STEPHEN HAWKING: WE HAVE 100 YEARS TO LEAVE EARTH

Virus-bot still at it

what you say is all true. Som several agencies qnd agribusiness companies have sponsored research on agricultur methods on MArs.
The study o halophytes that can be used as food has developed loong lists of possible plants that ca be grown in very high salinity soils, including the Sulphates seen on Mars. I was amazed at reading about resaerch at U o Wisconsin for grains ; (barley millet ,quinoa,slicorn, saltwort (many others that we dont know much about but were used by ancient people ll over the world) VEGETABLES; Agave, beets, tomatoes (specific varieties like ROMA) dates, egg plnt, samfire weed,sea kale,rocket,jujube,tmarind, carob,FRUITS; marula , crnberries,sea blite , momgongo,FODDER AND GRASSES;acacia, alfalfa, bermuda grass, trefoil, salt marsh hay etc etc.


Itll be more an experiment on developing the vast areas that may be needed for growth using a fairly sterile media. Plants dont really need soil much of their respiration and nutrient uptake is via trqnspirqtion qnd chlorophyll production in the leaves. Soil is a holdfast, an provides mostly micronutrients except for grasses which convert the NOx into biomass.
Ill bet theyll be growing mushrooms and hogs.

U of Wisconsin won some prize for a habitat (surface model).Is built more like a thermos bottle with levels inside .I think some outfit is working on "Suburban development: beneath the martian "soil".

I don't suggest that we cannot do this. What my point is is that we would be asking people to make sacrifices from which neither they, nor their children nor their children's children will ever derive a benefit. We are also expecting people to leave Terra on a one-way, no return ticket, to live the rest of their lives underground, with that condition to be operative for centuries at least.

We are asking this for a notional benefit to the species, and not to any individuals who can be identified. Good luck to us with that.

One site I was looking at the other day suggested they may send teams of four in the beginning, one way, of course. The first four, according to what I read, would last nearly three months before succumbing. Only the truly dedicated need apply.

I'm pretty sure "climate change" is a fact. The climate has been in a state of flux for eons.

Not in a Milton Friedman sense, no.

The left has been whittling away at free markets for quite some time now, but we are still essentially a capitalist nation.

All of which had market based economies

Well, at least you think there will be a "we" in 1,000 years.

If it affects the current agricultural regions of the earth, it will have a marked effect, but you are overly discounting the adaptability of humans.

In any case,regardless of what you or I believe, nothing is going to change until it's too late to change. We are a highly adaptive species but we're not so good at preventing the crisis which forces us to adapt.

All of the money being spent researching "settled science" should be diverted to mitigation efforts.

I don't get your point then. I thought you were implying that capitalism is the society that has led to the greatest economic expansion.

If you are lumping together every civilization from Ancient Rome and Israel under King David to imperial China and pre-colonial India and then saying that they were all capitalist... then what's the point?

Because there have been empires that were not based on markets

It's a fairly recent phenomena but Communist China (pre Deng) and the Soviet Union are two prime examples of remarkable failures

If you are including Ancient Egypt, Rome, Israel, pre-colonial India and Imperial China as market based economies, I think the number of economies that weren't market based would be a handful of communist countries that developed in the latter part of the 20th century.

If you are making the case the Communism was a failure, you will not any argument from me.

Are there any other countries that you would consider "non-market" based?

Yes, but most of them have realized that prosperity is based on free markets and are transitioning.

The US and most Western Democracies have always been regulated free markets; free markets combined with some amount of public spending and government regulation. This has seemed to work very well for us.

The question then becomes how much regulation is beneficial, and what public spending is appropriate. I think our quibbles now are more over extent than basic principle.

I don't know of anyone who advocates for a completely free market. You can correct me if I am wrong.

Milton Friedman certainly did and until the UK gave Hong Kong to the Chi-coms it was about as close to a totally free market society as we've seen...and wildly successful.

Carry on, trolls.

Would you prefer your thread to die from neglect?

Again, both Milton Friedman and Hong Kong are more libertarian than I am. But Milton Friedman accepted the need for some regulation (famously in the Financial Services industry) and Hong Kong has always had things like labor laws.

Sure Hong Kong, and Friedman are on the far end of the "free market" spectrum. But even with these examples you see the need for regulation.

Again, this becomes a argument of degree, not of absolutist principle.

I think "troll" is a compliment Finn. He is happy that we are engaging in a civil discussion instead of the normal mudslinging that happens around here.

Aren't you the Happy Warrior!

No it's not.

Free market economies have done more to raise people from poverty than any other system.