Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombaticus Rex
My personal vested interest in Space Travel is a desire to get off this planet. I recognize that space exploration and colonization with primarily be a project of power elites and corporations, so I think it's vitally important for free humans to be involved and perhaps even beat them to it.
I do agree completely that the money being spent on space projects would be better spent on projects here on Earth -- but the fact of the matter is, people don't starve in Africa because there's not enough food, just like people don't go homeless here in the United States because there is not enough shelter. Simple human cruelty and selfishness are the real reasons for our "social ills", not a lack of abundant natural resources -- and I would agree with anyone who questions if that's a virus we really want to send out into the cosmos.
Ultimately, as with any other technology, moral concerns are a luxury and beside the point -- space travel, just like genetic engineering, AI and nanotech, will come to pass. All we can hope to do is wield the double-edged sword with some degree of intelligence and forethought.
|
Thanks for your input.
I agree about the nature of these "social ills", although I think they must be attributed to the social system in concern, and could in principle be overcome with sociale transforms and social changes being made.
Hunger and homelessness as are not the consequence of shortages of food or shelter, but this otherwise does not mean that in a situation of growing population AND a growing demand for resources, likely we meet some day and acc. to some scenarios not very long from now, some real problems, when oil or gas reservoirs are nearing depletion.
That is, the economic effects will begin to be seen quite soon, as (see for example the peak oil scenario) already when oil and/or gas are half way gone, we face the situation of decreasing global production of these resources, while the demand increase continues.
What will the likely outcome be in economic terms if demands continues to raise like 3% per year (don't know if that is realistic global growth rate) while production is decreased with 2-6% a year.
We know from other examples that even small deficits can have large impacts on the economy: prices in California have risen to double the normal levels, due to an electricity shortage of just some 5%. Now imagine that we have to face a growing shortage of 5% EACH year, and that on a global scale!
This what we face then is a lot of trouble, even if the predictions were half the scenario predicts.
In terms of trying to avoid this and take adequate measures, wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide enough measures (reducing the energy use, use energy more economically, increase the effective energy of energy sources, etc.) and alternative energy resources, before it is too late and prices are become staggering high in a short period of time?
Water also is a real problem for a lot of countries. Some countries might face inundation due to rising sea levels, other countries face depletion of water resources.
Tackling such problems globally is a huge project, but might be doable.
It could be foreseen that creating drinking water from saltwater and farmland from deserts and use the vast reserevoirs of electricity from the sun in those regions, could become a very profitable business, as electricity and water prices are rising.
Anyways, I think it is a better goal of creating a stable and renewable global economy in which the standard of living could be reasonable high for every person on earth, is a better goal then trying to inhabit mars or the moon.
There isn't a satisfying ground for building large habitats on the moon or mars at this moment, since the money is better spend on building those habitats on earth. Which does not contradict that some money spent on scientific exploration, not excluding manned moon or mars missions, would still be possible.
But then, why not involving more countries, to spread the costs and resources needed and also the scientific and technolgical benefits over more countries. Like a worldwide space program to go to the moon and beyond, with participation of the US, Russia, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Inda, China and Japan, and perhaps some other countries.
A mars mission without a very substantial global cooperation, as it involves huge budgets, would not be a logical thing to do.
But as of yet, the US even dispermits the Chinese to join the ISS.
It's a waste of resources if every country has to built it's own space habitat.
The way the US proceeds is more about global domination and prestige then about setting realistic goals that are beneficial for all of humanity.