Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 02-10-2003, 08:12 PM

That's towards the low end of estimates isn't it ? I thought an 70% confidence of around 12 billion by 2100. Plenty of space over here. Realistically it'll only be the spirit of adventure & exploration which really necessitates extra-terrestrial living, much the same as housing people to live in Antarctica.

echidna · 02-10-2003, 08:20 PM

In fact let�s elaborate on that. Which location is easier for :

1) Cost-efficient accessibility ?
2) Safety including rescue
3) Survivability ?

a) The moon
b) Antarctica
c) Outback Australia

Folks, as appealing as the idea might be of living in outer space, back in the real world there�s no foreseeable need to do so, desire yes, but no need based on anyone�s survival.

elwoodblues · 02-10-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Folks, as appealing as the idea might be of living in outer space, back in the real world there�s no foreseeable need to do so, desire yes, but no need based on anyone�s survival.

Yet.

echidna · 02-10-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
Yet.

If indeed there is a need to get a lucky handful off the planet to ensure survival of the species (a goal I'm yet to be convinced of), then I'd quietly suggest that we should be focussing a little more in identifying the reasons for that threat & further on how to overcome that threat.

elwoodblues · 02-10-2003, 09:04 PM

Quote:

If indeed there is a need to get a lucky handful off the planet to ensure survival of the species (a goal I'm yet to be convinced of), then I'd quietly suggest that we should be focussing a little more in identifying the reasons for that threat & further on how to overcome that threat.

I've already named almost a dozen threats off hand in this thread, and the ones we are most vulnerable to we can't even identify until it's too damned late.

Loren Pechtel · 02-10-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
In fact let�s elaborate on that. Which location is easier for :

1) Cost-efficient accessibility ?
2) Safety including rescue
3) Survivability ?

a) The moon
b) Antarctica
c) Outback Australia

Folks, as appealing as the idea might be of living in outer space, back in the real world there�s no foreseeable need to do so, desire yes, but no need based on anyone�s survival.

I'll agree on #1. However, given extensive development #2 and #3 go to the moon.
Sure, the vaccuum of the moon is quite dangerous. However, there are no natural forces to speak of to force it in. Both Antarctica and the outback have weather. Weather that damages the equipment one needs for survival. On the moon, however, the only disruptive energy is meteors. Since everything will be at least 6' underground anyway (radiation shield) it will be very unlikely that a meteor punches through.

beyelzu · 02-10-2003, 09:10 PM

I think we need to work to getting off of this rock. Obviously, it wont happen in my lifetime. But maybe it will down the road. If we dont work on it now, it will forever be out of reach, which is I think the key to this discussion.

echidna · 02-10-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
I'll agree on #1. However, given extensive development #2 and #3 go to the moon.
Sure, the vaccuum of the moon is quite dangerous. However, there are no natural forces to speak of to force it in. Both Antarctica and the outback have weather. Weather that damages the equipment one needs for survival. On the moon, however, the only disruptive energy is meteors. Since everything will be at least 6' underground anyway (radiation shield) it will be very unlikely that a meteor punches through.

One can't live underground in Antarctica or the outback ? First I heard of. Ultimately the moon will always be more hostile (and many orders of magnitude more remote) than uninhabited places on earth.

IvanK · 02-11-2003, 10:32 AM

. . . or lose yourself in your space fantasies, or resolve to make life on Earth a little better tomorrow . . .

not in fire, but in ice

Quote:

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
-- Shelley

Loren Pechtel · 02-11-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
One can't live underground in Antarctica or the outback ? First I heard of. Ultimately the moon will always be more hostile (and many orders of magnitude more remote) than uninhabited places on earth.

Living underground doesn't save you from all environmental problems here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2003, 08:12 PM	#141
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	That's towards the low end of estimates isn't it ? I thought an 70% confidence of around 12 billion by 2100. Plenty of space over here. Realistically it'll only be the spirit of adventure & exploration which really necessitates extra-terrestrial living, much the same as housing people to live in Antarctica.

02-10-2003, 08:20 PM	#142
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	In fact let�s elaborate on that. Which location is easier for : 1) Cost-efficient accessibility ? 2) Safety including rescue 3) Survivability ? a) The moon b) Antarctica c) Outback Australia Folks, as appealing as the idea might be of living in outer space, back in the real world there�s no foreseeable need to do so, desire yes, but no need based on anyone�s survival.

02-10-2003, 09:10 PM	#147
beyelzu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: the peach state ga I am a metaphysical naturalist Posts: 2,869	I think we need to work to getting off of this rock. Obviously, it wont happen in my lifetime. But maybe it will down the road. If we dont work on it now, it will forever be out of reach, which is I think the key to this discussion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.