When shall we colonize the entire solar system?!

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • immediate
    Member
    • Oct 2009
    • 85
    • 4.2.X

    Spam When shall we colonize the entire solar system?!

    If we continue to separate ourselves by prejudices and feud, wasting time and resources on self-destruction.....

    I'd so very much like to know what would mankind look like in 3000......
    Every time I think of a potential way to delight people, I make a website. Otherwise I'm looking for the web hosting deals.
  • Quillz
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2004
    • 2787
    • 5.0.X

    #2
    We can't colonize the entire Solar System for the sole fact we are carbon-based creatures and could not possibly live on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or any of their moons.

    Even Mars is a longshot at best. The only celestial body we have proven we can colonize and flourish on is Earth. The Moon is a strong possibility, but we're decades, if not centuries, away from a full-blown terraformed lunar colony.
    Forums

    Comment

    • Razasharp
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2005
      • 2789
      • 3.7.x

      #3
      ...we'll be a step closer when people embrace logic, reason and science, and stop believing silly myths, superstitions and 'fairy tales' (like religion).
      What's Special About Ruby on Rails?

      Comment

      • Ryan Ashbrook
        Senior Member
        • May 2003
        • 1967

        #4
        Originally posted by Razasharp
        ...we'll be a step closer when people embrace logic, reason and science, and stop believing silly myths, superstitions and 'fairy tales' (like religion).
        Quite a bold step you just took there, Raza.

        I like it.
        Ryan Ashbrook - My Blog - My Twitter

        Comment

        • kyrgyz
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2007
          • 691

          #5
          Originally posted by immediate
          When shall we colonize the entire solar system?!
          Immediately. The answer would be the same for Milky Way galaxy. 1000 or 10000 years are just as good as 1 day. In universe we are very close to nothing in terms of importance and time of existance. It's depressing to know....well at least religion gives hope of eternity.

          Even our ancient history with all those great personalities are just as recent as looking at people walking and talking around you right now. I could be standing next to Julius Ceasar while he's scratching his ass and some unfortunate lad is getting his head chopped off for delivering a bad news. Or I could be digging martian surface trying find other life frozen in ice. Well, instead I am spamming here. What's the difference? None really. Life passed in millisecond. That's all.

          Watch this: Galileo's Imperfect World: The Moon (Again) http://www.livescience.com/common/me...0720_MoonAgain
          Last edited by kyrgyz; Tue 3 Nov '09, 11:40pm.

          Comment

          • TruthElixirX
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2004
            • 1004
            • 3.6.x

            #6
            Originally posted by kyrgyz
            Immediately. The answer would be the same for Milky Way galaxy. 1000 or 10000 years are just as good as 1 day. In universe we are very close to nothing in terms of importance and time of existance. It's depressing to know....well at least religion gives hope of eternity.

            Even our ancient history with all those great personalities are just as recent as looking at people walking and talking around you right now. I could be standing next to Julius Ceasar while he's scratching his ass and some unfortunate lad is getting his head chopped off for delivering a bad news. Or I could be digging martian surface trying find other life frozen in ice. Well, instead I am spamming here. What's the difference? None really. Life passed in millisecond. That's all.

            Watch this: Galileo's Imperfect World: The Moon (Again) http://www.livescience.com/common/me...0720_MoonAgain
            There is a difference between atheism and nihilism.

            Comment

            • Cole2026
              Senior Member
              • Apr 2004
              • 478
              • 3.6.x

              #7
              Originally posted by Quillz
              We can't colonize the entire Solar System for the sole fact we are carbon-based creatures and could not possibly live on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or any of their moons.

              Even Mars is a longshot at best. The only celestial body we have proven we can colonize and flourish on is Earth. The Moon is a strong possibility, but we're decades, if not centuries, away from a full-blown terraformed lunar colony.
              There are several moons that would be ideal for terraforming. Titan, for instance, is an excellent candidate, as the radiation is low. Venus is also a viable candidate for terraforming; albeit we currently do not have the engineering capabilities to produce a sun shade large enough to cool Venus down enough.

              Originally posted by Razasharp
              ...we'll be a step closer when people embrace logic, reason and science, and stop believing silly myths, superstitions and 'fairy tales' (like religion).
              I can understand how philosophical or religious dogma can cause you to say such a thing (For there is no limit); but this statement lacks perspective. It is a person's decision to decide what they believe. For example, Kant decided, in his Critique of Pure reason, that he must give up reason so that he may make room for faith, implying that there are things that humans cannot and do not know. To think strictly in the paradigm of current science is to be wholly ignorant of the science itself--as scientific theory evolves and refines through time (ie: quantum theory of relativity; classical -> relative mechanics, etc). It is impossible to prove whether a god or ideas of dualism are factual or not factual--and as such they are non-issues (given today's paradigm of scientific understanding) of empirical insight.

              Furthermore, Empiricism has issues in the same way that all philosophical ideas have issues. For example, when I see a blue house, I do not see the impression of blue itself, but the "blueness" of an object. A secondary characteristic of an object cannot be abstracted from the object itself. It is a means to describe the world as we perceive it (and not an "ultimate reality" as the ultimate reality would transcend our perception, given the current paradigm of scientific understanding) and nothing else.
              Last edited by Cole2026; Wed 4 Nov '09, 9:02am.

              Comment

              • Razasharp
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2005
                • 2789
                • 3.7.x

                #8
                It doesn't lack perspective at all. And I never said it isn't up to people to believe what they want. However, that doesn't mean I have to respect their views, opinions or beliefs.

                We could pass anything under your banner of 'things that humans cannot and do not know'. It becomes very difficult to prove a negative. For example, can you prove that (according to the Celetions religion) that a pink elephant isn't god? You know, the one that turns purple with white spots when angry and starts talking out of his backside!

                That's where reason, logic and an ounce of intelligence come in. Which tell us that no, when you consider the FACTS it's highly unlikely that it's true.
                What's Special About Ruby on Rails?

                Comment

                • Cole2026
                  Senior Member
                  • Apr 2004
                  • 478
                  • 3.6.x

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Razasharp
                  It doesn't lack perspective at all. And I never said it isn't up to people to believe what they want. However, that doesn't mean I have to respect their views, opinions or beliefs.

                  We could pass anything under your banner of 'things that humans cannot and do not know'. It becomes very difficult to prove a negative. For example, can you prove that (according to the Celetions religion) that a pink elephant isn't god? You know, the one that turns purple with white spots when angry and starts talking out of his backside!

                  That's where reason, logic and an ounce of intelligence come in. Which tell us that no, when you consider the FACTS it's highly unlikely that it's true.
                  The proof of a pink elephant of God is impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore it is outside the realm of empirical observation. Empirical facts do not apply in any case that isn't purely empirical (And god != Empirical in the current paradigm of scientific observation; that could change, but right now God lives in philosophy). At the same type, classical mechanics is very much an empirical observation. All sciences started out in the realm of philosophy at one time, God and the soul's transcendence of lifetime (rationalism) still are within the realm of philosophy.

                  Now, I am a frequent reader of Digg and Reddit. Very often, there is an article on the front page that either ridicules the views (religious, for example) of someone else (sometimes warrented, most of the time riducio ad absurdum) or states how narrow minded and hateful religious people are (as it is very much evident, in the US, that a lot of the religious US looks down upon athiests --> See Glenn Beck). In this a hypocrisy emerges. If you do not respect their views, why do they have any reason to respect yours? It is unneeded conflict, and it makes one much more dogmatic than a Christian who conversely respects such reasonable and warranted views like atheism (which also seems to be a rare sighting).

                  It is not religion that is evil. It is mankind. Organized religion is simply a means to power. If it isn't organized religious institutions, something else will keep mankind from going forward.

                  The only true way to progress is to respect differing ideas, cultures, and the like. Globalization will not totally homogenize all culture, so acceptance is the number one maxim on the road to progress.
                  Last edited by Cole2026; Wed 4 Nov '09, 12:04pm.

                  Comment

                  • Wayne Luke
                    vBulletin Technical Support Lead
                    • Aug 2000
                    • 73979

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Quillz
                    We can't colonize the entire Solar System for the sole fact we are carbon-based creatures and could not possibly live on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune or any of their moons.
                    With proper technology, Man can most likely colonize the Galilean Moons of Jupiter. Each would present a unique set of challenges I wouldn't say it is impossible. Remember colonization doesn't necessarily require terraforming.
                    Translations provided by Google.

                    Wayne Luke
                    The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
                    vBulletin 5 API

                    Comment

                    • Razasharp
                      Senior Member
                      • Feb 2005
                      • 2789
                      • 3.7.x

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Cole2026
                      The proof of a pink elephant of God is impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore it is outside the realm of empirical observation. Empirical facts do not apply in any case that isn't purely empirical (And god != Empirical in the current paradigm of scientific observation; that could change, but right now God lives in philosophy). At the same type, classical mechanics is very much an empirical observation. All sciences started out in the realm of philosophy at one time, God and the soul's transcendence of lifetime (rationalism) still are within the realm of philosophy.

                      Now, I am a frequent reader of Digg and Reddit. Very often, there is an article on the front page that either ridicules the views (religious, for example) of someone else (sometimes warrented, most of the time riducio ad absurdum) or states how narrow minded and hateful religious people are (as it is very much evident, in the US, that a lot of the religious US looks down upon athiests --> See Glenn Beck). In this a hypocrisy emerges. If you do not respect their views, why do they have any reason to respect yours? It is unneeded conflict, and it makes one much more dogmatic than a Christian who conversely respects such reasonable and warranted views like atheism (which also seems to be a rare sighting).

                      It is not religion that is evil. It is mankind. Organized religion is simply a means to power. If it isn't organized religious institutions, something else will keep mankind from going forward.

                      The only true way to progress is to respect differing ideas, cultures, and the like. Globalization will not totally homogenize all culture, so acceptance is the number one maxim on the road to progress.
                      I don't expect others to simply respect my views either, it's totally up to them whether they do or not.

                      And you're wrong about religion - most religions are very backwards. Martin Sheen does a great of highlighting that here:



                      For me religion is a dark relic from our past - and the sooner humanity rids itself of it the better.

                      The only true way to progress is to respect differing ideas, cultures, and the like.
                      This is completely not the way to progress. Do you respect the ideas of Muslim(or Christian) extremists? Do you respect the 'culture' of female circumcision in some societies? How about the views of the KKK?
                      Last edited by Razasharp; Wed 4 Nov '09, 4:21pm.
                      What's Special About Ruby on Rails?

                      Comment

                      • kyrgyz
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2007
                        • 691

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Razasharp
                        For me religion is a dark relic from our past - and the sooner humanity rids itself of it the better.
                        Religion might be a dark relic from our past if we are gonna disect every word pertinent to realities of old times, but there are jewels hidden between those words holding our society from slipping into extremes. What could replace religion? Viking spirit, samurai loyalty and discipline, a believe in superiority of a particular race or ethnical group? Maybe common sense reasoning?
                        Last edited by kyrgyz; Wed 4 Nov '09, 4:20pm.

                        Comment

                        • Razasharp
                          Senior Member
                          • Feb 2005
                          • 2789
                          • 3.7.x

                          #13
                          I don't need religion to teach me morals, or how to be a good person. (In fact, religion is often the culprit for people _not_ being decent human beings: see vid posted above for a short list of abhorrent religion-sanctioned practises and viewpoints.)
                          Last edited by Razasharp; Wed 4 Nov '09, 4:30pm.
                          What's Special About Ruby on Rails?

                          Comment

                          • Cole2026
                            Senior Member
                            • Apr 2004
                            • 478
                            • 3.6.x

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Razasharp
                            I don't expect others to simply respect my views either, it's totally up to them whether they do or not.

                            And you're wrong about religion - most religions are very backwards. Martin Sheen does a great of highlighting that here:



                            For me religion is a dark relic from our past - and the sooner humanity rids itself of it the better.



                            This is completely not the way to progress. Do you respect the ideas of Muslim(or Christian) extremists? Do you respect the 'culture' of female circumcision in some societies? How about the views of the KKK?
                            It doesn't matter whether you want people to respect your views, respect is important for the world to function.

                            Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you would use a TV show and specific case studies to totally dispel religion. It is not religion that perverts people, but the nature of humanity itself (availability heuristic, what comes to mind immediately to you--resulting in cognitive bias). To prove my point, I will use the work of one of the most respected experts in international security affairs, especially suicidal terrorism. Suicidal terrorism is only a specific sect within terrorist acts; however, it is a significant sect in the modern world (after 1982). In his book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, he states:
                            “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (4).

                            “[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism” not religion (79). It is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists.

                            I would actually list the data, but I did not bring this book to my doom with me, and as such have to refer to wikipedia to get book information.

                            There are plenty of things that religion has done right. Countless great people are religious (Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Pope John Paul II helped dissolve the Soviet Union, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Dalai Lama/Bodhisattvas, et cetera). There have been countless great acts done by religious people in the same way there have been countless great acts done by non-religious people. Buddhism is the least dogmatic religion there is (if you could even call it that), as in order to achieve final nirvana, a buddhist must give up the teachings of buddhism. It has unique and powerful concepts like dependent co-arising that are unique 3000 years later.

                            You do not have to agree with someone, but unless someone has beliefs with vastly twisted morals (even morals are not well defined, it is still under great debate whether morals are relative or absolute; and in those sub categories, there are even more divisions and debates), you need to respect their opinions.

                            Comment

                            • Quillz
                              Senior Member
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 2787
                              • 5.0.X

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Wayne Luke
                              With proper technology, Man can most likely colonize the Galilean Moons of Jupiter. Each would present a unique set of challenges I wouldn't say it is impossible. Remember colonization doesn't necessarily require terraforming.
                              It would only be possible if and when we could find a way to heat up the moons, have supplies come from Earth at a reasonable rate and can deal with either more or less of an atmosphere than what we now have on Earth.

                              It's certainly not impossible, but only in the sense that anything can theoretically be possible with the proper technical solution. And being able to live on any celestial body further out than the Moon is basically something that will take decades at the earliest. Centuries is probably more realistic.
                              Forums

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...