• We will be rebooting the server around 4:30 AM ET. We should be back up and running in approximately 15 minutes.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we Inhabit Another planet?

DaveFagan said:
Bold/red-The well funded think tanks will have reached these conclusions many years ago and it gives ammunition to the arguments, perhaps conspiracy theorists, that Ebola and such are being tested as a prelude to population control. After all, those that can afford their own bubble can feel secure in any event. Their objectivity and subjectivity are not the same as 99% of the population, eh?
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder why so many people get sick on cruise ships, huh? What better way to control a virulent than to have a large swath of different ages, ethnicities, etc, and test them out in the middle of nowhere, where it can't get out of control?
 
No, our presence would be most unwanted, since said planet would have life already.

Plus we've done enough to **** up our own planet's ecosphere, so why should we invade and occupy another, just to replicate this **** up on another? We need to figure out how to fix our problems before expecting some kind of bail out elsewhere. Now if only our banks could be held to that standard too...
 
radioman said:
Billions of stars, billions of planets.
I think there is a good chance that there are inhabitable planets in our galaxy.
Pinpointing them is difficult.
Traveling to them is impossible.
Click to expand...

That is the key that hasn't been brought up yet (at least that I've seen). It's all well and good that we could find them, but nearly impossible to get to them. If we had wormholes, sure. It's a great idea. I'd love to be part of something as exciting as being a terraformer (to use a term from Aliens) but I don't see it happening.
 
The only other planet we can inhabit right now with our technology is Mars and it will require a massive effort from all the nations of the world to do it- but right now I think our political and cultural differences is the biggest obstacle to that.
 
spud_meister said:
Cows, sheep, dogs, goats, mice, chickens, budgerigars, rabbits, hamsters, rats, cockroaches, fleas, horses, alpacas, wheat, rice, barley, oats, pine, mahogany, oak, carrot, potato, lettuce, cabbage.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
Click to expand...

What is the point of this? So a few species have benefited - solely to fit human purposes mind you - and meanwhile 98% of species will be extinct by 2200.
 
iliveonramen said:
This is true...when movies have races of aliens that go from world to world destroying it and stripping it of all life and natural resources...that's freaking humankind. We're the bad guys.
Click to expand...

There's 12 episodes of the Twilight Zone that use that concept as a dramatic twist.
 
chromium said:
What is the point of this? So a few species have benefited - solely to fit human purposes mind you - and meanwhile 98% of species will be extinct by 2200.
Click to expand...

The point of this is to refute the claim made that no species have benefited from humanity.
 
Goshin said:
Rare Earther, eh?


Well, we'll see.




Photosynthesis only needed to evolve once, it proved so successful it spread to cover the Earth with one go.

The atmosphere became more and more amenable to life as more and more life developed... so planets with life will tend to be more amendable to life.


I think my billion (probably hundreds of billions) of shots are looking a lot better now.
Click to expand...

You may be right. I hope so.
 
radioman said:
Billions of stars, billions of planets.
I think there is a good chance that there are inhabitable planets in our galaxy.
Pinpointing them is difficult.
Traveling to them is impossible.
Click to expand...

In habited is different to habitable for us.

It is also even more of a long shot than being habitable for us. The Earth has been around for 3.5/4.5 billion years. For the vast majority of that time it was not habitable for us. For a very tiny speck of time it has had civilization on it in some form.
 
it's just me said:
Rod Serling was a misanthrope.
Click to expand...
I disagree, he was a very humanistic person who wrote stories about the injustices that he saw and many times cloaked it in fantasy.
 
chromium said:
What is the point of this? So a few species have benefited - solely to fit human purposes mind you - and meanwhile 98% of species will be extinct by 2200.
Click to expand...

Do you have any science what so ever to back that claim?
 
PoS said:
The only other planet we can inhabit right now with our technology is Mars and it will require a massive effort from all the nations of the world to do it- but right now I think our political and cultural differences is the biggest obstacle to that.
Click to expand...

The single biggest advantage to interstellar travel would be that it would limit our conflict here.
 
Another big question from this is do we as humans have a duty to preserve our species? Or ALL earthly species? OR ALL life?

Allowing a species to die off is part of Darwinism. But do we as humans have a duty to limit our own impact?
 
stonewall50 said:
Another big question from this is do we as humans have a duty to preserve our species? Or ALL earthly species? OR ALL life?

Allowing a species to die off is part of Darwinism. But do we as humans have a duty to limit our own impact?
Click to expand...

Considering humans have the same biological mandate as all other species, propagate and perpetuate your species, preferably with your genes... And billions of years of example that species must remain in balance with others that share its system and environment or collapse... It's not a duty, it's an imperative.
 
stonewall50 said:
Another big question from this is do we as humans have a duty to preserve our species? Or ALL earthly species? OR ALL life?

Allowing a species to die off is part of Darwinism. But do we as humans have a duty to limit our own impact?
Click to expand...



Our duty is to our own species. Common sense says preserving most Earthly species, especially those that support our own species in various ways, is also wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom