/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10990762
>space exploration is interesting but i think we should put more effort into developing sustainable habits here on earth.

>>10865635

>>10413223

>>10154932

>>10048047

>>10013518
"Getting our shit together" is impossible here, as it's simply no longer possible to set up a new sort of society on Earth without instant interference from all the existing ones, or relying on their good grace to leave you alone inside their borders, which rarely lasts.

Plus, pic related.

...and we can't make another one, eventually, we're all going down with the inevitably doomed ship.

>>8994560
>Fiala believes humanity can’t leave Earth before solving the environmental problems here
<- Literally this.

Seriously - do people think all the science is being done by one guy in a basement, so thus we can only work on one problem at a time or something? If 14 billion hands isn't enough to multi-task, how many do we need?

And even pie-in-the-sky fantasy Musk isn't talking about moving huge swaths of the population to Mars. If we ever colonize that ball into something self sustaining, most of the population is going to be born there.

And complaining about astronaut elitism... Fuck.

I don't want to go to Mars myself, but some people make it real tempting.

>>8846685
Obligatory...

I never understood this argument... I mean, if all the science in the world was being done by one guy in his basement, it'd make sense - but it's not as if we don't have enough folks to work on both. (It's also not as if NASA is a significant portion of the federal budget these days.)

>>8671964
Sooner or later, and eventually inevitably, biosphere goes *poof*, regardless of the number of problems you've solved on Earth.

It's also not as if there aren't enough people and resources to work on both. Best not to sacrifice a long term necessity for a short term patch when there's no need to.

>>8272518

>>8249184
...Not that it wasn't kinda the point.

>>8205283
Do it again somewhere else.

Given how much time this biosphere probably has left in it vs. how much time all you describe would take to accomplish, better start somewhere else first.

Show her this.

>>6771551
It's one thing to call our extinction a likely scenario, it's another to say you'd like to see it. Two billion years plus of struggle against incredible odds, all for naught, is a sad possibility indeed. Further, were it to actually happen, should it happen in such a way to give you the chance to, no doubt anyone who has made such a wish, will regret it.

This whole "it's not just enough to survive - you have to be worthy of survival" bullshit, I'm just sick of. Survive first, then maybe you'll have a chance to become worthy of having done so.

>>6109969
At this point in time, there isn't any.
Granted at some point we'll need to ditch earth in order to keep living (sun dying and what not). But it would be far better to invest in dual purpose projects directed at more current problems. Like colorizing the desert which gives us more resources and will help us later when we colonize the deserts on mars. We have a few million years to do it so a gradual approach would be sensible. My opinion is we need to learn not to trash what we have now, before we get more of stuff. I think if we actually worked at it we could solve our problems in somewhere between 30 - 3000 years depending on how hard we work at it.

>>6013495
While there is likely some competition somewhere I was referring more to life in general, but that is meaningless now. (Do you like internet cat videos?)
I feel safe to assume that you just don't get what I am saying, like so many others. It is kind of like philosophy in that it very likely won't pay the bills or get you a girl or any other normal measure of success, but it is very valuable and powerful in other ways that can add up, but less and less so and society changes in to what I consider to be superficial. (I think this is one reason scientific development is slowing down so much)
And that is kind of the thing, we are looking very closely at results and outcomes not so much at steps and processes which are very helpful but in a different way we don't collectively value much anymore.
There is one high ranking CEO who majored in animal husbandry, at the time I wondered him how did he get were he was with that kind of background (it wasn't family connections). But now I am fairly sure it was because animal husbandry deals a lot with relationships and results which is what his job kind of did if you simplified it to the core mechanics. Being smart like he was he likely adapted it to solve other types of problems and make a lot of money.

>>5973072
>And for that matter why don't we fix our planet first before going to new ones?
SPEAKING OF XKCD