Hawking: We must colonize Space...or Die.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo


In the past science fiction became reality so why would that stop now?

No, it hasn't. Some things that have become a part of our reality was once science fiction, but to say that "science fiction has become reality" is quite a different statement. As the saying goes, a million monkeys on a million typewriters...

This isn't time travel or faster than light travel we're talking about.

When people are talking as if they they know what "we" should be doing a million years from now it might aswell be.

People walked on the moon in the friggin 60's ludd.

If we'd given our own actions as much attention as we give spectactles like that, perhaps we could of helped prevent some of the environmental calamities of the past century, instead of expending so much time, effort, and resources for a stroll in a barren vacuum.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by General Ludd
If we'd given our own actions as much attention as we give spectactles like that, perhaps we could of helped prevent some of the environmental calamities of the past century, instead of expending so much time, effort, and resources for a stroll in a barren vacuum.

Ignoring all of the technological innovations that came form the various space exploration missions, this doesn't disprove the assertion that, at one point, landing on the moon was mere speculation; a science fiction plot. And then it actually happened, becoming, you know, real.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Ignoring all of the technological innovations that came form the various space exploration missions, this doesn't disprove the assertion that, at one point, landing on the moon was mere speculation; a science fiction plot. And then it actually happened, becoming, you know, real.

Some things that have become a part of our reality was once science fiction, but to say that "science fiction has become reality" is quite a different statement. As the saying goes, a million monkeys on a million typewriters...

[Lorizael]

Repeating a paragraph that had no point. Excellent.

Humans accustomed to life several centuries ago would be completely and totally lost in the world today, because our level of technology changes how we live our lives. Ignoring language barriers, they wouldn't have the slightest understanding of how to (or why one would want to) accomplish what we consider regular activities in today's society.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's really quite silly to see the faith people put into science fiction becoming a reality. Things change, but everything remains the same.

ok, then who was this directed at?

Apparently you take "science fiction becoming a reality" to mean a belief that everything that appears in science fiction shall inevitably become real.

I don't know anybody who would even entertain such an absurd notion. So given that this seems to be what you meant by that phrase who exactly do you think is putting faith "into science fiction becoming a reality"?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by General Ludd

If we'd given our own actions as much attention as we give spectactles like that, perhaps we could of helped prevent some of the environmental calamities of the past century, instead of expending so much time, effort, and resources for a stroll in a barren vacuum.

Ah yes, the ol "we should fix our problems here before we go somewhere else defense", the bulwark of the parochial nimcompoop.

Your immigrant ancestors would have been proud.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by General Ludd

No, it hasn't. Some things that have become a part of our reality was once science fiction, but to say that "science fiction has become reality" is quite a different statement. As the saying goes, a million monkeys on a million typewriters...

The saying has already tested and, for large parts, falsified:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,952259,00.html

btw.
If you agree that things mentioned in science fiction already have become reality, there is no reason to believe, that not also colonies in Space and/or generation ships meant to travel to nearby stars and colonize planets found there might become reality.

Of course you are right if you say that not everything in SciFi will become reality (after all every SciFi-Writer has another view of the future universe and often the views of different writers contradict each other)

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I dunno, I suppose I would live in the not awful place instead. Such as a ring space station with lots of green a spectacular view and gravity. resource extraction would be nearby and more like the oil rig. You don't have to live at work.

Would the earth be an inviting place to live if the current mass extinction never ends? If we go luddite to aim for a tiny ecological footprint the mass extinction will slow but still continue at an unacceptable rate. Our desire to be safe from predators and to feed ourselves using agricultural guarentees that even an extremely restrained lifestyle will continue to place unprecendented indefinate strain on the Earths ecosystems. And anyway if we have to sacrifice our lifestyle to live on the earth then what the hell is so inviting about living there?

We can either confine humanity largely to the earth and have it become a much less inviting place and cause the extinction of millions of irreplacable species and lose the birthright of our ancestral ecosystem forever, or we move elsewhere so we won't be the bull in Earth's china shop and then at least the Earth would still be a nice place to visit.

There is something almost mystical about your views here. 'Birthright'? 'Ancestral'? How can you reconcile such hokey concepts with your apparent 'year zero' desire to exile the human race into the radiation-bathed vacuum?

Ludd is quite right to question your faith in science fiction. A green ring space station is utterly inferior to Earth in every way - even a 'denatured' Earth which you wrongly think is an inevitable. We have enough food now. And your comment about predators is bizarre.

Science fiction is an artform, not science. It reflects the artist and their society. It's often wrong in its predictions. We laugh at the science fiction of the fifties and the Victorians for how hilariously wrong it is, and yet I can see no reason why our nanobot-riddled sci-fi should be any better.

[Lorizael]

The problem with most science fiction, as I see it, is that a novel or movie or short story can usually only explore a couple ideas at a time. So the author will envision a society in which only those few ideas being explored are completely and totally dominant, leaving no room for the great variety in human culture.

In reality, of course, no one idea or innovation can come to rule over all of society, and there will always be a synthesis of countless different ideas that simply cannot be represented in a finite piece of fiction.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman


There is something almost mystical about your views here. 'Birthright'? 'Ancestral'? How can you reconcile such hokey concepts with your apparent 'year zero' desire to exile the human race into the radiation-bathed vacuum?

When replacable things are destroyed it sucks but you rebuild. life goes on. Species are not replaceable. This isn't mysticism it is conservation. How do I reconcile conservation with moving human activity off planet? The second is a means to the first.

Originally posted by Sandman
Ludd is quite right to question your faith in science fiction. A green ring space station is utterly inferior to Earth in every way - even a 'denatured' Earth which you wrongly think is an inevitable. We have enough food now. And your comment about predators is bizarre.

It's not inferior in one way. It allows us to leave life on earth alone. And how pray tell will humanity live on earth without getting in the way of ecology? So long as we want to be comfortable we will have to jack with our environment to make it suit our needs. The vast majority of species can only handle such change for a short time (maybe thousands of years on the outside) before they tend to go extinct. The comment about predation refers to the fact that wherever humans are, large predators are not. Without large predators the ecosystem isn't going to function remotely how it used to. I'm not recommending sparing the environment to get us more food either. i want it spared because it's irreplaceable.

Originally posted by Sandman
Science fiction is an artform, not science. It reflects the artist and their society. It's often wrong in its predictions. We laugh at the science fiction of the fifties and the Victorians for how hilariously wrong it is, and yet I can see no reason why our nanobot-riddled sci-fi should be any better.

so true but so irrelevant. moving off world doesn't require new technology just new infrastructure. The space elevator concept has already been studied and found to be workable. Again we aren't talking about time travel, or faster than light travel, or mind control or any other blue sky sci fi speculation.

[Odin]

Lets start calling General Ludd "General Luddite."

[Lorizael]

That's quite a similarity! What an amazing coincidence...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Repeating a paragraph that had no point. Excellent.

My point was that not all science fiction becomes a reality and, infact, the vast majority of it does not. So saying "In the past science fiction became reality so why would that stop now?" is really ****ing stupid.

Having such faith in fantasies coming to bring us to salvation is ridiculous while we meanwhile neglect our real problems and even encourage them as we can condemn our planet and society as not only being disposable, but already doomed.

Lets start calling General Ludd "General Luddite."

Luddism was a social movement and had little to do with technology, except in so far as it advocated a responsible use of it.

Your immigrant ancestors would have been proud

If europeans focused all their energy on developing civil, sane, and stable societies instead of persecuting themselves, conquering the world, and commiting genocides, the world could very well of been better off for it.

[Lonestar]

Until the Chinese, Muslims, or Japanese found and killed them.

History has proved that the "explorees" tend to be worse off by the "explorers:.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Until the Chinese, Muslims, or Japanese found and killed them.

Maybe, it's a huge a what-if. Either way investing in stable, functioning societies can only help to make a better world, and even if they fell to other conquerers, it's unlikely that things could turn out any worse than how they have.