Dear Moon

[Wolfie]

Who knows if we'd even be friendly with our colonies?.

It's been covered enough times in Sci Fi. It'd be slightly ironic if we spent trillions over decades to install a colony somewhere else, to save mankind, only for them to declare independence - and War - on us.

[McRainy]

10 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

It'd be slightly ironic if we spent trillions over decades to install a colony somewhere else, to save mankind, only for them to declare independence - and War - on us.

That's not an unlikely scenario, given that we can't live peacefully on the planet we've got.

There's no reason to assume that conflicts over power, resources etc, wouldn't continue to play out in space.

The history of the space program is just an expensive pissing contest as it is...

[Highgate]

I don't see what the problem is with thinking long-term and aspiring to an eventual goal of making ours a multi-planetary species.  There is no reason why having such a goal should convince authorities here to not their responsibilities regarding Earth and it's population less seriously. I don't follow the logic that having a potential plan B for humanity should be taken as granting further license for our governments to thrash planet Earth or forget about the needs of it's inhabitants. 

We are never going to find a better planet than this one, we evolved here after all and our physical and mental make up is attuned to Earth's environment and nowhere else.  But it's not our only environment, so is the whole solar system and this corner of the Milky Way for starters.  Why, wouldn't we want to explore and discover it? Imagine what we could achieve if each country agreed to collaborate and divert a portion of it's military budget (not going to happen I know) and spent it on space exploration and research instead. 

As soon as we've put our heads together and invented some form of non-lethal space cutlery, the first item that should be on the agenda, in my view, is a giant telescope on the moon.  Think of the images we could with a ground based telescope on the Moon, with it's negligible atmosphere and nights that last 2 weeks.  Our first mini-colony could be building and taking care of that.  It would be well worth the cost. 

[Highgate]

26 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

That's not an unlikely scenario, given that we can't live peacefully on the planet we've got.

There's no reason to assume that conflicts over power, resources etc, wouldn't continue to play out in space.

The history of the space program is just an expensive pissing contest as it is...

Setting aside all the work that satellites do (including making us aware of how much damage we are doing to our planet) and the research carried out in International Space Station, no matter how much the Space Program has cost it would have been worth it, even if it achieved nothing else other than the taking of this picture. 

If that wasn't a momentous and perspective shifting moment in human history.  Then i don't know what was. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Who knows if we'd even be friendly with our colonies?.

It's been covered enough times in Sci Fi. It'd be slightly ironic if we spent trillions over decades to install a colony somewhere else, to save mankind, only for them to declare independence - and War - on us.

If those ungrateful colonials end up dumping a load of tea into the sea of tranquillity I will go postal.

[Sith Happens]

5 hours ago, Lambchop said:

Here we are, 'safeguarding humanity's future' through the space program is claimed to be more important than fighting extreme poverty. 

As mentioned earlier, these claims are economically and morally dubious, to say the least. 

Thing is, when do you decide we should stop spending money on one thing and divert it elsewhere? 

You say we shouldn't spend money on space when there is poverty. But isnt exploring part of human nature?

You could argue we spend too much money on cancer research when people are in poverty..afterall cancer is a natural way of trimming the population. If there was less people and we didnt spend billions each year giving someone an extra few months or years maybe more could live a poverty free life?

This isnt my opinion by the way, but how do we decide one thing or another is a better way to spend money?  

[McRainy]

11 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

 

You say we shouldn't spend money on space when there is poverty. 

That's not really the point I was making, rather that the justifications for a space program as an altruistic project don't make sense.

I do find it hard to justify on any level though, given the other problems we face, but that's probably because I'm personally not that interested in it.

The questions you ask don't have any easy answers, as there are so many variables and unknowns. I do think the criticisms of charity, as it currently operates, are valid though. 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Really interesting, thought-provoking arguments on morality being made. @Carl Sagan's comment on how the future generations are just as real as you and I was particularly intriguing.

On 19/09/2018 at 09:08, Lambchop said:

It would also mean nothing if we have destroyed the Earth in the process of getting there. I cannot accept the implication that life on Earth is simply written off.

We don't exist in isolation from the world around us, we are not simply free floating egos that can be artificially maintained elsewhere. The mind, body and soul are all extensions and expressions of the land that sustains us. 

Lambchop, the question I would ask you is what about population growth? Surely we will reach a point where we will eventually over-populate the Earth, unless severe policies (e.g. China's one-child rule) were to be adopted. I appreciate that it's a very basic question - I'm an amateur on these matters!

[Carl Sagan]

Ta for that!

With greater wealth comes declining fertility so the projections are for the global population to peak mid-to-late 21st cetury, between 10.5-11 billion. That's half as many again as are alive today, but the rise won't continue for ever. That said, I just looked at "Our World in Data" (a brilliant site) https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth and see that's goingg for 11.2 billion in 2100 and still a very slight rise. But everyone agrees on the basic pattern and trend.

However, I published an interesting book a couple of years ago in which the author argued there'll be trillions of humans on Earth, but almost all of them virtual, based on minds uploaded to computers, and what the organic ones do is unimportant as we'll be irrelevant in comparison!  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/15/the-age-of-em-work-love-and-life-when-robots-rule-the-earth-robin-hanson-review

[BaaLocks]

On 18/09/2018 at 13:59, Lambchop said:

Not really, because you're equating the hypothetical with the actual. I find it difficult to see space as a priority when millions are dying now. It feels to me like an evasion of responsibility on a grand scale, and the propect of humans spreading their destructive behaviour across the galaxy doesn't exactly fill me with hope. 

Yes, but if we hadn't gone to the Moon we wouldn't have non stick frying pans. 

C'mon fellas, perspective...

[McRainy]

1 hour ago, BurtonRam7 said:

Lambchop, the question I would ask you is what about population growth? Surely we will reach a point where we will eventually over-populate the Earth,

I suspect that we're not as immune to the natural balancing tendencies of nature as we might like to think. Whether this be through disease, lack of resources, infertility, natural disasters or our own stupidity, I don't know. 

The problems of starvation and environmental destruction are caused by the economic systems we choose though, they are not inevitable. 

[Carl Sagan]

On 19/09/2018 at 08:26, Lambchop said:

The reasoning behind effective altruism is fundamentally economically and morally flawed. Unfortunately, discussing this fully would take us into areas that are currently verboten.

The moral arguments which I find most compelling are around the implications for individual human rights, if Singer's philosophy was applied universally. See also any of the critiques of utilitarianism.

The article below points to some of the economic arguments, if you are interested:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/

Confess I'd missed this and only had time to skim, but I did think it misrepresented the effective altruism movement. It's absolutely not only about financial donations and a capitalist society to create wealth to make those donations more effective. It's about living good and worthwhile lives, re-evaluating priorities.

In terms of eliminating extreme poverty, the strides since the industrial revolution have been incredible. Here's a graph that indicates to me that it is industrialization and technology that means 7 billion people today do not live in absolute poverty and, despite the rise in world population, the number of people in extreme poverty (not just the proportion) has also fallen markedly. Advancing space exploration is one of the main drivers that will enable this to continue as it what will lead to wealth acquisition and growing the economy.

EDIT: couldn't embed image so have captured it instead.

[TigerTedd]

33 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Confess I'd missed this and only had time to skim, but I did think it misrepresented the effective altruism movement. It's absolutely not only about financial donations and a capitalist society to create wealth to make those donations more effective. It's about living good and worthwhile lives, re-evaluating priorities.

In terms of eliminating extreme poverty, the strides since the industrial revolution have been incredible. Here's a graph that indicates to me that it is industrialization and technology that means 7 billion people today do not live in absolute poverty and, despite the rise in world population, the number of people in extreme poverty (not just the proportion) has also fallen markedly. Advancing space exploration is one of the main drivers that will enable this to continue as it what will lead to wealth acquisition and growing the economy.

EDIT: couldn't embed image so have captured it instead.

Wow, so in 1820 almost everyone in the world was classed as being in extreme poverty. What’s the definition of extreme poverty? Was it because they didn’t have a flat screen tv?

[Carl Sagan]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

Wow, so in 1820 almost everyone in the world was classed as being in extreme poverty. What’s the definition of extreme poverty? Was it because they didn’t have a flat screen tv?

Haha! Of course that's relative poverty. In 1820 hardly anyone in the world earned more than the absolute basic subsistence wage. The industrial revolution has taken extreme poverty from being ~90% of the world's population to under 10% today. And the trend is ongoing.

Other benefits are that, just since 1945, average global life expectancy has gone from 45 to 71. In 1800, no country in the world had life expectancy over 40. Now, no country has life expectancy below it.

Now is the best time to be alive, ever. And once we head back to the Moon and on to Mars, it will get even better.

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Haha! Of course that's relative poverty. In 1820 hardly anyone in the world earned more than the absolute basic subsistence wage. The industrial revolution has taken extreme poverty from being ~90% of the world's population to under 10% today. And the trend is ongoing.

Other benefits are that, just since 1945, average global life expectancy has gone from 45 to 71. In 1800, no country in the world had life expectancy over 40. Now, no country has life expectancy below it.

Now is the best time to be alive, ever. And once we head back to the Moon and on to Mars, it will get even better.

The problem with the industrial revolution is that it has degraded the environment, wiped out countless species, and seriously threatens our own civilization.

I'm all for space exploration, but no matter how successful it is and no matter how hard we look we'll never find any place as hospitable as Earth. The phrase, 'there is no place like home'  couldn't be more apt.  However, the technologies we will develop in our quest to explore space may well be instrumental in helping us live in a cleaner and more energy efficient way.  Who knows, it's a potential win/win,. That's the optimistic version anyway I suppose.

[McRainy]

41 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Now is the best time to be alive, ever.

 

[McRainy]

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

the number of people in extreme poverty (not just the proportion) has also fallen markedly. 

According to Unicef, 22,000 children die from poverty every day, 80% of the population of the world are classed as being in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is widening year on year. 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

We are also destroying species 50 times faster than 100 years ago.

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/64542/20150630/humans-cause-of-extinction-of-nearly-500-species-since-1900.htm

I don't know how long we have left before we reach the point of no return on climate change, but it isn't looking good. 

It doesn't really matter how much you enjoy an industrialised lifestyle (and many don't, judging by the prevalence of mental health problems in developed countries), the way we are living now is unsustainable. 

Personally I think we have one of the ugliest and most destructive cultures in human history. We are materialistic, greedy and violent; the 20th century was the most destructive in history. 

We are messing with nature in so many ways that we do not understand, and have no idea what the fallout will be. How you manage to be impressed by all of this is totally beyond me. 

[Carl Sagan]

19 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

According to Unicef, 22,000 children die from poverty every day, 80% of the population of the world are classed as being in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is widening year on year. 

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

If you look at Unicef's own stats

https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-poverty/

they say 9.2% of the world's adult population live in extreme poverty (the figure I gave) but 19.5% of the world's children, which is obviously terrible and I didn't know it was so much higher. 

22,000 kids a day dying is terrible, but it's a vast improvement in recent times. In 1960 global child mortality was 18.3%. By 2015 it had fallen to 4.3%. Unicef is working to bring it under 5% everywhere by 2030. What incredible progress that is. Let's keep it up.

As I've said, it's by far the best time to be alive in all of human history. 

[Day]

5 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

As I've said, it's by far the best time to be alive in all of human history. 

Sounds like a Apple Keynote, this is the most powerful phone we have ever created and can’t wait to share it with you all today

Well I should hope so, I’m not sat here with my wallet looking to buy a phone less powerful than the one I bought 12 months ago!

The current day will always be by far the best time to be alive. Same as it was back when TV’s were invented and the lightbulb. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, David said:

The current day will always be by far the best time to be alive. Same as it was back when TV’s were invented and the lightbulb. 

@eddie - can you confirm?