On a lighter note....

[Topher]

hmmm

Consuming resources until nothing is left?
Sounds like locusts to me.
What do they do?
They spread like the plague.
Who are these "powers that be" btw?

It's a tired sci-fi cliché (Starship Troopers, the Magog in "Andromeda"), but, if it's mankind's destiny to be like locusts then so be it. It would be a shame to see the Earth ruined, but far better the Earth than Mankind. If we devour the Earth, move on to somewhere else, devour that place, and so on, then more power to us.

I don't think it will happen like that however.

I love animals, plants, streams, mountain air, and all that stuff as much as the next guy, but as long a men are living, breathing, and happy all that stuff can go to hell.

 

[Draco]

Oh I see it your way. Mankind is bigger than Earth.
Lets fuck the place over and move on.
The "OUR GENERATION" mentality.

Tell me, lets put your scenario to the test .
A ship lands from outer space and says
"WE LIKE IT HERE - LEAVE or DIE"
(Would you stand and fight for your home?)
And we fought and won. We repelled the INVADERS.
For generations afterwards we cursed their names and swore vengance against them. They would be our enemy.

So, in your scenario, we should become these very same invaders. Seeking out new worlds to conquer. New foes to vanquish. Until one day, we strike against a foe we cant vanquish.
Then we get wiped out. END of MANKIND as we know.

Good plan. Just count me out.

The POWERS THAT BE are whoever you believe they are.

 

[sigh]

I have children, I want to leave this place as a legacy to them, not a liability.


Message to SIGH. Nowhere in my thread did I mention the words "empty-headed flake". We have a differing opinion on things - thats all. If anything I said offended you or anyone else please PM me and you will be apologized to.

it's not even a matter of opinion...i haven't agreed or disagreed with you at all...what i said came before you joined the thread, and let me repeat in case you missed it...I WAS JOKING...gods, man, lighten up a bit

and no, you didn't call me an empty headed flake...so sorry...you just said i had a narrow-minded view...i feel so much better now...thanks for pointing that out...can't imagine why i was offended

 

[Topher]

So Draco, I guess your point of view depends
upon the definition of "intelligent"?

I would have no problem intruding upon a planet that
is exactly like earth (with all its lifeforms) take away mankind if
it were *necessary* for our survival.

I guess you would argue that dumb animals have just as many rights as humans? Then, if you conceded that they might not, you would argue that drawing the line between "intelligent" and "non-intelligent" is arbitrary.

Ok, what if we only terraformed "dead" worlds? Would that be acceptable? Then I suppose you could argue that we could never be sure what all forms of life would be like or where they would be located (even on "dead" worlds). Well, maybe we intruded upon the habitats of undetected and/or unrecognized lifeforms when we left the continent of Africa. Who knows?

The bottom line is that I think that if we were mature enough to
colonize space I hope we would be wise enough to make ethical decisions about our methods.

You're good at setting up straw man arguments:

"Oh I see it your way. Mankind is bigger than Earth.
Lets fuck the place over and move on.
The "OUR GENERATION" mentality. "

Well, yes, but only if we were forced to take this path for whatever reason, even if the reason were our own ecological stupidity. I would prefer to see Earth preserved as a garden. Maybe one day Earth could be depopulated and turned into a planetary park. Yes, these are fantastical thoughts, but that's the realm that we are in. But, yes, I agree, mankind *is* more important, if not bigger, than the Earth. I agree with the first part un conditionally, and I agree with the second part ("... fuck the place ...") only in the event where mankinds survival depends upon such behavior. So far we are the only clear-cut examples of the Cosmos's self-awareness, and to me that is a very precious thing.

I have faith in our survival because mankind has so far adapted to very harsh conditions permanently (the Arctic), and the harshest reasonable conditions (the vacuum of space) for temporary periods of time. Our culture (i.e. learned behavior) makes us highly adaptable.

You, yourself, pointed out how vast the universe is, and you can't see within in that theater multitudes of possibilites wherein mankind can survive *and* be in harmony with his universe?

 

[BigDawg69]

It's the end of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine. . .


It's beer-thirty!

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: green

Never woulda taken STG for green.

Don't take me for anything. I am not a tree hugger, indeed I am a tree murderer (I have worked in the wood products industry, and even logging - I was a choker setter when I was younger)

So how bad could the environment really be?

I am not so worried about the gross pollution, especially in the more developed nations that have this issue more or less under control, I am worried about what I call "subtle" pollution and environmental issues such as global warming, acid rain and overuse of resources such as over fishing and clearing too much land.

It's the unfair distribution of those resources that causes starvation, etc.

Well, we would disagree whether it is unfair or uneven, but the essence is the same; there is essentially enough resources, but those who sometimes need them the most have a problem getting them.

 

[SweetCherry]

I guess the way I see it is that if we can't properly take care of the world we've been given, what gives us the right to move on and destroy another. It's the same as how I raise my kids. I'll buy the toy, but you break it, I don't replace it. Maybe we should all start seeing it that way.

We live in a world where there are fish kills all over the placein rivers from polutants. We have frogs growing 3rd legs and mutating. All these things are going on around us, and we continue to bring children into it. Sure, it's our right to procreate. But isn't it also our responsibility to take care of the world as a place to leave to the same children we give life?

I can't say one way or another if there honestly IS other planets in the universe where we can live. Maybe I'm not that smart to figure it out. I guess I'd rather just be on the safe side and assume that we have all we're ever going to on this world and try to keep it as pure a place as possible than deplete it of its clean air, water, flora and fauna. And no, I'm no "tree hugger" or "animal freak". I'm for hunting to keep down some of the wild population to prevent them from breeding too much and starving. I don't think the world needs to do without things like paper and wood. I just want to know that my great-grandchildren won't have to go to a museum to see things like lions and elephants the way mine do with dinosaurs.

Is the world doomed? I can't say. Is it all fine and dandy? No, I really don't think it is. Is there a way to fix it? We can only try and preserve some of what's left before it's all gone. Treat the world with respect and cherish it before it's all gone and you've nothing left TO cherish.

And Topher, "dumb" animals do have rights in this world. Maybe not as much as people, but they also deserve a place to live safely, clean water to drink and food to eat. Think about it. Once all that stuff is gone, what does that leave we humans? Cut down all the trees and we lose the ability produce oxygen. There also goes the places for birds to nest, spiders to spin webs, lizards and squirrells and frogs to seek shelter. I for one find true beauty in nature.

 

[Topher]

And Topher, "dumb" animals do have rights in this world. Maybe not as much as people, but they also deserve a place to live safely, clean water to drink and food to eat. Think about it. Once all that stuff is gone, what does that leave we humans? Cut down all the trees and we lose the ability produce oxygen. There also goes the places for birds to nest, spiders to spin webs, lizards and squirrells and frogs to seek shelter. I for one find true beauty in nature.

It's probably well within our present technological capabilities to colonize Mars and the Moon at the very least. I'm fairly confident that we could terraform Mars very quickly too (and thus sever dependence on Earth).

I find beauty in nature too. Remember I suggested the planetary park eventuality. You could also think of it as a planetary nature preserve. Ask STG, I cubbyhole myself as very liberal, and liberals are very often green (is that too much cubbyholing?). I think animals have a right not to suffer (at least at OUR hands) unduly. The preserve idea basically amounts to inter-species segregation, so, while I put it out as one possibilty, I also have faith in our ability to learn to live in harmony with Nature. Despite the actions of our Corporate-Elite-controlled government, especially regarding the environment, I don't think we are doomed.

Regardless of the existence of mankind, however, there would still be 1000's of species going extinct every day.

I think my main contention is that I don't despise my people. I think Original Sin is poppycock. I think we are all basically good, albeit perhaps a bit self-involved. I think, in toto, humanity is a noble species.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I guess the way I see it is that if we can't properly take care of the world we've been given, what gives us the right to move on and destroy another.

I look at it more from this viewpoint; if we can't take care of what we already have, what makes us think we won't repeat the same mistakes elsewhere? Similar but different; without all of the moral context it comes down to simple practical issues, and people usually respond to practical arguments better than moral ones.

We have frogs growing 3rd legs and mutating.

A slight technicality, be careful using this as an example; this is now thought to have nothing to do with pollution, etc., but rather to do with a natural biological mechanism (some kind of parasite or infection if I remember right).

I can't say one way or another if there honestly IS other planets in the universe where we can live.

It would be possible to terrform Mars and live there. Alternatively, I think it might even be possible to terraform Venus, but it would be much more difficult than Mars - by many orders of magnitude.

I guess I'd rather just be on the safe side and assume that we have all we're ever going to on this world and try to keep it as pure a place as possible than deplete it of its clean air, water, flora and fauna.

From the practical perspective this makes sense than for no other reason than it would take us a long time to terraform Mars, we might fail altogether, and even if we did succeed, we could and would outgrow Mars too if we keep goingthe way we are. From a moral and aesthetic perspective, I would prefer to not trash one home just because some of might get to move to another.

And Topher, "dumb" animals do have rights in this world.

Nautral Rights derive from what is "right" in nature; i.e., what works best. As such all animals, including humans, need to coexist for our mutual benefit. It would be extremely difficult for us to live without other animals, and the more animals we eliminate the harder our continued existance becomes. As humans we are both the most intelligent and destructive animals on earth. We alone have the ability to decide what our future, and the future of earth will be. Other animals have a part to play, but they are passive partners in the play - we are the ones that are responsible.

 

[Draco]

Ok..this has got way out of hand and quite frankly bizarre.
Terraforming other planets? Living in bubbles on foreign
worlds? Why don't we all just "do our bit" and help clean up the one we've already got? Seems like the easiest way to me. Why not spend all that money on developing cleaner fuel sources instead of spending it on shuttles to space? How about feeding our hungry, homing the homeless and cutting back on pollutants?

In a way, I see Mankind as the dumbest animal of all. We assume we are almighty and powerful. Just coz we stood up and walked?
Just coz we can communicate with others? All the other species of animals communicate too. We just cant/wont believe that they communicate with each other in their way. Look at whales and dolphins - they use a language of clicks/whistles. And you call them dumb?

We have vastly differing views, thats what makes us individuals.
But with peace and understanding and a bit more love and tolerance, we can make this world a better place for our future
generations. In this arguement, no one is right or wrong. But if we dont "pull finger" and help to clean up our world soon, it'll be too late.

 

[sigh]

i like science fiction...i read the books and watch the movies...and i've noticed that the authors treat earth in the far future in one of two ways...some have the intrepid space travellers coming home after a few millennia to find their home planet a boiling stew of chemical sludge and heavy gray-brown smog...a dangerous, even lethal place for the space-pure to live

others have them finding earth as a blue and green ball, bustling with life...forests spreading across the wild lands filled with the wild animals of their fondest tales

now i would love to see mankind pioneer the star lanes, colonizing far solar systems, thriving in unimaginable environments, but even if we do make it that far, to spread our seeds across the universe, i'd much rather the wayward ones come home to the latter vision of future earth than the former

as in most things, i tend to moderate...i'm all for heading out to the great unknown, but like draco i say let's make sure we don't fuck up the home front in the meantime

 

[Weird Harold]

Why not spend all that money on developing cleaner fuel sources instead of spending it on shuttles to space?

If we weren't making the effort to send shuttles into space, we wouldn't have cleaner fuel sources like Hydrogen Fuel Cells to power the new generation of city buses and electric cars.


No matter how many planets or orbital habitats we colonize, there is just no way that all of humanity can immigrate to the stars. We have to clean up an protect the planet that 90% of humanity is going to be stuck on.

It took natural processes millions of years to form fossil fuels, yet we've nearly used up all of them in the last century. There are not enough fossil fuels left to last another century -- we have to find some way to replace them or go back to 16th century technology.

If mankind's attitude doesn't change, we're doomed long before the heat death of the universe gets here.

 

[Rhys]

Re: Re: On a lighter note....

every great culture on earth was either concquered or perished due to war or natural disasters.... from the Mayas, to the Inacs, to the Phoenicians, to the Sumerer.

If somebody conquers us, let it please be the Vulcans. I like Spock's and Tuvork's ears.

We'll make great pets. Here human, human, human!

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

If we weren't making the effort to send shuttles into space, we wouldn't have cleaner fuel sources like Hydrogen Fuel Cells to power the new generation of city buses and electric cars.

While I agree that necessity is the mother of invention, I disagree with the myth that a lot of inventions would not have ever been discovered if we had no space flight effort. Sure a lot of inventions owe their inspiration to the space flight effort, there is no reason why most , if not all, would or could have also been invented for other reasons unrelated to space flight.

It took natural processes millions of years to form fossil fuels, yet we've nearly used up all of them in the last century. There are not enough fossil fuels left to last another century

I understand that this is not necessarily true, and even if it was, that we will probably be able to use alternative fuels long before we run out of petroleum.

 

[Weird Harold]

While I agree that necessity is the mother of invention, I disagree with the myth that a lot of inventions would not have ever been discovered if we had no space flight effort. Sure a lot of inventions owe their inspiration to the space flight effort, there is no reason why most , if not all, would or could have also been invented for other reasons unrelated to space flight.

It's not really a myth.

The Fuel Cell was, (if I remember research done a couple of years ago correctly,) was invented in the mid 1800's. It wasn't until a cheap, reliable, lightweigt, and compact energy source was required for space flight that the concept was refined into something useable.

Other space spin-offs are things no one thought of because nobody considered the needs of micro-gravity before. Without the line of thinking that micro-gravity and/or high-g environments required, many things would probably never have been considered.

Between the space race and war, there are many things we take for granted that either would never have been thought of, or would never have been developed beyond the initial concept. Sometimes, you just have to create a "necessity" to mother your inventions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It took natural processes millions of years to form fossil fuels, yet we've nearly used up all of them in the last century. There are not enough fossil fuels left to last another century
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that this is not necessarily true, and even if it was, that we will probably be able to use alternative fuels long before we run out of petroleum.

We most certainly can use alternate energy sources right now. We don't need fossil fuels for energy or plastics.

However, because we are either too cheap, too lazy, or too stupid (as a race) to stop using fossil fuels, the supply will run out before the end of this century at our current rate of usage.

The "exact" numbers are out there on the web if you care to search for them. Of course there are dozens of conflicting "exact" numbers because we don't know if we know where all of the fossil fuels are, what technological advances will allow us to extract more from the deposits we know of, etc. All of the "exact" numbers do agree that fossil fuels are being used faster than they're being created an oil in particular will run out in fifty to one hundred years.

Aside from the finite quantities, fossil fuels are creating havoc with the natural carbon cycle. Because we're lazy and cheap, developing cost effective energy alternatives should be mankind's first priority for new technology.

Space exploration is (or should be) a big part of that search, because one of the things we have the technology to do now, is put orbital solar collectors to work beiming power back to ground stations. The current level of technology wouldn't be terribly efficient, but it will never get more efficient until we start developing it. It'slike the Fuel Cell -- an idea that will work but is ignored because we don't have a "need" to refine it.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

It's not really a myth.

I am not saying that these inventions did not come from the space effort, but to say that they never would have been invented without that particular incentive can not be proved without going back an eliminating the space effort from history and then seeing what would eventually happen. My assertion is that inventions can come from any number of incentives, and to say that a particular invention, especially one that could be used for multiple purposes, could only have come from the space effort is false logic. It is therefore a myth.

I agree that a lot of good things have come from the space effort, but using that to justify the spending of public monies on something that is not a proper government effort does not agree with me anymore than using tax money to build/subsidize sports stadiums.

 

[Weird Harold]

My assertion is that inventions can come from any number of incentives, and to say that a particular invention, especially one that could be used for multiple purposes, could only have come from the space effort is false logic. It is therefore a myth.

It appears we disagree on what is "mythical" about space race spin-offs. Almost everything that has been developed for space exploration either was or could be invented before man learned how to fly. There are a few things that require prolonged periods of micro-gravity to study, and those cannot be developed without space technology -- chemical reactions that eventually will result in purer drugs and new classes of drugs, for example.

What is not "mythical" is that space exploration did provide the impetus to develop old ideas like fuel cells into something beyond theory. It is irrelevant that some other impetus might eventually have caused those technologies to be developed.

I agree that a lot of good things have come from the space effort, but using that to justify the spending of public monies on something that is not a proper government effort does not agree with me anymore than using tax money to build/subsidize sports stadiums.

Whether Space Exploration is the proper province of governments is debatable, but the fact that to date, only governments have had the resources to engage in space exploration. There are promising private enterprise efforts in space exploration in the works now, but they're such long-term investments that it's difficult to raise the neessary capital.

I would submit that national security issues such as weather, communication and spy satelites make space a legitimate goverment concern. The US is much more secure from national disasters and sneak attacks than it would be without the investment in space that has already been made.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

of course mankind is doomed!

in a few hundred billion years the universe will collapse in upon itself...do you really think we'll survive that?

Actually we may; I was just listening to an astrophysicist explain string theory and ten dimensional theory, and he was saying that when the universe collapses we may be able to create our own little universe in a bubble on top of that old universe and travel in that bubble universe to another warmer non-collapsed universe.