Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Lariliss on 21/07/2021 06:08:01
-
We are getting more and more news on human achievements going to space. Our eyes looking to Mars.
Congratulations on the new achievement (20.07.2021 - Jeff Bezos and his crew successful flight)!
All of these amazing.
In the same time, thoughts come bright to my head about the Earth. Being so keen to conquer planet B, shouldn’t we think more about planet A?
There are lots of things to do here: sea bed exploration, efficient land reclaim and use.
I like the example of interwind of the Earth and Space statements of UK Space Agency:
“Improving coordination of UK efforts in fields such as Earth science, telecoms and space exploration”.
What are your thoughts and beliefs here?
-
If Jeff Bezos (and a the others like him) paid his taxes then the various governments round the world would be able to spend the money in accordance with the will of the voters, rather than the view of a bunch of vain men.
-
(and a the others like him) paid his taxes
Governments around the world are starting to take a few baby steps towards global companies paying taxes back into the economy that gave them the income.
a bunch of vain men
The early days of ocean exploration, electric lights, motor vehicles and airplane flight were undertaken by rich (or well-funded) adventurers.
- Those were the first steps towards commercialisation of several technologies which are now accessible to many people in "Western" countries
- I think some of the satellite broadband technologies from said billionaires have the potential to benefit many parts of the world that currently have no internet access.
- Some of the programmes from the Gates Foundation have the potential to assist many more.
I would much rather have billionaires spend their hard-earned money on space exploration, rather than tinpot dictators who make their billions by robbing the poor of their country, or self-important leaders who would rather destroy their country with civil war than benefit the country as a whole.
-
Drifting off topic, but the problem with international trade is that someone, somewhere, will offer lower rates of corporation tax, so you base your headquarters in the tax haven and do not show a profit in any other country - all the money is taken as corporate overheads.
Solution: abolish taxes on declared profit. Tax transactions at the point of delivery (VAT), so the customer pays his local government through the retailer. It's no great burden on the retailer in these days of computerised accounting, and actually improves your cash flow if you pay quarterly, but every transaction is traceable and taxable.
Next: abolish income tax (it's the same thing as declared profit) and just hike up VAT to compensate. Having a secure and defensible border (in principle!) the UK can do this easily. Compensate the poor by a government handout to every adult of say £5000 per year to cover the VAT on essentials.
-
To get to the both topics.
There are many parallels with the donations, taxes and private activities on the Earth and beyond - in the Space.
More complicated and obscure in the first case and hardly initiated and not cooperated in the second one.
I wonder if the tendency will develop into a clearer concept within several years. As it is crucial for technology return of investment and development.
And one for the benefit of humankind, as we may hear from every official claims.
-
Read somewhere...
" We know more about the surface of Mars, than the surface of our Oceans. "
Indeed, must be disheartening at times for marine biologists.
Billions being rocketed out of space & few pennies in the seas.
Understandable!
But do We have a Choice?
Placing all eggs in one basket?
No plan B?
Oh!
How merrily we wake up each mornin greetin the sun...
& Sleep soundly under the moon..
Never do We ever think, What If!
🖖
(Tomorrow Never Comes)
-
I would much rather have billionaires spend their hard-earned money
Bezos founded Amazon on the back of money he borrowed from his parents.
His idea worked- and has expanded.
But I don't think he ever worked as hard as the woman in my local newsagent or guy who fixed my boiler.
Nobody's $200,000,000,000 was ever "hard earned"
And when you consider the environmental impact of how billionaires made their money you might not think this is off topic.
-
But do We have a Choice?
Placing all eggs in one basket?
No plan B?
This is always reasonable.
We cannot forget the impact of the 'Planet B' research effort and effect. Actually, it serves the both plans. Space exploration benefits not only colonization, but also observation and the Earth security from cosmos factors (the most like, asteroids danger). The procedures of launches, safety and human adaptation is also important contribution.
-
I think it was a big deal when we went to the moon but to continue on this path is a total waste of time effort and money. there is no benefit in occupying mars we don't even know how to live on earth yet so why try to live somewhere that will be even more hostile than we already have. We will destroy earth long before we could ever make mars inhabitable. The space agencies are little children playing with very expensive toys. Sorry for the negative response.
-
I think it was a big deal when we went to the moon but to continue on this path is a total waste of time effort and money. there is no benefit in occupying mars we don't even know how to live on earth yet so why try to live somewhere that will be even more hostile than we already have. We will destroy earth long before we could ever make mars inhabitable. The space agencies are little children playing with very expensive toys. Sorry for the negative response.
I don't think You need to Apologize for your response.
I Admit, in first glance it seems negative, but it Really isn't.
Your thought is just Different from Others, that's it.
👍
Now a bit of my thoughts.
😊
The Moon is Step 1.
Logically...first base.
We gain Experience & Resources.
The time, effort & money spent shall yield handsome returns in the future.
Occupying or rather Settling Mars would be a game changer for Our Species n Other species who live, slave n die at our commands.
We not only know how to Survive on Earth, but rather Thrive!
Multiplying & Spreading & multiplying & devouring almost everything that comes in our way.
We shall perhaps Destroy the Moon before Earth.
Then Earth n Mars n a couple more heavenly bodies.
Heck We might not be here tomorrow morning...All Gone!
Yep!
We are capable of All that Greatness!
😇
PS - There's a low lit dark room.
A dirty smelly pig resides in there.
The room seems to be expanding at an accelerated rate.
The pig keeps rolling in it's own 5h1t.
There is just one odd thing here, nope it ain't the dirty smelly pig.
It's the thought that What the Hell is it doing in there & Why is it All Alone in there.
Just Think!
We obviously aren't perfect.
We know our limits, faults & evils.
Surely this Beautiful Universe deserves something much much better.
i think We can & should give this place something it truly deserves.
i think We should give Life alot more chances.
Trial & Error.
If Not US, Who Else Will?
-
I think it was a big deal when we went to the moon but to continue on this path is a total waste of time effort and money.
There's always benefit to exploration, but that benefit is mostly knowledge, which is questionably worth the expense. There might be eventual commercial benefit where the value of say material mined from the moon exceeds the expense of getting the same material from Earth.
Still, I concur with your general attitude. If we send up a well equipped self-sufficient expedition to Mars or to some Exoplanet and it gets there successfully, and a day after the world blows up in a full nuclear war, in 500 years I will bet the Earth still has people and the destination of the expedition does not. One should not overestimate human capability to utterly destroy the one ecosystem for which we have evolved. Earth, however wrecked, will still be a more hospitable planet than anything we will ever find out there.
If we ever do find a planet that can sustain life, we'll be incompatible with it, and the answer would be to change us to fit the new planet rather than change the planet to fit us. That takes a lot of time, but it can be done. Time is cheap.
We will destroy earth long before we could ever make mars inhabitable.
Typo? Habitable you mean. Or are you referring to our inevitable destruction of Mars like we're doing on Earth?
-
If Not US, Who Else Will?
I think it is all very optimistic to think we could live on Mars as it would take too long to create an atmosphere that could sustain life living in a pod on mars would drive 99.9999% of people crazy long before the planet could be inviting it would be like starting out on a destroyed world for the purpose of leaving a destroyed world. I think we should use our resources to clean up the earth before we run out of time. If I had faith in man I would be all in but at this stage, I will only see the end of this world not the beginning of a new one. The earth is a very special place not created by man we will never be able to create what we could never look after.
-
Typo? Habitable you mean.
Spell check isn't helping me. Habitable I was really looking for. I was too Bizzy at school dropping my pencils on the floor in front of mary's desk.
-
Exoplanet and it gets there successfully, and a day after the world blows up in a full nuclear war, in 500 years I will bet the Earth still has people and the destination of the expedition does not. One should not overestimate human capability to utterly destroy the one ecosystem for which we have evolved. Earth, however wrecked, will still be a more hospitable planet than anything we will ever find out there.
If we ever do find a planet that can sustain life, we'll be incompatible with it, and the answer would be to change us to fit the new planet rather than change the planet to fit us. That takes a lot of time, but it can be done. Time is cheap.
The history tells, that key dangers are underestimated regularly (earthquakes, fires, world war, nuclear war, pandemics).
Humans prevention is reactive most of the time. No insurances, no possible investigations or predictions of possible hostile impacts.
Other planets exploration looks proactive. For instance, about global worming and asteroids threat.
It is 'on the rails' already, that is why probably most attractive for investment. And it is fairly new, comparing statistically of what a disaster might happen nearest.
Nature (as global warming) takes time for it's processes, so that humans do.
-
No insurances, no possible investigations or predictions of possible hostile impacts.
Other planets exploration looks proactive.
I would rather get hit in the back of my head by an asteroid than live on Mars in a bobble.
-
global worming
Works for dogs. Maybe it will prevent climate change.
-
global worming
Works for dogs. Maybe it will prevent climate change
It was 'warming' in the original post.
-
Hi.
Spell check isn't helping me. Habitable I was really looking for.
Don't worry Just_thinking - it's all acceptable. This is a difference between UK and US English. Inhabitable and habitable are synonyms (have the same meaning). This just like Flammable and Inflammable.
-
Don't worry Just_thinking - it's all acceptable. This is a difference between UK and US English. Inhabitable and habitable are synonyms (have the same meaning). This just like Flammable and Inflammable.
Thanks for that but the truth is my spelling is very poor so it will never surprise me if I do get it wrong for example just writing this my spell check has picked up five faults that's if spell check is working right.
-
I agree that we have to take care of our own planet.
A Moon colony could be extremely helpful as a stepping stone for space exploration. Also one could have some extraordinary lunar based telescopes.
A Mars (or Venus) colony would be more for curiosity, or a challenge. It could prove whether we could ever move out of the solar system. And, would be a backup for a catastrophic event on Earth.
However, don't expect a thriving Earth/Mars tourist business, or exporting say a billion people from Earth to Mars. It is likely that travel between Earth and Mars will forever remain expensive and arduous, and may well be limited to a few hundred, or a few thousand people ever making the trip.
A Martian colony would have to eventually become self supporting.
-
Being so keen to conquer planet B, shouldn’t we think more about planet A?
If planet B was a possible place to escape to in the event of earth's destruction then that would be fine as long as the people that don't get to go don't have to pay for it. If we spend many trillions on this technology we do without now for someone else to benefit later. My budget does not stretch that far. Beter fix up this place so our children will have somewhere to live.
-
Being so keen to conquer planet B, shouldn’t we think more about planet A?
If planet B was a possible place to escape to in the event of earth's destruction then that would be fine as long as the people that don't get to go don't have to pay for it. If we spend many trillions on this technology we do without now for someone else to benefit later. My budget does not stretch that far. Beter fix up this place so our children will have somewhere to live.
Not to mention, that in the best case, there wouldn't be enough spaceships and alien homes to transfer 7 billion.
I have something to say (add optimism a bit).
For the Earth.
There are some good examples for using new areas to build cities (e.g. Cairo is designing a new city nearby).
My thinking is that we should increase reclaimed areas and inhabit them. There are many thousands of kilometres killed and deserted.
Why not 'colonize' them, it would be easier than Mars.
Nature has it's processes, we should THINK before and ACT on Earth, truly. Here is not zero done, but lots and lots more to do.
The global on-Earth problems tend to be highlighted from the darkest side.
I wouldn’t diminish them, still.
Nature takes its time with changes as a process, so do we at quite a successful rate locally.
For sure, our reactiveness should come to more proactiveness. In many cases success examples work better than just threats in numbers.
Either 'global warming' or 'the sea level rise' rather than local or averaged data is declared.
'Millions of the population are threatened by sea level rise’. But not mentioned are those from areas with drastically grown near-sea populations and small islands ones.
'Average temperature rise' - would be taken from particular changes in reported zones, as it is difficult to get reliable data all over the World in a short periods and make correlations. That is why, for instance, glaciers’ example is manipulating the headlines.
For the last 15 years, really global temperature rise is reported, compared to about 50 preceding years.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/charlie-martin/2010/02/23/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive-n14350
Data is being manipulated or giving not enough explanation every time. Even mathematically, the trend with current spike may not be predicted correctly.
-
For the last 15 years, really global temperature rise is reported, compared to about 50 preceding years.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/charlie-martin/2010/02/23/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive-n14350
Data is being manipulated or giving not enough explanation every time. Even mathematically, the trend with current spike may not be predicted correctly.
Yes, I agree data is unreliable to predict the future as there is not enuff data from the past. Another problem is the sun it can change its output at the drop of a hat and change the whole ball game. The sun is in a rather strange state right now as it is well on its way to a very low cycle this can lead to a big freeze quite the opposite to global warming. The sun has the largest dominating force over the earth's climate and we have not really been studying it for very long.
-
Exactly, there are lots of data that is hard to cooperate and put together for any prediction.
The sun and Earth have processes which are not short-term and natural.
Some to observe and mitigate threats, where possible, some to put effort to what we already know.
They tell us Earth should go wilder.
Atmospheric and ocean flows changes are causing new tornadoes, floods, freezing and so on. It is unstable.
A lot of impact due to human making forests and animals going extinct.
Example, sharks (predators) killing is destroying the food chain. That causes boosting one population of species and causing extinction of others. Migration paths.
This kind of unbalance speeds up unnatural instability.
-
Lots of interacting questions here.
Humans have bred ourselves to a population that cannot live sustainably at a standard we aspire to.
We have also devised political systems that inhibit migratory response to climate change.
We also seem to have developed bizarre beliefs that we are somehow able to influence the climate.
And politico-economic systems that demand ever-increasing production and consumption.
Until we learn to behave properly and think straight, there is no point in exporting human stupidity to another planet.
That said, I'd happily volunteer for a once-off, one-way, purely scientific (no colonisation or terraforming allowed!) mission to Mars. Affordable, interesting, and possibly as inspirational as the Moon program was.
Having reviewed the first Moon landing, if any priest, politician, economist or philosopher wanted to talk to me, I wouldn't pick up the phone - life is too short to deal with such parasites. So it will have to be a privately-funded venture.
-
We also seem to have developed bizarre beliefs that we are somehow able to influence the climate.
Science is not a bizarre belief.
Need I remind you that you can fly?
-
Apologies in advance for long read and repetitions.
A: An ocean of information about what we already know about the Earth in detailed investigations, simulations and forecasts. History. Technology.
I would add Earth human bearing capacity.
National agencies, World agencies, research institutions. Improvement plans and on-going work.
How to survive. Regression models put unfortunate numbers.
Every human contribution to global warming is our lifestyle. The overall impact shown by observation is ~1.5C for the last 50 years and ~2.0C during the last 150 years. Considering the stability of natural effects during this period.
Although, here are some specific periods that appear to have warmed or cooled faster than can be explained based on r natural variability during that period.
There are no accumulated observations of natural variability, which might be larger than we currently think.There seems no strong evidence for it.
B: Certainly, going to any other planet missions are essential. At least several humans would try it first.
Learn living there.
Moving 7 billion forecasts wouldn’t be near imagined possible. If magically so, all humanity changes mentality instantly.
“Our business is to uproot the roots of evil in the fields that are known to us in order to pass on to the heirs a pure land, ready for sowing. What kind of weather they will have is not for us to decide.”
Now we judge by today's activities of space exploration vs Earth preservation.
Obviously, for Earth we should go faster and proactive to bring stabilization as soon as possible. This is a process of years.
Going to Venus, Mars, the Moon, I believe brings technology push. Ability to do it now pushes the occasions.
Earth vs Space is not like that. I believe Earth together with space. Technology, Space and Earth agencies cooperation are win-win if balanced.
For both branches of the same survival aim they work.