|
 you were saying
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Mars sounds like just about the right distance to go to get away from the OP's post history!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
not just the op's
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I think the best part of all this is fixating on the idea of living on Mars permanently, rather than using it to better understand how to build long-term habitats in hostile environments, with the eventual goal of developing space habitats with controlled environments. Our understanding of controlled ecologies (which is the biggest hurdle to indefinite occupation space habitats) is so incredibly awful right now that I'm not sure there's actually much science we can do about it in space or on Mars that we can't do here on Earth, and I'm not even misanthropically opposed to all space exploration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
yes as long as biosphere XXVIII on the planet earth is not working that is good evidence we are actually bad at building whole ecosystems then again these things have the problem of being very restricted area wise (a few acres is not a large habitat) and similarly small isolated habitat fragments often go to poo poo even when open air and left to themselves, so i suspect that to a large extent it's a question of scale buffering out the craptastic variability and noise in biological systems (or you have to manually intervene all the loving time  :understanding:)
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:29
|
|
UberJew posted:Our understanding of controlled ecologies (which is the biggest hurdle to indefinite occupation space habitats) is so incredibly awful right now that I'm not sure there's actually much science we can do about it in space or on Mars that we can't do here on Earth, and I'm not even misanthropically opposed to all space exploration. Getting to the point of doing this science on Mars would take at least two decades, probably four realistically speaking. With an actual effort at developing controlled ecology... But it does provide a better environment than anywhere that isn't Earth, and one that's hostile enough for high-end stress tests.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Why don't we just use robots. Looks like it works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I'm actually a leftist I just prefer that people aren't impelled to pay for the go-nowhere fantasies of dorks. Yeah, go nowhere fantasies. Surely that is why you are on a computer and posting on the internet, all of which was largely developed with tax dollars and government funding. What was it you were saying again? Oh, and the fact that you consider the space race 'Go-nowhere fantasies of dorks' pretty much sells us on how stupid you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
quote:Industrial civilization is actually entirely unnecessary, so your logic would compel you to say that space travel is more important than maintaining factories. Necessity is a, well, a Tezzor-esque ideal to uphold. I've noticed that D&D posters choose to retreat into the most grasping and ludicrous attempts at equivalence and accusations of hypocrisy when they can't actually justify their ideas on their own merits. Why do you think that is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
who could possibly care about atoms, besides turbonerds who could possibly need about quantum physics, which makes heads hurt especially if you're not a major geek why study bird flight if people were made to fly we would have wings lol there is a world market for about 5 computers
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Here's a reason: some people want to do that. Here's another reason: the process of developing an artificial ecosystem that can support itself would show us a lot about how to have a sustainable industrial civilization. Here's a third reason: it seems to make you angry and upset. Please don't project your anger just because I pointed out the cold hard facts about human space colonization. Here is a nice statistic I read the other day; humans are totally at the mercy of global warming which is the effect of 1 part per million extra of Co2 in the atmosphere. Our feeble technology can't manage to affect 1 part per million of our atmosphere for the better. Now consider those who propose that we terraform mars. We would need to affect one million parts per million of an atmosphere. I wish the individuals who try to do this good luck. I'm all in favor of space exploration. I encourage humanity to immediately pursue a large number of unmanned explorations of our solar system and I'm following the progress of New Horizons over the next moth very closely and with great interest. However, I won't let my enthusiasm for space exploration cloud my vision so that I naively believe that humans will have self-sustaining colonies in space before we're able to get our poo poo together and create self-sustaining colonies on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I've noticed that D&D posters choose to retreat into the most grasping and ludicrous attempts at equivalence and accusations of hypocrisy when they can't actually justify their ideas on their own merits. Why do you think that is? I've noticed that regardless of which side an argument you're on you spew poo poo all over any thread you post in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
humans have raised co2 by way waaaaaaay more than 1ppm
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
You're right, it's something like 1-2 ppm per year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I've noticed that D&D posters choose to retreat into the most grasping and ludicrous attempts at equivalence and accusations of hypocrisy when they can't actually justify their ideas on their own merits. Why do you think that is?  I'd be one thing if you argued in good faith...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Tezzor argues in good faith, but he's just that insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Tezzor argues in good faith, but he's just that insane. I feel like this entire thread needs to be dumped in the Libertarian thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, go nowhere fantasies. Surely that is why you are on a computer and posting on the internet, all of which was largely developed with tax dollars and government funding. I always enjoy when space fetishists attempt to justify their predictions and fantasies as inevitable teleology while of course forgetting that virtually every single major prediction they made about space travel or most anything else after about 1970 was either laughably wrong or so far in the future it might as well have fairies in it. Internet? What's that? Computers? Aren't they those giant things with all the blinking lights and paper reams? They promised us a million people on the Moon by 1990, failed at that but in the interim got some incidental technologies vaguely helped by space travel but completely out of left field to their ideology, then claimed victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I always enjoy when space fetishists attempt to justify their predictions and fantasies as inevitable teleology while of course forgetting that virtually every single major prediction they made about space travel or most anything else after about 1970 was either laughably wrong or so far in the future it might as well have fairies in it. Internet? What's that? Computers? Aren't they those giant things with all the blinking lights and paper reams? They promised us a million people on the Moon by 1990, failed at that but in the interim got some incidental technologies vaguely helped by space travel but completely out of left field to their ideology, then claimed victory. Hey look at all these claims that are blown out of proportion! Surely none of these are wrong in any way, instead being used as justification by a moron for his petty arguments against humans in space  As for the bolded part: Please, cement your idiocy more. Its not like you have a legacy of poorly reasoned arguments behind you. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You're right, it's something like 1-2 ppm per year. Considering that Mars in its current state still holds many secrets about its past as a planet that once may have held life, I think Mars should be kept as much as possible in its current state, even when we colonize it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:00
|
|
Tezzor posted:I've noticed that D&D posters choose to retreat into the most grasping and ludicrous attempts at equivalence and accusations of hypocrisy when they can't actually justify their ideas on their own merits. Why do you think that is? That's not relevant as a response to my post, which "accused" you of using faulty logic. Between this and the libertarian arguments, it's clear your underlying motivation is culture-warring. Why aren't you doing something more concrete, like punching pasty dumbass nerds? Is it because you'd have to start with yourself?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not relevant as a response to my post, which "accused" you of using faulty logic. Between this and the libertarian arguments, it's clear your underlying motivation is culture-warring. Why aren't you doing something more concrete, like punching pasty dumbass nerds? Is it because you'd have to start with yourself? I'm still waiting for him to bring up the NAP to defend his claims about taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
Oh cool, so the Afghanistan was about as pointless as the moon, then? At least there's opium 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
The "because we need to go beyond earth" argument for space exploration gives me this thought: if we send to mars people who have the same perpetual-growth attitudes that led us to breaking earth, why wouldn't we just end up breaking mars? It's like giving a kid a new toy after they broke the old one by throwing it against the wall with blatant disregard. For the "it spurs scientific advancement" argument, can't you have super duper ambitious science projects on earth, like hardon colliders and just coordinate it with better media campaigns? if you want to have some sort of enthusiasm-in-engineering-boosting and scientific-achievement-requiring project, why not announce some sort of cloud city or a quest to develop ultratrees or some other extravagant but actually-on-earth thing? Seems like wanting to go onto mars after the moon is because we went to the moon and well it's the next closest non-hostile large celestial body and can't think of anything better to do. I mean why that as a national object in place of anything else? DrSunshine posted:Well, let's say we do apply all our industrial and scientific might to the problem of solving human want on our planet, and within a hundred years, transform our civilization into one where all work is done by robots, and all energy is derived from renewable sources and fusion power, where all human beings live in almost unthinkable abundance, prosperity, and freedom. But yeah if we were an equitable non-scarcity society (not just one facing an imminent threat requiring internationally coordinated action in the form of global warming), then sure if that pops up with a demand from some section of society why the heck not? By then we would probably be much more capable and it'd seem much less efforted, it'd cost relatively less due to the prevalence of work-saving technology and wouldn't require such a vast coordination, and it's not like there's so many pressing issues requiring more immediate attention. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Long story short: exploration, war, and the pursuit of luxury are the three legs of the tripod that is human advancement and are inexorably connected with one another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Going to Mars is stupid. It's an airless desert. I went to the Grand Canyon once, and you know what? I was ready to go after a couple hours. And I could breathe. There's nothing to do on Mars. There's nothing good to go find. It's just a big stupid desert. Europa would be way cooler. Or, yeah, Enceladus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not relevant as a response to my post, which "accused" you of using faulty logic. Between this and the libertarian arguments, it's clear your underlying motivation is culture-warring. Why aren't you doing something more concrete, like punching pasty dumbass nerds? Is it because you'd have to start with yourself? It's perfectly relevant, as your accusation of my faulty logic was "why are you criticizing this unnecessary thing when you yourself
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:Long story short: exploration, war, and the pursuit of luxury are the three legs of the tripod that is human advancement and are inexorably connected with one another. Tezzor posted:It's perfectly relevant, as your accusation of my faulty logic was "why are you criticizing this unnecessary thing when you yourself Rodatose fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Well as a side effect of the sheer breadth of research, experimentation and development required it's almost certain to provide 'real world' benefits. The space age was a period of massive advances in technology that lead to almost everyrhing we take for granted today. A second space age of similar magnitude could propel us so much further. As for ultra-tree research: Mars is quite inhospitable, pretty much a model of end stage desertification. Finding or modifying species from earth that can have a chance of surviving and even thriving in the environment of mars can help us here on earth. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:"human advancement" is a loaded term, and some people limit it to a eurocentric view of civilization (with a dash of aryan race theory' sprinkled in for justifying the conquest of "less advanced" cultures) Won't disagree with you - but you can (I think) apply what I said to pretty much all civilizations: Aztec/Mongol/Ghana all had empires that ran on similar models. As a leader/s of a powerful society: you have your people explore to find new lands, wage war when the lands you want are inhabited by people not willing to give it up/submit, and the end goal is to provide some sort of luxurious service/good to your people to insulate you and yours in positions of power. Mars is pretty probably ~not~ inhabited but the land/minerals/scientific advancement it holds promise for are pretty tempting propositions for the enterprising, adventurous, and curious among us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The "because we need to go beyond earth" argument for space exploration gives me this thought: if we send to mars people who have the same perpetual-growth attitudes that led us to breaking earth, why wouldn't we just end up breaking mars? It's like giving a kid a new toy after they broke the old one by throwing it against the wall with blatant disregard. There are a lot of resources out in space. Like, a lot. If we could magic up the technology and infrastructure to exploit and utilize them, we would literally be living in a post-scarcity society within a generation. It'd be okay for us to keep breaking our toys if we have an effectively limitless supply of toys. Worrying about depleting the resources of the solar system is like worrying about the heat death of the universe. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:Won't disagree with you - but you can (I think) apply what I said to pretty much all civilizations: Aztec/Mongol/Ghana all had empires that ran on similar models. As a leader/s of a powerful society: you have your people explore to find new lands, wage war when the lands you want are inhabited by people not willing to give it up/submit, and the end goal is to provide some sort of luxurious service/good to your people to insulate you and yours in positions of power. Well my issue there is there's difference between "civilizations" and "empires"; what we consider to be essential to our understanding comes from the particular imperial civilizations that forced their ways of doing things onto less imperial ones, even if the old ways served people themselves better (for instance, settlers that emigrated from early american colonies to settlements of the five nation iroquois alliance often did not want to go back because it was less exploitative, more egalitarian, more democratic, healthier from its practices of agroarcology that were better suited to the land, etc). The wealth of nations is the wealth of a nation at the expense of its people. also I don't agree with supply a luxury to your people as always being the means of crowd control, plenty of traditional agrarian empires relied on sheer military force to keep the peasants in check as they ran out of room to expand (and therefore have more produce to tax to fund. Of course as taxes dwindled then troops wouldn't get paid and end up starting a coup)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
You also can't break mars, it's an arid shithole that doesn't support human life, there is very little you could do that would not make it more livable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There are a lot of resources out in space. Like, a lot. If we could magic up the technology and infrastructure to exploit and utilize them, we would literally be living in a post-scarcity society within a generation. It'd be okay for us to keep breaking our toys if we have an effectively limitless supply of toys. Worrying about depleting the resources of the solar system is like worrying about the heat death of the universe. I don't know about that; currently humans on whole produce more than enough food to feed everyone worldwide. There's no technological barrier to the problem of scarcity. The problem is a social one, arising from its distribution. e: where breaking the planet comes in is with early industrial development stage of economically developing nations who have a need to compete with more economically developed nations (so they don't get conquered), and the warfare that arises in and between heavy scarcity societies with weak political control Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:As for ultra-tree research: Mars is quite inhospitable, pretty much a model of end stage desertification. Finding or modifying species from earth that can have a chance of surviving and even thriving in the environment of mars can help us here on earth. I feel that if we somehow create a viable ecosystem that can exist on Mars then we'd probably have sorted out most our problems on earth by then. Seriously that would be a loving massive undertaking in terms of our understanding of ecology, genetics and terraforming. Thunder Moose posted:
My understanding is that there are tons of Asteroids and such floating around the place that would probably end up being more useful and exploitable than Mars would. People should probably keep in mind that Mars isn't really target number 1 when it comes to making a return on the investment we put into Space colonisation and exploration for now or the foreseeable future. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You also can't break mars, it's an arid shithole that doesn't support human life, there is very little you could do that would not make it more livable. I meant if we managed to actually make it liveable, once settled, we'd probably socially repeat the same problems of earth that would lead to its downfall. Former pioneers going to a new country or heading west to flee persecution/set up a model society probably all thought they were beginning something novel that wouldn't repeat the mistakes of old. I think that people should figure out how to live in a non-self-destructive way before they decide to spread; once they do then mazel tov knock yerself out. otherwise you're passing on a deeply flawed system to others and kicking the can down the road for them to solve. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I meant if we managed to actually make it liveable, once settled, we'd probably socially repeat the same problems of earth that would lead to its downfall. Former pioneers going to a new country or heading west to flee persecution/set up a model society probably all thought they were beginning something novel that wouldn't repeat the mistakes of old. I think that people should figure out how to live in a non-self-destructive way before they decide to spread; once they do then mazel tov knock yerself out. otherwise you're passing on a deeply flawed system to others and kicking the can down the road for them to solve. Different era, different issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
what about the state of israel becoming expansionist (I admit the analogy is a bit troubled bc in all former examples and this example, the "new territory" is not actually new but settled by native cultures) e: the simple point i'm trying to say is that, in counter to the specific argument that we NEED to go somewhere new: if we don't solve the cultural problems that led us to have to need somewhere new in the first place, we will probably repeat the same cultural problems and have to find somewhere else new ad nauseum Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:Because their entire battle fleet got destroyed out by Alpha Centauri, and the only defenses they have left are these five idiots: Finally someone else remembers this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Well as a side effect of the sheer breadth of research, experimentation and development required it's almost certain to provide 'real world' benefits. If there is beneficial scientific research that would benefit the earth then I feel we should go ahead and do the research. The idea that we need some crazy scheme that the research "falls out of" is a fallacy because directly researching super trees or whatever is a lot easier here on Earth where our scientists can breath and live.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 02:56
|
|