/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4757732]

> colonize the galaxy

why?

> into space

again, why?

> HURRR DURRR SO WE CAN SEND RAWKETS TO THE MOON DERRRRRP

No. Stop. Even if ONE single child is dying of hunger on our planet, no matter his or her race, gender, or religion, we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS even looking to the stars.

Solve all of our social problems first. When humans have infinite food, entertainment, leisure time, etc., THEN we can try to send shit up into space.

God, you fucking sciencefags are so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin

[Anonymous No.4757743]

1/10 for making me reply.

[Anonymous No.4757740]

0/10

[Anonymous No.4757749]

Here's how it is: The Earth got used up, so we moved out and terraformed a whole new galaxy of Earths. Some rich and flush with the new technologies, some not so much.

[Anonymous No.4757757]

2/10

[Anonymous No.4757765]

1/10
That's like saying we should't fund the internet or our roads since some people are starving.

[Anonymous No.4757764]

>caring for non self-sufficient people

[Anonymous No.4757767]

>>4757732
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIxNLcPyvEA

[Anonymous No.4757768]

>your face when you think about this
>mfw being in space can prevent osteoporosis by less stress on bones, minerals in space, potential for other life
>mfw I have no face because I'm in space

[Anonymous No.4757775]

>>4757768
>>prevent osteoporosis
I shiggy the diggy

[Anonymous No.4757788]

>>4757749

Fair enough, then how do you suggest we travel these vast distances?

[Anonymous No.4757792]

I have been thinking the same thing, OP, the other day, and I agree. First we need to stabilize Earth, then colonise space. Its all bullshit hype, whats the point of colonizing space anyway?

[Anonymous No.4757796]

if we were on reddit i'd upvote you op

[Anonymous No.4757799]

>wants 'infinite' food
>doesn't want to colonize space

nigga u dumb

[Anonymous No.4757802]

posting in troll thread

[Anonymous No.4757803]

You got it right, OP.
Ignore the underageb& spacetards who haven't grown up from kindergarten hurr durr want to be astronaught.

[Anonymous No.4757816]

You might as well say you shouldn't leave the house, but I guess that's natural for someone who never does so anyway you fucking loser turd.

Go fucking die.

[Anonymous No.4757831]

>>4757799
>>4757749
except distribution of food and equality is the issue. I'm all for space and shitloads of resources, but everyone will always want bigger slices of the metaphorical pie.

[Anonymous No.4757833]

SPACE EXPLORATION AND PLANETARY RESOURCES (MINING DEM PLATINUM RICH ASTEROIDS) WILL HELP HUMANITY ACHIEVE THE FIRST GOAL,

[Anonymous No.4757834]

Ok OP, so I don't think that's ever going to happen, humans are too selfish to look after each other like that. let me explain why;

>you stick with your family against your neighbors

>you stick with your neighbors against the people on the next street over

>you stick with your town against the next town.

>your state against the next state

>your country against others.

But it stops here because there isn't anything else we know on a planetary scale that we can group together against (I hate that, that is how and why we group together, but it's just how things work). Unless we go to space, and get this perspective that we need to stick together against something that's bigger than us.

[Anonymous No.4757840]

>>4757833
>humanity

What are you? 14?

[Anonymous No.4757842]

>>4757732
>Implying we should care about those people
Our planet is overpopulated, if they die and we colonize space it's 2 birds with 1 shot.

[Anonymous No.4757846]

violent simians

[Anonymous No.4757851]

>asteroid destroys earth

at least we fed billy before we all died

[Anonymous No.4757861]

>>4757851
Because i'm sure having them vs us mentality when it comes to socioeconomic problems is really really mature. Who's the enemy?

[Anonymous No.4757886]

>No. Stop. Even if ONE single child is dying of hunger on our planet, no matter his or her race, gender, or religion, we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS even looking to the stars.
What makes you people think that space exploration somehow causes children to starve? Please provide some justification for this thinking.

>Solve all of our social problems first. When humans have infinite food, entertainment, leisure time, etc., THEN we can try to send shit up into space.
Would you apply the same logic to general technological development? Get off the internet please, go start irrigating Africa.

[Anonymous No.4757896]

>>4757861

>Because i'm sure having them vs us mentality when it comes to socioeconomic problems is really really mature

Welcome to politics entirely. Sorry, "us vs. them" mentality is the name of the game and you have to play it.

[Anonymous No.4757903]

>>4757732
thinking like this is why we don't have nice things

[Anonymous No.4757910]

>>4757732
> Even if ONE single child is dying of hunger on our planet.

Why? We're supposed to be independent and free follow our dreams. I'm not going to take the responsibility of babysitting the rest of humanity when I can do something awsome that will ensure prosperity and future survival for my culture, my thoughts, my values and friends and family.

Starving children should've thought about the lack of food before egoistically joining the world of the living. Well, their problem not mine.

And if we let them starve for long enough, the problem will solve itself, so it's counterproductive even to try to help them.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4757913]

Imma break what will happen down

>Start mining
>Minerals that were once "rare" and thus expensive become common and cheap. (if mass market manipulation doesn't come into play
>Which in turn plummets the cost of certain technology
>Efficiency everywhere
>Goodbye oil and war backed economy
>Say hello to a new era of peace prosperity and tolerance.

Saying all this certain people with wealth will lose out and this is where resistance and media manipulation will come from.

[Anonymous No.4757957]

>>4757834
>states
>not provinces
There's your problem, you "patriotic" Amerifag

[Anonymous No.4758039]

It's good to have different perspectives, even it they're flawed. We should remind ourselves that we have to keep explaining the shit over and over again for those who are unaware the reality.

Reality is, there are these fucked up places where people still die from hunger and development is either very slow, or completely non-existent even with all the aid that has been provided. Sure we (all non-developing countries) could force the issue by pouring significant portions of our gdp, including lots of educated and military manpower to force those shitholes out of the stone age, with end result of draining our own economies to the point of depression, and since every other non-developing nations did it too, it'll be a worldwide depression, and the result of that will be a world practically governed by corporations and criminal organizations on steroids. A whole (or most of the world) world now having become a third world country.

Hunger among other problems in our world will ONLY be solved where there are resources. What you are suggesting is essentially turning those countries into 3rd world countries too.

[Anonymous No.4758050]

It's good to have different perspectives, even it they're flawed. We should remind ourselves that we have to keep explaining the shit over and over again for those who are unaware the reality.

Reality is, there are these fucked up places where people still die from hunger and development is either very slow, or completely non-existent even with all the aid that has been provided. Sure we (all non-developing countries) could force the issue by pouring significant portions of our gdp, including lots of educated and military manpower to force those shitholes out of the stone age, with end result of draining our own economies to the point of depression, and since every other non-developing nation did it too, it'll be a worldwide depression, and the result of that will be a world practically governed by corporations and criminal organizations on steroids.

Hunger among other problems in our world will ONLY be solved where there are resources. What you are suggesting is essentially turning those countries into 3rd world countries too.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758068]

>>4758050
Are we even right to be there in the first place enforcing an ideology that the native people may or may not even understand. I'm pretty sure the majority of the military campaigns are seen by the opposition as just invasions over resources.

[Anonymous No.4758120]

>>4757957
Is there any reason to this statement? Or is t just a troll?

I'm interested.

[Anonymous No.4758133]

>>4758068

I don't know, if we wanted to end 3rd world countries from being such shitholes, ethics might have to be bended, or thrown out all together.

Anyways, it would be dirty as hell, with warlords and 'elected officials' deciding that their positions are threatened and beginning a propaganda campaign to start a resistance against 'the invaders' (when we're talking about the really deep shitholes).

[Anonymous No.4758140]

>>4757957
>HURR YOU CALL YOUR REGIONAL SUBDIVISIONS SOMETHING ELSE THAN I DO
Like it matters you faggot. Personally I wish we had vilayets and beys and shit, turks had cool names

[FinalState No.4758146]

wrong. The optimal policy for nations with starvation is non intervention. Why? Because donating only takes away their self reliance. Then they will reproduce until we can no longer afford to support them. Then more people will suffer than if we did nothing.

Going to space will make them look and be like "DAMN what can we learn from them so that we can be so powerful one day?" and they will successfully emulate our path to success...

[Anonymous No.4758157]

you could make that argument for all scientific research or anything really. there will always be starving people, therefore you believe we should never advance scientifically.

[Anonymous No.4758164]

OP you are assuming that our problems here can be solved.

The ultimate goal is to ensure the survival of the SPECIES, not individuals.

We will die out if we stay here on this planet, we gotta go.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758199]

>>4758133
personally I wouldn't let them see the technological advancement, the biggest problem (and reason for complete shitholeness) is superpowers arming said 3rd world countries to support their own (overinflated) economies.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758225]

>>4758199
I meant supplement my bad.

[Anonymous No.4758251]

>>4758146
>donate massive amounts of money to third world
>reproduce like rabbits, flood out everywhere
>energy expenditure skyrockets
>drain the rest of the oil reserves
>forced to science our way out of it by making new sources of massive power (better nuclear, fusion etc)
>forced to get more living space and resources (asteroid mining, space colonies)

[Anonymous No.4758281]

>>4757732
You are assuming it's efficient to have everyone work on the same problem.
That isn't true; in fact, it's a massive failure even to consider it.

We have to work on many thousands of problems, and in tens of thousands of ways.

The problem isn't science being too diverse, it's in human activity being too distracted by BS and simple entertainment.

[Anonymous No.4758307]

>>4757833
For Americans, humanity only refers to them

[Anonymous No.4758341]

>>4758251
I't depends really do you want the earth to end up like Coruscant from star wars or Naboo.

[Anonymous No.4758346]

why are people so against human progress? why are you so concerned about the tiny amount we spend on space? what about the hundreds of billions we spend killing people? shouldn't that be cut first? because you seem to be concerned about human lives.

[Anonymous No.4758356]

THIS IS A TROLL THREAD (A BRUTALLY OBVIOUS ONE TO BOOT). STOP BUMPING IT AND JUST REPORT IT.

[Anonymous No.4758360]

>>4758356
The conversation topic changed to something meaningful. Bump.

[Anonymous No.4758383]

>>4757913
How very Republican you stand.

So you're saying it's more important to keep the economy the way it is than to acquire more resources?

Seriously, how can it be more important to keep the gold market stable than to acquire a few hundred tons of (incredibly useful) gold?

ten of the extremely rich become a bit less extremely rich, a few markets destabilize when shipments come in -- that stuff will happen anyway.
You cannot prevent market destabilization.
I wouldn't even pretend I want it to be what it is now; it's massively messed up. (The issue is how quickly we can accept it changing, and mining asteroids would be a very very slow process!)

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758406]

>>4758383
You seem to have misinterpreted my post, i'm saying that it is far more important to acquire new (and more useful) resources than it is to keep what we have already stable.

[Anonymous No.4758422]

I like how no-one in this thread is probably contributing to either goals. What's the point of arguing if you're not even willing to back up what you say by actually doing it?

[Anonymous No.4758437]

On the one hand, I don't think it makes sense for humans to colonize space. We are maladapted. Better to identify things we want to do in space, and develop robots to do them. I'm all for robotic exploration and exploitation.

On the other hand, space and rockets are really cool, probably because of all the space opera sci fi from last century. The ISS is a fine addition to mankind's grand laboratories. (Though by 2020, it will be cheaper to dedicate launches of DragonLab tailored to particular experiments. The ISS was hideously expensive to build and maintain.) Also you'd have far fewer kids going into STEM if they couldn't hope to be astronauts.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758444]

>>4758422
I'm learning chemistry so I can hopefully synthesize a material that's better adapted for atmospheric re-entry...

[Anonymous No.4758490]

0/10

i smell a /pol/fag

[Anonymous No.4758515]

>>4758406
I guess I did misunderstand your overall standpoint.
It was this part I objected to:
>>Minerals that were once "rare" and thus expensive become common and cheap. (if mass market manipulation doesn't come into play
>Which in turn plummets the cost of certain technology

I don't think markets will be much affected by mining that way, because there would be investment and speculation long before anything arrived, and there isn't much reason to assume what will come from it will be huge.

So, unfortunately, it would make some industries a little more practical, but it couldn't change as much as your latter part hoped for.

[Anonymous No.4758524]

>>4758437
>On the one hand, I don't think it makes sense for humans to colonize space. We are maladapted.
>Better to identify things we want to do in space, and develop robots to do them.
>I'm all for robotic exploration and exploitation.

I think you misinterpreted 'colonize space.'

It generally means extending humanity to living upon other planets and moons,
not to reside in space itself.

[Anonymous No.4758525]

Sorry OP, thats not how nature works.

small organisms find new and novel ways to travel no matter what the condition of a minor part of its form.

[Anonymous No.4758530]

>>4758444
Chemistry? what we really need are better propellants. Here is an entertaining history of the early research.

http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf

[Anonymous No.4758543]

>>4758524
By "space" I meant anywhere off-planet. All other places in the solar system are hostile to life. Either no atmosphere, no gravity, too cold, too hot, no minerals, no volatiles, no sun, etc.

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758561]

>>4758490
Hurrrr durrrr because politics, economics and efficiency have nothing to do with science, your budget is obviously limitless and have complete diplomatic immunity.
>>4758530
I'll read up on it!

[Anonymous No.4758570]

It isn't our responsibility to feed and educate the world. Isn't that just "the white man's burden" or maybe now "the western man's burden"? A concept that liberals used to find racist?

We should be focusing our efforts on space colonization and terraforming. So what if a bunch of the less fortunate suffer on Earth. The best and brightest of us are the ones who matter most to humanity's survival.

[Anonymous No.4758595]

3/10

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758599]

>>4758570
The best and brightest thing is cultural not genetic.

[Anonymous No.4758618]

Guise

What if...

Listen guise

What if we do both by diverting funds from defense and spent that money on both space and helping the less fortunate?????

>MFW

[Anonymous No.4758623]

>>4758599
I never said it wasn't. Culture isn't something that's easily changed though. Do we spend untold time and resources trying to impose our culture on the rest of the world (westerner's burden/cultural imperialism again) and possibly fail? Or do we recognize ourselves as the superior culture, disregard everyone else, and work to secure a future for ourselves in space?

[Soup !dCnvbEnDG. No.4758648]

>>4758623
you could always promote adoption for unwanted children in third world countries.

[Anonymous No.4758658]

I sort of agree with you OP... We should at least until we have fusion reactors figured out.

[Anonymous No.4758683]

>Even if ONE single child is dying of hunger on our planet, no matter his or her race, gender, or religion, we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS even looking to the stars.
Marry a starving child today!

[Anonymous No.4758688]

>>4758658
The biggest and best fusion reactor is already figured out. We have to go to space to make proper use of it.

[Anonymous No.4758703]

>>4758618
>What if we do both by diverting funds from defense and spent that money on both space and helping the less fortunate?????
That ends in you, the less fortunate, and space getting taken over by bad guys.

[Anonymous No.4758749]

>Solve all of our social problems first
This is so fucking stupid. This does help our problems here on earth. If you can't see how asteroid mining, space colonies, new information and innovation doesn't help us then you are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4758849]

[Anonymous No.4758870]

>>4758849
más

[Anonymous No.4758888]

Yeah because eventually we'll solve every SINGLE FUCKING PROBLEM on Earth! That'll happen! Using the same logic, why do we donate shit to third world countries when some scientists are unhappy because we don't explore space enough?

No. Stop. Even if ONE single scientist is unhappy because we've stopped space exploration on our planet, no matter his or her race, gender, religion, we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS even helping third world countries.

[Anonymous No.4758897]

>Humans shouldn't colonizing other planets because we will just screw them up too.
>mfw
ALL OF MY FUCK YOU!

[Anonymous No.4758903]

>arguing a point that was already defeated by Buzz Aldrin himself

[Anonymous No.4758906]

Something to think about...

[Anonymous No.4758910]

>>4758906
"Irrational" is in big sarcasm quotes.

[Anonymous No.4759092]

>why?

So when the sun becomes a red giant, WE ALL WON'T TURN INTO A FUCKING PILE OF MOLTEN ASH