PDA

View Full Version : Back To The Moon Or Immortality?



SAMU
2003-Dec-05, 10:27 AM
A mental modem.

Easy concept to understand, a mechanism to transfer thoughts from the mind to hardware media and other minds.

Considering that the developement of such a device would cost as much as a trip to the Moon, that it would encourage/finance developement of computer and neurological sciences hardware and software which are very different from the already developed large aircraft technology that would be required for for moon flight.
Considering all the moral implications it would entail such as cost of storage/proccessing hardware, trading bodies, selling bodies, hijacking of bodies and, more benignly, the sharing of bodies. And considering benifits such as immortality, instant learning, elimination of mental and neurological damage and the advantage this would give the poor (young) over the rich (old) also the advantage it would give to content of character over...well almost anything else.

Would you prefer the money be used for mental modem or back to the moon?

pteranodon
2003-Dec-05, 11:58 AM
[-X None of the above.

Both options would benefit very few people in this world. Such money should be for:

1) To research a cure for AIDS.
2) To develop increasing crop productivity technology.
3) To build more universities and schools.
4) To research alternative fuels.

And the list goes on...

Jpax2003
2003-Dec-05, 12:15 PM
Well since we've already been to the moon, we can actually assess the costs up front. A Mental Modem is an open-ended project.

Besides, getting to the moon is the first step to getting elsewhere in the cosmos. A major impact may not kill all humans in one whack if we get off the rock. Can't say that for the earthbound mentats... even if it as a distributed network, or inter-mind.

I've become attached to my body and would like to explore the universe with it first. Immortality is over-rated... "going to the showers is the best part of the game" —Jubal Harshaw.

AstroSmurf
2003-Dec-05, 03:50 PM
Immortality - a fate worse than death.

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Dec-05, 04:30 PM
[-X None of the above.

Both options would benefit very few people in this world.

This is not neccessarily true. Many people who do not understand the scope of space exploration have said this to me the past couple of days. I can't tell you how wrong this generalization is, but for starters: ever hear of plastic?

The U.S. going back to the moon is a huge feat of engineering. Little of what we had for the Apollo missions can be reproduced because of how "primitive" it is compared to today's standards. And infact few if any engineers from the Apollo project are still around, not to mention the fact that the key program leads are very probably deceased. While the engineer's have a better idea today of what specifications they have to meet as far as sustaining humanbeings on a mission to the moon, there will be very little technology recycled from the Apollo Project. That means all of the systems for Apollo will have to be re-developed. This will entail forced technology development on the scale of the original program.

New materials will be developed, lighter more efficient computers, and possibly new propulsion systems will be further explored. While in the short term it is difficult to see the benefits of such a program on a global scale. I assure you, they are there. These new materials and products will be used in the automotive industry, medicine, and a host of others. Not to mention there is research that can be done on the moon that cannot be done on Earth or in Earth orbit, for instance nuclear propulsion systems can be tested in Lunar orbit where the risk to people and satellites is minimized.

And these are the benefits of just development on Earth! There are a host of other benefits just by establishing a presence on the moon again!

With potential of a permanent prescence a numer of other productive things can be done. The moon represents a natural base from which to launch deep space operations. Since gravity is reduced on the moon, large spacecraft may be assembled there and launched with much less cost than here on Earth or in Earth orbit. Since many people then ask me at this part of the discussion what benefit this would serve, I tend to point them to the fact that within the inner solar system (from the Asteroid Belt in), there are enough resources to support one million times the Earth's current population! By developing inexpensive ways to transport humans into deep space we can then begin to harvest resources in such bulk and quantity to make them effectively FREE compared to the cost of actually launching a ship capable of retrieving these resources.

With marginal gravity lunonauts will be able to work faster and more effeciently than in orbit as far as assembly is concerned. Not to mention the resources the moon has to offer.

H3 can also be mined for use in nuclear reactors here on Earth (which increases the efficiency of the nuclear reaction). H3 is a very rare isotope of hydrogen here on Earth, but very common on the moon.

Silica can be mined on the moon. While Earth does have an abundance of this material, it is much easier to launch from the lunar surface than here on Earth. By mining silicon on the moon, and utilizing technology currently available it could be come possible to construct hugh solar arrays which could be launched into Earth's orbit around the sun and the power "beamed" back to Earth in microwave transmissions. A clean, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound method of gathering free energy. A method which NASA has been considering for the better part of a decade. (This is from a technology discussion I went to five years ago about utilizing the recources in the inner solar system.)

All of these developments in other fields do, indirectly, help things like disease research, alternative energy source development, and the ability to help ease the poverty stricken. Most people who question the need to go to the moon do not consider the sheer scope of what such a mission entail. Not to mention the potential payoffs and rewards of new material development and advanced cost effective technologies through forced development. Think of how such developments will benefit the world economy and situation. Consider the world today and the developments in everyday life that come from the space programs of the world and how much the standard of living has improved, even in the poverty stricken areas of the world. We have erradicated some illnesses that threatened the human inhabitants of this planet far more than AIDs has yet to muster (Small Pox). Even the poverty stricken make use of plastics a direct development of the space program. The average vehicle is more efficient and far safer for the occupants than before the space program, due in part to the space program's demand for stronger and lighter materials. As you can see the developments in the space program have a trickle down effect across the planet and do benefit everyone!

P.S. Sorry for the rant. I'm just alittle frusterated with people saying this. It's everywhere right now.

{bad grammer edit}

zebo-the-fat
2003-Dec-05, 11:48 PM
Well said!

Sever
2003-Dec-06, 12:00 AM
A decent asteriod defence.

Jpax2003
2003-Dec-06, 05:33 AM
Not only that, we could finally get rid of our prisons and send all the undesirables (Hoax Believers) to the moon and rename it Planet Exile (PX).

AstroGman
2003-Dec-06, 06:20 AM
I say back to moon!!!!You will never achieve immortality,no matter what scientists say.So lets go back to the moon.And do it Be4 the Chinese do.

mike alexander
2003-Dec-06, 06:44 AM
Besides, by definition you can never achieve immortality.

But I really have no significant interest in this mind-melting stuff. What's left in here is mine.

jrkeller
2003-Dec-06, 10:33 PM
[-X None of the above.

Both options would benefit very few people in this world. Such money should be for:

1) To research a cure for AIDS.
2) To develop increasing crop productivity technology.
3) To build more universities and schools.
4) To research alternative fuels.

And the list goes on...

NASA contributes significantly to

2) Plant Growth (http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov) and search on plant growth

3) University Funding (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11164)

4) I've been working in this area for years as a NASA contractor. NASA actually looks more at overall energy savings, not just alternative fuels. It's more effective to find overall energy savings and alternative energy methods than to focus on one specific topic.

As far as number 1 goes, NASA has contributed some to AIDS research. As for a cure, there are several simple ones such as abstinance or monogamy.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-06, 11:25 PM
Whatever. I still think the options above would satisfy the arrogance of a few on the third rock from the sun.

As I said, there are more immediate problems to solve, more money invested on them would mean faster solutions.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-06, 11:34 PM
I say back to moon!!!!You will never achieve immortality,no matter what scientists say.So lets go back to the moon.And do it Be4 the Chinese do.

This corroborates my thoughts: rich countries do many things to satisfy their arrogance, instead of helping others.

AstroGman, take no offense, please. I'm just being logical.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2003-Dec-07, 10:19 AM
As far as number 1 goes, NASA has contributed some to AIDS research. As for a cure, there are several simple ones such as abstinance or monogamy.

The Big Problem is that a lot of people don't listen to that sort of thing.

I swear, my Ex-Girlfriend thought that Monogamy was simply boring, and Abstinance was something you did only when you couldn't find anyone.

But, she's definitely an Extreme Case, so who knows whether or not everyone else will wise up.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-07, 10:54 PM
As for a cure, there are several simple ones such as abstinance or monogamy.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Mojo_the_Mi-Go
2003-Dec-07, 10:59 PM
This corroborates my thoughts: rich countries do many things to satisfy their arrogance, instead of helping others.

First off, this smacks of political ideaologies and we do not need it in this board. Second, we DO care and want to help other countries but speaking as an American, I don't think we can do much good by giving more then we do because of Iron fisted dictators.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-08, 12:54 AM
First off, this smacks of political ideaologies and we do not need it in this board. Second, we DO care and want to help other countries but speaking as an American, I don't think we can do much good by giving more then we do because of Iron fisted dictators.

:-k I dunno. The rich countries are the first to impose import barriers in order to protect their domestic markets. This cripples the poorer countries' economies a lot.

I recommend that you study more world history. Iron fisted dictators are supported by the rich countries to protect their own interests on the controlled countries.

Mojo_the_Mi-Go
2003-Dec-08, 03:29 AM
I dunno. The rich countries are the first to impose import barriers in order to protect their domestic markets. This cripples the poorer countries' economies a lot.

I recommend that you study more world history. Iron fisted dictators are supported by the rich countries to protect their own interests on the controlled countries.

I do read history, a lot. There are cases of rich countries, America included, with being unfair to other countries. But there are many cases where if we tried to bring in food or money the government (in Somalia's case, war lords) would confescate/misuse it. Also, sometimes import restrictions are needed; just because a country is rich doesn't mean you abandon its own people. I also question what you consider unfair. I have many other things I could say, but I think we better leave leave it here.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-09, 11:41 AM
This corroborates my thoughts: rich countries do many things to satisfy their arrogance, instead of helping others.

First off, this smacks of political ideaologies and we do not need it in this board. Second, we DO care and want to help other countries but speaking as an American, I don't think we can do much good by giving more then we do because of Iron fisted dictators.

Speaking of dictators:


We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.


If this were a dictatorship, itīd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as Iīm the dictator


There ought to be limits to freedom

[-X [-X [-X [-X

jrkeller
2003-Dec-09, 03:03 PM
Got any links to those quotes???

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Dec-09, 03:04 PM
This corroborates my thoughts: rich countries do many things to satisfy their arrogance, instead of helping others.

First off, this smacks of political ideaologies and we do not need it in this board. Second, we DO care and want to help other countries but speaking as an American, I don't think we can do much good by giving more then we do because of Iron fisted dictators.

Speaking of dictators:


We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.


If this were a dictatorship, itīd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as Iīm the dictator


There ought to be limits to freedom

[-X [-X [-X [-X

Give me a break. This is beyond the shadow of a doubt too political for this forum.

Lurker
2003-Dec-10, 01:19 AM
What would I possibly want immortality for?? :o

Madcat
2003-Dec-10, 01:43 AM
http://www.blincmagazine.com/gallery/skins/basejumping/images/pixel.gif

pteranodon
2003-Dec-10, 01:45 AM
Got any links to those quotes???

Well, you can copy and paste parts of them onto your favorite search engine. :wink:

pteranodon
2003-Dec-10, 01:52 AM
Give me a break. This is beyond the shadow of a doubt too political for this forum.

Perhaps, but as far as we quit emotional responses this subject is fine for me. Remember, this is the chit chat forum, so we have some freedom of topics here. If you don't like the subject, simply ignore the posts.

BlueAnodizeAl
2003-Dec-10, 04:07 AM
Give me a break. This is beyond the shadow of a doubt too political for this forum.

Perhaps, but as far as we quit emotional responses this subject is fine for me. Remember, this is the chit chat forum, so we have some freedom of topics here. If you don't like the subject, simply ignore the posts.

The proper place for political discussions is in the private message option the BA has given us. Otherwise it is recommended under the website's general rules to stay away from such topics as politics and religion.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-10, 01:23 PM
The proper place for political discussions is in the private message option the BA has given us. Otherwise it is recommended under the website's general rules to stay away from such topics as politics and religion.

Sorry...

What is allowed to talk about here? Santa Claus? :lol:

:-k I thought we were grown ups that can handle controversial questions without crying.

Never mind what I said and have nice day. :-?

William_Thompson
2006-Jan-21, 09:16 PM
But your thoughts would not be your consciousness.

Maksutov
2006-Jan-21, 11:03 PM
[responding to a post from 10 December 2003]But your thoughts would not be your consciousness.Channeling jkmccrann this afternoon?

William_Thompson
2006-Jan-24, 08:40 PM
Channeling jkmccrann this afternoon?

Lance told me but I did not believe it was true.

So it is true?

It is true that we are not allowed to browse old posts and comment on them if our hearts so desire?

If someone was to say that this was strange and unfair, do you think that person would have a point?

N C More
2006-Jan-24, 08:48 PM
It is true that we are not allowed to browse old posts and comment on them if our hearts so desire?


Good question. Perhaps someone can answer it for you, as I'm not sure about this either.

While you're waiting, it would be good if you addressed Wolverine's post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=662012&postcount=1210) dealing with questions people have for you. You obviously have the time to answer them, as you have the time to browse these old posts, right?

R.A.F.
2006-Jan-24, 08:50 PM
Yes...it is true that if you bump old threads over and over and over and over again then people will start to get upset.

I suggest you PM jkmccrann and ask him what happens next.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-24, 08:55 PM
WT, you bumped a bunch of ancient threads for no obvious reason in one day. At the same time you were complaining about not having enough time to participate in an ongoing discussion where you have repeatedly ignored questions by several participants. Who is being the unfair one around here?

R.A.F.
2006-Jan-24, 09:00 PM
...you bumped a bunch of ancient threads for no obvious reason in one day. At the same time you were complaining about not having enough time to participate in an ongoing discussion where you have repeatedly ignored questions by several participants.

That is an interesting way of avoiding answering questions except for the fact that it hasn't fooled anyone. :)

Doodler
2006-Jan-24, 09:01 PM
Blargh...gotta start reading post-dates again.. :evil:

Vaelroth
2006-Jan-24, 09:07 PM
Some things you should be allowed to dig up, but this is nearly 3 years old. I would say that the discussion here has certainly died out. However, if you were to browse an ancient topic: Start a new discussion and be active in it! Don't start up in the middle of something people haven't bothered with for years! If someone could put in a script that auto-locked everything that had its last post more than a year ago this wouldn't happen.

ToSeek
2006-Jan-24, 09:10 PM
Lance told me but I did not believe it was true.

So it is true?

It is true that we are not allowed to browse old posts and comment on them if our hearts so desire?

If someone was to say that this was strange and unfair, do you think that person would have a point?

If you have a contribution or point to make on an old topic, then there's no reason not to revive that topic. If, however, you resurrect numerous old topics to say little more than "I agree" or "that's cool" or for other self-indulgent or unedifying reasons, then you will first be warned and then subject to disciplinary measures.

Moose
2006-Jan-24, 09:17 PM
Blargh...gotta start reading post-dates again.. :evil:

I know. :rolleyes: I'm just about to make William the second inductee in my ignore list. It doesn't help much, but it does help mark threads where I do have to pay attention to the post dates.