The Colonization of Space

[EwokUtopia]

In my opinion, if humanity wants to survive, it must begin to colonize space. With our current, and growing, technological knowledge, this should be on the horizon in perhaps a century, who knows, maybe even sooner (huge advancements take place in a short amount of time, the last 200 years have taught us that).

Currently, Humanity has the power to Expand into space, and to destroy itself. I dont think I need remind you that far more money, labour and time has been spent on the latter by all nations with the technologicalcapacity to do so. We are taking the path of destruction, and I believe that only through the expansion into space that we can take will we be able to avoid catastrophe. I am not talking about interstellar travel until we reach an Earthlike planet, but rather starting with Stantford Torus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus) style colonies, or even working our way up to the much more massive O'Niell Cylinders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder)
Or perhaps Lunar Biospheres, though those would be less controlled and less desirable (more meteors and less gravity) to live in. Eventually, perhaps terraforming of another local planet would become feasible, in which case we should do it.

This is all very distant in the future, but I believe that humanity should scrap all militaries and focus that wealth on such expiditions which would prove extremely benefitial for the economy (Mining oppurtunities, for instance) and future of human society in the long run. Overpopulation would have a huge relieving factor, and supposing some catastrophy were to occur on Earth, it wouldnt spell the doom of life on the planet, which could be repopulated by colonists in years to come. This would be a very wise decision for humanity to make, or at least I feel so.

Any other thoughts on this topic?

[RevMARKSman]

With the images, you could just link to them and give a warning or something. It didn't take too long for me, but for people with 1024x768 desktop resolution or lower, that would be a pretty big image.

[Concept]

that looks amazing....wonder how we'd defend ourselves from meteors and asteroids?
there are so many possibilities out there in space
i agree we need to stop all the fighting and concentrate on a mutual goal which is beneficial to all

there is currently a discussion going on in Philosophy thread in "Reasons for our existence?" concerning the possibility of alien life...please post ur thoughts

just curious do u watch Stargate SG-1?? wicked show

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 01:29 pm
that looks amazing....wonder how we'd defend ourselves from meteors and asteroids?

That actually shouldnt be too much of a problem, as in terms of space, these colonies are tiny tiny tiny and wouldnt have a gravitational pull like Earth or the Moon to bring asteroids over. Only if Asteroids on the way to one of these bigger destinations happens to accidentally hit the colonies, which would be quite unlikely, especially at Lagrangian point 3, would we have a problem. But for sure we would need to make the houses on the colonies airtight incase something does go wrong.

[Rollo]

I've herd a number of things to solve the asteroid problem. Such as the colony is rocket powered and can easily move out of the way, send a team to destroy the rocket armageddon style to stupid ideas like have the colony made of a super bouncy material to reflect meteors.

[piet11111]

im all for space exploration and eventually colonization.
but first im going to stick with our current planet and do my little thing to make earth a better place.

[Delirium]

i bet humanity will just destroy itself before we gain technology that will alow itself to do so.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Delirium [email protected] 14, 2006 03:26 am
i bet humanity will just destroy itself before we gain technology that will alow itself to do so.
That's a lose-lose bet on your part. Even if you win the bet the human race will be gone so you will not be able to collect your winnings unless some sort of insane idea about an afterlife starts floating about. Oh wait.

But I disagree, I think humans may very well colonize space before the Earth is completely run into the ground, I think we still have a few hundred ( a thousand at best ) years before that happens, plenty of time for technology to advance.

[Red Party]

I too think that hummans will colonize space, but I don't see that in the near future. Our technology is not too well advanced for that.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Rollo+December 13, 2006 01:00 pm--> (Rollo @ December 13, 2006 01:00 pm)
Delirium [email protected] 14, 2006 03:26 am
i bet humanity will just destroy itself before we gain technology that will alow itself to do so.
That's a lose-lose bet on your part. Even if you win the bet the human race will be gone so you will not be able to collect your winnings unless some sort of insane idea about an afterlife starts floating about. Oh wait.

But I disagree, I think humans may very well colonize space before the Earth is completely run into the ground, I think we still have a few hundred ( a thousand at best ) years before that happens, plenty of time for technology to advance. [/b]
I hope you are right but i think we will run out of abundant energy fairly soon, especially if the world continues to be run the way it is now. With a more efficient and responsible economy and political system it could be possible in the long run.

[Sean]

With a more efficient and responsible economy and political system it could be possible in the long run.

An efficient and responsible economy and political system is not something that puts stuff up into space. While space is cool and exciting in the photos, and scientists have made great discoveries about the universe, don't forget the whole point of space programs. Hi-tech militiary-industrial research and development, paid by you, the taxpayer. The true direction of the space age is surveillance and weaponry that can target anywhere in the world. Give anyone that, and I don't care if its Ghandi with his finger on the button; it will be used to oppress.

Moving on to actually living in space; unless you owned the entire vessel or colony and had easy access to all resources needed for it, that would be again, a scary predicament. At least now, movement and the air we breathe is free. Imagine working in some bubble thousands of miles away from the nearest other colonies? How could you ever organize against complete domination in that kind of situation?

Sorry to bring you all down to earth, but I can't think of a more orwellian enviroment than space.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

We should all leave to space and start a truely communist state

[mikelepore]

It's important that space be colonized eventually, but any number of postponements is acceptable. Compared to the more than a million years that we have actually been humans, a lot of ten year postponements here and there would be insignificant. No particular individual has to live to see the results attained. People just have to get off this planet before the sun becomes a red giant and this biosphere burns up, but that will be a very long time in the future.

[mikelepore]

wonder how we'd defend ourselves from meteors and asteroids?

A computer can model how the various bodies revolve around the sun at different rates, and predict a collision years in advance. Then people can use a method to push the object, lightly but for a long time. The affect of the push will accumulate so the mass passes by the earth at the time is was to have collided.

There are a lot of large masses in both the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt that haven't been cataloged yet. This might be more of a problem than building the device that will apply a force to any one of them. Cataloging them will also be a bigger problem than running a numerical model of how these masses keep readjusting each other's eccentric orbits.

[Epoche]

I recently saw a funny quote that went something like: "there is nothing so stupid that a philosopher has not already thought of it."

And now I will tell you some crazy shit. Behold the future of man. Indeed it does start with space colinization. But what is more exciting is that man will have to change his physiology to do so for any duration of time. The resources in outer space must be manufactured from elements that are scarce, and the farther you go from a planet source of resources (earth) the greater the necessity to design ways to be self-sustainable without those tradtional resources. But, as an example, since man cannot breath without oxygen, and oxygen is only produced by combination X of elements, and combination X of elements are not available, man himself must change and no longer need oxygen.

It is my theory that man will continue to expand his species after local space colinization. I believe that he will spend perhaps one hundred years building a stationary space station that will, at the proper time, undock itself and set out toward Mars, or even neighboring soloar systems. It will generate its own enviroment and will carry a type of human that will be genetically enhanced and altered to be capable of enduring these conditions.

Now for the good news. I also believe that man will invent a way to collect memory "clusters" and reproduce those in a cloned person or a person who chooses to have "identity X," at will and as easily as a visit to the doctor. This will create the possibility to cause consciousness to experience itself as "immortal" sentiently, since humans will live knowing that they can live again after they die by "uploading" their memory into a new body. With this prospect in mind, as well as the exciting thought of populating space forever, we will chill the people out and make them the "utopian" type.

Our job is to make sure the two generations of people alive today don't fuck it up. None of us will get to be immortal, mind you, because we don't have the technology yet, but our kid's kids just might.

(next week I will explain to you how you are immortal anyway and how you don't need a "body" to have experience.)

Not!

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 06:55 am
or even working our way up to the much more massive O'Niell Cylinders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder)
Those things look awesome. They make me want to re-watch some classic Gundam right now. This is a pretty interesting discussion, anyway. Maybe we'll soon get nutjob ideologues claiming that we've damaged the earth and been held down by gravity for too long, and that we must all move to the colonies. :lol:

[manic expression]

I would hate to see humanity colonize space. If we do, we will surely destroy it. Leave it the way it is, for colonization is a road that leads to nothing but ruin and disaster.

The area around the Earth is already becoming very polluted. We will leave a trail of waste wherever we go, let's not make a trail at all and observe the stars as they are.

[Jazzratt]

If/when we are capable we should go into space, no matter what greenies or others are squealing. Space is an infinite and amazing area to explore, that is rich in resources and may throw new and exciting discoveries our way. It is a place we must visit and colonise widley.

[Epoche]

Wait a minute. Are you people saying we shouldn't litter in space?

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard:

"OMG....look," says Buck Jones as he peers out his space-ship window..."its a napkin from McDonalds! Abort mission, abort mission!"

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:22 pm
If/when we are capable we should go into space, no matter what greenies or others are squealing. Space is an infinite and amazing area to explore, that is rich in resources and may throw new and exciting discoveries our way. It is a place we must visit and colonise widley.
Space is amazing, but that will cease to be so once humans have involved themselves in it for too long. If we "visit and colonise [space] wildly", we will utterly ruin it. Places like yellowstone are the way they are because humans didn't colonize it. The reason the stars are amazing is because they are untouched by humans, so why would we ever want to do away with that with exploration and colonization? There is something beautiful about space, and I am very afraid (if not sure) that this will disappear if humans are to colonize it.

Earth has enough resources, we just need to use them wisely. We can develop better technology without exploiting the natural resources of space.

Granted, if humans get their act together and figure out how to use something and live somewhere without basically destroying it, I would have no problem whatsoever. However, history paints a different picture.

[Red Party]

But sooner or later we must, this sun is not immortal, I saw on Discovery how other stars die and our sun is another star. If we don't colonize and the sun dies, the humman race will dissapear.

[Noah]

Colonization is a great idea and will provide humans with plentiful resources.

But just imagine if it were that a private company took over space colonisation, they would have power all over the world due to the abundance of resources...One company would have the potential of controlling the world.

However space colonisation, or just exploiting other planets resources will drive down the price of commodities (or up if it were scare/owned by 1 company) and the more space exploitation / harvesting progresses the more possibility that communism will be possible.

[mikelepore]

But, as an example, since man cannot breath without oxygen, and oxygen is only produced by combination X of elements, and combination X of elements are not available, man himself must change and no longer need oxygen.

Interplanetary travelers may bring with them some microorganisms that produce oxygen. Stromatolites are evidence of this oxygen production here during the precambrian.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 08:03 pm

But, as an example, since man cannot breath without oxygen, and oxygen is only produced by combination X of elements, and combination X of elements are not available, man himself must change and no longer need oxygen.

Interplanetary travelers may bring with them some microorganisms that produce oxygen. Stromatolites are evidence of this oxygen production here during the precambrian.
Thank you! We have a pretty good idea of how oxygen first appeared on earth and tree's had nothing to do with it.

I found the 'alien' series touched on this by building atmoshperes on planets that didn't have it, I'm not sure exactly how they did it but making lightning was part of it, as some of you may know lightning is important to this planet as in without it we might all be cooked by microwaves.

[encephalon]

i find it highly unlikely that humans would fuck enough in outer space to affect it like we have the planet earth.

C'mon, people, be realistic. At least make it look like the left is full of reasonable people.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 08:17 pm
i find it highly unlikely that humans would fuck enough in outer space to affect it like we have the planet earth.

C'mon, people, be realistic. At least make it look like the left is full of reasonable people.
Who is saying that?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Mass Colonization is the only potential future for the human race. Without it, all humanity will be forgotten very quickly. Screw the stupid greens, the survival of the human race comes before their crap.

[Dimentio]

That is the third step of civilisation after the establishment of the technate. ;)

[Janus]

I think it may be needed eventually not only for resources but also for living space reasons. Of course, there's still no need to concentrate much attention on this at the point.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:50 pm
Wait a minute. Are you people saying we shouldn't litter in space?

Actually, Space litter, in the orbit of Earth especially, is a very dangerous thing. True, there is alot of space, so as long as there isnt a tonne of litter, there should be no problem. But, you do not want to run into some floating space debris, especially while on a space walk. Why not? It doesnt just float around in suspended animation, it travels fast. Im talking about like 7 km/second fast, which is about 10 times faster than a bullet. Due to this high speed, being hit by a grain of sand or a fleck of dust (lets not even get into the horrors of a frozen pea) could be as damaging, if not moreso, than being shot by a gun. Not fun. Furthermore, there is a theory known as the Kessler Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome), in which case, debris crashing into more debris creates yet more debris, which in turn crashes into other objects making more debris, and so forth and so forth until space travel is made in effect impossible.
This would not be a desirable scenario, so please people, keep a neat and tidy Inner Space.

[Rollo]

7km p second might not sound like much but it's enouth to punch a hole in your suit and send you flying into space.

[Epoche]

It doesnt just float around in suspended animation, it travels fast. Im talking about like 7 km/second fast, which is about 10 times faster than a bullet.

Seriously!? Well fuckin-a don't listen to me anymore! Thank god I don't run the space program. I wouldn't of thought a napkin could be deadly. I had no idea.

Thank you for this morsel of knowledge.

[Noah]

Oh I see, keeping space tidy would be desirable in that case..

[ichneumon]

1)How do you plan to have humans reproduce in space? Do you expect that a human fetus can develop and come to term outside of 1G?

2)How do you plan to get into space without it costing tens of thousands of dollars per kg boosted into orbit?

3)What resources? Space is full of NOTHING. That's what makes it space.

4)In what situation will be be more cost effective to use a human rather than a robot? Humans don't have a 'stand-by' mode - and they have this alarming tendency to DIE when exposed to radiation and/or vaccuum.

Not to burst any bubbles, but this thread has been wildly unrealistic and not even vaguely scientific. Putting humans in space is a PR stunt. It's expensive, pointless and dangerous.

[Epoche]

Not to burst any bubbles, but this thread has been wildly unrealistic and not even vaguely scientific. Putting humans in space is a PR stunt. It's expensive, pointless and dangerous.

If the only reason why you deem it unproductive is because it is "expensive" and "dangerous" then I think you are considering the possibility from the wrong context. There would be no problem in expenses in a global communism...there would be no financial pressures or market competitions for engineers who would labor to design and coordinate such a space program.

And we have spent millions of years beating the risks of danger. Surely we can come up with something that would make it not so dangerous.

[EwokUtopia]

1)How do you plan to have humans reproduce in space? Do you expect that a human fetus can develop and come to term outside of 1G?

The Colony designs I have shown are desined to have simulated gravity. This would be set to be equal of that of the Earth's. People should be able to reproduce as normal.


2)How do you plan to get into space without it costing tens of thousands of dollars per kg boosted into orbit?

People should redirect the resources wasted on such useless things as the military (politicians seem to have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on that) as well as scientific research in the feild which would result in more efficient, and therefore cheaper, space travel. This isnt a tommorow-type proposal, I am thinking of maybe 50-100 years down the road, just look at the scientific advances made in the last 50-100 years, and youll see this is a very feasible forecast.


3)What resources? Space is full of NOTHING. That's what makes it space.

Not true, just think of the mineral-harvesting potentials that Asteroids have, for example. As well, Labour, in low gravity factories, could be much more efficient. People will be able to build things in space which would be impossible to construct on Earth.



4)In what situation will be be more cost effective to use a human rather than a robot? Humans don't have a 'stand-by' mode - and they have this alarming tendency to DIE when exposed to radiation and/or vaccuum.

The situation of Overpopulation? Artificial labour (robots, androids, what have you) will be an asset if such technology can be developped, but there must be a human aspect to this as well. The point of colonization is to expand the sphere of humanity and greatly increase its survival. There are hazards in space for sure, but I doubt a colony will ever be subject to earthquakes, tsunami's, hurricanes, tornado's, volcano's, et cetera as we are on earth. We would not build colonies at highly radiated portions of space, and they would have safety locks on all buildings in case the massive walls were to be breached creating a vacuum inside the colony.


Not to burst any bubbles, but this thread has been wildly unrealistic and not even vaguely scientific. Putting humans in space is a PR stunt. It's expensive, pointless and dangerous.

I believe they called heavier-than-air flight unrealistic a century ago. What is truly dangerous, and will inevitably result in our extinction as a species in the near future (which will come, but later is better than sooner) is remaining on one fragile planet. True, this planet has an overwhealming capability to heal itself from cataclysmic events over time, but if humanity goes extinct, then whats the benefit for us? If we are off in space while this happens, and can aid the recovery of the planet, this is much better. Putting colonies in space is one sure way to safeguard a whole pile of doomsday scenarios, IE nuclear war, comets, or supervolcanos. It will become less expensive as technology progresses, remember how expensive those shitty computers that take up entire rooms were 40 years ago? look at how much better, smaller and cheaper the one in front of your face is.

[ichneumon]

The Colony designs I have shown are desined to have simulated gravity. This would be set to be equal of that of the Earth's. People should be able to reproduce as normal.

centrifugal force isn't gravity, nor does it have the same effects on the body. it's MUCH better than zero-G, but i'd bet there'd be severe complications in a pregnancy. besides, you can't change the gravity on mars or the moon. you are talking about habitats only.


People should redirect the resources wasted on such useless things as the military (politicians seem to have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on that) as well as scientific research in the feild which would result in more efficient, and therefore cheaper, space travel. This isnt a tommorow-type proposal, I am thinking of maybe 50-100 years down the road, just look at the scientific advances made in the last 50-100 years, and youll see this is a very feasible forecast.

i agree - until we have a better way of getting into orbit, let's not waste resources with human-based space exploration. it's not productive.


Not true, just think of the mineral-harvesting potentials that Asteroids have, for example. As well, Labour, in low gravity factories, could be much more efficient. People will be able to build things in space which would be impossible to construct on Earth.

working in zero gravity is difficult, and long term exposure is lethal or debilitating. if there were asteroids with platinum or uranium cores, maybe. the "need" for metal on earth is largely based on not recycling. i'm not sure it would *ever* be profitable to move base material from an asteroid to earth. you'd certainly need a beanstalk or some such first. and what do we need that much iron and such *for*? what we isn't more iron, it's LESS PEOPLE.


The situation of Overpopulation? Artificial labour (robots, androids, what have you) will be an asset if such technology can be developped, but there must be a human aspect to this as well. The point of colonization is to expand the sphere of humanity and greatly increase its survival. There are hazards in space for sure, but I doubt a colony will ever be subject to earthquakes, tsunami's, hurricanes, tornado's, volcano's, et cetera as we are on earth. We would not build colonies at highly radiated portions of space, and they would have safety locks on all buildings in case the massive walls were to be breached creating a vacuum inside the colony.

honestly, overpopulation is never going to be resolved by technology. historically, technology creates more problems than it solves. it's not as if there are happy edens out there that you can teleport to and be done. the unspeakable amount of resources involved in creating a human-viable area in space, and then actually transporting a human to that place, makes it a pipedream as a solution to overpopulation. space is also MUCH more dangerous than earth - for the simple reason that you have no were to go when something goes wrong. and, it's hostile to life - VERY hostile.

what you're doing is essentially a deus ex machina. you think that technology will somehow allow humans to survive after we destroy our home. and, furthermore, that destroying the earth is somehow justifiable in that light. bullshit. this is exactly the same mentality that drives the islamic jihad. think about it.

[red team]

Hmmm... Yes, go into space and reproduce all the problems that we have with stupid people doing stupid things and breeding more stupid people that we have here on Earth. :lol:

I hope you don't let this idiot (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubwp2I6_4cg) into your new space colony. Or this idiot (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N-p0hQ-a20w). And, definitely not these idiots (http://youtube.com/watch?v=gWKlytgSHbk). But, if you decide to be softhearted and let these idiots on board I hope you know what you're getting yourself into. Most of them will settle into their natural role as violent, hateful morons (obvious parody) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GcM0vARyo1A) since they're too stupid to do anything else that would give them a sense of pride. Why not have pride in your natural born skin pigmentation (or lack of) or your natural born sex organs? :lol: There's also the morons who are really dangerous who weasel their way into positions of wealth, influence and power (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MOktMNsHoMo).

Just a suggestion, but you should really consider and entrance I.Q. and E.Q. test for weeding out the mindless lemmings.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

centrifugal force isn't gravity, nor does it have the same effects on the body.

Apart from Coriolis Forces (Which are easily eliminated if you build the space habitat large enough), I can't think of anything that makes spin-gravity different in it's effects on the human body from mass-gravity. Maybe you would care to elaborate?


it's MUCH better than zero-G, but i'd bet there'd be severe complications in a pregnancy.

Such as?


besides, you can't change the gravity on mars or the moon. you are talking about habitats only.

Exercise and extra calcium in one's diet can overcome muscle and bone wastage due to lessened gravity, and in any event we should work towards genofixing humans so they can live in zero-g and different gravity without physical complications.

The problems of living in space are neither intractable nor particularly difficult to solve.


i agree - until we have a better way of getting into orbit, let's not waste resources with human-based space exploration. it's not productive.

This is a recipe for doing fuck-all. Until we expend the initial great effort into getting a resources processing infrastructure into space, we will get nowhere. And that will literally be the death of us in the case of an Earth-wide catastrophe.


if there were asteroids with platinum or uranium cores, maybe. the "need" for metal on earth is largely based on not recycling.

We are already recycling significant amounts of metal. Why do you think the scrap metal industry is so successful? The more materials we have to go around, the better.


i'm not sure it would *ever* be profitable to move base material from an asteroid to earth. you'd certainly need a beanstalk or some such first. and what do we need that much iron and such *for*? what we isn't more iron, it's LESS PEOPLE.

With more materials we can allow a much greater number of people to live in greater comfort. The less material wealth there is to go around, the worse it is for everybody, especially in a classless society. It's all well and good saying that we need less people, but what about the quality of life of the people already living? Should we not do our very best to improve their and our own lot in life? And how can we do that if there is insuffecient steel to build railroads, and insuffecient manganese and nickel to create the alloys needed for a modern civilisation?

Not to mention that asteroids will also be a good source of carbon, silicon and water.


honestly, overpopulation is never going to be resolved by technology.

Overpopulation is a false bogeyman. As of now, we have enough food and resources to give everyone on this planet a comfortable lifestyle. The problem at the moment is not how much we produce but how we distribute it. That may change in the future and hence why space exploration, by humans and not just robots, is important.


historically, technology creates more problems than it solves.

A primitivist myth. *Hack-spit*


it's not as if there are happy edens out there that you can teleport to and be done.

I don't recall anyone here claiming this was so.


the unspeakable amount of resources involved in creating a human-viable area in space, and then actually transporting a human to that place, makes it a pipedream as a solution to overpopulation.

What about survival of the human species? How important is that?


space is also MUCH more dangerous than earth - for the simple reason that you have no were to go when something goes wrong. and, it's hostile to life - VERY hostile.

Better to live in a dangerous environment than to be extinct.


what you're doing is essentially a deus ex machina. you think that technology will somehow allow humans to survive after we destroy our home.

If we have self-suffecient colonies outside of Earth, then yes we will survive thanks to them. But in any case even if we as a species kept the Earth in a pristine condition, that doesn't mean that the vagaries of the universe itself will not conspire to make our home planet non-existant or lifeless. Space colonisation should be a contingency plan in the event of a planet-wide disaster.


and, furthermore, that destroying the earth is somehow justifiable in that light. bullshit.

If there ever was a good justification for destroying the Earth, then I do not see why we should not go along with it. Why be sentimental about a lump of rock and iron simply because it's the one we happened to have evolved on?


this is exactly the same mentality that drives the islamic jihad. think about it.

How is destroying the infidels in the name of and for the glory of some non-existant sky fairy remotely related to the issue of human colonisation and exploration of space?

[ichneumon]

Not to mention that asteroids will also be a good source of carbon, silicon and water.

this is where you show that you are a complete goober. no offense, but honestly...the OCEANS are a good source of water. silicon is SAND. the carbon in asteroids is not going to be in the form of energetically bonded hydrocarbons, and we do in fact have plenty of carbon here on earth. something like uranium or platinum, which is used industrially in small amounts, might be worth mining and shipping to earth, but never bulk materials.


Exercise and extra calcium in one's diet can overcome muscle and bone wastage due to lessened gravity, and in any event we should work towards genofixing humans so they can live in zero-g and different gravity without physical complications.

*humans* (not transhumans) don't live well in space. perhaps in hollowed out asteroids rotating to simulate 1-g, but other than that, we will never be able to reproduce without tremendous effort in space. it takes huge amounts of resources to keep a human alive in space, which means that it is NOT a solution to overpopulation.


This is a recipe for doing fuck-all. Until we expend the initial great effort into getting a resources processing infrastructure into space, we will get nowhere. And that will literally be the death of us in the case of an Earth-wide catastrophe.

i would actually support something like a lunar mass driver to shoot down NEO's and dinosaur killers. but space isn't a liferaft for humans because HUMANS can't live or reproduce in space. it would be MUCH more practical to survive an ELE on earth than in space.


Overpopulation is a false bogeyman. As of now, we have enough food and resources to give everyone on this planet a comfortable lifestyle. The problem at the moment is not how much we produce but how we distribute it. That may change in the future and hence why space exploration, by humans and not just robots, is important.

utter and complete lie. if all 8 billion humans started living at 1st world standards tomorrow, the species wouldn't last out the year. there is NOT enough energy being produced, nor is there any way to produce it. there is just enough food being produced, but the production of such involves lots of energy. even China "catching up" in the next decade to 1st world standards would produce massive desertification, famine and climate change in the form of rising sea levels.

please illustrate how technology solved our problems in the past, without significant negative consequences. considering the state of the planet now and how technology led us to it, that will be hard to do, but i'll take specific cases. so far, the information revolution has been mostly beneficial. the agricultural revolution was a nightmare, the industrial a mixed bag. consider antibiotics and the war on disease - how is that going? how about the Green Revolution? how about personal transportation technology?



How is destroying the infidels in the name of and for the glory of some non-existant sky fairy remotely related to the issue of human colonisation and exploration of space?

because you're waiting for magical technology to solve your problems, rather than just dealing with them here and now. note that i support robotic space exploration, i just don't expect it to be some panacea. i support technological innovation and research. i just don't expect deux ex machina solutions