From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 02:30:24 MDT
spike66 wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>> spike66 wrote:
>>
>>>>> (The Palestinians
>>>>> and Israelis are trying to start the next world war...as many here
>>>>> have chosen one side or the other. Dont give in to that.)
>>>>>
>>
>> Well, how exactly do you believe that particular conflict can lead to
>> world war, since you did suggest it?
>
>
> Many of the world's countries have taken one side or the other
> in that conflict. The predominantly Muslim nations favor the
> Palestinians (imagine that). Others tend to favor the Israelis
> (they have money). The whole conflict tends to polarize the
> planet. Im saying we should not get involved in it. Let them
> handle it themselves.
>
That did not answer the question. We might start by not seeing
it as "taking one side or the other" in the first place. How
about doing a reasonable settlement that gives each autonomy and
space and enforce that settlement? That is not taking anyone's
"side" except the side of peace. We in the US are pumping
billions into one-side and selling them weapons. So I agree we
aren't "letting them settle it now". Unfortunately, we and
other parties are part of the mess. Just walking away while
Israel finishes destroying the rest of the Palestinians is
immoral and irresponsible.
>>> It looks a lot easier to me to set up a long term space colony than to
>>> get all of humanity to live in peace long term.
>>
>>
>> What long term?
>
>
> Long enough term to launch a few hundred multi-generation spaceships.
> We apes are armed with nukes, and are *still* fighting wars over
> *religion* for evolutions sake! RELIGION!
>
Well, without nano, it would take many decades to do any such
migration. In the meantime do you think those you fear so much
that you would run run than attempt to find a way of dealing
with them are going to stand still? And do you think that those
with the dough are going to fund this as a better bet than
whatever defense in depth they can set up on earth or more
locally?
That said, if I was serious about doing this I would first
invest heavily in mining near earth asteroids, preferably using
telepresence and originally simple but increasingly capable
autonomous robots for the early expensive heavy lifting. The
metals, minerals and volatiles could raise a lot of capital and
useful material for constructing the fleet outside the gravity
well largely.
>> Well within this century we will hit Singularity or at minimum so
>> redefine so much of the human condition that todays conflicts become
>> relatively moot. Surely it isn't so terribly improbably to keep the
>> world from totally blowing up in that small amount of time.
>
>
> Huh?
>
Sorry, "improbably" should have been "impossible". I don't
think the overal meaning was that opaque though.
>> Besides, from where we are now it would take at least a decade or
>> two to get into the asteroid belt in a serious way much less get to
>> another solar system with any better chance of survival.
>
>
> Ja, Im not saying there is a high chance of survival for the spacefarers.
But apparently you think it is a better chance than could be
found on earth or in system. Why?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course I see it more as "getting started" than running away.
>>> This galaxy is evidently empty of advanced life, so it is ours, but
>>> we need to go get it. Lets go get it. spike
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how we can do that without keeping it together in local
>> space for some years yet. Please enlighten me if you see a way. -
>> samantha
>
>
> The goals do not conflict at all. Sending multigeneration ships to
> the nearest star systems will not actually destroy or remove wealth
> from the earth. It will all be spent right here. Only a few individuals
> will actually leave the planet, making an imperceptible dent on the
Actually, it will use a lot of wealth on something that will
ultimately fly away, probably to the doom of those on board.
The jobs in the meantime are not going to make it seem a lot
more worth it either to the financiers or to the people.
> population. The other billions will still be left to trying to solve the
> problem of nuclear capable apes fighting over their imaginary
> protectors. Building interstellar probes will not detract from the
> solution of that vexing problem. It might help: it will provide real
> jobs for the otherwise dangerously idle.
>
The dangerously idle ones aren't the one's you are worried about
though or the ones who are likely to be any help in building a
space fleet. About instead flooding the system with so much
wealth from local space that the earthlings forget the need to
squabble over what is on this one mudball and turn their eyes to
other possibilities?
> Im all for holding it together here. That shouldnt stop us from
> heading out in all directions ASAP.
>
I really fail to see how running in all directions before we
even have the legs to do much in our own backyard is going to
serve us. Getting the legs will in turn expand and redefine our
playground to the point where a lot of old tensions are at least
in part released if not seen as no longer meaningful. New
dreams are what is desperately needed and enough success in
reaching them to choke the perpetual cynics.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:19 MST