SPACEX | NASA | Space Exploration | Other Space Ventures

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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.