0
   

Should We Aim at the Stars?

 
 
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 02:35 pm
Do you believe that mankind ought to make efforts to develop interstellar travel, and use it to explore, and, if possible, colonize the nearest couple of dozen stars?

I am not asking whether you believe that we ought to do this quickly. We don't have anything like the technology necessary. I am asking whether you believe that we ought to have it as a long term goal, and shape our space program to at least include steps leading in that direction. For instance, if we had this as a goal, we might colonize the moon, develop a lunar space station, develop space based industries, improve the efficiency and power of our space vehicles, colonize Mars, etc. We would attempt to build better ships, learn how to create extra-terrestrial colonies, get good at putting men into space for long periods of time, so that in some distant future, we could colonize the more hospitable of the neighboring solar systems.

Should we begin to travel down this path, or should we not?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 814 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 03:51 pm
I think it might be a good idea to take the steps necessary to prepare for such ventures--but one problem is that it will cost a great deal, and it would require an international effort to get the job done. Keeping a base on the Moon, for example, could be very expensive, since few of the resources to keep people alive could be produced there, unless it were a very small garrison. I do think we ought to prepare for such long-distance travel, but doubt that the political situation of the human race will make it easy.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 04:06 pm
The find of water on the moon makes it much more valuable, and accessible.

They've made some great strides in the efficiency of solar panels, as well.

Hydroponics have been well-researched.


Vegetarians shall inherit the stars, methinks.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jan, 2007 04:16 pm
Helium-3 may prove to be the perfect fuel, and the moon has tons of it. Theoretically, the day may come soon that the effort of sustaining life on the moon may be profitable despite the enormous expense. I suspect we'll begin exploring space for the same reason we do most everything: Profit.

And to answer your question; hell yes. Mankind will not survive if we keep all of our eggs in one basket.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 11:37 pm
I don't see most technology as inherently good or bad. So with the ability to colonise the stars comes the question of ethics - the should or shouldn't we interject our species beyond our planet to conquer and/or administer other domains before we have reached a wholesome level of self fulfilment. We could be considered tyrants, benovelent dictators, or demi-gods by a less evolved race, and how would we fill if it was done, or is being done to us?

Imagine you had a choice:

Conquer space
Conquer the quantum world (maybe hugely bigger than space)
Travel to other realities witihin a multiverse
Gain enlightnment and live in harmony

Which would you choose to do first (assuming they were mutually exclusive at first)?

First world humans have a bad track record of colonising lesser domains and peoples, should we inflict oursleves on others until we are more compassionate and caring? What are our goals for conquering some, most or even all of the Universe? Would it bring more happiness to all?

Personally I could evisage that within my lifetime physics and reality could be better understood so that distance and travel aren't limited by our framework of science of today. If the underlying reality is far different then we understand it, then it obeys different rules with different limits. Imagine if you got a far, far, far faster than light teleporter going with impossible levels of precision - than fuels and energy management would a constraint of the past, Sure it would turn relativity on its head - but many new scientific frameworks do that to their precedessors.

Personally I think we should better understand all sciences and ethical frameworks to get a better, balanced future. On space travel I think explore the quantum world to better understand reality and how to potentially control it before you build huge rockets to go everywhere at really slow speeds on a cosmic scale!

Imagine if hyper intelligent life already existed, but its form was on a nano-scale. What would it think of our plans?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 11:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
The find of water on the moon makes it much more valuable, and accessible.

They've made some great strides in the efficiency of solar panels, as well.

Hydroponics have been well-researched.


Vegetarians shall inherit the stars, methinks.


They could eat gerbils and earthworms for meat.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 12:05 am
It's a fantastic idea! But waaaay too expensive.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 12:09 am
Re: Should We Aim at the Stars?
Brandon9000 wrote:
Should we begin to travel down this path, or should we not?


We should. Definitely.

The Earth is not a safe basket to keep all our eggs in. No single place is. And every civilization that reaches at least our level of understanding will recognize this fact, whether they are able to act on it or not.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 01:20 am
What right do we have to screw up other planets?

I vote we stay here until we clean up this mess and then and only then maybe we could we contemplate spreading our peculiar brand of caca to unsuspecting worlds.






Just a thought.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 02:31 am
Mame wrote:
What right do we have to screw up other planets?

I vote we stay here until we clean up this mess and then and only then maybe we could we contemplate spreading our peculiar brand of caca to unsuspecting worlds.
Perhaps we're destined to be interstellar cockroaches, who pillage one planet after the next. With the nearest star being 4.3 light years away, and even so being VERY unlikely to have an Earth-like planet to plunder, I think it will likely be awhile before we need to consider the ethics of such an endeavor. I further theorize that before our technology is advanced enough to locate an acceptable alternative planet and manufacture the means to get there; we will have long since solved our maturity problems here on Earth. Frankly, I don't think we're likely to survive that long. Technology is out pacing Humanity by to great a measure. But, we may as well work in that direction, just in case we make it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 06:37 am
My own feeling is that we would simply explore and see what's there. If the planet were inhabited, we would try to say hello and make friends, if the inhabitants were sufficiently similar to make meaningful communications even possible. If it were uninhabited and at all hospitable, we might think about putting down a colony. A great Russian physicist once said, "The Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should We Aim at the Stars?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 12:58:53