Thread: galactic expansion: do we have the right?

towards the end of the political forum topic labeled "anyone else anti economic growth?" i asked myself a question after kojax pointed out that we can't keep stretching the resources here on earth infinitely if the population doesn't stop at 9 billion as the UN predicts.

the only way to get more resources than we have here, is to go elsewhere.

in my mind the question has to be asked: do we have the right to go throughout the rest of the universe destroying other planets as we have earth, or should humanity remain on it's own island?

I don't understand the question. What would be the source of such a right, or who would determine such right does or does not exist? Are you a religious person?

In what sense have we destroyed the planet, other than to make it a less suitable environment for ourselves? Do you think there are beings on other planets, and how do you know what kind of environment they prefer? Why should we care?

It will be many decades or centuries before we have the ability to travel beyond the Solar System. Let's apply our brains to solving the problems we face today and in the immediate future rather than speculating about moral problems we might face 300 years from now.

Originally Posted by saul

in my mind the question has to be asked: do we have the right to go throughout the rest of the universe destroying other planets as we have earth, or should humanity remain on it's own island?

In my mind the question has to be asked: do I waste my time answering the false dichotomy of a poster with an agenda, or do I reflect on the possibility that, armed with the lessons learned from an initially botched job on Earth, we can venture in to the galaxy bringing a sensitive spreading of our intellect, accompanied by an appreciation of and respect for
the environments we encounter and the cultures we may meet.

Originally Posted by saul

towards the end of the political forum topic labeled "anyone else anti economic growth?" i asked myself a question after kojax pointed out that we can't keep stretching the resources here on earth infinitely if the population doesn't stop at 9 billion as the UN predicts.

the only way to get more resources than we have here, is to go elsewhere.

Exponential growth is unsustainable by any means. Even if we coud expand outside of our solar system, we woud need exponentially faster propulsion to sustain the exponential growth expected by economists. It is an insane theory and it should be rejected outraight. Sadly, this is nothing unusuall, most economic theories rely on bizarre assumptions.

ophiolite, while i respect your opinion. stating that humanity has learned from its mistakes isn't something that you can accept someone to accept as true without a good amount of evidence. i find it hard to believe by the evidence to the contrary.

some evidence:

1)after the immorality of colonialism was realized by most contries, the capitalist and imperialist policies that caused it were maintained dispite the fact that they led to excessive greed within the people.

2)the nationalist mentailities that led to WW1 are still an accepted part of society, dispite the fact that it currently causes tensions between nations. for my modern example i'll point to the arab-israeli war. which is a result of disagreements over whether the arabs, or the jews own the land.

3)in 2006 the movie "an inconvenient truth" came out with strong evidence support, if not proving that human polution is accelerating global warming. since this evidence has been laid out showing we're accelerating global warming, and since the negative affects of excessive global warming have been know, carbon dioxide emmisions have increased.

Harold14370, the question is asking whether or not we(the reasonably intellegent people who participate in this particular forum) believe that humanity should be allowed to colonize other planets. i'm not a particularly religous person, i merely admit that we don't know everything so there is a limited possibility. other than making it an unsuitable environment for ourselves, we've also made it unsuitable for other species on this planet. although i don't know of any alien civilizations, i find that with the immense size of the universe it is statistically impossible for there not to be another planet with some form of life on it. i don't claim to know what kind of environment an alien being would preffer, however i do know that out of all the planets with all the different environments we have observed, only ours supports life, thus it is reasonable to assume that another planet with life would have a similar environment. in addition, if you had a basic understanding of biology you would know that the process of synthesizing DNA only affectively occurs within a specific temperature range. so if you propose that aliens use some form other than DNA to record their genetic information, you can take that one up in the biology forum.

Bunbury, although question doesn't specifically ask it, it also entails a question as to whether or not we are currently treating our planet right. if you want to talk about something that we're dealing with now i can't think of too many better subjects to converse on. so, if you wish to spend your time on current issues, do so. don't just dismiss others questions, talk about them in a way that interests you.

Twit of wit, unfortunately you're correct. exponential growth can't be sustained infinately. but as bunbury has demonstrated, the majority of people would rather just ignore it untill it's on the verge of being uncontrolable. and just a bit of a correction. if you have the same speed propulsion and are expanding in all directions, the area that you settle each unit of time increases exponentially.

Originally Posted by saul

Harold14370, the question is asking whether or not we(the reasonably intellegent people who participate in this particular forum) believe that humanity should be allowed to colonize other planets. i'm not a particularly religous person, i merely admit that we don't know everything so there is a limited possibility.

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people. Then rights must come from people themselves, and you imagine that a species will agree to limit its own propagation? It doesn't make sense. What is this "right" you are talking about?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people.

It seems you are a victim of religious brainwashing.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people.

It seems you are a victim of religious brainwashing.

It seems you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. I made an objectively true statement. In what way do you disagree with it?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people.

It seems you are a victim of religious brainwashing.

It seems you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. I made an objectively true statement. In what way do you disagree with it?

In the same way I disagree with other religious claims that say "it could not exist wihout GOD". If you claim you are not religious, then why do you agree with the claim that people would lost morality without the God, ten commandments, bible or what else they say?

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people.

It seems you are a victim of religious brainwashing.

It seems you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. I made an objectively true statement. In what way do you disagree with it?

In the same way I disagree with other religious claims that say "it could not exist wihout GOD". If you claim you are not religious, then why do you agree with the claim that people would lost morality without the God, ten commandments, bible or what else they say?

Read carefully. I did not say that there was no morality without God. I stated that if rights do not come from a higher power, then they come from man. I am trying to ascertain how a right that comes from the human species could work against the survival or propagation of the human species.

There is no right or wrong only cause and effect.

The universe isnt someones property else than those who would claim it and if there is a race out there able to travel space to our galaxy, then they probably have technology so vast they wouldnt care about us just as much as we wouldnt care about the ants we step on.

So "who gives us the right?" you ask? Difficult to answer as the word "Right" is a flawed subjective word with multiple definisions.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Read carefully. I did not say that there was no morality without God. I stated that if rights do not come from a higher power, then they come from man. I am trying to ascertain how a right that comes from the human species could work against the survival or propagation of the human species.

1. It is not against survival. Depleting resources is against survival. As I mentioned previously, you would need faster and faster propulsion to sustain exponential growth.
2. Senseless expansion may be easily against survival. Such civilisation would be most likely recognised as a threat and destroyed by others.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

1. It is not against survival. Depleting resources is against survival. As I mentioned previously, you would need faster and faster propulsion to sustain exponential growth.
2. Senseless expansion may be easily against survival. Such civilisation would be most likely recognised as a threat and destroyed by others.

I see that we are no longer discussing rights, so I think you have gone off topic.

Originally Posted by saul

ophiolite, while i respect your opinion. stating that humanity has learned from its mistakes isn't something that you can accept someone to accept as true without a good amount of evidence. i find it hard to believe by the evidence to the contrary.

Where did I say that humanity had learned from its mistakes? I've carefully re-read my post and I see that I very definitely did not.
Firstly, I explicitly stated that I was reflecting on a possibility. I did not declare mankind had, or would learn from its ,istakes, only that this might happen.
Secondly, I implicitly left open the possibility that we might learn from our mistakes in the future, even though we may not have done so thus far.

Saul, I understand your argument and the value of the evidences you have to offer, but you seem to be a glass half empty kind of a guy. Look at each point you raise.

Originally Posted by saul

1)after the immorality of colonialism was realized by most contries, the capitalist and imperialist policies that caused it were maintained dispite the fact that they led to excessive greed within the people.

To day there are many organisations - governmental, quasi governmental and private - working to correct the mistakes of the past and to impose a more egalitarian approach in the future. The serious efforts to end global poverty would be an example. Is this effort underresourced, underfunded, improperly prioritised? Of course it is, but the very fact that it exists and that a significant number of movers and shakers recognise it as a good thing is a huge advance on the attitudes (and actions) of the past.

Originally Posted by saul

2)the nationalist mentailities that led to WW1 are still an accepted part of society, dispite the fact that it currently causes tensions between nations. for my modern example i'll point to the arab-israeli war. which is a result of disagreements over whether the arabs, or the jews own the land.

And yet set against that, the iron curtain has come down. Europe is more united than at any time in its history. Across the world international organisations are growing in influence and scope, whether they be regional, continental, or global in scope. Cooperation is becoming entrenched in every aspect of how countries do their business.

Originally Posted by saul

3)in 2006 the movie "an inconvenient truth" came out with strong evidence support, if not proving that human polution is accelerating global warming. since this evidence has been laid out showing we're accelerating global warming, and since the negative affects of excessive global warming have been know, carbon dioxide emmisions have increased.

Yet as I fly across the Atlantic this afternoon an announcement will be made by cabin staff explaining how I can offset my share of carbon usage of the flight. The phrase 'carbon footprint' was unknown a decade ago. The increase in carbon emissions is much less than it might have been. Many countries have programs to introduce green energy and these programs are accelerating.

You see gloom and doom. I don't.


Possibly.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I see that we are no longer discussing rights, so I think you have gone off topic.

You went off topic few posts ago by using "rights" as "what is in my best self interest". I just followed.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I see that we are no longer discussing rights, so I think you have gone off topic.

You went off topic few posts ago by using "rights" as "what is in my best self interest". I just followed.

I don't think I did. In any case I am interested in what people think about rights. The US Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That's one view. If you don't believe in a creator you obviously will have another view. Is it that there are no rights (as Raziell thinks) or are there rights that derive from a different source than a creator?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by saul

Harold14370, the question is asking whether or not we(the reasonably intellegent people who participate in this particular forum) believe that humanity should be allowed to colonize other planets. i'm not a particularly religous person, i merely admit that we don't know everything so there is a limited possibility.

If you are not religious, then you do not believe in a higher power granting "rights" to people. Then rights must come from people themselves, and you imagine that a species will agree to limit its own propagation? It doesn't make sense. What is this "right" you are talking about?

Indeed,

...whether or not we believe that humanity should be allowed to colonize other planets.

Who is it that is 'allowing' us one way or another? Perhaps "will decide to" is a better phrase.

Of course we can colonize other planets, and microbial life likely travels about from one planet to the next (on meteorites and such) in any event.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

You went off topic few posts ago by using "rights" as "what is in my best self interest". I just followed.

I don't think I did. In any case I am interested in what people think about rights. The US Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That's one view. If you don't believe in a creator you obviously will have another view. Is it that there are no rights (as Raziell thinks) or are there rights that derive from a different source than a creator?

Are you trying to prove that atheist=immoral? Or what is your point?

Bunbury, although question doesn't specifically ask it, it also entails a question as to whether or not we are currently treating our planet right. if you want to talk about something that we're dealing with now i can't think of too many better subjects to converse on. so, if you wish to spend your time on current issues, do so. don't just dismiss others questions, talk about them in a way that interests you.

You having asked a specific question about "rights" in the Philosophy forum, I'm certainly not going to change the subject to environmental issues since:

a) there's a forum for that, and
b) it would not be respectful of your original question to send the thread of on (yet another) tangent

If in fact your real agenda is to bemoan our treatment of our one and only planet then I suggest you post this clearly in Environmental Issues.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I see that we are no longer discussing rights, so I think you have gone off topic.

You went off topic few posts ago by using "rights" as "what is in my best self interest". I just followed.

I don't think I did. In any case I am interested in what people think about rights. The US Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That's one view. If you don't believe in a creator you obviously will have another view. Is it that there are no rights (as Raziell thinks) or are there rights that derive from a different source than a creator?

Actually, "creator" or something like that could be an explanation of morality and consciousness. However, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Bunbury, although question doesn't specifically ask it, it also entails a question as to whether or not we are currently treating our planet right. if you want to talk about something that we're dealing with now i can't think of too many better subjects to converse on. so, if you wish to spend your time on current issues, do so. don't just dismiss others questions, talk about them in a way that interests you.

You having asked a specific question about "rights" in the Philosophy forum, I'm certainly not going to change the subject to environmental issues since:

a) there's a forum for that, and
b) it would not be respectful of your original question to send the thread of on (yet another) tangent

If in fact your real agenda is to bemoan our treatment of our one and only planet then I suggest you post this clearly in Environmental Issues.

bunbury, i have no "real agenda" i simply wish to discuss an interesting topic with others. i do not wish to bemoan our treatment of the planet.

additionally, i would not feel disrespected if you related my question to something else, and the conversation took that route. in fact this type of change of tone in the conversation is fascinating to me, so please go ahead.

Twit of wit and Harrold14370, your conversation has strayed from a discussion on my original question, to one about theism, and then predictably from there into a personal arguement.

perhaps all the issues in this topic are due to the fact that wasn't very explicit in my question. the right of humanity isn't one that comes from a creator, or a universal morality, it comes from a general consensus by humanity. the question isn't simply about expansion to other planets, it is a question of whether or not we have established a system of living that can be supported on such a large scale. and by asking that question it asks if our current system can be supported on the scale of our planet. any of these things and more could be discussed on this topic and it wouldn't be considered off topic or a tangent.

now, personally i'm of the opinion that ophiolite is correct that we've made vast improvements over the past. however looking at the world as it is i cannot make myself believe that our current system should be kept when we eventually(after a long period of time, bunbury) expand beyond our planet.

ophiolite, i am not a glass half empty or a glass half full kind of guy. i'm a person who sees a glass halfway between empty and full and wishes to fill it.

Originally Posted by saul

Twit of wit and Harrold14370, your conversation has strayed from a discussion on my original question, to one about theism, and then predictably from there into a personal arguement.

perhaps all the issues in this topic are due to the fact that wasn't very explicit in my question. the right of humanity isn't one that comes from a creator, or a universal morality, it comes from a general consensus by humanity.

No, it's not about theism. That is just an example of how some people might view the subject of rights. There is nothing personal about it.
If rights come from a general consensus of humanity, would it be fair to say that slavery was a right a few centuries ago when it was an acceptable practice, but is no longer right today?

slavery was an accepted practice untill somewhat recently. the word "right" doesn't really apply, you didn't have the "right" to be a slave, you simply didn't have the right to freedom that prevents slavery.

i believe that although it is immoral, at the time when it was practiced slavery was not viewed as immoral. people simply held the belief that human life was something that could be traded like all other commodities.

now, to avoid going off on a tangent let's not talk further on slavery. are you of the opinion that the rights of human beings are determined by something other than what is socially accepted at the time(which is the general consensus). do you believe in a universal morality, or that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"?

The Founders were a collection of Christians, deists, agnostics and perhaps some atheists, and the use of “Creator” was probably a political expedient to get something written that everyone could interpret their own way. It is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. If natural rights are the issue, they can be asserted without recourse to an imaginary deity. In fact many Libertarians are atheists and assert such rights.

Oh, no, I don't think it's a red herring. If we wish to answer the question posed in the OP we have to know what we are talking about when we say "rights."

Many believe that morals arise from evolutionary developments, i.e., survival of the species gives rise to certain social mores and behaviors, etc. I thought it was rather peculiar that Saul might think humans would not have a right to do something that could help the species survive. So, it is clear to me that Saul thinks or thought, somewhere in the back of his mind, that there were rights outside of or even superseding those driven by evolution.

I know that libertarian atheists assert such rights, but I am interested in hearing the theories about the source and nature of those rights, whether thay are absolute, etc. Were those rights really self evident, as the founders thought, or were they just the fashion of the day? Do we still have the same rights now, different ones, or what, and why?

Locke originally defined the basic rights as life, liberty and property ownership. To Jefferson it was self-evident that Locke was wrong about the last one, because he changed it to the pursuit of happiness. I can rationalize this on the basis that any action a person does, including giving away all his property and doing charitable works, is surely ultimately designed to fulfill that person’s psychological needs, thus lead to “happiness”. So Jefferson’s happiness is more fundamental than Locke’s property.

harrold14370, you brought about an assumption i was waiting for someone to use. you assume that expansion is something that can help us survive. however i'm not so sure. as the size of the livable world increased, our ability to manage it has decreased. back when greece was the center of civilization they lived in a sustainable way because they had nowhere to go. currently that's not the case. and looking at an even larger habitat, i think we're likely to manage it even worse. that's why i think that it really isn't something that will help us survive.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Many believe that morals arise from evolutionary developments, i.e., survival of the species gives rise to certain social mores and behaviors, etc. I thought it was rather peculiar that Saul might think humans would not have a right to do something that could help the species survive. So, it is clear to me that Saul thinks or thought, somewhere in the back of his mind, that there were rights outside of or even superseding those driven by evolution.

But you have to distinguish between individual rights and group rights. An individual may have a right to liberty, but that individual right has nothing to do with the survival of the human race except in an accidental way. This individual right might be consistent with the selfish gene theory of evolution, which, as its name makes clear, is not about the survival of the human race, but the survival of the individual who happens to be the vehicle for that gene.

The right of the human race to occupy other planets is highly hypothetical at this point, and it might be better to ask if nations have the right to occupy other nations if the occupied nation is, say, underpopulated, or undeveloped, since this question is the same in principle as the one about planets. Or what if a nation of free people wants to invade a nation that practices slavery? Does the free nation have the right to invade in order to set the slaves free? This would be a different kind of right from the individual rights, and one that would need to be debated and established by law.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

But you have to distinguish between individual rights and group rights. An individual may have a right to liberty, but that individual right has nothing to do with the survival of the human race except in an accidental way.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Isn't evolution really the ultimate source of all our behaviors? If there is an individual right, it must be because those societies or species which have respected that right have had a better chance of survival. That's no accident.

This individual right might be consistent with the selfish gene theory of evolution, which, as its name makes clear, is not about the survival of the human race, but the survival of the individual who happens to be the vehicle for that gene.

If I respect someone else's individual right, how does that help me to survive?
It must be because I can then benefit by having that same right respected by the rest of society. So the only way that will work is if it benefits the society as a whole. It can't work on an individual basis.

The right of the human race to occupy other planets is highly hypothetical at this point, and it might be better to ask if nations have the right to occupy other nations if the occupied nation is, say, underpopulated, or undeveloped, since this question is the same in principle as the one about planets.

No it isn't. If other planets are occupied by alien beings there isn't any reason that I know of to expect any benefits from leaving them alone, unless you would for some reason expect them to behave in a human-like manner, and to reciprocate the kindness. Why would anyone expect that?

Or what if a nation of free people wants to invade a nation that practices slavery? Does the free nation have the right to invade in order to set the slaves free? This would be a different kind of right from the individual rights, and one that would need to be debated and established by law.

If it's debated and established by law, does that make it right? The concept of a right is something that supersedes popular opinion or majority rule. At least that's the way I think of it. There would be no need for a bill of rights, if it did not take precedence over the legislative process.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No it isn't. If other planets are occupied by alien beings there isn't any reason that I know of to expect any benefits from leaving them alone, unless you would for some reason expect them to behave in a human-like manner, and to reciprocate the kindness. Why would anyone expect that?

If it is as you say benefical enough to evolve here, (even in other species) why would you expect something different on other planets?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Bunbury

But you have to distinguish between individual rights and group rights. An individual may have a right to liberty, but that individual right has nothing to do with the survival of the human race except in an accidental way.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Isn't evolution really the ultimate source of all our behaviors? If there is an individual right, it must be because those societies or species which have respected that right have had a better chance of survival. That's no accident.

It is an accident in the sense that evolution is the result of accidents. But to say that societies or species survive because of respect for individual rights would seem to ignore the route the human race has taken to get where we are today. For instance, few empires respected individual rights. The world today is the product of Greek slavery, Genghis Khan's empire and the British Empire. None of these exists today and none of them respected individual rights in the way we understand it. Yet the human race survived all that.

This individual right might be consistent with the selfish gene theory of evolution, which, as its name makes clear, is not about the survival of the human race, but the survival of the individual who happens to be the vehicle for that gene.

If I respect someone else's individual right, how does that help me to survive? It must be because I can then benefit by having that same right respected by the rest of society. So the only way that will work is if it benefits the society as a whole. It can't work on an individual basis.

That is still describing individual rights, not group rights. The original question was about the rights of the human race. Does the human race have a right to life, or liberty? Or is that simply presuming that individual rights extend to villages, cities, countries and races? We know that an individual's right to liberty is not absolute because absolute freedom impinges on other individuals. I do not have the right to park my car on your front lawn. So we have laws that define the limits of freedom. Now if we want to invade another planet (ignoring the extreme unlikeliness of that ever being possible) then presumably a majority of the human race would have to agree that we have right to do that. We call that a right but it is really just a consensus about morality or expediency.

The right of the human race to occupy other planets is highly hypothetical at this point, and it might be better to ask if nations have the right to occupy other nations if the occupied nation is, say, underpopulated, or undeveloped, since this question is the same in principle as the one about planets.

No it isn't. If other planets are occupied by alien beings there isn't any reason that I know of to expect any benefits from leaving them alone, unless you would for some reason expect them to behave in a human-like manner, and to reciprocate the kindness. Why would anyone expect that?

OK, you didn't like that analogy. (Aside: I just find it a bit pointless to discuss things in such highly hypothetical ways. We will not be in a position to occupy other planets, in my humble opinion, for centuries, and possibly never, because of the obvious logistical issues, including cost if the technology ever became available, and then the other obvious problem that we require very specific environmental conditions.)

what if a nation of free people wants to invade a nation that practices slavery? Does the free nation have the right to invade in order to set the slaves free? This would be a different kind of right from the individual rights, and one that would need to be debated and established by law.

If it's debated and established by law, does that make it right? The concept of a right is something that supersedes popular opinion or majority rule. At least that's the way I think of it. There would be no need for a bill of rights, if it did not take precedence over the legislative process.

There are two (at least) definitions of rights. One is natural rights which a libertarian might say are self-evident and a religious person might say are God-given; the other is rights given by law. The interesting question is where do the former kind come from? When did humans acquire rights?

bunbury's third passage is exactly what i had in mind in the OP. it's not a question of simply whether we should eventually occupy other planets. but it is also one of the analogy that was used in the first quote. do countries have the right to invade each other? do european countries have the right to colonize areas of africa where the people have chosen not to develop the land?

you pointed out that there are multiple types of rights. and although i do agree that we must recognize the difference, we don't have to only talk about one.

i find it somewhat obvious that we don't have a natural right to some things such as freedom, because we have not always had freedom. however it is arguable that individual humans have had a right to life since the race began, this seems obvious because someone is always mad if that right is infringed upon.

rights determined by a consensus are a bit trickier. throughout history it has been the general consensus that slavery was ok, thus we didn't have a right to freedom. however in modern times countries that like to think of themselves as civilized have a general consensus that there is a right to freedom.

so, what my question boils down to is "currently do we believe there is either a natural right, or a general consensus that it's ok to invade unoccupied or undeveloped land that is not ours?"

Originally Posted by saul

so, what my question boils down to is "currently do we believe there is either a natural right, or a general consensus that it's ok to invade unoccupied or undeveloped land that is not ours?"

By any reasonable definitions if the land is unoccupied or undeveloped then it is unowned, therefore it is not possible to invade such land. No rights are infringed.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

By any reasonable definitions if the land is unoccupied or undeveloped then it is unowned, therefore it is not possible to invade such land. No rights are infringed.

There are 109,000,000 acres of land within the USA borders that are undeveloped and unoccupied except for an occasional backpacker or hunter. Come on over and try to build a house!

I'm in Houston at the moment. I'll get some timbers from HomeBase this weekend and start construction. :wink:

We will never have the ability to move beyond the solar system. We will die out before anyone recieves any substancial enough funding to pursue such techology.

Originally Posted by Chris11

We will never have the ability to move beyond the solar system. We will die out before anyone recieves any substancial enough funding to pursue such techology.

Even if this was true, does that mean we don't discuss the moral ramifications?

Originally Posted by Chris11

We will never have the ability to move beyond the solar system. We will die out before anyone recieves any substancial enough funding to pursue such technology.

We have already sent craft out of the solar system altho' individual humans have never reached these distances.
To state flatly that "we will never-----move beyond the solar system" is arrogant and stupid because the writer is saying that he/she is able to predict the limits of scientific knowledge and technology, in regard to space travel, far into the future.

Well can we be sure that it wont be possible to inhabit another place in the solar system? There are plenty of moons that are geologically active. Maybe at some point far into the future one of these could support terrestrial life, although I doubt humans will last the few million years wait.
The earth at more than one point was far beyond the realms of supporting life.

Also what is there to say that you cant get life that has evolved systems for totally different atmospheres? For example why cant evolution stumble upon a way for a fish type creature to survive in a hydrocarbon ocean on Titan?

Perhaps we could add a microbe to a moon that we know would floruish similar to what microbes did on the earth to produce oxygen. Or even bio-engineer one so we can over a long-time change the atmosphere of a planet. Is there a moral ramification for that? I know Nasa are careful to not contaminate other planets/moons with microbes from earth on landers and probes etc.

Id love to get a mortgage on a place on Enceladus.

History shows life inexorably pioneers new and even radically new environments. We humans may have a choice about this, but life AKA evolution does not.