How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.
The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.
Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.
Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the
rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology and botany.
We can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical repeat catastrphe.
Why can we not?
How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.
The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.
Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.
Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the
rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology and botany.
We can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical repeat catastrphe.
Why can we not?
I think we are supposed to be too slow to adapt to a new environment. Cockroaches are presumed to inherit the earth according to science fiction.
Even modest events like the Black Plague and the 1918 Spanish Flu do enormous damage and both of these occurred before modern transportation. Remember the Ebola outbreak? We got lucky because we darn sure weren't smart. Physical separation helps and living on another planet would help a lot. The path of the Black Plague, especially, shows the benefit of separation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology. The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today. The program also provided jobs at all levels. I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.
The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology. The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today. The program also provided jobs at all levels. I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.
If we started making a concerted effort now, today, to invest into a strategy to colonize another planet or our moon, it would take hundreds of years to develop a sustaining habitat that could survive through the long period of revival of the planet (if it still existed) in the aftermath of a major extinction event.
How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.
And getting truly autonomous like this will take 500-1000 years minimum.
If you think setting up a colony on Mars can be truly self sufficient and sustaining long term if the Earth blew up in the shorter term then you need to think about the logistics of it a lot harder.
Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.
It would not only take a very long time, but investments probably several orders of magnitude higher. Then governments would have to convince people to pay gigantic taxes in order to fund something very uncertain for a solution that may only be in working order centuries from now. And many countries would have to get a common agreement on this.
The bigger motivation is advancing science and technology. The NASA Moon project developed a lot of technology, including integrated circuits, that benefit all of us today. The program also provided jobs at all levels. I would far rather see the money spent on exploration than hand-outs.
Developing a permanent base on the moon would seem to be a more logical step -- it is closer and would allow us to develop the technology necessary to be successful on Mars.
However, long-term viability of off-planet colonization within our solar system is not good, since we essentially have to take our atmosphere with us where ever we go.
Long-term prognosis for the human species is not good... it is far more likely we will exhaust our limited supply of natural resources on the planet before we develop the technology necessary for interstellar travel, in whatever form that ultimately takes (FTL travel, wormholes, etc.)
Even if we did manage to find a suitable planet in the goldilocks zone of a suitable star, there's a whole host of other issues (microbes, bacteria, viruses, etc.) which would probably kill a huge number of colonists since we have no natural immunity. Interstellar colonization would have a very high mortality rate.
I do not know what kind of pathogens space settlers body systems are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies would challenge.But again the basic question is if there are unknow antigens up there in space , a search has to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)
Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of would be victims
then in what way human body responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by totally untrained medics working in hostile environments of the space, the diagnostic tests, equipment routinely at used at Earth may not be able to help identify -and if I may use the term Pathogens- because we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy and its biochemistry etc. In other words new nomenclature of diseases has is to be invented, caused by poorly understood antigenic material which may not be amenable to routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die and get hermatically sealed and sent on onwards vovage to havenly Father's territory rather than brought back to earth for fear of spreading maladies unchecked.
Moved to general chat, why on earth was it started in "beginners" ?
I do not know what kind of pathogens space settlers body systems are likely to face. The response of their natural immunity already acquired on earth may or may not match the antigens their bodies would challenge.But again the basic question is if there are unknow antigens up there in space , a search has to be conducted to identify fauna and flora of space.(if any)
Again if hypothetical antigenic molecules do manage to cross the protective barriers and gain access within bodies of would be victims
then in what way human body responds will have to be identified ie diagnosed clinically by totally untrained medics working in hostile environments of the space, the diagnostic tests, equipment routinely at used at Earth may not be able to help identify -and if I may use the term Pathogens- because we have no previous knowledge about antigen morpholoy and its biochemistry etc. In other words new nomenclature of diseases has is to be invented, caused by poorly understood antigenic material which may not be amenable to routine terrestrial modes of therapy.Once taken ill while living in outer space one better die and get hermatically sealed and sent on onwards vovage to havenly Father's territory rather than brought back to earth for fear of spreading maladies unchecked.
It would likely be necessary to simply expose test subjects to alien environments and monitor their vitals. How you could do this is questionable... for example, you could attempt to replicate, on-planet, the type of research facilities the CDC has, only isolating the scientists in the "sealed environment" from which they could study test subjects exposed (unprotected) to the native environment. Of course the isolated scientists could never return either because there's no guarantee an alien agent would be stopped/hindered by our isolation protocols. The whole expedition would be expendable.
Or release test subjects to the environment and monitor them from the comfort of the mother ship... but then, when they do become ill, there is no way to collect blood samples, etc., for study. I suppose scientists on the mother ship could come "home"... but would never be able to bring anything, other than information, back with them... safer to get the data from their computer system and then destroy the ship, "just in case".
Introduction of Europe to North America was devastating to the local cultures as they had no natural immunity to the diseases people in Europe brought with them. The converse would be true (if there were any)... so there is no reason not to think our interaction with an alien environment could not be very deadly.
All assuming we found a suitable planet to begin with, naturally.
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -
OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -
What is it that you cant get on planet Earth but will get on Mars?
Is it for sake of Science or just a costly example of basic human restlessness ?
How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.
The dinosaurs were around for about 185 million years and were well adapted for their environment - right up until a big rock came through the atmosphere.
Inevitably, a similar event will happen to the human race.
Amoeba the unicellular organism has lived for 185M, longevity period of dinosaurs+ the period till date.So have the
rest of multicellular species belonging to various biological divisions of zoology and botany.
We can employ another set of arguments that is -Since rest of the creation with stood and survived that adverse period, humans
being can survive an identical repeat catastrphe.
Why can we not?
I really doubt if they will find life on any of the other planets in our solar system. I suppose there is always a chance but -
OTOH, the chance that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is pretty high. I would say, almost 100%
How about for 'locational diversity'. It only takes one big rock hitting the earth to wipe out all of mankind. If we are to survive, we need locational diversity. In other words, don't be here when it happens. Or at least have multiple locations.