A curious question..

[TheReasoner]

Mmm. There are some differences. I can't fish in space while I'm waiting to find an island, nor is there an unlimited supply of some essentials like air. There is no natural propulsion system (I can't follow "space currents"), and the distances are a little larger. I don't have to procreate on board and hope my children will agree to finish the journey I started.

Aye.If we go to another solar system. But we could build a permanent base on the moon. We could conceivably grow crops of some sort in protected domes or other habitat - underground perhaps. And there is Europa, Mars, and other celestial bodies in our own solar system.
My main point is, as it is we're stuck on one tiny pebble in space. If we want to survive as a species we need to spread. That's how we got this far - not by 'not taking risks', but by taking them. Yes, this is a new horizon. A new challenge. If we take it some of the pioneers WILL die. Most likely anyway. Radiation, disease, other things might kill quite a few. But that does not mean we shouldn't do it.

I say, let's get some moon colonies going and build us some O'Neill cylinders. Are there challenges? Ohhh yes. But I think they're worth it. And then some. In fact, in part it is precisely because it's challenging we should try.

 

[Resha Caner]

I say, let's get some moon colonies going and build us some O'Neill cylinders. Are there challenges? Ohhh yes. But I think they're worth it. And then some. In fact, in part it is precisely because it's challenging we should try.

Why the moon? Honestly, I don't see the value of it. I suppose if Bill Gates wants to fund such a project, that's his prerogative, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go there.

A better first step would be to try those same "moon colonies" on the ocean floor. It's has similar challenges, but is more accessible. If the technology proved itself there, than maybe the moon would be next.

And, I'm not concerned with whether our species survives or not. What will be will be. If we can't manage our resources here (probably a path that would yield more benefits than a moon colony) then we won't manage them there either.

 

[TheReasoner]

Why the moon? Honestly, I don't see the value of it. I suppose if Bill Gates wants to fund such a project, that's his prerogative, but I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go there.

A better first step would be to try those same "moon colonies" on the ocean floor. It's has similar challenges, but is more accessible. If the technology proved itself there, than maybe the moon would be next.

And, I'm not concerned with whether our species survives or not. What will be will be. If we can't manage our resources here (probably a path that would yield more benefits than a moon colony) then we won't manage them there either.

Why do you not see the value in it? The gravitational well presented by the moon makes it the perfect staging post for further exploration. If we go to the inner space, i.e. the oceans we'll get some benefits, sure. But I don't think that's the way to go. Not if you pit them against one another anyway. Both, please is what I say.

Consider, sending something from the earth is hard. Because the earth has a deep gravitational well. However, the moon can easily launch big constructions with FAR less fuel. It has minerals needed to construct other space vessels, large ones at that. It has water needed for fuel and sustenance of a colony and there are novel properties of the readily available moon dust which makes construction of structures on the surface a -potential- breeze. So the moon is a natural first step as it would be easier to construct space going vessels of considerable size there than here.

Not so sure I'd say that it'd be a waste of tax dollars though. Such programs yield very real returns which affect society in ways we can usually not imagine before it happens.

 

[Elendur]

Interesting discussion colonization is something I find intriguing, with a population that grows as fast as ours I think the demand for habitable areas will make underwater (/on top of water?) and space colonization more economically motivated.

 

[TheReasoner]

Interesting discussion colonization is something I find intriguing, with a population that grows as fast as ours I think the demand for habitable areas will make underwater (/on top of water?) and space colonization more economically motivated.

Aye. I think both are definitely venues we need to consider. The ocean represents a vast area which is largely unexplored, and not well understood it would seem. Not to mention unused. We could and should venture forth in that arena, and sooner rather than later. But with care not to mess it up, of course. Space... Harder to mess that environment up. Just as easy to die there though, I suppose.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah. Your tax dollars.

A nice ad hominem rant that in no way represents my views and only makes me all the more unwilling to support your idea. "Shooting for the moon" is not a metaphor without meaning. Prove the smaller things first (an ocean colony) and then maybe you'll sway more people to your side.

Further, you ought to take a look at the currents that motivated "mundane" literature.

 

[TheReasoner]

A nice ad hominem rant that in no way represents my views and only makes me all the more unwilling to support your idea. "Shooting for the moon" is not a metaphor without meaning. Prove the smaller things first (an ocean colony) and then maybe you'll sway more people to your side.

Further, you ought to take a look at the currents that motivated "mundane" literature.

Aye. I edited that out, and, more importantly - I apologize. Sincerely. I projected, and attacked you without reason.
Humbly, deeply, sincerely: Unnskyld as we'd say in Norwegian. Sorry is the closest translation, though there are cultural connotations that don't translate well.

But seriously, I really don't get why you americans get so upset about the tax dollars at every venue. It's everything I hear from over there. A teacher performs poorly, well it's poorly spent tax dollars. A school hires a hateful band - tax dollars. Disagree with the war - tax dollars. Disagree with politicians' decisions - well, you don't want their salary to be paid with your tax dollars. Don't want someone imprisoned, well, I've heard plenty argue for expansion of the death penalty so they won't have to let their tax money go to criminals.

What about ethics, or the general development of society? What about interhuman and international relations? What about those really big things, why aren't they more in focus? WHy is money the sole thing you talk about over there? And why this whole 'my' this and that? What happened to 'our' or 'society's'?

Can you explain it, cause I don't get it.

 

[Elendur]

Aye. I think both are definitely venues we need to consider. The ocean represents a vast area which is largely unexplored, and not well understood it would seem. Not to mention unused. We could and should venture forth in that arena, and sooner rather than later. But with care not to mess it up, of course. Space... Harder to mess that environment up. Just as easy to die there though, I suppose.

I wonder if it isn't a lot easier to die there... Earth has some protective qualities, against sun exposure, meteorites etc.

But I am in no way against moon colonization, I just don't know what would be required for a safe colony.

 

[Resha Caner]

Aye. I edited that out, and, more importantly - I apologize.

I appreciate that, and it is a rare thing for people to apologize in these forums, so I admire you for it.

But seriously, I really don't get why you americans get so upset about the tax dollars at every venue ... Can you explain it, cause I don't get it.

Well, there are several things here. First of all, these are not American traits, but human traits. I suppose they might be more pronounced among Americans because we are more materially blessed. Regardless, these are human traits.

The first trait would be selfishness. People try to get all they can for themselves. So, if they don't see a personal benefit, they don't support it. That's the despicable aspect. Second, people are short-sighted. That's not really something that deserves blame. It's just the way it is. If I haven't walked in your shoes, it's hard for me to imagine what that would be like. Third, money talks. People try to influence government to do what they think it should, and money is what fuels human society.

Even your moon base won't be built without a lot of money. MOUNDS of money.

Which is my point. I wasn't advocating selfishness over altruism. I can think of many ways to spend money that will benefit society, but I don't think a moon base is the right place. Honestly I don't think it will ever happen. But, I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. So, the best compromise is to spend on a smaller project that is a step in the right direction.

And, don't forget Matt 26:11. If your goal is to build Utopia, you've lost me again.

But we've drifted from the OP. I'm more interested in that, so I'd prefer going back to post #19.

 

[Lillen]

I still have trubble imagine. But some sources refutes me. They would've need nets or a fishing rod though, no? Were to store all food for atleast 1 year to sea?

 

[TheReasoner]

I appreciate that, and it is a rare thing for people to apologize in these forums, so I admire you for it.



Well, there are several things here. First of all, these are not American traits, but human traits. I suppose they might be more pronounced among Americans because we are more materially blessed. Regardless, these are human traits.

The first trait would be selfishness. People try to get all they can for themselves. So, if they don't see a personal benefit, they don't support it. That's the despicable aspect. Second, people are short-sighted. That's not really something that deserves blame. It's just the way it is. If I haven't walked in your shoes, it's hard for me to imagine what that would be like. Third, money talks. People try to influence government to do what they think it should, and money is what fuels human society.

Even your moon base won't be built without a lot of money. MOUNDS of money.

Which is my point. I wasn't advocating selfishness over altruism. I can think of many ways to spend money that will benefit society, but I don't think a moon base is the right place. Honestly I don't think it will ever happen. But, I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. So, the best compromise is to spend on a smaller project that is a step in the right direction.

And, don't forget Matt 26:11. If your goal is to build Utopia, you've lost me again.

But we've drifted from the OP. I'm more interested in that, so I'd prefer going back to post #19.

Nah, my goal is not utopia. That would be utterly unattainable. It's just to secure a future for mankind. And I think expansion is the best way. Down to the seas is one part, sure. But long term, we need to get off the rock and indeed the solar system. Provided we want the species to survive. Which I - for one - do want.


Thank you for a good explanation. I don't agree wholeheartedly with everything, but it was good and I thank you for it

 

[Lillen]

I'd say even though canoe is the only reasonable explanation, i found this only reasoneble explination impossible. I could be wrong!!

 

[Lillen]

I remeber when i tried to row a little fishingboat, with winds of 10m/second we stood still.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'd say even though canoe is the only reasonable explanation, i found this only reasoneble explination impossible. I could be wrong!!

If it is impossible, Lillen, how did Thor Heyerdahl manage?

 

[Lillen]

That's a fair question... I'd simply have trubble imagine! Moon landing was a hoax, so can that be.

R.E.M. Man On the Moon - YouTube

Moon landing is a legend for the neverbeliever...

 

[Lillen]

Do you honestly believe a canoe can take you over the pacific ocean? atlantic ocean? calculate the distance from shore to shore. I mean i have trubbling rowing a small fishing boat for about 50 meters on a inland pond against winds going 5m-10m/second... I see you have never rowed a boat before...

 

[TheReasoner]

Do you honestly believe a canoe can take you over the pacific ocean? atlantic ocean? calculate the distance from shore to shore. I mean i have trubbling rowing a small fishing boat for about 50 meters on a inland pond against winds going 5m-10m/second... I see you have never rowed a boat before...

There are canoes and then there are canoes, Lillen. Not all are the same size.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you honestly believe a canoe can take you over the pacific ocean? atlantic ocean? calculate the distance from shore to shore. I mean i have trubbling rowing a small fishing boat for about 50 meters on a inland pond against winds going 5m-10m/second... I see you have never rowed a boat before...

Just because you failed at sailing, doesn't mean everyone does. Remember, these people aren't going straight from the shores of China to the shores of Australia - there are countless thousands of islands in between. All it takes is for them to establish short jumps between islands, and bam! Instant population.

 

[Tiberius]

Lillen, whether or not you think it could have happened is irrelevant. The fact is, it HAS been done. People did it recently (in the last century). And their efforts were documented, filmed and photographed. The person who did it died just a decade ago. And people who saw it are still alive. There is no doubt that a canoe can be built that is strong enough to go on ocean voyages. It has been done. If you doubt it, you are calling the Kon Tiki voyage a hoax, and you'll need to present evidence.

Face it, that's how it was done.

 

[Radagast]

There are canoes and then there are canoes, Lillen. Not all are the same size.

This 61-foot modern replica of a Polynesian canoe has travelled all around the Pacific. It looks like this: