Lunar landing anniversary today

[RoGeorge]

We were talking lunar landing and space exploration, and suddenly global worming and self guilt-tripping. 

If this is not mind conditioning, then I don't know what it is.  james_s that is exactly how any other animal or plant or even rock came into existence, by a chain of physical and chemical transformations.  They all ARE the universe, not the parasites.  Do you think humans are parasites because they multiply and fill their environment, any other living thing does the same.  This is what life is.

You think 1970 was OK?  I was just listening to an audiobook about the early 1900 years in Romania/Europe.  The peasants were asking their masters to give them land, because there were too many people.

What I don't like about global warming is that I'm fear-mongered with it since I can remember.  Al Gore and various scientists keep telling me in 10-20 the world will end.  Since then, those 10-20 years deadlines have passed about 4 times now.

Another question I have is how that everybody is so sure that the increase in CO₂ is because of humans?  In the past it was hundreds of times bigger, yet there were no humans and no industry back then.  I'm talking about charts like these (Ma means "Million years ago"):


Chart source:  https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

Humans, just like any other animal, can be tamed.  If you keep repeating the same thing to them, while fear-mongering and guilt-tripping them, they will eventually believe anything, and obey anything.  Except when a population is pushed into survival mode.  In such situations (e.g. hunger), all the brainwashing is dropped in favor of survival instincts.

Since I know nothing about long term history of the Earth, or about geology and alike, I can only look at other indicators, and it rather looks like propaganda to me.  Not sure if it's an intentionally fueled propaganda, or if it's just a random trend that perpetuates itself because it was repeated too many times, like religions.

I might be wrong, but this is how it looks like to me, random dude that doesn't use social media:  Any broader discussion, no mater how interesting (like moon landing/space exploration in this case), if it's broader, then it invariably degenerates into preaching the same few topics over and over.  Global warming, gender issues, holocaust, racism, left vs right, things like that.  Why?  If you ask anybody in a face to face talk, they'll tell you they are sick of hearing about any of these subjects, so why it still happens?  I think social media achieved mass brainwashing, intentionally or by accident, and it all self-fuels now.  My rambling is too long already, gonna stop here.

[Brumby]

Oh, common, please don't speak in riddles, I have no idea what that number should be, and most of all don't try to denigrate others.  If you see a mistake, just say the correct info.

OK.  The figure given was for the radius.

Every number of that magnitude I came across in regards to the size of the Milky Way was noted as being the radius.

[gnuarm]

Even as fiction, Star Trek is a bit ridiculous.  I guess I've never paid attention to whether they've left the galaxy, still, within the galaxy, you have to exceed the speed of light by huge factors to get around.  It's 52,000 light years across.

  How to kill your credibility.

You might want to pay more attention next time you pull out some numbers.

WoW!  Only in an engineering forum would someone completely miss the point by focusing on such a trivial detail. 

That's what I get for hanging out with nerds.

[pcprogrammer]

We were talking lunar landing and space exploration, and suddenly global worming and self guilt-tripping. 

For me the talk was an extension of space exploration, and more specifically the drive of some that the human species has to extend its grasp onto other parts of the universe, where james_s, to my opinion, rightfully argued that the species here on earth is not capable of doing such a good job and going into space would not save the species either.

If this is not mind conditioning, then I don't know what it is.  james_s that is exactly how any other animal or plant or even rock came into existence, by a chain of physical and chemical transformations.  They all ARE the universe, not the parasites.  Do you think humans are parasites because they multiply and fill their environment, any other living thing does the same.  This is what life is.

Mind conditioning is all around, and it starts the moment you are born. I think the comparison with parasites is based on behavior that the human race shows. Feeding of the environment without bringing anything useful back to the environment. Here you can start an argument about what is useful, and that every other living organism does the same, but non the less this is what the human race is doing.

You think 1970 was OK?  I was just listening to an audiobook about the early 1900 years in Romania/Europe.  The peasants were asking their masters to give them land, because there were too many people.

Human trade, live was better back then, will always be used. Some things will have been better, other things not.

What I don't like about global warming is that I'm fear-mongered with it since I can remember.  Al Gore and various scientists keep telling me in 10-20 the world will end.  Since then, those 10-20 years deadlines have passed about 4 times now.

Certainly true, and this and other topics will be used to do the taming of the people for as long as there are people. That is also life. But that does not mean we should not complain about it.

Another question I have is how that everybody is so sure that the increase in CO₂ is because of humans?  In the past it was hundreds of times bigger, yet there were no humans and no industry back then.  I'm talking about charts like these (Ma means "Million years ago"):


Chart source:  https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018

And that is why I question this myself. But a fact is that the human race is treating this planet poorly, and will continue to do so until we go extinct, and when we do, nature will restore, until some other species picks up again and history repeats.

Humans, just like any other animal, can be tamed.  If you keep repeating the same thing to them, while fear-mongering and guilt-tripping them, they will eventually believe anything, and obey anything.  Except when a population is pushed into survival mode.  In such situations (e.g. hunger), all the brainwashing is dropped in favor of survival instincts.

Yes and that is what I fear and what may bring the human race to extinction. The strongest will win and be left with a fucked up planet.

Since I know nothing about long term history of the Earth, or about geology and alike, I can only look at other indicators, and it rather looks like propaganda to me.  Not sure if it's an intentionally fueled propaganda, or if it's just a random trend that perpetuates itself because it was repeated too many times, like religions.

I might be wrong, but this is how it looks like to me, random dude that doesn't use social media:  Any broader discussion, no mater how interesting (like moon landing/space exploration in this case), if it's broader, then it invariably degenerates into preaching the same few topics over and over.  Global warming, gender issues, holocaust, racism, left vs right, things like that.  Why?  If you ask anybody in a face to face talk, they'll tell you they are sick of hearing about any of these subjects, so why it still happens?  I think social media achieved mass brainwashing, intentionally or by accident, and it all self-fuels now.  My rambling is too long already, gonna stop here.

Well random dude, this is also social media, but that aside, these discussions flow into these topics, because that is what is on most of our minds, and here both sides are free to advocate their point of view. And yes social and any other form of media is working very hard to brainwash the human race. Commercials for instance are there to steer you to the shops and buy stuff you don't necessarily need. News is filtered and adjusted to steer you into believing what is true and right. And so on.

Sure it all is no different from the way back preacher standing on his pedestal and scaring his flock to do this and not that by use of eternal damnation. It is just on a far bigger scale.

[Circlotron]

Sure it all is no different from the way back preacher standing on his pedestal and scaring his flock to do this and not that by use of eternal damnation. It is just on a far bigger scale.

In perfect context with this discussion, what that preacher should have directed his flock's attention to is where it says "and the appointed time came...to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

[PlainName]

Rebuilding earth after a nuclear holocaust is easy next to colonizing Mars.

Ignoring what this all is about, I was thinking about this particular aspect. On the face of it that seems obvious, but...

The war in Ukraine has shown how fragile our manufacturing capability is. For chips, in particular, there is just one company producing stuff that everyone depends on, and that company depends on single source other companies. It's a bit of a circular thing, and it's just one example.

Now, suppose a nuke took them out. We would be quite crippled. In a proper nuclear exchange that would happen to many resources, and we could easily be back to where we were just after WWII. Sure we would have, at least temporarily, the knowledge but no way to apply it for quite some time. And since the low-hanging fruit of resources has already been picked, the second time around it might be a lot harder to get to the same technical place.

So, we might well survive but we're not going to be buying stuff with abandon on Aliexpress or whatever.

Switching to Mars or the moon... well, it's an uphill struggle from the start and everything would need to be closed circuit. We couldn't, for instance, camp out while we build a rough shed from local timber. But we would have the full technical backing of Mother Earth, and that's not something to be sneezed at. Perhaps, in the end, that's a more successful route than starting again with nothing and again getting nowhere.

[pcprogrammer]

The war in Ukraine has shown how fragile our manufacturing capability is. For chips, in particular, there is just one company producing stuff that everyone depends on, and that company depends on single source other companies. It's a bit of a circular thing, and it's just one example.

The war in the Ukraine might well be abused to make us believe there are shortages due to it, where the actual shortage might be due to hoarders trying to make more money. Not the first time in history that prices are being manipulated by investors, but that is just a thought.

Now, suppose a nuke took them out. We would be quite crippled. In a proper nuclear exchange that would happen to many resources, and we could easily be back to where we were just after WWII. Sure we would have, at least temporarily, the knowledge but no way to apply it for quite some time. And since the low-hanging fruit of resources has already been picked, the second time around it might be a lot harder to get to the same technical place.

So, we might well survive but we're not going to be buying stuff with abandon on Aliexpress or whatever.

That's a given, but it also proves how much we now rely on modern technology. After a nuclear war, having computers should be the least of our worries. A roof over our heads and food will be far more important.

Switching to Mars or the moon... well, it's an uphill struggle from the start and everything would need to be closed circuit. We couldn't, for instance, camp out while we build a rough shed from local timber. But we would have the full technical backing of Mother Earth, and that's not something to be sneezed at. Perhaps, in the end, that's a more successful route than starting again with nothing and again getting nowhere.

And why would things be different on the moon with or without backup from earth. People will be people and things will turn sour in the end.

Also consider that there is a shortage of a lot of things here on earth, and to build a colony on the moon would require a lot of materials that we are short on already. Also consider the amount of fuel to get them up to the moon. So why waste it to just prolong the existence of the species on another location while the rest of the species dies here on earth

[PlainName]

The war in the Ukraine might well be abused to make us believe there are shortages due to it, where the actual shortage might be due to hoarders trying to make more money.

My point was that it doesn't take a lot to bring us down. The Ukraine thing was to show how quickly that can occur, but unlike the Ukraine thing, a nuclear war would mean it's not a hoarding problem but a manufacturing problem - there would be no more coming along if you just wait long enough or pay enough.

That's a given, but it also proves how much we now rely on modern technology. After a nuclear war, having computers should be the least of our worries. A roof over our heads and food will be far more important.

I am not sure you are getting the drift. Are you saying you would be OK to live without technology? Back to 1930's lifestyle? Have you really thought that through?

And why would things be different on the moon with or without backup from earth.

Because things are a lot easier if you have a supply line to good resources than if you don't. Say you toddle off to the middle of nowhere with some batteries for your phone and not a lot else. It's going to be a drag pretty quick, right? You'll have to figure out how to get food from somewhere, water, etc. But with a supply line back to your gaff you can have electricity on tap, Amazon deliveries and whatever. Isn't that going to be somewhat different to 'without backup'?

[Brumby]

Even as fiction, Star Trek is a bit ridiculous.  I guess I've never paid attention to whether they've left the galaxy, still, within the galaxy, you have to exceed the speed of light by huge factors to get around.  It's 52,000 light years across.

  How to kill your credibility.

You might want to pay more attention next time you pull out some numbers.

WoW!  Only in an engineering forum would someone completely miss the point by focusing on such a trivial detail. 

Who says I missed the point?  I certainly did not.

You may consider an error in excess of 50,000 light years as trivial, but I kinda think it is significant - especially as the numbers are all too easily found.

That's what I get for hanging out with nerds.

Yeah ... OK.  On that I'd have to plead guilty.   

[pcprogrammer]

The war in the Ukraine might well be abused to make us believe there are shortages due to it, where the actual shortage might be due to hoarders trying to make more money.

My point was that it doesn't take a lot to bring us down. The Ukraine thing was to show how quickly that can occur, but unlike the Ukraine thing, a nuclear war would mean it's not a hoarding problem but a manufacturing problem - there would be no more coming along if you just wait long enough or pay enough.

True. Being it a world wide pandemic or a fairly local war, with the world very intertwined these day's a "small" hick-up can have large consequences.

That's a given, but it also proves how much we now rely on modern technology. After a nuclear war, having computers should be the least of our worries. A roof over our heads and food will be far more important.

I am not sure you are getting the drift. Are you saying you would be OK to live without technology? Back to 1930's lifestyle? Have you really thought that through?

No I'm saying that in the event of a nuclear war we are basically forced to live without modern technology, and that having modern technology in that moment of time will not help us to rebuild a new world. Over time it can come back and quicker than before if, and only if, the knowledge is not lost. With a lot of it in computer storage it might well get lost though.

It will take a lot of "man" power to rebuild society, depending on how much of it got destroyed and contaminated for that matter.

I'm just as much used to having technology as the next guy, and would feel lost if it was not there anymore, but in case of such an event would still be able to build and create stuff with my own hands.

And why would things be different on the moon with or without backup from earth.

Because things are a lot easier if you have a supply line to good resources than if you don't.

I was not hinting at the difference between doing such a thing without or without a supply chain, I was talking about how a new society will develop if it where to be build. Hence the "People will be people and things will turn sour in the end." statement at the end of what I wrote there.

Say you toddle off to the middle of nowhere with some batteries for your phone and not a lot else. It's going to be a drag pretty quick, right? You'll have to figure out how to get food from somewhere, water, etc. But with a supply line back to your gaff you can have electricity on tap, Amazon deliveries and whatever. Isn't that going to be somewhat different to 'without backup'?

Well first of all, if I was to undertake such an adventure my phone would be way down on the list. An initial supply of food and water and some camping gear would be very high up that list. And sure a way to get new supplies would be very helpful, but the ability to make do with what is at hand would be far more helpful.

And why not the phone, what good will it do if there is no service in the area you are going to

But I guess that is becoming more and more the problem, people can't do without that phone anymore, and are lost without it. For me a computer yes, because that is a tool I use very much to do projects with, but my phone I could do without were it not that technology forces it upon me, with two step verification protocols and what more they think of to use it for.

[gnuarm]

Even as fiction, Star Trek is a bit ridiculous.  I guess I've never paid attention to whether they've left the galaxy, still, within the galaxy, you have to exceed the speed of light by huge factors to get around.  It's 52,000 light years across.

  How to kill your credibility.

You might want to pay more attention next time you pull out some numbers.

WoW!  Only in an engineering forum would someone completely miss the point by focusing on such a trivial detail. 

Who says I missed the point?  I certainly did not.

You may consider an error in excess of 50,000 light years as trivial, but I kinda think it is significant - especially as the numbers are all too easily found.

That's what I get for hanging out with nerds.

Yeah ... OK.  On that I'd have to plead guilty.   

The point was the number is orders of magnitude larger that practical even for something like a warp drive.  Then you nitpick over a factor of 2.  See?

I can't believe I'm arguing over Star Trek on the Internet!!!  What has my life become!!???

[IDEngineer]

There's another aspect to space that is based on the human psyche: We as a species seem to need to be looking outward to prevent stagnation. That sounds like a tautology but it's more.

There was a time when anything past the horizon was the great unknown. It took courage, acceptance of risk, and lots of money to fund expeditions, over land or sea, to discover what was "out there". Those societies that didn't expand their vision shrank and were lost to history.

You see this scenario play out even in small children. Those whose inquisitiveness is encouraged enter into a positive feedback loop of faster learning and greater discovery. Those who are restricted, whether intentional or by sad circumstances, often have their die cast for life. Sure, they become functional adults, but they miss a greater life experience because their inherent drive for knowledge and experience was suppressed.

I fear humanity is becoming North Korea writ large. Without an open mind, without the outward-looking attitude that welcomes exploration and the pursuit of new things and new experiences and "what's out there", our species risks becoming a bunch of navel-gazers trapped in a cage of our own resignation and lethargy. Like children given no mental stimulus and left to rot in front of a television every day, we do our species a disservice if we resign ourselves to "this is everything" and "there's nothing important over the horizon" and "stop wasting your time on unachievable dreams".

I suspect it was Musk who said this, but no matter, it's a good summation: "Earth is the cradle of human civilization, but at some point you must leave the cradle."

[PlainName]

my phone would be way down on the list

It was a metaphor, illustrative of short time of usability.

[pcprogrammer]

my phone would be way down on the list

It was a metaphor, illustrative of short time of usability.

That I got, but I countered it to show the need for preparing and the usefulness of skill.

For example we know landing on the moon is possible, and also that live in a space station is possible. Both took lots of preparation to accomplish this. And sure a lot of technological advancement where made in name of these projects, but so did several wars. This is another point, but mentioned earlier in this thread, so just to address that.

For a next step a suggestion is made to build a base on the moon, because launching from the moon takes less energy, but it would still require to bring all of the equipment to the moon which is needed to build on it. Even though the moon might hold some essential resources these would have to be mined and processed first. So it won't be an easy feat to accomplish this. And what I wonder about here is whom is willing to be part of this feat? Sure the unknown will lure in a lot of people, but do they have the skills required. And who droppes out when they hear what the living conditions will be, and what the risks are.

As I wrote before I like nature to much to be stuck in some special moon cubicle to build on the spread of the human race.

And to take it even further, think of the long travel through space to reach the nearest possible habitable planet. Even with some maybe possible hyper drive it would still take a long time of 40 years or so. What will that do to the psyche of the astronauts. This to address the quote below.

There's another aspect to space that is based on the human psyche: We as a species seem to need to be looking outward to prevent stagnation.

........

I suspect it was Musk who said this, but no matter, it's a good summation: "Earth is the cradle of human civilization, but at some point you must leave the cradle."

Yes as a baby growing up you leave the cradle at some point, and I would then like to say that human civilization is still in its infancy stage and has to grow up first. Because take a look at the world, true civilization is not what we are doing. Lets fix that first before venturing of into the unknown.

[Circlotron]

“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

[james_s]

I don't know why some focus so much on global warming, that's only the tip of the iceberg as far as humans wrecking the environment we live in. We have gotten a lot better in recent years but we still spew toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, bodies of water and into the ground. I don't remember which one but there was a river that actually caught fire at one point because there was so much industrial waste in it. We had a bit of a close call with a big hole in our ozone layer which we caught and dealt with in the nick of time. We polluted almost every corner of the globe with toxic lead back when TEL was used in gasoline. We are consuming fossil fuels and other resources that took millennia to accrue at rates far faster than they can be replenished. We are over-fishing the oceans, risking extinction of species we depend on, we have already directly caused the extinction of a number of other species. We've had multiple world wars and now there are weapons capable of destroying the entire planet several times over. There have even been cases where that got dangerously close to happening, and a few where nuclear weapons were accidentally dropped but did not detonate. Look at how badly the affects of Covid have affected us and then imagine what it will be like when there is an energy shortage unlike anything we have ever seen, a food shortage, etc. At the present rate of resource consumption and population growth it's a matter of when, not if.

I am fairly sure we humans will cause our own demise long before the sun burns out, and if we manage to escape this planet and settle somewhere else, there is no reason to believe these habits won't follow us. I would be shocked if an isolated colony somewhere didn't get torn to shreds by politics, fighting, love triangles, resource contention and other factors within a short period. If we can't even manage to coexist here and take care of the home we have, why should we get another one and what reason is there to believe it would work out any better?

[IDEngineer]

There's no reason to believe things would be different on another planet. The behavior you're describing isn't new, it's burned into human DNA.

However, if we just turned inward, there'd be no reason to have children anymore. Just live it up and then die, and let this generation be the last. Clearly that's not happening, so we should make things as good as possible going forward.

I agree with taking care of this planet. But that does not mean space exploration and colonization should be cancelled. We should be doing BOTH. We should be taking care of our "cradle" because the majority of our population will continue to live here. But we should be reaching out too, like the explorers of old, and since we've mapped and colonized our cradle... "out" means "space".

The moon is doable. Mars is doable. The other planets... well, not so much, but there are some interesting moons around Jupiter and Saturn that hold some promise. Am I talking seriously huge Engineering projects that are likely decades out? Yes. But what's the option? Just sit here, twiddling our thumbs, while people in neighboring countries hate each other? That's going to happen anyway (human DNA, remember?) so how about we offset that with something positive?

We should have been working on (example) a permanent moon base in the 70's immediately after Apollo. We've shamefully wasted 50+ years. A moon base is within reach in 10-20 years using present technology, which will yield further technological advancements useful on earth as well as in space, benefitting those who live in both places. This is not idle speculation, we have the history of the space race to prove it. Let's get started.

[IDEngineer]

Because take a look at the world, true civilization is not what we are doing. Lets fix that first before venturing of into the unknown.

That's the excuse of the naysayers throughout history. "Fix what we have before we try anything new." If that were history's prevailing choice, we'd still be living in huts because huts aren't "perfect" yet.

[pcprogrammer]

There's no reason to believe things would be different on another planet. The behavior you're describing isn't new, it's burned into human DNA.

However, if we just turned inward, there'd be no reason to have children anymore. Just live it up and then die, and let this generation be the last. Clearly that's not happening, so we should make things as good as possible going forward.

And why is this not happening, it is also in our DNA. At least most of the people on this planet have a huge drive to reproduce. Only due to education and becoming more aware this is going down. And at some point with a low enough number of people on the planet it might even be sustainable.

I agree with taking care of this planet. But that does not mean space exploration and colonization should be cancelled. We should be doing BOTH. We should be taking care of our "cradle" because the majority of our population will continue to live here. But we should be reaching out too, like the explorers of old, and since we've mapped and colonized our cradle... "out" means "space".

The moon is doable. Mars is doable. The other planets... well, not so much, but there are some interesting moons around Jupiter and Saturn that hold some promise. Am I talking seriously huge Engineering projects that are likely decades out? Yes. But what's the option? Just sit here, twiddling our thumbs, while people in neighboring countries hate each other? That's going to happen anyway (human DNA, remember?) so how about we offset that with something positive?

We should have been working on (example) a permanent moon base in the 70's immediately after Apollo. We've shamefully wasted 50+ years. A moon base is within reach in 10-20 years using present technology, which will yield further technological advancements useful on earth as well as in space, benefitting those who live in both places. This is not idle speculation, we have the history of the space race to prove it. Let's get started.

And why should we do BOTH when this means a quicker downfall of what is here on earth? It will take a lot of valuable resources to do what you suggest. And why, just to spread our so called greatness? As I wrote before, only a few people are truly amazing, the rest are just average or plane old idiots. And the latter are the ones shouting the loudest of how great "we" are.

Another question could be what is the point of it all. Seek the true meaning of life. Is there an actual purpose to it all. And with that I'm not talking about humanity alone, I'm talking about the whole universe. Sure it is there, but why and what is the use of it.

Because take a look at the world, true civilization is not what we are doing. Lets fix that first before venturing of into the unknown.

That's the excuse of the naysayers throughout history. "Fix what we have before we try anything new." If that were history's prevailing choice, we'd still be living in huts because huts aren't "perfect" yet.

To me that is utter bullshit. Technological advancement would have been there with or without the space race, because like you said, that is also human nature. And here in lies the whole problem, human nature. Like james_s wrote, we work hard to destroy what we love, and that would also happen on those moon, mars, or even further out bases, long before we can reach a planet where it is possible to do what we did here on earth.

And the supply chain dunkemhigh wrote about will dry up before any of those further out bases are able to become self sustained, if that is even possible.

It is called realism, not nay saying.

[IDEngineer]

The amount of resources required to establish a permanent moon base are a drop in the bucket compared to normal industrial activity.

And all we need is some basic manufacturing equipment to get things going. The more we investigate, the more raw materials we keep finding on the moon. Even water - the single most precious substance - is there in ice form. Meanwhile, the sun loses no potency due to atmosphere and provides boundless energy both thermally and (via solar cells) electrically. We might want the first base at a pole so the sunlight is more or less continuous, but as it happens the poles also harbor a greater abundance of water ice.

With a basic manufacturing infrastructure, we can bootstrap our way up. We do not need to "steal" continuous resources from the earth, they're already on the moon.

I often wonder if those who oppose space exploration are simply jealous that their pet projects here on earth don't inspire the same imagination in their fellow humans. There certainly is no logic in opposing space due to "resources" or "spreading our problems to other worlds". Such opposition borders on religious overzealousness, bred by frustration that others do not share the same goals. Heck, even Carl Sagan had such an antagonist in his book (and later movie) "Contact".

Thankfully, history shows that there are always individuals with the foresight to see past those with shorter vision. I just wish governments would stop (ahem) wasting resources on all the petty social nonsense and, as in decades and millenia past, focus more attention on the future. That future would arrive all the sooner, and quite likely bring with it solutions to many of the problems that the short-vision folks shout about today. Just think about all the advancements in materials sciences, fabrication, electronics, medicine, environmental processing and cleanup (space requires VERY good recycling!), etc. that spun off from the space race. Without that kick in the pants, those advancements could have been delayed decades - or longer.

Fine, let's say that space by itself isn't worth the investment. But the spinoffs definitely are. There is zero chance those separate spinoffs will "occur anyway" without a primary motivating project driving them forward. The two main such motivators are 1) war and 2) space. I'd much prefer a vigorous space program to another world war. If you're worried about wasting resources, review the war materiel consumed in WW1 and/or WW2 and get back to us... not to mention the price in human blood and suffering. Space is a bargain by comparison in every criterion.

[pcprogrammer]

I see your point, but you only mention war and space as motivators for innovation.

I'm not saying that we should not innovate, I'm saying lets use our capabilities to solve our earthly problems. And what I read from your post is that you believe that setting up a base on the moon and use what resources are there is the way to go.

Does this also mean that you think it is going to benefit the population on earth by bringing these moon resources back down?

I just don't see the real benefits of it, but that is my vision.

Well I myself don't have pet projects, nor am I religious. I just don't see the human race as something special, but again that is my vision.

But I agree with you that if it is a choice between war and space, I would also choose space.

[PlainName]

Because take a look at the world, true civilization is not what we are doing. Lets fix that first before venturing of into the unknown.

That's the excuse of the naysayers throughout history. "Fix what we have before we try anything new." If that were history's prevailing choice, we'd still be living in huts because huts aren't "perfect" yet.

Doesn't seem to have done Microsoft any harm!