Water is a natural resource, we reuse and treat with chemicals because we use so much of it. Places like Perth Australia, have had to invest in desalination plants. Water is not as abundantly available as you might think. We have aquifers that give us perfectly clean water, naturally filtered by the rock. Again the planet provides. Food, we are heading down the Monsanto seed route, being told we need it otherwise we starve. How can we have a patent on a seed. We live longer, so we comsume more for longer. Its a vicious circle. A ray of sunshine, na, im just an idiot trying to understand why things are the way they are.
Setting up a colony on another planet in our own solar system would be possible using developments of existing technology. The cost would be enormous and what we might get back is debatable; as I said before helium-3 is being touted as a possible fuel for fusion reactors. Using any such colony as a solution to overcrowding on Earth is laughable. Travelling to other solar systems is way beyond any current or future technology possible within the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them. It would require a fundamental break through in our theoretical understanding of those laws and the development of entirely new technologies. This will not come from sending men to Mars, which would be a development of 50 year old technology. The problems of powered flight were solved by some bicycle engineers using their own resources, Apollo took hundreds of thousands of people and many billions of dollars but there was no real quantum leap in technology other than micro electronics, which was more enabling than fundamental in it's contribution. Dream on those who think that mankind's future lies in the stars.
And has driven human over-population. The real motive for trying to reach other planets isn't to find and colonise new Earths and save our glorious species from extinction, its to find new resources to exploit to feed the industrialisation of our own planet after we've exhausted everything here. Science may do the research but its the corporate world that writes the cheques and they sure ain't doing it for the good of mankind let alone any other species. The idea is to turn our planetary neighbours into quarries to continue what we've begun on this world not create some new Shangri-La for enlightened mankind.
I've noticed that I'm not on the same page as many. When I think about the future extinction if the human race I just don't really care. Species have come and gone on this planet and we'll just be another of them. I'd far sooner that Earth was still a fab place with loads of interesting animals on it and no mankind than a scenario in which Earth is a dead planet but that mankind has brilliantly escaped to go and live on a lump of rock somewhere in space. Life is not just existence and all the best things in life are free.
Like you I suspect, I have had many years to chew things over and observe what's happening to the planet and so do have a few theories. Not the kind of thing that I would like to include on a public forum for guaranteed ridicule however. One obvious question though that is staring us all in the face what shall we do after oil?
Well, I'm glad that we have discovered everything there is to know about engineering, space flight and such. We can certainly put our rocket scientists to much better use now. Hmm, I wonder whether previous generations have concluded that there is nothing more we can know?
So we should give up on our dreams of exploring the universe because some are too short sighted to believe we can and others believe we should wipe out most of the population instead? I don't believe for one minute that the human race 'matters' in the grand scheme of things. However I am proud of our achievements as a race, maybe I'm a glass half full guy as I would rather look at the massive good our race is capable of instead of the bad. As an engineer I want to push the boundaries of what we are capable of, honestly I couldn't care less who writes the cheques if I can do some good with it! There is no reason at all why we cannot get our rampant population under control and kerb our consumption habits yet still explore the next frontier, they are not mutually exclusive.
Also, people seem to be conflating the issues of self-imposed destruction and an externally generated catastrophe. Space exploration will do nothing to help with over-population and over-exploitation of resources. Those problems will have to be solved here, on the ground, long before any possible extra-terrestrial solution can come about. What I'd like to see is a plan for human survival for when our ant-lottery ticket numbers come up - ELE via asteroid, solar flare or other "cosmic disaster", not to mention the kind of destruction that would occur from an eruption of the Yellowstone Park super-volcano. If people can tell me, categorically, that no form of space flight - generation arks, cryostasis technology or other options undreamed of - will ever take viable populations off of the planet and onto new worlds ... well then, I will settle into the laissez-faire, who-cares attitude that others advocate.
Im teetering on the fence here.On the one hand,I would like to see whatadvances science comes up with,in the search for deep space travel.Bigger,better,faster etc.On the other,I think,Glidd for Prez!
Push our boundaries as much as you like; as an engineer presumably you understand the limits of whatever you are working with; it isn't about technology and there are limits to what we are capable of. The problem is the fundamental laws of physics. Speed of light ? Space time ?
I'm not proud of what we have achieved because it has been so destructive. If our species is capable of doing great good (for the world we live on, that is, not for ourselves - those two things do seem to be mutually exclusive) I have yet to see any evidence of it. The best we have managed to date is to slow the rate of destruction relative to the expansion of the population and provide partial and short-term repair to the damage we have already caused. That isn't a glorious achievement, its a finger in the dyke. Human over-population and voracious consumption have not been and will not be mitigated by the advance of technology, they have been and will continue to be driven by it. That relationship needs to be reversed. In the absence of some unconnected natural cataclysm, all species which overpopulate eventually suffer catastrophic collapse either through starvation or disease. All we have done with our inventiveness is buy a postponement. We have not rewritten the rules and we will not. In fact I'm not even sure if postponement is the right word. If we look at what we have done in the blinkingly short time scale of human existence I'm not sure we haven't accelerated the process. If we were talking about redirecting our intelligence and creative energies to find ways of living better and less numerous lives that would be an entirely different matter. But that is not the case. The presumption is that our story is one of success, that we should continue to live as we are and expand our species with its all-devouring philosophy and that the challenge is to find new sources or energy and raw materials to make that possible. If we cannot change that mindset it would be better if we were indeed confined to this isolated, perhaps quarantined world, until we expire and the danger we pose is past.
"Interesting animals"? Interesting to whom, given that in this scenario there is no mankind to be interested?
I tired to answer two posts in one reply and for some reason Attila's post was attributed to you and your post was lost completely, it wasn't deliberate or even under my control.
