Which is more viable for space colonization? (poll)

[doubtingmerle]

Do you want me to go back and 'delete' the post? (Obviously, I can't delete posts but only edit them but still)

No need to delete the post.

I was just reminding you that it is OK to say you disagree with another poster and why. It is not acceptable to say the other person is a negative person.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think once AI becomes developed more fully, there should be a construction site on the moon, where nuclear powered ships can launch AI bots with human embryos in incubators. Multiple ships can depart in different directions, eventually using the gravitational pull of planets to reach the outer limits of space, where the robots can eventually detect earth-like planets to begin hatching the life.

I see. Robots throwing embryos all over space was not one of the options in the poll in the OP.

Space travel just gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, but if I tell you that you cannot do #2 in the river, that is also dictating what you can do with your body. It seems to me that if doing something with our bodies harms others, then we have the right to make laws prohibiting that. So if overpopulation became a problem, democracies should be able to discuss laws to solve the problem.

Not doing a #2 in a river and telling a person they can only have one baby aren't even comparable. Not dropping a deuce in a drinking source (if we assume that the river is a drinking source) is just obvious because of health reasons. Telling a family that they can only ever have one child is an outright dictatorship.

Better? Wars over resources are a better form of population control? They are?

I can think of methods of population control that, in my mind, are better than having wars over resources.

I didn't mean better as in nice. I meant better as in more complete. With the fact that total warfare would be the norm in a post-WW2 conventional war, civilian targets would be legitimate. Plus, with the fact that the only way to fight a modern war would be mass conscription of all people of the right age, you'd have a ready way to keep the population down. And that's if both powers don't resort of weapons of mass destruction.

Wait. A person who builds a fully stocked shelter on earth just in case he needs it is a loon, but one who does it on Mars is not? That's odd. I would have thought the shelter on earth was more rational.

But you were approaching it as the whole idea of a single bunker on Mars, which is not what I was suggesting.[/QUOTE]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see. Robots throwing embryos all over space was not one of the options in the poll in the OP.

Space travel just gets curiouser and curiouser.

No, technically it would count as option E "Something else (please elaborate)"

 

[doubtingmerle]

I will agree that one corporation going to Mars could essentially result in a sort of East India Trading company style situation, but that's if only one company goes there. (The plot of Doom readily comes to mind with your suggestion, which... well, if it happened in real life would be so, so, SO strange) But then of course if more than one company goes, or one from another country goes, then you'd run the risk of some form of conflict coming up along ethnic or ideological lines cropping up. Human nature being what it is.

Some have suggested that we terraform Mars, and convert the entire atmosphere and land to habitable conditions. Fine, but that is going to be very expensive. Who pays for it? The only way you can make something like that work is if a government or large corporation of some kind owns all of Mars and pays for the whole development. If a private company does it, they will want the inhabitants to pay them back, and those that are stuck there become, in essence, slaves. If a democracy does it, then we are talking about a huge one-world government, with all the issues that raises.

The alternate is to leave the atmosphere toxic, but have private entities build domes all over Mars. OK, that works, but it seems like that is extremely risky. If a war breaks out? One rifle can probably ruin the enemy's dome and cause them to lose their oxygen.

 

[Oafman]

The alternate is to leave the atmosphere toxic, but have private entities build domes all over Mars. OK, that works, but it seems like that is extremely risky. If a war breaks out? One rifle can probably ruin the enemy's dome and cause them to lose their oxygen.

The domes would need to be a lot stronger than than, because loads of micrometeorites make it through Mars' thin atmosphere

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some have suggested that we terraform Mars, and convert the entire atmosphere and land to habitable conditions. Fine, but that is going to be very expensive. Who pays for it? The only way you can make something like that work is if a government or large corporation of some kind owns all of Mars and pays for the whole development. If a private company does it, they will want the inhabitants to pay them back, and those that are stuck there become, in essence, slaves. If a democracy does it, then we are talking about a huge one-world government, with all the issues that raises.

The alternate is to leave the atmosphere toxic, but have private entities build domes all over Mars. OK, that works, but it seems like that is extremely risky. If a war breaks out? One rifle can probably ruin the enemy's dome and cause them to lose their oxygen.

I'm not really arguing with you on the first bit.
Although I do think your presumption that a single bullet would make a dome on Mars uninhabitable is a bit too... ah, I'm not trying to mean here, but simple-minded is really the only word that springs to mind. Sorry about that.
Plus, what if we go underground? Granted, large scale explosives near the surface would ruin any tunnels or habitats, true, but still.

 

[BadHabit]

Sub-terrain habitats on the moon would be the most viable initially. Apparently, there are underground chasms three times the size of Manhattan far enough under the surface they would be well shielded from solar radiation. If on the Earth-facing side of the Sun, then solar in addition to some form of nuclear power (thinking a non-breeder type of system) could serve well.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I see. Robots throwing embryos all over space was not one of the options in the poll in the OP.

True enough. Hence, I didn't vote.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think it's more like 5 billion.

5 billion till the Sun eats the Earth, less till it's getting hot and weird and making problems.

We will not! Even in the unlikely event that a species which descended from us still exists then, we definitely cannot describe it as 'us', as it would be radically different to us. Think about how much life had evolved in the last 500m years; we're talking about a timescale 10 times as long!

Yeah, I guess four to ten times the time that it took for jawless fish to become human is a long time to think of a civilisation lasting.

I'm willing to classify any of our descendants or sentient creations as "us" for counting how long last. (Actually I'll broaden "us" to any intelligence that ultimately has its origin in life on Earth.)

 

[Blondepudding]

I'd be willing to convert to faith in a deity that would answer a prayer that asked, please don't ever let humans colonize space!
Look at how we suck at taking care of this one and only home we have now. And our ego's want to go into space and bring our seed to extra-terrestrial worlds? And life forms to be made under our dominion?

By all that's sacred in vanilla custard, hey, it's something I believe in right now, don't ever let the current level of consciousness called human get off the ground! In as much as colonizing other worlds is concerned.

Ahem!
Or is that a-woman. <<<Woman! Get it?


If any life form did see us coming I figure "Contact" was a great example of their reaction.

 

[ewq1938]

I think that might qualify as small scale terra-forming.

Seems like we should first try terra-forming this planet before we try other planets.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seems like we should first try terra-forming this planet before we try other planets.

But as I said repeatedly, we should try extra-planetary colonies as a fallback option, in case there is the real possibility that we cannot fix the Earth.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'd be willing to convert to faith in a deity that would answer a prayer that asked, please don't ever let humans colonize space!
Look at how we suck at taking care of this one and only home we have now. And our ego's want to go into space and bring our seed to extra-terrestrial worlds? And life forms to be made under our dominion?

By all that's sacred in vanilla custard, hey, it's something I believe in right now, don't ever let the current level of consciousness called human get off the ground! In as much as colonizing other worlds is concerned.

Ahem!
Or is that a-woman. <<<Woman! Get it?


If any life form did see us coming I figure "Contact" was a great example of their reaction.

I disagree. Life is life, it doesn't matter where it originated, it should always be protected and preserved -even ours. Since every planet is related, all life must be related too, and should be viewed that way.

...as someone inspired by a culture of life, I view all life as sacred, and worthy of living.

Watch "Superman The Movie Restoration Scene 6 Landing and Fixing a Flat" on YouTube

 

[Blondepudding]

My comments had not a thing to do with the sacredness of life. Rather, it had everything to do with preserving other life forms from that which is our own. One that has not yet demonstrated a belief in the sacredness , as you frame it, of life. But rather, believes itself to have dominion over all things.
And in so doing has polluted the water, the air, the ground, and slaughters its own species in the name of choice, war, race, religion, acquisition.

And if we were to colonize another planet at the level of consciousness we have now having written an earthly history the likes of what I described, we'd be no better or different on those other worlds.
We'd believe we have every right to. Insert all manner of what we've done to this planet as to what we'd do to a pristine one upon which we just landed.

Surveyors would arrive to plot property lines. Government would install their nations flag to claim the whole place. Human's would arrive to sink wells, dig the surface to grow food. And if there was a humanoid life form, the next to arrive would be the missionaries of every religion informing the new life just discovered that they were damned.

It's the old adage flung far into space. If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always gotten.

Look at what we do now when we discover new places here on earth. New life forms, i.e. native tribes.

Colonize other worlds? Bring our species there?
Heck no.
We don't even respect one another as a whole. Or our only home. Go elsewhere and do what. The same exact thing. Somewhere else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My comments had not a thing to do with the sacredness of life. Rather, it had everything to do with preserving other life forms from that which is our own. One that has not yet demonstrated a belief in the sacredness , as you frame it, of life. But rather, believes itself to have dominion over all things.
And in so doing has polluted the water, the air, the ground, and slaughters its own species in the name of choice, war, race, religion, acquisition.

And if we were to colonize another planet at the level of consciousness we have now having written an earthly history the likes of what I described, we'd be no better or different on those other worlds.
We'd believe we have every right to. Insert all manner of what we've done to this planet as to what we'd do to a pristine one upon which we just landed.

Surveyors would arrive to plot property lines. Government would install their nations flag to claim the whole place. Human's would arrive to sink wells, dig the surface to grow food. And if there was a humanoid life form, the next to arrive would be the missionaries of every religion informing the new life just discovered that they were damned.

It's the old adage flung far into space. If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always gotten.

Look at what we do now when we discover new places here on earth. New life forms, i.e. native tribes.

Colonize other worlds? Bring our species there?
Heck no.
We don't even respect one another as a whole. Or our only home. Go elsewhere and do what. The same exact thing. Somewhere else.

And? If it's a planet that is capable of sustaining other life, and atcually has other life forms on it, your arguments would have some merit.
But going to a planet that doesn't have other life forms then terraforming it to suit our needs is not something that we should quibble over. A planet without life is fair-game.

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm going to throw this one in the pot...The poll said something about colony ships..I may have missed it,but in the five pages,I saw nothing about Generation Ships..No suspended animation,no frozen fetuses,but living crews,having families and training their offspring to carry on when it's their turn to..everything from command all the way down to support..
Infrastructure?heavy on recycling,along with hydroponics for food and the generation of oxygen.
Feasible now?Nope,but neither was a space station 100 years ago.
Never sell the human race and it's abilities short...When that happens,we may as well toss in the towel and fade away.

 

[Landon Caeli]

My comments had not a thing to do with the sacredness of life. Rather, it had everything to do with preserving other life forms from that which is our own. One that has not yet demonstrated a belief in the sacredness , as you frame it, of life. But rather, believes itself to have dominion over all things.
And in so doing has polluted the water, the air, the ground, and slaughters its own species in the name of choice, war, race, religion, acquisition.

And if we were to colonize another planet at the level of consciousness we have now having written an earthly history the likes of what I described, we'd be no better or different on those other worlds.
We'd believe we have every right to. Insert all manner of what we've done to this planet as to what we'd do to a pristine one upon which we just landed.

Surveyors would arrive to plot property lines. Government would install their nations flag to claim the whole place. Human's would arrive to sink wells, dig the surface to grow food. And if there was a humanoid life form, the next to arrive would be the missionaries of every religion informing the new life just discovered that they were damned.

It's the old adage flung far into space. If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always gotten.

Look at what we do now when we discover new places here on earth. New life forms, i.e. native tribes.

Colonize other worlds? Bring our species there?
Heck no.
We don't even respect one another as a whole. Or our only home. Go elsewhere and do what. The same exact thing. Somewhere else.

Some of us are just happy to be able to see *what is*. I'm grateful for this opportunity to live.

If we are alone in knowing that space exists, it would be a shame for us to go extinct here. We are like gems in this universe.

...This is the culture of life.

 

[Blondepudding]

And? If it's a planet that is capable of sustaining other life, and atcually has other life forms on it, your arguments would have some merit.
But going to a planet that doesn't have other life forms then terraforming it to suit our needs is not something that we should quibble over. A planet without life is fair-game.

That's the arrogance I was talking about. The universe is teaming with life.

 

[freezerman2000]

That's the arrogance I was talking about. The universe is teaming with life.

Source?