IamJoseph,
my comment - So a dome city on the moon with 10 million people in it in 150 years. Do you have any idea of the volume of resources that 10 million people consume? Where are you going to get these resources from?
your reply - You are focusing on the incidental instead of the fundamental factor here.
Incidental? The things I am focusing on are things like breathable air, drinkable water, the creation of food and materials to build a dome to keep out the vacuum of space. I would not consider these things incidental. If you do believe they are incidental try this - Hold your breath....see how long before it becomes a serious problem for you.
Firstly, when a new discovery occurs, it is surrounded by millions of aligning new connective discoveries. Electricity is one example - it produced millions of new products in far less than 50 years. If humanity becomes impressed with a new discovery, and the 50 year period starts from that point - humanity's role in the universe can change dramatically. Travel to any of the far planets can become akin to Newark to Sydney, housing can be erected using chemicals found in strange planetary environments and a rush will result for an unstoppable exodus to Jupiter. This is the vision incumbent on humanity and it will be enforced upon us situationally. The future is always beyond our mind's wiring, else it is not futuristic. This occured in the Industrail revolution.
This is all well and good. Apart from the fact that humanity is nowhere near coming even close to the technology you are talking about. Not even close. The technological advance you are talking about are way into our far distant future. We have not fully discovered or studied all the problems that interplanetary travel and colonisation will have let alone started to come up with solutions.
It does not matter if this occurs in 25, 50 or 200 years - the point is it will and must happen
Thi is incorrect. It
may but
does not need to happen. You cannot say with 100% certainty that humanity will colonise other planets. We may discover that space stations are a better bet. of we may discover alternate dimensions. We may do lots of things. Also, it is possible to live on this planet in a sustainable way. We know this because humanity did it for thousands of years.
there is no one else out there but humans who will have dominion of the universe. We are it - to the extent it is a greater shock to realize there is no one else out there - than meeting aliens.
Are you contradicting yourself in one sentence? You cannot prove that humans are the only life in the universe. It is unlikely but possible that we are.
my comment - What about gravity? Space stations and the moon do not have the same gravity. How are you planning on resolving this issue.
your reply - Easy as pie: hi-tech shoes will control our gravity and body temperatures.
Is this a serious answer? Really? Even in science fiction I dont think i have ever heard of gravity controlling shoes. Is this seriously your answer? If this is easy as pie, can you provide some information as to how you think that this idea is even possible? Your answer has about as much credibility as if you had said that everyone would get a magic wand that controlled gravity. This is not even close to a sensible, plausible solution to the problem of the lack of gravity.
my comment - Solar radiation. Outside Earths atmosphere, the solar radiation is lethal in a very short period of time. How do you plan on resolving this issue?
your reply -Look at this as with an incurable desease - a simple antibiotic fixed it via virus control. Similarly, we will learn how to control quarks as we did virus. There is no choice to humanity controlling the atmosphere it lives in - even on this planet. We cannot survive on earth much longer unless we can control and program weather patterns, earthquakes and typhoons.
Radiation is not a disease. It cannot be cured or innoculated against. This is not even close to a sensible, plausible solution for the radiation problem.
my comment - Thus far there have been no successful trials of closed system dome cities.
your reply - It is clear we were thinking correctly here and with far reaching consequences of the future. It is akin to a house we live built in jungles of wild animals.
Do you even check the sources provided for you? The tests have all failed. The vacuum of space is very different to building a house in the jungle.
my comment - what volume of raw materials do you think will be needed to construct a city for 10 million people? Where do you think we will be getting this raw material from?
your reply - It will give work to millions and this will be hi-tech with hitherto unimagined processes. These are miniscule bumps resolved with new technology targeting survival. I believe knowledge is involuntary - we do not know how it descends into human minds but we know it comes only in its due time. Pinicilin, Nukes and viagra were discovered by accident; the eureka chant confirms this sudden phenomena, aka a light bulb suddenly lighting up in the brain: a new idea uses the least amount of energy input with the greatest consequences.
So there will be millions of people who have a job, but nothing to eat. As they lay dying of starvation, they can be happy to know they died employed. I am sure this will be a comfort. The items you say were discovered by accident were not dicovered entirely by accident. Viagra for example was a designed drug. It was discovered that it had a beneficial side effect and is now marketed for this purpose. It was not some random guy mixing random items in his fridge up, then eating it and getting a raging boner. No one is going to accidentally invent and atmosphere processor. no one is going to accidentally discover a vehicle capable of interplanetary travel.
my comment - How do you think we will be getting 10 million people to the moon.
your reply - I don't know how, but I know it will happen as surely as the sun rises.
Just so I have this right - You know something is going to happen. You have no idea how it will happen. You have no idea how it could happen. You actually have sensible arguements for why it would not happen. You have sensible arguements for why it could not happen. Yet you still
know it is going to happen. Do you see anything wrong with this thinking?
my comment - Who on Earth and where on Earth will the resources to support a population of 10 million people? These resources include clean water, clean air with the correct composition, all of the nutrients and elements required to grow plants to eat and to create O2. Those are just some of the basic chemical requirements. You will need to take these things away from people, to give them to other people.
your reply - Oxygen is a new product on earth. H2O can be harnessed with other gas mixes - such discoveries can come upon us by accident or when we are ready for it. It is an error to think we only use 10% of our brains - we use all of it to the hilt by the sweat of our brows; if we are pushed harder our brains will breakdown, as seen in people having breakdowns or becoming insane. This is also why knowledge comes in its due time - an act of forebearence, consideration and mercy.
Your answer does not actually answer the question asked. It actually goes off onto a random tanget. Is this your way of saying that you cannot answer the question? The question was: Who is going to provise the resources (air, water, macro and micro nutrients) for these 10 million people to use. And where is it going to come from?
my comment - The atmosphere inside a dome is much more fragile than the atmosphere on Earth. Considering this fact, how do you plan on dealing with standard gaseous wastes created by a population of 10 million people.
your reply - Not so. It is more fastedious and dependable with no surprise factors. Its like a log fire compared to an electrically controlled heating device. Humans must control nature, not the other way around - else we are dead sooner rather than later. We controlled nature ever since agriculture and fire was discovered.
Again, this is just plain wrong. Again I ask if you even read the sources provided to you. A small contained atmosphere is more fragile than the atmosphere on Earth. Here is an easy experiment for you to prove this. Open all of the doors and windows in your house. Now turn the oven on and leave the door open. After 8 hours, what is the temperature difference in your home? Now, close all of the dorrs and windows in your house. Turn you oven on and wait 8 hours. Now check the temperature difference in your home. Notice any differnce between a small contained area and a large contained area? You would undertstand this (if you had read the sources I provided) that the CO2 levels fluctuated wildly in the small enclose dome. The levels of O2, CO2 and water vapour fluctuated wildly between day and night because of the photosynthesis-respiration-transpiration cycle (read about it here:
http://cmg.colostate.edu/gardennotes/141.pdf). This is a very serious problem in small contained spaces. In a space with 10 million people in it, it would be an even more serious problem.
We also have very limited control over nature. (By the way, nice to see that you are finally using the word nature correctly and not telling everyone that it does not exist.) There are currently millions of people starving to death because of droughts. Solar radiation is coming into our atmosphere in increasingly high doses because we have no control over the ozone layer. Every year, huge bushfires roar through hige parts of Australia because we cant control nature. I have to put sun screen on my daughter every time we leave the house because we have no control over the suns strength. Ask the japanese if they believe that they have control over nature. A huge amount of my home town, Brisbane in Australia was underwater due to catastrophic flooding recently. I was bitten by a wasp the other day (and boy did that suck). I cant keep the bloody weeds from growing up through the pavers on the front drive. We eat what we eat and sleep when we sleep at the whim of the natural cycles of seasons and days. I dont really think we have much control over nature at all.
my comment - the surface area of the moon is 37.9 million square kilometres. The Biosphere projects (
Biosphere 2 - Wikipedia), currently the most comprehensive dome project in the world (others include MeliSSa -
MELiSSA - Wikipedia and BIOS-3
BIOS-3 - Wikipedia) have a dome where they have been performing experiments. The area of this dome is 12 700 metres. 12 700 metres required to keep 8 people alive. Using this information, the moon would be able to support 2984 people. The biosphere tests all failed. O2 and CO2 levels fluctuated wildly. There was extinctions and misshaps all over the place. And this was an extremely tightly controlled environment with 8 dedicated scientists in it. Imagine putting 10 million random people in a dome city.
your reply - We may live underground on the moon and mars - who can tell.
10 million people living underground on the moon. In 2010, the estimated population of New York City was 8,175,133
(source :
Top 50 Cities in the U.S. by Population and Rank). If you add the population of Philidelphia (1,526,006) to that you get 9,701,139 people. That is still 300 000 people short of the number of people you believe can live underground on the Moon or Mars. The entire fucking population of NYC and Philidelphia combined. People already hate each other in New York. Try sticking them all in cramped quarters, underground, 230 000 kilometres away from their home planet and see how that goes. Do you see why this idea is implausible?
'Who can tell' you say. Is this a way for you to say - I have no solution for this huge problem?
my comment - If you believe that your position is any sort of solution, you would have considered these problems and have some idea of a solution to them. Keep in mind that your solutions will have to be better than the currently accepted solution that is currently in practise. So not only does your solution need to be proven feasible, but it needs to be proven to be more effective than the current model that is in practise.
your reply - You are thinking analogue in a digital era. IMHO, the greatest discovery or thought of humanity is creationism and monotheism.
Discussing creationism would mean that you are thinking bronze age in the digital era. I would go for analogue personally.
This does NOT mean these are confirmed realities or provable by science - the thought factor of such a direction is its greaest merit.
Yeah, the dark ages did a lot for human advancement. Cheers for putting Galileo under house arrest for his discoveries. I cannot imagine where science would be without the oppresion of the church to support it (I have noticed that you sometimes miss sarcasm, in case you missed it this time, that was sarcasm). I also am happy that Islam is preventing the education of women, thus keeping roughly 50% of the populations of their countries out of the universities and labs where they could be making terrible humanaty improving discoveries (thats sarcasm again). I would also like to thank the monotheistic faiths for their active attempts to stop science and reason in its tracks by introducing wonderful things like intelligent design and the indoctrination of children into our lives (that one was sarcasm too).
It made us think, more than its acceptance or rejection, to the extent even its rejection is a result of higher thinking and resultant from the first thought of such a paradigm, producing such sciences as evolution and atheism.
Creationism and monotheism, or the rejection of creationsim and monotheism have not lead us to the Theory of Evolution. Observation has brought us to this theory. Regardless of your faith or lack of faith, the Theory of Evolution would exist. It would take a towering arrogance for anyone to attempt to imply that without creationism or monotheism, we would not have come up with the ToE. Also, atheism is not a science. It also would exist without creationism and monotheism. Without these things, atheism would be the standard way of thinking. It is not neccesary to have religions to be an athiest. Atheism is how everyone starts. Every baby is born an athiest. Religion is taught.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
™ Version 4.2
(1)
