Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Bulwyf

I agree. The environment is far from known at this, that human life might eventually be sustainable is optimistic, and at what cost will it take to make it profitable.

I don’t know why NASA doesn’t pursue robotic missions until more information can be obtained. Why risk human life when machines can gather the information needed to make those decisions.


42 posted on 04/06/2014 4:46:31 PM PDT by Texicanus (Texas, it's a whole 'nother country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Texicanus

“Why risk human life when machines can gather the information needed to make those decisions.”.

Because humans are infinitely better than machines can ever be in noticing tiny little possibly critically important things. Humans can make decisions in the here and now. Humans will be able to adapt and build a city, and create new ideas and things that a robot or two never can.

There is no shortage of volunteers for such an endeavor, and most of them would gladly pay for the opportunity, though hopefully a rational approach to deciding who goes, by who can potentially contribute the most from their personal skill sets, ambitions, and willingness to learn and innate adaptability. Which is why it must be private and not government sponsored as they will do their accounting based on fairness and melanin content, thus will mars be colonized by muslims, and ultimately fail. But, there is an endless supply of volunteers, let them explore, humanity needs to explore, otherwise they get fat, lazy, and eventally turn into democrats


46 posted on 04/06/2014 5:06:38 PM PDT by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson