That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
Why do you think that will happen?
I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes the boundaries, that is exciting and replete with meaning because it benefits humanity. They also expect living on Mars to be, well exciting - for the short time between arriving and dying.
The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end. Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis. So any tentative settlement will also collapse. Add to that is the lack of public support. This lack of support arises partly from diminished nationalism, but also from the fact that human based space technology was surpassed, long ago, by robotic technology - robots have reached the edge of the solar system, and humans are cleaning the toilet in LEO. If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.
Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.
All of these realities will become clear to prospective martians, either before they leave (in which case, they will no longer be willing to sacrifice their life to this venture and exit) or after, in which case they will express this regret in ways that embarrass the proponents of the scheme, and terminate future ambitions of that sort in short order.
Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.
Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff.
That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability. But you've made it clear that you actually find the suffering of others entertaining, so I'm not surprised to learn that you lack empathy.
You're one of those people, given your last line about "know nothing and care even less". That's classic navel gazing outlook.
So the upshot is, you clumsily tried to stick a label on me and it fell off. Ah well.
So is Mars "amazing" or "boring"? Those choices seem mutually exclusive to me. There seems to be a lot of contradictory bullshit in your opinions here.
Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars. Potentially, they could take a robot to roam around on the surface and explore while they suck in the regolith in their dark, cold, cramped, stinking worm holes, bent over a monitor with a live video stream from the robot.
If I'm not paying for it, then neither are you, making your protestations against it seem empty.
And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.
You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.
I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.
And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.
So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument.
I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.
Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.
You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.
That is not a sufficient reason for us to fund your hobby either.
Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.
Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't?
They don't.
I don't have problems with self-funded hobbies either. Space science for the sake of space science is just another hobby. Please, by all means pay for it yourself out of your own budget.
Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
By the fact that you still travel, no matter the reason, then there is something that the "grip" of machines isn't doing for you.
Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?
Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.
Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars.
A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?
And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.
Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.
And an argument irrelevant to this thread.
It would be, except for the fact that this is your argument, and the only one you've supplied so far, as why we should fund a program to send a human to do a job that a robot does better.
I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I want it. But similarly, I don't appreciate the placement of frivolous obstructions or objections to my goals based solely on petty and myopic philosophical distinctions.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.
Your argument is based on the assumption that manned spaceflight will always be out of reach of the resources of this group.
Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.
You already admitted that you travel, despite claiming that machines obsoleted any reason for you to travel. I think your remarks are just not that useful in this area.
You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.
However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.
Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem.
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.
I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there.
Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact that should be obvious to the most casual reader.
I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.
If you are ignorant of the reasons why the number is so low, then feel free to ask for the analysis, and if you disagree with that analysis, then argue for why it is wrong. Don't try to argue from ignorance, that is a fallacy.
So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.
Or they might not experience that situation.
I forgot to mention that my assumption is that we don't live in a magical fairy land where bad things don't happen. Should have mentioned it.
They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
You will feel guilt why?
Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.
Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.
You find the thought of people suffering and dying on TV entertaining. I see.
Bullshit. It'll just mean that we'll have to plan next time. I'm fuzzy on why a bad first try will convince us all that it's not worth doing.
That problem is easy to diagnose. You lack basic empathy for others, and therefore, cannot judge how people will behave when they act on feelings related to decency and empathy, and responsibility.
Science is not important in itself. It is important because of how it affects our lives and those who use that science down the road. If the only thing that is ever present in space past Earth orbit are a few space probes, then such things will be irrelevant to us on Earth and our lives - unless of course, you happen to be one of the handful of people building or operating the space probe.
Then there is no need for us to spend money sending people to Mars. You can go away satisfied, we'll get on with the science, because unlike you, we find joy and satisfaction in answering the questions that plague us, even when answering those questions has no real impact on you and the things you judge to be important. Whether you know it or not, we live in an amazing universe far greater and more astounding than we can grasp, and learning new things about it is an a
Do you think that these are likely to be more than stunts?
I can't of course judge their motivation. But they do seem most inclined to use space technology as a symbol of the status of their respective nations (much as the US once did with Apollo). This being the case then it seems likely that - if they ever go to Mars - these efforts will be abandoned shortly after reaching the first milestone.
No, it isn't. Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody. What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old. Did your mother teach you nothing.
Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.
I would have thought that conclusion was obvious. It won't happen because you want it to - because your feelings are irrelevant. If I wanted it, it still wouldn't happen, because MY feelings are also irrelevant. Don't you understand that? At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.
Why is that? I suggest it is because this group of people have failed to articulate a strong reason to revive the practice of sending humans to do a robots job. You need to articulate and objective reason for us to do this. Then you might convince enough people that it is a good idea. So far, you have not done so.
In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime.
I noticed you mention this a couple of times. This is a different argument than the "machines obsolete us wanting to do anything".
No it isn't, you've just failed to listen. Read my remarks again.
How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.
That's a fair question, I don't think there is an exact answer. However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief. Although there is no set time to for a grieving process like that, it seems reasonable that 12 months would be in the upper bound, based upon:
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
2. Potentially the person has already said goodbye to the people they love, recognising that neither party will see the other again.
So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to. This would be a terrible shock, but they haven't long to live anyway, so the grief would likely be intense, but timeboxed. Whether they will have progressed through the stages to acceptance by the time they die (24 months approximately) , and what that acceptance could look like in an environment of social isolation, without hope in the future, and where you've chosen to sacrifice your life for a cause that you now realise is meaningless - we can only speculate.
So why would it be like that? I find the rationalizing behind this argument intriguing. Where else would we "hope" that someone doesn't do something merely because they might not like it?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll try and answer anyway. It's our habit to abstract death away. So people might volunteer for a trip to Mars, having been warned that they will die there either before, or shortly after, arriving. They may abstract away the fact of that, and so might we, the people who remain behind.
However, abstraction and idealism always give way in the face of reality. No matter how idealistic you are, you can't flap your wings and fly. Reality is brutal. And so will the reality of this plan be brutal. As the mission progresses, and the participants face the reality crushing their ideals, they will start to die before our eyes. They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide. And we will watch it all on youtube and on the TV. It will be a bloodbath, and no-one who remembers it will ever advocate going to Mars again.
I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions.
You forgot the scare quotes on "important".
Are you saying scientific missions (like Voyager, Cassini Huygens, MESSENGER, Spirit and Opportunity etc etc) are not important? That astronomy is not important? If so, then you are unambiguously, and utterly wrong. If not, then perhaps you should explain yourself.
It won't matter to the navel gazers, if Mars exists or not. A lot of them probably never even saw the place in the sky. The people for whom that science will matter will be the people doing stuff on Mars, not necessarily in person, but not necessarily not in person.
Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?
If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path.
There's your problem right there. "I want to go" is not a good enough reason. Taking you as an example, if there ever were a viable attempt to reach Mars, you would not be selected. Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.
No, that's an example of desire. I desire a bacon & egg muffin. Which is not a problem, unless I have an expectation that someone else ought to pay for my muffin. Which brings us back to the Mars joyride.
A small number of people want to go to Mars, a yet smaller number will actually get to go. Even the most optimistic estimates (and they are fantastically optimistic ) put the number at 100 people per year. Inevitably, this means that within our lifetime, the enormous cost of sending those people will be borne by those who don't go, and who therefore need to be convinced to fund the adventures of those who do.
No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.
In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime. If I desire to go to Paris for a holiday (for instance), I'm not under any delusions that other people ought to pay for me to go.
But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.
Well, you might need to buy a box of tissues. The fundamental problem with the plan to send a man to mars still remains, and until that is solved, nobody is going to Mars in person. The problem? We simply aren't interested enough to invest the money and energy to do it. The reason is that the future of space travel lies with machines, whereas human space travel lies in the past. We all know it, we've known it for years. Manned space travel is like restoring steam trains these days. Sure, there's a few enthusiasts. But few people ride in steam trains, and few ever will, except for the purposes of nostalgia.
At some point you have to prove out that it's possible to sustain human life for 6 months, a year, two years on the surface
No, we don't have to do that.
Would you rather send a man to Mars with a system that has 6 months of flight heritage, or one with 12 years flight heritage?
I choose neither.
There's very little to no free oxygen on Mars. You have to send an oxygen generator there early on.
You're right. Whilst the uniqueness of the experience would be sure to exhilarate for a while, after a time I imagine that space travel would gall. After all, you are in a tin can with people you didn't choose, no chance of escape and subjected to a harsh daily routine of exercise and diet.
I hope we don't progress to a mars colony, not matter how brief. Because I think that the reality of the experience cannot be covered up: unlike the apollo mission which was a few days of adrenaline, and then back home, travelling to Mars will give people time to reflect on what they left behind. It will be an agonising experience to watch those idealists implode before our eyes, as the truth of it sinks in. Mars is boring, there's no exciting pioneering life, no fame or fortune. Just drudgery and the fear that food supplies will run out and the water purifier will break. Eventually something goes wrong and you're dead. Brutal and uncompromised by happy hollywood endings.
I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions. That would be a tragedy.
And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight?
The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.
We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us.
Well, yes we did. We stopped strangling animals when spears rendered strangling redundant. We stopped charging the enemy with swords when guns rendered the older technology redundant. We stopped travelling by steam train when the automobile and electric train rendered the former technology redundant.
History is replete with counter arguments to the notion that we should just keep doing stuff by hand "because".
In particular, did you stop traveling just because that is in the "grip" of machines?
Absolutely. For example, I send emails instead of walking to the desk of a colleague, I ring people, I teleconference. It is nothing to me to communicate with 60 people in an hour dispersed across a country the size of a continent. Something that would be impossible if I had to be physically present at every gathering and for every conversation. Which I would need to do were it not for the aid of machines. My everyday life is enabled because we ignored the naysayers who irrationally assume that no interaction can take place except by physical presence.
Now all that remains is to rebuke the same irrationality when it is applied to space exploration.
You've engaged in a good quantity of confirmation bias there, by selecting tentative technologies that led to transformation and then assuming that every endeavour, no matter how foolish it sounds, will lead inevitably to societal transformation. What nonsense - in amongst our successes, there are numerous boondoggles, and for every successful new technology there are technologies that are made redundant. Human space travel is the latter, an outmoded technology which, like steam trains, we may look back on with fondness but which has no place in our future technology plans. We know that, we've known that since the 60's. It was outmoded even during the space program - kennedy chose the moon mission over a deep space probe not for it's scientific value, but because it conformed to the myth of the american pioneer, and thus brought comfort to the american public in a time of deep anxiety.
Now is the time to shed our anxieties and abandon the comfort pillow of manned space flight. Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines. We know it does, we've known that for a long time. Right now, this obsession is holding us back (albeit a friustrated few of us struggle against it's bonds). Advocates of manned spaceflight are like coal miners who insist that only picks can be used to mine coal, while the longwalling machines and draglines sit idle. The image of the astronaut is romantic, no doubt, and full of bravado, like the hard working reaper, chimney sweep, or seamstress. But now, we need to move on. Move on.
Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.
Infant formula was invented in the 29th century. It is inferior to breast milk, and the marketing of formula in less developed countries has led to many babies dying (due to the fact that mothers, by necessity, must prepare it in unsanitary conditions, and because it is nutritionally inferior to breast milk), Overall it's invention has been detrimental to our species - and babies fed on breast milk, owing to it's superiority (nutrition wise) consistently score higher in cognitive function. Suggesting that baby formula has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity. is a grotesque misunderstanding.
Water purification advances
The russians invented a system to extract water from urine. General water purification is of course not needed because cosmonauts and astronauts aren't drinking out of streams or rivers. When I say invented it, they of course miniaturised a system that already existed prior to space travel. Water purification systems are important, but none of the technology invented for Mir (and later used in the ISS) is relevant to usage on earth.
Solar power
Previous technology that was improved by the space initiative to power satellites. No advancement in solar power is linked to human space travel.
But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room. This is not some abstract theory. Sure, we can populate the desert and the ocean, sure we can die from disease and war, but eventually, Earth will not be enough. Betting on exploration is betting on humanity, in the long, long haul.
Your sums are wrong. There are (around) 200 000 more births a day then deaths (Source). Supposing there were a magical place to send these people, the requisite lift capacity would exhaust our supply of fuel within a day or so, and our atmosphere would be irreparably damaged.
And to be clear, no such magical place exists. Mars, for example, would not sustain a days worth of the Earths population increase. It is too cold, too small, too far away from the sun.
Our ancestors built dugout canoes 40,000 years ago. If dugouts had been a waste of a good axe-stone, when there were rival tribes to murder, Columbus would have never found the new world.
Columbus didn't find a new world. He inadvertently stumbled upon a continent that was already populated.
I am betting that humans are a viable species. I am betting that mankind has nowhere to go but up. Look to the future, embrace exploration, it is the only way that mankind can last another 40,000 years.
You're wrong. You've constructed a strawman argument to link the survival of humanity with physically lobbing meat bags into space. No such link exists.
You missed Goldberry. To imply anything about Tom without considering Goldberry is fraught.
In any case I don't think it's valid to use Tom as an example of anything. After all, we don't really know why he is even in the story, he doesn't fit, and Tolkien refused to say who he was, except to allude ot the possibility that Bombadil was somehow external to the story (i.e. perhaps representing the author himself, or some kind of private allusion to the stories that he used to weave for his children). He doesn't fit anywhere in the pantheon of Arda (mind you of course there are several other characters of whom this is true). He is peculiar, but not contemptible in any sense, which cannot be said of movie Radagast.
Of Radagast himself, we would do well to recall the saying Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger. That description encompasses Radagast, in addition to Saruman and Gandalf.
You'll note that the affairs of wizards are only ever related to outsiders by Gandalf, and he is not really forthcoming about the nature and detail of those affairs. Consider for example, his initial encounter with the Balrog, his apparent coming back the dead, the detail of his conflict with Saruman (if indeed, there WAS a conflict) that led to him being imprisoned on Orthanc, etc.
Of course my sidearm will help protect my liberties. Me and every gun owning person, at that.
You and your gun slinging pals are the reason why America, once proud and free, is now under the jackboot of tyranny.
Yes, I do say whatever I like to whomever I like, provided the government approves the time and place, and what I actually say.
Fixed.
I never said I killed a cop, I said; if the case warranted it, I would kill a cop as easily as anyone threatening my life.
You said you wanted to, and that in the event that you did, that your mates would pervert the course of justice to ensure that you went free. You're a delusional psycho.
Never changed my mind, I abide by any laws that do not conflict with my integrity or religion.
Ah right. And what does your religion say about shooting cops and members of the armed forces? Going postal on previous criminal associates? Can you quote the relevant section from your holy texts?
When pressed about this, you suddenly changed your mind and claimed to be straight up and law abiding: "No need to worry about ME saying the wrong thing - no sir! Clean your boots for you sir?"
Feel free to clean my boots and there's a tip in it for you boy.
I'm not a boy, but thanks for invoking that racist imagery. In any case, you completely misunderstood what I said - perhaps due to an inability to read. The description and dialogue were a picture of YOU: YOU begging for the privilege of cleaning the tyrannical jackboot that steps on your face.
You're odd enough, I figure distended anuses would make you feel right at home.
Apology accepted.
Nope, the reason the U.S. is under tyranny came around a century ago. Go read a U.S. history book.
No need: I gave you the reasons why you live under tyranny and you didn't contradict it, instead went off and provided us with lurid fantasies about how badass you are, and how tough your gang is. Fantasies of course, because if you ever faced a real opponent you would curl up into a ball ready to be kicked, learned behaviours from living under the tyranny that you chose.
To deny my right to own a gun, is to open myself and family up to the dangers of criminals who would still own guns, should they be taken away.
You are the only real danger your family faces. Cowardly, stupid, obsessed with firearms, unable to engage in a coherent and rational argument. You're a few steps away from going postal and shooting everyone around you. You are at risk of having a psychotic episode and killing your family yourself, a getting drunk and mistaking your wife for an intruder, or a current criminal associate for a past one and shooting them by mistake.
This is the equivalent of anti-gun nuts threatening my safety and they will suffer for their threats.
Unable to respond intelligently to rational arguments, you just sprout fantasies, and when this fails, resort once again to physical threats. My point is proven.
Best estimates put this at 15000 years ago. Again, what evidence is there that this triggered a cultural evolution?
I was referring to the more recent settling by Europeans, thus the comment about "first emptying them of their former occupants."
Then it could hardly be considered "settlement". We might more accurately call it "annexation", "genocide" (in the south), "real estate fraud", "failure to comply with treaties", amongst other things. And none of those things is at all like constructing a habitat for humans in space. For one thing, there were humans there already, and air, and gravity, and soil, and game, and reasonable levels of radiation. The Europeans who travelled to America did so on the understanding that there was lot's of free stuff, a big land where they could build a house and/or make money. They didn't go there expecting to live in a tiny box, surrounded by vacuum and blasted by radiation. They would think of those environs as a prison - as would any sensible person who had to endure it for more than a few months.
If you want to go into space, that's fine, you and your mates are welcome to fund it, just don't interfere with the funds we need to explore (using robots). And don't imagine it is like Star Trek, it is not like Star Trek.
It's not like star trek. Robots are even less like star trek.
So let's summarise: You admit that your sidearm will not help you protect your liberties. You claimed you could say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. You boasted about killing cops and having your mates pervert the course of justice for you. When pressed about this, you suddenly changed your mind and claimed to be straight up and law abiding. "No need to worry about ME saying the wrong thing - no sir! Clean your boots for you sir?"
For some reason you thought that implying that i like distended anuses would make me feel insulted.
You are the reason that America is under tyranny. You guys who fantasise about being cold-blooded killers and vigilantes, but when challenged, you roll over and urinate on yourselves like beaten curs. Do you even have a gun? Have you ever, even once, stood up for what is right?
Best estimates put this at 15000 years ago. Again, what evidence is there that this triggered a cultural evolution?
In the event of a very large rock heading our way, there isn't much to do about it - neither robots nor humans are currently capable of diverting it. One way or another, a lot of people are going to die.
As I already pointed out, even at the moment of impact, the Earth will be more habitable than Mars is. And Mars is more hospitable than, say Mercury, or Neptune, or the moons around Jupiter. In other words - at the exact moment that the asteroid hits, the earth will still be a nicer place than anywhere else in the Solar System.
If you want to go into space, that's fine, you and your mates are welcome to fund it, just don't interfere with the funds we need to explore (using robots). And don't imagine it is like Star Trek, it is not like Star Trek.
One of the better features of The Hobbit (or There and Back Again) is that Bilbo is knocked unconcious at the beginning of the battle of the 5 armies. And since the story is written from his perspective (or he wrote it) there is virtually no dewcription of the battle itself. SO I was hopeful that we would not be subjected to yet another boilerplate over the top battle scene where actually fearsome creatures (trolls, wargs) repeatedly fail to kill their enemy and participants appear to be able to defy the laws of physics. I mean, for Manwes sake: if i wanted to see acrobats I'd go to the circus. Actual character exposition appears ot be confined to clumsy dialogue. Apparently there is no screen time for visual exposition on the change in Bilbo from comfortable, insular shire hobbit to a slightly amoral but very plucky thief. Instead he (bilbo) needs to convey this through long, confessional speeches with the dwarves, whilst 2 dimensional elves do stupid things.
Slashdot Mirror
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
Why do you think that will happen?
I've already told you. People value their lives. They aren't likely to sacrifice their lives for a few months of "fun". So, if they are rational, and choose to partake on a course that will end their lives in a fairly arbitrary and short time (say, 24 months), then the logical assumption is they expect something in return for that sacrifice. Reading the likes of the Mars One website, or slashdot, one gets a general feel for what this return is, they expect to be part of some great human effort that pushes the boundaries, that is exciting and replete with meaning because it benefits humanity. They also expect living on Mars to be, well exciting - for the short time between arriving and dying.
The reality, of course, is that human spaceflight to Mars is a dead end. Plans to settle permanently on Mars derive mostly from texts written by Zubrin, these are fundamentally flawed and collapse under even the most casual analysis. So any tentative settlement will also collapse. Add to that is the lack of public support. This lack of support arises partly from diminished nationalism, but also from the fact that human based space technology was surpassed, long ago, by robotic technology - robots have reached the edge of the solar system, and humans are cleaning the toilet in LEO. If humans make it Mars, they will do so long after robots arrived: so the notion that this is pioneering is of course laughable.
Human based space travel has lost the race and lost it's purpose, evidenced clearly by the fact that advocates for this activity can no longer articulate a purpose.
All of these realities will become clear to prospective martians, either before they leave (in which case, they will no longer be willing to sacrifice their life to this venture and exit) or after, in which case they will express this regret in ways that embarrass the proponents of the scheme, and terminate future ambitions of that sort in short order.
Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.
Humans also have a capacity to not feel that stuff.
That would be an incapacity the inability to feel empathy (even involuntary) is an inability not an ability. But you've made it clear that you actually find the suffering of others entertaining, so I'm not surprised to learn that you lack empathy.
You're one of those people, given your last line about "know nothing and care even less". That's classic navel gazing outlook.
So the upshot is, you clumsily tried to stick a label on me and it fell off. Ah well.
So is Mars "amazing" or "boring"? Those choices seem mutually exclusive to me. There seems to be a lot of contradictory bullshit in your opinions here.
Mars is interesting scientifically, which is why we send robots there to explore it. It is a boring place for humans to live, because owing to the fact that it is bathed in deadly radiation, humans on mars, if they ever went, would have to live underground like worms, never seeing the stars. Potentially, they could take a robot to roam around on the surface and explore while they suck in the regolith in their dark, cold, cramped, stinking worm holes, bent over a monitor with a live video stream from the robot.
And whilst you are at it, please feel free to not use the outcomes of our scientific endeavours.
You should abandon every vestige of the science you despise, and go and live in the forest, in a shack you've made yourself, and refuse the evil, depraved workings of science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet. Hop to it, there's a good fellow.
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
Which is patently false since your argument is based on your feelings.
I'm not even making an argument per se. I'm merely waiting for you to explain why I should fund your hobby out of my pocket. A list of the top 10 reasons will suffice. I'm waiting.
And if I were intent on colonizing bandicoots on Mars, that would mean that sending robots wouldn't do that either.
So therefore, you would have no issues with digging into your own pocket to fund the guy who wants to send bandicoots.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
There's no point to your verbiage. "Because I want to" is a sufficient argument.
I'll tell you if and when you've provided a sufficient argument to convince me to give you money. Otherwise I might give the money to the guy with the bandicoots instead.
Of course, I have reasons why I want it. And if I were, say, trying to convince you to want Mars colonization as well, then I'd expound on them. But I'm not.
You DID explain your reasons - you wanted to see someone die on Mars on live TV. You though their sufferings and deprivations would bring you delight.
That is not a sufficient reason for us to fund your hobby either.
Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.
Why do your hobbies get public funding and mine don't?
They don't.
I don't have problems with self-funded hobbies either. Space science for the sake of space science is just another hobby. Please, by all means pay for it yourself out of your own budget.
Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
By the fact that you still travel, no matter the reason, then there is something that the "grip" of machines isn't doing for you.
Yeah good luck with this line of argument. Does my motorcycle have a space gear that I'm unaware of? Can you cite the relevant page in the manual? Can you cite my request for $0.5 Trillion to fund my space motorcycle travels?
Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody.
Pretty much everybody is not everybody. It doesn't include me. You are just arguing that your feelings and opinions should be more important to me than my own. That isn't the case.
You obsession with my feelings is a bit ridiculous. I've already pointed out that my feelings on the subject don't matter. But rather than arguing against that, you chose to ignore it and carry on in self delusion.
I've already answered these questions. A robot can't be a human living on Mars.
A robot can't be a living bandicoot on Mars either. Your point is?
And it's not important that I personally go to Mars.
Well, no, because, as you explained in the other thread, the reason why you want a manned mission to Mars is so that you can watch them die, because you think that would be entertaining.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old.
And an argument irrelevant to this thread.
It would be, except for the fact that this is your argument, and the only one you've supplied so far, as why we should fund a program to send a human to do a job that a robot does better.
I'm not arguing from entitlement. I want and I will try to get it as a result. That is all. There is no expectation that I should get it merely because I want it. But similarly, I don't appreciate the placement of frivolous obstructions or objections to my goals based solely on petty and myopic philosophical distinctions.
You want it, but you can't provide any reason beyond "I want it". You can't otherwise explain why the rest of us should fund it - or you can explain it , but for whatever obscure reason, have chosen not to. Consequently, you won't get that funding , because until there is a valid reason to send a human, we will keep sending robots instead of humans.
At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.
Your argument is based on the assumption that manned spaceflight will always be out of reach of the resources of this group.
Nope. I've made it clear that if people want to engage in historical reenactments using the space technology of yesteryear, then i don't care - as long as they do it on their own dime, and don't cut into the budget associated with science or space exploration. I've no problem with self funded hobbies.
You already admitted that you travel, despite claiming that machines obsoleted any reason for you to travel. I think your remarks are just not that useful in this area.
You apparently think it's significant that I travel for pleasure - however you can't explain why.
However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief.
Then this is a case of expectation management which is a solved problem.
That, at least is true. If we correctly manage their expectations so that they have a realistic picture of life on Mars, then they won't want to go. Problem solved.
For those who don't choose to solve this particular problem, there's always popcorn.
I find it interesting that you care so much about them going, but don't care at all about their welfare, and indeed, seem happy to exploit their gullibility. Perhaps this is the key difference in our positions - you want to exploit the gullible for your own entertainment, I am not willing to do so.
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
Or 50 years, being another number you could have stuffed in there.
Or not, since I didn't just pick a number, a fact that should be obvious to the most casual reader.
I really don't see a claim for one or the other being valid in the absence of context.
If you are ignorant of the reasons why the number is so low, then feel free to ask for the analysis, and if you disagree with that analysis, then argue for why it is wrong. Don't try to argue from ignorance, that is a fallacy.
So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to.
Or they might not experience that situation.
I forgot to mention that my assumption is that we don't live in a magical fairy land where bad things don't happen. Should have mentioned it.
They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
You will feel guilt why?
Because I'm a human and consequently I feel things like compassion and empathy for the suffering of others.
Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.
You find the thought of people suffering and dying on TV entertaining. I see.
Bullshit. It'll just mean that we'll have to plan next time. I'm fuzzy on why a bad first try will convince us all that it's not worth doing.
That problem is easy to diagnose. You lack basic empathy for others, and therefore, cannot judge how people will behave when they act on feelings related to decency and empathy, and responsibility.
Science is not important in itself. It is important because of how it affects our lives and those who use that science down the road. If the only thing that is ever present in space past Earth orbit are a few space probes, then such things will be irrelevant to us on Earth and our lives - unless of course, you happen to be one of the handful of people building or operating the space probe.
Then there is no need for us to spend money sending people to Mars. You can go away satisfied, we'll get on with the science, because unlike you, we find joy and satisfaction in answering the questions that plague us, even when answering those questions has no real impact on you and the things you judge to be important. Whether you know it or not, we live in an amazing universe far greater and more astounding than we can grasp, and learning new things about it is an a
I can't of course judge their motivation. But they do seem most inclined to use space technology as a symbol of the status of their respective nations (much as the US once did with Apollo). This being the case then it seems likely that - if they ever go to Mars - these efforts will be abandoned shortly after reaching the first milestone.
"I want to go" is not a good enough reason.
For you. It's quite valid for other people.
No, it isn't. Your feelings are irrelevant to pretty much everybody. What matters is your ability to formulate an argument touching upon (a) The reason why we should send a human to do something that a robot can do better, and cheaper (b) The reasons why that human should be you.
"I should have it because I want it" is not a valid answer once you pass 5 years old. Did your mother teach you nothing.
Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
So that reason has to be based on your personal feelings instead? No, doesn't work that way.
I would have thought that conclusion was obvious. It won't happen because you want it to - because your feelings are irrelevant. If I wanted it, it still wouldn't happen, because MY feelings are also irrelevant. Don't you understand that? At the moment, there is a tiny group of people who still cling to the pre-Apollo notion that space travel should include humans. This group of people aren't particularly rich (at least on the scale of the finances required), and aren't noticeably expanding in number or in influence.
Why is that? I suggest it is because this group of people have failed to articulate a strong reason to revive the practice of sending humans to do a robots job. You need to articulate and objective reason for us to do this. Then you might convince enough people that it is a good idea. So far, you have not done so.
In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime.
I noticed you mention this a couple of times. This is a different argument than the "machines obsolete us wanting to do anything".
No it isn't, you've just failed to listen. Read my remarks again.
How long would that take? If it takes longer than a human lifetime for the involved parties, then there's not a problem.
That's a fair question, I don't think there is an exact answer. However, with an experience like that, wherein there is a high expectation that does not match with reality, the human mind is likely to progress through phases much like the stages of grief. Although there is no set time to for a grieving process like that, it seems reasonable that 12 months would be in the upper bound, based upon:
1. A person travelling to Mars would have to have accepted their own death as inevitable (the expected lifespan on Mars being on the order of 24 months)
2. Potentially the person has already said goodbye to the people they love, recognising that neither party will see the other again.
So having commenced on the trip they then discover that in fact, Mars is not the glorious new dawn they expected, and that in fact life on the way there and upon arrival is basically drudgery with nothing too look at and no future to look forward to. This would be a terrible shock, but they haven't long to live anyway, so the grief would likely be intense, but timeboxed. Whether they will have progressed through the stages to acceptance by the time they die (24 months approximately) , and what that acceptance could look like in an environment of social isolation, without hope in the future, and where you've chosen to sacrifice your life for a cause that you now realise is meaningless - we can only speculate.
So why would it be like that? I find the rationalizing behind this argument intriguing. Where else would we "hope" that someone doesn't do something merely because they might not like it?
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but I'll try and answer anyway. It's our habit to abstract death away. So people might volunteer for a trip to Mars, having been warned that they will die there either before, or shortly after, arriving. They may abstract away the fact of that, and so might we, the people who remain behind.
However, abstraction and idealism always give way in the face of reality. No matter how idealistic you are, you can't flap your wings and fly. Reality is brutal. And so will the reality of this plan be brutal. As the mission progresses, and the participants face the reality crushing their ideals, they will start to die before our eyes. They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide. And we will watch it all on youtube and on the TV. It will be a bloodbath, and no-one who remembers it will ever advocate going to Mars again.
I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions.
You forgot the scare quotes on "important".
Are you saying scientific missions (like Voyager, Cassini Huygens, MESSENGER, Spirit and Opportunity etc etc) are not important? That astronomy is not important? If so, then you are unambiguously, and utterly wrong. If not, then perhaps you should explain yourself.
It won't matter to the navel gazers, if Mars exists or not. A lot of them probably never even saw the place in the sky. The people for whom that science will matter will be the people doing stuff on Mars, not necessarily in person, but not necessarily not in person.
Quite frankly, that makes no sense at all. Who (or what) are these navel gazers? Why would science matter more to people on Mars than it does to people on Earth?
If I want to go to Mars, then manned spaceflight is on the critical path.
There's your problem right there. "I want to go" is not a good enough reason. Taking you as an example, if there ever were a viable attempt to reach Mars, you would not be selected. Therefore, you need a reason to support it that isn't based on personal feelings and the desire for a joy ride to somewhere unusual.
And a lot of people want to go to Mars. There's an example of the need.
No, that's an example of desire. I desire a bacon & egg muffin. Which is not a problem, unless I have an expectation that someone else ought to pay for my muffin. Which brings us back to the Mars joyride.
A small number of people want to go to Mars, a yet smaller number will actually get to go. Even the most optimistic estimates (and they are fantastically optimistic ) put the number at 100 people per year. Inevitably, this means that within our lifetime, the enormous cost of sending those people will be borne by those who don't go, and who therefore need to be convinced to fund the adventures of those who do.
No, I didn't ask if you travel less, but rather if you stopped traveling at all.
In fact I rarely, if ever, travel except for pleasure or personal reasons. And I don't travel on someone else's dime. If I desire to go to Paris for a holiday (for instance), I'm not under any delusions that other people ought to pay for me to go.
But some day we're going to send a man to Mars. Or I will weep for humanity. Hopefully in my lifetime.
Well, you might need to buy a box of tissues. The fundamental problem with the plan to send a man to mars still remains, and until that is solved, nobody is going to Mars in person. The problem? We simply aren't interested enough to invest the money and energy to do it. The reason is that the future of space travel lies with machines, whereas human space travel lies in the past. We all know it, we've known it for years. Manned space travel is like restoring steam trains these days. Sure, there's a few enthusiasts. But few people ride in steam trains, and few ever will, except for the purposes of nostalgia.
At some point you have to prove out that it's possible to sustain human life for 6 months, a year, two years on the surface
No, we don't have to do that.
Would you rather send a man to Mars with a system that has 6 months of flight heritage, or one with 12 years flight heritage?
I choose neither.
There's very little to no free oxygen on Mars. You have to send an oxygen generator there early on.
Machines don't need oxygen. Problem solved.
I think seeing that will set back not just manned attempts but the important stuff, the scientific missions. That would be a tragedy.
And what does that "fact" have to do with manned space flight?
The fact renders manned spaceflight unnecessary and redundant, just as electronic computers have rendered human computers redundant.
We didn't actually stop doing anything of those things just because we have machines to help us.
Well, yes we did. We stopped strangling animals when spears rendered strangling redundant. We stopped charging the enemy with swords when guns rendered the older technology redundant. We stopped travelling by steam train when the automobile and electric train rendered the former technology redundant.
History is replete with counter arguments to the notion that we should just keep doing stuff by hand "because".
In particular, did you stop traveling just because that is in the "grip" of machines?
Absolutely. For example, I send emails instead of walking to the desk of a colleague, I ring people, I teleconference. It is nothing to me to communicate with 60 people in an hour dispersed across a country the size of a continent. Something that would be impossible if I had to be physically present at every gathering and for every conversation. Which I would need to do were it not for the aid of machines. My everyday life is enabled because we ignored the naysayers who irrationally assume that no interaction can take place except by physical presence.
Now all that remains is to rebuke the same irrationality when it is applied to space exploration.
Now is the time to shed our anxieties and abandon the comfort pillow of manned space flight. Now is the time to embrace the fact that, like manufacturing, information processing, transport, medicine , the future for space travel lies not in the hands of astronauts/taikonauts/cosmonauts but in the grip of machines. We know it does, we've known that for a long time. Right now, this obsession is holding us back (albeit a friustrated few of us struggle against it's bonds). Advocates of manned spaceflight are like coal miners who insist that only picks can be used to mine coal, while the longwalling machines and draglines sit idle. The image of the astronaut is romantic, no doubt, and full of bravado, like the hard working reaper, chimney sweep, or seamstress. But now, we need to move on. Move on.
Edit: By 29th, I of course meant 19th century. No time travel involved.
Enriched Infant formula and other foods - which has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity.
Infant formula was invented in the 29th century. It is inferior to breast milk, and the marketing of formula in less developed countries has led to many babies dying (due to the fact that mothers, by necessity, must prepare it in unsanitary conditions, and because it is nutritionally inferior to breast milk), Overall it's invention has been detrimental to our species - and babies fed on breast milk, owing to it's superiority (nutrition wise) consistently score higher in cognitive function. Suggesting that baby formula has probably done more for the collective intelligence of mankind than almost any other single effort in the history of humanity. is a grotesque misunderstanding.
Water purification advances
The russians invented a system to extract water from urine. General water purification is of course not needed because cosmonauts and astronauts aren't drinking out of streams or rivers. When I say invented it, they of course miniaturised a system that already existed prior to space travel. Water purification systems are important, but none of the technology invented for Mir (and later used in the ISS) is relevant to usage on earth.
Solar power
Previous technology that was improved by the space initiative to power satellites. No advancement in solar power is linked to human space travel.
But more important than any one single benefit, eventually we will run out of room. This is not some abstract theory. Sure, we can populate the desert and the ocean, sure we can die from disease and war, but eventually, Earth will not be enough. Betting on exploration is betting on humanity, in the long, long haul.
Your sums are wrong. There are (around) 200 000 more births a day then deaths (Source). Supposing there were a magical place to send these people, the requisite lift capacity would exhaust our supply of fuel within a day or so, and our atmosphere would be irreparably damaged.
And to be clear, no such magical place exists. Mars, for example, would not sustain a days worth of the Earths population increase. It is too cold, too small, too far away from the sun.
Our ancestors built dugout canoes 40,000 years ago. If dugouts had been a waste of a good axe-stone, when there were rival tribes to murder, Columbus would have never found the new world.
Columbus didn't find a new world. He inadvertently stumbled upon a continent that was already populated.
I am betting that humans are a viable species. I am betting that mankind has nowhere to go but up. Look to the future, embrace exploration, it is the only way that mankind can last another 40,000 years.
You're wrong. You've constructed a strawman argument to link the survival of humanity with physically lobbing meat bags into space. No such link exists.
LOL you are so obsessed with firearms and the fears in your head, you are like some guy in a 3 panel comic.
Just presenting you with facts. You choose to deny rather than refute. Not my problem.
In any case I don't think it's valid to use Tom as an example of anything. After all, we don't really know why he is even in the story, he doesn't fit, and Tolkien refused to say who he was, except to allude ot the possibility that Bombadil was somehow external to the story (i.e. perhaps representing the author himself, or some kind of private allusion to the stories that he used to weave for his children). He doesn't fit anywhere in the pantheon of Arda (mind you of course there are several other characters of whom this is true). He is peculiar, but not contemptible in any sense, which cannot be said of movie Radagast.
Of Radagast himself, we would do well to recall the saying Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger. That description encompasses Radagast, in addition to Saruman and Gandalf.
You'll note that the affairs of wizards are only ever related to outsiders by Gandalf, and he is not really forthcoming about the nature and detail of those affairs. Consider for example, his initial encounter with the Balrog, his apparent coming back the dead, the detail of his conflict with Saruman (if indeed, there WAS a conflict) that led to him being imprisoned on Orthanc, etc.
The purpose of the rabbit sleigh is to set up a chase scene.
Of course my sidearm will help protect my liberties. Me and every gun owning person, at that.
You and your gun slinging pals are the reason why America, once proud and free, is now under the jackboot of tyranny.
Yes, I do say whatever I like to whomever I like, provided the government approves the time and place, and what I actually say.
Fixed.
I never said I killed a cop, I said; if the case warranted it, I would kill a cop as easily as anyone threatening my life.
You said you wanted to, and that in the event that you did, that your mates would pervert the course of justice to ensure that you went free. You're a delusional psycho.
Never changed my mind, I abide by any laws that do not conflict with my integrity or religion.
Ah right. And what does your religion say about shooting cops and members of the armed forces? Going postal on previous criminal associates? Can you quote the relevant section from your holy texts?
When pressed about this, you suddenly changed your mind and claimed to be straight up and law abiding: "No need to worry about ME saying the wrong thing - no sir! Clean your boots for you sir?"
Feel free to clean my boots and there's a tip in it for you boy.
I'm not a boy, but thanks for invoking that racist imagery. In any case, you completely misunderstood what I said - perhaps due to an inability to read. The description and dialogue were a picture of YOU: YOU begging for the privilege of cleaning the tyrannical jackboot that steps on your face.
You're odd enough, I figure distended anuses would make you feel right at home.
Apology accepted.
Nope, the reason the U.S. is under tyranny came around a century ago. Go read a U.S. history book.
No need: I gave you the reasons why you live under tyranny and you didn't contradict it, instead went off and provided us with lurid fantasies about how badass you are, and how tough your gang is. Fantasies of course, because if you ever faced a real opponent you would curl up into a ball ready to be kicked, learned behaviours from living under the tyranny that you chose.
To deny my right to own a gun, is to open myself and family up to the dangers of criminals who would still own guns, should they be taken away.
You are the only real danger your family faces. Cowardly, stupid, obsessed with firearms, unable to engage in a coherent and rational argument. You're a few steps away from going postal and shooting everyone around you. You are at risk of having a psychotic episode and killing your family yourself, a getting drunk and mistaking your wife for an intruder, or a current criminal associate for a past one and shooting them by mistake.
This is the equivalent of anti-gun nuts threatening my safety and they will suffer for their threats.
Unable to respond intelligently to rational arguments, you just sprout fantasies, and when this fails, resort once again to physical threats. My point is proven.
If you ignore the genocide issue, it was still a settlement.
Genocide isn't something that people tend to ignore.
Some people still find the old sci-fi dreams inspirational.
Some people find santa claus inspirational. That doesn't mean we should spend bales of money looking for santa claus.
Best estimates put this at 15000 years ago. Again, what evidence is there that this triggered a cultural evolution?
I was referring to the more recent settling by Europeans, thus the comment about "first emptying them of their former occupants."
Then it could hardly be considered "settlement". We might more accurately call it "annexation", "genocide" (in the south), "real estate fraud", "failure to comply with treaties", amongst other things. And none of those things is at all like constructing a habitat for humans in space. For one thing, there were humans there already, and air, and gravity, and soil, and game, and reasonable levels of radiation. The Europeans who travelled to America did so on the understanding that there was lot's of free stuff, a big land where they could build a house and/or make money. They didn't go there expecting to live in a tiny box, surrounded by vacuum and blasted by radiation. They would think of those environs as a prison - as would any sensible person who had to endure it for more than a few months.
If you want to go into space, that's fine, you and your mates are welcome to fund it, just don't interfere with the funds we need to explore (using robots). And don't imagine it is like Star Trek, it is not like Star Trek.
It's not like star trek. Robots are even less like star trek.
?? That doesn't even make sense.
For some reason you thought that implying that i like distended anuses would make me feel insulted.
You are the reason that America is under tyranny. You guys who fantasise about being cold-blooded killers and vigilantes, but when challenged, you roll over and urinate on yourselves like beaten curs. Do you even have a gun? Have you ever, even once, stood up for what is right?
The settling of the Americas counts.
Best estimates put this at 15000 years ago. Again, what evidence is there that this triggered a cultural evolution?
In the event of a very large rock heading our way, there isn't much to do about it - neither robots nor humans are currently capable of diverting it. One way or another, a lot of people are going to die.
As I already pointed out, even at the moment of impact, the Earth will be more habitable than Mars is. And Mars is more hospitable than, say Mercury, or Neptune, or the moons around Jupiter. In other words - at the exact moment that the asteroid hits, the earth will still be a nicer place than anywhere else in the Solar System.
If you want to go into space, that's fine, you and your mates are welcome to fund it, just don't interfere with the funds we need to explore (using robots). And don't imagine it is like Star Trek, it is not like Star Trek.
One of the better features of The Hobbit (or There and Back Again) is that Bilbo is knocked unconcious at the beginning of the battle of the 5 armies. And since the story is written from his perspective (or he wrote it) there is virtually no dewcription of the battle itself. SO I was hopeful that we would not be subjected to yet another boilerplate over the top battle scene where actually fearsome creatures (trolls, wargs) repeatedly fail to kill their enemy and participants appear to be able to defy the laws of physics. I mean, for Manwes sake: if i wanted to see acrobats I'd go to the circus. Actual character exposition appears ot be confined to clumsy dialogue. Apparently there is no screen time for visual exposition on the change in Bilbo from comfortable, insular shire hobbit to a slightly amoral but very plucky thief. Instead he (bilbo) needs to convey this through long, confessional speeches with the dwarves, whilst 2 dimensional elves do stupid things.
Well, you always try www.rsvp.com.au they might have the cure for what ails ya.