Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.
Or we beat grabby aliens to the punch.
You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.
Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
51–60 of 140 posts
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not both populate Mars and improve earth? I dont think they are mutually exclusive.
I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to improve Earth. By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax.
> By opening up Mars, incentives are wrong and we will probably become even more lax
The history of conquest on Earth shows no such example. If anything, given a choice, humans will happily push the unsavoury to the periphery. I'd much rather e.g. risky biological, chemical and nuclear research happen on the Moon or Mars than Earth.
The honest truth is our first colonies on Mars will be Jamestowns. Unlike the Jamestown in our past, however, this one's horrors will be broadcast real time. The deadliness of space almost promises that we'll be keenly reminded of how special our safe harbor. Not that we'll forget it.
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we beat grabby aliens to the punch.
You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.
Or you could recognize the possibility that space might be treated as territory to be developed by more advanced intelligences that we could run into someday. There is a paper as a solution to the Fermi Paradox and YT videos under the term "grabby aliens".
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#54Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your ugly moon base would need to be how many thousands of square miles to be visible from earth?
I think you’re confusing a NASA base with inhabitation. Inhabitation means geometric structures, lights, and disturbance of the immediate environment. What conversation do you think you’re in? You going to put cemeteries on the moon without people living there? How would that make sense just from the rocket equation?
So an massive "ugly city" on the moon is what you meant? I don't think a cemetery on the dark side of the moon will be visible.
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#56> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…
I personally think it would be amazing to visit the stars, but I'm also disappointed that human development currently makes it hard to even see them. My children will be unable to view the Milky Way with their eyes like I have. Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations? It feels a bit like natural parks to me. Of course they contain resources! We…
> Is it "hating humanity" to mourn this loss a little, to want to preserve something like it for future generations?
It strikes me as naively presumptuous more than hateful. We don't have the capability, today, to ruin a celestial body by any reasonable defintion of those terms. Maybe we figure out what we can do and what's over there before we loop in the space NIMBYs.
> it would suck to burry the evidence for abiogenesis before we understand it
What threshold of sureness would you propose for what amount of activity? Even massive (1mm+) colonisation wouldn't ruin evidence planet-wide.
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can take care of the monster under my child's bed while you're at it.
Or you could recognize the possibility that space might be treated as territory to be developed by more advanced intelligences that we could run into someday. There is a paper as a solution to the Fermi Paradox and YT videos under the term "grabby aliens".
I recognize the possibility I just don't accept it as a justification for a rerun of manifest destiny.
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubt MLK Jr had much to say about Mars colonization. Why would he be opposed to it as long as Martian settlers were treating each other equally? I don't like the view that we shouldn't go to space as long as there are problems on Earth to fix. There are always problems to fix. It's an excuse to never explore space. There's no reason that going to Mars would prevent addressing pollution on Earth. I don't even see how…
I invoked MLK Jr. in pointing to problems on Earth, including pollution, as an example of how we are not serving "humanity" in MLK Jr.'s spirit. I think your technology advancement argument is far-fetched, even though I acknowledge the historical basis. In part due to reasoning in another comment of mine: > I would be (grudgingly) fine with populating Mars if I felt that we as a race were remotely trying our best to…
[deleted]
Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#59Re: Bury me on the moon, preferably on the far side
#60> so why not agree to leave it unmarred by any obvious act of humanity, forevermore? How some people hate humanity. Personally, I'd love to see the lights from a lunar colony on the moon. This reminds me of the people who don't want to "pollute" Mars. Sheesh, it's a dead rock. There is no environment to pollute. It could desperately use people on it, just like the moon. The solar system is ours, and we can and should…
Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time.
> Manifest destiny but with secular scientism this time
Manifest destiny without pre-existing sapient life.
Like, the problem with manifest destiny wasn't the expansion. Nobody is running around decrying the Polynesians for the deigning to exist on more than one island. Primordial humans weren't monsters for leaving Africa.