No, we blame ourselves for not taking to the streets.We have a list of grievances far worse than those found in the Declaration of Independence. By failing to do anything about them, we have surrendered.

I just lack the faith in humanity required to believe it's a more likely circumstance than a military takeover.

I lack the faith in humanity required to believe that a military takeover or other armed rebellion would improve the situation at all.

I held my nose and voted for Obama.

Then you share in the blame.

What was my option here?

Anything other than D or R. ANYTHING.

You think whichever boob we put in office isn't going to have these policies?

Exactly, so why do you participate in the charade? The only vote that matters is a protest vote.

So I don't think anyone is "OK" with this

And yet you vote for policys you are not OK with. YOU are the idiot.

You can call him Sir Alan Turing right now if you want.

The likelihood of saying the same or worse is pretty low for most normal people.

False. Her comment made light of a terrible situation, to be sure. But importantly, it did not advocate for any bad things to happen to anyone. Have most normal people done worse? Yes.

Most people supported the Iraq war. Most people support the War on Drug Users. Most people support "enhanced interrogation", aka torture. You can turn on Fox News any day of the week, and find people saying things far worse than what Sacco said. Why are they worse? Because they are seriously trying to implement policies that harm people. Get some perspective.

The reason why a manned space program is important is, in the end, to avoid the Great Filter

You assume that there is some inherent value to avoiding the great filter.

It's not a philosophical question. It's a practical question about the economics of space travel. Whatever philosophical warm fuzzies you get thinking about space travel mean nothing to investors. When you say that there is no objective value, you're right. When you say that that doesn't matter to anyone, you're wrong. It means a lot more than any sentimental value. That's the real world.

I'm with you really. I think it would be a great thing to start working on moon bases and multi-generational space craft today. It would also be great to stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and stop breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria just so fat people can eat meat every day. But "great" doesn't pay the bills.

The value in living on it is the extension of the human race's lifespan beyond that of its current host planet

What value does that have to those of us remaining on Earth who would be funding such a mission?

If anything evolution ***proves*** we need to go to space.

"Need" implies some sort of value judgement. Evolution is a natural process. Don't anthropomorphize it.

I agree that if we want the species to continue, we will have to find other rocks to live on. But I don't think the answer to that "if" is necessarily "yes". No individual human necessarily has any interest in the survival of the species beyond his own lifespan. I don't think you're going to see investors making investments that will only pay off to future generations.

No, I just answered his question factually. The reasons humans evolved on Earth are entirely unrelated to the reasons we might want to put humans in space. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Humans are in space because there's cool stuff there.

What are the humans going to do with the "cool stuff" that requires their physical presence? What value does the "cool stuff" have to those who would fund such a mission?

Because the Earth has liquid water, and enough complex organics to start the process of evolution.

Propel vehicles from where to where for what purpose? Why are there humans in space to be kept alive?

You're begging the question. All those materials you mine in space would be used for what? Building mining equipment in space?

I can't really think of a time when I wouldn't want to be naked in front of my PC.