-free zone.
Posted on 11/09/2015 9:05:27 AM PST by Marcus
It’s a vital step. Much like how we had to invent rowboats before we could build the ships used to colonize the New World. A moon base is a row boat. There we learn how to make sustainable buildings outside of earth, gain a much easier launch platform for other vessels.
Sorry, priorities, the problems we have here don’t mean $#^% in the run. The ONLY problem we have that matters at ALL is getting off the rock. Reality is won by those that play the long game, and you’re playing the shortest game possible.
Is anyone considering the undertaking necessary to create the artificial atmosphere needed to sustain a population of 7+ billion people?
I go back to my initial argument... if we — America — no longer have a country, which will be the case if current trends proceed unabated, it’s all a moot point anyway. So that leaves the question: who exactly is going to fund this venture?
And... most of all... if God wants humanity to survive...it will.
We’re not trying to sustain a population of 7 billion. It’s colonization not relocation. The point is to get the human egg in more than one basket.
And your initial argument remains short sighted and wrong. If we fix ALL of your problems and don’t get a sustainable chunk of humanity off the rock in time then NONE of it matters. The inevitable end will balance your budget, end illegal immigration, and conquer terrorism in a very permanent and unpleasant way.
People who want civilization to survive are going to fund the venture. People who understand the basic math of survival are going to fund the venture. People who can look UP are going to fund the venture.
Remember the joke about the guy on his roof in the flood: I sent two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?
He gave an a fascinations with the night sky, a curiosity of physical laws, a need make tools to exploit those laws, and a whole lot of geological evidence that there is a ticking clock. What more do you want?
A country that survives intact. You and I both know without a strong USA, that venture would not happen.
Like I said... 99.999% of the world's population would never benefit from the existence of a tiny outpost on the lunar surface, other than -- I suppose -- taking comfort in knowing a barely measurable sliver of it might survive for a little while after the inevitable asteroid hits earth.
I have no problem with it provided it’s built entirely by robots. That was we get the technology spin offs and we don’t waste money that would be required for manned missions.
Which it won’t do if you insist on looking at your toes instead of the sky. You and I both know that the situation down here will NEVER be perfect, if we’re not going to venture to the stars until then we might as well just commit suicide because the country can’t survive longer than the planet... unless we get some part of it OFF THE PLANET.
It’s not about the ones that stay behind. Again, it’s colonization NOT RELOCATION. We get to the moon, we learn, we grow, we get someplace else in the solar system, we learn, we grow, eventually we get OUT OF the solar system. Then and only then do we actually have a country that survives. That barely measurable sliver can get big fast. The Europeans colonizing the New World we a barely measurable sliver at one point, now look at us.
You’re obsessed with the short game. It’s sad really. Your mentality is self defeating and doomed. LOOK UP, it’s a grand and wonderful universe and your thinking is keeping us out of it. We will DIE FOREVER if we think like you. None of it will matter, every problem you’re trying to solve will destroy us because it’s keeping us from solving the only problem that actually matters.
The Europeans who colonized the New World were using conveyances that had existed for millennia.
Maybe future generations will feel like colonization is worth the exorbitant cost in resources. More power to them.
As for “obsession with the short game,” it’s better termed as reality. I pay more than enough in taxes to a corrupt American government, and am not willing to fork over additional sums to some corrupt international agency. I’m 59, I have probably 15-20 years max left on this earth, and have my own bucket list to execute. My preference is to have a country in which to make that happen.
That'd be a good initial solution.. far better than pissing away untold amounts of $$$ we don't have.
Not really. Not in that form. Ships that could go over the horizon into the deep water and big storms were pretty new, and quite risky. There’s a reason so many ships sunk off the coast of Florida.
It’s not about feel like it, it’s about what’s necessary for survival of the species, and even our own country. Which version of America is more capable of dealing a terrorist threat: single location, or interplanetary?
No, you’re studiously ignoring reality. Reality is that when the extinction level event happens it won’t really matter if our budget is balanced and borders are secure. What will matter is did we provide our own mourners by getting a sustainable population off the planet. Or do we all go together.
Your preferences is to stay mired on earth and volunteer for total destruction because you can’t see beyond your own mortality and our relatively small problems. Again, you’re short sighted and ignoring reality. It’ goes back to that sentence I offered at the beginning:
“Finally in 2120 we got our house in order and solved the [your pet issue here] problem, then the asteroid hitâ€.
Go ahead, fill it in a few times, see how it feels. Yea we sealed the border... then all died. Hooray we balanced the budget... then were wiped out. Huzza we beat the terrorists... and there’s no one alive to notice.
You are quite simply wrong. And wrong in a way that’s detrimental to the survival of the race and the country.
And you’re assuming the great asteroid strike is “inevitable.” If it’ll assuage your worries, how about promoting the idea of striking it with missile technology? That’s far more feasible than moon bases.
And what makes you think the moon isn’t ripe for “the big one” as well?
And... “And wrong in a way that’s detrimental to the survival of the race and the country.”
The earth is many millions of years old and it hasn’t been obliterated yet. So far my argument is winning. It’s in God’s hands.. trust Him with your worries.
Already went over that. It’s not an assumption, it’s a known fact, eventually one of MANY MANY option WILL wipe out our subsection of life on the planet.
Again, went over that. The moon is a stepping stone to further away things.
Actually the earth has had DOZENS of extinction level events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
So far your argument has lost.
Hillary! It takes a moon village...
It would kind of be like Antarctica in space...
Not that that is a good thing.
We’re still here, and the earth is still a round planetary mass... and my argument has “lost?”
Ohh kay.... well, anyway... hope ya don’t lose too much sleep about the big asteroid and that moon base.
Again, we know there is a ticking clock. We know the planet can wipe out the dominant life form. And we know it WILL again. You can stick your fingers in your ear and yell “LALALALA” until the next ice age puts the top half of America under miles of ice again it won’t change the fact that there WILL be another extinction event.
-free zone.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and the “big one” will schwack Pakistan.
If Antarctica was open to development there would
already be a walmart, a Snowcat dealership, and
numerous seafood resturants there.
And still take out most life on the planet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.