Wednesday, June 14, 2006

As I have been saying all along

Apparently a "little known" scientist think exactly as I do about space exploration. The idea is simple humans need to colonise other planet and other star system in order to continue their development, growth and continued survival. Resources and space are quite limited on earth and even if we think that earth can theoretically carry 20 billion humans that do not mean we shouldn't have a plan B just in case those prediction happen to be wrong (which probably is the case since most of these prediction rely on a cheap easily available fossil fuel.) Now there is always someone that will scream: "Screw space exploration there are still people dying of hunger and disease, we need more health care and to solve the problem here on Earth before we solve the problem elsewhere" I'll say their is probably resources do to both, many time over. Remember that the world space exploration budget is well under 100G $ while the world health care budget probably top at 200G $ and never to forget that the world military budget approach the 1trillion$. It is easy to see that simply by lowering the military budget significantly we could easily afford to invest in space and health care (while still having money for warfare if that what we really desire.)

4 comments:

yofed said...

I heard that on the news. But even a real genius can be wrong, right?

Being able to go live elsewhere would be useful, but why not let nature kill most of us then start anew? Are we all worth saving? Definitely not!

asaathi said...

right, he could be wrong.

well the problem is that nature can not only kill some of us but it can while we live in a single corner of our galaxies kill all of us quite easilly (all it takes is a supernova a little to close to home and it is an no warning death for us).

Another point is that no matter what who can choose who are worth saving amongts us?

yofed said...

Nature is the best judge! Nature has been chosing the life forms most suited to survival for existing conditions. If it is in the planet's best interest that 50-75% of us die of hunger and disease, is it really so bad? Humans are not a necessity. We are just beasts with some knowledge, after all. We can't live in peace with each other, so what are we really worth?

asaathi said...

Nature is the best judge? nature isn't a judge at all, nature simply let life go on and organism that cannot survive don't.

As for being unable to be at peace with each other we have to remember that most species on earth cannot either. While we are one of the few species to have large scale wars we are not the only one nor are we the one that perform the worse atrocities on our own species. However without further proof we are the only species that realise that those thing might be wrong.

Well from what we know right now we are worth just about everything. We are the only species to devellop knowledge and advanced skill. We are in many way a very unique species and even if the possibilitity is remote we might be the only species with such traits in the universe. If "intelligence" is unique or even dramatically rare is it not our duty to preserve it?

And while we are discussing it, is not it one of nature strongest imperative that one works for one own species survival? Our intelligence gives us the possibility not only to survive most continent sized disaster, it give us the ability to dream of ways to survive world size disaster, solar system sized one and beyon maybe even up to disaster that would render a whole space-time continuum unlivable.

One last thing, we are not perfect but nothing tell us that we are not the most peacefull, loving, caring and all the good quality you can think of species of the universe. War mongerers and environmental destroying species are probably just as likely as peacefull world loving one in intelligence.