Interplanetary Colonisation - Why are we not funding/focussing human efforts towards it?

Its not going to happen as its all about time, we too slow to get anywhere in space its a big place and to get to Mars would take 9 months at best.

What is anyone going to do? Sit in a tin can for 9 months to land on a planet that wants to kill you asap.
 
Combat squirrel said:
As everyone said, its capitalism - it can only function if your shooting fish in a barrel, if you enter a stage of humanity where resources are for all intents and purposes unlimited - you have a problem and the super rich won't like that - so it's not been pursued. Once we have tech than can convert most elements in to useful things that can be mined from even just the solar system, were set as a species and will socially evolve... but that has to be away from capitalism which is the only thing keeping the powerful ...well.....powerful.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the countless examples of powerful people keeping themselves powerful just fine without needing Capitalism to do it. It's not capitalism that keeps people down. In fact, social mobility is higher in capitalist societies than non-capitalist.
 
Raymond Lin said:
But the bar here is Mars, no atmosphere...what I’m saying is that if we have the tech to turn Mars to be habitable...just make Earth habitable, however bad it is, it can’t be worst than Mars right now? Can it? I mean if we let earth get that far and can survive up until that far...we would be mutants!
Click to expand...

Well we don't have the tech to "make Mars habitable" right now, per se. We (probably) have the tech to set up a very small, Earth-dependent colony there which with some steady supplies from Earth can grow its own crops and provide its own power, bit by bit building up the infrastructure for future waves so that ten generations later it's kind of self-sustaining. But I get your point. Two things we could do right now would be desert irrigation projects (the biggest of which destroyed by Obama and Hillary alas). And desalination which could be done in water starved coastal regions (California I'm looking at you). But neither should be incompatible with a Space program. Why not both?
 
Raymond Lin said:
But the bar here is Mars, no atmosphere...what I’m saying is that if we have the tech to turn Mars to be habitable...just make Earth habitable, however bad it is, it can’t be worst than Mars right now? Can it? I mean if we let earth get that far and can survive up until that far...we would be mutants!
Click to expand...

Mars does have an atmosphere just not one that is very helpful to us
 
Cerberus99 said:
Mars does have an atmosphere just not one that is very helpful to us
Click to expand...

Semantics really, the argument is the same.

The argument is if we have the tech to make an utter turd of a planet to be habitable, we can make earth habitable, no matter how bad it get….I presume it won't get to the level of Mars as it is now.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Semantics really, the argument is the same.

The argument is if we have the tech to make an utter turd of a planet to be habitable, we can make earth habitable, no matter how bad it get….I presume it won't get to the level of Mars as it is now.
Click to expand...

In about 4 billion years the earth wont exist so I wouldn't worry :P
 
itchy said:
Its not going to happen as its all about time, we too slow to get anywhere in space its a big place and to get to Mars would take 9 months at best.

What is anyone going to do? Sit in a tin can for 9 months to land on a planet that wants to kill you asap.
Click to expand...
I can think of a few things to do to pass the time.
 
h4rm0ny said:
We seem to be making progress under capitalism. China and India have in fact overtaken us currently since adopting capitalism. So reality runs counter to your supposition.

Money is a tool to show what we place our faith in and to motivate people to work towards something. If we, as a society, believe that we can mine asteroids, colonise planets and that it's in our best interests to do so, then money will flow towards such projects and enable people to work on them. We're not going to build a space rocket by people turning up and ad hoc volunteering to do bits of it.
Click to expand...

Jumper118 said:
Yes you are right we should be more like the ussr and have everyone equally staving to death while having a great space program.
Click to expand...

I think youve both missed the point I was making so let me clarify. I was essentially talking about the Star Trek TNG model of society.

The key here is that everyone has enough food, there is no poverty, everyone works (i.e not just volunteers) in a job which supports the greater good. No one is greedy or demands more than anyone else in principle (although some have earned more privilege than others through their successful careers, but they dont have more possessions than others because success isnt measured in material possessions).

Clearly it is impossible to step change to this model instantly however it is necessary, because whilst money is the motivator in our short lives there will never be enough material benefit in deep space exploration and colonisation. While workers need paying there will always be better paying careers detracting from the greater good. And while people desire material possessions the question will forever be 'whats in it for me'.
 
danlightbulb said:
the greater good.'.
Click to expand...
there is no greater good. it does not exist. it is fiction. Every one is an individual.
greater_good_hot_fuzz.jpg
 
Ryanair Interstellar said:
Perhaps we can find an oxygenated liquid that is significantly denser than blood. We can push some tubes into your chest connected to a mechanical pump that will keep it flowing even though it would be too much for your heart to manage. This will help offset the pressure from collapsing your veins and arteries. You'll arrive at the other end red as a tomato with a million burst capillaries and be black and blue for the next month, but we'll get you there.

Plus it'll be cheap.
Click to expand...
 
Raymond Lin said:
Semantics really, the argument is the same.

The argument is if we have the tech to make an utter turd of a planet to be habitable, we can make earth habitable, no matter how bad it get….I presume it won't get to the level of Mars as it is now.
Click to expand...
we could arguably terraform a planet to make it habitable, but as soon as people arrive they'd start ****** it up. the one surefire way to make Earth better is getting rid of about 2 or 3 billion people and making sure the level doesn't go above that again.
 
wolfie138 said:
we could arguably terraform a planet to make it habitable, but as soon as people arrive they'd start ****** it up. the one surefire way to make Earth better is getting rid of about 2 or 3 billion people and making sure the level doesn't go above that again.
Click to expand...

So you're saying we need more living room?
 
wolfie138 said:
we could arguably terraform a planet to make it habitable, but as soon as people arrive they'd start ****** it up. the one surefire way to make Earth better is getting rid of about 2 or 3 billion people and making sure the level doesn't go above that again.
Click to expand...

h4rm0ny said:
So you're saying we need more living room?
Click to expand...

Nope less people, how many countries don't practice birth control and can't feed them yet some have a space program.
 
Oxide™ said:
work together for a goal of getting humans to colonise off earth.
Click to expand...

It may surprise you but we are gradually getting there. The task of colonising another planet is astronomically (ahem) difficult. Absent some breakthrough it's the work of millennia.

The President's speech from Armageddon is appropriate:


We'll get there one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom