To those who like the metaphor of Mother Earth as Gaia and argue that she is not healthy, my answer has been that her symptoms are due not to illness but to the fact that she is pregnant. This, I think, says it all. I was once going to write something using the pregnancy metaphor, until I discovered that others have also thought of it and have mentioned it on the Web–so I can’t call it an original one. It nevertheless is apt.

If there are other intelligent species out in the universe, they could not “limit” our space exploration efforts unless they themselves have expanded into space! They could not even know about our space activities without being space explorers, unless their home worlds are close that they’ve already picked up our radio broadcasts, which is highly unlikely. So the suggestion that they would disapprove of space exploration is self-contradictory. (For my view of how very advanced civilizations view civilizations of less mature species, please read my novels Enchantress from the Stars and The Far Side of Evil.)

In my opinion, all intelligent species ultimately colonize beyond their mother planets — either that, or they become extinct, which is what happens to any species if it is unable to expand into a new niche when the resources of the old become inadequate. We are not exempt from the natural laws of evolution. Though our means of occupying a new niche is different from that of the first creatures to move from the sea onto land, it is no less a part of the evolutionary process;
to abort that process would be contrary to the principles under which all life exists.

Because we can partially foresee the effects of our actions, however, we do have more choice than locusts do. We can choose to expand into space before we’ve consumed everything in our path to survival, instead of waiting until it’s too late to preserve Earth’s environment.

J-n

I apologize for spelling and grammar mistakes, writing is not my forte.

NASA has less peer-reviewed science than NIH, which is why NASA has been inefficient.

Innovation goes down as politics becomes the criteria for advancement among scientists.

Bush wants to kill all space science that might, someday, actually get us into space. As opposed to silly assed posturing designed to start a Cold War with China and enrich General Dynamics, General Electric, and Halliburton, among other Carlyle group affiliates.

The problem with the desire to “dominate” space militarily is that we do not have and will not encourage the scientific and engineering base to do it with. There is currently a drive in the White House to end all peer-reviewed science. They haven’t the slightest idea how to actualize their fantasies, and they have nothing but contempt for the analytical process it takes to develop it.

Look for covert attempts to sabotage the space programs of other countries, the government realizes it is incompetent to run its own space program.

This country could have moon and Mars colonies in a generation, and interplanetary ships and stations capable of reasonably safe space exploration and development. We’re human, we’re animals, but we’re also a tropical species that selected for an intelligence that allows us to live and succeed in incredibly harsh environments. For the people that want it, space colonies will be a boon.

But this country won’t do it, because it doesn’t understand the concept of scientific peer review, and it has nothing but contempt for the kind of people it takes to do science and accomplish the engineering.

And if our first project on Mars is to build a space elevator there, that makes travel from the surface of Earth to the surface of Mars much less costly. I actually don’t think that any sort of colonization on Mars will happen at all until space elevators are first built here and there. Too costly and dangerous without them–especially if part of the economic payoff of going there is to mine its resources and send it back to Earth.

So, I stick with my thinking, it is because of this monetarian based economy (propelled by the desire of personal gain above anything and anyone else), that half the humanity doesnt have anything to eat. It is not what would happen in a well administrated and efficient society.

And I agree, what I say here will not happen anytime soon. Personal Greed is many times more important for the common individual than having a true civilization.

The desire for personal gain — financial and otherwise — will be fundamental to space exploraton and colonization, as it was to human expansion across Earth.

So, blaming economics for the world’s ills is analagous to blaming medical science for disease.

It seems self-evident that colonies, either here on Earth or on other planets, succeed if they meet one of two basic criteria:

1) The colonies serve a purpose that is so important to the home nation/planet that it is willing to transfer whatever resources it takes to sustain the colony. I.e., run the place at a loss. Examples might include military outposts.

2) The colonies become increasingly self-sufficient and eventually reach the point at which they obtain all necessary resources locally or by engaging in trade with others.

Colonies require resources. If the resources aren’t available, a colony will fail.

As for all this somehow not being logical and efficient…well, we’re not Vulcans, are we? What you are suggesting requires a fundamental change in human behavior. I don’t think we’re going to see that.