And then there were three...(Potentially BIG astronomy discovery!)

[Fig]

First, there was Earth, and she was quite alone.

Then, we realized there was Mars, that might possibly support life in a near or far future.

And now, at long last...there might be three habitable planets in our galaxy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_sc/habitable_planet

At a "mere" twenty-four light years away...if the "habitable" status is confirmed, this might well be our "New New World", so to speak. (Yes, the odds of that are immensely low, I'm aware)

 

[Zeta]

The discovery of the new planet, named 581 c

I vote we get everyone in the scientific community to call it "Planet Bob".

 

[Blackjack Gabbiani]

Finally, someone else who saw Titan A.E.!

 

[the gadfly]

Ok, Earth is inhabitable.

Mars might be inhabitable. That depends on whether living in space suits outside pressurized habitats is considered habitable. Assuming we could last untiil terra-forming succeeded within a few centuries.

Gliese 581c might be be habitable. But as the article points out, it's 20.5 light years away. We have no way to get there even if we wanted to live under 1.6 g's.

Face it. We are stuck on the Earth for many more generations. Shouldn't we concentrate on making this planet as hospitable to life as possible while we're stuck here?

 

[Fig]

Do you have to take the fun out of everything, gadfly?

 

[Zhen Lin]

That's such short-term thinking. The needs of the world population will eventually outstrip the production capacity of the world. At that stage we won't even have enough resources to colonise Mars, let alone a planet 20 light years away. So why not use the excess capacity now to begin a space program with the goal of spreading humanity among the stars?

 

[the gadfly]

Sorry Dami to rain on your parade. Somebody had to. Count your blessings.

The needs of the world population will eventually outstrip the production capacity of the world. At that stage we won't even have enough resources to colonise Mars, let alone a planet 20 light years away.

So then, we just simply abandon the only place in the entire universe we know will support us?

Is it better to devote whatever resources we have to colonize the stars or is it better to spend whatever is left for that goal after we've taken care of our home?

Oh ye of little faith! Don't you think it's even remotely possible technology will find a way for future generations to live better with lesser impact on the world?

That's such short-term thinking.

Short-term thinking? That pretty much depends on the definition.

It's unlikely we'll develop the technology to colonize planets around other stars for centuries. We have no clue how we'd ever develop spacecraft that could exceed the speed of light, something pretty much necessary to colonize other stellar systems.

(We won't even be able to establish a permanent colony of any significant size on Mars for at least a century.)

In the mean time, we'll be dealing with the effects of global warming and the resulting famines, floodings, etc.

So then, I ask you, is it better to use this planet's resources for however long it takes to achieve colonization of other worlds--and I'm not excluding colonization of this solar system--or preserve the world in which we live?

So why not use the excess capacity now to begin a space program with the goal of spreading humanity among the stars?

Because even with all that excess capacity we can't feed everyone, clothe everyone, provide shelter for everyone, give medical care for everyone and provide security/safety for everyone?

It's a question of priorities.

BTW, is there some reason why user sigs don't appear in this forum? Not that I'm complaining. I rather like it.

 

[Fig]

Actually, at a "mere" twenty-odd light years away, we don't NEED to beat lightspeed to get there in a single generation. Isn't that just swell?

(Yes, it still requires major tech advance)

 

[The Big Al]

Finally, someone else who saw Titan A.E.!

It's not such a bad movie after you get past the punk soundtrack.

As for the topic. Sweet, but yeah we got a few generations before we'll make it to any of them.

 

[the gadfly]

Actually, at a "mere" twenty-odd light years away, we don't NEED to beat lightspeed to get there in a single generation. Isn't that just swell?

I think you meant to say we could get there within a human lifetime. AFAIK, a generation is usually considered to be 18 years. So yeah, if we wanted to get there within a single generation, we'd need warp drive.

Zephram Cochrane, where are you?

 

[Zhen Lin]

So then, we just simply abandon the only place in the entire universe we know will support us?

Is it better to devote whatever resources we have to colonize the stars or is it better to spend whatever is left for that goal after we've taken care of our home?

Taking care of our home? I think that's a feasible goal and could easily be accommodated together with a space programme. Taking care of the entire human population, on the other hand...

Oh ye of little faith! Don't you think it's even remotely possible technology will find a way for future generations to live better with lesser impact on the world?

Unless the rate of population growth shrinks or, better yet, goes negative, I don't see how we are going to avoid the inevitable exhaustion of cheap (in terms of energy required to make useful products) natural resources.

It's unlikely we'll develop the technology to colonize planets around other stars for centuries. We have no clue how we'd ever develop spacecraft that could exceed the speed of light, something pretty much necessary to colonize other stellar systems.

Now who is it with little faith? Besides, you don't need transluminal velocities to reach other stars. Suitably large generation ships with suitably large populations should be comfortable enough for long-haul journeys.

Because even with all that excess capacity we can't feed everyone, clothe everyone, provide shelter for everyone, give medical care for everyone and provide security/safety for everyone?

Exactly. If we try to feed everyone on this world first, then find out that a massive impending disaster will render the Earth uninhabitable within a lifetime, all that effort and resources will be for naught. Some people surviving somewhere in the universe will be better than everyone dying.

 

[Fig]

I think you meant to say we could get there within a human lifetime. AFAIK, a generation is usually considered to be 18 years. So yeah, if we wanted to get there within a single generation, we'd need warp drive.

Zephram Cochrane, where are you?

IIRC a generation, at least in the west, is around 25 years these days. Just high enough for us to get to what's-its-name in a single generation with slower-than-light (but not by much) engines ;-)

 

[The Big Al]

And that's not even taking relativity in account which would further increase the time of a generation.

 

[Zhen Lin]

Oh yes, time-dilation would certainly shorten the time experienced by the passengers (pioneers) on those high-velocity ships. Go fast enough and you'd experience a 10-year journey in a mere 10 days.

 

[eX.A.K.R.]

Oh yes, time-dilation would certainly shorten the time experienced by the passengers (pioneers) on those high-velocity ships. Go fast enough and you'd experience a 10-year journey in a mere 10 days.

And I think that this is going to be a big problem for future space travellers; I can't fathom what would happen if someone decided to travel to this newly-discovered planet, and then return, only to find that the age gap between himself/herself and his/her children to have narrowed or even closed.

I predict a big social headache for future space-faring humans, unless we find some workaround for this...

 

[The Big Al]

Well, supposedly space warping side steps time dialation. However, that's WAY out of our league at the moment. Perhaps we'll stumble on hyperspace or something.

 

[Zhen Lin]

And I think that this is going to be a big problem for future space travellers; I can't fathom what would happen if someone decided to travel to this newly-discovered planet, and then return, only to find that the age gap between himself/herself and his/her children to have narrowed or even closed.

I prefer to think that it won't be a problem, since these journeys would have to be thought of as one-way.

 

[the gadfly]

IIRC a generation, at least in the west, is around 25 years these days. Just high enough for us to get to what's-its-name in a single generation with slower-than-light (but not by much) engines ;-)

Then why is my generation, the Baby Boomer generation, considered to include those born between 1946 and 1964? Did generations get longer afterward?

Taking care of our home? I think that's a feasible goal and could easily be accommodated together with a space programme. Taking care of the entire human population, on the other hand...

I really hope you didn't mean to write off some of the human population.

Now who is it with little faith? Besides, you don't need transluminal velocities to reach other stars. Suitably large generation ships with suitably large populations should be comfortable enough for long-haul journeys.

No, it's perfectly possible to construct sub-light generation ships. You just have to find humans who are willing to spend their entire lives in what amounts to no more than a motor home, never stepping out the door for a breath of fresh air or to visit a tourist trap along the way. Humans are amazingly adapatable, but are they that adaptable?

Exactly. If we try to feed everyone on this world first, then find out that a massive impending disaster will render the Earth uninhabitable within a lifetime, all that effort and resources will be for naught.

Now who is it with little faith?

I suppose your viewpoint would make sense if you believed mankind has screwed up things beyond repair and the only solution is to spread mankind as soon as possible into the universe.

 

[Zhen Lin]

Simple facts - if we tried to bring all 6½ billion people in the world up to the living standards of, say, the US, we wouldn't have enough resources. A reasonable rough estimate of how much that would cost is to take the GDP per capita of the US - $43,444 - and multiply that by 6.5 billion: $282 trillion. That's more than 6 times the current world GDP. I don't think even the most optimistic person could say that only one-sixth of the resources of the world are being tapped at the moment. Whether or not we have utterly destroyed the environment is of no relevance: there is simply no way to achieve this. The massive impending disaster doesn't even have to be man-made - the sun could go (super)nova, an asteroid could strike the Earth, a highly-contagious highly-fatal flu...

 

[Zeta]

I suppose your viewpoint would make sense if you believed mankind has screwed up things beyond repair and the only solution is to spread mankind as soon as possible into the universe.

If we make it that long, we're going to have to spread out eventually, as the sun will die. Or can good intentions and food drives fix that, too?