Why not start with Antarctica?

[ichneumon]

Space is *harsh*. What kind of resourses are you expecting to find to make up for a lack of air to breathe? If humans want to learn to live in hostile environments via setting up self-sustaining colonies, we have to start on Earth. Antarctica, deep sea, deep desert. And remember how Biosphere 2 went - we do not as yet have the technology to set up such systems.

Space is for robots, people - humans can't function without gravity for any length of time and we can't handle the radiation. Whatever resources might be there, it's cheaper to use robots than monkeys in suits.

I'd be MUCH more pleased to see an artificial self-sustaining oasis in the middle of the Sahara than a bunch of monkeys in a tin can in orbit.

[ComradeRed]

I'd be MUCH more pleased to see an artificial self-sustaining oasis in the middle of the Sahara than a bunch of monkeys in a tin can in orbit. Yeah, that seems to be the gist of your argument "Well, I'd like it this way!" Unfortunately, that's not a good argument.

What about fallout from a nuclear war? Your simians in the desert would be toast, frozen from the nuclear winter, or killed off by radiation.

Or the possibility that an artificial virus is created that can't be stopped?

These may seem cartoonish to you, but they are consequences of reality.

The best approach would be to colonize other planets using nanotechnology to create water and atmosphere so humans and plants can live on the planet naturally (i.e. without "bubbles").

[ichneumon]

The best approach would be to colonize other planets using nanotechnology to create water and atmosphere so humans and plants can live on the planet naturally (i.e. without "bubbles").

while you're at it, let's ignite fusion in jupiter!!!

the point being, that technology doesn't exist, and colonizing remote places on earth is a good way to develop it.


Yeah, that seems to be the gist of your argument "Well, I'd like it this way!" Unfortunately, that's not a good argument.

uh, you guys are the ones who want to boost things into orbit or farther economically. it's not that way, it will never be that way. what, anti-gravity? beanstalks?

[Dimentio]

The Arctic regions are excepted from exploitment and military presence due to a treaty enacted in 1951 and renewed in 1991. Next review would happen in 2031. Every installation except research bases are forbidden according to that treaty.

Nevertheless, some nations, namely Norway, Australia, NZ, Russia and North Korea claims land in Antarctica. The polar bears also claims lebensraum in Antarctica (http://penguinconspiracy.blogspot.com).

[Kia]

I havn't got the time at the moment to look into the Antarctica treaty but from what your saying it only bans military presence and exploiting the land, right? That wouldn't ban testing biospheres and other experiments deisgned for human survival in the harshest conditions would it?

Personally both attempting self-sustaining colonies in space and harsh enviroments on the world seems the best idea. The rest of the universe has alot of unique qualities (obvious i know) that man could probably only figure out by experimenting in space while places like death valley, antarctica, etc... gives us the oppurtunity to try experiments cheaply, fewer casualities, and quicker then if we were to experiment only in space.

On another personal note; i hope that mankind fixes this planet up first before we start hoping around the rest of the universe (if we ever do). Id rather have humankind die off then go scurrying off to colonize another planet because we could no longer sustain ourselves on earth.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 08:25 pm
I havn't got the time at the moment to look into the Antarctica treaty but from what your saying it only bans military presence and exploiting the land, right? That wouldn't ban testing biospheres and other experiments deisgned for human survival in the harshest conditions would it?

Personally both attempting self-sustaining colonies in space and harsh enviroments on the world seems the best idea. The rest of the universe has alot of unique qualities (obvious i know) that man could probably only figure out by experimenting in space while places like death valley, antarctica, etc... gives us the oppurtunity to try experiments cheaply, fewer casualities, and quicker then if we were to experiment only in space.

On another personal note; i hope that mankind fixes this planet up first before we start hoping around the rest of the universe (if we ever do). Id rather have humankind die off then go scurrying off to colonize another planet because we could no longer sustain ourselves on earth.
Actually, they do have such experiments on Antarctica. The research bases were partially made to test how to create cold-safe habitats for space travelling.

[ComradeRed]

while you're at it, let's ignite fusion in jupiter!!!

the point being, that technology doesn't exist, and colonizing remote places on earth is a good way to develop it. Gee, what a rebuttle! Argumentum ad ignorantiam up the wim wam.


uh, you guys are the ones who want to boost things into orbit or farther economically. it's not that way, it will never be that way. what, anti-gravity? beanstalks? What the hell are you talking about? This has no relation to your poor argument "Well, I'd like it this way!" It's a complete and utter non-sequitur.

[ichneumon]

you want to colonize space. the technology to do this does not exist. furthermore, the cost of boosting anything into orbit is prohibitive, which has as much to do with gravity as capitalism. thus, talking about colonizing other planets is wishful thinking.

at extreme cost, it would be possible to put humans and a base on the moon. but we do not have the technology to make the base independent. not even close. it's not colonization you're suggesting, it's a vacation.

the best way to develop the technology for colonization is to do it here on earth, where, if something goes wrong, you're not utterly fucked on live TV so that the public will never again have faith in the concept.

colonizing remote areas of earth would open up new areas for experimental societies. once the colony is self-sufficient, it won't cost billions to send another person, unlike any space based colony.

now, how is it that putting humans on mars is the manifest destiny of humanity, while human colonies at the antarctic is a mindless, pointless pipedream?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:04 pm
you want to colonize space. the technology to do this does not exist. furthermore, the cost of boosting anything into orbit is prohibitive, which has as much to do with gravity as capitalism. thus, talking about colonizing other planets is wishful thinking.

at extreme cost, it would be possible to put humans and a base on the moon. but we do not have the technology to make the base independent. not even close. it's not colonization you're suggesting, it's a vacation.

the best way to develop the technology for colonization is to do it here on earth, where, if something goes wrong, you're not utterly fucked on live TV so that the public will never again have faith in the concept.

colonizing remote areas of earth would open up new areas for experimental societies. once the colony is self-sufficient, it won't cost billions to send another person, unlike any space based colony.

now, how is it that putting humans on mars is the manifest destiny of humanity, while human colonies at the antarctic is a mindless, pointless pipedream?
Why not colonise the sea floor first? ;)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:04 pm
you want to colonize space. the technology to do this does not exist. furthermore, the cost of boosting anything into orbit is prohibitive, which has as much to do with gravity as capitalism. thus, talking about colonizing other planets is wishful thinking.

at extreme cost, it would be possible to put humans and a base on the moon. but we do not have the technology to make the base independent. not even close. it's not colonization you're suggesting, it's a vacation.

the best way to develop the technology for colonization is to do it here on earth, where, if something goes wrong, you're not utterly fucked on live TV so that the public will never again have faith in the concept.

colonizing remote areas of earth would open up new areas for experimental societies. once the colony is self-sufficient, it won't cost billions to send another person, unlike any space based colony.

now, how is it that putting humans on mars is the manifest destiny of humanity, while human colonies at the antarctic is a mindless, pointless pipedream?
I suggest first that you read a fucking book, since you are so decoupled from reality that trying to talk to you reasonably is a sisyphian task.

There are these things called "Hydroponic farms" which artificially create food from water and artificial UV radiation; and nanotechnology really does exist and is being extensively researched, so far medical applications of it have been fruitful and condensed matter applications are being reviewed. Of course, you being the super genius that you are would know all about this :rolleyes:

Yeah, you&#39;re right, space colonization is "wishful thinking"; it is impossible to go into space; whatever. You obviously don&#39;t have a clue what you are talking about, so please ramble on about your irrelevant bull shit. It&#39;s fascinating&#33; <_<

[ichneumon]

There are these things called "Hydroponic farms" which artificially create food from water and artificial UV radiation;

No one has actually managed this in space, and all attempts so far have failed. UV radiation is as lethal to plants as it is to us - you don&#39;t even understand photosynthesis. You have no understanding *whatsoever* of the complications involved in a closed ecosystem. We can&#39;t make this work on earth in a testtube with protozoans, much less in space with humans.

A closed ecosystem, in which all nutrients are recycled, which can persist indefinitely without only energy input, is still a dream at this point. Current technology can&#39;t filter and recycle air and water in a closed system with any reliability. The idea of turing human waste back into food in such a system using hydroponics is just that: an idea.

Now, go and do it in zero gravity surrounded by lethal radiation and hard vacuum.

[STI]

No one has actually managed this in space, and all attempts so far have failed.

Nope, we&#39;ve been able to grow potatoes in space for the last decade - they even talk about it on McDonald&#39;s placemats&#33;

[Sentinel]

While we should use what this planet has to offer to the max, and colonise new territories here aswell, we should also strive to learn the skills of terraforming in order to make other planets earthlike and habitable for us. One day those skills may prove to be crucial for the survival of the species.

The earth is a good training ground on some occasions, like serpent and other have pointed out. But we should simultaneously keep on exploring the space and doing as much research &#39;up there&#39; as possible -- finally it&#39;ll be the only direction in which we can expand so we better be prepared.

[Guerrilla22]

Actually a few countries have staked claims for parts of Anartica, which is why the US maintains military bases there and part of the reason the UK felt that keeping the Falkland Islands was important.

[Dimentio]

Does the USA have claims for Antarctica?

[Janus]

which is why the US maintains military bases there
The Antarctica Treaty prohibited military activity on the continent. In fact, the US doesn&#39;t even have a territorial claim on Antarctica.

[Janus]

Does the USA have claims for Antarctica?
No because the Antarctica Treaty prohibits new claims.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:48 pm

which is why the US maintains military bases there
The Antarctica Treaty prohibited military activity on the continent. In fact, the US doesn&#39;t even have a territorial claim on Antarctica.
The US has a Naval and Coast Guard presence there, I guess that technically doesn&#39;t count as a base though.

[Janus]

The US has a Naval and Coast Guard presence there, I guess that technically doesn&#39;t count as a base though.
Yeah, but that&#39;s to provide resources and support for the US research stations though.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:36 am

The US has a Naval and Coast Guard presence there, I guess that technically doesn&#39;t count as a base though.
Yeah, but that&#39;s to provide resources and support for the US research stations though.
Supposedly.

[Janus]

Supposedly.
If they increased their presence, their intentions would be quickly revealed as the US stations are based on other nation&#39;s territorial claims. Besides, with the USSR gone, I don&#39;t see what strategic interest Antarctica would have.