6 ms·

Frustrating to realize that perhaps only 1 or 2 years of Earth's military spending would enable mankind to achieve this (approx $1700 billion/year). Not saying

Frustrating to realize that perhaps only 1 or 2 years of Earth's military spending would enable mankind to achieve this (approx $1700 billion/year). Not saying we don't need to spend money on defense, merely taking one the world's expenditures as a yardstick. It would be so great if mankind is able to cooperate in the colonization of our solar system.

increment_i 12y ago
I imagine this cooperation will happen, probably towards the middle of this century, as resources become ever more scarce and general ignorance of the population at large decreases.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  > general ignorance of the population at large decreases I like sci-fi, but this is the real world we're talking about here.
- yc1010 12y ago
  If our history is anything to go by, then lack of resources and competition for what remains wont lead to "co-operation" but will lead to war.
einrealist 12y ago
It would be even better if we could spend this amount of money to fix the problems we already have on this planet, like global warming, pollution and hunger and stuff.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  It's like the entire point of this video just whooshed right over your head.
- avz 12y ago
  This is fundamentally a question of the balance between our efforts focused on the long-term vs those focused on the short-term. Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. I'm personally baffled by the desire to focus all our resources on the short-term. The questions of the long-term future of humankind and our place in the universe, make the immediate issues like pollution and disease look petty and irrelevant by comparison. Also, from the practical angle, we're already spending a huge amount of money on solving our local, short-term problems here on Earth. Adding ~$2 trillion would be an increase, but not a game-changer. OTOH, humanity spends under $50 billion/year on space [1]. Adding $2 trillion would constitute 4000% increase! This might be enough to transform humanity from a precarious single-planet species into an interplanetary civilization in a few generations. Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#Budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agenci...
  - revscat 12y ago
    > Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. Yes, but so long as global warming is a threat then the notion of humanity expanding to the stars is a pipe-dream. If the planet becomes incapable of supporting advanced social structures -- or, worse, complex lifeforms whatsoever -- then no one is going to be going anywhere: there will be no one left to travel.
    - onewaystreet 12y ago
      None of that is going to happen anytime soon. Market forces (oil prices are down now, but in the long term they will go back up forcing us to move to cleaner alternatives) as well as the beginning effects of global warming (flooding) will force us to change long before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  You seem to not realize those are problems for us, human virus, and not the planet problems. Those so called problems are natures way of trying to balance things. If you cut hunger and make a breakthrough in healthcare you will immediately accelerate population growth, and in effect accelerate pollution and energy use. Earth is unsustainable in the long run. No one is willing to accept euthanasia, birth limits, basically efforts to maintain population caps. People might say its a good idea others should implement, not them personally :)
  - ChrisGranger 12y ago
    Don't the nations with the best health care also tend to (perhaps not always) have slower population growth?
    - eivarv 12y ago
      I think there is a host of factors to keep in mind about the nations in question. These nations (good health care, slow population growth) [1] tend to be highly developed countries [2], with relatively high average education of its citizens [3] and high life expectancy [4]. Many of them also have high social equality and high cost of living because of higher taxation (e.g. the cost of social programs and universal healthcare) [5]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
  - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
    To learn more about population growth and the many misconceptions around it, I'd recommend watching something from Prof. Hans Rosling. Here are a few things: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-p...
- kabdib 12y ago
  Explorer to Queen Izzabella (or whomever): "We'd like to sail west and find a shortcut to the Indies." Queenie: "Sorry. We've got poverty and people who are hungry here, you'll have to wait." (400 years later) Descendant of that Explorer: "Can we go now?" Queenie: "Sorry, still haven't solved that poverty stuff. Go do some farming or something." ---- A lot of the "poverty and hunger stuff" is caused by corruption and unworkable politics and ideologies. Another big factor is simple human nature. "The poor will be with us always." It's a wicked problem that will probably never go away. We shouldn't use it as an excuse. (I would be quite happy trading military and secret-police spending, which is basically out of control). Oh, we can try to address poverty. But putting everything else on hold doesn't make sense. A rising tide floats all boats; more resources and better technology will help everyone, at least a little. [I'm actually not a big fan of manned exploration any more; it's expensive, and robots can do way better than we can, for the foreseeable future. Oh, putting men on other planets has undeniable poetry and significance, but if you want to do science or mining or whatever, you're better off with metal than monkeys].
  - swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
    A man named Thomas Malthus proposed an explanation why this is and will always be the case, back in the early 1800s. Populations will always grow, even if there aren't enough resources for the next generation. As a result, some catastrophe must happen to keep the population in check: war, disease or famine. These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population. Of course, we haven't solved any other of our philosophical vices, I'm inclined to think this isn't any different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
    - jafaku 12y ago
      > These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population Ugh, that's not how we escaped Malthus' predictions. We escaped precisely thanks to scientific discoveries and technological advancements.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  Plain and simple, either our species spreads or we die. We die not only because we can't seem to solve our immediate problems (I bet global temperatures will cross the +6 Celsius in this century) but we die the next big space rock hits Earth or the next time Yellowstone erupts, or the next time some weird highly energetic phenomenon we are absolutely clueless about roasts our high atmosphere just enough it starts letting the sun's UV through. It's stupid to colonize other worlds and ignore our current problems because they'll kill us before we get there, but it's equally stupid to ignore the long-term problems of putting all our eggs on a single planetary basket around a single star. While I'm quite sure the Sun will not blow up on the next quarter or before the next couple elections, I'm quite sure it'll not last forever and really think it'll eventually misbehave in some deadly fashion. There are several mass extinctions in fossil record and I'd much prefer our species would not end up as a museum curiosity for the following civilisation.
grondilu 12y ago
> It would be so great if mankind is able to cooperate in the colonization of our solar system. We already collaborate for the exploration of the solar system, via robotic probes and giant telescopes. That's good enough. Colonization is an all different matter, and a weird one if you ask me. Earth is the largest place with a solid ground in the Solar system, and it's by far the most hospitable. Settling on an other planet like mars would cost an insane amount of money[1] and would at best double the available real estate for our species. It's not so sure it would be worth it, especially considering that a lot of people would end up having contributed for something that other people will benefit from. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDnGHaXdxw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDnGHaXdxw
- Steuard 12y ago
  The history of the human race is a long succession of people contributing for something that other people will benefit from. Sometimes just knowing that you're enabling the dream is enough.
  - grondilu 12y ago
    > The history of the human race is a long succession of people contributing for something that other people will benefit from. I hope you will acknowledge that this applies to some of the most sinister parts of this history, though.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  It will be worth it when we build space-ship building robot factories, which can also build robots, and send them to an asteroid or so .. and in return get ourselves a fleet of robots in space ships to do other things with. There is no need for us to actually go there; we can do all the building from here. Vote for me and I will vow to make the space-ships, with robots, show up!
- rbanffy 12y ago
  > Settling on an other planet like mars would cost an insane amount of money[1] and would at best double the available real estate for our species. Not quite. Having the technology to live on Mars or on the Moon would enable us to settle pretty much anywhere in the habitable zone of the system. Just imagine how much real estate can be built in the form of rings or tubes with materials mined from the Moon or the asteroid belt. Planets are nice for mining, but going up and down deep gravity wells is not something an interplanetary species would want to do regularly. Also, keep in mind there are a lot of global catastrophes that could easily wipe out our civilisation.
hiphopyo 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar https://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar

increment_i 12y ago

I imagine this cooperation will happen, probably towards the middle of this century, as resources become ever more scarce and general ignorance of the population at large decreases.

JetSpiegel 12y ago
> general ignorance of the population at large decreases I like sci-fi, but this is the real world we're talking about here.
yc1010 12y ago
If our history is anything to go by, then lack of resources and competition for what remains wont lead to "co-operation" but will lead to war.

einrealist 12y ago

It would be even better if we could spend this amount of money to fix the problems we already have on this planet, like global warming, pollution and hunger and stuff.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's like the entire point of this video just whooshed right over your head.
avz 12y ago
This is fundamentally a question of the balance between our efforts focused on the long-term vs those focused on the short-term. Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. I'm personally baffled by the desire to focus all our resources on the short-term. The questions of the long-term future of humankind and our place in the universe, make the immediate issues like pollution and disease look petty and irrelevant by comparison. Also, from the practical angle, we're already spending a huge amount of money on solving our local, short-term problems here on Earth. Adding ~$2 trillion would be an increase, but not a game-changer. OTOH, humanity spends under $50 billion/year on space [1]. Adding $2 trillion would constitute 4000% increase! This might be enough to transform humanity from a precarious single-planet species into an interplanetary civilization in a few generations. Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#Budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agenci...
- revscat 12y ago
  > Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. Yes, but so long as global warming is a threat then the notion of humanity expanding to the stars is a pipe-dream. If the planet becomes incapable of supporting advanced social structures -- or, worse, complex lifeforms whatsoever -- then no one is going to be going anywhere: there will be no one left to travel.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    None of that is going to happen anytime soon. Market forces (oil prices are down now, but in the long term they will go back up forcing us to move to cleaner alternatives) as well as the beginning effects of global warming (flooding) will force us to change long before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
rasz_pl 12y ago
You seem to not realize those are problems for us, human virus, and not the planet problems. Those so called problems are natures way of trying to balance things. If you cut hunger and make a breakthrough in healthcare you will immediately accelerate population growth, and in effect accelerate pollution and energy use. Earth is unsustainable in the long run. No one is willing to accept euthanasia, birth limits, basically efforts to maintain population caps. People might say its a good idea others should implement, not them personally :)
- ChrisGranger 12y ago
  Don't the nations with the best health care also tend to (perhaps not always) have slower population growth?
  - eivarv 12y ago
    I think there is a host of factors to keep in mind about the nations in question. These nations (good health care, slow population growth) [1] tend to be highly developed countries [2], with relatively high average education of its citizens [3] and high life expectancy [4]. Many of them also have high social equality and high cost of living because of higher taxation (e.g. the cost of social programs and universal healthcare) [5]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  To learn more about population growth and the many misconceptions around it, I'd recommend watching something from Prof. Hans Rosling. Here are a few things: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-p...
kabdib 12y ago
Explorer to Queen Izzabella (or whomever): "We'd like to sail west and find a shortcut to the Indies." Queenie: "Sorry. We've got poverty and people who are hungry here, you'll have to wait." (400 years later) Descendant of that Explorer: "Can we go now?" Queenie: "Sorry, still haven't solved that poverty stuff. Go do some farming or something." ---- A lot of the "poverty and hunger stuff" is caused by corruption and unworkable politics and ideologies. Another big factor is simple human nature. "The poor will be with us always." It's a wicked problem that will probably never go away. We shouldn't use it as an excuse. (I would be quite happy trading military and secret-police spending, which is basically out of control). Oh, we can try to address poverty. But putting everything else on hold doesn't make sense. A rising tide floats all boats; more resources and better technology will help everyone, at least a little. [I'm actually not a big fan of manned exploration any more; it's expensive, and robots can do way better than we can, for the foreseeable future. Oh, putting men on other planets has undeniable poetry and significance, but if you want to do science or mining or whatever, you're better off with metal than monkeys].
- swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
  A man named Thomas Malthus proposed an explanation why this is and will always be the case, back in the early 1800s. Populations will always grow, even if there aren't enough resources for the next generation. As a result, some catastrophe must happen to keep the population in check: war, disease or famine. These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population. Of course, we haven't solved any other of our philosophical vices, I'm inclined to think this isn't any different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
  - jafaku 12y ago
    > These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population Ugh, that's not how we escaped Malthus' predictions. We escaped precisely thanks to scientific discoveries and technological advancements.
rbanffy 12y ago
Plain and simple, either our species spreads or we die. We die not only because we can't seem to solve our immediate problems (I bet global temperatures will cross the +6 Celsius in this century) but we die the next big space rock hits Earth or the next time Yellowstone erupts, or the next time some weird highly energetic phenomenon we are absolutely clueless about roasts our high atmosphere just enough it starts letting the sun's UV through. It's stupid to colonize other worlds and ignore our current problems because they'll kill us before we get there, but it's equally stupid to ignore the long-term problems of putting all our eggs on a single planetary basket around a single star. While I'm quite sure the Sun will not blow up on the next quarter or before the next couple elections, I'm quite sure it'll not last forever and really think it'll eventually misbehave in some deadly fashion. There are several mass extinctions in fossil record and I'd much prefer our species would not end up as a museum curiosity for the following civilisation.

grondilu 12y ago

> It would be so great if mankind is able to cooperate in the colonization of our solar system. We already collaborate for the exploration of the solar system, via robotic probes and giant telescopes. That's good enough. Colonization is an all different matter, and a weird one if you ask me. Earth is the largest place with a solid ground in the Solar system, and it's by far the most hospitable. Settling on an other planet like mars would cost an insane amount of money[1] and would at best double the available real estate for our species. It's not so sure it would be worth it, especially considering that a lot of people would end up having contributed for something that other people will benefit from. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDnGHaXdxw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDnGHaXdxw

Steuard 12y ago
The history of the human race is a long succession of people contributing for something that other people will benefit from. Sometimes just knowing that you're enabling the dream is enough.
- grondilu 12y ago
  > The history of the human race is a long succession of people contributing for something that other people will benefit from. I hope you will acknowledge that this applies to some of the most sinister parts of this history, though.
fit2rule 12y ago
It will be worth it when we build space-ship building robot factories, which can also build robots, and send them to an asteroid or so .. and in return get ourselves a fleet of robots in space ships to do other things with. There is no need for us to actually go there; we can do all the building from here. Vote for me and I will vow to make the space-ships, with robots, show up!
rbanffy 12y ago
> Settling on an other planet like mars would cost an insane amount of money[1] and would at best double the available real estate for our species. Not quite. Having the technology to live on Mars or on the Moon would enable us to settle pretty much anywhere in the habitable zone of the system. Just imagine how much real estate can be built in the form of rings or tubes with materials mined from the Moon or the asteroid belt. Planets are nice for mining, but going up and down deep gravity wells is not something an interplanetary species would want to do regularly. Also, keep in mind there are a lot of global catastrophes that could easily wipe out our civilisation.

hiphopyo 12y ago

https://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar https://www.youtube.com/user/criminalisewar