Re: Is it really a debate?

Given that people who say "manned space flight is essential to the survival of the species" are vastly outnumbered by people who say "why do we waste money on space research, when we have so much poverty" or "apart from non-stick frying pans, what did the space programme do for us?" or those simply believe fictional deities are the best defence against planet-killing rocks, it is a debate that largely covered by a Somebody Else's Problem field. We'd probably need a strike large enough to halt all iPhone production and take Farcebook offline to promote it to the status of 'no-brainer'.

Re: Is it really a debate?

There is something else to consider. Even if we can find another rock to live on, there is nothing to say it will be in any less jeopardy of a species annihilating rock strike. It seems the best bet in space research is to figure out how to protect the rock we have rather than going looking for another one with greener grass that may or may not be destroyed before this one. We only really need to find another rock when our Sun goes out, well preferably somewhat before then actually.

Re: Is it really a debate?

manned space flight is essential to the survival of the species

And why is that important, again?

Re: Um, Eddy....

Oh, I never figured it would be any particular individual and I certainly have no intention of hanging around until Sol's lights go out. I just don't see rock hopping in the near future but I do see a need to defend this rock as a shorter term goal than getting the rock out of here and moving to other planets like an Asimov novel.

For wiping out the species, I can't say for sure that folks making a long space journey and ultimately populating the next rock will much resemble Sapiens. It is likely that such stresses will force evolutionary adaptations that could be quite extreme and the critters that come out the other end may not look anything like the ones left behind on this rock and could easily be a different species. I guess it comes down to how you define the species surviving, e.g. does dinosaurs going the way of aves count as survival? Populating multiple rocks across the universe may produce multiple flavors of Homo, whether they are Sapiens and whether that matters, I don't know.

Re: Is it really a debate?

I'd argue that any action not directed toward creating redundancy is immoral.

Re: If humans die off ..

More to the point, why should anyone care before it hits? Why bother paying for it?

Taking the rational approach, what's the chance of it shortening my life vs what's the chance of something else shortening my life?

Isn't the main cause of premature death in the west heart disease? We are eating ourselves to death. We've still got enough bombs to end the world. I'd say that historically, we're pretty cavalier regarding death. In the UK, we kill almost of quarter of million people every year, before they are even born. Is there any particular reason why we should worry more about people after they are born than before?

If we are just an accident of the universe, why would we worry more about humans than foxes or seals or fish or that pretty stone in your garden?

Re: If humans die off ..

Our invisible galactic overlords may or may not be interested. See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.gorman/religdream.htm

Re: If humans die off ..

if you die of heart disease becaue of lack of funding, nobody cares also there'll always be humans breeding who dont have heart disease since heart disease generally strikes at the older folks past breeding age.

If a big space rock comes in , young and old alike are fooked and no more humans....

Boris

“no-one”

Sir Runcible, you’re right on there’ll, but wrong on no-one: there is no entry for no-one in the OED. (There is an entry for noone as an archaic spelling of none, though.)

I Care Now

Yes, but aside from those who die caring about their death and suffering at the time they are experiencing it, which would be enough reason to stop the asteroid if it were about to hit now, and enough reason to prepare to stop it if we care about our descendants, even if it happened in the distant future, we who live now may care that our accomplishments and achievements will be forgotten and go to waste.

Re: If humans die off ..

Lots of seriously clever humans have warned against anthropocentric tendencies. The idea that humans are the only things here that matter is rooted in the fairy stories of Abrahamic religions, and our sense of self importance could well be a big reason why the planet is generally in such a poo state at the mo.

Re: If humans die off ..

Well, that's ass-backwards:

"The idea that humans are the only things here that matter is rooted in the fairy stories of Abrahamic religions."

This should be "Abrahamic religions are rooted in the idea that humans are the only things here, there or anywhere that matter", and there is ample evidence from all around the world that this hubris is part of the human condition.

"our sense of self importance could well be a big reason why the planet is generally in such a poo state at the mo."

I'll give you that, all right :)

Re: Space Monkeys

As opposed to the current situation, where half our salary (or that of US citizens at least) is spent fighting pointless wars?

I'd rather have the monkeys in space.

Re: Space Monkeys

Though if we're going to be spending money, surely it's easier to work out ways to divert an asteroid than to move a chunk of civilisation into space.

The best spacecraft for humans is the one we're all currently standing on, and that's not going to change any time soon. We're better off concentrating on keeping it going - it's far better at keeping people alive than any human-built replacement for the forseeable future.

As opposed to ... wars

Bzzzt. Logical error: false dichotomy at line 1.

Nobody said that was an either-or. How do you suggest that the military spending of the planet should be diverted towards colonizing space? I look forward to an argument which will convince both the US Congress and North Korea.

Re: Space Monkeys

"I would happily pay half my tax to get rid of a large proportion of the planet...

All the Z list celebs, all the work shy chavs, and most if not all politicians (from all parties).

We could build something like a space arc, tell them the planet is doomed, they can go in Ship C , ship A and B are still under construction and we'll catch you up..."

Hmm, sounds a bit like you may be there with the telephone sanitisers

Re: Space Monkeys

I'd rather have the monkeys in space.

so would the rest of us!

Re: As opposed to ... wars

the clouds part, a mahoosive finger descends, and a deep booming voice instructs;

DO IT NOW!

fixed :-)

Re: Space Monkeys

Exactly. Any feasible space ship will have nothing like the radiation hardening and ability to handle minor meteorite strikes, let alone the ecological stability. Trying to ensure the survival of the human race by building spaceships is like trying to ensure the survival of a ship's passengers by throwing some of them off with life jackets and hoping they land somewhere.

Re: Space Monkeys

NB, don't get me wrong. I love space science more than most (believe me), and look forward to every space mission that takes place. But it's completely ridiculous to imagine that the human race will have the inclination or capacity to travel beyond our solar system. It's sheer science fiction. The practicalities of interstellar travel mean that resources spread across the Milky Way would never be at 'our' disposal, and you come back to the question, why devote a massive portion of the economy to provide a possible alternative habitat for a relatively small group of people? It just doesn't make any sense. Sure, we should and do spend a ton of cash on space science, but it's entirely fanciful to dream of mankind venturing far into the cosmos. Also, don't forget that we live on a planet that is perfectly made for our purposes. Rather than dreaming of sending monkeykind out into the pristine cosmos, we should instead think more carefully about how to care for and protect our wonderful planet.

If one day we get splatted by a mega-asteroid, I for one won't be thinking it's a shame that we don't have ambassadors on Beetlejuice 6. For all I know, that planet already has a lovely ecosystem, and good luck to them.

By the way, it would be great if we didn't have to spend money on wars, and I'd love to see a world where the defence budget was zero and the science budget was enormous. But we do have politics and human nature to deal with, which kind of gets in the way. All the war spend in history wouldn't be enough to get a goldfish to Alpha Centauri.

Re: Space Monkeys

You're not going to get many upvotes with *that* kind of attitude! Next thing we know you'll be pointing out that it would take untold centuries to get people to the nearest star, which we can basically guarantee has no planet humans could settle on! And after that you'll be pointing out that it would take many upon many millions of years to get humans to *any* planet they could settle on! And we've got to find them first, and that's in itself a ridiculously slow process. Any "Earth-like" planet something like Kepler can find is a fantastic discovery, not a future home given that practically all of them will realistically be uninhabitable.

We're never going to get out of the Solar System on any practical level and, most likely, never at all. If we set up bases away from Earth that's probably about the most we're ever going to be able to do - and having bases large enough to support whole breeding populations in case mankind is wiped out by a mega-satellite? No chance. At best they'd have to come down -- terraforming is another science-fiction myth that I'd love to see become reality but which would be so catastrophically expensive (or slow) that it seems very unlikely it will ever do so -- and settle amongst the shattered remnants of newly-Stone Age society, to be remembered by future generations as Gods and their earlier civilisation as an Atlantis and.... oh my God I've just solved the problem of human history.

Re: Space Monkeys

"Trying to ensure the survival of the human race by building spaceships is like trying to ensure the survival of a ship's passengers by throwing some of them off with life jackets and hoping they land somewhere."

In shark-infested waters, in life jackets with dodgy valves, and with bad doses of the shits. I'd still put more money on one of those passengers surviving.

Re: Space Monkeys

How about a deeply-buried moonbase with a genebank; stored knowledge and enough resources to last for 20 years or so and get back to Earth autonomously? I'm a firm believer in backups.

Re: Space Monkeys

People like you are fated to perish from a plague spread by an un-sanitized telephone.

Re: Space Monkeys

If we get enough people off Earth within the Solar System, soon enough mankind will be able to build reflectors to control enough of the Sun's output that we will be able to vaporize any pesky asteroid just about when we feel like it.

And then we'll have the resources to think about other stars.

Re: Space Monkeys

"The best spacecraft for humans is the one we're all currently standing on, and that's not going to change any time soon"

About 100 years ago engineers were saying that the Titanic was its own lifeboat because of its doublehulled design and the unique watertight compartments which meant the ship could stay afloat if up to 5 were breached.

We all know how well that worked out, don't we?

(Conjecture: It's thought that if the ship rammed the 'berg headon, it would have crushed the bow and first watertight section, killing most of the off-duty boiler crew in their bunks, but everyone else would have been saved. Others argue that the shock would have fractured already glass-fragile cast iron rivets(*)along the hull and sent her to the bottom even faster than she did go)

(*) Cast iron of the day became incredibly fragile at temperatures below 3C. That wasn't well-known until some time later(**) but it explained the massive size of the gash in the ship's hull - survivors were castigated for vastly exaggerating how large it was when it turned out that if anything they'd underestimated the damage.

(**) White Star line and the builders were aware there was an issue after examining damage to titanic's sister ship in 1912 and seeing how hull plates had shattered after hitting a sandbank in the Irish sea. This gives rise to speculation that the sinking was an insurance job which went wrong.

Re: As opposed to ... wars

If that russian rock hadn't broken up on the way down, it would fit the bill quite nicely.