Er, just pointing out, the 1% is not all "super rich". Not all 311,592 of them. Of course, there are super rich people in the 1%, but in order to be considered a 1%-er, statistically speaking, you "only" have to make about 3-400k a year.
Of course, this just serves to underline the income gap in the US when it's not the top 1% that's the ultra-rich, it's the top
You know this is a joke?
Well, humanity's already sent people to the moon, visited every planet in the solar system, some several times, and several non-planetary bodies.
Technologically speaking, humans have had spaceflight capability since before the dawn of the nuclear age- the first man-made object to leave earth under its own power did so in 1942. So yeah, it is pretty easily accessible. I mean, I understand the sentiment... in about 1920. But when humanity's already been and are continuing to go, your continued denial makes very little sense.
But my original point, yeah there's a little more than nothing in space because, by definition, everything is in space.
After all, according to Agenda 21, in order to create a sustainable world on this planet we'll have to shed about 97% of our population by the end of this century.
Seriously? Use your brain. We've had a population higher than that since before the Roman Empire.
It will still be an enormous, inimical, utterly hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it.
You know, among other things (for instance, the entire universe), Earth is in space?
Then of course there's the vast mineral wealth of the asteroid belt, potential gaseous resources in the outer planets, the technologically habitable Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Luna, Mercury, probably countless moons of the gas giants, the bodies of the Kuiper Belt, the Oort cloud, and beyond.
You do realize that population growth naturally levels off as standard of living rises, rendering that a solution to a nonexistent problem in a civilization advanced enough to remove significant portions of its population through spaceflight? I'd guess not.
Why? Mars has nothing at all to gain or lose- it's just a planet. Most likely a lifeless planet. How could we possibly fuck it up beyond that? You can't kill something that's already dead.
I'd guess he doesn't. Neither do half the people on slashdot, for that matter.
You didn't see it coming? I thought this place was news for nerds?
Not really. Considering that the Martian atmosphere is something like 0.5% of the thickness of earth's, while the gravity is only lower by a little over 60%, it would take so much energy that it's really not possible with our current energy budget for spacecraft.
However, blimps or even zeppelins would be damn near ideal because of low gravity. Simpler and cheaper, too.
Of course, you could mean that technology will push the price of fixing hunger so low that a relative minority of charitable individuals could solve it, which I would find believable.
That is indeed what I mean.
By the time we have the technology to extend a human life past 150, I don't think feeding the planet's going to be a major issue. Of course, it shouldn't be a major issue now, but that's another topic entirely.
Greenpeace. I might have known.
A wise man said that the only way to save the Amazon jungle is to spread nuclear waste all over it. I say he was right.
Considering how comparatively well the environment is doing near Chernobyl, I'm inclined to agree.
There are people that oppose ITER? I have never heard this before.
inventor of the geosynchronous satellite
Actually, that was Arthur Clarke.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
