Yeah, how is that mars colony plan going realistically. have they figured out the bits about how humans are going to survive in a toxic irradiated environment for months on end? I want it to happen, but I honestly havent heard much from spacex about it other than we have to be allowed to develop cheap rockets. There's a lot more involved in a journey to mars than just cheap launch costs.
replyThe word 'colonization' has become rather toxic, though. Maybe we need a new word for occupying barren planets where there's no native life being displaced?
replyNot toxic unless you subscribe to the lefts redefinition of the term. Most people wouldn't be here if we didn't colonize the new world.
replyThe indigenous populations probably would.
replythey were also going around killing each other and ripping out hearts from living people as sacrifices, so given enough time they would have done the same thing.
replyand they would have been 100x more brutal.
Its highly unlikely that an indigenous population would adopt the colonizer's term. If you look at demographics of those who use that definition of term its mostly people of Anglo-Saxon decent. And its the same people who are living on stolen land.
replyNo-one is “colonizing space”, you’re just being conned by a man who figured out he can make a lot of money by convincing people that such fantasies could be real.
replyThe US spends up to $4 billion a year just to keep a few people alive on the ISS. And they can’t stay there too long because it’s too dangerous to their health. The idea that we’re going to “colonize space” in the foreseeable future is laughable.
Sending robots to space is still a form of building presence there. Not every colonist has to be a human. In fact, they are probably coming last, into pre-prepared positions and bases.
reply