Colonizing & Manned space travel

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Stephen Hawking has said some time back that we should be colonizing other planets within 100 years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/stephen-hawking-predictions-human-extinction-to-global-warming.html

I think the very idea of colonizing other planets is absurd. We are unable to live in the Sahara or the Australian out back or in Antarctica. Why would we be able to live on Mars or Moon or Titan where even basic oxygen is not available?!!

My views are here....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/space-explorati/

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: Maeght....yes... I link my site because I don't want to repeat/type everything that I have already said there. 
 

[torridon]

Broadly agree, I think it something of a sci-fi fantasy rather than a realistic proposition.  Space is big, and overwhelmingly unsuitable for us.  I think we will crash and burn here before we could become advanced enough for such adventures.  This is my solution to the Fermi Paradox.

[Stranger]

Broadly agree, I think it something of a sci-fi fantasy rather than a realistic proposition.  Space is big, and overwhelmingly unsuitable for us.  I think we will crash and burn here before we could become advanced enough for such adventures.  This is my solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Yes, depressing possible.

On the other hand, if we manage to survive long enough I think some attempts may be made to live on Mars. There was a reasonable docudrama (science fiction story along side relevant interviews with people working on the ideas) on National Geographic that explored the possibilities. Series one is on Netflix and series two was recently shown on the NG channel.

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

Stephen Hawking has said some time back that we should be colonizing other planets within 100 years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/stephen-hawking-predictions-human-extinction-to-global-warming.html

I think the very idea of colonizing other planets is absurd. We are unable to live in the Sahara or the Australian out back or in Antarctica. Why would we be able to live on Mars or Moon or Titan where even basic oxygen is not available?!!

My views are here....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/space-explorati/

Cheers.

Sriram

PS: Maeght....yes... I link my site because I don't want to repeat/type everything that I have already said there. 
 

He said humans will need to colonize another planet within 100 years or face extinction. Seems a reasonable statement.

Re your links. The way you phrased it here is clearer, the way you have phrased it before was as if you were linking to some authoritative source. Thanks for the clarification and change in tone.

[Sriram]

He said humans will need to colonize another planet within 100 years or face extinction. Seems a reasonable statement.

Re your links. The way you phrased it here is clearer, the way you have phrased it before was as if you were linking to some authoritative source. Thanks for the clarification and change in tone.

Well....I think my article is authoritative enough simply on the grounds of being reasonable, while Hawkings idea of colonizing other planets (within 100 years) is ridiculous regardless of however famous he may be.

[Maeght]

Well....I think my article is authoritative enough simply on the grounds of being reasonable,

That doesn't make it authoritative even if true.

..... while Hawkings idea of colonizing other planets (within 100 years) is ridiculous regardless of however famous he may be.

I'm.not qualified to say whether it would be possible, but doubt you are either. He was highlighting the problem of what we are doing to the planet rather than claiming colonising other planets is possible with current technology.

[BeRational]

If there is water, then there is a source of oxygen.

As a species this is what we do, go where we seemingly cannot.

[Sriram]

It is precisely this sort of a science mythology that breeds arrogance and indifference to the home planet.

[Nearly Sane]

It is precisely this sort of a science mythology that breeds arrogance and indifference to the home planet.

especially if your mythology is heaven

[Maeght]

It is precisely this sort of a science mythology that breeds arrogance and indifference to the home planet.

And thinking God will intervene doesn't? It is science which shows the damage we are doing to the planet. I don't think science necessarily leads to indifference to the home planet at all. Some people may have a 'faith' that science will sort out the problems but equally some people have faith that their god will.

[Sriram]

Who said that God will intervene? If that is your view of religion, it is a very blinkered view.

[Maeght]

Who said that God will intervene? If that is your view of religion, it is a very blinkered view.

Some people with religious beliefs believe this as I understand it. People pray to God for help in their daily lives so why not when it comes to global damage? I never claimed that all religious people or religions believe this however. You seem to be trying to present a thesis where religious people want to look after the planet whereas the non religious have an attitude of thinking science will solve any problems so lets just carry on destroying our environment because we can colonise other planets. I was pointing out that neither religion nor science necessarily lead to what you suggest.

[Stranger]

Who said that God will intervene? If that is your view of religion, it is a very blinkered view.

Congressman says 'God will take care of climate change' if it is real

[Roses]

Congressman says 'God will take care of climate change' if it is real

OMG now were are in trouble!

[Sriram]

Some people with religious beliefs believe this as I understand it. People pray to God for help in their daily lives so why not when it comes to global damage? I never claimed that all religious people or religions believe this however. You seem to be trying to present a thesis where religious people want to look after the planet whereas the non religious have an attitude of thinking science will solve any problems so lets just carry on destroying our environment because we can colonise other planets. I was pointing out that neither religion nor science necessarily lead to what you suggest.

No. My point is that science and its achievements over the last century have lead to an arrogant and 'we can handle it' attitude during most of the 20th century  that is responsible for today's irreversible situation. 

Running away to some other planet has been the default 'solution' for decades, right from the 1960's perhaps! Many people think it is the only solution even today!!

[torridon]

No. My point is that science and its achievements over the last century have lead to an arrogant and 'we can handle it' attitude during most of the 20th century  that is responsible for today's irreversible situation. 

Not sure that is arrogance,  so much as a sort of faith, a belief in the ingenuity of mankind.  The Lunar landings of the 60's were a jaw dropping achievement, as was landing on a comet and putting the manned ISS into permanent orbit.  Sometimes it seems there is no challenge so great that we cannot rise to it.  That doesn't mean however that we can and will achieve anything; costs and politics and practicalities may rule things out, and the idea of a manned civilian base on Mars, or indeed fixing global climate change may be a couple of things that are out of our ingenious reach at least in the near to medium future.

[Anchorman]

Whilst some of the American astronauts might have been a bit off-the-wall when it came to spirituality, many, such as the Apollo and Skylab, as well as early Shuttle astronauts, had, and have, a deep faith. Many who left the space programme are indeed active environmental campaigners -and villified by certain strands of the merican 'religious right' for so being. Those self-same astronauts, by and large, with the notable exception of Frank Borman (Gemini and Apollo) advocate setting up Moon and Mars bases as self-sustaining colonies.

[Maeght]

No. My point is that science and its achievements over the last century have lead to an arrogant and 'we can handle it' attitude during most of the 20th century  that is responsible for today's irreversible situation.

I know you are making that point, as well as saying religion leads to a better attitude towards the environment etc I don't think this holds up. Science has been used to show what our activities are doing to the planet and scientists are working to deal with the. problems, not  ignoring them and carrying on regardless. You haven't addressed the point that industrialisation was driven by people who were religious.

Running away to some other planet has been the default 'solution' for decades, right from the 1960's perhaps! Many people think it is the only solution even today!!

It is seen as a last resort. I don't believe anyone is saying we should carry on destroying the planet because we can just hop onto another one. As has been shown some religious people do think however that God will intervene.

[Sriram]

Not sure that is arrogance,  so much as a sort of faith, a belief in the ingenuity of mankind.  The Lunar landings of the 60's were a jaw dropping achievement, as was landing on a comet and putting the manned ISS into permanent orbit.  Sometimes it seems there is no challenge so great that we cannot rise to it.  That doesn't mean however that we can and will achieve anything; costs and politics and practicalities may rule things out, and the idea of a manned civilian base on Mars, or indeed fixing global climate change may be a couple of things that are out of our ingenious reach at least in the near to medium future.

"Sometimes it seems there is no challenge so great that we cannot rise to it."

There you go. That's what I am talking about.  We are seeing the repercussions of that attitude.

And its not just about challenges either. Its about comforts, desires and conveniences. You could say ..." There is no comfort or desire so great that we cannot achieve it".  That is what has lead to the current situation.

[torridon]

"Sometimes it seems there is no challenge so great that we cannot rise to it."

There you go. That's what I am talking about.  We are seeing the repercussions of that attitude.

That's not a statement of arrogance, it's a statement of aspiration, of inspiration.  It captures why people climb mountains or look to the stars.

That we are failing to rise the challenge of climate change is because of inertia, we remain in our comfort zone too often.

[Sriram]

That's not a statement of arrogance, it's a statement of aspiration, of inspiration.  It captures why people climb mountains or look to the stars.

That we are failing to rise the challenge of climate change is because of inertia, we remain in our comfort zone too often.

There is hardly any difference between aspiration and desire.

I remember that words like 'contentment' and 'satisfaction' we almost bad words. People made fun of people who were content.

'Ask for more'....'never be satisfied' ....were the buzz words in the mid 20th century. This attitude was encouraged by the possibilities that science & technology threw up. Anything was possible by humans. The stars were the limit.

Coupled with Atheism that had also become powerful at this time....it was a heady mixture. 

I remember some wise people warning against such attitudes as early as the 60's.  If we had applied the brakes at that time, we might have been in a better situation now.

[torridon]

There is hardly any difference between aspiration and desire.

I remember that words like 'contentment' and 'satisfaction' we almost bad words. People made fun of people who were content.

'Ask for more'....'never be satisfied' ....were the buzz words in the mid 20th century. This attitude was encouraged by the possibilities that science & technology threw up. Anything was possible by humans. The stars were the limit.

Coupled with Atheism that had also become powerful at this time....it was a heady mixture. 

I remember some wise people warning against such attitudes as early as the 60's.  If we had applied the brakes at that time, we might have been in a better situation now.

I don't really buy that, you're making a rather cheap elision between aspiration and consumerism.  We went to the Moon, partly because of the politics of the era, no doubt, but also because of the sheer challenge and the instinct for exploration.  To equate such things with consumer greed and atheism shows a lack of discernment.  Many people are inspired by exploration, the search for knowledge for its own sake.  Contrast that with an earlier age of exploration, the exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors.  No doubt their adventures were partly inspired by challenge and discovery, but their overriding rationale was to bring back riches for the Spanish Crown and Catholic Church.

[Sriram]

I don't really buy that, you're making a rather cheap elision between aspiration and consumerism.  We went to the Moon, partly because of the politics of the era, no doubt, but also because of the sheer challenge and the instinct for exploration.  To equate such things with consumer greed and atheism shows a lack of discernment.  Many people are inspired by exploration, the search for knowledge for its own sake.  Contrast that with an earlier age of exploration, the exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors.  No doubt their adventures were partly inspired by challenge and discovery, but their overriding rationale was to bring back riches for the Spanish Crown and Catholic Church.

There is a thin line between eating and overeating.  Similarly with all other needs, desires and aspirations. Which is the right amount and which is overdone will depend on the outcome, the culture, demographic mix and so on. Is wanting a Ferrari just an aspiration that leads to better products or is it vanity?

Climbing Mt.Everest was a noble aspiration at one time...not any more!  The filth that has accumulated at Mt.Everest is causing problems.