How could the human race colonize other planets?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > How could the human race colonize other planets?

Tenzarin: Jul 24, 2007; .; Taco Defender

Last I have heard NASA is funding the private sector for space travel. SpaceX has received a lot of contracts to do work for them.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 01:16

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

^^^ True, still its a shame NASAs budget is as small as it is, but it seems like much of it is going to good use. All the early SpaceX funding was paypal money though, at least the first four launches were completely private and they almost went bankrupt. Proof of competency secured those contracts.

Spazzle posted:

It is too bad those beancounters in the government stabbed us in the back, but at least the visionary captains of industry will bring us to space with the power of the free market.

This, but without sarcasm.

The Protagonist fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Aug 28, 2014

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:36

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

Nessus posted:

I dunno, if these guys piss away their SV fortunes on what amounts to a quasi-Apollo Program that will probably have socially beneficial effects too. They will, to be fair, probably be less direct than addressing childhood diseases, but this is the problem with our current model of 'hope a rich guy addresses it,' as our national man of letters Stephen King has ably observed.

Any time money is spent on technological research projects there will always be people saying how it's less beneficial to society than disease prevention/access to clean water/affordable housing/etc. That's going to be true regardless of whether society's model for scientific progress is 'hope a rich guy addresses it' or if it's 'hope one of our elected/appointed public servants addresses it'.

Regardless of who is funding it, the question is always going to be "how much of our resources should go to abstract scientific research that may or may not have useful benefits down the road instead of going to efforts to provide immediate relief to the poor?" Is the response to go full LF and say "none"?

If research into rocketry, robotics, autonomous manufacturing, etc. is pointless dickwaving, does the same principle hold true for "doesn't help anyone" money sinks like observatories and particle accelerators, or for that matter pretty much anything funded by the NSF? What should people be "allowed" to spend speculative R&D time/money on without being criticized for it being a waste?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 00:44

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

The Protagonist posted:

I should probably add the caveat that my cynicism would be right there on level with yours if we hadn't already seen incredible strides in private space enterprise in the last decade.

Private space enterprise, with massive public backing, has managed to shoot a bunch of satellites into orbit. Something public space programs have been doing for half a century. Proving once again that the free market, with the help of billions in government funding and access to government facilities, resources and engineers, can provide a less capable service for more money.

God bless the aerospace industry.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:07

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Yeah Lockheed, Boeing and ULA are some dirty bastards for sure, but on the other hand you've got a newcomer regularly competing with their lovely inflated prices and have successful designed a REUSABLE loving ROCKET. That's a Big Deal.

Also as far as I know Branson's thing and the Skylon guys don't get any gubmint money but I might be wrong.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:15

OtherworldlyInvader: Feb 10, 2005; The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.

computer parts posted:

The cost to extract Aluminum went down. The cost to space mine is not expected to go down. That's the key difference.

The cost of space mining should drastically decrease as industrial infrastructure is developed. The cost of anything in space is basically the cost of launching its mass off Earth. Initially, any usable material in space is going to be worth way more up there than down here, and that will probably be the driving force behind initial investment in space industrialization. I mentioned water before, which is really useful in space. It can be split up into fuel and oxidizer for rockets, or used to store power in a fuel cell. For manned missions it can work as a radiation shield and serve as a potable water source and oxygen supply. Its also heavy, and costs a lot to launch in significant quantity. Nobody's going to want to mine water and return it to Earth, but NASA would be very interested in buying water in space.

Step by step you transition to utilizing more local resources for things in space. As you have easy access to effectively unlimited material resources, the only limiting factor is your ability to harvest and use them. As time goes on you're going to hit turning points, where things start becoming cheaper in space than on Earth. Though in the long term, the benefits to Earth are probably a foot-note.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:21

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Isn't it more likely that we'll just develop space mining colonies to get all the rare earth elements we only have so much of on earth? Why would you want to live on Mars?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:36

Mrs. Wynand: Nov 23, 2002; DLT 4EVA

The Protagonist posted:

Also as far as I know Branson's thing and the Skylon guys don't get any gubmint money but I might be wrong.

Skylon is very gubmint funded. It's also not too promising IMO and neither is Branson's thing - space planes seem to be heading towards an evolutionary dead end.

Nessus posted:

I believe they are primarily associated with ores of uranium and thorium, which, you know, radioactive materials, people have Issues, etc.

Right... which is neatly side-stepped by dropping these radioactive materials out of orbit - something the international community is famously relaxed about.

reignonyourparade posted:

I think you'll find the easiest way to make money off asteroid harvesting is threatening to crash it into the earth if your demands aren't met.

I vaguely recall reading something (though I don't remember where) that said the best way to make money off a metal astroid is to simply park it in orbit and look like you're about to bring it down without actually doing so. As prices for <expensive metal> begin to collapse you just buy it all up and sit on it. If anyone gets fresh about it you can always drop it anyway.

Anyway, asteroid exploitation is certainly a much shorter order than human colonization and with or without capitalism there are going to be many useful applications for a sudden abundance of heavy/rare metals. I suppose it's possible the economics might work out in favour of simply digging deeper into the earth's crust and engaging in much larger scale and more advanced refining but that doesn't strike me as terribly likely (and it does strike me as terribly likely to cause significant environmental issues).

Redirecting an asteroid has a lot less unknowns about it and could probably be made viable with existing chemical rocket technology. It would certainly just be a fairly long unmanned mission and the largest obstacle would be the politics of bringing it down without causing an international incident. With nuclear-thermal rockets like NERVA which we know work but haven't actually built it would certainly be worth-while (and with nuclear-kinetic rockets like Orion even more so...).

That said I don't think the political issues are ever likely to be overcome barring some urgent need for such resources or a cultural sea change regarding nukes in space and intentionally pulling dinosaur-killers towards us.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:36

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Mr. Wynand posted:

Skylon is very gubmint funded. It's also not too promising IMO and neither is Branson's thing - space planes seem to be heading towards an evolutionary dead end.

Oh, I know I'd read/saw at some point they had their funding pulled, I'm glad they got it back even if the Skylon never flies, that precooler is just too cool.

And I'm not convinced the spaceplane is down for the count yet, especially with hybrid-style setups like the Dreamchaser, though maybe we still just call that a rocket.

If the Sabre does pan out though, spaceplanes definitely have promise.

Mr. Wynand posted:

Redirecting an asteroid has a lot less unknowns about it and could probably be made viable with existing chemical rocket technology. It would certainly just be a fairly long unmanned mission and the largest obstacle would be the politics of bringing it down without causing an international incident. With nuclear-thermal rockets like NERVA which we know work but haven't actually built it would certainly be worth-while (and with nuclear-kinetic rockets like Orion even more so...).

That said I don't think the political issues are ever likely to be overcome barring some urgent need for such resources or a cultural sea change regarding nukes in space and intentionally pulling dinosaur-killers towards us.

They key is babysteps, NASA is already planning a redirect to put a small body around the moon (or into an L-point? don't recall just this second), but public/policy opinion will shift as the capability matures.

Also in other private-innovation news, it looks like an xprize moon mission is slated to go up on a F9 in '15, so that's exciting.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 01:48

deptstoremook: Jan 12, 2004; my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your Aunt and Uncle in Bel-Air!"

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Any time money is spent on technological research projects there will always be people saying how it's less beneficial to society than disease prevention/access to clean water/affordable housing/etc. That's going to be true regardless of whether society's model for scientific progress is 'hope a rich guy addresses it' or if it's 'hope one of our elected/appointed public servants addresses it'.

Regardless of who is funding it, the question is always going to be "how much of our resources should go to abstract scientific research that may or may not have useful benefits down the road instead of going to efforts to provide immediate relief to the poor?" Is the response to go full LF and say "none"?

If research into rocketry, robotics, autonomous manufacturing, etc. is pointless dickwaving, does the same principle hold true for "doesn't help anyone" money sinks like observatories and particle accelerators, or for that matter pretty much anything funded by the NSF? What should people be "allowed" to spend speculative R&D time/money on without being criticized for it being a waste?

It's obvious that spending $X to, e.g., stop a person from starving to death for a day is money better spent than $X on any given scientific inquiry.

In this example the definite and immediate benefit of preventing starvation overrides any tenuous connection you might be able to draw between scientific research and humanitarian goals. Therefore the answers to your questions are "none," "yes," "nothing," and "no."

However we have a vested interest in pure or intellectual pursuits that makes this logic difficult to apprehend.

deptstoremook fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Aug 28, 2014

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:13

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

deptstoremook posted:

It's obvious that spending $X to, e.g., stop a person from starving to death for a day is money better spent than $X on any given scientific inquiry.

In this example the definite and immediate benefit of preventing starvation overrides any tenuous connection you might be able to draw between scientific research and humanitarian goals. Therefore the answers to your questions are "none," "yes," "nothing," and "no."

However we have a vested interest in pure or intellectual pursuits that makes this logic difficult to apprehend.

This is absurd because it isn't a question of "feed the hungry OR pursue scientific research." There a dozen other places the money to feed the starving could come from first without impinging research at all, easily, so the question becomes why isn't there the political will to do that?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:31

Strategic Tea: Sep 1, 2012

deptstoremook posted:

It's obvious that spending $X to, e.g., stop a person from starving to death for a day is money better spent than $X on any given scientific inquiry.

In this example the definite and immediate benefit of preventing starvation overrides any tenuous connection you might be able to draw between scientific research and humanitarian goals. Therefore the answers to your questions are "none," "yes," "nothing," and "no."

However we have a vested interest in pure or intellectual pursuits that makes this logic difficult to apprehend.

If you want pure logic you'd have to calculate how many more lives might be saved by technological developments. But since that's beyond us, yeah, let's just go with your gut feeling.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:32

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

deptstoremook posted:

It's obvious that spending $X to, e.g., stop a person from starving to death for a day is money better spent than $X on any given scientific inquiry.

In this example the definite and immediate benefit of preventing starvation overrides any tenuous connection you might be able to draw between scientific research and humanitarian goals. Therefore the answers to your questions are "none," "yes," "nothing," and "no."

However we have a vested interest in pure or intellectual pursuits that makes this logic difficult to apprehend.

So as long as anyone has not reached the same level as me on Maslow's hierarchy of needs I should be morally compelled to give all of my spare resources to helping everyone else reach the level I'm currently on?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 02:50

deptstoremook: Jan 12, 2004; my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your Aunt and Uncle in Bel-Air!"

Strategic Tea posted:

If you want pure logic you'd have to calculate how many more lives might be saved by technological developments. But since that's beyond us, yeah, let's just go with your gut feeling.

What you propose is to gamble with knowledge of neither the odds nor the possible winnings. My plan would be of certain benefit.

The Protagonist posted:

This is absurd because it isn't a question of "feed the hungry OR pursue scientific research." There a dozen other places the money to feed the starving could come from first without impinging research at all, easily, so the question becomes why isn't there the political will to do that?

It is certainly unfortunate that no political will exists to divert funds from other sources to feed the starving. However this state of affairs lends support to what I have said. If feeding the starving is more beneficial than scientific research, which I think it is, all funds from the former ought to be diverted to the latter.

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

So as long as anyone has not reached the same level as me on Maslow's hierarchy of needs I should be morally compelled to give all of my spare resources to helping everyone else reach the level I'm currently on?

Yes.

780 million people lack clean water, 870 million are chronically undernourished, and 1.3 billion live without electricity. Discussing space colonization under such circumstances is incoherent at best.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:03

Tenzarin: Jul 24, 2007; .; Taco Defender

Space exploration will not happen in till cheap entry and escape from planets is well known/practiced. Debating about how to colonize planets with only we means we have known is not feasible.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:07

OtherworldlyInvader: Feb 10, 2005; The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.

Spazzle posted:

It's always easy to make claims about your success when the time window is longer than the lifespan of those you are trying to convince. This is always the mo of the space industry, say we'll totally do something cool starting in 20 years and keep the ball rolling until the dumb money dries up. There will always be useful idiots willing to go to bat to defend the dream.

Spazzle posted:

Go back 20 years and you'll probably see serious predictions about how we'll be sending people to mars in 2018. The space industry has no credibility about cost or achievement prediction outside it's own echo chamber.

That's not quite what happens. The President says we're ~~going to mars~~ ~~building a moon base~~ ~~building an orbital death ray~~ returning to the moon in CYBER-YEAR 20XX, congress says "we're not paying for it" and NASA says "it's not going to happen, but lets act like it is in front of the public". Nobody's getting rich off pie in the sky programs because there was no serious money was being put into them.

If you want space industry guzzling money, you have to look at things like the Space Shuttle or the Constellation program. The shuttle ate up about a third of NASA's annual budget for 30 years, just to get to low earth orbit. NASA estimated Constellation would cost even more money over a shorter period of time for a couple of lovely rockets worse than things we've built before (and would probably kill people). The contractors involved (ULA & Friends) made out like bandits, and congressmen cheered them along to keep money flowing into their districts.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:08

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

deptstoremook posted:

780 million people lack clean water, 870 million are chronically undernourished, and 1.3 billion live without electricity. Discussing space colonization under such circumstances is incoherent at best.

So to what extent is it morally acceptable to do something that doesn't address these problems? If working for a spaceship company is morally unjustifiable because it doesn't directly help anyone, is spending your free time arguing about it on the internet morally acceptable? Under what circumstances is it even morally acceptable to have free time at all when so many people are in need? How far down the Maoist Third-Worldist rabbit hole does this go?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 03:09

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Strategic Tea posted:

If you want pure logic you'd have to calculate how many more lives might be saved by technological developments. But since that's beyond us, yeah, let's just go with your gut feeling.

well really, it's illogical to do anything at all ever since everyone will die someday and nothing matters anyway

# ? Aug 28, 2014 04:42

Spacman: Mar 18, 2014

I think the biggest problem with colonising other planets or shooting off large populations of people to other stars is it just reinforces our current totally broken method of dealing with humanity in general. If we colonise other worlds it will basically be due to the pursuit of resources post scarcity, this does nothing to address the issue of why we have got to that point in the first place. You will also see a diaspora as a method of population control, rather than rectifying the underlying problem. It will likely stave off the collapse for a few centuries, but all we would be doing is either exporting the issue or covering it by importing resources.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 05:30

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Ernie Muppari posted:

well really, it's illogical to do anything at all ever since everyone will die someday and nothing matters anyway

Is Buddhism compatible with Scientific Posting?

deptstoremook posted:

It is certainly unfortunate that no political will exists to divert funds from other sources to feed the starving. However this state of affairs lends support to what I have said. If feeding the starving is more beneficial than scientific research, which I think it is, all funds from the former ought to be diverted to the latter.
Yes.

780 million people lack clean water, 870 million are chronically undernourished, and 1.3 billion live without electricity. Discussing space colonization under such circumstances is incoherent at best.

Do you think that Norman Borlaug's scientific research was justified? The resources he consumed in the course of his career could probably have saved hundreds of lives.

Nessus fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Aug 28, 2014

# ? Aug 28, 2014 05:34

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Nessus posted:

Is Buddhism compatible with Scientific Posting?

all language and thought which does not immediately solve all complicated socioeconomic problems is immoral

# ? Aug 28, 2014 05:48

1994 Toyota Celica: Sep 11, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Regardless of who is funding it, the question is always going to be "how much of our resources should go to abstract scientific research that may or may not have useful benefits down the road instead of going to efforts to provide immediate relief to the poor?" Is the response to go full LF and say "none"?

It doesn't seem so extreme to me to suggest that the human species could stand to take a few decades off abstract research to focus on establishing a respectable baseline universal standard of living, but I'm just a small town communist

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:02

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

zeal posted:

It doesn't seem so extreme to me to suggest that the human species could stand to take a few decades off abstract research to focus on establishing a respectable baseline universal standard of living, but I'm just a small town communist

And god knows that scientific research has never once led to any advances, intentionally or inadvertently, that would make that easier to be achieved.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:11

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Spacman posted:

I think the biggest problem with colonising other planets or shooting off large populations of people to other stars is it just reinforces our current totally broken method of dealing with humanity in general. If we colonise other worlds it will basically be due to the pursuit of resources post scarcity, this does nothing to address the issue of why we have got to that point in the first place. You will also see a diaspora as a method of population control, rather than rectifying the underlying problem. It will likely stave off the collapse for a few centuries, but all we would be doing is either exporting the issue or covering it by importing resources.

What makes you think that we'll be able to deal with these intrinsic issues any other way in the first place? What is the mechanism for changing human nature? I've had some outlandish and downright dystopian ideas in my free time which I won't expound upon here but I'll just say that you can't really expect basic evolutionary nature to fade any time soon.

So, a thought experiment: humanity, dying out from exponential growth and inadequate resource acquisition manages to send a single starship out to a new habitable planet before going extinct on earth.

In the grand, cosmic scale, is humanity a successful species if that ship manages to land, colonize, and ultimately reignite civilization?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:12

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

zeal posted:

It doesn't seem so extreme to me to suggest that the human species could stand to take a few decades off abstract research to focus on establishing a respectable baseline universal standard of living, but I'm just a small town communist

yeah im sure that the only thing keeping that from happening is the few thousand people using an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the time and resources available to us as a species to look at molecules and poo poo

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:28

Dr.Zeppelin: Dec 5, 2003

Spacman posted:

I think the biggest problem with colonising other planets or shooting off large populations of people to other stars is it just reinforces our current totally broken method of dealing with humanity in general. If we colonise other worlds it will basically be due to the pursuit of resources post scarcity, this does nothing to address the issue of why we have got to that point in the first place. You will also see a diaspora as a method of population control, rather than rectifying the underlying problem. It will likely stave off the collapse for a few centuries, but all we would be doing is either exporting the issue or covering it by importing resources.

The human brain is notoriously bad at handling exponential growth. If we woke up tomorrow and Mars was fully terraformed and ready for settlement, it still wouldn't even come close to doubling the amount of habitable land we would have to settle on. If you started colonizing the planet when Earth was "full" (if it isn't there already), it wouldn't even take a generation for Mars to become equally jam-packed full of people assuming a 2% population growth rate would remain.

A whole other planet to live on sounds like such a huge deal because it took so many many doubling periods to fill the first one, but it really isn't because it only takes one to fill the second.

Space research is certainly interesting and could lead to lots of useful advances on Earth like more abundant raw materials, more automation of dangerous jobs, low-water agriculture, and tools to more effectively fight climate change, but it's not going to be a practical way of dealing with overpopulation any time soon.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:30

Kaal: May 22, 2002; through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

zeal posted:

It doesn't seem so extreme to me to suggest that the human species could stand to take a few decades off abstract research to focus on establishing a respectable baseline universal standard of living, but I'm just a small town communist

We've basically been doing that for the last 40-50 years. Research funding has practically flat-lined since the hey-day of WWII and the early Cold War. So far it looks like the human condition is still imperfect. Realistically, the only thing that is going to change global socio-economic problems is something that fundamentally alters the system - i.e. significant developments in asteroid mining, space solar, synthetic fossil fuels, fusion reactors, nanotechnology, etc. If we're going to wait until the great marxist revolution creates a new utopia, we'll be waiting a very long time indeed.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:31

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

zeal posted:

It doesn't seem so extreme to me to suggest that the human species could stand to take a few decades off abstract research to focus on establishing a respectable baseline universal standard of living, but I'm just a small town communist

What would actually accomplish this goal is taking a few decades off most of the military spending we have. Abstract research is a few drops in the bucket, and as has been said, this tiny paucity we allocate actually tends to produce things that can change situations for the positive. Like I said: Do you think the resources spent and consumed by Norman Borlaug in his research career should have been instead directly applied to relief for the hungry? (I am namedropping him because his work drastically increased world crop yields)

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:50

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

Kaal posted:

significant developments in asteroid mining, space solar, synthetic fossil fuels, fusion reactors, nanotechnology, etc.

As much as I love all these things, near as I can figure the biggest leap in new energy acquisition with readily available off the shelf tech is LFTR.

Write to your ignorant congressman.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 06:51

Tenzarin: Jul 24, 2007; .; Taco Defender

Why would the goal be to live on another planet, they are flawed. Living in space would advance the species way ahead, human bone structure is at the whim of gravity. Planets are a cradle, space is the world.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:07

reignonyourparade: Nov 15, 2012

Nessus posted:

Abstract research is a few drops in the bucket, and as has been said, this tiny paucity we allocate actually tends to produce things that can change situations for the positive.

All it would probably accomplish is if we ended up needing any of that scientific knowledge in an emergency we'd not have anyone new have gone into the relevant fields and also what former members of that field were still around would be out of practice.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:12

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

If you think spending money on 'abstract research' is what is preventing a strong baseline standard of living, then you're a bit gullible. We dont' have that because powerful people don't want it, not because EGGHEADS BLOWING OUR MONEY ON THEIR TOYS :argh:

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:14

deptstoremook: Jan 12, 2004; my mom got scared and said "you're moving with your Aunt and Uncle in Bel-Air!"

Kaal posted:

We've basically been doing that for the last 40-50 years. Research funding has practically flat-lined since the hey-day of WWII and the early Cold War. So far it looks like the human condition is still imperfect. Realistically, the only thing that is going to change global socio-economic problems is something that fundamentally alters the system - i.e. significant developments in asteroid mining, space solar, synthetic fossil fuels, fusion reactors, nanotechnology, etc. If we're going to wait until the great marxist revolution creates a new utopia, we'll be waiting a very long time indeed.

The only thing less realistic than a Marxist utopia is a post-scarcity utopia.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:16

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

reignonyourparade posted:

All it would probably accomplish is if we ended up needing any of that scientific knowledge in an emergency we'd not have anyone new have gone into the relevant fields and also what former members of that field were still around would be out of practice.

Well it depends who "we" is. If America went full Khmer Rouge, and assuming we didn't bring everyone else down with us with atomic bombs, presumably other nations (after the massive economic depression shook itself out) would not follow our idiotic example. I presume in practical sense when they say "take all money from scientific research and put it into direct hunger relief," the practical policy equivalent would be "focus the gist of what research we did do on addressing these problems directly." This would not necessarily be bad, though it would probably be accompanied by a bunch of arbitrary political requirements and such, which is still true NOW, but it would be a DIFFERENT, and possibly ironically problematic, set of obstacles.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 07:20

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 206 days!

rudatron posted:

If you think spending money on 'abstract research' is what is preventing a strong baseline standard of living, then you're a bit gullible. We dont' have that because powerful people don't want it, not because EGGHEADS BLOWING OUR MONEY ON THEIR TOYS

This. Space exploration is a lot more likely to happen than planet-wide social justice, because rich and powerful people want space exploration. Not because it's profitable; the idea that profit and efficiency drive today's power-brokers is capitalist mythology. They want big cool toys, just like the Pharaohs did.

Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 28, 2014

# ? Aug 28, 2014 09:56

SKELETONS: May 8, 2014

Hodgepodge posted:

This. Space exploration is a lot more likely to happen than planet-wide social justice, because rich and powerful people want space exploration.

The rich and powerful are spending far more on social justice type causes than space exploration though. You have Gates, Buffet, Bloomberg and a bunch of others, whereas billionaires are putting far less into space. Elon Musk's total investment in SpaceX is ~100m, Bezos is about $500m in Blue Origin and Branson hasn't put much at all into VG, it's mostly smaller investors from Abu Dhabi.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 10:08

Spacman: Mar 18, 2014

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Space research is certainly interesting and could lead to lots of useful advances on Earth like more abundant raw materials, more automation of dangerous jobs, low-water agriculture, and tools to more effectively fight climate change, but it's not going to be a practical way of dealing with overpopulation any time soon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all over the technical, scientific and practical advancement that undoubtedly comes from funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer and private money into space exploration. The Apollo Program is proof positive of the advantages of that. I'm just concerned that the current interest by corporate entities and specific governments is all about externalities, rather than for the good of mankind in general.

eg. I'm fairly certain that China, and to a lesser extent India, are not bombing the money they currently are into space science and heavy lift capability because they are altruistic. It may have a bit to do with population density and resource scarcity. The US hasn't dismantled their space program and privatised it because they can't fund it, they could fund just about anything they want if the last 13 years are anything to go by, they have done it because any advances or patents will be corporate rather than publicly owned.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 13:11

khwarezm: Oct 26, 2010; Deal with it.

Tenzarin posted:

Why would the goal be to live on another planet, they are flawed. Living in space would advance the species way ahead, human bone structure is at the whim of gravity. Planets are a cradle, space is the world.

You know, I think posts like this are what really sour so much space travel discussion for me. Planet Earth is loving awesome, loving AWESOME. The fact that so many people seem to have such an apathetic view towards the only known location in the Universe with life, and at that complex, fascinating, varied life spread out over the most varied and beautiful environments imaginable depresses me deeply. Earth is a concentrated, contrasting smorgasbord of so many things and its also where humans are perfectly adapted to live on, on the other hand most of whats out in space is incredibly hostile to all life, is hopelessly dead and is all so far apart from each other that it takes vast amounts of time to travel between the huge voids to reach them that individual (or even greatly enhanced) human lifespans would be blinks of an eye.

I'd love to travel into space, and I believe that successfully exploiting resources off of the earth might be one of the best shots humanity has for solving the legion environmental problems we face, but I'd much rather live here than in limited metal tube going through a whole lotta nothing.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 17:18

Tenzarin: Jul 24, 2007; .; Taco Defender

Could we just build like a huge engine on the Earth and fly around space in a planet?

# ? Aug 28, 2014 17:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 01:16

plushpuffin: Jan 10, 2003; Fratercula arctica; Nap Ghost

Tenzarin posted:

Could we just build like a huge engine on the Earth and fly around space in a planet?

Puppeteer account spotted.

# ? Aug 28, 2014 19:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > How could the human race colonize other planets?

«‹›12 »