Opponents of space exploration are really anti-Earth

topic posted Sat, March 21, 2009 - 11:13 AM by  Yul
And I'm absolutely certain of that claim -- or at the very least it applies to SOME opponents of space exploration. As we all know, it is the human presence on Earth that is causing pollution and related environmental damage. If there were space colonization, it would be possible to reduce the human population on Earth by sending people to other planets. The less people there are on Earth, the less pollustion they'll cause. And since all other worlds in this solar sytem are lifeless (And please don't tell me there is life on other planets in this solar system when current evidence says there's not), space colonists can create high tech societies without demanging the biospheres of other planets because those other planet have no biospheres!

In other words, opponents of space exploration oppose space exploration because they don't like it. Their claims that space exploration can't help Earth are completely, totally and utter false. Besides, space exploration opponents often contribute to the envirnmental problems of Earth by using pollution-based technologies. If you don't want to damage the Earth's biosphere, then don't live on Earth.
posted by:
offline Yul
  • You say "opponents of space exploration". That's a silly brush to paint people with. Few opponents hate space exploration for its own right, If you could give them space exploration for free. (I'm sure you can find a dozen counterexamples but my point remains.) Rather, there are more space exploration *skeptics* - people who don't think it's worth it, especially in the here and now.

    Perhaps they do not share some of your assumptions - like that opening space colonies will result in a significantly lower Earth population and a lower environmental impact, in particular. How can you be sure the population dynamics will work out that way? There is a huge population on Earth to deal with, you know, and they keep making more of themselves. How quickly will you be ejecting them from the planet? And what if they'd rather stay? What incentives will you give them to leave? Or will you force them into exile?

    Perhaps they have considered that space exploration using today's technology (or even tomorrow's technology, or next week's) contributes to pollution here and now, and we have only hopes and dreams of being able to relieve it significantly in the future. Perhaps they speculate that broad advances in materials sciences will make it feasible some decade... but not this one.

    Perhaps they see the state of current space exploration. They see that space exploration is a very capital-intensive project with a near-zero return on investment in the near to far-intermediate future, and think of the opportunity cost, saying "what a waste! There are soo many things we could do with $17 billion dollars a year* that are more important." You could insulate a good number of homes for $17 billion. You could bring clean water to a lot of squalid African villages with $17 billion. You could build one or two nuclear power plants! and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. Or maybe they could give me back my share from my taxes, and I could use it for something nice for myself. I'm saving up for a nice musical instrument.

    (* NASA's budget. And you'll need a lot more than NASA's budget to do decent space colonization.)
  • anything involving toting a human-friendly atmosphere / 'life support' around is just plain stupid. It's a waste of money and a slap in the face of billions of creatures, human and otherwise.

    Send robots and sensors; hauling human flesh away from Earth is just plain ridiculous at this time.

    I've yet to encounter any argument based in reality that rebutted the simple facts in any cogent way whatsoever.

    I do find it cute that a lot of atheists can be tricked out into the open and shot down on this point.

    Thinking it's important to send humans into space = irrational superstitious foolishness.

    Want to deal with Earth's population? Think "birth control". No amount of "exploration" will lead to carting loads of human cattle onto happy friendly storage units / star-ghettos in the sky. Think it through.

    I have seen some stupid arguments on 'Tribe in my day, but this one just takes the cake.

    Anti-Earth, heheheheheheheheheheheheh!

    You seem to be a prime candidate for
    • So are you saying you want all humans to stay on Earth and pollution the planet until it's unlivable? If that's what you want, I'm happy for you. But as far as I'm concerned, I prefer not to live in an over-populated, over-polluted world.
      • >>I prefer not to live in an over-populated, over-polluted world. <<

        I'm not sure why you think that space exploration has anything at all to do with this preference.

        Moving people into some hypothetical location other than Earth is simply not a viable solution. I guarantee you that birth control and the elimination of poverty is the answer for your needs.

        Why would any agency bundle surplus population off to live on some other planet? What for? Anything good?

        If you want everyone off of the earth faster than birth control and eliminating poverty can account for, you'll find that genocide is your alternative.

        Space exploration will not move one single person off of the Earth. Not one.