Space Colonization, A hippy dream

[Morchella]

The talk about justifying the NASA budget and continuing the space program often waxes about space colonization. I think those people watch too much Star Trek. We are never getting off this planet and we better learn to live and take care of it without the silly pipe dream of going somewhere else. We evolved here and we are stuck here. The closest star is 3 light years away. The cost for such an expedition would drain the national budget for years. The whole dream involves wasting this planet and moving on. Kind of the slash and burn exploration. Forget all that. We are going extinct right here.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Morchella
The talk about justifying the NASA budget and continuing the space program often waxes about space colonization. I think those people watch too much Star Trek. We are never getting off this planet and we better learn to live and take care of it without the silly pipe dream of going somewhere else. We evolved here and we are stuck here. The closest star is 3 light years away. The cost for such an expedition would drain the national budget for years. The whole dream involves wasting this planet and moving on. Kind of the slash and burn exploration. Forget all that. We are going extinct right here.

Tell you what, you go live (or die) in a cave feeling sorry for yourself, and I'll go invent a nuclear propulsion system that can travel 3 lightyears in under ten years. Years ago, before the creation of computers, someone suggested that the government save money by closing the patent office because everything has already been invented. You don't know what will be created in 1000 years or 100 or 10 or next year or even tomorrow. But, you are probably just trying to get a rise out of people here, so, have a nice day and see you on Mars!!

[Michael Redman]

Yes, we should stay in the Old World. Colonizing the New World is impossible.

[Frostbite]

I think it's a natural thing and just a question of time before mankind explores space. Looking forward to space exploration has nothing to do with ignoring our earthly issues, they're not even contradictory. The rapid growth of the population proves that it could be physically impossible for Earth to house all of us, and our fate is often determined by our collective curiosity, in this case, exploring space and starting franchises.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I think it's a natural thing and just a question of time before mankind explores space. Looking forward to space exploration has nothing to do with ignoring our earthly issues, they're not even contradictory. The rapid growth of the population proves that it could be physically impossible for Earth to house all of us, and our fate is often determined by our collective curiosity, in this case, exploring space and starting franchises.

I believe that it's also a natural urge of any species. Adapt to new environments to increase the chance of survival. IMO we have to go because seeing what's around the corner is something that our nature demands of us.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Frostbite
The rapid growth of the population proves that it could be physically impossible for Earth to house all of us, and our fate is often determined by our collective curiosity, in this case, exploring space and starting franchises. the United Nations estimate that we will only be 12 billion in 120 years (http://www.popexpo.net/eMain.html)

Wouldn't it be more sensible to try to limit the population growth on Earth than to plan to continue growing and to expand to other planets?

[Morchella]

Dragonrock
I bet you would want a tie die space suit too. Nuclear propulsion? Feynman would turn over in his grave.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by RichardR

Wouldn't it be more sensible to try to limit the population growth on Earth than to plan to continue growing and to expand to other planets?

We can't do both? Plus, there's that old saying about putting all our eggs in one basket ...

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


We can't do both? Plus, there's that old saying about putting all our eggs in one basket ... Perhaps we could. But “The rapid growth of the population proves that it could be physically impossible for Earth to house all of us” was being used as a reason for us to go to space, and I am saying that isn’t a very good reason if we can simply control our population better.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by RichardR
But “The rapid growth of the population proves that it could be physically impossible for Earth to house all of us” was being used as a reason for us to go to space, and I am saying that isn’t a very good reason if we can simply control our population better.

I'd think we would have to have population control techniques that would work well - at least on a small scale - before we could think about colonizing the solar system. (Some might say we could already do this...)

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Morchella
Dragonrock
I bet you would want a tie die space suit too. Nuclear propulsion? Feynman would turn over in his grave. Naw, I'm pretty sure a colored space suit would mess with the thermal properties... oh, wait, you're just trolling. Nevermind. :D

[FireGarden]

J. Richard Gott tries a bit of prediction in his book "Time Travel in Einstein's universe"

On the future of the space program he says (paraphrasing):
It's unlikey that we are living at the very beginning of the space program. Or at the very end. In fact, if you divide the history (past and future) of the space program in to 40 parts (each representing 2.5%) then there is a 95% chance that we are living in the middle bit (2.5% from the beginning and end)

So the final age of the space program, could be as much as forty times it's current age. (That's the maximum, if we are not in the first 2.5%).

Sputnik was 1957
2003 - 1957 = 46 years
46 * 40 = 1840 years

So if, as Gott says is likely, we are in that middle 95% of the space flight's history then space flight will last in total 1840 years, at most. If you do this to estimate the longevity of humanity, (You can also find a minimum based on us being in the mid-95% of human history) you will find that humanity outlives space flight. (so robots don't need to take over!!)

He says it worked for the Berlin Wall!
You have to pick a random moment in the life of a system for it to work at all. And it's only right 95% of the time.

Of course, it always possible to beat the odds!!

[bjornart]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
J. Richard Gott tries a bit of prediction in his book "Time Travel in Einstein's universe"

On the future of the space program he says (paraphrasing):
It's unlikey that we are living at the very beginning of the space program. Or at the very end. In fact, if you divide the history (past and future) of the space program in to 40 parts (each representing 2.5%) then there is a 95% chance that we are living in the middle bit (2.5% from the beginning and end)


You're kidding! There's a 95% chance we're in the middle 95% of the space program? :D

The whole "truth" here is that there's a 95% chance the space program has between 2 and 1840 years left.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Morchella
Nuclear propulsion? Feynman would turn over in his grave.
The irony of this statement is just too delicious! I hold in my hand Feynman's book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, in which he describes how after the war, they sent a guy from the patent office to talk to all of the Los Alamos scientists about possible applications of this new concept of nuclear power. When the guy talked to Feynman, he proposed, among other things, a nuclear submarine, a nuclear airplane, a nuclear power plant, and a nuclear rocket. While some of these things had already been thought of, the nuclear rocket one was new. I quote:
From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman
nuclear reactor...you have hydrogen go through the thing... Zoom! - it's a rocket!
And so Feynman got his name on the first patent for a nuclear rocket! Thus he actually invented nuclear propulsion!
Do your homework.

[Advocate]

I see no reason to believe we will never achieve extraterrestrial or even extrasolar colonies. There is nothing in the basic science of doing so that prevents us. At this point it is basically an engineering question. I doubt we will be able to establish any such colonies in the lifetime of any of us here today, especially any colonies outside the solar system. But that doesn't mean we never will. In fact if humanity manages to survive long enough, I think it is almost inevitable that we WILL do so.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by bjornart


You're kidding! There's a 95% chance we're in the middle 95% of the space program? :D

The whole "truth" here is that there's a 95% chance the space program has between 2 and 1840 years left.


Thanks, bjornart
But I can be pedantic too! :D

If we are about to begin the final 2.5% of the space program, then the 46 years we've had so far represent 39 times that final stage. So there is 46/39 = 1.17 years left.

Similarly, if we've just finished the first 2.5% then there is
39*46=1794 years left to go
(Total age = that plus another 46)

At least we agree that the initial premise is beyond doubt! :D


By the way,
I hope we beat the odds.
I'm a hippie that's watched to much Star Trek!!

[zakur]

"Our expansion into the universe is not just an expansion of men and machines. It is an expansion of all life, making use of man's brain for her own purpose." —Freeman Dyson

"The energy and mass needed for uplifting humanity must come from elsewhere—space. And it is quite foolish, in the long run, for us to do messy, polluting things in this thin shell of vulnerable air and water which gave birth to us all. We're fouling our nest. But a smart bird learns to fly." —Gregory Benford

"But what's best about the terraformation (of Mars) scheme is the very madness of the thing, its folie de grandeur. At a moment when our frontiers are vanishing, it challenges humanity to step bravely into the abyss and claim a destiny as a galactic species, as the founders of the first interplanetary civilization." —Brad Darrach and Steve Petranek

"The question is not whether we will go to Mars. We will go. The question is when, and then how and who." —Brian O'Leary

"We may not go to Mars for science, but science will be well served by our going to Mars. And this process, more than any short-range political or social or idealogical motivation that actually justifies the budget, will provide the ultimate payoff in our understanding of Mars, of all hard-surface planets in general—the past, present, and future of all potential planetary habitats for human beings. —James Oberg

"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever." —Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

"Oh, but there are a few thumb-suckers lacking in imagination and spirit, Dr. Tsiolkovsky, who would prefer to remain in the cradle. Poor, pitiable saps." —Zakur

[Morchella]

I have read many of Feynmans books and one thing I remember is that he had doubts about a nuclear rocket and said it was a bad idea because of the risk of it exploding on take off and spreading fallout all over the earth. I don't have the time to find the exact referance right now but I believe that to be true

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
J. Richard Gott tries a bit of prediction in his book "Time Travel in Einstein's universe"

It's unlikey that we are living at the very beginning of the space program. Or at the very end. In fact.....there is a 95% chance that we are living in the [middle 95%]
Apart from being a fairly useless, what on earth could this "prediction" be based on?

[FireGarden]

"Oh, but there are a few thumb-suckers lacking in imagination and spirit, Dr. Tsiolkovsky, who would prefer to remain in the cradle. Poor, pitiable saps." —Zakur
Well, I'm glad I got in my "By the way" before this came along...

Nice set of quotes, Zakur


BillyJoe,
It may seem obvious, but it puts numbers on limits and on the probability of a life-span being in those limits.

The point is that if humanity goes on for a million years and space travel continues unstopped for that time then we are privileged and lucky to be here at almost the very beginning. (Though, of course, somebody has to be!) The method is based on the assumption that we are not lucky or special.



By the way,
The odds are 50% that the future of space travel will go on for between
46/3 = 15 years four months,
and
46*3 = 138 years

Toss a coin.
Heads we make it out of those limits (either way of course)
Tails we don't.

(Yeah, that last bit is flippant! :D)

[Morchella]

Maybe I am baiting, but I think this needs to be discussed. I like to separate the skeptics from the trekkies. The human race is incorrigibly stupid and we are bound to die in the excess of our own filth. Just look around you. Knowing that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, why do we think we are any different? The dinosaurs lasted 300 million years but I doubt we will last another ten thousand. Perhaps after the next nuclear winter another species will evolve out of the cockroach that will be much more intelligent than we are. Life will go on, I am sure of that but it may not be human. Look how the one child policy in China got the right wing panties in a bunch. Basically humans are still stupid animals. We will breed like rabbits if we damn well please. The dream of space colonization is and will be only a dream. The trekkies are so optimistic that they think when the post-petroleum age comes around in fifty years that we will have something else to power our Hummers. I am not so optimistic. I love the human race and I think we are wonderful creatures. I hope we can outlive my predictions too. In the meantime I think we should not destroy the planet for ourselves believing a pipe dream that we can move on. I hate all the excess. It will be our downfall.

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Morchella
Maybe I am baiting, but I think this needs to be discussed. I like to separate the skeptics from the trekkies. The human race is incorrigibly stupid and we are bound to die in the excess of our own filth. Just look around you. Knowing that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, why do we think we are any different? The dinosaurs lasted 300 million years but I doubt we will last another ten thousand. Perhaps after the next nuclear winter another species will evolve out of the cockroach that will be much more intelligent than we are. Life will go on, I am sure of that but it may not be human. Look how the one child policy in China got the right wing panties in a bunch. Basically humans are still stupid animals. We will breed like rabbits if we damn well please. The dream of space colonization is and will be only a dream. The trekkies are so optimistic that they think when the post-petroleum age comes around in fifty years that we will have something else to power our Hummers. I am not so optimistic. I love the human race and I think we are wonderful creatures. I hope we can outlive my predictions too. In the meantime I think we should not destroy the planet for ourselves believing a pipe dream that we can move on. I hate all the excess. It will be our downfall.

So, you're saying we are stupid, filthy, yet you love humanity. You say we should just give up on leaving this blue orb and die. Sorry if I don't agree with you. I hope to be a part of us reaching for the stars.

[sorgoth]

Well, if most people have that kind of opinion, then no, we won't.

I am thoroughly convinced that most of the human race are idiots.

However , (and this is more recent), I am also convinced that the main reason isn't genetics, it's how we are raised. And that, my friend, can be changed. I think we are going in the RIGHT direction, for a lot of things (Fuel cells, to name one). Yes, we have enough nukes to destroy the earth. But maybe, just maybe, we'll stop building more and get rid of a few. I think the 'limit' will be in about 50 years...that's my guess. By then, either we'll have gone on a path of destruction that cannot be stopped, or we will begin to rebuild the environment. Who knows?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


Tell you what, you go live (or die) in a cave feeling sorry for yourself, and I'll go invent a nuclear propulsion system that can travel 3 lightyears in under ten years. Years ago, before the creation of computers, someone suggested that the government save money by closing the patent office because everything has already been invented. You don't know what will be created in 1000 years or 100 or 10 or next year or even tomorrow. But, you are probably just trying to get a rise out of people here, so, have a nice day and see you on Mars!!

LOL. About 10 years ago, I took some sort of 2 day computer seminar at Washington University in St. Louis. The instructor pulled out a letter he liked to read to his students for a laugh. It was dated 1966 (or somewhere around there), and was from the chancellor of WashU, addressed to the head of the Personel department. In it, he wondered about the number of computer programmers they were hiring, and "What are we going to do with them after all the programs are written??" :D

[Mark]

"All of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."---Oscar Wilde

Why can't we protect this lovely blue planet AND go into space? As Robert Heinlein said, "Specialization is for insects."

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
BillyJoe,
The method is based on the assumption that we are not lucky or special. Will those who are alive at the-end-minus-one-year also be making the assumption the they are not lucky or special?

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Morchella
Maybe I am baiting, but I think this needs to be discussed. I like to separate the skeptics from the trekkies. The human race is incorrigibly stupid and we are bound to die in the excess of our own filth. Just look around you. Knowing that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, why do we think we are any different? The dinosaurs lasted 300 million years but I doubt we will last another ten thousand. Perhaps after the next nuclear winter another species will evolve out of the cockroach that will be much more intelligent than we are. Life will go on, I am sure of that but it may not be human. Look how the one child policy in China got the right wing panties in a bunch. Basically humans are still stupid animals. We will breed like rabbits if we damn well please. The dream of space colonization is and will be only a dream. The trekkies are so optimistic that they think when the post-petroleum age comes around in fifty years that we will have something else to power our Hummers. I am not so optimistic. I love the human race and I think we are wonderful creatures. I hope we can outlive my predictions too. In the meantime I think we should not destroy the planet for ourselves believing a pipe dream that we can move on. I hate all the excess. It will be our downfall.

Oh god, we're all gonna die. There's no purpose, Elvis is dead and I will be soon. Humans are such dirty creatures. Dolphins are so much smarter. See them play? All they do is play, they don't kill each other. Do dolphins polute the land? Then why do we polute the oceans? Humans are so dirty. I'm dirty. I'm sorry mother Earth that I waste your bounty. I wish I'd never been born. I'm embarassed that I have to eat. Eating is killing. Why do we have to kill? Humans are such horrible creatures. Humans are an affront to nature. The Earth Mother made a mistake and that mistake is humans. The world would be better if all humans died. Humans are so evil. Let's all join hands and sing Kumbyah. Maybe if we all love then Mother Earth won't think we're a mistake. JOIN HANDS NOW AND LOVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART!!


bite me.

Excuse me if someone else pointed this out.

I love the space program and am all for colonization etc. BUT anyone who thinks it will have any impact at all on Earth's population can't do arithmetic, or hasn't thought it through.

I will try to dig it out, but once Robert Heinlein did a nice analysis of the problem and showed that there wasn't enough metal in the Earth's crust to build the number of spaceships necessary to make a significant dent in Earth's population. We simply breed too fast and there are too many of us.

Only if someone invents something REALLY radical - say, teleportation - will the bottleneck open up enough to relieve Earth of population pressures.

Like it or not, on Earth we are stuck with population control... either voluntary or Malthus's way.

And I don't know why it's a "hippy dream"; it long predates the hippies.

[Mark]

Like it or not, on Earth we are stuck with population control... either voluntary or Malthus's way.

I agree with this. This idea is that by moving into space, we can insure our survival as a species. Whether that is laudable or not is, I suppose, open to debate. Being a human, I am in favor of us continuing!

I am also all in favor of trying to preserve our planet...including limiting our birth rate. I doubt we are smart enough as a species to do that, though. Look at Bush...he says over and over that it is too soon to do anything about global warming; then, when his own people declare it to be real and man made, he declares it "too late." I wonder when the window of opportunity went by?

So let's go into space. I fear Malthus may get the last laugh here.

[Agammamon]

In response to the thread originator, have you considered that colonization does not have to be exclusiveley or first at another solar system. Orbital habitats (both around a planet/moon and around the sun), terraformed planets, sculpted ateroids or comet nuclei all provide an almost unimaginalbly huge living volume right here in our own system. And let's not forget the most pressing reason to go to space. All of the raw materials we need to support a surplus on Earth are available in abundance in the asteroid belt and the cometary halo.
The ability to colonize of these nearer objects is rapidly coming into reach, and will be doable at reasonable costs if we (and I hate to say this) push unmanned probe development.

[Wile E. Coyote]

We also have to look at space colonization as a modern version of the New World explosion of the 1500s. Many discoveries and inventions were realized because of the necessity of wilderness survival.

With space exploration, the same holds true. New technology for living in hostile environments will apply to living on Earth. Methods for terraforming Mars will help us repair damages here. Environmentally self-sufficient habitats in space and on hostile planets will help us to manage our population better at home.

Lastly, there is no denying that having all of our eggs in one basket (so to speak) is a fool-proof way to ensure our extinction. Once we are no longer dependent on this precarious bubble in a vacuum, we will be much better off.

[Plutarck]

Uh, did I just step into a time warp or something with all this "overpopulation" crap?

For one thing, note that even in america, ripe with anti-birth control loonies, the birth rate has fallen to the point that soon it is predicted we will reach - if we aren't already at - the point of replacement of population only, and possibly will actually go negative in total population without imigration.

Nearly all developed countries are seing the exact same things, even without absolutely any cohereant "birth control" policy at all! Why? Well, Economic Development, of course!

The problem is the undeveloped world - namely Africa. China is finally pulling it's ass up towards development level and hell, one day they might actually manage to not need any government birthing restriction at all.

Africa however is continually and terminally **********, and I don't think anyone has been able to truly, fully, and satisfyingly say precisely why it is.

Yet the basic reasons for the population growth halting in America has been explained by basic Economic principles - damn, I think it was in like the 3rd chapter of the first Economic course I ever took. It's a matter of diminishing marginal utility - given everything else you can do in life now, having children just isn't so important, and having a bunch of the critters - for the majority of people - teeters on being actually irrational. Regardless, there aren't enough people sufficiently economically irrational in that way to make much of an effect on a global scale.

Hell, and Malthus now adays is practically never ever mentioned by an informed person except to give a kick to yet another debunked dead guy. Human population growth has been utterly proven to NOT be exponential in reality.


Further, as to space colonization not being able to make a dent in the earth's population, it should be noted that other than not being neccessary, the need for resources from earth is vastly overstated as extraterrestrial resource mining is pretty well universally agreed to being a requirement of any serious space colonization efforts.


Given modern computer technology and the coming of the potential of advanced biology and genetics and nanotechnology, anyone stating that large-scale space colonization would not even be POSSIBLE in the span of even 1,000 years, much less 10,000, looks very much like a flat earther at this point. Only a truly remarkable level of ignorance or irrationality could permit it.


Lastly, anyone who still mentions Malthus seriously needs to, well, read a book or something. He is so incredibly and fundamentally wrong in light of even the least bit modern science in a wide variety of fields, not to mention observed reality itself, that it beggars belief that anyone could actually still believe it.

In short: Human growth is not exponential. As economic development occurs, specifically with the shift away from agriculture, population growth falls remarkably quickly. In service and high-tech oriented economies, it is questionable whether or not it would actually be unavoidable that left alone the population would go negative to a remarkable degree.

[Mark]

For one thing, note that even in america, ripe with anti-birth control loonies, the birth rate has fallen to the point that soon it is predicted we will reach - if we aren't already at - the point of replacement of population only, and possibly will actually go negative in total population without imigration.

But we do have immigration, and our population IS growing. Where do you think all these people are coming from? Liberals building them from kits, are they?

Limiting immigration won't help...this is a global problem, not a local one.

[FireGarden]

BillyJoe
We might be those people "who are alive at the-end-minus-one-year ". I don't know.

All I'm doing is giving odds.
It's like everybody who buys a lottery ticket has a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the jackpot. Of course someone is going to win, but it's unlikely to be you or me.

(This is where you tell me that you are in fact a lottery winner!! :D)

[shecky]

After reading these responses, I'm struck by the thought that the notion of space colonization is the religion of the JREF skeptic.

I can't imagine anyplace within the solar system that can be transfigured into a place where I'd like to live without ridiculous amounts of resources probably better used in the planet we already have. Terraformed planets?!? Hollowed out asteroids?!? This has got to be a bad Sci-Fi Channel dream. I have serious doubts about the longevity a true space colony unless we can find/transform a planet to be exactly like earth. There's a huge difference between a self sustaining colony and a viable planet we'd want to call home.

Seems we could hollow out the earth much better than any asteroid. Morlocks would jump at the chance to live down there.

Furthermore, while I have strong feeling about my own survival, ;) I have no strong feelings about the survival of the race in the long term. None of us can expect to live forever, why should we expect humanity to last forever.

And sorry, Zakur, all those quotes reminds me of a bible thumper arguing the existence of god by quoting scripture.

There are a few reasons that we must colonize space. One is that our sun will run out of fuel. While I generally see the foolhardiness of procrastination, I can safely say we can put this off until later.

Another is that there is a more immediate danger from, perhaps, a collision with an asteroid. However, this event can happen next week, and all the money and hope in the world won't help much. Technologically, I'd hope we can eventually have the ability to avert such a disaster before relying on a colony to "preserve humanity". Unless these colonies are really nice places to live, I suspect they'll end up being ultimately futile examples of human grandiosity.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Plutarck
Uh, did I just step into a time warp or something with all this "overpopulation" crap?

<snip>

It's a matter of diminishing marginal utility - given everything else you can do in life now, having children just isn't so important, and having a bunch of the critters - for the majority of people - teeters on being actually irrational. Regardless, there aren't enough people sufficiently economically irrational in that way to make much of an effect on a global scale.

You're not looking at the big picture here. Human behaviour is caused in part by our dna and in part by our environment. At the moment there might not be enough "irrational" people having lots of children to make much effect, but these children are very likely to become the same kind of irrationals, due to genes and upbringing. Which means they will have lots of children, who will have... you see the picture?
In fact, it's time us rational people started a concerted breeding effort. Anyone want to help me out? ;)

And overpopulation doesn't necessary involve more and more people. The key issue is resource use, and at the moment that's a real problem.

Colonization of space isn't a solution though. As several people have pointed out, the resource use for putting a single person into space far outweights the resource demands of that person on earth.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by shecky
After reading these responses, I'm struck by the thought that the notion of space colonization is the religion of the JREF skeptic.

It isn't any religion of mine.

I can't imagine anyplace within the solar system that can be transfigured into a place where I'd like to live without ridiculous amounts of resources probably better used in the planet we already have. Terraformed planets?!? Hollowed out asteroids?!? This has got to be a bad Sci-Fi Channel dream. I have serious doubts about the longevity a true space colony unless we can find/transform a planet to be exactly like earth. There's a huge difference between a self sustaining colony and a viable planet we'd want to call home.

Then you have a very poor imagination. Although you have half a point. Space colonies are not a good option unless they can be self sufficient, so what is needed is manufacturing capability out there for the necessary stuff.

Seems we could hollow out the earth much better than any asteroid. Morlocks would jump at the chance to live down there.

The earth isn't geologically stable. An asteroid would be. The asteroid could be equipped with solar panels or a nuclear reactor. Your hole in the ground would have to compete with all the buildings on top of it for energy, and would need somewhere 'safe' to put the reactor.

Furthermore, while I have strong feeling about my own survival, ;) I have no strong feelings about the survival of the race in the long term. None of us can expect to live forever, why should we expect humanity to last forever.

Why shouldn't we make the attempt to last forever? What's the point of trying to keep humanity around even for the next generation? People who don't have strong feelings about the survival of humanity need to be weeded out of the gene pool. ;)

And sorry, Zakur, all those quotes reminds me of a bible thumper arguing the existence of god by quoting scripture.

Well, I have to agree with that. Appeal to authority and all that...

There are a few reasons that we must colonize space. One is that our sun will run out of fuel. While I generally see the foolhardiness of procrastination, I can safely say we can put this off until later.

Doesn't harm to start making the effort though, does it?

Another is that there is a more immediate danger from, perhaps, a collision with an asteroid. However, this event can happen next week, and all the money and hope in the world won't help much. Technologically, I'd hope we can eventually have the ability to avert such a disaster before relying on a colony to "preserve humanity". Unless these colonies are really nice places to live, I suspect they'll end up being ultimately futile examples of human grandiosity.

And how do you suppose this technology will arise? You expect there to suddenly be space colonies that are really nice places to live without any intermediate research? We can't have self-sufficient space colonies without first having orbital habitats supplied from earth. And we really should start working on some more decent orbital telescopes to look for those big rocks so we can knock them into the sun.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Mark
This idea is that by moving into space, we can insure our survival as a species. Whether that is laudable or not is, I suppose, open to debate. Being a human, I am in favor of us continuing! This is like the argument that we should all be happy if the GNP does up - even those sacrificing their wages to make it possible.

When I'm dead, I don't give a damn about the species' survival - especially if it means I have to die!

[ahirst]

Originally posted by Morchella:

... the next nuclear winter ...


Erm. have I missed something ? :)

[Mark]

When I'm dead, I don't give a damn about the species' survival - especially if it means I have to die!

I do.

[Mark]

Erm. have I missed something ?

Yeah, the last one was a hoot. The skiing in Phoenix was fantastic except for all those pesky cockroaches feeding on the bodies. Other than that, though...:D

[FireGarden]

shecky And sorry, Zakur, all those quotes reminds me of a bible thumper arguing the existence of god by quoting scripture.
What do you think Zakur was trying to prove?
I thought it was a "bible-thumping" pep-talk.

[zakur]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
shecky
What do you think Zakur was trying to prove?
I thought it was a "bible-thumping" pep-talk. Exactly. I'm not so arrogant or ignorant to believe readers here would be swayed by a few quotations. Besides, Tsiolkovsky died in 1935. His views on human space exploration could hardly be characterized as a silly pipe dream of someone who "watch(es) too much Start Trek." ;)

[zakur]

Thought I'd bump this thread with links to a few more perspectives.

Here is a link to an essay by SF critic Gary Westfahl who (much like Morchella) blames the Columbia disaster, in part, on Science Fiction: http://www.locusmag.com/2003/Commentary/Westfahl02.htmlYou've got to admire the astounding power of a form of literature that can keep inspiring people to do silly things.

But you've also got to wonder, especially on the days when those things go horribly wrong, whether this is necessarily an admirable quality.And here is a link to responses to Westfahl's essay, including letters from SF luminaries Michael Swanwick and Jerry Pournelle: http://www.locusmag.com/2003/Features/Letters02.htmlMichael Swanwick:
It takes a special kind of gall to claim, as they themselves emphatically would not, that the terrible deaths of seven astronauts is good reason to put an end to the Age of Space. Beside this, Gary Westfahl's assertion that a literature thronged with astronauts falling into the Sun, drifting off into endless nothingness, opening their helmets to vacuum, and, yes, burning upon re-entry, somehow convinced us all that space flight was easy and safe shrinks to insignificance.Jerry Pournell:
As to why explore, some people like Westfahl have to ask. Some, like the crew of Columbia, don't need to ask that question. Like Scott at the South Pole, the Columbia crew knew the risks and they chose to take them: as would many readers of science fiction, and many Americans, and all the astronauts and test pilots I have met. The star road takes a fearful toll: but it's one paid cheerfully.

Mr. Westfahl hasn't been asked to go up. He's not at risk. And I am not at all surprised that an academic critic of science fiction hasn't the foggiest notion of what we are all about.