Is it time for us to start working on leaving the planet?

[Uwe]

I'll be 65 in 25 years and I dream of moving into a retirement community on the moon someday. How do we make that happen?

I am planning on finding volunteers...

Why not just sell tickets or memberships?
Utopian communes haven't got a great track record, but gated communities are thriving.

 

[fromderinside]

Paraphrasing the actor playing the deputy administrator of EPA: "It would have worked if we started 20 years ago, but, now we're doomed."

Unless we find earth's warp drive it's over.

Well, we started in the mid-1960s with the whole contraceptive pill thing, so he is probably right - it will work, because we started 50 years ago, and it took 30 years to even begin to have an impact.

Notice that in 1987, the prediction was to have 10 billion people by 2017; but now the 2017 projection is about 8 billion.

The brick wall is looming, but we can see that we have at least started to put our foot on the brake pedal. Now we just have to persuade the Roman Catholics and the Muslims not to stamp on the gas.

Having given credit where credit is due, I now drop the green revolution hammer. Ever look at the water table data in the ME, American MW and W, and in those wonderful experiments (grain and nuclear) east of the Urals? Oh, and Africa. OMG it's over. fin. -30-


We're toast.

 

[ryan]

A song just for you, ryan..."I've got a plan!"

Well, if it doesn't seem like a good idea in Jeff Wayne's song for alien invasions, then maybe this really is a bad idea. By the way, who the f*** is Jeff Wayne anyways? I think you should get some representation points for the most obscure argument ever.

Got any other educational sci-fi music?

Maybe I should write a song on how good my utopia is. Would you post that?

 

[ryan]

I am planning on finding volunteers from the best marketing and business programs in the world that will work with volunteers from the best sociological and engineering programs in the world. The goal is to come up with something for the general public to want and believe can work.
But this will take more that just leadership and money; it will take raising interest, awareness, and most importantly clear, logical, and creative sociological and technological plans.

We have the technology and the ability to construct a new society; we just have to be extremely creative if we want a plan that will work.

We have to show and get in the heads of the general public, wealthy, influential (entertainers like movie producers, singers, actors) and leaders (heads of states, law makers, elected officials etc.) that this will happen with enough support.

You needn't be the best sociologist or marketer in the world to know that this is completely wrong.

If you want "the heads of the general public, wealthy, influential (entertainers like movie producers, singers, actors) and leaders (heads of states, law makers, elected officials etc.)" to buy in, merely showing that "it will happen with enough support" is going to be a complete flop; You need rather to show what's in it for them.

Well that's the whole point. This is for them: to insure the race, ease global pollution, ease overpopulation, ease geopolitical wars, live in space, travel space, create a better society internally, etc.

Why do I, as a wealthy and influential politician, want this to happen? Certainly not just because lots of other people think it's a swell idea.

Not just the power of the people, but if the plan is good enough, they would do it because it is more logical than not doing it.

It will be a promise for a better future for everyone.

I am a wealthy and influential politician. Me and mine already have a bright future; why would I put that at any kind of risk for the sake of a bunch of strangers?

One very big reason why I want this to happen so much is so we can ease population and geopolitical pressures.

Then you are clearly incompetent at basic mathematics.

Population pressures can be resolved by reducing birth rates; but they cannot be resolved by migrating to the stars.

Oh god, we are going to take an idea to an extreme again - sheesh.

So if the universe is packed with people, then the universe will continue to expand at a faster rate than we can reproduce. At some point, there won't be any matter left while space continues to grow.

Imagine a population that doubles every 30 years (This is pretty much what we had before the invention of the contraceptive pill). Now, let's pick a carrying capacity for the Earth - say it is 10 billion (it doesn't really matter what numbers you pick; the result is essentially the same for any carrying capacity and doubling rate, only the time-scales vary).

Now, in 1987, there were 5 billion people in the world. So in 2017, with 30-year doubling, the carrying capacity is reached. Now we need to move people off-planet. So lets terraform Venus - it's the same size as Earth, give or take; let's go the full Ryan on this, and assume that we can complete the whole job in a year, including building a fleet of spaceships to take people to Venus as colonists, and making Venus so liveable that it can independently support ten billion people. Problem solved!

Oh, hang on; fast forward to 2047, and - oh, shit. We have filled up Venus, and now we need to terraform Mars. Mars is smaller than Earth and Venus, but let's not be negative nellies; let's assume that we can make Mars fit for another 10 billion people to live. That solves Earth's problem. Oh, but we need to solve the Venus population problem too. Shit. Better terraform Mercury then. Another 10 billion on Mercury. Phew. Problem solved.

But wait! In 2077, we need to find four more planets to each take 10 billion people...

Do you understand that the colony will only be able to hold an x < 1,000,000,000 for at least the first few hundred years? An Octomom will have to choose between Earth with a bunch of kids or the spaceship - ahhhh, my sweet ship will filter out such stupidity!

Now you will probably scream "dystopia" after reading the last paragraph. It might be tough, but it's still better than our countries that keep starving children from all over the world out of our countries and leaving them for dead. In fact by not constantly sending money over their, people are letting children die everyday.

It is pretty obvious that moving people into space just doesn't solve the problem - within two centuries (180 years, if we want to be pedantic), you need to find homes for 320 billion people off-world; and thirty years later, for 640 billion. Even if we used all the matter in the solar system to build spacecraft capable of travelling at a sizable fraction of the speed of light, and we could terraform (or turn into hyper-drive spacecraft) every star and planet we found, we would run out of living space in a few centuries at best.

Nope, if you want to solve the population problem, you have to solve it at the source - either people have to die as fast as they are being born; or they need to be born only as fast as they die off.

Fortunately, with access to the contraceptive pill and basic primary education, women on average choose to have less than 2 children each. So the problem is simply that of getting them access to basic education and cheap, safe medication. No space program required.

But what about the fact that the technology is coming (my other passion) that will allow people to control their mortalities?

In my opinion, we need this to at least start if we want to extend our lifespans and avoid the future conflicts that geopolitics will feed indefinitely.

I used to think that money is reason for all wars, but I know now that it's geopolitics.

Well going into space will just make the problem astropolitics. It won't actually solve anything at all.

Um - nooo - because of at least two major differences from the geopolitics on Earth. One, nobody has claimed the space that we would reside in (unlike when the Europeans made their first encounter with the chief of the Kanata tribe who clearly gestured ownership of the land that the Europeans would soon squat in and take over). Two, countries will be mobile; the layering of ownership over the centuries of the same lands would not be as problematic. You can't make such wild comparisons.

And even without those three reasons, we learnt like a kid who touches a hot stove not to invade other habitats.

 

[ryan]

Paraphrasing the actor playing the deputy administrator of EPA: "It would have worked if we started 20 years ago, but, now we're doomed."

Unless we find earth's warp drive it's over.

But this is the worst kind of attitude. What if you're wrong, and we say the same thing in 20 years.

And a "warp drive" is not necessarily impossible either. It would be a matter of life and death, not to mention the end of the human race!

Humanity has been surprised with what can be done with an urgency: Moon landing, Manhattan Project, etc.

 

[ryan]

I am planning on finding volunteers...

Why not just sell tickets or memberships?
Utopian communes haven't got a great track record, but gated communities are thriving.

You start with the gate, and I'll look into how we will get it up there.

If you are actually serious, the membership would probably be just called taxes.

 

[bilby]

You needn't be the best sociologist or marketer in the world to know that this is completely wrong.

If you want "the heads of the general public, wealthy, influential (entertainers like movie producers, singers, actors) and leaders (heads of states, law makers, elected officials etc.)" to buy in, merely showing that "it will happen with enough support" is going to be a complete flop; You need rather to show what's in it for them.

Well that's the whole point. This is for them: to insure the race, ease global pollution, ease overpopulation, ease geopolitical wars, live in space, travel space, create a better society internally, etc.

Why do I, as a wealthy and influential politician, want this to happen? Certainly not just because lots of other people think it's a swell idea.

Not just the power of the people, but if the plan is good enough, they would do it because it is more logical than not doing it.

It will be a promise for a better future for everyone.

I am a wealthy and influential politician. Me and mine already have a bright future; why would I put that at any kind of risk for the sake of a bunch of strangers?

One very big reason why I want this to happen so much is so we can ease population and geopolitical pressures.

Then you are clearly incompetent at basic mathematics.

Population pressures can be resolved by reducing birth rates; but they cannot be resolved by migrating to the stars.

Oh god, we are going to take an idea to an extreme again - sheesh.

So if the universe is packed with people, then the universe will continue to expand at a faster rate than we can reproduce. At some point, there won't be any matter left while space continues to grow.

Imagine a population that doubles every 30 years (This is pretty much what we had before the invention of the contraceptive pill). Now, let's pick a carrying capacity for the Earth - say it is 10 billion (it doesn't really matter what numbers you pick; the result is essentially the same for any carrying capacity and doubling rate, only the time-scales vary).

Now, in 1987, there were 5 billion people in the world. So in 2017, with 30-year doubling, the carrying capacity is reached. Now we need to move people off-planet. So lets terraform Venus - it's the same size as Earth, give or take; let's go the full Ryan on this, and assume that we can complete the whole job in a year, including building a fleet of spaceships to take people to Venus as colonists, and making Venus so liveable that it can independently support ten billion people. Problem solved!

Oh, hang on; fast forward to 2047, and - oh, shit. We have filled up Venus, and now we need to terraform Mars. Mars is smaller than Earth and Venus, but let's not be negative nellies; let's assume that we can make Mars fit for another 10 billion people to live. That solves Earth's problem. Oh, but we need to solve the Venus population problem too. Shit. Better terraform Mercury then. Another 10 billion on Mercury. Phew. Problem solved.

But wait! In 2077, we need to find four more planets to each take 10 billion people...

Do you understand that the colony will only be able to hold an x < 1,000,000,000 for at least the first few hundred years? An Octomom will have to choose between Earth with a bunch of kids or the spaceship - ahhhh, my sweet ship will filter out such stupidity!

Now you will probably scream "dystopia" after reading the last paragraph. It might be tough, but it's still better than our countries that keep starving children from all over the world out of our countries and leaving them for dead. In fact by not constantly sending money over their, people are letting children die everyday.

It is pretty obvious that moving people into space just doesn't solve the problem - within two centuries (180 years, if we want to be pedantic), you need to find homes for 320 billion people off-world; and thirty years later, for 640 billion. Even if we used all the matter in the solar system to build spacecraft capable of travelling at a sizable fraction of the speed of light, and we could terraform (or turn into hyper-drive spacecraft) every star and planet we found, we would run out of living space in a few centuries at best.

Nope, if you want to solve the population problem, you have to solve it at the source - either people have to die as fast as they are being born; or they need to be born only as fast as they die off.

Fortunately, with access to the contraceptive pill and basic primary education, women on average choose to have less than 2 children each. So the problem is simply that of getting them access to basic education and cheap, safe medication. No space program required.

But what about the fact that the technology is coming (my other passion) that will allow people to control their mortalities?

In my opinion, we need this to at least start if we want to extend our lifespans and avoid the future conflicts that geopolitics will feed indefinitely.

I used to think that money is reason for all wars, but I know now that it's geopolitics.

Well going into space will just make the problem astropolitics. It won't actually solve anything at all.

Um - nooo - because of at least two major differences from the geopolitics on Earth. One, nobody has claimed the space that we would reside in (unlike when the Europeans made their first encounter with the chief of the Kanata tribe who clearly gestured ownership of the land that the Europeans would soon squat in and take over). Two, countries will be mobile; the layering of ownership over the centuries of the same lands would not be as problematic. You can't make such wild comparisons.

And even without those three reasons, we learnt like a kid who touches a hot stove not to invade other habitats.

Hand-waving doesn't solve problems. As soon as your first colony exists, somebody will have claimed the space that they reside in, and all the old problems re-emerge.

If you want to go to space to solve the population problem, then it is nonsensical to claim, as you do here, that a prerequisite of going is a stable population.

If stabilising the population is possible, then simply stabilise the population, and stay put.

You have a real gift for claiming something is simple, while advocating doing it the hardest way imaginable.

Not one problem exists today that would be resolved by the simple act of moving into space.

Some problems would need to be resolved as a prerequisite for a successful space colony; but the solutions would perforce come before the colony - and by doing so, render it pointless, if finding such solutions are its only purpose.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[ryan]

Hand-waving doesn't solve problems. As soon as your first colony exists, somebody will have claimed the space that they reside in, and all the old problems re-emerge.

This is a thoughtless thing to say. Do the natives have to pay anyone because they took over a more indigenous tribe's land? no

Is it well known who claimed the land first, Jews or Arabs? no

The age of information is extremely useful and helpful for a situation like this.

And I haven't even begun to form a think tank to figure out how all of this would work. So far, most of the problems suggested are not even worthy of a think tank; there are solutions to these problems.

If you want to go to space to solve the population problem, then it is nonsensical to claim, as you do here, that a prerequisite of going is a stable population.

If stabilising the population is possible, then simply stabilise the population, and stay put.

Now I know for sure that you don't read my responses.

You have a real gift for claiming something is simple, while advocating doing it the hardest way imaginable.

Not one problem exists today that would be resolved by the simple act of moving into space.

Some problems would need to be resolved as a prerequisite for a successful space colony; but the solutions would perforce come before the colony - and by doing so, render it pointless, if finding such solutions are its only purpose.

It really is as simple as that.

Well, for thousands of years we haven't figured out how to live together peacefully. Sometimes you have to try new things. Sometimes reengineering a society like the founding fathers of Canada and the U.S. can work. Only this time, we will do it even better because we learnt from our previous mistakes. And we know now to be even more careful.

 

[bilby]

This is a thoughtless thing to say. Do the natives have to pay anyone because they took over a more indigenous tribe's land? no

Is it well known who had the land first, Jews or Arabs? no

The age of information is extremely useful and helpful for a situation like this.

If you want to go to space to solve the population problem, then it is nonsensical to claim, as you do here, that a prerequisite of going is a stable population.

If stabilising the population is possible, then simply stabilise the population, and stay put.

Now I know for sure that you don't read my responses.

You have a real gift for claiming something is simple, while advocating doing it the hardest way imaginable.

Not one problem exists today that would be resolved by the simple act of moving into space.

Some problems would need to be resolved as a prerequisite for a successful space colony; but the solutions would perforce come before the colony - and by doing so, render it pointless, if finding such solutions are its only purpose.

It really is as simple as that.

Well, for thousands of years we haven't figured out how to live together peacefully. Sometimes you have to try new things. Sometimes reengineering a society like the founding fathers of Canada and the U.S. can work. Only this time, we will do it even better because we learnt from our previous mistakes. And we know now to be even more careful.

Sometimes you do have to try new things. But those things have to be at least vaguely likely to have some chance of working.

When the Western Front was bogged down in trench warfare, for a long time the generals tried the same old tactics, and failed to make any ground. It was time to try something new - so they tried a few things, such as:

Rolling barrages - nice idea, but couldn't be coordinated well enough to work.
Poison gas - caused mass casualties, but was unpredictable and ineffective.
Undermining enemy trenches - again, lots of casualties, but the broken ground was too hard to cross and the attackers couldn't capitalise on the disruption to the enemy.
Tanks - these actually did work.

All of these ideas have in common the fact that a reasonable person could see how they might be effective. Whether or not they were in practice, they were considered 'worth trying', and so they were tried.

The generals did NOT try:

Bayonets made of india rubber
Throwing rotten fruit at the enemy
Interpretive dance
Space colonisation

The reason these were not tried was that they are stupid crazy ideas with no chance of working.

Your current idea falls into that category.

There is no current problem that can be resolved by a space colony, but which cannot be more easily resolved without a space colony.

This remains true no matter how much you might wish it wasn't. No amount of positive thinking will change this fact one iota. It is unavoidable, and obvious. It is time for you to think of something else. As a wise man once said, "Sometimes you have to try new things".

 

[ryan]

This is a thoughtless thing to say. Do the natives have to pay anyone because they took over a more indigenous tribe's land? no

Is it well known who had the land first, Jews or Arabs? no

The age of information is extremely useful and helpful for a situation like this.



Now I know for sure that you don't read my responses.

You have a real gift for claiming something is simple, while advocating doing it the hardest way imaginable.

Not one problem exists today that would be resolved by the simple act of moving into space.

Some problems would need to be resolved as a prerequisite for a successful space colony; but the solutions would perforce come before the colony - and by doing so, render it pointless, if finding such solutions are its only purpose.

It really is as simple as that.

Well, for thousands of years we haven't figured out how to live together peacefully. Sometimes you have to try new things. Sometimes reengineering a society like the founding fathers of Canada and the U.S. can work. Only this time, we will do it even better because we learnt from our previous mistakes. And we know now to be even more careful.

Sometimes you do have to try new things. But those things have to be at least vaguely likely to have some chance of working.

When the Western Front was bogged down in trench warfare, for a long time the generals tried the same old tactics, and failed to make any ground. It was time to try something new - so they tried a few things, such as:

Rolling barrages - nice idea, but couldn't be coordinated well enough to work.
Poison gas - caused mass casualties, but was unpredictable and ineffective.
Undermining enemy trenches - again, lots of casualties, but the broken ground was too hard to cross and the attackers couldn't capitalise on the disruption to the enemy.
Tanks - these actually did work.

All of these ideas have in common the fact that a reasonable person could see how they might be effective. Whether or not they were in practice, they were considered 'worth trying', and so they were tried.

The generals did NOT try:

Bayonets made of india rubber
Throwing rotten fruit at the enemy
Interpretive dance
Space colonisation

The reason these were not tried was that they are stupid crazy ideas with no chance of working.

Your current idea falls into that category.

There is no current problem that can be resolved by a space colony, but which cannot be more easily resolved without a space colony.

This remains true no matter how much you might wish it wasn't. No amount of positive thinking will change this fact one iota. It is unavoidable, and obvious. It is time for you to think of something else. As a wise man once said, "Sometimes you have to try new things".

I gave my reasons why it would work, and you countered those reasons with a rebuttal - so far so good.

Then I addressed your rebuttal with a rebuttal of my own - argument is still evolving, great. But then reply by saying that my ideas are stupid and won't work - uh oh, the argument just regressed and degenerated.

 

[bilby]

This is a thoughtless thing to say. Do the natives have to pay anyone because they took over a more indigenous tribe's land? no

Is it well known who had the land first, Jews or Arabs? no

The age of information is extremely useful and helpful for a situation like this.



Now I know for sure that you don't read my responses.

You have a real gift for claiming something is simple, while advocating doing it the hardest way imaginable.

Not one problem exists today that would be resolved by the simple act of moving into space.

Some problems would need to be resolved as a prerequisite for a successful space colony; but the solutions would perforce come before the colony - and by doing so, render it pointless, if finding such solutions are its only purpose.

It really is as simple as that.

Well, for thousands of years we haven't figured out how to live together peacefully. Sometimes you have to try new things. Sometimes reengineering a society like the founding fathers of Canada and the U.S. can work. Only this time, we will do it even better because we learnt from our previous mistakes. And we know now to be even more careful.

Sometimes you do have to try new things. But those things have to be at least vaguely likely to have some chance of working.

When the Western Front was bogged down in trench warfare, for a long time the generals tried the same old tactics, and failed to make any ground. It was time to try something new - so they tried a few things, such as:

Rolling barrages - nice idea, but couldn't be coordinated well enough to work.
Poison gas - caused mass casualties, but was unpredictable and ineffective.
Undermining enemy trenches - again, lots of casualties, but the broken ground was too hard to cross and the attackers couldn't capitalise on the disruption to the enemy.
Tanks - these actually did work.

All of these ideas have in common the fact that a reasonable person could see how they might be effective. Whether or not they were in practice, they were considered 'worth trying', and so they were tried.

The generals did NOT try:

Bayonets made of india rubber
Throwing rotten fruit at the enemy
Interpretive dance
Space colonisation

The reason these were not tried was that they are stupid crazy ideas with no chance of working.

Your current idea falls into that category.

There is no current problem that can be resolved by a space colony, but which cannot be more easily resolved without a space colony.

This remains true no matter how much you might wish it wasn't. No amount of positive thinking will change this fact one iota. It is unavoidable, and obvious. It is time for you to think of something else. As a wise man once said, "Sometimes you have to try new things".

I gave my reasons why it would work, and you countered those reasons with a rebuttal - so far so good.

Then I addressed your rebuttal with a rebuttal of my own - argument is still evolving, great. But then reply by saying that my ideas are stupid and won't work - uh oh, the argument just regressed and degenerated.

No, the ideas were always stupid and unworkable. I just gave up trying to be subtle about it, because clearly you simply cannot see past your relentless positivity.

 

[Mageth]

Well, if it doesn't seem like a good idea in Jeff Wayne's song for alien invasions, then maybe this really is a bad idea.

The artilleryman is a hopelessly and futilely dreaming character from HG Wells' War of the Worlds. Your pie in the sky "plan" to save humankind reminded of the character, and the song.

By the way, who the f*** is Jeff Wayne anyways?

You can't use google but think you can solve the world's problems?

I think you should get some representation points for the most obscure argument ever.

Probably not, since it wasn't an argument.

Got any other educational sci-fi music?

Don't know about educational, but a couple others of my favorite albums that I'd recommend:

I Robot (Alan Parsons Project)
The Songs of Distant Earth (Mike Oldfield)

Maybe I should write a song on how good my utopia is. Would you post that?

Oh, I think you could adopt or adapt the artilleryman's song (Brave New World) that I posted for your own...he sounds just like you...

I'm not trying to tell you what to be
Oh no, oh no, not me
But if mankind is to survive
The people left alive
They're gonna have to build this world anew
Yes and we will have to be the chosen few
Just think of all the poverty, the hatred and the lies
And imagine the destruction of all that you despise
Slowly from the ashes the phoenix will arise
In a brave new world
With just a handful of men
We'll start all over again

 

[ryan]

I gave my reasons why it would work, and you countered those reasons with a rebuttal - so far so good.

Then I addressed your rebuttal with a rebuttal of my own - argument is still evolving, great. But then reply by saying that my ideas are stupid and won't work - uh oh, the argument just regressed and degenerated.

No, the ideas were always stupid and unworkable. I just gave up trying to be subtle about it, because clearly you simply cannot see past your relentless positivity.

Okay, I just wanted you to know how the argument looks from my point of view.

 

[ryan]

The artilleryman is a hopelessly and futilely dreaming character from HG Wells' War of the Worlds. Your pie in the sky "plan" to save humankind reminded of the character, and the song.

You can't use google but think you can solve the world's problems?

Oh, I think you could adopt or adapt the artilleryman's song (Brave New World) that I posted for your own...he sounds just like you...

Here I am trying to figure out how to help save humanity and make things better in the world and this song is suppose to be relevant!? We really are doomed; aren't we - there is no hope. Let's just sit in our feces, and throw it at each other.

I'm not trying to tell you what to be
Oh no, oh no, not me
But if mankind is to survive
The people left alive
They're gonna have to build this world anew
Yes and we will have to be the chosen few
Just think of all the poverty, the hatred and the lies
And imagine the destruction of all that you despise
Slowly from the ashes the phoenix will arise
In a brave new world
With just a handful of men
We'll start all over again

Personally, I don't let dystopian stories affect how I see reality. This is a common theme on TF and is quite unsettling.

Science fiction novels and movies are for entertainment. It is an embarrassment to sociology to use them for predictions and education. I am shocked every time these stories are used for an argument.

 

[ryan]

No, the ideas were always stupid and unworkable. I just gave up trying to be subtle about it, because clearly you simply cannot see past your relentless positivity.

My ideas are stupid hmmm, very interesting, let me think about that some more.

Were you a part of a debate team or something because I am feeling overwhelmed?

 

[Uwe]

Why not just sell tickets or memberships?
Utopian communes haven't got a great track record, but gated communities are thriving.

You start with the gate, and I'll look into how we will get it up there.
If you are actually serious, the membership would probably be just called taxes.

I am serious, and anxious to discuss practical matters.
The problem is that this thread is full if ideology, unrealistic expectations and inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[fromderinside]

You start with the gate, and I'll look into how we will get it up there.
If you are actually serious, the membership would probably be just called taxes.

I am serious, and anxious to discuss practical matters.
The problem is that this thread is full if ideology, unrealistic expectations and inflammatory rhetoric.

I just dropped by to throw in a bit more of that good old inflammatory rhetoric.

Monitoring and Managing Groundwater Storage Changes
Using the NASA GRACE Satellite Mission: http://www.un-igrac.org/dynamics/modules/SFIL0100/view.php?fil_Id=246

enjoy.

 

[ryan]

You start with the gate, and I'll look into how we will get it up there.
If you are actually serious, the membership would probably be just called taxes.

I am serious, and anxious to discuss practical matters.
The problem is that this thread is full if ideology, unrealistic expectations and inflammatory rhetoric.

If you mean technologically, then I won't be able to discuss practical matters. I am not qualified to do so. What I can do is organize the people in charge of designing the colony.

 

[fromderinside]

I am serious, and anxious to discuss practical matters.
The problem is that this thread is full if ideology, unrealistic expectations and inflammatory rhetoric.

If you mean technologically, then I won't be able to discuss practical matters. I am not qualified to do so. What I can do is organize the people in charge of designing the colony.

No you can't.

 

[ryan]

If you mean technologically, then I won't be able to discuss practical matters. I am not qualified to do so. What I can do is organize the people in charge of designing the colony.

No you can't.

Another brilliant argument - do you care to explain, or is this your way of getting attention?