129 réponses à ce sujet

[hexaligned]

Well I don't know about blowing up, like I said previously though, a mass die off is in our future in the reletively near future. The world is disgustingly overpopulated as it is now, in the next century or so it's going to be at crises levels.

[King Gigglez]

OfTheFaintSmile wrote...

regarding helium-3, I believe a fistful of that stuff is enough to provide for Britains energy needs for a year!

But you would be surprised how wars/crises motivate humanity to develop new technology, just look at WW2 and the development of the nuclear bomb/energy

Yea but the thing with WW2 though it was based off of prejudice, fear, and false blaming. With a war during a time with the world population double or triple, we would fight a war over basic need, and it is a fact that when people don't have food or water they will do anything and everything to get it.

[Blind Lark]

An afterthought is that humanity will eventually be forced to move into space because the Earth at some point or another will become inhabitable. Considering the rapid technological advances in the past hundred years, it may become possible at a point. I doubt that marker is 200 years, but global warming is happening (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're the cause of it, just that it is occurring, albeit mostly natural) and if it continues we probably will need to adapt. There are a plethora of other things that may threaten our existence, that's just an example. So I find myself asking, can humanity survive, or shall we go extinct? We appear to be the first specimens so far that is "intelligent" in our existence...that is to say we're theoretically the only ones who have even known about space. Are we "intelligent" enough to survive?

[newcomplex]

King Gigglez wrote...

OfTheFaintSmile wrote...

regarding helium-3, I believe a fistful of that stuff is enough to provide for Britains energy needs for a year!

But you would be surprised how wars/crises motivate humanity to develop new technology, just look at WW2 and the development of the nuclear bomb/energy

Yea but the thing with WW2 though it was based off of prejudice, fear, and false blaming. With a war during a time with the world population double or triple, we would fight a war over basic need, and it is a fact that when people don't have food or water they will do anything and everything to get it.

Thoughout the course of Human history, their hasn't been a single non-domestic war that was fought over "basic human needs" on the admnistrative level.  

Almost all of them are fought over resources, but if its to a point where the population needs food or water that much, one does not start wars, it devolves into anarchy.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 23 février 2010 - 11:11 .

[bcNimis]

In all reality, due to the problems we face on our own planet, a manned mission to mars would almost certainly be a colaboration between several nations.



Nasa and Esa already work closely together. But in all reality, in the medium term (10-25 years) it is still more beneficial for us to focus on Probes and unmanned missions. The science content we get back from those is far superior to anything we ever got landing on the moon,



The other factor to be looked at.... is the more then likely impending conflict that should be expected anytime after 2050. The reason i say this is that energy, water and food requirements to support a projected 11 billion people, with rapidly modernising countries like India and Brazil, are expected to increase by insane amounts.



Energy shortages already plague the world, and the biggest problem is water shortages, as water usage is expected to rise by over 75% of current levels. These are expected to lead to regional conflicts world wide between countries despratly trying to sustain growth,



But its important to note that the technology to travel to mars, and to establish colonies on mars or the moon already exists. It is just broken and not focused. Different countries and corporations have different goals and techs which are not yet united. And money money money still runs the world. The costs are astronomical, including the funding for new and advanced research that would be required to expediate the realities.



I would be suprised to be honest, to see a full time functioning research base on mars before 2100.

[King Gigglez]

Blind Lark wrote...

An afterthought is that humanity will eventually be forced to move into space because the Earth at some point or another will become inhabitable. Considering the rapid technological advances in the past hundred years, it may become possible at a point. I doubt that marker is 200 years, but global warming is happening (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're the cause of it, just that it is occurring, albeit mostly natural) and if it continues we probably will need to adapt. There are a plethora of other things that may threaten our existence, that's just an example. So I find myself asking, can humanity survive, or shall we go extinct? We appear to be the first specimens so far that is "intelligent" in our existence...that is to say we're theoretically the only ones who have even known about space. Are we "intelligent" enough to survive?

That totaly made me remember about wat i was talking about during class a month ago. it was a certain equation that talked about intelegent life, as we were going through we got to the point wwere life is very common in space (mostly unicellular) in fact there may have been life on Venus, Mars, and One of Jupitors moons (Triton or Titan, i forget which one has the liquid methane), life there would be imposible for us, but specific unicellular organisims can survive in these harsh enviroments. We also think that intellegent life may be common, or semirare, this would be impossible for us to know however because they are probibly hundreds of lightyears away and have no way of getting to another civilization fast. For exxample, our nearest star (besides the sun) is around 2.3 lightyears away, the radio brodcasts we had around 100 years ago are just now reaching that star, so if some intelegent species was there and had around the same technology we had, it would take another hundred years for them to send a message back here, so we would never probibly know. Most likely, intellegent species will die out, either from war,famine, or natural disaster thus elimenating the race. We see this here on Earth, we are almost to a tiping point were we will cause massive disasters and cause a global war, in which case the humans will be extinct or 90% of them will die. Hate to be the Mr. Doom&Gloom but everyone in our class thinks that before the year 2150 The Human race will either be extinct, technology will drop back 200 years, or we will be off earth and no one will live on earth.

[Daxpax]

DSKzZziX wrote...

Chances are we'd have probably nuked ourselves by that time, if past experience is anything to go by.

What past experience? The only time in human history where nukes have been used on people were when they were new, and hadn't been properly used before.

[Daxpax]

thegreateski wrote...

DSKzZziX wrote...

Chances are we'd have probably nuked ourselves by that time, if past experience is anything to go by.

You mean that we'll drop some more nukes on the Japs?

They are not going to like that.

[niklasxwingpilot]

Hmm I'm thinking this: It is pre-historic Africa, Men have just started to walk upright. Some have gathered at the westcoast. They are working on making a kayak out of some timber. They are dreaming of sailing cruiseships in the caribean



Remember Egypt, Greece, Rome, China and several other advanced cultures and societies that collapsed. Just because we went from flying a canvas covered bicycle to send manned rockets to the moon in under 70 years, there is no guarantee that the future will follow any prediction, or that further development will have the same momentum.



Science have to be updated HEAVILY to allow FTL speeds.

Gravity sucks way to much here on earth, so the construction of a space elevator is probably the best guess at getting stuff cheap and easy into space. Design and construction of such an elevator is a major b*tch I guess.



But if anybody have an old yt1300 then I can make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs!

[King Gigglez]

They have everything to make a space elevater except for the teather which needs to be made out of Carbon Nanotubes, which is impossible with our technology the longest nanotube we have made is i think 3mm or 3cm which is not even close to the length we need to get into space

[Deflagratio]

I doubt Mankind will ever leave the confines of the Sol system. Mass Effect backhandedly explains what we'd have to do, and that is change physics (Element Zero changes physics). FTL Is technically a misnomer in the Mass Effect Universe, since No starship, or anything really, is traveling faster than the Speed of light, Instead the Mass Effect bubble warps space-time so that the Speed of Light reaches near Infinite within, allowing objects with Mass to travel at speeds higher than light in relative to outside of the bubble.

On the other side of the argument however, there's a lot we don't know about the physics of the universe. For every one thing we think we know, three hundred fourty two thousand, nine hundred thirteen unaccounted for rules or rule revisions probably exist.

The one thing every human should know, is you can be a skeptic, but discount nothing.

[Livemmo]

Throughout human history it's always been more important to have war than invest our resources into research or technology and sadly I dont see that ever changing. It's far too easy to place yourself above the vast majority than stand up and do something about it or help each other reach our potential... thus we have corruption and greed that has no end. I highly doubt we'll even find the cure for cancer at this rate.

[Blind Lark]

Livemmo wrote...

Throughout human history it's always been more important to have war than invest our resources into research or technology and sadly I dont see that ever changing. It's far too easy to place yourself above the vast majority than stand up and do something about it or help each other reach our potential... thus we have corruption and greed that has no end. I highly doubt we'll even find the cure for cancer at this rate.

We invest fairly heavily in technology, however the purpose of that technology is war...Look at how much we've developed in the past hundred years.  We have sniper rifles that have killed from a mile away, nucleur bombs that desemate cities and kill hundreds of thousands while leaving behind radiation for the later generations, tanks, satelites that help us call in air strikes with lethal accuracy, etc.  The problem isn't that we're not investing in research or technology, it's that we're investing it in the wrong things.

It's more than likely that before any natural ends that would drive humanity extinct (i:e: a lack of resources), we will end ourselves in a nuclear holocaust.  As Albert Einstein said:

I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!

[Havokk7]

dminto29 wrote...

corebit wrote...
We can barely fly to the moon, and that was only one time.  

Actually we made it six times in three years not once. As far as going to Mars and such it would be relatively easy if we were willing to spend the money. We proved that with the moon mission. If you dedicate the money, industry, and personnel you can do it.

True, we did do it 6 times. Nearly 40 years ago. Since then, nothing outside Earth orbit (and every year that seems to be scaled back).

I'm saddened that I don't see any political will anywhere to head back out into space. I feel it is our destiny out there. This planet is great but eventually, you have to leave home.

[NvVanity]

I think we'd be able to get to Mars. We definitely need some revisions made to our shuttle design. The current design isn't going to cut it fuel and size wise. Our current shuttles aren't fit for landing on the moon and with VTOL style aircraft coming in we need to try and incorporate that into our shuttles.



Also we need to try and figure some sort of artificial gravity thing as well.

[Trenrade]

This depends on if FTL travel is actually feasible its only a theory atm.

Modifié par Trenrade, 24 février 2010 - 04:15 .

[Tom Adama]

Nope, FTL wont ever happen. Even if it is possible, we will be LONG extinct by that time. Manned missions are way too expensive and too dangerous to commit our minds and resources towards, it will be abandoned in the next 30-50 years (approx).

We should leave the exploration of the emptiness of space to the probes.

Consider the obstacles; the seperation between stars in measured in LIGHT YEARS, which is the distance light takes to travel in 1 year. We are simply an animal that does not have the life span or tenacity to last a voyage like that.

Also, what is the point of such a voyage? Why send people across the span of lightyears without any hope of rescue or help?

We gain nothing in manned spaceflight. And dont say its to search for life... I am even starting to doubt that any life other than ourselves exists in the universe, especially now that ambiogenesis is hitting walls in explaining how life on our planet even started... whatever process occured, it doesn't occur now and is NOT natural (at least not on our planet).

Modifié par Tom Adama, 24 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[corebit]

Havokk7 wrote...

dminto29 wrote...

corebit wrote...
We can barely fly to the moon, and that was only one time.  

Actually we made it six times in three years not once. As far as going to Mars and such it would be relatively easy if we were willing to spend the money. We proved that with the moon mission. If you dedicate the money, industry, and personnel you can do it.

True, we did do it 6 times. Nearly 40 years ago. Since then, nothing outside Earth orbit (and every year that seems to be scaled back).

I'm saddened that I don't see any political will anywhere to head back out into space. I feel it is our destiny out there. This planet is great but eventually, you have to leave home.

Yes, that's what I have meant in my OP. No real advancements have been made ever since the lunar missions. Those were a long time ago.

Like that commercial in the Citadel said: Earth is our cradle, but we eventually need to leave for other planets.

[tommythetomcat]

Mass Effect is a retroactive documentary of future events, the Reapers have already destroyed humanity and this is our collective reboot.



Time is cyclical in case you didn't know.

[Jlop985]

tommythetomcat wrote...

Mass Effect is a retroactive documentary of future events, the Reapers have already destroyed humanity and this is our collective reboot.

Time is cyclical in case you didn't know.

I should write up a Wild Mass Guess on TVTropes. "Mass Effect is really a documentary sent back in time."

Really, though, the only reason ME has humans all around the galaxy in the late 22nd century is because of the Prothean cache. Well, that and the mass relays. Unless we find alien technology like this, we'd be extremely lucky to reach another star system by the year 3000.

[orpheus333]

I think it will only happen if or when we crack fusion as a power source. Stick to research into large quantities of cheap energy before we start think about using large quantities of energy to sod around in space with.

[SkullandBonesmember]

T1l wrote...

There are many good reasons why humans will never get off this rock and you don't need to go searching very far to find them. This topic has been discussed to death and the only answer you're likely to find is that, currently, we don't have one. Space travel like you see in Mass Effect comes with a host of massive hurdles which humans can't overcome; not now and not in the foreseeable future. It’s pure science fiction.

As others have said, we're likely to kill ourselves off either by overpopulation and/or war before we ever figure out a way to either create fully sustainable stations capable of extreme long distance travel, or FTL travel which is a theoretical impossibility.

Read some books, do some research, and become disheartened and realise this is likely our only home and we're ****ing it at an extraordinary rate.

I'm..... pretty sure the argument is based on the assumption we DO overcome wars/overpopulation/etc.

[Space Shot]

Blind Lark wrote...

We invest fairly heavily in technology, however the purpose of that technology is war...Look at how much we've developed in the past hundred years.  We have sniper rifles that have killed from a mile away, nucleur bombs that desemate cities and kill hundreds of thousands while leaving behind radiation for the later generations, tanks, satelites that help us call in air strikes with lethal accuracy, etc.  The problem isn't that we're not investing in research or technology, it's that we're investing it in the wrong things.

It's more than likely that before any natural ends that would drive humanity extinct (i:e: a lack of resources), we will end ourselves in a nuclear holocaust.

Wrong things?  Prior to the development of the nuclear bomb the death rate per year of the human population due to warfare was exponentially increasing, culminating with WWII.  Afterwards, it dropped, significantly, and has stayed relatively constant since then.  In fact, the fact that WWIII has not happened despite how easily our civilization got WWI and WWII started is almost entirely due to the fact that large-scale global conflicts are no longer a feasible possibility.  

The consequence of this is the modern world.  A rudimentary cohesive economic and in some way social unit able to freely explore and develop unfathomable amounts of new technology that has revolutionized our species in a way far greater than anything else in our history.  Medicine, agriculture, materials science, electronics, plastics, travel, power generation, information processing, communications, space flight, all of this either has no comparison or is now incomparable to what primitive equivalents we had back even half a century ago because of the almost inconceivable progress our species has made in these fields.  You say we are investing in "the wrong things" but the fact that we are even conversing on a global communications network with synthetically produced keyboards and full color liquid crystal displays integrated with our own personal banks of micro-circuits in a forum dedicated to a virtual entertainment product distributed around the world proves distinctively otherwise.

Modifié par Space Shot, 24 février 2010 - 06:32 .

[RoninOmega]

corebit wrote...

SaulTighsEyePatch wrote...

Too bad the Council hasn't uplifted us yet. Damn those Raloi, they send one dinky probe up into space and suddenly everyone goes ga-ga over it and welcomes them into the galactic community with open arms.

Yeah, the only other solution is to inflict nuclear winter upon ourselves and wait for the Salarians to uplift us.

I bet someone has discovered us...  but theres that one jackass saying "Ah yes...  humans" <_<

[awpdevil]

If that article I read on popsci.com like a month ago, turns out to be true, and I say this because in the article, scientists were not 100% sure, but Neptune and Uranus, they think, might have oceans of diamond.



I would think if it turns out that they are right, then that would be more then enough motivation to get people on the move.



Here is a link to the article.

http://www.popsci.co...tune-and-uranus