I'm still reading and the more and more I read the more I am convinced that life outside of Earth would be less pleasant and more restrictive than life on Earth. Is there any science to dispute this? If so then wouldn't most people prefer to be on Earth as opposed to any other colony where one might require supplemental oxygen, have to deal with less natural gravity/pressure situations, and have more restrictive dietary options? I do believe that we could eventually evolve into different species that would do better in those environments, but that isn't a process that would ever help any of the first generations to colonize a place.

I don't want to live forever in a universe where you can post on twoplustwo for infinity.

Yeah I shouldn't have said cancer research when I really just meant "human health research". Also, "cyborg research" would be acceptable too.

but won't we have to evolve into a different species in order to adapt to living conditions present elsewhere? Unless we solely want to live in constructed environments it will take a ton of evolution in order to be able to live on any known planet or body other than Earth. Wouldn't this effectively turn us into another species the same way we are different from other primates?

Migrating our species to Mars is just simply one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived. It's not even really worth discussing. There will be positive technological advances that comes from a Mars mission but as you said they shouldnt need to actually go to Mars to discover those.

lol you. You said it was physically impossible. Did I ever say it was possible today? Did I even say that it is possible in near future?


You made an authoritative statement about something you have zero knowledge in. I made a statement that is corroborated by numerous physicists, astronomers, basically some of the smartest people living realizing that while it may be quite difficult, there is nothing to absolutely say it is impossible.

All I said was nothing indicates it is impossible. You said it was. Hundreds of years ago, if I said people would go to the moon, Mars, etc. people would've thought that was absurd and impossible. Yet, people versed in a scientific field like physics would've most likely said there is nothing to indicate it is impossible, but there obviously wasn't technology even close to getting this off the ground.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for crossing the Atlantic. And don't even get me started on Alexander the Great.

Lisa, you tried and failed. The lesson is: never try.

And what's the deal with wheels? I just want to eat

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE isn't really a good enough reason to strive for something that is historically mega extraordinarily unlikely to ever even be conceptually possible let alone doable.

interstellar

Now that was a disappointing movie.

You realize the idea of launching a rocket into space 1000 years ago could've been classified under this, right?


Point is, you said it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Glad to know someone who is clueless on what NASA even does is the authoritative source on what is possible or isn't when it comes to space travel.


There are numerous theories on how to do this, by the way. I doubt anyone had a clue on where to start with space exploration 1000 years ago.

A lot of these problems might be easy to eliminate via gene mutation, which the Chinese are already doing on people(don't be surprised when they roll out a team of 8 footed beasts to the 2036 olympics bball tourney).

If we're talking somewhere way beyond Mars then every dollar that goes into space exploration(and a lot of other fields) gets us closer to technological singularity. At one point, it might be possible that we are all talking Nixon heads in a jar, without the head and the jar but with a body of certain metals that will be able to acclimate in most of the planets known to us.

Much like Alexander the Great, Elon also needs to travel the universe, meet interesting and stimulating people of an alien culture, and butt**** them.

Alien herpes though

Humans will reach their peak in the year 2999 where every nuke on earth along with all the uranium and whatnot will be launched simultaneously to Kepler-3000b for new years. Satellites providing live feed, pay-per-view only $299,784,527,072,843,520.00, but don't be alarmed, that's $5 of today's money with 4% inflation.

That is not correct. It was impossible given the technology that they had but it was physically possible and they could conceptualize it. The Chinese even tried to send a chair into space as early as 2000 BC.

Still waiting for your brilliant Google explanation of how intergalactic space travel do humans is possible.

See this is more the stuff I'm interested in.

CDL, the actual answer to your question is that Mars is the nearest technologically feasible option, and that "our" Mars effort promises to teach us innumerable lessons about human habitation of other planets and also about innumerable things we LITERALLY cannot even imagine right now, sort of like how no one working the Apollo missions thought the iPhone was gonna be a thing. Bear well in mind that the iPhone is truly science fiction brought to life. It is a tiny electronic device that brings the vast majority of human knowledge, over the entire history of humanity, to the palm of a human hand, on demand, and it is also the best and most accurate map and geolocator ever created, and it allows for instantaneous audio and/or visual and/or textual communication between a human in California and a human in Calcutta, or nearly anywhere else. It is a miracle device. Every smartphone is. That is irrefutably traceable to technologies borne of NASA, and it irrefutably transformed our entire economy. It's part of the internet sea change. The hope is that the geniuses laboring over how to keep people alive on Mars and/or in deep space will inevitably generate similarly humanity-altering technologies. They almost certainly will, and you obviously agree with me because if you did not you could not possibly posit that the cost-benefit analysis will be better later. You, more than anyone, seem to believe the forward march of technology is inevitable.

Meanwhile, intergalactic space travel is not yet feasible, first because erryone gonna die if we even try intergalactic space travel - we can't shield from radiation, we don't know how to accelerate anything to the necessary speeds, time alone would kill everyone even if we solved those problems, etc. - and second because diversifying the extinction-event risk between two planets is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than not. We are talking about hugely long term goals.

In fact, we're talking about time horizons that are hard to fathom, in a way. You would have to guess that the next extinction level event is at any moment likely to be at least a couple hundred million years off. From that perspective, we have plenty of time to be a little inefficient about figuring out how to support human civilization in significant, disease-and-disaster-resistant numbers, on another planet. We're not gonna figure it out without actually taking steps to do it, though, and we are today in the nascent stages of developing knowledge about how to even get people and stuff TO Mars in a way that is not cost-prohibitive / impossible. Being able to shoot stuff to Mars without having to trash the entirety of the boost system is estimated by SpaceX to be literally a hundred-fold proportional decrease in the cost part of the cost-benefit analysis. Obviously this is puffery, so let's call it a 20-fold decrease and work from there. It doesn't really matter, because the real point is that WITHOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY this **** isn't happening, at all.

Finally, I don't know how better to communicate this: you seem to be assuming that NOT working on technologies precedent to future better technologies is a good idea, and you seem not to have even considered how it is that NOT working on conditions precedent to your imagined better future technologies impacts the probability of such future better technologies ever actually existing. It really is as if you believe that future technology builds on a foundation independent from all the technology before it, or something. It's absolutely the weirdest take I've ever seen you have and I do not understand it.

Galaxy> iPhone

Lol moon missions

Lol hundreds millions year goals. Hoaya is the greatest troll of all.

https://youtu.be/jgoGqbm1pT0

He's got a point.

I will now disengage, I should've recognized that when I get the old WEARWOALF argumentative blood boiling I need to stop posting.

You may say Hoaya's a dreamer. But he's not the only one.

I'm glad you made this post