Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #570124 > unrolled thread

Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 00:39 -0700
    Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-13 17:39 +0000
      Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 01:32 -0700
        Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-15 21:15 +0000
          Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 08:51 -0700
            Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 16:28 +0000
              Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:44 -0700
                Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 18:03 +0000
          Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:24 -0700
            Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-16 17:47 +0000
              Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 00:59 -0700
                Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:29 +0000

#570124 — Re: The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon

HVAC,
Colonisation is not just about space exploration. It is also about relieving overpopulation on Earth, getting away from governments that are no longer serving the best interests of the populace, meeting challenges (not just to prove our abilities to others, but to prove them to ourselves), going somewhere new, getting away from prejudicial violence, forming communities, increasing odds of survival for the species in case of cataclysm on Earth, etc.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#570190

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> HVAC,
> Colonisation is not just about space exploration.

Colonization is not about exploration at all; you do the exploration
before you colonize.

> It is also about relieving overpopulation on Earth, getting away from
> governments that are no longer serving the best interests of the
> populace, meeting challenges (not just to prove our abilities to
> others, but to prove them to ourselves), going somewhere new, getting
> away from prejudicial violence, forming communities, increasing odds
> of survival for the species in case of cataclysm on Earth, etc.

If the species can't survive on Earth, it won't survive anywhere else.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570672

Jim,
Colonisation is about a great many different things, INCLUDING exploration. Yes, you want to know something avout the place where you are going to establish the colony, so there will ideally be a fair amount of exploration done beforehand. However, once established, at least some membes of the colony are going to cointinue exploration of the area around them that was not possible to do before.

As for species survivability, my point was that going elsewhere will eventually be a requirement for species survivability. Your statement is not quite accurate, but at lest your implication that Earth is currently the most conducive environment for life is correct. However, this will no longer be correct if we continue to destroy our environment, or if overpopulation consumes all our resources, including land. It might not be easy to extract resources from other planets, but it is possible. Whereas we are approaching the limits to many resources on Earth, and our basic need for land makes accessong even those resources we have more difficult.
I was not siggesting that we would survive elsewhere, but die out on Earth. Nor was I suggesting that everyone leave Earth. My issue on overpopulation was that we expand into space leaving population on Earth stable, while the rest of the solar system absorbs the inevitable expansion of population, in much the same way as large numbers came to the americas, leading very difficult lives, rather than remaining in an overpopulated Europe... In the same way that the initial american colonists progressed westward, sometimes into inhospitable desert, where there was insufficient water and virtually no food, rather than remain in a familiar, comfortable, but overpopulated East Coast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570777

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim,
> Colonisation is about a great many different things, INCLUDING exploration.
> Yes, you want to know something avout the place where you are going to
> establish the colony, so there will ideally be a fair amount of exploration
> done beforehand. However, once established, at least some membes of the
> colony are going to cointinue exploration of the area around them that
> was not possible to do before.

Colonist settle in a place, explorers explore. It doesn't matter from where
the explorers originate.

> 
> As for species survivability, my point was that going elsewhere will
> eventually be a requirement for species survivability. Your statement
> is not quite accurate, but at lest your implication that Earth is
> currently the most conducive environment for life is correct. However,
> this will no longer be correct if we continue to destroy our environment,
> or if overpopulation consumes all our resources, including land. I
>  might not be easy to extract resources from other planets, but it is
> possible. Whereas we are approaching the limits to many resources on
> Earth, and our basic need for land makes accessong even those resources
> we have more difficult.
> I was not siggesting that we would survive elsewhere, but die out on
> Earth. Nor was I suggesting that everyone leave Earth. My issue on
> overpopulation was that we expand into space leaving population on
> Earth stable, while the rest of the solar system absorbs the inevitable
> expansion of population, in much the same way as large numbers came to
> the americas, leading very difficult lives, rather than remaining in an
> overpopulated Europe... In the same way that the initial american
> colonists progressed westward, sometimes into inhospitable desert, where
> there was insufficient water and virtually no food, rather than remain
> in a familiar, comfortable, but overpopulated East Coast.

Nobody left Europe because it was overpoplated during the colonial period.

All the people that went to inhospitable areas were to a center of some
sort, i.e. mining, transportation, not because the East Coast was
overpopulated, unless they were hermits by nature. Ever heard of stage
coach stops, pony express stops in the middle of nowhere?

If humans can not survive on the Earth, what makes you think the same
thing that wipes out humans on Earth won't eventually happen elsewhere?




-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570921

Jim,
Your insistance to separate colonisation from exploration is naive. It is also important to understand that not only do you have the motivations of the colonists, but you also have the motivations of the authorities who permitted and funded colonisation.
As to the latter, yes, a principle function of a colony was to establish and hold lands in the name of the authority. The political reson for doing so was to secure and develop resources for the use of the authority, and to deny such resources to the enemy of the authority. But one thing that kings and queens knew, that you apparently do not, is that i order to develop resources, one must know what those resources are, and what might threaten access to them. For this reason, a common condition for being granted  colonial charters was the exploration of the territories within and around the boundaries established by those charters. Such exploration would not be the responsibility of all the colonists, to be sure, but all those carrying out that REQUIRED exploration were colonists. Typically, the explorers would go out in expeditions of various duration. After each expedition, they would return home to their colony, and take care of issues regarding their private estates within that colony, until they were sent out on another expedition. Thus, your claim that explorers are not colonists is as valid as saying that soldiers are not citizens of their home countries.
As to the former, there were many reasons colonists had for migrating. Avoiding rligious or political persecution was a common one. A more common reason was that farmers did not have sufficient land to farm in Europe to support themselves (a result of overpopulation of land), others who were not farmers left because they no longer had resources to pay for expenses (another result of overpopulation, having too large a population for the resources available), many left because they could no longer afford rent or even food (a result of overpopulation, similar to the issue of resources, but this time the person might have resources available, but those resources are no longer sufficient for the lack of land or food). In many cases, it was to escape violence and crime (much of which was an indirect result of overpopulation). People came to the colonies originally because economic forces resulting from overpopulation were driving them out from their homes. People continued to migrate to established colonies for the same reason. Hunger and famine is largely due to crop failures, but crop failures only become critical when there is insufficient crop land to support the population.
Americans migrated west for exactly the same reasons, although this time settlements were no longer called colonies. The original colonial states were quickly becoming too urbanised to support their populations. Most of the people moving west were not even farmers. They struggled with farming in lands that were not always conducive to farming, despite not being farmers in the first place, because there were too many people sharing the same skills in the east, meaning that they could not earn a sufficient living. So, those who could not find jobs in their own disciplines went west and became farmers... Or, a few went west to try to offer their skills to the others who became farmers. But make no mistake, the drive west was a result of the east becoming overpopulated.
It is true that those who went further west, into the deserts, did so for the mining prospect, but this was a strict minority of settlers.

Once again, I am not necessarily saying that people will go into space to survive while those on Earth perish. I am saying that part of the motivation for going into space is to relieve pressures that would othewise cause those on earth to perish. This remains true at least until the sun enters its gas giant phase and burns the planet to a crisp... At that point humans will have no choice, go into space or die on an Earth that is being slowly melted. But that assumes that humanity will survive that long.
I am saying that humans are overpopulating Earth, little by little. That overpopulation will eventually result in all available resources being consumed, followed by starvation and pestilence. The only options at that point are to allow the vast majority of the population to die, until a stable population is again achieved, to strictly limit population (which has not worked so well for the Chinese), or to look for space to seek out new resources.

More later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570939

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim,
> Your insistance to separate colonisation from exploration is naive.

I am insisting nothing.

Consult a dictionary on the meaning of the words "exploration" and
"colonizaton" and you will find that they have different meanings.

Also the lack of line returns and white space between sentences make
your post too difficult for me to read.

For the anal retentative, yes, that is for ME to read.

If you don't care if I read it or not, don't bother with formatting your
text.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570957

Jim, 
You are relying on naive definition and ignoring historical fact, which is often much more intricate. There is nothing inherent in the definitions that prevents an explorer from also being a colonist. Founding charters that authorised colonisation often demanded that a share of the colonists also be explorers, and practical necessities also made it a reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570967

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim, 
> You are relying on naive definition

Nope, I am relying on the dictionay to define words.

The definition of explorer says nothing about the point of origin of
the explorer.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570954

Among the many possible conditions were colonies might survive while populations on Earth do not:
Pandemic disease where colonists are not exposed
Nuclear or biological warfare, where colonists do not participate
Destruction of environment through careless human action
Eventual depletion of resources through continued overpopulation and insufficient emmigration
Continued poisoning of resources through misuse and abuse
Natural catastrophic cascade (mega asteroid impact, destruction of fault lines triggering mass volcanism and quakes, worsening climate extremes, etc)
Cascading ecosystem failure through destruction of ecological environments
Etc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#570961

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Among the many possible conditions were colonies might survive while
> populations on Earth do not:
> Pandemic disease where colonists are not exposed

Unlikely to happen without the pathogen being carried off planet.

> Nuclear or biological warfare, where colonists do not participate
> Destruction of environment through careless human action
> Eventual depletion of resources through continued overpopulation and insufficient emmigration
> Continued poisoning of resources through misuse and abuse

They will just have their's later.

> Natural catastrophic cascade (mega asteroid impact, destruction of
> fault lines triggering mass volcanism and quakes, worsening climate
> extremes, etc)

More likely to happen off planet than on the Earth as you don't have
to keep the environment pressurized on Earth so even a small meteor
could become a catastrophe plus less atmosphere to burn such up.

> Cascading ecosystem failure through destruction of ecological environments

They will just have their's later.

> Etc

If humans are so stupid that they will eventually wipe themselves out,
it will happen eventually no matter where they are.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571156

Depends. It tkes a hell of a lot longer to get between places in space than jumping on an airplane and flying a few hours. Most diseases show symptoms within the first few days after exposure, at most. Which means that even the relatively short journey to the moon is likly to be enough time to catch the danger and enforce quarantine. There will also be relatively few launches into space, which greatly decreases opportunity for spread of the pathogen. Finally, since there will be mich less traffic off planet than for airtravel, security measures against spread of pathogens will be mich easier to enforce.
Unless a pathogen is spread before the first report of serious illness, there will be virtually no opportunity for spread to a colony, especially a colony further than the moon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571196

Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Depends.

Dengue fever 14 days
Ebola 21 days
Rubella 21 days
Rabies 3 months
Kuru disease 13 years


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web