Do you take in interest in your countries politics?

[Alfista Junior]

These are some of the best debates all year for me.

http://xfacts.com/x.htm

This has a lot of good theories of aliens, stuff like that, I really like it.


After I put in that little blurb, here's my response to Alfista:


Earth is reaching it's Carrying Capacity, and we, as the Human Race, Homo Spines, Terrans, (Yes, Earth's real name is Terra just as the Sun is Sol, and the moon Luna, use their real names, it's a pet peeve of mine) have had exponential growth since the time of the Middle Ages, it's only a matter of time before the Terra will run out of space for people to live in, as people live longer, and more people are born, we will need to go somewhere else, and soon. (not soon as in the next 100 years, but in the next 20) Our (USA's) current plan for space is way too slow, Kennedy said we'd be on Luna in before 1970, we were there in 1969. He told the Engineers to get it done, and when, and they did, now, we have to get it all approved, reviewed, tested, re-approved, and then finally actually used. It just takes too long. Bush is giving us 15 (he said in 2005) years to get BACK to Luna, and 25 years to get to Mars. Right now, we should be sending already made modules to Luna via the Saturn V (most powerful rocket to date, but was destroyed because it qualified as an ICBM, darn Soviet-American treaties......) rocket and then from there, set up a site to build rockets and ways to get to the Mars from there. Over 80% (or more, maybe 90%) of a US Space Shuttle's fuel is used to get it out of Terra's orbit, and into space. That gives it 10-20% to maneuver and correct it's paths, it's very inefficient and not cost-effective. Building and launching on Luna will not use probably less then 5% of a ship's fuel, leaving at least 95% to do whatever it wants to do with. Now, remember that once an object is going 5000mph, it stays at 5000mph unless you apply more, or an opposite thrust to it, it's one of Newton's laws, and from there, we can use fission(not very efficient in space, but it can be used), fusion(not to be actually tested yet, but a reactor is being built in France), conventional chemical, and new solar sails(all new tests fail to deploy) and the Ion Engine(currently under development, but can be used in the nest 5-10 years) (It adds another proton to an Hydrogen atom, causing it to create massive amounts of thrust and force) to get where ever we want to go. Luna can also hold minerals, to send back to Terra, and has abundant supplies of H1, basically pure Hydrogen, for the Ion Engine, how very convenient.

The problem is you consider that life on Mars or on another planet is possible. I don't think so. Space exploration can only bring knowledge which allows us to improve our life on earth. For me, the rest is Sci-fi...

You know, I don't like this kind of stories because I don't want people strongly believe we can do whatever on earth because we will colonize another planet later...

 

[NeCoHo]

I'm not saying we can do whatever we want to on Earth, we're just running out of room, and need to go somewhere else.

 

[Deweyrules!]

I personally would disagree with the need to colonise 'space' (I'm unsure of the Latin turn of phrase that you so love J. ) I think there are so many other more viable options on Earth (terra) before we need to extend our, I supose it would be our internation(?) outside the confines of Earth (terra). The financial implications of such movements would be phenomenal, development of and ecosystem and atmosphere for our species. I suppose in many ways, I am a Malthusian (also could be described as ignorant by critics), the population and resources will adjust to meed our needs. If population exceeds resources people will die (harking back to Darwin's survival of the fitest- POINT OF INTEREST- NOT ACTUALLY HIS ORIGINAL WORDS, BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION ) This has been shown in Africa and the development of GM food has enhanced our ability to grow larger quantities of food resources.

When people make conscious efforts to try and create this balance, previous examples have demonstrated the detrement they can in fact have. For example, China's infamous One Child Policy, whereby a family could only give birth to one child in order to limit the population. This led to mass infanticide, as people killed unwanted children. Furthermore, as many families wanted an heir, there is now a great inbalance between the female and male population, which in a couple of decades time will be of great damage to China (if the communist regime doesn't do it first)

 

[NeCoHo]

We have the technology, the governments of the world are just hiding it, Do you REALLY think the Space Shuttle has been America's only way to put peolpe into space since the 70's? Soyuz is even older, but it's Russia, and their economy isn't doing too well lately...

Is it really true that we, as humans, don't adapt and change? you can't argue with that, and you can't doubt that our technology changes with us, otherwise we would still be in caves, pondering over the wheel. So, the World's premire space organizations, NASA and ESA, are just building, at a snail's pace, what should have been completed last year, the ISS? Cape Caneveral isn't the only US launch site, Vandenburg AFB in California can also launch sattilites and other equipment.

My brain just froze, so I'll stop now.

 

[Deweyrules!]

The adaptations that would be required to live in an ENTIRELY different ecosystem would be immense. The adaptations to the current homo sapien dominant species has taken millions of years, and of course it does beg the question if we are able to survive why wasn't there life there before us. Technology can only aid us so far, the reliance the world has on technology (particuarly the silicon chip) is worrying, imagine the reliance if humans were to live on the moon or Mars.

I just think we should look for the solutions closer to home first.

 

[NeCoHo]

The astronauts that go into space have to come down in under a certain amount of months(at least a year) months, otherwise, they can't because of the effects of weightlessness. They exercise because they aren't at a level of 1.0, but 0 gravity. If they didn't exercise, their legs wouldn't be able to adjust to space, doesn't this prove that a human can adapt to another gravity environment? they just adjust to the new gravity level, and they are fine, in theory.

 

[Deweyrules!]

J. technically that's not an adaptation in the biological sense, whereby a species is able to evolve to live with ease within its surroundings. This is merely a way of getting around a problem, and would be of incovienience to many. Basically, the less abled, the fat and young children couldn't live there with this adaptation. Furthermore, surely the difference in gravity isnt necessarily the biggest of problems posing our species in space (although I imagine the self obsessed celebrity women of society would have trouble keeping a check on their weight) the atmospheric conditions, the production of energy, the presence of vital nutritional resources etc.

Just to clarify, I think we're all aware now that our responses aren't an attack on the previous poster, just your own oppion- don't want to seem like I think what you're saying is wrong or anything- really enjoy these discussions, interesting to get differing oppions

N.B. My comment about the fat was flippant and insensitive, but I'm gonna leave it anyway

 

[NeCoHo]

I don't care about the fat comment, Sam might though. If he reads this.

It's no agrument, just comment and rebuttal, a friendly debate.


Roger MacBridge Allen (Chronicals of Solace) has really good answers to all space-living problems in his trilogy, Celebrities would jst say: I'm 92lbs EG(Earth Gravity) although, they could just as easily say "I'm anorexic" and get the point across.

Calcium pills can, given time to advance, help aleaveiate the problem, but their will never be the same as just slowing down or speeding up the planet to Earth's, spinnig spacecraft give you Artifical Gravity, and it's easy, just mount a few side facing rockets to the crafdt and ignite.

 

[yardgames]

I read the first sentence or two but I think you both are so messed up in your assessments that I don't care to try and post a proper answer. In the meantime, if a comment is rude and inappropriate remove it, because if I happen to find it in the future I promise that there will be harsh, harsh consequences. (J--you are a moderator; I hope you have the sense to care of these types of issues lest you suddenly lose your modding abilities.)

 

[Deweyrules!]

The comment wasn't necessarily rude or offenisve, just blatant.

I read the first sentence or two but I think you both are so messed up in your assessments that I don't care to try and post a proper answer

Evidently Yardgames, your knowledge and intellect are so superior to our humble minds that we couldn't truly comprhend any thoughts you had to add, I am humbled

@J. I stand by my earlier point, the amount of effort and change this would require and the apparant relatively low standard of living for one in space almost nulls the suggestion. I am truly Malthusian (I've decided having discussed this) call me ignorant if you must, but I think ultimatley our resources will meet our population; if not our population will be forced to meet resources.

Shall we start a new topic for 'political' (use the term loosley) discussion and rebuttle (a word we don't use in England- probably because it makes people giggle- rebuttle-hahah)

 

[yardgames]

Your reasoning is precisely accurate.

 

[Deweyrules!]

We're not going down the irony path again are we, this caused trouble last time yardgames, lets not be silly

 

[NeCoHo]

yes, please, it almost closed the thread down.

you suggest a topic, I feel like debating one of your opinions.

 

[Deweyrules!]

Your chance to 'rebuttle', the only problem we have, is the fact we're on different continents, therefore knowledge of different systems and ideas may differ. So, I was initially thinking of discussing the utility and extent of soverignty of the European Union. Then I thought perhaps discuss perceptions of the British monarchy and whether it is an anacronistic instution. Or alternatively whether global warming is actually happening.

Take your pic

 

[NeCoHo]

ahh.. global warming, if you please.

 

[Deweyrules!]

Basically, my view, (although I do believe it is essential to reduce the level of harmful emmissions, such as CO2 into the atmosphere) is that global warming isn't necessarily occuring. Of course, it's evident the earth's temperatures are increasing, but the explanation linking it soley to human interferance is not solely responsible.

We are currently on the upward limb of climatic variation, if one looks back to previous climatic periods, to the pleistocene for example, it can be noted that the global temperature fluctuates over a period of millions of years. Hence the series of ice ages the earth has experienced. If you look to the past glacial periods and those periods of higher temperatures you will notice we are currently in an inter-glacial period, whereby the temperatures increase and reach a peak, before then falling once again. The increasing temperature of the earth could easily explained by this peak temperture that we are reaching.

Of course, it would be niave to believe this were the only explanation, I do feel that the increased thickness of the atmosphere and consequent enhanced temperatures has accelerated this process. There are a variety of other similar theories. But what do you guys think?

 

[Wildcat]

We are currently on the upward limb of climatic variation, if one looks back to previous climatic periods, to the pleistocene for example, it can be noted that the global temperature fluctuates over a period of millions of years. Hence the series of ice ages the earth has experienced. If you look to the past glacial periods and those periods of higher temperatures you will notice we are currently in an inter-glacial period, whereby the temperatures increase and reach a peak, before then falling once again. The increasing temperature of the earth could easily explained by this peak temperture that we are reaching.

I agree. Everything that's happening now has been happening for millions of years. We are simply in a warming trend. The atmosphere wiill regulate its self eventually and earth will likely experience another ice age if the pattern continues. I do believe that the rate the warming trend has occured can be contributed to humans with our factories/cars/deforestation. All that has caused it to happen faster than it normally would, but it still likely would have happened anyway.

 

[NeCoHo]

I agree wih the whole climate variation theroy, but we had cars since the 1900's, factories sinnce the 1880's, and forests ae being cut diown with a ferocity only I could show given an attempt to defend the point that Marching Band is a sport.

Let's say in general it's been 110 years for all these CO2 creating hazards(minus the cutting down of trees), don't you think we'd be having Katrina like Hurricans since 1950?

That's all I feel like writing today, my attentions are drawn to something... bigger...

 

[Deweyrules!]

Of course there would be a lag time before the pollution effects the environment (I'm playing Devil's advocate, because for the first time we all appear to agree) therefore it could be true to say that since the industrial revolution in Europe conditions have worsened if we allow that lag time. The effects are certainly occurring at an accelerated rate, particuarly when you look at the extended and more intense hurricane seasons in recent years.

 

[Wildcat]

Let's say in general it's been 110 years for all these CO2 creating hazards(minus the cutting down of trees), don't you think we'd be having Katrina like Hurricans since 1950?

Actually, deforestation is a CO2 creating hazard because Trees consume CO2 for photosynthsis and in turn, produce oxygen. Less trees mean less CO2 is being consumed, which leaves more of it in the atmosphere.

We've also had hurricanes like Katrina for hundreds of years (I'm sure longer, but the records don't go back that far.) The deadlist hurricane on record was actually in 1780 and it hit the lesser Antilles. Also, to name a few of many, there's the Galveston Hurricane (Cat 4) in 1900, the Florida Keys Hurricane in 1935 (Cat 5), Hurricane Hazel (Cat 4) in 1954, Hurricane Donna (Cat 4) in 1960, Hurricane Camille (Cat 5) in 1969, and more recently Andrew (Cat 5), Hugo (Cat 4) and Mitch (Cat 4)--all more intense hurricanes than Katrina.

The bad thing about Katrina was simply the fact that it hit New Orleans and surrounding areas-- majorly populated areas. New Orleans still would have been screwed even if it was a smaller scale hurricane because it is actually below sea level. It's like dumping water into a huge bowl--it has nowhere to go. And the worst effect cause by Katrina--the flooding--was largely due to human error in not repairing the leevees properly before something catastrophic happened. They predicted that something like Katrina was going to happen years ago. Turned out they were right. The following article was written in 2002--four years before Katrina happened. It couldn't be more on target for what actually took place.

http://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/april30_ny_times.htm

If Katrina had hit a less populated area, it would have been bad, but nothing like what we saw. Which leads me to my next point--why do people continue to build cities in hazadous areas?? They know the risks, but they continue to build and rebuilt in places that are high risk for natural disasters. I'm not saying that no one should live on the coast because there's a risk of hurricanes or that people shouldn't live in the midwest because there's tornadoes. But some areas are higher risk than others--like in the case of New Orleans there's double the risk because it's prone to hurricanes AND below sea level. Where I live, people build million dollar homes right on the ocean front--I mean literally 20 feet from the water--then they want to cry when a storm comes and washes them away. It's terrible and all, but what do they expect? Just like two of the largest cities in the US--Los Angelos and San Fransico--are sitting right on top of the largest fault line in the US.

Ok, back to the hurricanes now , I'm not sure that we can blame the intensity of hurricanes on the warming trend. The number of hurricanes, however, has been increasing in recent years, but many experts believe that there's a cycle based on the effects of el nino and la nina (which I really don't feel like going into ) The last few years we've seen a lot of hurricanes, but in the late 90's we were stuck in an el nino period and we barely had any. Everything's a cycle. In a few years the hurricane seasons will likely return to normal, or even below normal.