Notices

View Poll Results: Do you believe we should allow corporations and countires to own parts of planets and moons

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    8 50.00%
  • no

    8 50.00%
Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Colonizing Planets and Moons

  1. #1 Colonizing Planets and Moons 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    The following is an article I wrote for my website: http://www.2020futurelinks.com:

    Colonizing Planets and Moons
    Thoughts by Gary Yantis


    I love space travel, however, being around as long as I have, I see a problem. Lack of will power, politicians who are tied to the trough and are not willing to challenge us and to stay with a program. If we sit around and wait for the government to get us to the Moon or Mars, it’s not going to happen. They will talk a good talk and then just let a program die. After we got to the Moon in 1969-1972 we should have set up a permanent base within three to five years, instead we settled for earth orbit and have stayed there ever since. We can't even get up the courage to fix the Hubble Space Telescope.

    Maybe it would be good for Japan and China to start a moon race, maybe our pride will kick in and we will get there again, but will we have the will to stay.

    Somehow, private enterprise has to kick in.

    Look at history. America sat idle for years until England funded private companies that would invest in America and other countries. What if the government encouraged oil companies and others that have great resources to take those profits and get into new developments such as building for the future in transportation, including private space development.

    Let's give those companies options:
    -do nothing and be taxed on the profits
    -do something and get credits to offset the profits taxes
    -do something really special (like private space development) and be granted land grants when they get to the Moon or Mars!

    As long as planets and moons are off limits to corporations that would like to own huge tracks of land, nothing will happen. Give the first corporation that gets settlers to another planet or moon and successfully settles that location for two years, without abandoning the location in that time, a land grant for 5,000,000 acres of land spread over several planets and moons, watch the development begin. Note, they have to spread their acreage over several bodies. Not just a single planet or moon.

    Any country that successful lands man on a planet or moon and sustains life for two years can claim land in all directions for 1,000 miles. Any corporation that does the same could claim land in all directions for 100 miles. If your country doesn't have the courage or passion to get in the race, let it be left out!

    First, we have to learn how to be risk takers again. We can’t play it safe.

    The second step would be for our country to unilaterally renounce that part of the Space Treaty that forbids a country or corporation from claiming land when it lands on a foreign body. Note, to actually claim that land the country or corporation has to sustain life in a settlement for two consecutive years. Sending a robot to a moon, planet or asteroid doesn’t count.


    Once we have changed that part of the treaty the land grab will be on and you will see Canada, Australia, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, South Africa, Israel, Middle Eastern countries and the United States all working competitively or together to settle foreign lands. You will also see private corporations sprouting up to take the big gamble. Let the race begin!




    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Yes!

    I say, let them own it as long as they can build on it, and by build i dont mean just putting up fences or something. don't let them buy stuff they cannot develope though.

    Of course, after the colonies are established they may want their independace, but that would require peaceful means unless they can make their own oxygen, water, food etc...


    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Nitendo 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    I don't know if this is allowed, but visit my site and check the many topics and links I have established, particularly with Moon, Mars and Beyond and the Space Elevator.
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore numb3rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    166
    i say no becuse space is a fronter for enyone like a cowbow
    my grammer is not to be made fun of
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Colonizing Planets and Moons 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Look at history. America sat idle for years until England funded private companies that would invest in America and other countries. What if the government encouraged oil companies and others that have great resources to take those profits and get into new developments such as building for the future in transportation, including private space development.
    Dear Gary

    Like Numbers, I must demur.

    One point of view is that "America sat idle".

    Another is that many thriving civilisations (the Mississippian, for example) were destroyed by the land grab. Native Americans would have a lot to say about this notion. So would the Passenger Pigeons (over 4 billion of them 200 years ago, extinct by a hundred years ago), the vast herds of bison (though USians confusingly call them buffalo), and all the other environmentally sensitive living beings in both North and South America.

    So no, the colonisation of the Americas is not, unlike some might consider, an unmitigated benefit. In fact it has been, in many cases, unmitigatedly disastrous. When we talk of taking history into account, it's the whole of history that we should be considering, perhaps, not just the stories told by the rich victors.

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    As i said before.........


    Stay Off My Moon!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    I don't think you'll find anything larger than microbes on Mars and probably nothing on the Moon. Both are waiting for our colonization, to breathe life into both.
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    I don't think you'll find anything larger than microbes on Mars and probably nothing on the Moon. Both are waiting for our colonization, to breathe life into both.
    We need to start breathing life into people not moons and planets.

    Wake up

    Cuntinuum just stated in the trash forum he was indifferent about everything in life now.........do you think that is healthy?

    AaHh.....you all don't care....you just want to go park your bums and fall asleep on other spheres just for the hell of it.

    The moon is cold, barren and dusty!
    As if there isn't enough dust to suck up here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10
    man has to land on the moon first>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by wandrug
    man has to land on the moon first>

    Ah.....yes!

    Must have took ages to build that film set
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Wow, this is retarded.

    I am of Native American descent, and we all know what the colonists in america did was wrong.

    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOON AND MARS!!

    There are no people there! We won't be hurting anything, in fact, at least in the case of mars, terra forming will help mankind because then we have more places to live, to offset the effects of overcrowding without some kind of genocide!

    Not all companies and governments are evil! in fact, corporations and governments are no worse or better than the people in charge of them. Lets say Google wanted to put a googleplex on the moon, they treat their employees well, they don't run sweat shops. Who are we to stop them?

    This is ridiculous, it is not like you are going to hurt the moon or mars. Mars is already barren, not much worse we can do to it!

    You can't assume that just because a company is successfull that they are evil.

    In response to numb3rs, if no companies or governments are interested in space, what makes you think you can get there on your own?
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    Amen to Supernatendo!!!
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Wow, this is retarded.
    And this is an argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    I am of Native American descent, and we all know what the colonists in america did was wrong.
    Was the colonisation of America wrong, or just the way in which it was done?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOON AND MARS!!
    Gary's the one who made the analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    There are no people there! We won't be hurting anything, in fact, at least in the case of mars, terra forming will help mankind because then we have more places to live, to offset the effects of overcrowding without some kind of genocide!
    There were no people on Mauritiius either - until we got there and made the dodo extinct. I don't see how the fact that there no people on Mars has anything to do with the potential damage caused to it by profit-seekers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Not all companies and governments are evil! in fact, corporations and governments are no worse or better than the people in charge of them. Lets say Google wanted to put a googleplex on the moon, they treat their employees well, they don't run sweat shops. Who are we to stop them?
    Please read about the tragedy of the commons. You do not have to be evil to destroy a resource - simple self interest and Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' will do that for you. Even today, thanks to private enterprise, we are destroying the stocks of fish (and all ocean wildlife, to be honest) and we still have no way of stopping it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    This is ridiculous
    This is a claim? An argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    , it is not like you are going to hurt the moon or mars. Mars is already barren, not much worse we can do to it!
    You know this for a fact and true? What scientists don't yet know? What NASA won't yet claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    You can't assume that just because a company is successfull that they are evil.
    See above. But the most successful companies tend to be monopolistic (or hegemonic at the very least - attempting to raise the barriers to entry in their markets) and not one I know of hasn't shown these tendencies. It is these very tendencies - competitiveness and profit-making motives - that make private enterprise the worst way to deal with new, limited resources whose vulnerability is not yet well known.

    Instead of taking on Mars, why do you not speak of Antarctica, where even today, thanks to one of the few pieces of enlightened thinking internationally, national governments have decreed boundary lines between certain protected sectors, and the Antarctic environment is being conserved and studied instead of being exploited and ruined.

    In case you find my points ridiculous, or retarded, or in other deserving of scorn, it would be politer to first point out why, in a cogent way.

    Thanks

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Wow, this is retarded.
    Retarded = backwards.

    Not sure who's going forwards and who's going backwards here. The rest of your post seems to be going nowhere.
    You seem to be under the illusion that living on a derelict and barren planet is mankind progressing and going forward, and i'm inclined to disagree!

    For starters in your case for 'overcrowding' and the possibilities of genocide. Isn't it more progressive for humans to use the brain we've been given in coming to a sensible action plan about over-population than ignoring the problem and instead believing we have the right to behave like spores and infect other spheres and planets with over-crowding?

    That is more like backwards thinking!

    I would be very happy to see Google, the Government and big corporations ship off to some derelict planet and wave them all a hearty goodbye, for it is these particular organizations which promote capitalist ideals and an 'everyone out for themselves' ideology and encourages this selfish attitude of 'grabbing' 'owning' and grasping.

    It's these particular corporations and governments who withhold birth control and education in third world countries which would enable population control because they have pharmaceutical interests to protect, as well as the devastation and damage already done to the natural resources of this planet because of exploitation, greed and ownership.



    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    In response to numb3rs, if no companies or governments are interested in space, what makes you think you can get there on your own?
    What if people didn't want to go there in the first place?

    I certainly don't! We have a beautiful planet right here rich in diversity with still much more to be explored and discovered.
    (Instead of focusing on repairing the damage already achieved on this planet, the greedy bastards want to planet hop instead and exploit other realms. Well why am i not surprised!)

    I couldn't think of anything worse than living on a murky barren planet alongside google and its employees (shudder!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    Sunshinewarrior:
    I appreciate your viewpoint, however I'm old enough to be skeptical of governments. Whoever gets in office this year, I am afraid NASA will find no friend. The politicians will take away the resources and it will be another 40 or 50 years before we get off this planet.

    I don't know if you saw the program on tv this week but they now speculate that the reason we had a kill off of large animals in the Americas 12,000 years ago was the result of another astroid that hit the ice sheet in Canada. No crater was found because it hit the icesheet. However they found spheroids that came from space at that time all over north America, from Canada, East Coast, West Coast and Middle America. The astroid also caused climate change. Man was able to adapt, but large animals became extinct only leaving the bison as the sole large game.

    The clock is ticking and if we don't get ourselves on another planet or two we may be the ones who are destroyed the next time it happens.

    I believe in free enterprise and I believe that is the way to go. We must grant large profits to create the motivation to tackle such undertakings.
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Am I to understand that you think we are going to somehow "mess up" mars?

    There are no dodo birds on mars, and no proof of anything similar. I am all for not contaminating the martian landscape in the hopes of finding life on the planet, but to claim we are better off living on this planet than exploring space is absured.

    If we find evidence of microbial life, Cool, but that should not stop us from colonizing mars!

    BTW, I don't want to argue politics in this particular thread, but nature itself is capitalist, so why not our forms of government and business? Survival of the fittest wasn't thought up by some heartless corporation! It has existed as long as life itself! If government becomes too corrupt, people throughout history have risen against it and something better is usually the result.

    If we stay on this planet, we may, in the future, become extinct like the dinosaurs. either by asteroid or by gama radiation burst. Now, some of you may like the idea of a universe without humans. I guess I'm kind of a humanist, in my thinking, we have alot more to offer the universe.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Am I to understand that you think we are going to somehow "mess up" mars?
    If we look at how mankind has made a mess of this planet?

    Yes! Without a shadow of a doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    There are no dodo birds on mars, and no proof of anything similar.
    Just because the human eye can't see it and the machinery we've so far invented doesn't pick anything up, doesn't necessarily mean 'nothing' is there

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    I am all for not contaminating the martian landscape in the hopes of finding life on the planet, but to claim we are better off living on this planet than exploring space is absured.
    Perhaps exploring space further is a great idea once we've cleaned up the mess we've made here on Earth and learned from our mistakes?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    If we find evidence of microbial life, Cool, but that should not stop us from colonizing mars!
    How typical of the human 'grasping' 'i want it' 'i own it' 'get the f' off my land' mentality!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    BTW, I don't want to argue politics in this particular thread, but nature itself is capitalist,
    Yes, that's true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    so why not our forms of government and business?
    That's lame
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Survival of the fittest wasn't thought up by some heartless corporation! It has existed as long as life itself!
    Sorry but that's no excuse and not a good enough reason to behave the way we do.
    You contradict this statement further on when you say we humans 'have alot more to offer the universe'.
    What more corporations? More greed? More capitalism?

    Great! We are doing such wonders!

    If we are so clever, and we have 'a lot more to offer' then why are we screwing it up? And then instead of learning from our mistakes and rectifying the matter, we ignore it and carry on screwing!

    Numerous inventors and scientists have come up with workable ideas to benefit the world and put things right. Yet most are hounded out of the profession, ridiculed, silenced and some have even disappeared.

    Why is that? Is it because they pose a threat to these big corporations and their investments.

    And that is the trouble with these organisations, as well as governments. You may be coming from an adventurous altruistic beneficial angle, but i can assure you most of them are not!

    Do you seriously think such people who could afford to invade mars would have the intentions of bringing benefit? More likely they will be rubbing their hands with glee and wondering about the prospects of mining and exploiting any possible life out of it to fill their pockets up with and elevate their status and power.

    The only benefit we could give these places is leave well alone. Yes explore them and see what they are made of and how they work to satisfy curiosity but that should be all.

    There needs to be more ethics to humans interference in nature. Look at what has been achieved so far by our meddlings!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    You totally ignored the fact that this planet may be blasted by an asteroid or gamma radiation burst!

    What then?

    also, we may not learn how to fix everything on our planet without first learning how to re-build an atmosphere on mars!

    We can learn alot about how to fix our planet by terraforming mars, by starting from the very beginning!

    The same processes that destroy the atmosphere on our planet can be used to begin to create an atmosphere on mars!

    After that we would need to learn what organisms are needed to make the atmosphere breathable by all of earth's organisms.

    What I am saying is, Life may or may not be rare in the universe, who are we to keep it bottled up on one planet? why not spread life to other systems which may be currently devoid of all life? what if that is our purpose? to be planetary "gardeners"? Would you not say that would be a commendable goal? Alot of humans are builders, crafters, artists, gardners, learners, explorers, etc.. we aren't all destroyers as you seem to think.

    Just because we may make a few mistakes on the way doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worthwhile in the end! The bigger crime would be not trying at all!
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Colonizing planets or moons for the purpose of science and to prevent the extinction of our race would be a good motives. With the obvious difficult issue of traveling to and from these destinations, it limits the possibilities.

    Developing Mars into an inhabitable environment would in reality only be a place to start a new generation of humans as opposed to a mass transit of human life from Earth to Mars. It's not feasible. It truly would not personally benefit human life on earth in regards to an alternative planet to live on. Except for a select chosen few.

    As a result, the colonizing of Mars would be a purpose well served but in the event of a catastrophic collision of a Texas sized asteroid with our little planet that ultimately extinguishes all life on Earth, a Mars colonization would not help Earth's doomed population.

    On the other hand, I don't think the odds of being wiped out by an asteroid collision or a comet are any better for the planet Mars vs. the planet earth. Both planets have the same ultimate fate.

    I would rather invest in missions that send robotic probes to the Alpha Centuri Solar System is search of intelligent life. There is no other intelligent life to be found in our solar system.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    I would rather invest in missions that send robotic probes to the Alpha Centuri Solar System is search of intelligent life. There is no other intelligent life to be found in our solar system.
    well, we gotta start somewhere and if you don't wanna wait 100,000 years for the probe to get there i think the moons a good place to start
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Just because we may make a few mistakes on the way doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worthwhile in the end! The bigger crime would be not trying at all!
    This is the voice of 3.8 billion years of voting for reproduction and extension of ones living space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    True, this planet can only hold so many big heads

    Why don't you all go an live on Uranus instead

    By the sounds of it you've already acclimatized yourselves for that planet already
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Hey Supernat!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    You totally ignored the fact that this planet may be blasted by an asteroid or gamma radiation burst!

    What then?
    I('ve also totally ignored the fact that aliens could currently be hiding on Mars and might blast us out of existence if we actually sent humans there. What then?


    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    also, we may not learn how to fix everything on our planet without first learning how to re-build an atmosphere on mars!
    May not? Or will not? Why do you need a whole planet for your experiments? And why will it be better if they're being conducted by corporations with an eye on profits?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    We can learn alot about how to fix our planet by terraforming mars, by starting from the very beginning!
    Because, of course, by your standards, whatever is in the universe is ours to play with, experiment with, pull apart and use?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    The same processes that destroy the atmosphere on our planet can be used to begin to create an atmosphere on mars!
    So?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    After that we would need to learn what organisms are needed to make the atmosphere breathable by all of earth's organisms.
    We don't have to do that! We have the experiments running here on earth - it's called chlorophyll, and it works - we just need to ensure that we have enough of the stuff instead of heading for the Amazonian rain forest with a chainsaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    What I am saying is, Life may or may not be rare in the universe, who are we to keep it bottled up on one planet? why not spread life to other systems which may be currently devoid of all life?
    Alternatively, why spread it?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    what if that is our purpose? to be planetary "gardeners"? Would you not say that would be a commendable goal? Alot of humans are builders, crafters, artists, gardners, learners, explorers, etc.. we aren't all destroyers as you seem to think.
    Ah - here's the nub, or crux, of it. How would you ever (or humanity ever) 'know' what its 'purpose' is?

    Let's say we seeded the entire universe with humanspawn and it survived for billennia (I made that word up), would that provide any evidence at all that this was humanity's purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Just because we may make a few mistakes on the way doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worthwhile in the end! The bigger crime would be not trying at all!
    So you say. I'd say the bigger crime would be destroying any possibility of finding the only other life in the universe, with no hope of recovery...

    I suppose it's more of an attitudinal thing - I come from europe and resources are precious - land, water etc. We view these things as worth conserving, of being careful with. We reject the 'pioneer' spirit as being basically profligate and self-centred, and hence destructive.

    Yup. This thread doesn't belong in Astronomy any longer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    I come from europe and resources are precious - land, water etc. We view these things as worth conserving, of being careful with. We reject the 'pioneer' spirit as being basically profligate and self-centred, and hence destructive...
    Speak for yourself. As a Euro-centric eccentric I view the colonisation of Mars as neccessity, not an option.
    If life is abundant in the universe we need to go out to meet it: Mars is one of the steps in that process. If life is rare in the universe we require to spread it as far and as wide as possible. That's what living things do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    I come from europe and resources are precious - land, water etc. We view these things as worth conserving, of being careful with. We reject the 'pioneer' spirit as being basically profligate and self-centred, and hence destructive...
    Speak for yourself. As a Euro-centric eccentric I view the colonisation of Mars as neccessity, not an option.
    If life is abundant in the universe we need to go out to meet it: Mars is one of the steps in that process. If life is rare in the universe we require to spread it as far and as wide as possible. That's what living things do.
    Fair enough. I speak only for myself. The Europe remark, therefore, should be viewed solely as a historical explanation of my opinion, no one else's. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

    May I ask why we 'need' to do it? Particularly since you seem to bolster the idea by saying "That's what living things do". I presume you are not committing the naturalistic fallacy, so am interested in your reasoning.

    Further, please note that I am not, in principle, opposed to the colonisation of non-earth spaces. The OP was about telling the big business guys to have a go, which I have grave fears about, for reasons I have already mentioned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    I come from europe and resources are precious - land, water etc. We view these things as worth conserving, of being careful with. We reject the 'pioneer' spirit as being basically profligate and self-centred, and hence destructive...
    Speak for yourself. As a Euro-centric eccentric I view the colonisation of Mars as neccessity, not an option.
    If life is abundant in the universe we need to go out to meet it: Mars is one of the steps in that process. If life is rare in the universe we require to spread it as far and as wide as possible. That's what living things do.
    Life Ophiolite?

    How many species and natural habitats has mankind wiped out in the course of its reign? And is still continuing to do so today at alarmingly rapidly escalating rates. Does it stop destroying rainforest's even when it knows the facts and consequences?
    What about the current rapid depletion of fish stocks?
    These are just a few examples of the thousands of creatures man has destroyed.

    Life is more abundant wherever man has NOT trod it seems, and life has more chance to continue where man does NOT go.

    Yes we have the capacity to promote life and proliferate it, but that should be ALL life and not just our species.

    The problem is that far too many people with the arrogant attitudes like yours think they have the exclusive right and patent to life and a right to spread human life by sacrificing all other forms of life.

    It is this mentality which keeps mankind a disease and a monstrous animal on this planet and totally wastes all those years of evolution which gave us a faster and better brain to think with.

    You spoil this potential for the other portion of humanity who do have potential to be life givers to the rest of the universe.
    Like a disease this arrogance degenerates humans future potential as a whole.

    Go and watch the Planet Earth documentaries to remind you of what we have got and how lucky we are and then go and do some research on threatened species of life to wake yourself up please for everyones sake not JUST humans!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Hey Supernat!

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    You totally ignored the fact that this planet may be blasted by an asteroid or gamma radiation burst!

    What then?
    I('ve also totally ignored the fact that aliens could currently be hiding on Mars and might blast us out of existence if we actually sent humans there. What then?
    Thats a fact hmm?

    Wow, Didn't realize they lived so close to home, and they have blasters too! Is it a race of Klingons?

    Anyway, the arguments both for and against colonization of mars are not all wrong, but it is a heated debate. Basically it amounts to your opinion of humanity. If all you see is the bad of humanity and cannot realize the good you are a very pessimistic person and you are going to say no to human colonization of extra-terran planets. If all you see is a utopia you are probably going to be sorely dissapointed. However, for the most part, the benefits of colonization outweigh the detriments.

    At least in my opinion!
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Cuntinuum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    101
    If we had the technology available, I don't see how anybody would have any say in the first place on who gets what. There might be wars though, assuming companies/countries could afford that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    I Think I'll jump back in. I think getting to other planets is the greatest accomplishment that we can make. I don't think we can just sit on planet earth and do nothing. I'm sorry, I am a product of America and I am proud of it. Also from Texas and that might seem arrogant to some, but I do not apologize.

    For 36 years our space program has been in neutral. I think it is time to get in overdrive and do something about the Space Program. I just believe that free enterprise holds the key, whether it is big business or some shrewd private investor.

    If we don't provide ownership privileges we do not provide the needed profit motive and the program goes nowhere.

    An alternative would be a large dollar sum raised to fuel the incentive. If we get to the astroid belt, there are a lot of rocks out there that could contain all sorts of heavy metals that could be mined. Ownership of astroids should not offend anyone. It is just going to take big bucks and a lot of will to get there. The sooner we start the better.
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    Here is another good idea. I think it would be great to build a space colony that would circle earth and have a bank of all life genes. The colony would be totally self sufficient and able to make everything it needs so that it would not be dependent on earth. In the event of a catastrophy it would be able to come back to earth when it is time and reseed earth. It would also contain a world library of mankinds knowledge to prevent our going back into the dark ages.
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Fair enough. I speak only for myself. The Europe remark, therefore, should be viewed solely as a historical explanation of my opinion, no one else's. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
    No apologies necessary. I dislike the practice of making inclusive statements of that sort - it smacks of stereotyping - though I am sure (like all Scotsmen) I am sometimes guilty of it myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    May I ask why we 'need' to do it?
    To ensure survival, the primary goal of any life form.
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    I presume you are not committing the naturalistic fallacy, so am interested in your reasoning.
    No I am not, since I am not ascribing any ethical dimension to the 'need', merely observing a biological imperative.
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    Further, please note that I am not, in principle, opposed to the colonisation of non-earth spaces. The OP was about telling the big business guys to have a go, which I have grave fears about, for reasons I have already mentioned.
    As with most agencies, big business is a two edged sword. Caution is appropriate. Kim Stanley Robinson in his brilliant Mars Trilogy expands greatly on the issues of corporate power in terraforming Mars. Well worth a read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    I already own two celestial bodies in this solar system. If you want to go to Mars, you will have to pay me rent. I have been generous so far with my other orb but if you push it too far, I am going to turn off the Sun.

    Seriously, the commercialization of space will more likely occur first with "billboards" set in orbit and screwing up the night sky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    I'm glad Ophiolite isn't a world leader

    He would have sent the populace into mass suicide through sheer despair

    And we'd have been extinct by now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Lead the charge anytime you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Lead the charge anytime you wish.

    Oooooh well that's not fair Ophiolite becaue your spear is much longer than mine and it always will be!

    Can't we just romp and roll around on the floor instead and make it appear as if we are fighting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I meant the charge towards suicide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I meant the charge towards suicide.
    Aw

    I thought we were gonna have a fisticuff!

    I hear the hills in Scotland are good for rolling down?

    Well i don't feel like committing suicide today because I've got too much to do first, so perhaps some other time.

    The offer of a wrestle and a romp is always there Ophiolite,

    If you think you're hard enough
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    A friend is a rare bird?
    Usually they fly?
    Sunshine - what the heck are you on?

    I have zero latin... :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    A friend is a rare bird?
    Usually they fly?
    Sunshine - what the heck are you on?

    I have zero latin... :P

    The first one is pretty much correct (A true friend is a rare bird)

    The second one is wrong

    The third one is way off!

    Do you know what Ascendo tuum is?

    Anyway now we have made this thread veer off course and we don't want to rouse Ophiolite's easily roused tizziness!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Do you believe we should allow corporations and countires to own parts of planets and moons
    Curious thing about this poll...countries and corporations already own parts of this planet, and there have been continuing grabs for the Moon.

    Without sounding like some kind of anti-hippie (actually, that sounds interesting)...humanity will never release it's notions of ownership. Even if we colonize a world and insist no one owns any of the land, there will still be "red base" and "blue base"...that's just how humanity works.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    I love space travel, however, being around as long as I have, I see a problem. Lack of will power, politicians who are tied to the trough and are not willing to challenge us and to stay with a program. If we sit around and wait for the government to get us to the Moon or Mars, it’s not going to happen. They will talk a good talk and then just let a program die.
    There's a lot of reasons for this. Some good, some bad. Can we do this economically? Can we do it effectively? Can we do it safely? What is public opinion? What is political opinion?

    It could also be argued that we as humanity are not ready for full-scale space colonization. There is plenty that can be done right on Earth to solve the world's problems, without spending resources and focus on space. (I'm not an advocate of ending the space-program, btw.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    After we got to the Moon in 1969-1972 we should have set up a permanent base within three to five years,...
    Economically and technologically, it wasn't sustainable. They had the same problems then as we do now. The Apollo program was insanely expensive, and although effective (to a degree) it wasn't sustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    ...instead we settled for earth orbit and have stayed there ever since.
    There's good reasons for that. We made incredible leaps and bounds to get to the Moon, but it really was forced advancement in technology. The reality was that we got to the Moon on a wing and a prayer, and the tolerances were so insanely narrow that anything but perfection was cause for doom. But the fact is, we made it happen. However, now we've pulled back on the reigns and ended the Evil-Canival approach to the space program, and started focusing on the realities at hand. We are learning about how to do things, and how the dynamics of space really function. These are the essential stepping-stones needed to colonize space. Firing a monkey into space may be great for getting fast "good-enough" data (not to mention getting rid of some more monkeys...ugly creatures) but it doesn't exactly make for good science and engineering. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    We can't even get up the courage to fix the Hubble Space Telescope.
    It's not so much courage as ROI concern. The HST is rapidly becoming obsolete, and there are already land-based arrays which, in their specialty, do better work than the HST. Plans for launching a new space telescope are already in the works, but progress is dictated by interest. If land-based systems are proving effective, they are far cheaper than putting a new space telescope into place. Further, even with a modern space telescope in the sky, it still doesn't overcome some of the primary problems with a single space telescope. Development of space-based telescope arrays is progressing, but we're still figuring out some of the problems involved in orbiting arrays that don't exist in land-based arrays. Until we do, it's doubtful someone is going to invest in a new space telescope that will be effectually obsolete the moment it gets launched.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Maybe it would be good for Japan and China to start a moon race...
    Perhaps. China is certainly a rival there, but JAXA is so much a joint operation that it's doubtful they could put together a Moon program without it being a collaborative effort, and, in that event, we (NASA/ESA) would likely already be involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Somehow, private enterprise has to kick in.
    It's definitely been considered, but the technology and the reputation has to make a few leaps, first. We have the technology to build a Moon base, etc, but it's not cost-effective enough, or dare I say "idiot proof" enough. Second, long-term space and Moon/Mars based operations need to become far more reliable and public-oriented, before there will be the widespread consideration needed to support such a corporate venture.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    The second step would be for our country to unilaterally renounce that part of the Space Treaty that forbids a country or corporation from claiming land when it lands on a foreign body. Note, to actually claim that land the country or corporation has to sustain life in a settlement for two consecutive years. Sending a robot to a moon, planet or asteroid doesn’t count.
    There are far more serious reasons for these treaties than just territory concerns. The primary concern is that anyone who builds a base on the Moon in a territory they politically have ownership of, has the right to do as they please. To that end, they can essentially turn their Moon base into an orbiting threat. If the "enemy" decides to put up a missile base up there, who's going to stop them? The results could lead into both an Earth based, space based, and Moon based war, or at the least another Cuban Missile Crisis centered around the Moon.


    Anyway, just because Mars and the Moon are out there, doesn't mean humanity is ready to make that leap, yet. In ancient times, the ocean was there, but it didn't mean countries in 1300's could suddenly build a 1800's tall ship and cruise around with ease. There had to be trial and error, stepping stones. In a way, Earth's orbit is like a river, and we practice in that river before we take on the sea.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio
    A friend is a rare bird?
    Usually they fly?
    Sunshine - what the heck are you on?

    I have zero latin... :P
    Maybe people only ask you how you're doing
    Cause that's easier than letting on how little they could care
    But when you know that you've got a real friend somewhere
    Suddenly all the others are so much easier to bear


    Jackson Browne
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 New Links added 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seguin, TX
    Posts
    8
    Just added 15 new links to http://www.2020futurelinks.com/ covering science in general, cloning mammoths and dinosaurs and future in computers. This page is for you, Super Natendo!
    Gary Yantis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    [quote="Wolf"]
    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Do you believe we should allow corporations and countires to own parts of planets and moons
    Curious thing about this poll...countries and corporations already own parts of this planet, and there have been continuing grabs for the Moon.

    Without sounding like some kind of anti-hippie (actually, that sounds interesting)...humanity will never release it's notions of ownership. Even if we colonize a world and insist no one owns any of the land, there will still be "red base" and "blue base"...that's just how humanity works.
    [quote]

    Besides, the problems a non-property ethic would create are even bigger than the problems a property ethic creates. If the Moon has valuable resources, then harvesting them will slowly deplete them.

    You can't easily decide who owns the harvested materials unless you have some notion of who owned them before they were harvested. An example is Helium 3, which is believed to be a valuable source of energy. If we don't decide who owns which helium 3 deposits before the harvesting process begins, we'll have to decide after.


    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    I love space travel, however, being around as long as I have, I see a problem. Lack of will power, politicians who are tied to the trough and are not willing to challenge us and to stay with a program. If we sit around and wait for the government to get us to the Moon or Mars, it’s not going to happen. They will talk a good talk and then just let a program die.
    There's a lot of reasons for this. Some good, some bad. Can we do this economically? Can we do it effectively? Can we do it safely? What is public opinion? What is political opinion?

    It could also be argued that we as humanity are not ready for full-scale space colonization. There is plenty that can be done right on Earth to solve the world's problems, without spending resources and focus on space. (I'm not an advocate of ending the space-program, btw.)
    Politicians like to just throw an idea out and see how the public reacts. If the public doesn't react, they don't do it. The public isn't reacting because the public doesn't see any benefit in morale victories up there anymore. Nobody cares. Landing on the Moon proved all we needed to prove.

    The only thing I think the public will be motivated by is the belief that something of practical value may come out of a colony. We may find that the Moon has some materials in greater abundance than we have them here. Or we may find the Moon is a useful springboard to the asteroid belt, which could have something we want.


    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Maybe it would be good for Japan and China to start a moon race...
    Perhaps. China is certainly a rival there, but JAXA is so much a joint operation that it's doubtful they could put together a Moon program without it being a collaborative effort, and, in that event, we (NASA/ESA) would likely already be involved.
    It's too bad. It might precipitate a full on nuclear war if the USA were to claim the entire rock, by being the only one capable of setting up colonists to squat for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    Somehow, private enterprise has to kick in.
    It's definitely been considered, but the technology and the reputation has to make a few leaps, first. We have the technology to build a Moon base, etc, but it's not cost-effective enough, or dare I say "idiot proof" enough. Second, long-term space and Moon/Mars based operations need to become far more reliable and public-oriented, before there will be the widespread consideration needed to support such a corporate venture.
    I think the government may have to set up some of the opening infra-structure and then let private enterprise fill things out from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh2020
    The second step would be for our country to unilaterally renounce that part of the Space Treaty that forbids a country or corporation from claiming land when it lands on a foreign body. Note, to actually claim that land the country or corporation has to sustain life in a settlement for two consecutive years. Sending a robot to a moon, planet or asteroid doesn’t count.
    There are far more serious reasons for these treaties than just territory concerns. The primary concern is that anyone who builds a base on the Moon in a territory they politically have ownership of, has the right to do as they please. To that end, they can essentially turn their Moon base into an orbiting threat. If the "enemy" decides to put up a missile base up there, who's going to stop them? The results could lead into both an Earth based, space based, and Moon based war, or at the least another Cuban Missile Crisis centered around the Moon.
    Missiles are one of the smaller worries. Suppose someone gets the bright idea of fixing a rocket booster system to a large asteroid and steering it within a few degrees of impact with Earth.

    Dropping an Asteroid in the middle of a country would have about the same effect as a nuclear bomb. It could even have a much larger effect, depending on the size. (Though, fortunately, there'd be less radio-active fall-out)

    Anyway, just because Mars and the Moon are out there, doesn't mean humanity is ready to make that leap, yet. In ancient times, the ocean was there, but it didn't mean countries in 1300's could suddenly build a 1800's tall ship and cruise around with ease. There had to be trial and error, stepping stones. In a way, Earth's orbit is like a river, and we practice in that river before we take on the sea.
    Yeah. I'd like us to hurry up a bit, but it's better to have a very good plan first, before wasting tons of money on a mediocre plan. Space is one of those things where it's very easy to waste an awful lot of money doing something we'll be kicking ourselves for later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Theres two aspects, ownership and jurisdiction.

    Ownership: Imo no one should own land they arent actually using. Whoever goes to mars and build a colony should own the land the colony is built on.

    Jurisdiction: Imo it should be up to the people building a colony to decide under which jurisdiction they want to be (which laws apply), which most probably will be that of the country that sponsored the colony or invented/selected by the corporation that sponsored it. But for jurisdition it may enventually become "pratical" to assign a jurisdiction to unused land in the vacinity of an existing colony.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45 Read 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7
    Has anyone here ever read Dan Browns - Deception point (it’s the book he written that has not been made into a movie yet) it discusses a lot of what this topics about well not a lot but it does give good insight on how privatization in space and how it could spiral out of control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •