteroid could be altered when it passes Earth, potentially setting it on an impact path for one of its future passes (the first being April 13, 2036, 7 years later).

In the event that future research shows a chance of this asteroid impacting Earth, there would likely be a manned mission to land on the asteroid to take samples and help determine ways to divert it. The earliest this would take place would be after lunar landings recommence, which won't happen until 2020 or later. There is currently an un-manned lunar landing slated for 2019, as part of NASA's Constellation (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html) program, with human lunar landings slated for 2020 under the same project.

Judging by the amount of effort and preparation going into landing humans on the moon again (they have test flights and missions leading all the way up to the tentative 2020 lunar landing), I don't see anyone reaching other star systems for a very long time. If the 2020 lunar landing goes well, then I'm sure we'll see some kind of mission to Mars following it. Whether that will be in our lifetime or not, who knows http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Personally, I think the only chance of any of us seeing space travel to other galaxies, or even planets beyond Mars, will be if we have ourselves cryogenically preserved and thawed out in a hundred years or so. Who knows, though, if people can come up with a ground-breaking fuel source and type of spacecraft, that kind of travel could accelerate much more rapidly.

[Sinue_v2]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

If the theory pans out, we might be closer to a Hyperdrive than just Science Fiction. We could proposedly travel to the the closest star system to us in less time than we could travel to Mars with conventional propulsion. Mars itself would take less time than a flight from LA to Beijing. The theory won an award from the AIAA. However, it's apparently pretty hard to understand and makes a lot of assumptions. The technology to achieve this isn't quite here yet, though a few firms have stepped forward saying that they can do this with proper funding.

Since the theory is an attempt to reconcile differences between the theory of relativity and quantum physics, I wonder if that new geometry based underlying theory of everything (if that also turns out to be accurate) could help validify or denounce the Hyperdrive theory.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10170958

[ShinMaruku]

On 2007-11-29 17:30, Solstis wrote:
The Ottoman Empire was known for oppressing the locals. Empires tend to do that. I'd blame the Ottoman Empire and the English/French before I blamed any arabs for the Middle East.

Er, and massive conflicts don't have positive effects. People like to pretend that there are some, though. You said yourself that WWI destabilized the Ottoman Empire, and that whole WWII thing seems to point out that WWI didn't make the world a better place by even one degree.

Also, who made you judge and jury? What makes those people stupid? When you start blaming the previously oppressed, the colonized, you basically forgive the sins of the colonizer.

But, yeah, I do agree that nationalism is a pretty big crock of shit, and people need to realize that patriotism and nationalism are not necessarily the same thing.


I'd say two massive conflicts made Europe pull it's head out of it's ass and now focus on peace rather than war. People only change when they lose significantly. Thus conflicts have the side effect of opening people's eyes. Man is such a form of life. Nationalism is really das gift.

[KodiaX987]

Never. We'll have blown each other up long before figuring out how to conduct long-range space flight.

[ShinMaruku]

Since you think well kill our selves, natural selection works well don't it?
I don't think man has the balls to do that though.

[watashiwa]

Although going to other planets would be nice, I'm just waiting for transporters and holodecks.

[PhotonDrop]

On 2007-11-30 09:20, Tomeeboy wrote:
In the event that future research shows a chance of this asteroid impacting Earth, there would likely be a manned mission to land on the asteroid to take samples and help determine ways to divert it.




Great, now I have Aerosmith stuck in my head.



On 2007-11-30 14:36, ShinMaruku wrote:
Since you think well kill our selves, natural selection works well don't it?
I don't think man has the balls to do that though.




I think Shuri meant "blow ourselves up" as in GAME OVER. Natural selection tends to need players with extra lives to participate.


On topic: We aren't going anywhere with our current technology. I really like the new form-fitting space suits they've been showing off, but it'll take more than a shiny new suit to go further. Perhaps if an alien race would give us a hand we'd get out sooner, going it alone will just keep the human race on Earth for a few thousand more years.

In all honesty, with the stuff used today I think space travel is none of our concern unless you're one of the guys actually doing something about it, rather than sitting around discussing What If scenarios.

[Fleur-de-Lis]

On 2007-11-30 14:36, ShinMaruku wrote:
Since you think well kill our selves, natural selection works well don't it?
I don't think man has the balls to do that though.
I believe that might be an example of artificial or negative selection.


The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species.

Integrated Comparative Biology, Garland, 2005

Personally, I think it will come to a permanent demolition of either Science or Religion by the other. The two will never be reconciled, and our descendants, should the species survive, will either face lives of stagnant, dogmatic repression or dizzying and terrifying progress. There are withering prices to pay on both paths, and both will lead to tragic consequences, but Science alone holds the definitive key to success as a species.

That bares the question; is the price of success worth paying?

The US Congress certainly doesn't think so...

[Dangerous55]

Look back 100 years, we have advanced a hell of alot. Who knows where we will be in 100 more. The trick will be to survive the next 100 years. I believe we will, I'm not one of those people who thinks we are going to blow ourselves to hell. Even if we do, humanity will survive somewhere on the planet. And that is the trick, civilization surviving so that we have organizations with huge resources to research space travel. I think we will do it.

[Sekani]

As someone already said, we have the technology to build colonies on the moon and Mars right now. Unlike back in the 60s though, there's no social or political motivation to finance such a project. When NASA's still using space shuttles that are over 20 years old, the future for space travel in our lifetime doesn't look all that promising.

[Sinue_v2]

Which, honestly, I don't understand. Reaching out to the stars is the greatest and noblest pursuit that mankind can follow. It's the only thing that, in my opinion, can elevate humanity above our primordial beginnings and truly come into our own as a race. If humanity were to go extinct, we wouldn't be some evolutionary blip on Earth's long history. We would be able to truly call the universe our home. The technology developed in exploring and colonizing space would have great benefits for mankind, and many conflicts - especially over resources - would be reduced or eliminated. Not to mention that, in the case of an extinction level event, it would be the only way to ensure the survival of our race.

But I suppose a pointless war(s) in a third world country (countries) over a finite resource which contributes to the pollution of our environment, and the peenor hardening military/economic hedgemony is just as good.

[Sekani]

It's not so much about pointless wars, the concerns of people these days are different. In the 60s, it was a psychological bonus to land on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than the Soviets. These days, we're too concerned about the price of gas, unemployment, and our credit scores to think that spending money on space exploration would be worthwhile.

[kizu]

On 2007-12-02 16:16, Sekani wrote:
It's not so much about pointless wars, the concerns of people these days are different. In the 60s, it was a psychological bonus to land on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than the Soviets. These days, we're too concerned about the price of gas, unemployment, and our credit scores to think that spending money on space exploration would be worthwhile.



not to mention the wars sapping our budget, terrosim, and our own security. Sadly, were not yet ready to travel into space until we settl our wars, cut the power of terrosim, and reassure our selves that we are safe again.

[ShinMaruku]

On 2007-12-02 16:16, Sekani wrote:
It's not so much about pointless wars, the concerns of people these days are different. In the 60s, it was a psychological bonus to land on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than the Soviets. These days, we're too concerned about the price of gas, unemployment, and our credit scores to think that spending money on space exploration would be worthwhile.


That could well solve some of those issues, since we'd need an extremely efficient form of energy the oil issue would be dealt with and take the reasons for some stupid stuff away. As for unemployment, such research could be a great boon for finding labor if you convince the fools that they are on a noble pursuit which would make them feel good about the work they do. Credit score? People are fools and deserve that ruin.

[Solstis]

On 2007-12-03 09:49, ShinMaruku wrote:

On 2007-12-02 16:16, Sekani wrote:
It's not so much about pointless wars, the concerns of people these days are different. In the 60s, it was a psychological bonus to land on the moon because we had to prove that we were better than the Soviets. These days, we're too concerned about the price of gas, unemployment, and our credit scores to think that spending money on space exploration would be worthwhile.


As for unemployment, such research could be a great boon for finding labor if you convince the fools that they are on a noble pursuit which would make them feel good about the work they do. Credit score? People are fools and deserve that ruin.



What is this with calling people fools? Jeeze. You don't strike me as the sort that would find a blue collar job noble (calling people in debt fools), so I wouldn't expect you to be sitting there making spaceship parts (which would probably be too tricky for normal assembly lines). This seems to be the case of the middle class/upper middle class intellectual pretending to be interested in proletariat issues, but is yet too far removed to speak of anything other than in theory. Going to space right now is a cute ambition, but domestic issues *are* more important to those that are suffering through them.

Anyway, I think by credit scores he/she is referring to the housing market collapse, with people defaulting on loans they apparently couldn't afford. The problem is, that you can't really blame people for wanting a house. You don't blame poor people for being poor (unless, they, I dunno, invested in the stock market or something like that Dolphin from Futurama).

[Sinue_v2]

We will NEVER have a utopian peace and prosperity. If you think waiting for that to happen before traveling to space is a good idea, then put your telescopes away and don't even bother. There will always be poor, there will always be conflicts over resources or land. We can't let that trip us up, and if we do reach out to the stars - it will undoubtedly follow with us. We are human, and like it or not - it's part of who we are. Always has been, and likely always will be.

Not to say that we should ignore these other issues. We can work on them simultaneously. But we shouldn't let ourselves get caught up in concepts and situations that only perpetuate the situation along the way. 9/11 happened and kicked off this whole modern terrorist scare. And now, six years later, are we any safer? Any more prosperous? Do we have cheaper health care and insurance? Is oil cheaper? Housing? Are our freedoms more secure? What about for the Iraqis or Afghans? Does any of this apply to them? Who really won in this situation? Why are we spending half a trillion dollars on a war (or two, or three) against boogeyman enemies who pose minimal threats to our nation - and who CANNOT be stopped (face it, even piracy on our seaways still exists), rather than doing something with that money that actually embetters all of humanity?

And I hate to bring this up, but wars are necessary. Perhaps only to us as a species, but they are. Look at the world around you. How much everyday, sometimes world altering, stuff was invented for use by our militaries? From the computer and internet, to the can opener. The very energy which powers the US is 20% nuclear - 80% in France. Our rockets and missiles powered are the precursors to the space shuttle, a part of a space program which was also pushed into existence because of a Cold War. Even today this is happening. In a thread I posted a little while ago, there's a powered exoskeleton which can be piloted and eventually even work autonomously. These devices, conceived for the military - for use in military operations, will eventually make their way to the private sector to help disabled and elderly people resume their normal every day lives. A machine created to help kill more efficiently, may one day soon enable Stephen Hawking to walk for the first time in most of anybody here's memories.

[Blitzkommando]

I have to say, you're right. The Cold War was one of the fastest advancing periods in human history. Conflict is what makes us better ourselves, not peace. And not all conflict has to have bloodshed. Look at the Cold War as a prime example. We never officially engaged with the Soviets and yet it was the threat of such engagement that we, and the soviets, advanced so rapidly. The period between 1940 and 1990 was full of unbelievable growth, economically, socially, technologically, and scientifically.

It's almost blasphemous to say it, but, it would be more beneficial to both Russia and 'the West' if Russia were to re-establish as the Soviet Union again. They would regain economic (and social) stability and we (the West) would have another clear goal. It was as much the USSR as it was NASA that we went to the moon in 1969. The unfortunate side-effects of course are that the Russian people would get the bad end of the stick again and we could very well see another Red Scare.

[Sekani]

On 2007-12-03 11:27, Solstis wrote:

On 2007-12-03 09:49, ShinMaruku wrote:
As for unemployment, such research could be a great boon for finding labor if you convince the fools that they are on a noble pursuit which would make them feel good about the work they do. Credit score? People are fools and deserve that ruin.



What is this with calling people fools? Jeeze. You don't strike me as the sort that would find a blue collar job noble (calling people in debt fools), so I wouldn't expect you to be sitting there making spaceship parts (which would probably be too tricky for normal assembly lines). This seems to be the case of the middle class/upper middle class intellectual pretending to be interested in proletariat issues, but is yet too far removed to speak of anything other than in theory. Going to space right now is a cute ambition, but domestic issues *are* more important to those that are suffering through them.

Anyway, I think by credit scores he/she is referring to the housing market collapse, with people defaulting on loans they apparently couldn't afford. The problem is, that you can't really blame people for wanting a house. You don't blame poor people for being poor (unless, they, I dunno, invested in the stock market or something like that Dolphin from Futurama).


I was gonna say something along the lines of a kid who's never had to make an honest day's living on his own, but you were nicer I guess.

At any rate the housing market collapse has affected anyone who needs a loan for anything, since if you don't have perfect or near-perfect credit you're pretty much screwed. I was laid off my job five years ago, and the unemployment benefits weren't enough to cover living expenses and my car payment, so it got repoed. My credit has been in the shitter ever since. Still want to call me a fool?

[Nyreal]

I'm pretty confident that we will reach Mars sometime this century, and begin to terraform in the next.

However, my hope for the people living on earth is rather small. I suspect we'll all be dead by 2050...

Iran and Bush, anyone? The man's still got one year. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[ShinMaruku]

On 2007-12-03 11:27, Solstis wrote:

What is this with calling people fools? Jeeze. You don't strike me as the sort that would find a blue collar job noble (calling people in debt fools), so I wouldn't expect you to be sitting there making spaceship parts (which would probably be too tricky for normal assembly lines)

Anyway, I think by credit scores he/she is referring to the housing market collapse, with people defaulting on loans they apparently couldn't afford. The problem is, that you can't really blame people for wanting a house. You don't blame poor people for being poor (unless, they, I dunno, invested in the stock market or something like that Dolphin from Futurama).


Why I call them fools? I don't think taking adjustable rate loans or going for a house they know they cannot handle it anything labeled wise. Some poor people you can blame for being poor, (Lazy indiviuals, people who gamble far too much and the like) now the mojority of them cannot be blamed for that situation, yes, the blame in that case is on more of the upper classes who like-wise control the goervment and the money and enable things to be more difficult for the lower classes. Now some might say the founding fathers were "great" guys but like King David they are not all glittering. I mean in this country,to get a quality education you must have money, college costs are insane. Mean while in other places it's more based on a ability rather than if yo momma or pappa got money.
But I can blame the complacent who bitch of situations but do nothing about it. If you are in a situation where things do not favor you (Such as not having enough funds to get a fixed rate mortgage) and just complain and do nothing about it, I think calling them foolish is in reason. Even more foolish are those who get duped into these things and bite off more than they can chew. I will not say "Oh that poor soul" More like "You poor old fool!"

Most of these issues we find ourselves in would not exist as readily if people would think for themselves. But that is not the case most people what others to decided what's best for them. I find that to be utter foolishness.

[kizu]

On 2007-12-03 16:41, Nyreal wrote:
I'm pretty confident that we will reach Mars sometime this century, and begin to terraform in the next.

However, my hope for the people living on earth is rather small. I suspect we'll all be dead by 2050...

Iran and Bush, anyone? The man's still got one year. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



Bush is almost a dead duck though so we have a slightly better chance of surviving. IF we live to the year 2050, MAYBE we'll make it to the moon again and then mars but iunlikely we'llake it.

[Sinue_v2]

IF we live to the year 2050, MAYBE we'll make it to the moon again and then mars but iunlikely we'llake it.

Assuming all the people who actually think aren't wrong, and the 2012 doomsday doesn't come to pass, I can't see any reason why humanity wouldn't live past 2050. Or even 2100 and beyond. Oh, society as we know it might radically change, but humanity won't go extinct. I mean, what's wrong with us if our ancestors can survive on glacial wastelands with nothing more than stone tipped spears and animal furs - but we, with all our modern technology and abundance of population manages to go extinct.

As for Mars, we'll be there in a fucking heartbeat the moment China announces their desire to land a man on Mars. You can put the money in the bank on that one.

[Hyper_Rappy]

On 2007-11-30 06:44, DarthRuin wrote:

On 2007-11-30 06:06, Thalui89 wrote:
Man should focus on solving the problems of this planet before fucking up somewhere else.



Why solve problems when there's a universe full of planets to fuck over?


now thats funny! http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif