Jump to content

Highgate

Member
  • Posts

    2,499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Comrade 86 in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 
    The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?
    Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 
  2. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Stive Pesley in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 
    The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?
    Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 
  3. Clap
    Highgate reacted to Ram-Alf in The Ukraine War   
    Kremlin critic Bill Browder says three reasons behind timing of Navalny 'murder'
    One of the many questions that surround Alexi Navalny's death is why it happened now, almost three years after he returned to Russia.
    Author and financier Bill Browder said there were three reasons for the timing.
    Firstly, Vladimir Putin wanted to eliminate a political opponent.
    Secondly, he wanted to show Russians that if you oppose Mr Putin you will face death.
    And thirdly, it sent a message to those sitting at the Munich Security Conference, where world leaders meet to discuss defence issues, that Mr Putin can "cross every red line and get away with it".
    Bill Browder
    "To watch somebody who I knew, who I respected, who I worked with, murdered in the light of day was a huge shock to the system," said Mr Browder.
    "Let's not mince words here - he was murdered, he didn't die, he was murdered at the hands of Vladimir Putin."
  4. Like
    Highgate reacted to Crewton in The Ukraine War   
    That poisoning with a nerve agent in 2020 came pretty close.
    You want a reason? Because he can, because his invasion of Ukraine has set him so firmly against the West that, internationally, he knows it won't make a jot of difference to what friends and foes think of him. Most of the BRICS countries are run by people who would love to do what he's just done to his biggest opponent.
  5. Clap
    Highgate reacted to Comrade 86 in The Ukraine War   
    Silencing their most vocal and dangerous political opponent. It's difficult to see that his murder, if indeed, that is what it was, strengthens NATO's, or specifically the US's position at all, indeed it removes a potentially willing advocate for a more democratic Russia. With numerous dissidents and journos all having suffered unplanned defenestration events, it does rather seem that being a vocal opponent of Putin's carries an extreme health warning. That said, we should acknowledge that it's not just the Russians who have blood on their hands. 
  6. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from David Graham Brown in The Ukraine War   
    That's sad news. A very brave, honest and defiant man. He stands in stark contrast to Putin who will of course deny all knowledge of  his responsibility for Navalny's death. 
    I guess the consequences for Putin will be next to nothing.  People didn't do anything when the Russian state tried to murder Navalny before, or put him in jail for no reason whatsoever...or transfer him a maximum security prison in the Artic circle and mistreat him there. So I assume nobody will or can do anything about it now.  What can Russian people do about it realistically? They don't have the option of not electing Putin in the upcoming election. 
     
  7. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from Chester40 in The Ukraine War   
    The same people whom Navalny fearlessly criticized, namely Putin and the Russian government. The same people who weren't able to shut him up even when he was in jail. He published a 15 point plan for Russia's future from jail last year, a plan that included recognizing Ukraine's borders. That's got to have annoyed Putin. Better to make sure he doesn't do that sort of thing again. There is also the general motive of demonstrating what happens to critics of Putin in todays Russia. Crush and silence all vocal opponents...that's the motive.
    The prison sentence was basically a death sentence anyway...who knows if Putin gave the order for this to happen now, but his death was surely always the plan. 
  8. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from Crewton in The Ukraine War   
    The same people whom Navalny fearlessly criticized, namely Putin and the Russian government. The same people who weren't able to shut him up even when he was in jail. He published a 15 point plan for Russia's future from jail last year, a plan that included recognizing Ukraine's borders. That's got to have annoyed Putin. Better to make sure he doesn't do that sort of thing again. There is also the general motive of demonstrating what happens to critics of Putin in todays Russia. Crush and silence all vocal opponents...that's the motive.
    The prison sentence was basically a death sentence anyway...who knows if Putin gave the order for this to happen now, but his death was surely always the plan. 
  9. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Ramarena in The Ukraine War   
    That's sad news. A very brave, honest and defiant man. He stands in stark contrast to Putin who will of course deny all knowledge of  his responsibility for Navalny's death. 
    I guess the consequences for Putin will be next to nothing.  People didn't do anything when the Russian state tried to murder Navalny before, or put him in jail for no reason whatsoever...or transfer him a maximum security prison in the Artic circle and mistreat him there. So I assume nobody will or can do anything about it now.  What can Russian people do about it realistically? They don't have the option of not electing Putin in the upcoming election. 
     
  10. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Comrade 86 in The Ukraine War   
    That's sad news. A very brave, honest and defiant man. He stands in stark contrast to Putin who will of course deny all knowledge of  his responsibility for Navalny's death. 
    I guess the consequences for Putin will be next to nothing.  People didn't do anything when the Russian state tried to murder Navalny before, or put him in jail for no reason whatsoever...or transfer him a maximum security prison in the Artic circle and mistreat him there. So I assume nobody will or can do anything about it now.  What can Russian people do about it realistically? They don't have the option of not electing Putin in the upcoming election. 
     
  11. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from Crewton in The Ukraine War   
    That's sad news. A very brave, honest and defiant man. He stands in stark contrast to Putin who will of course deny all knowledge of  his responsibility for Navalny's death. 
    I guess the consequences for Putin will be next to nothing.  People didn't do anything when the Russian state tried to murder Navalny before, or put him in jail for no reason whatsoever...or transfer him a maximum security prison in the Artic circle and mistreat him there. So I assume nobody will or can do anything about it now.  What can Russian people do about it realistically? They don't have the option of not electing Putin in the upcoming election. 
     
  12. Like
    Highgate reacted to TigerTedd in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    I agree with like 99% of what you’re saying. Elon is a bit of a t***. And I think there’s definitely more than a bit of vanity about having a city called muskville on mars. Rather than saving the world. Even if that happens to be an accidental side effect. If it’s a vanity project, then at least it has some benefits to humanity rather than just a giant platinum statue or something. 
    but the 1% I don’t agree with is that there is a small window of opportunity. And that’s just because I’m selfish and would love to see a man (or woman) land on mars in my lifetime. Clocks ticking. 
  13. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from ariotofmyown in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
    I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
    As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
    I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 
  14. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from TigerTedd in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
    I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
    As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
    I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 
  15. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from David in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    Replying to @Carl Sagan and @TigerTedd's objections to my post, I'm not at all advocating governments or individuals stop spending on science/engineering projects related to space or elsewhere. My point is, that if saving humanity was the goal of Mars Colony then that money could better be spend on other science/engineering projects elsewhere. I have no problem at all with spending money on scientific endeavours. The JWST (maybe the best thing ever built in my opinion) cost something like $10 billion, so according to the IMF's figures we could build 700 JWSTs a year for the same cost as global Fossil Fuel subsidies. It's not the price of the JWST or the upcoming ELT in Chile etc..,  that I have an issue with, those present wonderful value for money as far as I'm concerned...unlike the subsidies of course. 
    I don't really share the viewpoint that we have a short window of opportunity here for economic or societal reasons. I don't think humanity is turning against science all of a sudden, far from it. Given the technology that will probably be available in a couple of centuries or more, with the probable enormous advances in robotics and AI for example, this project will be far more feasible in the future than it is now.  As I don't see that there is any particular rush, it would be wiser to wait and concentrate our efforts in more pressing areas for now, such as a clean energy infrastructure... if saving humanity really is the ultimate goal. 
    As for Musk and his money. I agree saving the world is not his responsibility, it's just that if that is his goal, I think there are better ways to go about it. Nobody should be as rich as he is, but that's the fault of governments really... he is absolutely free to spend his money as he wishes.  
    I'd have to quibble with your definition of 'inescapable conclusion' there.  It could be that people simply don't know who he paid the money to, Jack Dorsey is the only name I can think of, or that the money was shared among a large number of people, such as shareholders and so on.  Yes, many people love to hate Elon now, but you have to admit a lot of that is down to his own behaviour and his frequent objectionable outbursts. 
  16. Cheers
    Highgate reacted to Stive Pesley in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    Well said. It's amazing that so many wannabe intellectuals refuse to acknowledge this. 
    One thing is clear - to start a human colony on Mars would require huge amounts of adaptability, both physically and mentally. And yet those advocating for it don't even to seem to be able to cope with mild ridicule, or critical analysis
    What is the melting point of a snowflake on Mars?
  17. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Stive Pesley in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
    Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
    Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
    I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
    Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
     
     
     
  18. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Comrade 86 in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
    Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
    Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
    I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
    Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
     
     
     
  19. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from Wolfie in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
    Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
    Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
    I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
    Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
     
     
     
  20. Like
    Highgate got a reaction from David in Starship and a Human city on Mars   
    I'm all for space exploration in principle, but it seems to me the timescales being thrown about are wildly optimistic.  Given the fragility of the human body and it's unsuitability for other worlds there is every reason to progress very cautiously.
    Human population is projected to peak at about 11 billion before the end of the century and then fall from that point onwards, so there is every possibility we won't end up overpopulating this planet after all. 
    Catastrophic events that will wipe us all out from space are a remote possibility, even if they are technically possible. The more realistic threats for extinction are already here on earth.  Nuclear War and deadly pandemics being the biggest two to spring to mind. Climate change, although potentially disastrous, is not a extinction level event for me. If surviving such events is really one of the principal reasons for building Mars colonies, then it's surely far easier to building self contained, isolated and safe colonies here on Earth that would survive those calamities...underground or even under the sea.  And much cheaper too. 
    I don't think humanity's problem is that we think Earth is too special, our problem is rather is that we don't realize how special it really is. We take it far too much for granted. No matter how successful any potential explorations of space could be, we will never find any planet or moon as suitable for human life as this one. That's surely a given, seeing as we have evolved on Earth, and have billions of years of adapting to Earth's particular habitat behind us. Our physiology and anatomy has been determined by our home planet. 
    Again, I am in favour of space exploration, it's a great source of scientific innovation among other things, but right now, given all the problems we face on this planet, our larger priority should be dealing with terrestrial issues. 
     
     
     
  21. Haha
    Highgate reacted to GboroRam in Twitter Rebrand to 𝕏   
  22. Clap
    Highgate reacted to David in Twitter Rebrand to 𝕏   
    Out there in the internet cesspits, if you’re not Pro Putin, you’re Pro America.
    Neither and somewhere in the middle for me is the right place to kick back and set out my deckchair.
    Imagine if all the money spent fighting wars globally was put to better use, what a world we would live in.
  23. Clap
    Highgate got a reaction from Crewton in Twitter Rebrand to 𝕏   
    Except it wasn't even a remotely accurate history of Russia.  Just Russian history as Putin would like it to be.  
  24. Clap
    Highgate reacted to Ramarena in The Ukraine War   
    For anyone that pays attention to what Putin has said in the past there was nothing much new here, same old misinterpretation of history, as always. But what do you expect from a Dugin disciple.
    The only new stuff of note was:
    - As @Crewton mentioned, he invited Hungary and surrounding countries to take parts of Ukraine that they would like/deem to be theirs. He obviously didn’t mention giving Kalliningrad back to Germany (wonder why?)
    - Ukraine is a fake country and Ukrainians are Russians in denial
    - Maidan was a fake revolution and the reality was the CIA overthrew the Ukrainian government.
    - Clinton and Bush said Russia could join NATO but the CIA vetoed it. He glossed over the obvious reasons why Russia could never be accepted in its current form.
    - Seemed a big fan of Bush, a fellow imperialist who’s caused chaos in the Middle East. 
    - He said the retreat from Kyiv was a gesture of goodwill not them getting beaten back.
    - Not sure why western governments think he’s a nuclear threat. Obviously not aware of members of his own regime threatening to nuke anyone they dislike
    - he took the pee out of Carlson for being rejected by the CIA when he was young.
    - He’s afraid of genetically enhanced superhumans
    Thats about it really off the top of my head.
    Obviously there was lots of Nazi references, plenty of we the good guys,  etc. but that’s standard fare with him for those that pay attention.
    Shame he wasn’t asked about all those kids he’s kidnapped. 
    The one thing I’ll credit Carlson with was asking about Evan Gershkovich. Putin fobbed him off with a non answer and changed the subject
  25. Like
    Highgate reacted to Comrade 86 in The Ukraine War   
    Agreed, but while we shake our heads at Russia and remark at how unrepresentative their leadership is, I'm mindful that right here on our own doorsteps we've allowed a bunch of crooks to line their pockets with Treasury money while sneering at the great unwashed. Not comparable to Putin of course, but salient to the point you make about the need for states to maintain a veneer of democracy nonetheless. IMO, we do that too.
×
×
  • Create New...