@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:Yes, of course, exposure to cosmic radiation is a problem that must be overcome, but because there is not presently a definitive solution is no reason to assume that one can not be developed, and it is hardly cock-eyed optomisim to have confidence in our ability to do so.
Well, in fact, the term i used was not "cock-eyed optomism" [
sic]. Rather, what i wrote was: "I suspect that most other people who get that starry-eyed look and dream of cosmic colonization don't. (i.e., think about it)"
At not time did i claim to be expert, nor to state that extra-planetary colonization is impossible or will never happen. Specifically, what i said was that it might take place in the distant future. As i responded to Bill's straw man criticism, my point was about the practical considerations, and the likelihood of the population of the planet in general being reconciled to the enormous expenses involved in such an effort.
Your remark about doing a Mars mission for (at the outside) $500,000,000,000 gives a hint to what the expense would be if such an effort were made involving hundreds or thousands of passengers (for a good chance of success, you'd need at least thousands to have the necessary "DNA mix" and to take into account "wastage"). The costs would be on the order of many trillions of dollars, perhaps (and very likely) hundreds of trillions of dollars. So a significant part of my remarks concerned itself with the question of whether or not the population of the planet would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices for an effort from which they would not necessarily see any benefit accruing to themselves. Especially, you'd be highly unlikely to get the capitalist "bottom line" boys to line up behind such an effort.
You offer the example of bailing out the auto makers. I found it interesting that you didn't refer to the bail out, for almost 50 times as much, given to the greedy bankers who had ruined their own businesses through greed and cupidity. A lot of people don't agree with either bail out, and those who do only agree because they fear the consequences of doing nothing to the consequences of spending so much tax money. Transfer the idea to extra-planetary, manned exploration or extra-planetary colonization, and i think it should be clear that most of the planet's population are not going to want to spend the enormous sums necessary for a proposition the likely profits of which can be seen as dubious at best.
Once again, i said that i consider such a mission to Mars to be beneficial because of both the known and the unforeseen benefits which arise from such efforts. It was from there, however, that i proceeded to the proposition of extra-planetary colonization. For such an effort as that, i opined that it is something which if it does occur, will likely occur in the distant future.
)