Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Crysknife wrote: Many people who fight against environmental change are religious fundamentalists that think the world is going to end soon anyway. Some of the best selling books of all time is a fictional series depicting the end times with the antichrist and all. The authors meant it as a future reality that WILL take place one day and they make no apologies about it. Why should we give their view any shred of respect? And based on the above point about the future, why shouldn’t anyone not believing in environmentalism be laughed out of the room, global warming or no global warming?

Do you have kids GamePlayer?

But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. - Revelation 11:18”

Crysknife wrote:Oh, I pity something.

Freakzilla wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it.

I'm not really that far right, most of the time I do it just to spark some discussion.

Freakzilla wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it.

I'm not really that far right, most of the time I do it just to spark some discussion.

chanilover wrote:I've nearly finished it. The book is OK, but this guy Dawkins is a colossal cock.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:You, for example, often debate to exercise your left-wing ideology, much in the same way Freak-Z uses discussions to exercise his right-wing ideology. We all do it.

I'm not really that far right, most of the time I do it just to spark some discussion.

I know, I come off as super lefty sometimes... and I guess in some ways I actually am pretty far left! I like to "think" I'm near the middle though.

SandChigger wrote:And I'm a bleeding-heart radical.

FUCK the Earth! Screw being human. I wanna upload into a sexy gleisner frame and live on the Moon.

NYAA!

chanilover wrote:I've nearly finished it. The book is OK, but this guy Dawkins is a colossal cock.

GamePlayer wrote:

Crysknife wrote:no thinking necessary.

Mores the pity

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:IMO, therein lies the problem: most misjudge our capabilities for space exploration and most are obsessed with short-term thinking.

Space colonization, as I've said many a time before, is not some far-future pipe dream filled with warp-drives and lightsabers. We have the technological capability TODAY to begin off-world habitation. Space stations, orbital colonies, space economies; we could begin it all now. But everyone is sold on Star Trek as the future and ignorantly assume space travel is an inevitability of our species. A right to be taken for granted that we will have "some day." A future we don't have to worry about because it's so "far away."

BUT - this kind of space habitat is useless to us (aside from as practice) until we have a way to secure resources from somewhere other than Earth, and to do so cheaply - the amount of investment needed to create a space station that could house even a thousand people would probably bankrupt our entire planet. A habitat that could not only house a thousand people, but continually provide food and oxygen to a thousand people would probably cost everything the USA could scape together for the next hundred years. If anyone has any numbers as to what the current space station's price tag that would be helpful, because it would represent probably 0.00001 of what such a habitat would cost - and that habitat would still be nearly useless (again, other than as practice/future base of operations) because it would house so few people.

I'm not saying this is all impossible, but I think that it is not even remotely close to viable for now, even though my estimates are obviously lacking loads of necessary info.

I would think the Ansari X-Prize would be enough of a wake up call that people would realize exploitation of space need not be a GDP-level expensive. But lack of imagination is just one of the biggest problems this society has. Nonetheless, I agree this is all way off point.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:

Crysknife wrote:no thinking necessary.

Mores the pity

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote:IMO, therein lies the problem: most misjudge our capabilities for space exploration and most are obsessed with short-term thinking.

Space colonization, as I've said many a time before, is not some far-future pipe dream filled with warp-drives and lightsabers. We have the technological capability TODAY to begin off-world habitation. Space stations, orbital colonies, space economies; we could begin it all now. But everyone is sold on Star Trek as the future and ignorantly assume space travel is an inevitability of our species. A right to be taken for granted that we will have "some day." A future we don't have to worry about because it's so "far away."

BUT - this kind of space habitat is useless to us (aside from as practice) until we have a way to secure resources from somewhere other than Earth, and to do so cheaply - the amount of investment needed to create a space station that could house even a thousand people would probably bankrupt our entire planet. A habitat that could not only house a thousand people, but continually provide food and oxygen to a thousand people would probably cost everything the USA could scape together for the next hundred years. If anyone has any numbers as to what the current space station's price tag that would be helpful, because it would represent probably 0.00001 of what such a habitat would cost - and that habitat would still be nearly useless (again, other than as practice/future base of operations) because it would house so few people.

I'm not saying this is all impossible, but I think that it is not even remotely close to viable for now, even though my estimates are obviously lacking loads of necessary info.

I would think the Ansari X-Prize would be enough of a wake up call that people would realize exploitation of space need not be a GDP-level expensive. But lack of imagination is just one of the biggest problems this society has. Nonetheless, I agree this is all way off point.

I remember that, that was that contest that kid won? Was that much lower in price or something?