Colonizing space is a fun side project just to say you did it.

If we're going to take the "science the **** out of it" approach to either task, then reverting Earth's climate to whatever perfect temp Al Gore wants it to be is orders of magnitude easier than permanently colonizing another planet.

Giving up your personal freedom in the name of global warming is just a kink that many lefties are more than willing to indulge at the hands of big brother.

Regulate me, daddy!

In my opinion, "Regulate everybody except me, daddy" is more accurate.

Point of Information: Is it still true that Congresspeople are exempt from minimum wage laws for their employees?

The bolded is a great debate point despite you wording it poorly and the rest of your post being near garbage.

Yes indeed finding a science solution to the future climate issues of this planet is likely an easier path than finding an already hospitable planet we could settle upon or geoengineering/terraforming one to that end.

Your personal freedom screed is not really a thing. This is not a debate about personal freedoms and the answer should not be the complete deregulation of industry. Regulation is required and I am sure even you would concede that.

You ruin what could be a decent nuanced point with a completely unnuanced one that is just partisan corporatism.

Is your consulting firm called, "Fun Police, LLP"?

Howe Dewey Cheatum & Runne

Over a relatively long time horizon (500 years?), human beings probably won't have the luxury of pursuing just one path or the other. In other words, no matter how well we manage this planet, and there is no reason to believe that we will manage it particularly well, there are likely to be unsolvable climate problems and resource limitations that require us to move eventually.

No matter how badly we **** this planet up, it'll still be more hospitable than anything else we'll find out there.

There's no Pandora out there waiting for us.

Even if there is, I'm not sure the existing inhabitants are going to be very receptive to people knocking on their door with a story about how they screwed their own planet up so badly that they needed to find another one.

"Yeah, bro, I totally get it but I have to get up early for work tomorrow. You guys should try Kepler 296. Head back out the way you came and then turn left. Third supercluster on your right. If you don't hit any red lights, you should be there in 74,000 years. 80k tops."

So it seems the lesson here is to not screw our planet up so badly?

You do have a habit of debunking your own stances, don't you, Inso0?

Wat

This is your best ever post. It has the least errors in it.

As you pointed out, this planet is probably our best shot. So maybe look after it a bit better?

Or, as George Carlin said, "The planet is just fine. The people, the people are ****ed".

I'm not especially worried about inhospitable intelligent life on another planet. But even if we found a planet that was capable in theory of supporting intelligent life, there likely would be massive problems for human life such as inhospitable microbes, different atmospheric pressure, different atmospheric composition, different gravity, different temperature ranges, etc. Despite what lagtight believes, life has evolved on this planet for a very long time to survive in a fairly narrow range of conditions.

The enormous distances involved very possibly are an unsolvable problem for a small number of humans, and almost certainly are an unsolvable problem for billions of humans unless we find a way to separate our consciousnesses from our physical bodies.

Terraforming a nearby rocky planet might be impossible, but it might be a better shot than reaching a faraway planet that is very similar to Earth.

There has been a lot of pop speculation on the Fermi paradox, but the correct answer may be that the great filter is still ahead of us. In other words, technological societies may inevitably use up all their resources before they advance far enough to be able to colonize other planets, solar systems, or galaxies.

I'm not sure what resources you expect to run out of that involve annihilation of the species.

We haven't really even made a dent in what Earth has to offer. It has more to do with where people currently live.

If the ultimate doomsday scenario does unfold, the loss of life will be tragic, but the species is in no danger.

Of course they have been paying for studies, Why wouldn't they? They're part of the most innovative, important and largest industry that's ever existed they pay for all sort of studies. Not looking at any positives of the fossil fuel industry are comparing it to tobacco is just terrible thinking and lol.

Cool story bro, I am sure executives from every industry have studies their tactics, what's your point other than trying to be decitful and painting the fossil fuel industry the same as the tobacco industry. It's just nonsense.


Seems like a reliable source, might want to look further into this, focus on the terms direct and indirect and how they were measured across all industries.

Are you sure that's the number you want to randomly throw out? These stats are tracked and fossil fuel are much higher, directly and indirectly.


Because of mandates and subsidies. They still are not even close to as reliable and cost effective and never will be. The US's electricity system is broken and it's because of the solar/wind mandates.

Wind and Solar will never replace coal. Nuclear can, but unless the environmentalist completely change their views on Hydro and Nuclear it will never happen. Nuclear are actively being attacked and shut down by these groups and governments.





Let's just pretend your silly numbers mean something. What's very scary about it? Humans have never been safer from climate than we are today thanks to fossil fuels.

Agreed.

But in this chicken and egg scenario I think if we have not developed the technologies to remediate the types of climate issues we are dealing with due to natural changes and man's impact, then we would have little chance of finding a habitable planet ever.

I think we will need to be able to Terraform to some decent extent to add to our potential habitable target planet list and we cannot just hope to find one perfectly suited for us.

Your missing the point .
Science is a moving body of work and knowledge that with time , becomes more and more accurate as the number of studies increases .

So yeah you can dig up some clip dated 30-40 years ago but it’s missing the mark totally because science do evolve with better technology, accuracy and knowledge over time .

Science did not use knowledge from the 1700s to flying someone to the moon …..

The unshakable belief that earth as infinite ressources to serve humankind .
Meanwhile we’re entering in the 6th mass extinction of life .

TIL using more than one square of toilet paper will draw the attention and ire of asteroids.

Water, food, and energy requirements for a peak population of 11 billion or so would be pretty significant, especially in a world where farming, irrigation, and mineral extraction is significantly more challenging from an environmental perspective than it is now. That peak population is probably less than a hundred years away.

But you are probably correct that our species will persist for the indefinite future barring a massive detonation of nuclear weapons or a cosmic event like a collision with a large asteroid or comet.

It is cheaper to build solar and wind now in 4 states with no subsidies and I have no idea what you are talking about "mandates". It is just cheaper.

It is now cheaper to build solar and wind power sources from scratch than to run existing coal plants.

It will be cheaper to do that vs natural gas plants within 10 to 15 years (<--- edited I think the current projection is 2035 for natural gas plants)

lol.

Wind and solar will replace coal because it is cheaper to use the air and the sun than to dig up and transport coal.

Nuclear plants are being prolonged because aside from the rare disaster they are clean energy.

You work for the fossil fuel industry I take it?

It costs the US billions of dollars a year to deal with diseases like asthma and lung disease as a direct result of air pollution.

There are also deaths ahead of schedule as a result (i.e., life expectancy is lower)

Awesome logic.
I only got 1 house in the entire universe to live in but regardless of this dire situation , let’s fack it up .
Obviously your not a risk manager in insurance investment.

If the earth was so resilient for humankind and life , it would been a common phenomenon throughout the universe , yet we didn’t find nothing that ressemble it .
I would chose the road of caution personally without any safety net .

There is no FED to bail out life on earth like it does in economy….

Is Shifty an Exxon employee or something?

Kind of hilarious from this guy , we should not fighting climate changes and adapt to it ( and if it doesn’t work well we’re ****ed) but they are the first to fight debt increases and inflation ( instead of « simply » adapting to this reality ) to save a monetary currency

Nice priority …..

Can’t believe being that stupid and still have a job like this and being paid nicely ….

Seem so .