You are aware that oil wells in the gulf are refilling? You are aware that most oil may be non-biotic; we've extracted oil from wells drilled in solid granite.
Refilling from where exactly? Is the oil just magically appearing there out of thin air (or granite, as the case may be)? If the oil is non-biotic, what was the process that made it? You do understand that oil is stored chemical energy, don't you? Where did this energy come from?
Isn't it great, where the State can mandate the advance of technology? This reminds me of that Simpon's quote "Young lady, in this house we obey the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!"
The standards have to be set somewhere by someone. Business isn't going to regulate itself. Besides, it isn't really anything unique to "socialism." Even in the US, we have certain standards (albeit low) for fuel economy, polution, etc. It isn't like they are saying exactly which technologies to pursue. They just say "This is the standard, meet it however you can."
Who's to say that these energy mandates are even achievable, or desirable? Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy.
You could view it like that. Or you could see it as a challenge to businesses and universities to truely innovate and work for a cleaner, less oil (or other limited/imported resource) dependant future. I don't see how this could be anyting but a good thing in the long run. Eventually natural resources will become more difficult and expensive to obtain. Any country with the infrastructure and know-how to utilize renewable sources of energy is going to have an edge. This is an area I see the US falling way behind in.
Oh, I see the confusion here. I was talking about "geeks" vs. ATs and PHBs.. not "Greeks." No wonder you don't see much difference in needs. The vast majority of the Greek population (or any population) is not geek.:-)
I was told on the Gentoo forums that etc-update will clobber settings and that I shouldn't run it without commandline options. It happens to a lot of people. It even happened to another Gentoo user that replied to me here on slashdot. It doesn't merge stuff automatically. You have to do it manually. Debian does often merge not-so-trivial changes authomatically in main config files. Although for some files, it will simply notes that you have editted them and ask you if you want to overwrite. In any case, it makes a backup of the files it changes. Debian handles "etc-updates" MUCH more intelligently than Gentoo.
I suppose you use ed then? Or are you an emacs or vim boy? In that case, you are obviously trying to efficientize your tinkering.
Err, no. Just tinkering with the tools that are available.
Sometimes. The recent flamefest over "spatial Nautilus" is an example of where they diverge. Gnome's reform of the "yes-no-cancel" dialog to "don't save-cancel-save" is IMHO an example of where they converge.
Those are pretty trivial examples. How about this contrast: Microsoft Word vs. vi. How many geeks are going to fire up Word to edit a short document or text file?
[geeks no want what PHB want] IMNSHO this is mostly the product of atronizing/unrealistic/stupid ideas of what ATs and PHBs want.
Really? So PHBs and ATs wouldn't mind using vim to edit text? And they are comfortable with and often prefer the CLI? Thats all news to me. Sorry, but every day I am surrounded by people who wouldn't even consider using the tools and programs that I use on a regular basis. They simply wouldn't find them usable. This isn't to say that they are "just dumb users" or something. Its just a matter of what different people expect from computers.
Take Cobol for example. In theory, readable by PHBs. In practice, readable by no one.
I'm not saying geeks necessarily know what PHBs want. I'm just saying that what PHBs want and expect is generally vastly different from what geeks want. There would be no need for something like COBOL, readable or not, if this weren't the case.
Actually, it is the other way around for me. When I first started using Gentoo, compiling all my packages with -march=pentium4, -O6, etc was really novel and fun (what geek doesn't like knowing that every binary is optimized for his/her specific CPU?), but now it is just a waste of time. When I decided I wanted to run netatalk to share files with my wife, I didn't want to wait 10 minutes for it to download and compile. And emerging, OpenOffice? Holy shit! I couldn't free up disk space fast enough to satisfy the needs of that ebuild. Turns out I don't even like OpenOffice.
The control I had over the system was great, but now going through every single etc update manually is just annoying. A package system should be more intelligent than that. At the very least, it shouldn't clobber something as basic as network settings... by default! The default should be to prompt you regarding changes and you can force it to clobber your network settings if that is what you really want. Debian is smart enough to say, "Hey, you seem to have editted this config file. Do you want me to replace it or leave it alone?" Hell, debian doesn't just ask you about config files. It knows when you have modified init.d startup scripts too.
Also, it seems like Gentoo uses up an unusually large amount of disk space even after cleaning up the dist files. Like several gigs for a fairly basic desktop system (having installed from stage1),
The only thing I like about Gentoo is the ability to mix and match "stable" packages with "unstable" ackages arbitrarily. I can also usually pick between several different versions of an ebuild. Beyond that, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Is compiling every single package really worth the trouble?
Yeah, too bad Gentoo has a horrible package upgrade system. I've completely hosed my system configuration simply by running etc-update. It even nuked my network settings. The first time this happened I thought I did something wrong. Then on the forums I was told "DON'T RUN etc-update!" WTF? Debian is very good about upgrading packages and not stomping on settings. Not only does it not stomp on old settings, but it is often intelligent enough to pull settings from and older version of a package to a newer. How does BSD ports handle package upgrades/updates?
And no, switching to overpriced Mac boxes is not the way. No way in hell any beancounter -I- know buys that. Unless they are an advertisement agency, or an arthouse.
You dont' know many good beancounters then. The extra cost of Mac hardware really isn't that big of a deal for most companies looking to buy new workstations. It isn't like art or publishing oriented shops are rolling in the dough. It isn't like Macs are a luxury that only artists can afford. Also, a Mac will often last longer than a PC and it might even retain some resale value.
If things are really that bad with Windows, maybe you should think about getting over your fear of the Mac and give it a try. You might just save a few bucks in support costs to make up for the cost of the hardware. I know i'd rather have my money invested in hardware instead of thrown away in support costs.
There is only one way out of the mess that is Office Automation, and it IS Linux.
There is another way out... quit your job and become a plumber.
The problem with the "Linux must compete with Microsoft" attitude is that it is totally groundless. Linux has gotten this far without taking significant marketshare away from Microsoft, and it will continue without said marketshare. Microsoft's tactics of creating proprietary file formats and protocols is nothing new. There will always be some open standards that Linux can leverage. Apple is helping here. I say Linux developers should just keep on doing what they enjoy and not worry about competing with commercial entities. Linux/OSS isn't about competition. It is about doing interesting things with computers without the hassles of capitalism. Once you start talking about marketshare, mindshare and Aunt Tilly, the whole thing becomes too much like "work"... or rather, like "a job." I'm sure many Linux developers get plenty of that in their real job. They don't need to bring it home with them. So give OSS develpers a break, will ya? If you like the software, use it. If you don't, dont' use it or make it better.
>This is a pernicious attitude. It is insulting. It encourages bad design. And most perniciously of all, this bad design stands in the way of more efficient tinkering.
"Efficient tinkering?" What the heck is that? Tinkering is inherently inefficient. How is it "bad design" if a geek codes something that he/she finds useful? >What you don't seem to understand is that free/open software doesn't have to be good. That is the beauty of it. If it isn't good, simply don't use it or download the code and make it better. But whatever you do, don't complain about it. That's just pathetic.
Usability isn't just an issue for ATs or PHBs, it's an issue for geeks too.
If it really were an (significant) issue for geeks... it wouldn't be an issue. Geeks code what they need and want. The fact is that what a geek considers "usable" is different what ATs and PHBs consider usable. And most geeks dont' want to use software that has been made usable by ATs and PHBs. No amount of whining on your part is going to change this.
If like me you've ever been frustrated by not having drivers (or documentation to make them) for one of your gadgets you've probably hoped for more industry support.
The only industry support i've ever hoped for is that companies release the specs for their hardware. That is all OSS really needs.
Well that won't happen until more aunt Tilly's start using our favorite OS
Huh? It is happening now.. despite the lack of A. T.'s use of Linux on the desktop. You're just impatient and ungrateful.
This is a good point. However, I am all *for* usability improvements to Linux, because, as you can see, problems with (attempts at) user interfaces in Unix befall the most seasoned of veterans.
So what? I'm all "for" having my salary at work increased two-fold. I'm "for" world peace. Who isn't for better usablity of FOSS software (besides Microsoft)?
If FOSS isn't usable enough for you, you have a few options. You can a) lower your expectations, b) don't use it or c) start coding. All this whining about how FOSS "should" be more usable is just stupid.
I've used Windows. I've used Mac OS. And you know what? I like Linux. I prefer it. I've been using it almost exclusively on my desktop at home and work for many years now. Yes, I am a tech. A geek even. But you know what? I almost never suggest that others run Linux on their desktop because I know it is not generally usable. And that's... OK. OSS developers are under no obligation to make software that is generally usable. They make what they need and what they can use.
Personally, I'm sick of the Linux zealots who think that the future of Linux depends on mass acceptance on the desktop. It doesn't. As long as there are people who like to tinker (and not necessarily "get stuff done") there will be a place for OSS and Linux. Some users/developers may move to Mac OS X or Windows when they decide they want to "get stuff done." and that is fine. There are always the younger geeks ready to pick up where the older ones left off.
All this talk about what OSS should be aiming for is just ridiculous. As if the community as a whole was something coherent and well defined that you can manage or direct. It is chaotic. That is what makes it fun. Linux might make it big on the desktop someday. And that would be cool, i suppose. But if that doesn't happen, no big loss.
It works for me regardless.
You don't really know what people will want to try 100 or 200 years from now or whenever traveling to Mars (and back!) is practical. As far as I am concerned we are talking pure science fiction here. Frankly, I am amazed that NASA is even taking it seriously.
The desire to go to mars isn't going to be based on comfort of earth vs. barren wasteland of mars. It's going to be about exploration and adventure. The first settlers of america had a horrible fucking time, granted alot of them had been kidnapped and forced to go, but alot more went purely because they could.
Well, "because they could" is a bit of an oversimplification. I doubt very many of the early settlers could be classified as adventurers or explorers. Most came seeking political and/or religious freedom. While there will be the adventurous going to Mars some day, I hardly see a mass exodus. The fact that Mars IS a barren wasteland will be a major, unprecidented obsticle.
Comparing it to the coloniization of North America doesn't do the task justice.
You're claiming that trans-oceanic return trips were 'thousands of years old' technology, when these people thought for sure that they were going to fall off the edge of the flat world?
I'm claiming that the technology to make such trips existed and was in use. The Icelandic peoples were vistiting North America on a fairly regular basis (mostly for lumber) long before Christopher Columbus. And the Chinese had mapped out Austrailia. What misconceptions some ignorant Europeans had about the shape of the Earth is irrelevant. The technology was there and it was relatively cheap. Get in a ship and go west until you hit land. Tada! New World!
Colonization of the New World wasn't about finding natives to slaughter; that was just an added bonus.
Bonus??? More like an obsticle. Probably the most significant obsticle they faced. Which, of course, is insignificant compared to the obsticles we face in colonizing Mars.
It was about finding more land, new things, and, depending on who you're talking to, either extending the social order, or escaping from it.
Ah yes, satisfying our endless needs. Yeah, there's a real noble reason for going to Mars. Can't solve our problems? Bring them to new worlds! Tell me, do you also advocate blood-letting to cure disease?
I say voluntarily quarantine Earth until we cure it's disease.
But, when you get right down to it, why colonize Mars? Because we can.
We can? Wow. That's news to me. Last time I checked we could barely get an unmanned rover there safely. Forget about getting it back!
That which does not grow, dies.
Like cancer? Were the early Americans "growing" when they genocided Native Americans? How about when they were enslaving Africans?
Sorry, but you are going to have to frame the colonization of Mars better if you are going to sell me on the idea. At best, it is history repeating itself. At worst, it is flat out impossible (at the moment).
Replace the word 'Mars,' in your post, with 'The New World,' and you'll have conversations that took place several hundred years ago.
Sorry, but flying to and terraforming Mars is a lot different than hopping in a boat and crossing the Atlantic to kill millions of Natives for land. Both genocide and trans-atlantic travel relied on technology that was hundreds if not thousands of years old. Hell, if you were African, getting to the "New World" was free! (not Freedom, of couse, but free nontheless)!
Show me a group of people I can slaughter for land on Mars, a race I can enslave to do my dirty work of building cities and farms, a ship I can stow away on, and I'm there! Until then, all this colonizing of Mars talk is completely meaningless.
All of the reasons they came up with are still valid.
Like "manifest destiny?" Puuleease!
Religious persecution? Is Mars going to be full of Wiccans?
Overpopulation? The countries that desparately need relief from overpopulation can't afford to get to Mars.
Name one argument for going to the "New World" that applies to colonizing Mars.
The article specifically stated that having a choice is better than no choice at all, but more choice isn't always better than less choice. At some point, too many choices becomes frustrating and overly time consuming. People usually just decide what they like and stick with that because indecision is a waste of time. Meanwhile, people remain haunted (if only subconsciously) by the possibility that some other option may make them happier and they are missing out. In modern societies we are constantly bombarded by marketing that tells us that a given product will make us happier. We are constantly told that if we just change our wireless provider (how many of them are there?), for example, life will be great. Advertisers constantly exploit the "grass is always greener on the other side" feelings that most people have. My guess is that it isn't necessarily "choice" in and of itself that makes people miserable. It is how the choices are shoved in our faces day after day that causes problems. The kind of "choice" we are talking about is intertwined with materialism which is probably the source of the misery... not choice in and of itself.
Because right now we're keeping all of our eggs in one basket. The next big asteroid that comes along could wipe out humanity and all we've accomplished for the past ten-thousand years.
Such an asteroid would wipe out all we have accomplished for the past 10,000 year whether we have a colony on Mars or not. It's not like the information is encoded in our DNA (to any significant degree). Then again, what have we accomplished, really? Civilization is still plagued by war and poverty. A colony stranded on Mars would be 100x worse off in this respect. I say we not worry about saving the human race until there is something worth saving.
Another planet would insure that a global disaster on one planet would not destroy the species
Heh, yeah, asteroid. Talk about paranoid reasons for colonizing Mars. You've been watching too many (bad) sci-fi movies. We are decades away from putting a single person on Mars, much less a colony or terraforming.
Fortunately, we are not quite at the point of seriously considering the survival of the species. There really isn't much value in having a second home for humanity.
.. for now. Basically, we have three choices: restrict the growth of our species enough to preserve earth, start spreading out and spoiling other planets, or a combination of the two, protect the earth and start over again on other planets and treat them the right way. If a planet doesn't have a biosphere, but is capable of supporting one, I propose that "treating it the right way" is terraforming it and then preserving the terraformed version the way we should have preserved earth starting 100 years ago.
Spreading to other planets in responsse to Earth's overpopulation problems would be about as effective as using blood-letting to cure disease. The whole idea of terraforming another planet and altering it to human tastes and needs only perpetuates the problematic worldview that (most) humans today have. It is antithetical to preservation. I guarantee you that once we solve our problematic worldview, terraforming of new planets will be completely unnecessary. Terraforming will be reduced to the excercise of curiosity that it should be rather than a necessity of survival that it might be.
If you get a chance, listen to the song "Last Resort" by the Eagles. Not exactly a scholarly account of the human drive to conquer and spoil, but very touching nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Refilling from where exactly? Is the oil just magically appearing there out of thin air (or granite, as the case may be)? If the oil is non-biotic, what was the process that made it? You do understand that oil is stored chemical energy, don't you? Where did this energy come from?
-matthew
The standards have to be set somewhere by someone. Business isn't going to regulate itself. Besides, it isn't really anything unique to "socialism." Even in the US, we have certain standards (albeit low) for fuel economy, polution, etc. It isn't like they are saying exactly which technologies to pursue. They just say "This is the standard, meet it however you can."
Who's to say that these energy mandates are even achievable, or desirable? Since they won't be affordable, all this does is create a new class of subsidized business, and executives to run the businesses, and higher taxes on (in the case of Scotland) an already under-performing economy.
You could view it like that. Or you could see it as a challenge to businesses and universities to truely innovate and work for a cleaner, less oil (or other limited/imported resource) dependant future. I don't see how this could be anyting but a good thing in the long run. Eventually natural resources will become more difficult and expensive to obtain. Any country with the infrastructure and know-how to utilize renewable sources of energy is going to have an edge. This is an area I see the US falling way behind in.
-matthew
Oh, I see the confusion here. I was talking about "geeks" vs. ATs and PHBs.. not "Greeks." No wonder you don't see much difference in needs. The vast majority of the Greek population (or any population) is not geek. :-)
I was told on the Gentoo forums that etc-update will clobber settings and that I shouldn't run it without commandline options. It happens to a lot of people. It even happened to another Gentoo user that replied to me here on slashdot. It doesn't merge stuff automatically. You have to do it manually. Debian does often merge not-so-trivial changes authomatically in main config files. Although for some files, it will simply notes that you have editted them and ask you if you want to overwrite. In any case, it makes a backup of the files it changes. Debian handles "etc-updates" MUCH more intelligently than Gentoo.
Err, no. Just tinkering with the tools that are available.
Sometimes. The recent flamefest over "spatial Nautilus" is an example of where they diverge. Gnome's reform of the "yes-no-cancel" dialog to "don't save-cancel-save" is IMHO an example of where they converge.
Those are pretty trivial examples. How about this contrast: Microsoft Word vs. vi. How many geeks are going to fire up Word to edit a short document or text file?
[geeks no want what PHB want] IMNSHO this is mostly the product of atronizing/unrealistic/stupid ideas of what ATs and PHBs want.
Really? So PHBs and ATs wouldn't mind using vim to edit text? And they are comfortable with and often prefer the CLI? Thats all news to me. Sorry, but every day I am surrounded by people who wouldn't even consider using the tools and programs that I use on a regular basis. They simply wouldn't find them usable. This isn't to say that they are "just dumb users" or something. Its just a matter of what different people expect from computers.
Take Cobol for example. In theory, readable by PHBs. In practice, readable by no one.
I'm not saying geeks necessarily know what PHBs want. I'm just saying that what PHBs want and expect is generally vastly different from what geeks want. There would be no need for something like COBOL, readable or not, if this weren't the case.
-matthew
You didn't mention how BSD ports handles package updates/upgrades. Does it have some some sort or etc-update like process?
Actually, it is the other way around for me. When I first started using Gentoo, compiling all my packages with -march=pentium4, -O6, etc was really novel and fun (what geek doesn't like knowing that every binary is optimized for his/her specific CPU?), but now it is just a waste of time. When I decided I wanted to run netatalk to share files with my wife, I didn't want to wait 10 minutes for it to download and compile. And emerging, OpenOffice? Holy shit! I couldn't free up disk space fast enough to satisfy the needs of that ebuild. Turns out I don't even like OpenOffice.
The control I had over the system was great, but now going through every single etc update manually is just annoying. A package system should be more intelligent than that. At the very least, it shouldn't clobber something as basic as network settings... by default! The default should be to prompt you regarding changes and you can force it to clobber your network settings if that is what you really want. Debian is smart enough to say, "Hey, you seem to have editted this config file. Do you want me to replace it or leave it alone?" Hell, debian doesn't just ask you about config files. It knows when you have modified init.d startup scripts too.
Also, it seems like Gentoo uses up an unusually large amount of disk space even after cleaning up the dist files. Like several gigs for a fairly basic desktop system (having installed from stage1),
The only thing I like about Gentoo is the ability to mix and match "stable" packages with "unstable" ackages arbitrarily. I can also usually pick between several different versions of an ebuild. Beyond that, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Is compiling every single package really worth the trouble?
-matthew
Huh? Lose the aptitude? No way!
Oh, wait, you said "attitude."
-matthew
Yeah, too bad Gentoo has a horrible package upgrade system. I've completely hosed my system configuration simply by running etc-update. It even nuked my network settings. The first time this happened I thought I did something wrong. Then on the forums I was told "DON'T RUN etc-update!" WTF? Debian is very good about upgrading packages and not stomping on settings. Not only does it not stomp on old settings, but it is often intelligent enough to pull settings from and older version of a package to a newer. How does BSD ports handle package upgrades/updates?
-matthew
You dont' know many good beancounters then. The extra cost of Mac hardware really isn't that big of a deal for most companies looking to buy new workstations. It isn't like art or publishing oriented shops are rolling in the dough. It isn't like Macs are a luxury that only artists can afford. Also, a Mac will often last longer than a PC and it might even retain some resale value. If things are really that bad with Windows, maybe you should think about getting over your fear of the Mac and give it a try. You might just save a few bucks in support costs to make up for the cost of the hardware. I know i'd rather have my money invested in hardware instead of thrown away in support costs.
There is only one way out of the mess that is Office Automation, and it IS Linux.
There is another way out... quit your job and become a plumber.
-matthew
The problem with the "Linux must compete with Microsoft" attitude is that it is totally groundless. Linux has gotten this far without taking significant marketshare away from Microsoft, and it will continue without said marketshare. Microsoft's tactics of creating proprietary file formats and protocols is nothing new. There will always be some open standards that Linux can leverage. Apple is helping here. I say Linux developers should just keep on doing what they enjoy and not worry about competing with commercial entities. Linux/OSS isn't about competition. It is about doing interesting things with computers without the hassles of capitalism. Once you start talking about marketshare, mindshare and Aunt Tilly, the whole thing becomes too much like "work"... or rather, like "a job." I'm sure many Linux developers get plenty of that in their real job. They don't need to bring it home with them. So give OSS develpers a break, will ya? If you like the software, use it. If you don't, dont' use it or make it better.
-matthew
"Efficient tinkering?" What the heck is that? Tinkering is inherently inefficient. How is it "bad design" if a geek codes something that he/she finds useful? >What you don't seem to understand is that free/open software doesn't have to be good. That is the beauty of it. If it isn't good, simply don't use it or download the code and make it better. But whatever you do, don't complain about it. That's just pathetic.
Usability isn't just an issue for ATs or PHBs, it's an issue for geeks too.
If it really were an (significant) issue for geeks... it wouldn't be an issue. Geeks code what they need and want. The fact is that what a geek considers "usable" is different what ATs and PHBs consider usable. And most geeks dont' want to use software that has been made usable by ATs and PHBs. No amount of whining on your part is going to change this.
-matthew
The only industry support i've ever hoped for is that companies release the specs for their hardware. That is all OSS really needs.
Well that won't happen until more aunt Tilly's start using our favorite OS
Huh? It is happening now.. despite the lack of A. T.'s use of Linux on the desktop. You're just impatient and ungrateful.
-matthew
So what? I'm all "for" having my salary at work increased two-fold. I'm "for" world peace. Who isn't for better usablity of FOSS software (besides Microsoft)?
If FOSS isn't usable enough for you, you have a few options. You can a) lower your expectations, b) don't use it or c) start coding. All this whining about how FOSS "should" be more usable is just stupid.
-matthew
Personally, I'm sick of the Linux zealots who think that the future of Linux depends on mass acceptance on the desktop. It doesn't. As long as there are people who like to tinker (and not necessarily "get stuff done") there will be a place for OSS and Linux. Some users/developers may move to Mac OS X or Windows when they decide they want to "get stuff done." and that is fine. There are always the younger geeks ready to pick up where the older ones left off.
All this talk about what OSS should be aiming for is just ridiculous. As if the community as a whole was something coherent and well defined that you can manage or direct. It is chaotic. That is what makes it fun. Linux might make it big on the desktop someday. And that would be cool, i suppose. But if that doesn't happen, no big loss. It works for me regardless.
-matthew
Bubya BETTER NOT be around for years to come.
Umm, no, that's not what I'm trying to tell you. I don't suppose you read the rest of what I had to say.
You don't really know what people will want to try 100 or 200 years from now or whenever traveling to Mars (and back!) is practical. As far as I am concerned we are talking pure science fiction here. Frankly, I am amazed that NASA is even taking it seriously.
Well, "because they could" is a bit of an oversimplification. I doubt very many of the early settlers could be classified as adventurers or explorers. Most came seeking political and/or religious freedom. While there will be the adventurous going to Mars some day, I hardly see a mass exodus. The fact that Mars IS a barren wasteland will be a major, unprecidented obsticle. Comparing it to the coloniization of North America doesn't do the task justice.
I'm claiming that the technology to make such trips existed and was in use. The Icelandic peoples were vistiting North America on a fairly regular basis (mostly for lumber) long before Christopher Columbus. And the Chinese had mapped out Austrailia. What misconceptions some ignorant Europeans had about the shape of the Earth is irrelevant. The technology was there and it was relatively cheap. Get in a ship and go west until you hit land. Tada! New World!
Colonization of the New World wasn't about finding natives to slaughter; that was just an added bonus.
Bonus??? More like an obsticle. Probably the most significant obsticle they faced. Which, of course, is insignificant compared to the obsticles we face in colonizing Mars.
It was about finding more land, new things, and, depending on who you're talking to, either extending the social order, or escaping from it.
Ah yes, satisfying our endless needs. Yeah, there's a real noble reason for going to Mars. Can't solve our problems? Bring them to new worlds! Tell me, do you also advocate blood-letting to cure disease?
I say voluntarily quarantine Earth until we cure it's disease.
But, when you get right down to it, why colonize Mars? Because we can.
We can? Wow. That's news to me. Last time I checked we could barely get an unmanned rover there safely. Forget about getting it back!
That which does not grow, dies.
Like cancer? Were the early Americans "growing" when they genocided Native Americans? How about when they were enslaving Africans?
Sorry, but you are going to have to frame the colonization of Mars better if you are going to sell me on the idea. At best, it is history repeating itself. At worst, it is flat out impossible (at the moment).
-matthew
Sorry, but flying to and terraforming Mars is a lot different than hopping in a boat and crossing the Atlantic to kill millions of Natives for land. Both genocide and trans-atlantic travel relied on technology that was hundreds if not thousands of years old. Hell, if you were African, getting to the "New World" was free! (not Freedom, of couse, but free nontheless)!
Show me a group of people I can slaughter for land on Mars, a race I can enslave to do my dirty work of building cities and farms, a ship I can stow away on, and I'm there! Until then, all this colonizing of Mars talk is completely meaningless.
All of the reasons they came up with are still valid.
Like "manifest destiny?" Puuleease!
Religious persecution? Is Mars going to be full of Wiccans?
Overpopulation? The countries that desparately need relief from overpopulation can't afford to get to Mars.
Name one argument for going to the "New World" that applies to colonizing Mars.
-matthew
-matthew
Because right now we're keeping all of our eggs in one basket. The next big asteroid that comes along could wipe out humanity and all we've accomplished for the past ten-thousand years.
Such an asteroid would wipe out all we have accomplished for the past 10,000 year whether we have a colony on Mars or not. It's not like the information is encoded in our DNA (to any significant degree). Then again, what have we accomplished, really? Civilization is still plagued by war and poverty. A colony stranded on Mars would be 100x worse off in this respect. I say we not worry about saving the human race until there is something worth saving.
Another planet would insure that a global disaster on one planet would not destroy the species
Heh, yeah, asteroid. Talk about paranoid reasons for colonizing Mars. You've been watching too many (bad) sci-fi movies. We are decades away from putting a single person on Mars, much less a colony or terraforming.
-matthew
Fortunately, we are not quite at the point of seriously considering the survival of the species. There really isn't much value in having a second home for humanity.
Spreading to other planets in responsse to Earth's overpopulation problems would be about as effective as using blood-letting to cure disease. The whole idea of terraforming another planet and altering it to human tastes and needs only perpetuates the problematic worldview that (most) humans today have. It is antithetical to preservation. I guarantee you that once we solve our problematic worldview, terraforming of new planets will be completely unnecessary. Terraforming will be reduced to the excercise of curiosity that it should be rather than a necessity of survival that it might be.
If you get a chance, listen to the song "Last Resort" by the Eagles. Not exactly a scholarly account of the human drive to conquer and spoil, but very touching nonetheless.