First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Mars-One, would you rather watch or volunteer if that was an option?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

Boganis wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.


Yes, but considering majority of the human race does not register the fact that we have a growing overpopulation problem on this planet, which is causing global warming, resource shortages, and environmental destruction. Our governments are running Ponzi scheme economics aside from the U.S.'s failing to invest in education that actually educates both of which could possibly help curb the above problem. You might want to use your technological know how to create a system which might succeed on another planet. But again that's very naive as well because corporations are the future of space exploration and colonization, not governments (except possibly China and possibly JAXA, they may be corporate now though). So we might be looking at James Cameron's "Aliens" or O'Bannon's "Total Recall" description of corporate colonization.
Maybe some international guidelines for planetary colonization should be written and agreed upon by the world, not the U.N., corporations, or governments who are paid to bid for the corporations (like the U.S.) before colonization is started.


Overpopulation seems to me more or less a myth perpetuated by misanthropes and first world cunts to justify not giving a shit about other people. It is a common enough saying that we have a shortage of resource and we are destroying the enviorment...and yet, not only do we have enough food for everyone, but most of the enviormental issues can be solved by having the first world adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. Why are the forest being cut down, water contaminated and air polluted? Most of the people who are cutting down their forests, polluting air and water, stripping the land of its resources aren't the beneficiaries, these things are done for the benefit of the First World, which comprises of less than a quarter of the world's population, with American only having 5% of the world's population. It is entirely possible to live on earth, and live in a more sustainable manner, while not having to go about colonising space in some adolescent fantasy, while leaving the earth to rot in our fuck ups.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/2/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.


You are absolutely right about how we should invest more money into fixing all those other things. Problem is, those things doesn't seem to be prioritized. So even if the mars expedition didn't happen, those things still wouldn't be fixed.

Besides, it is not at all a waste of money to try and establish human civilization on other planets. If the history of earth has taught us anything, it's that no species lasts forever. As far as I am aware, there has been at least two mass extinction in the history of this planet. Where approximately 95% of all life died out. There's no reason to think such disasters can't happen again. Not to mention that many experts believe that rather than a natural disaster, we just might wipe ourselves out.

To ensure the survival of the species, we MUST expand into space.



And what makes you think that expanding to space would perpetuate our miserable species any longer than can be inhabited on earth?
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/3/13 , edited 9/3/13

longfenglim wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.


You are absolutely right about how we should invest more money into fixing all those other things. Problem is, those things doesn't seem to be prioritized. So even if the mars expedition didn't happen, those things still wouldn't be fixed.

Besides, it is not at all a waste of money to try and establish human civilization on other planets. If the history of earth has taught us anything, it's that no species lasts forever. As far as I am aware, there has been at least two mass extinction in the history of this planet. Where approximately 95% of all life died out. There's no reason to think such disasters can't happen again. Not to mention that many experts believe that rather than a natural disaster, we just might wipe ourselves out.

To ensure the survival of the species, we MUST expand into space.



And what makes you think that expanding to space would perpetuate our miserable species any longer than can be inhabited on earth?


Because Mars and Earth -- or even just the moon and Earth -- are a long way apart. So if the human population on earth got eradicated by a worldwide disaster, the people living on other planets would be relatively unaffected. At least if they are self-sustained.

It would essentially be like an external backup-drive.
For both scientific and mathematical knowledge, as well as the species itself.
21028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 9/3/13

longfenglim wrote:


Boganis wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.


Yes, but considering majority of the human race does not register the fact that we have a growing overpopulation problem on this planet, which is causing global warming, resource shortages, and environmental destruction. Our governments are running Ponzi scheme economics aside from the U.S.'s failing to invest in education that actually educates both of which could possibly help curb the above problem. You might want to use your technological know how to create a system which might succeed on another planet. But again that's very naive as well because corporations are the future of space exploration and colonization, not governments (except possibly China and possibly JAXA, they may be corporate now though). So we might be looking at James Cameron's "Aliens" or O'Bannon's "Total Recall" description of corporate colonization.
Maybe some international guidelines for planetary colonization should be written and agreed upon by the world, not the U.N., corporations, or governments who are paid to bid for the corporations (like the U.S.) before colonization is started.


Overpopulation seems to me more or less a myth perpetuated by misanthropes and first world cunts to justify not giving a shit about other people. It is a common enough saying that we have a shortage of resource and we are destroying the enviorment...and yet, not only do we have enough food for everyone, but most of the enviormental issues can be solved by having the first world adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. Why are the forest being cut down, water contaminated and air polluted? Most of the people who are cutting down their forests, polluting air and water, stripping the land of its resources aren't the beneficiaries, these things are done for the benefit of the First World, which comprises of less than a quarter of the world's population, with American only having 5% of the world's population. It is entirely possible to live on earth, and live in a more sustainable manner, while not having to go about colonising space in some adolescent fantasy, while leaving the earth to rot in our fuck ups.

Let me start by pointing out that if you intend to debate issues or ideals, it is typically a better approach to forgo using expletives or denunciations, such conduct only alights on your own inadequacies. Now as to your beliefs on the status of human overpopulation, first we will start off on the issue of food, the U.N. and W.H.O. give information to the fact that out of the some 7.7 billion humans living upon the earth approximately 930,000,000 are starving. Mind you not do to the lack of food because twice the amount of food that is needed to feed the world's population is produced but do to the cost and control of food through the commodities markets it doesn't reach all people, yes foods are run as derivatives on the stock exchange (read Bet the Farm by Frederick Kaufman, the information may stop you from wanting to eat again). Now even though it has been admitted to that almost a billion people starve per year, you can add to that number an additional variable of 810 million people that India proposed a bill last month to give subsistence to food do to the fact that they are starving, mind you the bill may not as do to the severity of the budget. Then take into account that about 60% of the globes human population predominantly survive on 4 main agricultural staples: rice, soy, wheat, and corn if any 1 or 2 of these staples suffers from any form of crop failure, mass starvation will be imminent. Now take into account that innumerable small and organic farms across the globe are being wiped out or crushed out of business every year because of Countries such as China,the U.S., Brazil, India, United Arab Emirates, etc...buying large tracks of land in Africa, Venezuela, Indonesia, and again etc..for large commercial farms to raise monocultured, artificially fertilized agriculture to feed the overabundant population. The amounts of food produced are far beyond the natural amounts the earth could ever produce with out human beings help and those means are finite. With monocultures you again risk the great possibility of blight, think 19th century Irish Potato Famine, with the rise in the global climate pests are becoming more virulent, and as of the mid of August empirical data is showing that GMO crops are beginning to fail at their predisposed purposes. Now for Water, did you know that the human body can only survive approximately 3 days without potable liquids? As of a year ago access to U.N. files showed that the U.N. monitored 15 global sites 24/7/365 for international conflicts outbreaks do to water, sorry they closed the site and even contacts involved with the U.N. are unable to find the site now so I don't have updated info. China which holds 20% of the world population currently only carries 1730 cubic meters of fresh water per person that is only 30 cu. mt. above the United Nations designated STRESSED level, and when you take into account that China is rerouting from Tibet all of the Himalayan melt water to China for their use, and we won't even discuss their coal production practices and how that is/will effect water issues add to that that China voted in the 1 child law February 2013 and are already proposing giving the wealthy the ability to pay for the ability to have a second child. Then we can talk about the U.S.'s water issues which the majority of the masses are either ignorant to or uncaring to notice, over 80% of the natural fresh water bodies in the U.S. are seriously polluted, Texas is already in court battling New Mexico over water rights and proposing the same with Oklahoma, last month I was sent an article about the depleted water levels within Arizona's aquifers which will lead to a complete drought within the next few decades. Another article a week or two ago regarding decreased water levels in the Colorado River could lead to higher electrical and water prices over the next two years with a good possibility of farmers being compensated not to produce crops because of the lack of water. Now take into account that China holds 1.3 billion equaling about 20% of the population, India holds about 1.2 billion another 20%, the U.S. 316 million another 5%, and you can throw in Mexico and Pakistan for approximately another 5% that's 5 countries holding 50% of the Human population. Yes, the U.S. and many of the worlds countries could scale down their carbon footprint to sustainably hold a higher carrying cost, but not one government or organizational body will even publicly discuss the human overpopulation issue. And keep in mind that carrying cost does not only implicate resources but it also should include the ability to employ the citizens of the world which is an uncalculated deficit. So forgive us the ones who are hoping that space might become a foreseeable area for human expansion, it is a hope over the conflicts which may come in the not too distant future. If your interested in Human Overpopulation studies, facts, articles specificly demographics and resource data contact me and I can forward or involve you into contacts within these fields.
1083 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/4/13
Let's build a moon base first and mine for Luna Titanium.
What could possibly go wrong?
24459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / US
Offline
Posted 9/4/13 , edited 9/4/13
Going to Mars to live forever...it's like suicide. I would like to go on a trip there, though but I wouldn't be able to live there, considering that you will probably be monitored 24/7 so it's like becoming the guinea pig of a science project.
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/4/13

kirika202 wrote:

Going to Mars to live forever...it's like suicide. I would like to go on a trip there, though but I wouldn't be able to live there, considering that you will probably be monitored 24/7 so it's like becoming the guinea pig of a science project.


An AWESOME science project!
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

Boganis wrote:


Let me start by pointing out that if you intend to debate issues or ideals, it is typically a better approach to forgo using expletives or denunciations, such conduct only alights on your own inadequacies. Now as to your beliefs on the status of human overpopulation, first we will start off on the issue of food, the U.N. and W.H.O. give information to the fact that out of the some 7.7 billion humans living upon the earth approximately 930,000,000 are starving. Mind you not do to the lack of food because twice the amount of food that is needed to feed the world's population is produced but do to the cost and control of food through the commodities markets it doesn't reach all people, yes foods are run as derivatives on the stock exchange (read Bet the Farm by Frederick Kaufman, the information may stop you from wanting to eat again). Now even though it has been admitted to that almost a billion people starve per year, you can add to that number an additional variable of 810 million people that India proposed a bill last month to give subsistence to food do to the fact that they are starving, mind you the bill may not as do to the severity of the budget. Then take into account that about 60% of the globes human population predominantly survive on 4 main agricultural staples: rice, soy, wheat, and corn if any 1 or 2 of these staples suffers from any form of crop failure, mass starvation will be imminent. Now take into account that innumerable small and organic farms across the globe are being wiped out or crushed out of business every year because of Countries such as China,the U.S., Brazil, India, United Arab Emirates, etc...buying large tracks of land in Africa, Venezuela, Indonesia, and again etc..for large commercial farms to raise monocultured, artificially fertilized agriculture to feed the overabundant population. The amounts of food produced are far beyond the natural amounts the earth could ever produce with out human beings help and those means are finite. With monocultures you again risk the great possibility of blight, think 19th century Irish Potato Famine, with the rise in the global climate pests are becoming more virulent, and as of the mid of August empirical data is showing that GMO crops are beginning to fail at their predisposed purposes.


I fail to see how all this is a problem of overpopulation, and not some other ill, such as inefficient distribution or an overall inefficient economic system. As you admit, we produce enough food to adequetly feed the world, in agreement with what the WHO has stated on this issue, and if we use technology that, thus far, has not been proven to fail (the risk of it failing may be real, but I have yet to cross hard evidence, beside the discomfort of certain Luddites who view most improvement to man's capacity to produce food as somehow dangerous and harmful). Most agriculture has always been about producing 'beyond what is natural' as agriculture, in itself, is entirely unnatural, it is the cultivation of crops for consumption, and usually involves some artificial means of making the land farmable. You mention the Irish Potatoe famine, which is a tragedy, because the Irish Potatoe famine is not because there was a blight that affected only a single strain of Potatoes, but because of combined callousness of the Anglo-Irish gentry and the British government, which continued to export food from Ireland (enough to feed the straving Irish), while the Irish population starved. Thus, the problem with the Great Hunger, as with starvation now, is not scarcity, but distribution.



Now for Water, did you know that the human body can only survive approximately 3 days without potable liquids? As of a year ago access to U.N. files showed that the U.N. monitored 15 global sites 24/7/365 for international conflicts outbreaks do to water, sorry they closed the site and even contacts involved with the U.N. are unable to find the site now so I don't have updated info. China which holds 20% of the world population currently only carries 1730 cubic meters of fresh water per person that is only 30 cu. mt. above the United Nations designated STRESSED level, and when you take into account that China is rerouting from Tibet all of the Himalayan melt water to China for their use, and we won't even discuss their coal production practices and how that is/will effect water issues add to that that China voted in the 1 child law February 2013 and are already proposing giving the wealthy the ability to pay for the ability to have a second child. Then we can talk about the U.S.'s water issues which the majority of the masses are either ignorant to or uncaring to notice, over 80% of the natural fresh water bodies in the U.S. are seriously polluted, Texas is already in court battling New Mexico over water rights and proposing the same with Oklahoma, last month I was sent an article about the depleted water levels within Arizona's aquifers which will lead to a complete drought within the next few decades. Another article a week or two ago regarding decreased water levels in the Colorado River could lead to higher electrical and water prices over the next two years with a good possibility of farmers being compensated not to produce crops because of the lack of water. Now take into account that China holds 1.3 billion equaling about 20% of the population, India holds about 1.2 billion another 20%, the U.S. 316 million another 5%, and you can throw in Mexico and Pakistan for approximately another 5% that's 5 countries holding 50% of the Human population. Yes, the U.S. and many of the worlds countries could scale down their carbon footprint to sustainably hold a higher carrying cost, but not one government or organizational body will even publicly discuss the human overpopulation issue. And keep in mind that carrying cost does not only implicate resources but it also should include the ability to employ the citizens of the world which is an uncalculated deficit. So forgive us the ones who are hoping that space might become a foreseeable area for human expansion, it is a hope over the conflicts which may come in the not too distant future. If your interested in Human Overpopulation studies, facts, articles specificly demographics and resource data contact me and I can forward or involve you into contacts within these fields.


The scarcity of water can be traced to (1) the overmuch use of it, that is to say, lifestyle, such as watering the park lawn, while allowing the most of it to wet the sidewalk, and (2) pollution, which depletes the natural freshwater supply for obvious reaons. (2) is the most common reason why most developing nations, China included, are experiencing water scarcity, and why it is so severe, and the pollution of water is the byproduct of unchecked industrialisation. Therefore, you are simply jumping to conclusions when you say 'we have an overpopulation problem'. Actually examining the facts- the problems concerning food and water can simply be subsumed to the larger problems of distribution of goods, economics, life-style, and enviormental issues.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.