
06-17-2010, 06:07 AM
|
 |
Ikran Makto
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Posts: 886
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by auroraglacialis
I am wondering how likely it is that a planet that can sustain life does not have life. I'd say it is unlikely. Terraforming, if that is possible, would be an option. But before humans colonize space, they have to learn a lot more than propulsion and life support systems. They have to get their society right, or the worse parts of "Avatar" will come true. Science fiction is always mirroring current social issues in a futuristic settings, using technology as a catalyst to emphasize trends. Avatar does that exactly and shows what our society as it is would do to another planet.
I think, currently we do not really need a manned space flight program unless out of beeing adventourous. The efforts should first of all go into protecting this planet - environmentally and if you like also against possible catastrophies like impacts or polarity shifts or what ever other catastrophies people want to think of when they say we need to colonize space. To gain such technology is likely much faster and easier than colonizing space flight. And to events like the sun dying, we still have millions of years, so we can affort spending a century or so making our home a place to live on again, don't you think?
So my point is - one thing after the other. Prioritize! Improve human society, save the planet, protect the planet, then go out. Build a stable home world first.
|
We need some sort of contingency plan just in case "saving this planet doesn't work". Therefore a space programme is a necessity.
__________________
Live long and prosper
|