Extraterrestrial Humanity, 21st Century
- Thread starter Xylene
- Start date
What is the human species? I will be happy if whatever is left contains some fragment of my genetics and a culture derived from modern day culture. I don't particularly care if they are different on a genetic level or even if they are green and have tails.
Its probably moot anyway. With the rise of genetic technology, we will not only be able to fix such problems without much thought. We will probably have already undergone artificial mass-speciation within a few hundred years.
Its probably moot anyway. With the rise of genetic technology, we will not only be able to fix such problems without much thought. We will probably have already undergone artificial mass-speciation within a few hundred years.
Yes Guthrie there are lots of reasons for falling sperm counts. Tight pants is clearly a factor, but easily reversed. Toxins are probally much worse then we suspect, in fact recent studies sugest that we pass them on to our unborn childern. Sweet revenge for mother earth, to take it out on men where it hurts.
Xylene said:
The aliens do indeed look like us. In fact it states in the Bible that "the Elohim created man in their image". Elohim is a Hebrew word that means "those that came from the sky" not "God". They terraformed the Earth into a living breathable environment for all life including us. We probably will terraform Venus or Mars into a planet where life can exist after all it's history repeating itself.
Are you an esoteric, a Christian AND an atheist at the same time!?!!?!?!?
Wow! How do you manage?
Yaba Daba! :m:
Dropping big space rocks on the ice caps would be pretty dumb if you wanted to free up some stuff for atmosphere– a bunch would get thrown off into space.
Anyway, as I see it there are like four major factors preventing space exploration and colonization at the moment.
Energy–
We need a source of cheap, clean energy. Fusion is looking very promising, and we'd never run out of fuel. Using fusion, we could manufacture all sorts of rocket fuel just because we'd have so much energy.
Cost & Cooperation–
Getting stuff off earth is super expensive. We'll need more than just the resources of one nation to get into space.
Technology–
Our stuff is really quite primitive and clunky. Space suits are bulky, our robots clumsy, space ships aren't very maneuverable. It will be awhile before we figure out how to adapt our tech to something as alien as space.
Getting out of orbit–
If we could turn the moon into a base of operations, we'd have a huge jump in launching stuff. It's practically in our backyard– it'll be good practice. It's rich in iron and stuff (I think), and could possibly be mined, factories could be set up to launch ships. Getting off the moon would be much easier than off earth, no atmosphere and no gravity. Asteroids would be a problem, but then, factories and the like could be sublunar.
Anyway, as I see it there are like four major factors preventing space exploration and colonization at the moment.
Energy–
We need a source of cheap, clean energy. Fusion is looking very promising, and we'd never run out of fuel. Using fusion, we could manufacture all sorts of rocket fuel just because we'd have so much energy.
Cost & Cooperation–
Getting stuff off earth is super expensive. We'll need more than just the resources of one nation to get into space.
Technology–
Our stuff is really quite primitive and clunky. Space suits are bulky, our robots clumsy, space ships aren't very maneuverable. It will be awhile before we figure out how to adapt our tech to something as alien as space.
Getting out of orbit–
If we could turn the moon into a base of operations, we'd have a huge jump in launching stuff. It's practically in our backyard– it'll be good practice. It's rich in iron and stuff (I think), and could possibly be mined, factories could be set up to launch ships. Getting off the moon would be much easier than off earth, no atmosphere and no gravity. Asteroids would be a problem, but then, factories and the like could be sublunar.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Energy:Roman said:
This is the root of the problem. Economies are defined by the energy they use. Money and energy are almost interchangeable. A society that has cheap energy is correspondingly richer (in the material sense at least).
Fusion is the obvious contender in this regard. Where are some of the best sources of fusion fuel? Yep, up there, not down here.
Cost and Cooperation:
The cost doesn't matter once you have cheap fuel. I am not arguing against international cooperation - it would be a good thing. It just isn't necessary.
Technology
I am not sure why you see this as a problem. Could you explain.
Getting out of orbit
The first thing is to get into orbit, and to do it cheaply. First the costs are lowered by having cheap fusion energy. Second, we need to build a skyhook or beanstalk, or perhaps several. This will be technically feasible this century: some argue it it technically feasible today.
Forget the moon. Very low on resources (apart from He3 mining which we will need for the cheap fusion). Useful for radio astronomy on the far side, shielded from the Earth's huge output.
Mars and the asteroids should be our target. Vast material resources in the asteroids. They make convenient habitats if you hollow them out. (The irons, not the earths, which are pretty poorly cohesive) The delta V between going to Mars and going to the moon is minor and with that cheap fusion power, is quite irrelevant. Mars is replete with resources (and much prettier than the moon) and a better target by far.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
locked
Last edited:
ophiolite said:
You're talking about hollowing asteroids out, in a vaccum, thousands of miles away from earth, in zero g, and then living in them. Last time I checked, we haven't anything near the ability to do that.
If energy isn't a problem, we may find it easier to clean up our mess on earth rather than move to other planets.
Of course, if energy isn't a problem, it'll be that much easier to strip mine the earth.
I think the moon would make an excellent low gravity dock for bigger spacefaring ships. The technology we have isn't very impressive. We're essentially sending people up in large bottlerockets. Sometimes they make it up, sometimes they explode.
Moving stuff from earth into orbit requires a lot of energy. Wouldn't it be easier to do everything in orbit, rather than having to moving stuff up and down?
Would a space elevator generate any sort of centripetal force?
eburacum45
Valued Senior Member
Yes; a space elevator can actually be used for launches. The far end of the elevator is moving much faster than orbital speed; if you travel down to the far end (yes down) you can simply let go at the appropriate time and fall outwards toward your destination.
There are quite a few problems associated with space elevator materials, but if it were possible to build one it would be remarkably useful.
There are quite a few problems associated with space elevator materials, but if it were possible to build one it would be remarkably useful.
eburacum45
Valued Senior Member
Once again, here is Robert Zubrin's detailed study of the technological requirements for terraforming Mars;
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
very little of it requires high technology, but it would be very expensive and a long job.
Incidentally, it is a fallacy that Mars would lose it's atmosphere quickly, unless you call the order of a billion years quick.
As the force of gravity is less on Mars, and atmospheric pressure is dependent on weight, it would be necessary to have a much deeper atmosphere on Mars than on Earth; it would be breathable at fifteen miles altitude, for example. So radiation protection by the atmosphere would be better than on Earth. (of course the lack of a magnetic field would still have an effect).
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
very little of it requires high technology, but it would be very expensive and a long job.
Incidentally, it is a fallacy that Mars would lose it's atmosphere quickly, unless you call the order of a billion years quick.
As the force of gravity is less on Mars, and atmospheric pressure is dependent on weight, it would be necessary to have a much deeper atmosphere on Mars than on Earth; it would be breathable at fifteen miles altitude, for example. So radiation protection by the atmosphere would be better than on Earth. (of course the lack of a magnetic field would still have an effect).
The moon doest not have ANY indication that it would support life, but Mars does have more. I have not read all the threads on this line but what I want to say may be of interest to a few of the above (Madoc?).
China - and with the help of the U.S. - is struggling to keep Panda Bears from going extinct. I just read an article today on CNN.com that states that 90% of male Panda Bears are sterile and 80% of females are sterile. The article did not say why. But I know that when you limit the diversity in the gene pool of a species you start to get abnormalities. The decrease in their population certainly must be part of the reason.
This subject belongs on a different thread, but if we start to populate the moon or Mars with people, how could we do so enough to have a "viable" population for them to reproduce and succeed?
China - and with the help of the U.S. - is struggling to keep Panda Bears from going extinct. I just read an article today on CNN.com that states that 90% of male Panda Bears are sterile and 80% of females are sterile. The article did not say why. But I know that when you limit the diversity in the gene pool of a species you start to get abnormalities. The decrease in their population certainly must be part of the reason.
This subject belongs on a different thread, but if we start to populate the moon or Mars with people, how could we do so enough to have a "viable" population for them to reproduce and succeed?