If you lived your whole life aboard a space station or asteroid base you would feel very differently.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2857/fv01032.png

Those monsters were all of political making. Rome fell because it couldn't pay enough to keep it's borders safe. It made too many enemies. Land and resources were not the problem; it had plenty of both. In fact, it had too much land to care for.

Plagues? They have happened. Humanity has endured. In fact, science did not save humanity from the Plague of Justinian, nor from the Black Death. Science did not put an end to the climate crisis of the 8th and 9th centuries, nor did it save us from the Little Ice Age of the 14th century. That is not to say that modern medical and agricultural sciences would not have saved a lot of lives; they most certainly would have. It is only to say that mankind endured through the blights even in the absence of science.

The example of the Eastern Empire is also a poor one. It was not Byzantium that pulled the West from the Dark Ages. Rather, it was the inevitable gathering of strength of a few individuals. The lineage starting with Charles 'The Hammer' Martel had brought enough local strongmen under their banners that relative security permitted learning to emerge from exile in the western monastaries, not from the East. In fact, Justinian's renovatio imperii was only temporarily successful, and in very limited scope at best. It also represented the zenith of the East and a beginning of the slow and agonizing death of Byzantium. While the West's collapse was relatively quick and catastrophic, the East languished for hundreds of years before uttering a pathetic last gasp. In any case, saying that the East revitalized the West is completely inaccurate.

Ultimately, this idea that we must go to the Moon or Mars, or some other space destination is completely based on the belief that transplanting man will solve mankind's problems. This will never be the case. Man will take his politics and his lust for power with him. The Cult of Science seems to think that we can all board spaceships and live out some sort of ridiculous Star Trek fantasy. That all may be well and good, but we don't have the money for it, and I grow weary of being told that I have to fork up this money or face extinction. It is simply not true.

First high resolution panorama:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6...ortal_full.jpg
(10 000px × 5 904px)

:salute:

This money? You pay more in tax to blow up people than you do to put anything into space.
The Byzantine comparison was a poor one, I agree, but one of the few I could think of, however I didn't say that the East revitalised the west, but that the knowledge was retained. It didn't stop the inevitable, and moving into space may not stop the decline of mankind, but honestly, do you want to risk it?
We have survived countless disasters and catastrophes to get here, and I'm sure if an asteroid hits then we will survive in some form or other, or perhaps we won't, but the point is that all the progress we have made at this moment will be put back by several generations, perhaps longer.
We are a flawed race, and if we go into space we will take our flaws with us, I'm not of the type to believe that we will live some sort of Star Trek fantasy out there, of course not, if anything we will probably be more like the Empire from Star Wars, conquering anything and everything we find...but at some point we will come across something or someone tougher than us, and that will force us to re-evaluate the way we consider ourselves and our behaviour.

But honestly, Tak, would you rather put your eggs all into one basket?

Nice link Dowly, thank you :D

Magnificent desolation indeed.

We can't afford that either. In fact, I have been a very vocal opponent of the MIC.

It is true that you did not say it, but your entire argument hinges on it. You depicted Byzantium as a sort of safety deposit box for man's scientific, cultural and artistic treasures. It wasn't, and neither would be Mars. It would be prone to exactly the same problems that we have here on Earth.

Those are the scare tactics that I am talking about. They aren't even new ones.

Plagues have happened. We have seen the Wrath of God poured out in His judgement. People of [insert village name here] -- heed my warning. Get your butts into the pews and your money into the collection plate. By doing this you may remain in the Lord's grace. Otherwise, you risk it all.

This sort of message was proclaimed all across Europe during the Dark Ages. It is the same message we get now and, even with our greater understanding of facts, does not render the stance less disingenuous.

Anyway, I think I need to stop crapping up this thread.

No, you're not crapping up this thread Tak, it's good to get points of view from both sides of the carpet, and I respect your point of view, as I do that of Skybird, I may not agree with them, but I do respect them and your right to have them. :salute:

I can see your point about the 'message', and you're completely right about my flawed Byzantine comparison, I have been reluctant to make the comparison before now, and I really should have listened to my inner voice which told me not to. :haha: Still, let's roll that up and throw it in the recycle bin.
The thing is, Tak, we're going to have to get off this planet at some point, not for another million billion, some stupid number of years if we're really reluctant, but at some point it will happen if we are still around to see it, we will leave this planet in some shape or form before it is absorbed by the Sun. It might even have to happen before then, the universe is full of dangers, as Skybird correctly said. Perhaps that's scare-mongering, perhaps it's just cold hard facts. But to be honest, this planet isn't likely to go anywhere any time soon. So yes, we could sit back and rest on our laurels, focus on the problems at home, and I would be more than happy for us to do that before we stepped out into the cosmos, heaven knows it would probably be better for the universe at large if we grew up a little before we went out into it, but I fear that time is against us.

Besides, why should we stop? Why should we not settle the Moon or Mars? If it's within our power to do it, why should we not do it? Take that risk, make that gamble. What we might discover by accident may be far more beneficial than anything we can think of. Colombus comes to mind...but given my skill at making comparisons, I'll just let that one slide... :03:

From Stanislaw Lem, SOLARIS:

We are only seeking Man. We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds. A single world, our own, suffices us; but we can't accept it for what it is. We are seaching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, of a civilisation superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past. At the same time, there is something inside us which we don't like to face up to, from which we try to protect ourselves, but which nevertheless remains, since we don't leave Earth in a state of primal innocence. We arrive here as we are in reality, and when the page is turned and that reality is revealed to us — that part of our reality which we would prefer to pass over in silence — then we don't like it any more.

Economics have this lunatic idea of that there can be unlimited growth. Capitalism has this lunatic idea of that there is unlimited supply of natural ressources. And some people think, there will be unlimited spreading of man to the stars.

I do not rule that out. But I am extremely sceptical that it will happen, or that in his current state this is desirable or doable for man. We will only project our Earthly problems to other "colonies" or stars. That it will be done in scale and size sufficient to make a feelable difference for Earth and human population here, is highly questionable.

To be honest, I believe that if we do have a colony on Mars, it will one day seek independence from Earth, just as the US did from the UK back in the day. There may even be a violent falling out about it, but whatever grows up on Mars, whatever culture or society comes from colonies, it will have one thing in common, it will not be like that of Earth. It may share some similarities, basic speech, same biological inhabitants, but in time it will become its own separate entity from us. This will be particularly true if transport between Earth and Mars takes a long time to do. History has taught us that colonies make their own cultures.

Will that change basic human flaws? No, absolutely not. I don't think anything much less than an act of God would do such a thing. Will we expand out infinitely into the stars? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps our offshoots will have offshoots of their own. Perhaps we will run into a brick wall somewhere and come back with a bloody nose. Or not come back at all.

I would just feel a lot happier if there were other humans out there, with our knowledge, our history on them, on different planets, so that it would take more than the loss of one planet to end us. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, I'll be ready to shuffle off my mortal coil before we start realising that we're running out of resources, and most people on this forum will already be dead. Their children...well, time will tell what kind of a world they grow up on.

I think you're right about viable colonies quickly going independent Oberon. Self sufficiency would be a prerequisite though and that won't happen for a long time after these colonies are established.

Although resource wealth of off world colonies could very well lead to independence. If the United Colonies of Europa own the most concentrated supply of He3 they can basically call their own shots unless Earth wants to sit in the dark when their Fusion reactors run dry, and of course the Free Haven of 4 Vesta can live high on the hog as they can enact "tariffs" on passing He3 Tanker Ships as they wish since they have Earth's main energy route by the nads. While the People's Combine of Mare Crisium maintains their independence courtesy of food shipments insured by the PCMC's batteries of mass drivers.

There are many countries on Earth who are independent but not self sufficient for one reason or another, space won't be different once we find the resources that are up there and start mass producing the means to go.

I don't know if that's a valid comparison TLAM. The longest voyage on earth is nothing compared to a voyage to nearby planets, let alone other solar systems. If I were on that very long and tenuous lifeline i'd be doing everything I could to be as self sufficient as possible.

Well that depends very much on the engines available. Right now all we got are dinky toys. We start building some Orions or Gas Core Reactor Rockets then we start getting in to travel times of a few weeks to the outer planets.

The speeds are doable with future engines, but are they realistic?

First off, the 6 month travel time we have now only occurs every 24 months when the planets are lined up right. The few weeks travel time would have to occur in that same window, else the travel grows hugely. A immediate rescue mission, for example, may take 6 months, or they may have to wait 6 months just to get there at the same time.

Secondly, can the human body take the g forces associated with such a trip? A high speed trip like this would be 2 weeks of acceleration, then flip the ship over, and decelerate for 2 weeks. Can humans tolerate these forces? Cargo ships, most likely. But I don't know about humans.