Frazz, money isn't a problem in projects we try to do. The problem is minimizing the costs. We would have already colonized off space if we spent 500 billion dollars in space research rather than in Iraq.

You seem to be under the impression that money = results. This universe has physical limitations. Our society has practical limitations.

Space "colonization" is one of those things that just won't happen. It's either impossible or ridiculously impractical, and the cost benefit ratio would be too large.

I have drawn my conclusions from this topic. Going to another planet would be about as useful as going to the Moon was.

You fail to realize that space colonization is practical, Earth is running out of resources, and people like you have prevented us from getting to Mars by now.

The earth is nowhere near out of resources, although we are nearly half way out of fossil fuel we dont plan on using that in the furture anyway. The amount of money and resources spent to mine anything from space would severely outweigh the benefits.

The opinion that we can never colonize in space or go to another planet usefully is a useless one. Think about it.

The opinion that I'll never be a multi-trillionaire is a useless one.


I'm sure you get what I'm saying, but I'm sort of sarcastically and annoyingly asking for an explanation, while pointing out a possible logical pointlessness of your statement, unless I don't quite get it, which I'm sure I don't.

Frazz you do realize in a few years Earth its self may not be habitable with all the crap we put into the air.

The ozone layer that blocks most of the suns harmful rays has a nice sized hole in it which is causing our summers to become hotter and even our winters are becoming alittle warmer.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 28 2007, 2:07 pm by Kemuel.

frazz- our first colonization will mean alot to us more than money would. It wouldn't be practical, but we would be able to gain ahold of technologies we wouldn't be able to be gain within our own Earth. Money doesn't mean anything. It's of limited value and is worthless compared to going out to space, where there are vast riches of resources. Our first colonization of outer space will serve as a foothold for further colonization, and a foothold of another planetary load of resources. This will grant us the opportunity of building greater wonders and developing more technologies that has to do with interloping space.

Also, your point is already dimished. You've said it over and over again. It's just rephrased in another way that it doesn't mean anything at all anymore. It's not a strong arguement, and its a widely known logical fallacy called circular reasoning. This is why all your arguments are hereby invalid, and is in the lesser priority, unless you want to make some changes into why space colonization is impractical.

I absolutly agree, but i don't like the idea many have of using up this planet and jumping to the next and doing the same to it.

Further more space exploration isn't impossible just impractical only because no one wishes to get up and do something worth while, and thats also the reason why most americans are the size of a truck. Basicly what i'm saying is we are to lazy nothing will ever get done if we don't make advances and take risks.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 28 2007, 2:54 pm by Kemuel.

Pretty much all these arguments were already presented and countered (especially BeDazed's "resources" concept), I'm not starting over.
Well then, we better stop because we sure as heck can't live on Mars. Also, my name is frazz, thank you very much =þ

Want to know something frazz I used your name to start a sentence if you actualy had an education maybe you would know its proper to capitalize the first letter in a word that starts a sentence and in a proper name.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2007, 1:21 pm by Kemuel.

I* That wasn't your only error in that mess of a sentence. Try to use proper english when correcting another's.


Your arguement/opinion only stands as a deterrent to progress. Your analogy states an opinion that is unrealistic and irrelevant. It therefore doesn't categorize as itself as what I consider the pointlessness in your arguement. Any analogy you can try to make in comparison to this in order to prove my statement logically flawed will probably have a key difference that excludes it from its purpose.

I see what you mean now. However, I stand by my opinion that 500 billion dollars is better spent saving lives (even if it's not necessarily the best or easiest way to do so) than it is wasted on a space effort that will be futile unless something revolutionary happens.


Edit: STINKIN' QUOTES!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2007, 6:54 am by frazz.

You admit the plausability; good.

You guys DO know that global warming and stuff like that will NOT end the human race. Although millions will die from starvation and drought many will still live. The planet will still be widely habitable although the average temperature may of risen a few degrees and much of the land mass will be under water. Now if you want to spend that money, resources, and time researching space technology that will take at least several generations to take affect be my guest.

Several generations is nothing, dude.

frazz, you did not argue that money will be worth more than colonization of space. In quantity, as long as value of money remains worthless- it will not be your debate. Also in addition, the Iraq War is a hopeless waste of money. Every possible killer of Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum. Our space developement have not been effortless. It has granted us satellites, stations able to broadcast information. What you think is futile, it is the path to which developement will be open to.

BeDazed, that argument is just horrible. You're not even making any sense.
The question of money is indeed not comparable to "coolness" value or "Sci-Fi styles" or the value of whatever good thing you think will happen if we make a multi-trillion dollar biosphere on Mars.
Money does affect what you can or can't do, it's called an economy. We have one.


I admit the possibility. Again, IF something revolutionary happens.

I know that My argument was that it would be better spent combating global warming and the problems we have on our home planet.

frazz, what you're thinking is space colonization is not feasible in our current economy when it is already feasible. The united states is giving out aids to other countries, keeping peace forces in unrelated borders, while also fighting a bloody losing battle in trying to control Iraq when they could've just blown the hell out of the entire land. We are already combatting global warming with Kyoto protocol, developing more environment friendly technology.


You wish for something revolutionary? It won't happen unless we try. We aren't talking about huge colony ships colonizing another world like in Sci-Fi. We're talking about few civilians getting dropped off in a planet, making a little village and getting supplies. It isn't Sci-Fi styles or "coolness" value frazz. What you're doing is trying to insult me directly. My argument still stands valid because arguments trying to deter my argument is just another insult without a point.

We've already gotten spacecrafts off this planet before. We can do it again. We are constantly trying to develop new technologies. Colonization will not be feasible if you sit and wait for something revolutionary to happen? And economy is not money itself. It's a system of continuous exchanges of goods and services. You have used a wrong term.

Also, the United State's economy is stronger than you think. 500 billion dollars is nothing compared to what their net gain is every year. Prove to me, how our economy is not feasible to support a colony in outerspace. Give me the costs, when it already launches space ships that are totally fuel ineffficient for the sheer purpose of outerspace research.

Don't try and argue with something you don't even understand the basics of.