wrote:
> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize pretty much
> anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming that any alien
> race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get here would have at
> least the same level of technology my guess is that they wouldn't need
> anything we'd have to offer.
>
Perhaps they would want the two things we can spare the least:
ourselves as their 'food' and the REST of our planet's natural
resources. After all, food and resources is exactly why WE'D be
touring the galaxy.
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a species,
> > think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as vast
> > resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip mined the
> > resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species, that would
> > suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking all the
> > nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of those
> > resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know it's
> > unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something might have
> > it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at making the
> > leap.
>
> > On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote:
>
> > I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a planet is
> > rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively massive
> > planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest planet
> > found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth.
>
> > IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century technology
> > allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and wrought
> > with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a new
> > continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log can float. At
> > the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can actually
> > mount an expedition to another star.
>
> > I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring other
> > stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think you are
> > right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just make the
> > damn politicians see it that way... ;)
>
> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets enough like
> >> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim there
> >> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space travel
> >> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near the
> >> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't do,
> >> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something other than
> >> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which
> >> distance is an illusion.
>
> >> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and quite
> >> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of evolution
> >> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to
> >> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct
> >> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of conscious
> >> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth attaching
> >> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or the
> >> technology welcome.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment