SPACEX | NASA | Space Exploration | Other Space Ventures

SebastianBlue said:
Haha, that is like saying your house is secondary to your bicycle.

This is the only planet suitable for mass human habitation that we will have access to for centuries.

And even if we do eventually find another planet we can colonise, it won’t be us peasants going, unless it is to work in indentured servitude.
Click to expand...
Very bad analogy that makes no sense
 
SebastianBlue said:
It is currently (and in the near future) much more feasible to build deep sea stations than a habitable station on the moon. There are many, many challenges that would need to be overcome with both, but the former is far easier than the latter, as the list of issues with living on the moon is substantially longer (including some pretty severe physiological problems that we’re not entirely sure we can ever overcome completely, without some truly transformative genetic engineering, that is).

And as far as colonising Mars, that is very, very far off in the future, if we ever end up doing it at all (there are very smart people that have made the case there are better places to colonise in our own solar system, much less outside of it).

I am a huge nerd who has been fascinated and obsessed with space travel and the idea of humanity colonising the solar system (and then far off galaxies) since I was very young. I’ve probably read a quarter of the science fiction and nonfiction ever written on the subject, that’s how interested I am in the concept.

But the more I have studied that aspiration—and the more I have talked to people far smarter than me trying to make it a reality—the more I understand that it is a monumental task that requires absolutely massive changes (and leaps) in not just our technology, but also our global culture. That’s even beyond the almost certainty that the vast majority of people on earth will never actually benefit from any eventual off-world colonisation.

We would need to completely restructure how humanity collaborates and is governed to support such an endeavour. Individual countries, companies, even entire unions of states or super powers will not be sufficient to be successful. This would be a global coordinated effort at a scale never seen in human history.

The problem I have with people like Musk—apart from his fascist, racist, misogynistic, grifting, and juvenile leanings—is that they are smart enough to know all of this but they choose to sell an unrealistic (perhaps unattainable) vision to the masses in order to personally profit, and in turn use the wealth generated to insulate themselves from the consequences of the actual real, immediate harm and cataclysms happening on the only known planet conducive to mass human habitation.

He’s not trying to save the planet via off-world colonisation or electric vehicles. He is trying to use those “projects” to get as much money as possible to subsidise his efforts to create apparatus that allows him to extend his life and possibly survive any cataclysm (either slower like climate change or quicker like an asteroid strike, even more severe pandemic, or even a Carrington Event level CME).

And, worse yet, he’s managed to dupe millions in to genuinely believing his farcical visions and helping to realise his salvation, with almost none of them (or their children or their children’s children or their children’s children’s children) ever standing to benefit from it. Almost no one will.

It is just infuriatingly sad to see.

Edit: I meant to link this great overview of why colonising Mars is an incredibly challenging endeavour that we are absolutely nowhere near being able to achieve. A lot of the things discussed in the video also apply to the Moon, which is still far easier to colonise than Mars.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I just don't get why the focus isn't on the nearest hiding places from disaster. For example underground, under the sea, in the atmosphere, in orbit or on the moon. Surely if you could get those accomplished first then you'd learn loads to scale out to protect more people, increase the quality of life, etc, etc.

Maybe those things are being worked on in the quiet. I just wish that they read my quality posts on this forum. Surely then they'd see that I'm worth getting on the list.
 
TonyM said:
Thanks for that. I just don't get why the focus isn't on the nearest hiding places from disaster. For example underground, under the sea, in the atmosphere, in orbit or on the moon. Surely if you could get those accomplished first then you'd learn loads to scale out to protect more people, increase the quality of life, etc, etc.

Maybe those things are being worked on in the quiet. I just wish that they read my quality posts on this forum. Surely then they'd see that I'm worth getting on the list.
Click to expand...
The wealthy are actually building luxury bunkers at a record pace…

amp.theguardian.com

The super-rich ‘preppers’ planning to save themselves from the apocalypse

Tech billionaires are buying up luxurious bunkers to survive a societal collapse they helped create, but like everything they do, it has unintended consequences
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Only if the house is due to be demolished with you still in it. That's the analogy
Click to expand...
The analogy for your original statement is that space travel will save us from the mess we have made on earth. Which is just demonstratively false, for so many reasons it is impossible to list them. But the main reasons are thus:

1. We cannot out ‘space travel and colonise other worlds’ the current trajectory of climate change. It will overtake us long before we get to a level necessary for mass human migration. The pace of climate disaster and lack of a viable propulsion system alone makes it nearly impossible.

2. Even if humanity does miraculously develop all of the myriad technologies and social structures required to allow for human migration through space to colonise another world before we are decimated by climate change (and thus our capacity for space travel), 99% of people on earth will not be part of it. You and I aren’t going to be invited. Current efforts by the likes of Musk aren’t for us, no matter the lies he sales.

Ultimately, the only feasible solution is for us to work to mitigate (and ultimately reverse) the damage we have caused here on the only known planet that can support mass human habitation. We can continue to develop the technologies necessary for space travel, sure. But no one should be under any illusion that it is going to save the planet. That is just idiotic insanity. For one, the planet doesn’t need saving — it’ll be fine. Humanity (and many other species) are the ones that needs saving. In the absolute best case scenario, human migration through space travel in the critical timeframe before it becomes nearly impossible, would save a tiny fraction of a fraction of people. And, again, even the chances of that are infinitesimally small.

Hence why the analogy is “making your home secondary to your wealthy neighbours bicycle”. Because you are choosing to ignore the growing issues with your only viable shelter and source of security to instead devote all of your finite resources to helping your wealthy neighbour to build a bicycle that can’t even take them out of the troubled neighbourhood.
 
SebastianBlue said:
The analogy for your original statement is that space travel will save us from the mess we have made on earth. Which is just demonstratively false, for so many reasons it is impossible to list them. But the main reasons are thus:

1. We cannot out ‘space travel and colonise other worlds’ the current trajectory of climate change. It will overtake us long before we get to a level necessary for mass human migration. The pace of climate disaster and lack of a viable propulsion system alone makes it nearly impossible.

2. Even if humanity does miraculously develop all of the myriad technologies and social structures required to allow for human migration through space to colonise another world before we are decimated by climate change (and thus our capacity for space travel), 99% of people on earth will not be part of it. You and I aren’t going to be invited. Current efforts by the likes of Musk aren’t for us, no matter the lies he sales.

Ultimately, the only feasible solution is for us to work to mitigate (and ultimately reverse) the damage we have caused here on the only known planet that can support mass human habitation. We can continue to develop the technologies necessary for space travel, sure. But no one should be under any illusion that it is going to save the planet. That is just idiotic insanity. For one, the planet doesn’t need saving — it’ll be fine. Humanity (and many other species) are the ones that needs saving. In the absolute best case scenario, human migration through space travel in the critical timeframe before it becomes nearly impossible, would save a tiny fraction of a fraction of people. And, again, even the chances of that are infinitesimally small.

Hence why the analogy is “making your home secondary to your wealthy neighbours bicycle”. Because you are choosing to ignore the growing issues with your only viable shelter and source of security to instead devote all of your finite resources to helping your wealthy neighbour to build a bicycle that can’t even take them out of the troubled neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

You're still coming at it from a small-minded approach and defeatist attitude. The facts are simple, stay on this planet and we are extinct no matter what. We have to overcome the issue somehow to survive
 
BerkshireBlue said:
You're still coming at it from a small-minded approach and defeatist attitude. The facts are simple, stay on this planet and we are extinct no matter what. We have to overcome the issue somehow to survive
Click to expand...
No, I have explained I have believed that humanity can and should expand out in to the universe since I was very young.

But as you mature, and learn more (and really learn that you actually know very little about anything), and data changes and begins to more strongly support specific trends, you realise that there are bigger, more existential problems to solve first.

There is nothing simple-minded and defeatist about facing reality. In fact, maintaining that the only way to “save humanity“ is to leave Earth is simple-minded and defeatist. Especially given even in the best case scenario very few people will actually ever get to leave earth, which means that strategy condemns must people to suffering and premature death on a dying world (for human habitation, that is).

It is not only simple-minded and defeatist, it is cruel and selfish.

And, even if a small number of humans do somehow escape Earth before climate change degrades our capacity for space travel to zero, it also ultimately sets up just another cycle of colonise > exploit > degrade > disaster > escape > repeat.

Nothing is truly solved without confronting what we have done here and mitigating the harm we have caused, both for the sake of the billions that will never leave earth and future humans that might (as well as the extraterrestrial ecosystems we may one day call home).

Beyond all of that, developing the capacity for mass human migration to other planets will take substantial amounts of time, energy (literally), resources, unprecedented levels of collaboration, and truly mind-boggling amounts of capital. None of that is going to be available in a world being ravaged by climate change, where most groups of people are in conflict with every other groups to hold the resources necessary to merely survive.

If you want to leave Earth, you have to first work to prevent cataclysm here.
 
Last edited:
BerkshireBlue said:
You're still coming at it from a small-minded approach and defeatist attitude. The facts are simple, stay on this planet and we are extinct no matter what. We have to overcome the issue somehow to survive
Click to expand...
At the rate space travel is advancing we are going to be nowhere near being ready to leave the planet before it becomes inhabitable if we do nothing to extend the habitable life of the planet in the meantime. We simply can't keep ignoring the issue in the hope that some narcissistic cockwomble like Elon Musk will save us all.
 
SebastianBlue said:
No, I have explained I have believed that humanity can and should expand out in to the universe since I was very young.

But as you mature, and learn more (and really learn that you actually know very little about anything), and data changes and begins to more strongly support specific trends, you realise that there are bigger, more existential problems to solve first.

There is nothing simple-minded and defeatist about facing reality. In fact, maintaining that the only way to “save humanity“ is to leave Earth is simple-minded and defeatist. Especially given even in the best case scenario very few people will actually ever get to leave earth, which means that strategy condemns must people to suffering and premature death on a dying world (for human habitation, that is).

It is not only simple-minded and defeatist, it is cruel and selfish.

And, even if a small number of humans do somehow escape Earth before climate change degrades our capacity for space travel to zero, it also ultimately sets up just another cycle of colonise > exploit > degrade > disaster > escape > repeat.

Nothing is truly solved without confronting what we have done here and mitigating the harm we have caused, both for the sake of the billions that will never leave earth and future humans that might (as well as the extraterrestrial ecosystems we may one day call home).

Beyond all of that, developing the capacity for mass human migration to other planets will take substantial amounts of time, energy (literally), resources, unprecedented levels of collaboration, and truly mind-boggling amounts of capital. None of that is going to be available in a world being ravaged by climate change, where most groups of people are in conflict with every other groups to hold the resources necessary to merely survive.

If you want to leave Earth, you have to first work to prevent cataclysm here.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget though mate we're currently on track for the Star Trek timeline.

Bell riots 2024
WWIII 2026
First contact 2063

Time to brush up on temporal mechanics ready to join Starfleet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top