There is only so much room on the planet, and so much oxygen capacity, and there are already too many people for OPTIMUM quality of human life.
My quality of life is pretty optimum, but assuming you're right, who exactly is the arbiter of that? Who are you to declare what is optimum? By what standard? Paleolithic? How many acres and how many mules would you let us have?
Rev.B said:
Now, if you are willing to settle for less space, less clean air, less oxygen, and more competition for resources costing people's lives, not to mention worldwide starvation due to over farming the topsoil until all of the nutrients and the aquifers are gone, then there is still room for more room and human anguish for you.
30,000 years ago, human employment of those resources which they understood how to use could not have sustained the present global population. 100 years ago, we could not have done it.
A resource is not a resource until someone understands how to make
profitable use of it. Do you understand the difference between profit driven models of survival, vs. non-profit models? I believe there are several 20th century famines illustrating the survival value of non-profit farming.
Rev.B said:
If you find resources on other planets, where will you put them? Not enough room on Earth. Will you visit them in your space ship? Only so much room on Earth. What if the extra mass of mined space stuff affects the Earth's rotation badly over the long term?
What if you had enough imagination to conceive of an advance in human knowledge?
Rev.B said:
Also, again, there is the loss of ozone every time a rocket goes up. More money and riches t the cost of more skin cancer and global warming, followed by an ice age? Not worth the trade off.
Don't worry chicken little. There are enough of you out there that we'll never get that far. You people always manage to find a way.
The intellect asks what is possible. Intelligence asks what is appropriate. Dr. Helen Coldecott said that. Intellectuals built nuclear weapons. Intellectuals continue to want to do more space exploration. Intelligent people realize that said research doesn't really benefit human life, despite how much money and effort it costs to obtain it. A lot of challenge, and little real reward.
Yes, intellectuals built nuclear power plants, and intelligent people screamed that the sky would fall. So instead, we use natural gas, oil, and coal instead.
Rev.B said:
]I think going into orbit the first time was neat, as was putting a man on the moon, just to know you did it, but going into space repeatedly is the space program I am talking about. The average cost per launch of the Space shuttle was 1.5 billion. For what? What was worth 1.5 billion?
Cost/benefit analysis.
You're so pragmatic.
The thing mankind needs to conquer is it's ego. Mankind needs to master itself. Self control and personal responsibility are the most important things people need to master, and despite always having the ability to do so, they don't. Humanity has focused on external challenges rather than focusing on the one goal that matters most, mastering oneself.
Easier to put a man on the moon than to convince human beings to be ethical..
You can get in line with ShadowX81 to bid on that concentration camp if you like...
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”
“This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture….The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”
Any guesses as to whose mouth that came out of?
Since humanity cannot even manage to live on this planet sustainably, that works well all by itself so long as it isn't damaged by human industry and such, there is no way humanity can terraform another planet to suit it's long term needs. Only if another planet identical to Earth were found could humanity survive long term on another planet. The human race would die out first unless non linear travel was invented. Even then, humanity would destroy the new planet just like it did this one. The life support system of Earth COULD be saved if people wanted to. THAT is where the money should be going. Solar panel efficiency improvement, ect.
I can't figure out if you're just a rank and file pessimist, or a genuine misanthrope.
What is unsustainable is your morality. I agree that people could stand to learn a new one.
.
