Feed all the starving babies or send a man to Mars ?

bluecode

As someone said earlier. It's a false dilemma. No one says 'Stealth bombers or Mars' as he succintly put it.

Feed the babies by all means. Or at least attempt to even though it's probably as pointless as going to Mars. Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

All this space stuff is pie in the sky (space). We've all been exposed to the sci fi stuff. Star Wars, Star Trek etc. But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there. There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system. Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere. But think about it. It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Sea Filly

bluecode wrote: »

You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

Thank you! Why do people forget this? Even going to the Moon proved too expensive and that wasn't even deep space.

Secondly, even if it wasn't too expensive, you have to be, well, not a dumbass to go into space. So we will never go en masse.

+1 to the rest of your post too.

IvySlayer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oddly enough the energy needed to get to Mars isn't a lot more than getting to the moon. Getting back is a tad trickier though.

Why's this? Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, could easily convert into methane! Fuel supply. Methane can also be seperated into oxygen and hydrogen, there's the water and air supply!

BillyMitchel

Rabidlamb wrote: »

If you overpopulate an area

Who over populated?? God? Allah? I think a lot of the African people didn't have a choice in that one.

Diapason

Sea Filly wrote: »

Secondly, even if it wasn't too expensive, you have to be, well, not a dumbass to go into space.

Currently yes, but I'm sure the same was true in the early days of powered flight. Now we have Ryanair.

Sea Filly wrote: »

So we will never go en masse.

In our lifetimes probably not, but NEVER is a bit of a stretch.

Helix

sending people to mars is more important than saving even a considerable number of lives of starving kids, unfortunately

interplanetary travel may be the most important thing to the survival of the human species, saving some third world kids is not

ScumLord

bluecode wrote: »

A
But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

There is a bottomless pit of money in the form of raw materials in space. There's asteroids made out of diamonds, gold and even water just floating around up there. Going into space would destroy our bonkers economic system because everything that's rare and controlled by the few down here would become abundant and available to just about anyone up there. There's also the likes of helium 3 that could solve our energy needs permanently.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

In a sense we are going to these places we're just doing proper preparatory work first by sending drones to scout the locations first. we learned a lot from going to the moon and it takes time to make proper use of that data.

But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there.

That Sci-fi has inspired scientists to make much of star trek a reality. Just about every thing in star trek has gone through initial testing, transporters have been tested and work. the major thing holding us back is a power source.

There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system.

It's not a fantasy, we're actually doing it now. I think we can easily spread throughout this solar system, traveling to another star will take a lot longer but it will happen.

Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere.

I don't think we will mine planets once we get into space, everything we need is floating around the asteroid belt.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Our problem is earth is finite and we will outgrow this planet, our only hope is to spread into space. Ultimately it's the only hope for life on this planet because if we leave we'll more than likely take a lot of life with us.

Cú Giobach

bluecode wrote: »

As someone said earlier. It's a false dilemma. No one says 'Stealth bombers or Mars' as he succintly put it.

Feed the babies by all means. Or at least attempt to even though it's probably as pointless as going to Mars. Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige. You'd need a bottomless pit of money anyway which doesn't exist.

We haven't even gone back to the moon in forty years and that was relatively easy by comparison.

All this space stuff is pie in the sky (space). We've all been exposed to the sci fi stuff. Star Wars, Star Trek etc. But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there. There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system. Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere. But think about it. It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Since one of our defining characteristics as a species is our curiosity, you might as well ask people to stop breathing.
You have 2 choices, accept it or hate it, but you will never change it.

Sea Filly

Diapason wrote: »

In our lifetimes probably not, but NEVER is a bit of a stretch.

I genuinely believe this.

Sea Filly

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not a fantasy, we're actually doing it now. I think we can easily spread throughout this solar system, traveling to another star will take a lot longer but it will happen.

It would take 9 years to reach the edge of our own solar system, never mind another star.

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

I genuinely believe this.

Lots of people believe lots of things, that doesn't make them true though.

CruelCoin

Mars, hands down.

Feed the starving babies, and they will grow up to spawn 8 more starving babies each.......

Harsh, but a trip to mars is better than that.

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Lots of people believe lots of things, that doesn't make them true though.

A trite sentiment.

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

A trite sentiment.

OK then, why should the limitations of today's technology have any bearing on what we can do in the future??

150 years ago it took 6 weeks to cross the Atlantic, today it takes a few hours.
We have been improving our tools and technology for thousands of years, things that were in the realms of fantasy 200 years ago are quite mundane now, why do you think we will not continue with this progress??
Your "belief" doesn't seem to have much basis.

Duggy747

It only took 66 years from the Wright Bros. to landing on the moon.

An incredible feat in such a relatively miniscule space of time compared to our race's existence.

A Mars landing will happen eventually, money allocation and red tape from governments will be the biggest factors in delays but technology will not be the one that stops us from achieving it.

holystungun9

The Hunger Games........in Space!

bbam

smash wrote: »

But most of the planet's surface isn't even populated! We just need to manage and grow more resources.

Its no coincidence that starvation follows famine in African countries.. their governments are largely corrupt and leave their population to fend for themselves.. If we poured in huge volumes of aid I'd expect it will be skimmed off by the corrupt governments...
Its a hard call to just stand by and see nothing done, equally we cant just go in and over throw government after government to right the problem... I mean, its not like they have oil... then we could do something for them

Joey the lips

Men are from mars.... Women like penis...

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

OK then, why should the limitations of today's technology have any bearing on what we can do in the future??

150 years ago it took 6 weeks to cross the Atlantic, today it takes a few hours.
We have been improving our technology for thousands of years, things that were in the realms of fantasy 200 years ago are quite mundane now, why do you think we will not continue with this progress??
Your "belief" doesn't seem to have much basis.

Well, whether we think it will happen or not, all of us have a belief in our stance.

We know inventions and technologies have been developed over the years. How many millions of inventions and ideas have gone pear-shaped over the years? We don't know because we never hear about them, we only hear about the ones that work.

The reason I believe this won't happen is because going of into space is a whole different kettle of fish. We are not dealing with earthly atmospheres that the human body evolved to cope with. A small amount of people have travelled into space, after huge amounts of training and an apititude for the subject matter behind it all. The space within the crafts for human are cramped. How will this ever accommodate large amounts of people? The distances to be travelled. I don't think a lot of people apprecriate how far it is. You would spend literally years in space to get to the end of the solar system. Then there's the cost. These are just a few of my thoughts and reasons. I don't know if I'm right or wrong. I'm not a physicist or mathemathician so I know I have a paucity of understanding on the topic, but I would wager most people in this thread too. I know I'll be called a naysayers and people will cite the naysayers who rubbished things we use today. But again, how many things were the naysayers actually right about?

Cú Giobach

bbam wrote: »

I mean, its not like they have oil... then we could do something for them

Who knows maybe as new technologies are developed Africa could be the new "energy source" for the world, then the yanks could free the living shit out of them.

ScumLord

Sea Filly wrote: »

It would take 9 years to reach the edge of our own solar system, never mind another star.

Perhaps at todays pretty slow speeds. I don't see much of a reason to go out there though. I think we'll be spending most of our time in the resource rich areas like the asteroid belt. Studying mars and the other planets for signs of life. Our main reason for visiting the edge of the solar system in the beginning would be to set up telescopes and other observation equipment to get a better look at what's out there before we make a trip to another star.

busterkeaton

Wibbs wrote: »

Mars. Sooner or later we'll need to leave earth if we're to survive as a species. Better sooner.

Going to Mars isn't going to make us any safer.

ScumLord

Sea Filly wrote: »

The reason I believe this won't happen is because going of into space is a whole different kettle of fish. We are not dealing with earthly atmospheres that the human body evolved to cope with.

We didn't evolve to live in cities either, or fly, or spend months at sea. We make it work and get better at making it work.

A small amount of people have travelled into space, after huge amounts of training and an apititude for the subject matter behind it all. The space within the crafts for human are cramped. How will this ever accommodate large amounts of people?

Build bigger ships, if we can move manufacturing into space (which companies would like to do) we have no limit on the size of ship we can build.

The distances to be travelled. I don't think a lot of people apprecriate how far it is.

We don't actually need to go anywhere though, we have experience with building self contained cities. Once people have a place to live and work what's the difference between living in orbit and living in any of earth's cities?

Then there's the cost.

The cost is only an issue because of our economy. We have a pointless meandering economy at the moment. If that where to change space would simply be a challenge.

Oranage2

If we got rid of money we could do both.

Diapason

Given that arguing this point is completely futile, I'm going to go ahead and argue anyway!

Sea Filly wrote: »

We know inventions and technologies have been developed over the years. How many millions of inventions and ideas have gone pear-shaped over the years? We don't know because we never hear about them, we only hear about the ones that work.

I don't understand your point here. Lots of inventions don't work, totally agreed. But that's the nature of science and development. You learn from the stuff that doesn't work to build stuff that does. It's an ongoing process.

Sea Filly wrote: »

The reason I believe this won't happen is because going of into space is a whole different kettle of fish. We are not dealing with earthly atmospheres that the human body evolved to cope with.

The same is true at 35,000 feet, but lots of people have been there. This would have been unfathomable 100 years ago.

Sea Filly wrote: »

A small amount of people have travelled into space, after huge amounts of training and an apititude for the subject matter behind it all.

Of course, we're only at the very early stages of space exploration, so the door is only open for experts. This is true of nearly any technology at the early stages. You're working a computer now because over the years it's been developed and simplified so that you don't have to be an expert. It takes time for new technologies to go from enthusiast to consumer, but it's a well-worn path at this stage. We're already nearly at the space tourism stage.

Sea Filly wrote: »

The space within the crafts for human are cramped. How will this ever accommodate large amounts of people?

Well, we could possibly make them bigger. Such craft don't need to take off from earth, they could be built in space and people could be ferried to it on smaller craft. I'm not saying that's how it will happen, but there are ways.

Sea Filly wrote: »

The distances to be travelled. I don't think a lot of people apprecriate how far it is. You would spend literally years in space to get to the end of the solar system.

A valid point as things stand. I accept it will require a huge amount of energy to generate the speeds required, but Mars is a lot closer than the edge of the solar system. Intergalactic travel is obviously a whole different ballgame, but we're not talking about that here.

Sea Filly wrote: »

Then there's the cost.

Again, air travel was ridiculously expensive when it started out, but things get more efficient as technology moves on, etc. etc. Again, we're talking about the far future here, where power sources such as nuclear fusion may have been perfected.

Sea Filly wrote: »

I'm not a physicist or mathemathician so I know I have a paucity of understanding on the topic, but I would wager most people in this thread too.

Actually I've a degree in Theoretical Physics but it's not really relevant here. All that's required is to recognise that it's really hard to think outside our current time and current experience, but that if you look at the pace of advancement so far it's really pretty incredible. Even if that pace slows drastically, as long as it doesn't stop altogether then difficult things become more possible. I don't think humans will stop advancing any time soon.

ETA: Dammit, I'm too slow!

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

Well, whether we think it will happen or not, all of us have a belief in our stance.

We know inventions and technologies have been developed over the years. How many millions of inventions and ideas have gone pear-shaped over the years? We don't know because we never hear about them, we only hear about the ones that work.

Yea, that is how progress works.

The reason I believe this won't happen is because going of into space is a whole different kettle of fish. We are not dealing with earthly atmospheres that the human body evolved to cope with. A small amount of people have travelled into space, after huge amounts of training and an apititude for the subject matter behind it all. The space within the crafts for human are cramped. How will this ever accommodate large amounts of people? The distances to be travelled. I don't think a lot of people apprecriate how far it is. You would spend literally years in space to get to the end of the solar system. Then there's the cost. These are just a few of my thoughts and reasons. I don't know if I'm right or wrong. I'm not a physicist or mathemathician so I know I have a paucity of understanding on the topic, but I would wager most people in this thread too. I know I'll be called a naysayers and people will cite the naysayers who rubbished things we use today. But again, how many things were the naysayers actually right about?

35,000 ft above the surface of the Earth is an inhospitable deadly environment yet it is routine even mundane travelling through it today.
The Antarctic at the very Pole is inhabited 365 days a year now, in comfort.
Space tourism is very near, maybe with this bunch maybe another, but it is coming.

Many of your points above are again based on today's tech (cramped craft, speed etc) so not relevant.
Most people interested in space travel are well aware of the distances but imagining it will never be possible would be like looking at a rowing boat and saying we will never cross the Atlantic.

Even the most cursory look at history should give an idea of what we can achieve in the future, and if moore's law continues to hold true, computers will increase our abilities beyond anything we can even begin to imagine today.

Sorry but I am too interested in science (space in particular) and history to accept a definitive never relating to what we could achieve in the future, though I also think there is a possibility flint knapping could be an important technology for our species, again.

guitarzero

Yeah, feed all the starving children Mars bars, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

up for anything

DarkJager wrote: »

Actually I've a degree in Theoretical Physics

ETA: Dammit, I'm too slow!

Much good your degree in Theoretical Physics does you when you can't figure out how to post faster than the speed of light.

Sea Filly

Diapason wrote: »

I don't understand your point here. Lots of inventions don't work, totally agreed. But that's the nature of science and development. You learn from the stuff that doesn't work to build stuff that does. It's an ongoing process.

The reason I brought this up is because anytime you say something won't work, people always trot out smugly "Yeah, well they said X and Y wouldn't work either".

Cú Giobach

Sea Filly wrote: »

The reason I brought this up is because anytime you say something won't work, people always trot out smugly "Yeah, well they said X and Y wouldn't work either".

The only way to know whether we can do something is to try, that is why we are where we are today, if we never tried things then you and me would today be trying to avoid being eaten on the plains of Africa.

Wibbs

bluecode wrote: »

Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

I could see the day when starvation in humans is a very rare thing. It's not even hard to do. The will is the problem.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point.

There is a point when it comes to the survival and advancement of our species. In microcosm island creatures are very vulnerable to extinction events. Island goes bye bye and so do they. Move some of them to another island and you've just upped their chances of survival by a significant factor. On top of that it could happen that in thousands of years time(if not much less) the first "human" to view a world around another star might be a Martian. Colonies are good that way. You mention the moon landings. Well Neil spoke the first words on another world in English. Not because the English had a space programme, but because the English(and others of course) had a colony that became greater than the source.

It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

Actually in one way it's cheaper. Low gravity environments make moving large amounts of ore a lot easier than on earth.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

You mentioned the inspirational aspect. That's important too. As one of the Apollo guys said, we went to the moon only to discover the earth.

Sea Filly wrote: »

I genuinely believe this.

I would have issues with a lot of the "in the future we'll be able to ....." ideas myself. The ones I have more faith in are the engineering problems that are within our current knowledge of scientific limitations. Time machines I don't see. Not for a very very long time if ever. Going into the future yes. You do that every time you take a long haul flight(even if it's only a millionth of a picosecond). Going into the past breaks too many laws of physics that seem insurmountable. Faster than light travel would be another one that is a "hmmmmm I dunno, maybe" for me. Star trek transporters while doable on the molecular level, the engineering required to scale it up would be beyond imaginings. TBH I think we will get to a time when we won't need it anyway. If - and I believe when - we crack consciousness we'll just "beam" that. Kinda like the way by picking up a phone and ringing New York a bit of me is "there"

However oddball stuff like functional immortality I can see and soon enough. It's an engineering problem, not a scientific one. Building/evolving our own replacements I can also see. Artificial intelligence too. I can see us down the line as a Homo sapiens technologicus, a melding of genetic technologies and more, networked as one species that we built ourselves. Humans have always done this with tech. It's the one biggy that separates us from other animals. Other animals have tool use, intelligence, language(shít bees have that), even culture, but none of them have deliberately stood outside evolution and even directed it. What I describe above is just the natural extension of that.

When that point is reached space travel will become very "cheap" and easy. Imagine sending millions of human consciousness probes out into space. They sit there dormant until something interesting comes along, spring into life and we can then beam/share our gestalt consciousness across not the world wide web, but the galactic wide web. Imagine the probes we currently send to Mars. Imagine the ability to transfer your head into one, so "you" are there. No warp drives ahead factor 4 mr Sulu required. Shít look at our tellies standing in the corners of millions of homes around the world. I've seen the deaths of stars, wildebeast being born, other quite aiien human cultures, momentous moments in history etc all to a degree barely imaginable to as great a mind as Plato, yet we take it for granted. Indeed the oldest person that ever lived, a French woman whose name escapes, when asked what was the most important invention she lived through and she said TV, because it gave us a window on the world and each other. Now imagine that to the level where you are actually there.

Sea Filly wrote: »

We know inventions and technologies have been developed over the years. How many millions of inventions and ideas have gone pear-shaped over the years? We don't know because we never hear about them, we only hear about the ones that work.

True though often progress comes from stuff that doesn't work, or doesn't work in isolation or at the time, but proves very useful down the line.

The reason I believe this won't happen is because going of into space is a whole different kettle of fish. We are not dealing with earthly atmospheres that the human body evolved to cope with.

True SF, but try surviving outside an airliner at 30,000 feet and 60 below zero and they're flying over our heads as we speak.

A small amount of people have travelled into space, after huge amounts of training and an apititude for the subject matter behind it all. The space within the crafts for human are cramped. How will this ever accommodate large amounts of people? The distances to be travelled. I don't think a lot of people apprecriate how far it is. You would spend literally years in space to get to the end of the solar system.

I agree, that's why I reckon if it happens it'll be the new humans that will do it and not in the starship Enterprise. We can see examples of that in previous future predictions. From the late 19th century on, every damn sci fi book, movie or comic had flying cars for everyone, right up to Back to the Future. It seemed logical and desirable, but it turned out to be a complete dead end of an idea. We could certainly engineer flying cars today, but they would be a solution looking for a problem. I'd see our star trek/wars idea of spaceships in a similar vein.

Capt'n Midnight

bluecode wrote: »

As someone said earlier. It's a false dilemma. No one says 'Stealth bombers or Mars' as he succintly put it.

Of course not

a mission to Mars would cost about 20 times as much as a stealth bomber.

Feed the babies by all means. Or at least attempt to even though it's probably as pointless as going to Mars. Famine and starvations will probably never be fully eradicated.

Please list all major famines that have occurred in functioning democracies.

Actually name one.

The problem is rarely a lack of food - not since globalisation - , it's a lack of money to buy the food at inflated famine prices.



Oh yeah population is projected to stabilise around 10 billion because growth rates are slowing down because of better education and health care etc.

But as for going to Mars. There is no point. Because there is zero benefit for us here on Earth other than as some form of inspirational adventure or exercise in prestige.

How about as a lifeboat for all known life in the universe ?

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

But in the real world the technology to do that does not exist and probably never will unless there is some kind of breakthrough out there. There is an ongoing fantasy that we can leave this planet and travel among the stars or even the planets of the solar system. Fantasies that we can mine the Moon or Mars or elsewhere. But think about it. It's extremely expensive to mine here on Earth. Imagine the sheer difficultly in mining on a planet with no atmosphere. Imagine the size and cost of ore ships. This is simply not feasible.

So lets not go to Mars or even the Moon. Stay here on Earth and sort out our problems first.

Like I said earlier the energy needed to get to Mars isn't that much more than going to the moon.

Landing is easier

Underground tunnels have been found so raw materials and shelter aren't huge issues.



Self sufficiency in a closed system is the key technology needed and we haven't been spending any real money on it yet.

Sea Filly

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The only way to know whether we can do something is to try, that is why we are where we are today, if we never tried things then you and me would today be trying to avoid being eaten on the plains of Africa.

I'm a researcher, I know all this. There's nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism either.

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

Time machines I don't see. Not for a very very long time if ever. Going into the future yes. You do that every time you take a long haul flight(even if it's only a millionth of a picosecond). Going into the past breaks too many laws of physics that seem insurmountable. Faster than light travel would be another one that is a "hmmmmm I dunno, maybe" for me.

Believe it or not W but the laws of physics don't prevent backwards travel, in fact there is no reason why time even has to go forward.
The only thing that seems to give time any sort of meaning is entropy, our Universe seems on a path from order to disorder.

3ndahalfof6

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

No?

What about that huge country New York is attached to? I think they have a few resources alright.

more whataboutery,


maybe we should ask them to give Ireland the donations they receive for a few years, or candy floss.

Capt'n Midnight

Oh year if the super rich get proof that low gravity prolongs lift then expect an orbital Hilton any day now

$21tn will easily sort out that, with enough change to send some kids to Mars.

up for anything

Feed all the starving babies and fix what's wrong with this planet and its peoples. What's the point of going to Mars or somewhere similar when in several thousand years, probably much faster Mars will have been near to fucked up to.

I may be shortsighted or just plain stupid but I would place people that exist in the here in and now before material things, ideas or a new age of exploration and discovery.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Imagine sending millions of human consciousness probes out into space. They sit there dormant until something interesting comes along, spring into life and we can then beam/share our gestalt consciousness across not the world wide web, but the galactic wide web. Imagine the probes we currently send to Mars. Imagine the ability to transfer your head into one, so "you" are there

But isn't it just as hard to send data at a speed fast enough to make the data connection real time? If we find a way to send data at that speed I think finding a way of sending anything at the same speed wouldn't be that far off.

up for anything wrote: »

Feed all the starving babies and fix what's wrong with this planet and its peoples. What's the point of going to Mars or somewhere similar when in several thousand years, probably much faster Mars will have been near to fucked up to

Getting the excess people into space would take a load of pressure off the planet. If living and working in space became the norm you'd probably find most people would want to live up there because it's where the opportunities are. If we can make self suficient space ships we can implement that technology on earth too.

Everything we're doing with regards being eco friendly and efficient with our resources all helps us move into space. We're actively solving space problems right now on earth. At the end of the day you could easily describe earth as just a giant space ship.

Cú Giobach

up for anything wrote: »

Feed all the starving babies and fix what's wrong with this planet and its peoples. What's the point of going to Mars or somewhere similar when in several thousand years, probably much faster Mars will have been near to fucked up to.

I may be shortsighted or just plain stupid but I would place people that exist in the here in and now before material things, ideas or a new age of exploration and discovery.

The thing is it's that very desire to discover, explore and examine things that has given us the ability to actually feed "the masses", what is stopping us isn't our continuing desire to explore and discover the nature of things, but greed.
Greed is the reason so much is spent on weapons instead of rice or wheat, greed puts profit before people, and greed sadly is what keeps the modern world running at the moment.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

But isn't it just as hard to send data at a speed fast enough to make the data connection real time? If we find a way to send data at that speed I think finding a way of sending anything at the same speed wouldn't be that far off.

Why would we want to S? Plus you might "upload" your consciousness into the probe, or these probes would be like consciousness websites in the overall network. You could "visit" them as you/we saw fit. If "you" can travel along an electromagnetic wave as information to reassemble at the other end then whammo speed of light interstellar travel once the reciever gets there. On that point, when(and I do belive it's when) we get to the point of functional immortality time ceases to be nearly as much of an issue. Suspended animation damage to bodies no longer an issue as we'd be free of them if we chose.

It could get "odd" if you extrapolate further... Imagine a networked species gaining inteligence and wisdom at unimaginable speeds, growing pretty silently across a galaxy, maybe even beyond. each star an energy source and collection of "neurons" orbiting it. A gigantic consciousness that may in of itself become self aware as a single entity. A living galaxy. Blows Thor and Zeus et al out of the water as gods anyway.

Plus we can already send radio signals at the speed of light. Have done for yonks, but are nowhere close to sending anything else at near those speeds.

Chuck Stone

Do people really think our problems wont follow us to our colonies?

How naive.

Ms.M

Feed the starving babies!
I wouldn't even be willing to starve myself for the sake of sending a man to Mars to be honest.

Wibbs

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do people really think our problems wont follow us to our colonies?

How naive.

Maybe, just as likely slightly different problems. Those diffs can make a big change in mindset too, often advantageous.

WindSock

The biggest problems we have here at the moment here on earth are caused by overpopulation. That is caused, oddly enough by a high infant mortality rate. If we concentrated on feeding and educating the worlds poorest, then the birthrate would drop, more people will get to read stuff and do science things and whatnot which increases our collective knowledge and we can work out a more efficient way of getting your ass to Mars. For TWO WEEKS. or longer.

Shryke

The idea of beaming consciousness was used in Richard Morgans near future sci-fi, the idea being the mind would be sent in a needle cast to a receiving station and then placed in a body.
There does exist with that idea the possibility of duplicates.
Banks is king with the culture and future concepts though.
I don't believe that humanity would choose to evolve beyond physical form or give it up so easily. I don't see a galactic network of human consciousness as the end result for humanity, not that that level of tech might not be reached.
I see neural uplink to a network and sensory feedback being something real but your idea Wibbs is to me far too utopian. We're still going to be human. We'll be different but the same.

Quantum entanglement seems to be a buzz word that gets thrown around. If that were mastered it would render a lot of problems moot from communication to transport and time differential. I don't know how viable an idea it is though.

To answer the question, Mars.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

If "you" can travel along an electromagnetic wave as information to reassemble at the other end then whammo speed of light interstellar travel once the reciever gets there.

Is an electromagnetic wave fast enough to transport data from any point in the universe to another instantly or at least within a few thousands of a second?

I think for that to work your looking at some sort of warping of space to transfer the data. Light speed wouldn't be fast enough. If you can warp space to send data, it's probably just as possible to warp space for anything.

pragmatic1

Africa doesn't need money, Africa needs education and strong governments to tell ruthless capitalists to get ****ed.

Shryke

^ This is what I meant by quantum entanglement. Wormhole technology.

pragmatic1

Shryke wrote: »

^ This is what I meant by quantum entanglement. Wormhole technology.

Caide?

Shryke

I was referring to scum lords post above yours. Many apologies prag.