All the chemical elements are available in space. Imagine a Drexler-style nanofab that can build anything atom by atom, given the right atoms. There's no compelling need to develop such a thing on Earth, but if we had it (because we needed it for space) the economic impact would be profound.
The enormity of the advances in technology that would be required to colonise space would inevitably transform life on Earth. And the amount of resources required need not be that great. There is no deadline, no hurry. We have plenty of spare capacity, 25% unemployment in some countries. The aim would be to bootstrap an autonomous colony building machine that lived off the land, not keep flinging megatons of stuff off the planet.
The main reason to choose Mars is PR. The Moon is old hat. The stars are a thousand years away. Mars is a clear step forward that people might get to see in their lifetime. Any large public project needs to have public support. Would a reality TV company contemplate funding a robotic mission to sniff a pebble near Uranus? How many people would tune in to watch the birth of the first Martian?
That can be done on the moon for a much lower cost. It might also be economical to return to Earth the things we find on the Moon.
Yup.
Not quite as it would only be relevant to Mars and a few moons.
I meant 'and everything else' not 'that would be everything'.
Sorry but unless we can create a completely self sufficient colony any outpost will be reliant on re-supply from Earth. Creating a completely self-sufficient colony on Mars would bankrupt any countries that tried it. There will always be some critical material or item that is available only on Earth.
Self-sufficiency is something we'll have to learn how to do. As for bankruptcy, no. Provided things are arranged to give value for money on Earth there is no end to money. Tricky, I grant. Running out of resources could happen.
Mars is not a lifeboat. Until we can get to another star system where we can live on an Earth-like planet long term survival of humans is not ensured.
Yup, but we'll not get there in one bounding leap. It may take generation ships, and if you can do that why do you need a planet?
We need waypoints. Mars may not be optimal or necessary but it is on the way and people can see it in the sky and get excited about it.
Sure, there are more urgent local concerns. The ones you list are good. But if we have the resources there is no need to be constrained by money, we can do a bit of everything. In fact a space colonisation program could yield technological benefits for Earth in all the areas you mention.
Just strapping a few Saturn 5s together and dumping a half-dead astronaut on the surface of Mars, never to return, would be completely pointless I agree. But if by trying we learnt how to travel more quickly through space, how to survive the radiation, how to maintain a habitat with nothing but sunlight and regolith, everything required to colonise the Solar System then we will have secured both enormous wealth and long term survival of the species. We have to get out there eventually whether the immediate goal is Mars or not.
Wealth, I would suggest, is anything you feel better off having than not having. It doesn't have to be useful or be capable of creating more wealth. Most of the things we spend our money on aren't.
I don't have a strong view on the whether a Mars mission will be worth it or not. It depends on how much we learn and how much reusable infrastructure is built in the process. Basic science overall has had a massive effect on our ability to create wealth. In fact the knowledge it brings is itself a form of wealth.
Well, now you're talking economics. Creating money has effects of course, as does its destruction. Those effects are the real constraints on government spending/taxing decisions, not hand-wringing like 'money is scarce' or 'how will we pay for it?'.
If a government creates a trillion dollars, and the private sector creates a trillion dollars worth of wealth in exchange for it, then the world is a trillion dollars wealthier. Prices will be unaffected and so will the credibility of the dollar. So the question boils down to "will a man on mars program be worth what it costs?".
The map is not the territory. Money is a transferable promise to deliver up wealth. Anyone can make a promise, it costs nothing. And as long as people keep transferring it amongst themselves you never have to deliver.
our founding values, which are the values that created the middle class
To my British mind Jefferson and most of his chums would count as upper class. They may not have had the titles but they had the land (and the slaves). Washington died with a net worth of half a billion dollars (2015 equivalent) and 300 slaves.
Solution? A nice, soothing, show trial, followed by satisfied preening.
In practice it is increasingly difficult to get a successful prosecution for (non-kiddy) porn in the UK, especially if there is a jury involved. Even possessors of 'extreme' gay porn will be acquitted if they plead not-guilty.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader.
Most organisations (I spell UK) have some sort of collective purpose otherwise they wouldn't be organisations. Inherently opposed to the selfish objectives of the psychopath.
CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
Often temporarily, only for it to tank right after they deploy their golden parachute. Or even before, they design it to work either way. This bonus idea was invented in the 70s. Even some business professors have started to notice it hasn't always worked out.
why do they keep voting for them?
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves. I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
FF crashes on Kubuntu daily for me, usually when it is just sitting in the background. Thunderbird is the only other program I use which is that crash-prone.
I've actually seen plans where cut wood is dumped to the bottom of the ocean
What a great idea! We could weight it down with gold or uranium or something.
Or we could build furniture, houses or other long lasting useful stuff out of the good timber and use the charcoal made with the rest to improve the soil.
There is a fine documentary on this subject called "China's Web Junkies". All the young lads (they are all midteens) are put in these boot camps by their parents at great expense. They are not government re-education camps, there is no political angle to these kid's problems. Nor are they hackers of any kind. The main point to realise is that they are not addicted to the internet as such but to online gaming in particular. And they really do seem to be addicts. Their bragging about regularly playing for 24 or 36 hours straight might seem to be exaggerated but when some of them escape during the film they are quickly recaptured... at the nearest internet cafe.
How do you kill ants with aspartame? I was unable to persuade them to eat it.
Thalidomide... give the go ahead to reintroduce it...
IIRC only one isomer of thalidomide does bad things.
The resurgence of poliomyelitis... Lou Gehrig's Disease, ALS, Motor Neurone Disease, Post Polio Residual Paralysis... actually caused by the live polio vaccine
Well, everyone with those very rare diseases certainly had the vaccine. But so did everyone without those diseases, except the ones with polio.
I have read practically everything by Heinlein and "I Will Fear No Evil" is without doubt the worst load of crap he ever wrote, and he wrote a lot of crap towards the end. In fact, after "Stranger" only "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Friday" are worth bothering with. To be fair, he was ill when he wrote it and the publisher wouldn't wait for him to recover enough to fix it up. OTOH it may not have been salvageable. The premise has already been used in at least one movie anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
All the chemical elements are available in space. Imagine a Drexler-style nanofab that can build anything atom by atom, given the right atoms. There's no compelling need to develop such a thing on Earth, but if we had it (because we needed it for space) the economic impact would be profound.
The enormity of the advances in technology that would be required to colonise space would inevitably transform life on Earth. And the amount of resources required need not be that great. There is no deadline, no hurry. We have plenty of spare capacity, 25% unemployment in some countries. The aim would be to bootstrap an autonomous colony building machine that lived off the land, not keep flinging megatons of stuff off the planet.
The main reason to choose Mars is PR. The Moon is old hat. The stars are a thousand years away. Mars is a clear step forward that people might get to see in their lifetime. Any large public project needs to have public support. Would a reality TV company contemplate funding a robotic mission to sniff a pebble near Uranus? How many people would tune in to watch the birth of the first Martian?
We can do this be sending robots.
True, but there would be less impetus (hah!).
That can be done on the moon for a much lower cost. It might also be economical to return to Earth the things we find on the Moon.
Yup.
Not quite as it would only be relevant to Mars and a few moons.
I meant 'and everything else' not 'that would be everything'.
Sorry but unless we can create a completely self sufficient colony any outpost will be reliant on re-supply from Earth. Creating a completely self-sufficient colony on Mars would bankrupt any countries that tried it. There will always be some critical material or item that is available only on Earth.
Self-sufficiency is something we'll have to learn how to do. As for bankruptcy, no. Provided things are arranged to give value for money on Earth there is no end to money. Tricky, I grant. Running out of resources could happen.
Mars is not a lifeboat. Until we can get to another star system where we can live on an Earth-like planet long term survival of humans is not ensured.
Yup, but we'll not get there in one bounding leap. It may take generation ships, and if you can do that why do you need a planet?
We need waypoints. Mars may not be optimal or necessary but it is on the way and people can see it in the sky and get excited about it.
Sure, there are more urgent local concerns. The ones you list are good. But if we have the resources there is no need to be constrained by money, we can do a bit of everything. In fact a space colonisation program could yield technological benefits for Earth in all the areas you mention.
Just strapping a few Saturn 5s together and dumping a half-dead astronaut on the surface of Mars, never to return, would be completely pointless I agree. But if by trying we learnt how to travel more quickly through space, how to survive the radiation, how to maintain a habitat with nothing but sunlight and regolith, everything required to colonise the Solar System then we will have secured both enormous wealth and long term survival of the species. We have to get out there eventually whether the immediate goal is Mars or not.
Wealth, I would suggest, is anything you feel better off having than not having. It doesn't have to be useful or be capable of creating more wealth. Most of the things we spend our money on aren't.
I don't have a strong view on the whether a Mars mission will be worth it or not. It depends on how much we learn and how much reusable infrastructure is built in the process. Basic science overall has had a massive effect on our ability to create wealth. In fact the knowledge it brings is itself a form of wealth.
Well, now you're talking economics. Creating money has effects of course, as does its destruction. Those effects are the real constraints on government spending/taxing decisions, not hand-wringing like 'money is scarce' or 'how will we pay for it?'.
If a government creates a trillion dollars, and the private sector creates a trillion dollars worth of wealth in exchange for it, then the world is a trillion dollars wealthier. Prices will be unaffected and so will the credibility of the dollar. So the question boils down to "will a man on mars program be worth what it costs?".
Promises have to be accepted before they have meaning.
Right. That is why most of the money we use has been created by credible organisations like governments and banks.
Money is the representation of wealth.
The map is not the territory. Money is a transferable promise to deliver up wealth. Anyone can make a promise, it costs nothing. And as long as people keep transferring it amongst themselves you never have to deliver.
Ever heard of farming, mining, logging, service industries, inventions, etc? That is how money is created.
No, that is how wealth is created. Money is not wealth.
The private sector does not create money. ... Other that devaluing all money by printing it governments do not create money.
Where does money come from then--God?
Scarcity of money is a fact of life.
Money is artificial and requires virtually no resources to create. It's scarcity is also, therefore, artificial.
our founding values, which are the values that created the middle class
To my British mind Jefferson and most of his chums would count as upper class. They may not have had the titles but they had the land (and the slaves). Washington died with a net worth of half a billion dollars (2015 equivalent) and 300 slaves.
appointing 12 persons with proven experience and appropriate qualifications to manage and control the organisation
Already been done: Majestic (or has it?)
Solution? A nice, soothing, show trial, followed by satisfied preening.
In practice it is increasingly difficult to get a successful prosecution for (non-kiddy) porn in the UK, especially if there is a jury involved. Even possessors of 'extreme' gay porn will be acquitted if they plead not-guilty.
King Midas in reverse: everything they touch turns to shit.*
*apologies to Tony Soprano
Graham Nash in1967, but since Midas lived about 3000 years ago I doubt this was the first time the notion occurred to anyone.
Furthermore...
To be dispassionate is not necessarily to be objective.
And to be ethical is not necessarily to be emotional.
Just make sure the organization's objectives are aligned with the interests of the leader.
Most organisations (I spell UK) have some sort of collective purpose otherwise they wouldn't be organisations. Inherently opposed to the selfish objectives of the psychopath.
CEOs get their bonus by raising the stock price.
Often temporarily, only for it to tank right after they deploy their golden parachute. Or even before, they design it to work either way. This bonus idea was invented in the 70s. Even some business professors have started to notice it hasn't always worked out.
why do they keep voting for them?
Successful psychopaths are charming and good liars. People want to believe it will be different this time. Only psychopaths get to stand. Psychopaths know to tell people what they want to hear. Most people, it seems, cannot easily spot a psychopath. If they realised their candidate was a psycho they (mostly) wouldn't vote for them. I hope.
Psychopaths are able to look at the situation dispassionately, and make better utilitarian decisions, that bring the most benefit to the most people.
Perhaps, but what they actually tend to do is look at the situation dispassionately and make utilitarian decisions that bring the most benefit to themselves.
I think you'll find that that subtle distinction is why most people are wary of psychopaths.
all the Old Testament crap is right out the window?
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
There seems to be some argument over the, um, authenticity of those final lines:
linky
They are learning:
allwinner-zh
Are any of the other SoC vendors any better?
FF crashes on Kubuntu daily for me, usually when it is just sitting in the background. Thunderbird is the only other program I use which is that crash-prone.
I've actually seen plans where cut wood is dumped to the bottom of the ocean
What a great idea! We could weight it down with gold or uranium or something.
Or we could build furniture, houses or other long lasting useful stuff out of the good timber and use the charcoal made with the rest to improve the soil.
Solresol has some fun features.
Also dump verb conjugation.
Alfred Korzybski made some important observations I think.
And finally, to replace English your language will need to become the official language of a World-spanning empire like those of Britain and America.
There is a fine documentary on this subject called "China's Web Junkies".
All the young lads (they are all midteens) are put in these boot camps by their parents at great expense. They are not government re-education camps, there is no political angle to these kid's problems. Nor are they hackers of any kind.
The main point to realise is that they are not addicted to the internet as such but to online gaming in particular. And they really do seem to be addicts. Their bragging about regularly playing for 24 or 36 hours straight might seem to be exaggerated but when some of them escape during the film they are quickly recaptured... at the nearest internet cafe.
Aspartame... ant killer
How do you kill ants with aspartame? I was unable to persuade them to eat it.
Thalidomide... give the go ahead to reintroduce it...
IIRC only one isomer of thalidomide does bad things.
The resurgence of poliomyelitis... Lou Gehrig's Disease, ALS, Motor Neurone Disease, Post Polio Residual Paralysis... actually caused by the live polio vaccine
Well, everyone with those very rare diseases certainly had the vaccine. But so did everyone without those diseases, except the ones with polio.
I have read practically everything by Heinlein and "I Will Fear No Evil" is without doubt the worst load of crap he ever wrote, and he wrote a lot of crap towards the end. In fact, after "Stranger" only "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Friday" are worth bothering with. To be fair, he was ill when he wrote it and the publisher wouldn't wait for him to recover enough to fix it up. OTOH it may not have been salvageable. The premise has already been used in at least one movie anyway.