KeaboUltra t1_ja1hcw4 wrote on February 26, 2023 at 3:20 AM

Reply to comment by PandaEven3982 in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47

And what does any of that have to do with being unable to achieve a future of space travel in any meaningful way? What does meaningful mean to you vs humanity? You talked about how we cant get big projects off the ground due to no funding yet we've already managed to complete step 1 of 3 on the artemis mission after shooting JWST into orbit among other space related missions. those are pretty significant. in a time frame of 27 years, I don't think anyone's expecting to be on Mars or Venus levels of significant, let alone travelling out of the solar system unless it was just a probe but the beginnings of a moon base are significant none the less.

Back when you said:

>ATM, I see nothing more than small stuff in the inner planets. Mostly military buildup over Terra and lots of science. Maybe a billionaire hotel somewhere pretty

and

>Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.

Is exactly what I'm talking about. A research facility on the moon or even military activity is significant. None of that is small. And when these things start, it will be what allows us to travel further into space as it becomes the norm throughout society from 2050 and beyond. Anything more than what we currently have on the moon is significant, but the perspective I'm adding is that this is what will be what pushes humanity in a direction to have the mindset you claim we wouldn't get unless we worked together, the more we ingrain local space faring, the more our society advances in that direction, not because we'll be more mature, but because of what it has to offer to humanity.

PandaEven3982 t1_ja2y91i wrote on February 26, 2023 at 1:29 PM

You aren't actually reading what I've said to you, or you keep missing the points. I am disengaging. If you think blowing up the planet isn't capable of ruining post scarcity, I don't think we need further discussion. You don't seem to have a problem with risky stuff. I do.

KeaboUltra t1_ja37e24 wrote on February 26, 2023 at 2:45 PM

Nor are you because not once have I said or thought blowing up the planet wasn't capable of that. You're hyper focused on destruction, saying that none of our current projects are meaningful and all I'm literally telling you is that humanity is already making steps towards making significant strides onto being a space faring species no matter how much capacity we have for destruction and irrelevant to what you deem significant. Humanity has plenty of potential until we blow up, just as we have plenty potential to advance. Has it happened yet? It makes zero sense to be completely on either side when we would likely achieve significant progress (that is to say ANY space colony, inner planet or just between earth and the moon) whether humanity peacefully or violently reaches that reality. It random chance, with supporting facts and evidence that drives people to believe what we're capable of in the near future but it's like you want the world to blow up, why? Because only you know what the future holds? You, someone who seriously thinks climate change will really be about who bakes or drowns? How can I care to read the full extent of your post when the majority of your points is under researched hyped up doomerism? You brought up an interesting perspective initially and all I wanted was to provide differing perspectives surrounding a similar position yet you all have the same panicky, anxiety induced hopeless responses about the world as if human depravity and destruction is new, yet here we are talking wirelessly on a web forum, waiting to see which country establishes a moon base first.