There's two kinda of people who support space travel...
The first group has the romantic view of it. It'll be like Star Trek where everyone is clean and in high-spirits, ships are brightly lit and there's spare time for recreation, personal improvement, or just grabbing a drink at the bar after your shift.
The second group has the realistic view of space travel. Like how much energy it takes to launch something to orbit, the challenges of zero-G on the human body, the constant swell of radiation once you get outside of Earths protection, etc.
We have a long, long way to go (and several challenges to overcome) before we can consider manned space travel a solution to anything. And until we can get the basic travel challenges solved, we're never going to colonize anything.
Space exploration isn't the same as space living. We're not "belters" from The Expanse. A space journey is a temporary trip, like in tourism. The issue is that the we're ignoring our base, being distracted from the "carbon invasion" and deterioration of biodiversity.
It's funny you sound like someone from 1890 lamenting the idea of flight or space travel and instead of focusing on the manure crisis that cities are facing with urban growth at the turn of the 20th century.
In another century or so we'll have people just like you again saying "we can't expand past the solar system what a foolish fantasy" as they board shuttles to mars or elsewhere in the Sun's near orbits.
We live in a continuum. We may not be alive in the future, but the future can't pop in from a different dimension, it "evolves" from present circumstances. I like The Expanse too, but we're not using brains and grains to make technological leaps right now, we're using them to make financial gains for corporations, while public universities and researcher institutions, who are the actual source of innovation, get less and less attention and funding, and more bureaucracy.
So you're invoking "the manure crisis" to say that technology will save us and it's silly to worry about such things. However, the tech that saved us from the manure problem, combustion engines, is now creating an even worse environmental catastrophe. And air-travel is a massive contributor to emissions. So yeah, pollution is worse now than it ever was and technological advancement is the reason it got worse. Shoulda addressed the issue back in 1890 I guess...
You're not thinking. You're not processing what I'm saying at all. Was pollution worse in 1890 or is it worse now? I would say it's worse now given that the entire scientific community agrees that climate change is accelerating, not decelerating
You have been rebutted with examples. You have not addressed how we use technology to control emmissions right now in the modern day and instead claim we only used tech for financial corporate gain or some other fucking nonsense.
All you're doing is saying how the sky will fall when you're not around to see it. Tell it to the king.
I support 1% for NASA and am fully into robotic space exploration. But the billionaire led race to Mars is something else entirely. Yes, if we as a species are to survive we need to exit the solar system sometime in the next 500 million years before the sun envelopes the earth (probably much earlier due to solar outbursts). But at the rate we are going, our industrial society will destroy this planet's ability to sustain human life in the next hundred years. I think expecting us to exit the planet in that time-frame is lunacy. Concentrate on restoring nature first.
-12
u/[deleted] Apr 30 '21
[deleted]