4 ms·

Oversupply and stagnation were solved in the past by wars or new worlds' colonisation. Considering that Planet Earth is full and that we do not want a nuclear w

by DrNuke 11y ago

Oversupply and stagnation were solved in the past by wars or new worlds' colonisation. Considering that Planet Earth is full and that we do not want a nuclear war, the best opportunity for mankind is Moon or Mars colonisation. Exploration has always been the distinctive trait of humans and still will be.

novalis78 11y ago
Another related question is how much demographics (less younger dynamic vs older comfortable individuals that resist change) has an impact on exploration.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I don't think it does. The classic explorer was a "seventh son" in the age of primogenture. Or they were just plain crazy. The generation that got us to the moon wasn't that young even at the time. Gene Krantz would have been 30 in 1963. Since life expectancy was lower then and people didn't stay in school until they were 30, 30 was the start of middle age. Krantz, like my parents, was Silent Generation, and they had a different idea about technology in general. Please understand that "youth culture" was originally designed by Big Tobacco to sell cigarettes - spend more on ads for youth because they'll smoke your brand for 40 years. Then it was music/movies, then soda and shoes. Now it's phones. In these things, you are at a poker game. If you don't know who the sucker is at a poker game, you're it.
kbart 11y ago
We can still make non-nuclear wars, just keep bombing 3rd world countries to keep that huge military machine running. P.S. to all downvoters: I'm not suggesting or advocating that, just stating the sad truth.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  Right? If we need a war, and we don't want a nuclear war, we can constantly attack countries without nuclear weapons, do proxy wars with Russia (maybe China in the future, if we could be so lucky) and arm both sides of civil wars. Also, we can sell weapons to countries who are constantly dealing with internal unrest (because they are dictatorships propped up by the sale of their natural resources.)
Amezarak 11y ago
> the best opportunity for mankind is Moon or Mars colonisation. Mars and the Moon are not suitable for long-term colonization. Maybe research bases, like Antarctica. But it's hard to see why anyone would want to live in a near vaccuum (average pressure on Mars is 0.6% of Earth's average) in a low-gravity environment (38% of Earth and 16% of Earth, respectively) for their whole life. We may be able to engineer successful Moon and Martian bases in the near future. But live there? You'd always either be underground or in a heavily shielded dome, never able to go outside, and the compromise of which would mean almost certain death. Further, low gravities have negative long-term health effects, and even if we ignore those, if you spend your whole life on Mars, going to Earth is going to be hellish torture. I'm all for space colonization, but I think if we're going to look at colonizing an extraterrestial body, which should at least be looking for something that has approximately Earth gravity and a real atmosphere. In our solar system, that just leaves Venus, which obviously comes with huge problems of its own, but perhaps they can be resolved with some kind of terraforming technology and a lot of time. (Bacteria to convert CO2 to oxygen to cool the atmosphere and make it breathable?) Probably we'd be better off looking for extrasolar planets that fit our criteria and developing the necessary engine technology and maybe cryogenics - keep relativistic effects in mind. Or we could just invent artificial gravity. That solves a lot of problems. :) I think we're best off looking after the Earth, for which we are tailor made.
- d_theorist 11y ago
  Artificial gravity is easy. Just spin around.
- novalis78 11y ago
  Maybe not large scale colonization - but once the Martians start having kids (if possible) and produce them in large numbers, imports from Mars (specialized, high tech manufacturing equipment) will increase. The Martians born there will not care living under harsh circumstances - they won't know any better. They will just keep working to make their lives a bit more comfortable, one generation at a time.
  - aninhumer 11y ago

by DrNuke 11y ago

novalis78 11y ago

Another related question is how much demographics (less younger dynamic vs older comfortable individuals that resist change) has an impact on exploration.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I don't think it does. The classic explorer was a "seventh son" in the age of primogenture. Or they were just plain crazy. The generation that got us to the moon wasn't that young even at the time. Gene Krantz would have been 30 in 1963. Since life expectancy was lower then and people didn't stay in school until they were 30, 30 was the start of middle age. Krantz, like my parents, was Silent Generation, and they had a different idea about technology in general. Please understand that "youth culture" was originally designed by Big Tobacco to sell cigarettes - spend more on ads for youth because they'll smoke your brand for 40 years. Then it was music/movies, then soda and shoes. Now it's phones. In these things, you are at a poker game. If you don't know who the sucker is at a poker game, you're it.

kbart 11y ago

We can still make non-nuclear wars, just keep bombing 3rd world countries to keep that huge military machine running. P.S. to all downvoters: I'm not suggesting or advocating that, just stating the sad truth.

pessimizer 11y ago
Right? If we need a war, and we don't want a nuclear war, we can constantly attack countries without nuclear weapons, do proxy wars with Russia (maybe China in the future, if we could be so lucky) and arm both sides of civil wars. Also, we can sell weapons to countries who are constantly dealing with internal unrest (because they are dictatorships propped up by the sale of their natural resources.)

Amezarak 11y ago

> the best opportunity for mankind is Moon or Mars colonisation. Mars and the Moon are not suitable for long-term colonization. Maybe research bases, like Antarctica. But it's hard to see why anyone would want to live in a near vaccuum (average pressure on Mars is 0.6% of Earth's average) in a low-gravity environment (38% of Earth and 16% of Earth, respectively) for their whole life. We may be able to engineer successful Moon and Martian bases in the near future. But live there? You'd always either be underground or in a heavily shielded dome, never able to go outside, and the compromise of which would mean almost certain death. Further, low gravities have negative long-term health effects, and even if we ignore those, if you spend your whole life on Mars, going to Earth is going to be hellish torture. I'm all for space colonization, but I think if we're going to look at colonizing an extraterrestial body, which should at least be looking for something that has approximately Earth gravity and a real atmosphere. In our solar system, that just leaves Venus, which obviously comes with huge problems of its own, but perhaps they can be resolved with some kind of terraforming technology and a lot of time. (Bacteria to convert CO2 to oxygen to cool the atmosphere and make it breathable?) Probably we'd be better off looking for extrasolar planets that fit our criteria and developing the necessary engine technology and maybe cryogenics - keep relativistic effects in mind. Or we could just invent artificial gravity. That solves a lot of problems. :) I think we're best off looking after the Earth, for which we are tailor made.

d_theorist 11y ago
Artificial gravity is easy. Just spin around.
novalis78 11y ago
Maybe not large scale colonization - but once the Martians start having kids (if possible) and produce them in large numbers, imports from Mars (specialized, high tech manufacturing equipment) will increase. The Martians born there will not care living under harsh circumstances - they won't know any better. They will just keep working to make their lives a bit more comfortable, one generation at a time.
- aninhumer 11y ago